# I have a 2.slow mk4..how can i make it faster?



## Black.out. (Jul 10, 2012)

Hi i have a 01 jetta gls with a 2.slow as everyone calls it..see i love my car but i just want it to be powerful cause i feel it has potential....if you have any tips please let me know. 

thanks, Tom :thumbup:


----------



## Anony00GT (Mar 6, 2002)

1.8T swap. VR6 swap.

Or, see this thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...latively-inexpensive-reliable-powerful-2.0-8v.


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

Intake
Exhaust
Cam
Chip/tune

-The most common upgrades to a 2.0 to make it more drivable. You're not very specific, but if you want around 130BHP over the stock 115BHP, get:

260* TT camshaft (You can't run any cam with higher than .432" of lift on stock OBD2 valve springs!)
CAI (AEM, Neuspeed, Injen, etc..)
2.5" exhaust (TT, Neuspeed, etc..)
C2's tune

..Read the thread in my signature if you need help with anything else.


----------



## Anony00GT (Mar 6, 2002)

Hurt said:


> Intake
> Exhaust
> Cam
> Chip/tune
> ...


Truth is in the bold. My setup is as follows:

276* cam (with dual springs and TT chip), Homemade intake (cut airbox), Raceland header, TT 2.25" Exhaust. I run 93 octane on this setup (TT's recommendation was minimum 91 with the chip).

I did the mods because the stock engine was way too slow for my taste, and buying a new car was not an option. I spent maybe $1000 total on mods. The car is definitely more lively, doesn't run out of breath at 5000RPM anymore, the butt dyno says power peak is somewhere around 6500-6800 RPM. While this is way better than stock, don't expect to beat any V8's (or even V6's) in the Stoplight Grand Prix though. One of these days I'm gonna run the car in the 1/4 mile just for the heck of it to see what it does, I'm guessing mid-16's at best.

See the thread I linked (also in Hurt's sig) for more detailed info.


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

Anony00GT said:


> Truth is in the bold. My setup is as follows:
> 
> 276* cam (with dual springs and TT chip), Homemade intake (cut airbox), Raceland header, TT 2.25" Exhaust. I run 93 octane on this setup (TT's recommendation was minimum 91 with the chip).
> 
> ...


He's got a MK4, though. They're especially slow due to the gearing, weight, and the lack of aftermarket support N/A. You have to go through so much just to get a tune for a MK4. It's wild.. 

Mid 16's? Nah, you should break into the 15's. MK3 GTI's are light. :thumbup:
I ran a 14.9 with mine, and I had 135whp with a BBM 02a.


----------



## Anony00GT (Mar 6, 2002)

Hurt said:


> Mid 16's? Nah, you should break into the 15's. MK3 GTI's are light. :thumbup:
> I ran a 14.9 with mine, and I had 135whp with a BBM 02a.


I highly doubt that, unless new stock Jeep Wranglers are running 12's these days. I got my doors completely blown off by one the other day.


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

Anony00GT said:


> I highly doubt that, unless new stock Jeep Wranglers are running 12's these days. I got my doors completely blown off by one the other day.


Oh, you're running a stock manifold. That's a HUGE problem with the 2.0's.. The manifolds are so restrictive.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

Anony00GT said:


> I highly doubt that, unless new stock Jeep Wranglers are running 12's these days. I got my doors completely blown off by one the other day.


ITT: we talk about why a 285hp/260lb-ft 0-60 6.6sec 15 1/4 Jeep beats a cammed 2/0.


----------



## Anony00GT (Mar 6, 2002)

911_fan said:


> ITT: we talk about why a 285hp/260lb-ft 0-60 6.6sec 15 1/4 Jeep beats a cammed 2/0.


Not wondering why, just stating a reference for what I predict my 1/4-mile time might be  I know it's just a 14-year-old econobox with some bolt-ons.

I'm gonna try to get to the track and run it before the summer is over to find out where I'm at, because I am curious.


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

Anony00GT said:


> Not wondering why, just stating a reference for what I predict my 1/4-mile time might be  I know it's just a 14-year-old econobox with some bolt-ons.
> 
> I'm gonna try to get to the track and run it before the summer is over to find out where I'm at, because I am curious.


Here's a drag race of a stock 2.0 Jetta running a 16.9 (if it's the MK3) Or a 17 something if it's the MK4. Holy slow.


----------



## CookieTheRookie (Jan 23, 2012)

It's called 2.slow for a reason...I have one as well. Frankly no matter what you do you won't be able to hold your own against most other sport tuned cars. If you're really willing to drop coin there is a lot of smaller things you can do to the 2.0 engine to give it a little more pep. Unless you want to do an engine swap and open up an entire new world of opportunities. I won't go into detail but here's some things you could do some research into:

Performance clutch/sport flywheel
Slip differential
Short throw shifter (not gonna improve power)
Cold air intake
Exhaust systems
Underdrive pulley
Chip/programmer
Turbo/supercharger

Lastly, just remember the basic needs of your car. Check and change oil, tire pressure, any type of fluid leaks should be dealt with, coolant, and timing belt. All of those little things will help toward peak performance.


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

CookieTheRookie said:


> It's called 2.slow for a reason...I have one as well. Frankly no matter what you do you won't be able to hold your own against most other sport tuned cars.


...Really? I beg to differ.
My 135whp Jetta beat plenty of "sport tuned" cars. I pulled on VR6's in it. 14.9 1/4 with a horrid 60ft time and street tires (175/55/15's). 
Now, I'm running a stage 3 BBM S/C and C2's tune peaking at 20PSI with completely built head. I am probably in the 250WHP range. The car isn't "slow" at all in a straight line or around corners. I'm sure I can give plenty of brand new "sport tuned" cars a run for their money.

Please don't spread misinformation. It benefits no one.
It is very possible to make 2.0 8v quick. You just need to be smart.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

To be fair, he was commenting solely on the premise that he owns a 2000 MKIV. So his assumption is rock solid.


----------



## 2003 golfer (Sep 25, 2007)

911_fan said:


> To be fair, he was commenting solely on the premise that he owns a 2000 MKIV. So his assumption is rock solid.


Not neccessarily. Just because it's a mkiv doesn't mean it can't be done, it just takes more work. Lighten the car by removing unneccessary components, and replace others with lighter counterparts. Do you research on what is available, and find people to do other custom work.

It all depends on how serious you want to get. I won't be going that deep into it myself...


----------



## Hurt (May 3, 2011)

911_fan said:


> To be fair, he was commenting solely on the premise that he owns a 2000 MKIV. So his assumption is rock solid.


You're right. I wasn't really thinking too well. A lot on my mind lately. 



2003 golfer said:


> Not neccessarily. Just because it's a mkiv doesn't mean it can't be done, it just takes more work. Lighten the car by removing unneccessary components, and replace others with lighter counterparts. Do you research on what is available, and find people to do other custom work.
> 
> It all depends on how serious you want to get. I won't be going that deep into it myself...


MK4 2.0's weigh too much, they're geared very odd, and they are difficult to make "quick" compared to a MK3, the MK3 has more parts available and they're cheaper, usually.


----------

