# 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)?



## jcadman (Oct 25, 2001)

Do you prefer to 'Gun it' at the stoplights or ROCKET down the Interstate?
Where do YOU stand?


----------



## neal359 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

voted low end but i like it all


----------



## Bagman (Jun 8, 2001)

*Re: 8V (neal359)*

Actually the 16V is the better street racer and the 8V is the better highway cruiser. I like to just cruise on the highway at around 150km/h and the 16V revs too high for me comfort and the cars health, IMO.
However, if you mean racing on the highway then yes, the 16V is the better for that. But I still think the 16V is goodo on the streets too, just takes a different approach


----------



## dj age one (Jun 2, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

now.. how many people who voted have acctually driven a 16v? they have a lot more down low they you think! not so much the 1.8l but the 2.0 could probably out torque a x flow 8v.. they just "feel" like they have less torque because there so much stronger up top..


----------



## Bagman (Jun 8, 2001)

*Re: 8V (dj age one)*

I pride myself in my 16V driving experience, and driving skills in general. The 16V Passat was the car I learned to drive stick on and it has been, basically mine, since that time, although my sister now uses it while I am in Toronto going to Ryerson.
I love the 16V engine. At first I thought it was really problematic and high maintainence but then I realized my dad just kept it in really good shape and the engine was gettin' old with 400,000kms.
I still think it is a good racer though. You are right, it makes all its power at a minimum of AT LEAST 4000RPM. In second gear she PULLS and PULLS and PULLS all the way to red-line. It is really fun because you feel the car almost get stronger with each 1000RPM that goes by. If the tach went to 10,000RPM I think the car would keep gettin faster and faster. This is in contrast to the low-end power of an 8V and the dieing out at higher RPM.
However, you are correct, down low they are useless for power. If you ever want to take off from a stand still you need to rev the engine up to 4grand and then launch. You spin the tires, but you NEED to keep the REVS UP or else the car will slouch and crawl until she gets back up in the higher RPM band.
Generally I shift at 4000RPm for a nice clean and smooth shift when the engine is warm and when she is BLOODY cold I do it at 3000RPM VERY GINGERLY. For racing I try not to push her too much becuase she is old but I shift at a minimum of 5500RPM.
The 16V engine loves the revs. My mechanic says it won't hurt her if you give 'er a little once and a while. I believe him.


[Modified by Bagchus, 5:18 PM 12-7-2001]


----------



## 16vU4EA (Sep 13, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

I have both... a 96 jetta and an 89 gti 16v, which is the extreme case of the no low-end. Around town? the jetta, as it's easier to move around. as soon as you hit the freeway the jetta just doesn't want to go any faster- and the gti just won't stop pulling.







I'll take more horsepower over more torque any day.... you just need to flog the crap out of the gti to get it to be fun on the street. not that I have a problem doing that though!


----------



## 16vU4EA (Sep 13, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Bagchus)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
The 16V engine loves the revs. My mechanic says it won't hurt her if you give 'er a little once and a while. I believe him.

[Modified by Bagchus, 5:18 PM 12-7-2001][HR][/HR]​
Yes!! my 89 has 145k on the clock and it loves to be flogged daily... i bang it off the rev limiter at 7200 rpm at least once a week.







I've bene doing that since I got the car 3 years ago, and it's still running strong.








The engine itself won't break, but you will go through other components faster- brakes, engine mounts, tires.


----------



## blkparati (Sep 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (16vU4EA)*

They both have their +&-'s,but prefer the 8V in stop light 2 stop light fun


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (slvrparati)*

Geeez..... I hit the rev limiter on 95% of my shifts every day.........


----------



## rebel_eye (Mar 29, 2001)

*Re: 8V (16Valves)*

I think that if i had a 16v it would have been broken along time ago








maybe not ..
but i sure love to tickle the poop out of my small ass 8v


----------



## Fly952.0 (Oct 3, 2000)

*Re: 8V (rebel_eye)*

What's going to happen when I put a 16V tranny in my 8V Jet?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Fly952.0)*

Your going to go alot faster......


----------



## ilja (Jul 25, 2001)

*Re: 8V (16Valves)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Geeez..... I hit the rev limiter on 95% of my shifts every day.........[HR][/HR]​Just because you are a moron doesn't mean we want to hear about it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (ilja)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
Just because you are a moron doesn't mean we want to hear about it.[HR][/HR]​How does that make me a moron, you rude inconsiderate jackass? 
Personally I think your a moron for driving 8v's, but I didnt say that did I?
The 16v's are way overbuilt from the factory and are meant to be reved high and driven hard, unlike the econobox 8v crap 
I've owned my GLI for 5 years now, and it still runs as good as the day I bought it, shifting at 7K and all......


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Bagchus)*

"The 16V engine loves the revs"
Of course a 16V loves the revs...one of the reasons to having more valves is to have light weight valves...i.e. less inertia.


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (bajan01)*

Guess I am a moron, cause I drive my car the way its meant to be driven, its a MACHINE meant to be pushed, but not neglected.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Blitz16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]ilja (9:08 PM 12-10-2001): You're talking out of your ass. "Overbuilt from the factory" are you friggin pooping me? There's a reason NOT ONE VW werks rally car has EVER been a 16V. They're much more fragile and you're a moron if you don't know that.
How about you get a clue before you friggin embarass yourself any further. I don't want to hear another word of this bull****.[HR][/HR]​HAHAHHAA,.... why dont you say that in the 16v forum, or better yet, the forced induction forum where people have actually seen the inside of the engines......hahahha......
Hey Blitz, can you believe this guy? 
Obviously he has never seen the Golf limited,....made by VW Motorsports, only 70 hand built G60 16v 4wheel drive sleepers......
OH WAIT,...there happens to be one for sale ~~~> http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=152224 
Or how about the Yellow Zonker? ~~~~> http://www.cheapjohns.com/zonker/history.htm It doesnt get any more 'works' than the Zonker.... 16v turbo, Synchro AWD with ABS,.....
or how about the Rallye Golfs?........ 
Geezzzz I could go on and on...... You have NOOOO idea what you are talking about......


[Modified by 16Valves, 9:52 PM 12-10-2001]


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Powerdubs)*

My 8v kept up with a 1.8 16v all the way to 140 km/h. Not bad for a digi.


----------



## tnesh (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

sorry guys. i own one of each.. no way a 2.0 A3 will move like a 16v.. no pun intended.. and again. I OWN BOTH CARS WITH A ABA 2.0 AND 16V.. .. and a stock 16v will feel like a turbo car compared to a 2.0 8v. even on take off. or top speed.


----------



## 16volt (Oct 26, 2000)

*Re: 8V (tnesh)*

155hp and 138ft/lbs
Bow to the 16V, 8V boy.


[Modified by 16volt, 10:30 AM 12-12-2001]


----------



## sporter (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: 8V (16volt)*

quote:[HR][/HR]155hp and 138ft/lbs[HR][/HR]​lol, yeah, but shannon, where are you making that 138 lbs of torque? 5500RPMs? sounds like a honduh to me.








different cars for different drivers. and FI may blow, but it will be blowing you away!! PUNK!
peace.


----------



## tnesh (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: 8V (sporter)*

quote:[HR][/HR]155hp and 138ft/lbs
lol, yeah, but shannon, where are you making that 138 lbs of torque? 5500RPMs? sounds like a honduh to me.








different cars for different drivers. and FI may blow, but it will be blowing you away!! PUNK!
peace.[HR][/HR]​







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
wow.. some strong words..hehehehe.. cant wait to see what Shannon gotta say bout it. 
Lay back,, and grab some popcorn.


----------



## BoxedUp (Oct 25, 2001)

*Re: 8V (tnesh)*

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder........


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (BoxedUp)*

quote:[HR][/HR]lol, yeah, but shannon, where are you making that 138 lbs of torque? 5500RPMs? [HR][/HR]​
Your point is? 5500 rpms is midrange...








The redline on my (and any chipped 2.0 16v) is 7900!!!


----------



## 2021cc8V (Apr 21, 1999)

*Re: 8V (sporter)*

for a 1.8L 16v- Max. Trq. Lbs.-Ft. @RPM 120 @ 4,250
for a 2L 16v - Max. Trq. Lbs.-Ft. @RPM 133 @ 4,400

this was taken of the gti16v.org site, which got the info straight from literature published from VoA.


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century*

A stock 9A has more power in the entire RPM range then an 8V and is a more capable motor then an 8V. I bet my scirocco(9A w/cis)will beat any All Motor ABA with boltons. The cars with 16Vs also have closer ratio transmisions too. Rumors aside the 2.0 16v is not toruqeless down low, look at a dyno chart compared to an 8V.
The truth of it is ppl with an 8V who put down 16Vs are just trying to make themselves feel better about owning an plain grocery getter 8V.Just look at Jerry's post he owns both and so havn't I and the 16V is superior. I wouldn't own another 8V vw except for a corrado, not olny because of preformance but they're made or mostly made in mexico!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (pastpargolf)*

Yea,......
8v = Econobox crap


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (Powerdubs)*

Hmm, I recall a certain so called Econobox 8v keeping up pretty well with a highly modified 16v, which was also a lighter car.







In fact, I have the video to prove it.


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Hmm, I recall a certain so called Econobox 8v keeping up pretty well with a highly modified 16v, which was also a lighter car.







In fact, I have the video to prove it.[HR][/HR]​Well then post their set-ups and cars.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (pastpargolf)*

Yea,....but my car wasnt running right for the whole month preceding that,.....pinging and no power over 4.5k,......either a fuel pump or a bad knock sensor I think..... I would be perfectly happy to do the same run again once I re-shell the car and the roads dry and clear.... of course I'll fix the pinging problem first.... 
You did do pretty good considering your car is pretty stock.........


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (Powerdubs)*

OK, my car is a '97 Jetta GL and at the time only had an Autotech chip, short-shift, strut brace, and rear sway bar.
Now lets have Powerdubs post the mods he had on the 16v. 
Keep in mind that I am not arguing 8v over 16v. I feel it is up to the driver. Personally, I love my 8v for autocrossing, and if I had a 16v I would have to "relearn" how to drive the car. The 16v's and VR6's that I autocross with have to downshift into 1st out of some corners because they don't have enough low end grunt to accelerate, where as I leave my car in 2nd through the entire course without it ever bogging down on me.


[Modified by A3Jetta, 12:15 PM 12-13-2001]


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

Any Moded 1.8 8v knows that they got no torque below 3K. My car doesnt move unless I push it past 4K. my little digi puts out more than 130+ torque (crank) 4K to 5K rpm. Below 4K I have one huge hole (digi hole) and past 5K my power drops like a rock. I test drove a 1.8 16v and I can say that it was a little more powerfull than my 8v. 16v was stuck.


----------



## Dan92SLC (May 27, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (kickster)*

hey PASTPARGOLF: you should come down to providence and race Owen from High Speed Dubbin's 91 GTI 8v w/built Xflow. 
He's pulled on VR6's. I think he just might silence you.


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Any Moded 1.8 8v knows that they got no torque below 3K. My car doesnt move unless I push it past 4K. my little digi puts out more than 130+ torque (crank) 4K to 5K rpm. Below 4K I have one huge hole (digi hole) and past 5K my power drops like a rock. I test drove a 1.8 16v and I can say that it was a little more powerfull than my 8v. 16v was stuck.
[HR][/HR]​Well, my 2.0 8v has plenty of low end torque.
122.8 lb/ft at the wheels.....oh, and look where it comes on and how long it stays there. Figuring a 15% drivetrain loss puts me at 144.5 lb/ft at the crank. 108.9 hp at the wheels works out to 128.1 hp at the crank.









[Modified by A3Jetta, 12:35 AM 12-14-2001]

[Modified by A3Jetta, 12:41 AM 12-14-2001]


[Modified by A3Jetta, 12:47 AM 12-14-2001]


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

Just for good measure, here is my car when it was stock.
116.7 lb/ft at the wheels which with that 15% loss puts me at 137.3 lb/ft at the crank. 96.2 hp at the wheels works out to 113.2 hp at the crank.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

good turk I mean torque







What have you done to it? Is it a 2.0 crossflow? Your power drops around 4700. You better not push it past 5000 before shifting. 
A wild cam will shift your power a little higher which is a good thing


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (kickster)*

2.0 crossflow with an Autotech chip and a K&N panel in a cut airbox. Still running stock exhaust. I need the power lower for autocrossing. If I decided to switch to serious drag racing instead of autocrossing, I will go with a cam.


[Modified by A3Jetta, 12:49 AM 12-14-2001]


----------



## H2oVento (Mar 18, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

Jeff has spam power in his car


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (H2oVento)*

No offense to anone this time but in general 16Vers know more about motors then 8Vers IMO


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (pastpargolf)*

I'm actually inclined to agree with a general statement like that. I don't personally fall into that statement, but I also started working on cars (VW's in particular) when I was 5 years old. My dad started me out young for a few reasons, the main one being my small hands could fit in the corners of the Karmann Ghia and boat engine easier than his.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (pastpargolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR]No offense to anone this time but in general 16Vers know more about motors then 8Vers IMO[HR][/HR]​Well, I have to laugh, as the only motor on MY 16v is my starter....... the *ENGINE* is a whole different story!!!


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (PowerDubs)*

LOL, I didn't even catch that wording.


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (PowerDubs)*

No radiator fan or HVAC blower motor? sux for you


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

This always turns into 8v vs. 16v. I have had and still own a few vw's (always) and I can tell you a 16v is much faster. And to the person who said that vw doesn't use 16v's in rally cars, you are wrong. some factory vw rally cars were and still are 16v Digi (yes digi) An a3 2.0 even with most mods won't keep pace with a stock 1.8 16v rocco. I have both and I speak from experiance. all I can say is that if you currently drive an 8v, that some time in your life find and buy a nice 16v and see the difference. I can harrass vr6's all day and tear them up in the twisties where it matters. Not to mention I have over 40 less hp than a vr6. My 88 16v gti had over 200,000 miles and would still walk on most modded 8v's. I have a modded solid lifter 8v in my rabbit, although loud, light weight and quick it won't walk on a rocco 16v or a mk2 16v that is stock. My bunny will tear my 97 gti 2.0 a new ass though. It's not magic, it's vw's high true high performance 4 cyl. The 16v power, get some get some. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

amen.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

quote:[HR][/HR] it's vw's high true high performance 4 cyl. [HR][/HR]​


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

*OH.......BTW,............*


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Hey thats a cool icon, im gonna play around with it in photoshop


----------



## jcadman (Oct 25, 2001)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

Hey Now? I started this poll so i have to be equal. You have to give the 8v some credit. In all fairness, it has 'some' advantages to the 16v. Its also a very well built engine. Tried and true.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (jcadman)*

Advantages of an 8v?
1. - Uses less gas - (can only fit so much air/fuel mixture through those 8v's)
2. - Cheap insurance (what do you expect on a economy car?)
3. - You never have to worry about 'accidently going to fast' (no need to explain)
4. - You can trust your wife, kid, sister, dog, to drive it...
5. - Parts are a dime a dozen (people just throw out complete engines, virtually worthless)
6. - You'll always have an excuse if you lose a race (Well its only an 8v!!)
7. - You wont feel bad if it gets wrecked, stolen, or towed
8. - You never need to lock it (see above)
9. - Tires last FOREVER
10. - You like the good competition from Hyundais, Yugos, Escorts, Saturns, etc...


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (jcadman)*

lol.


----------



## mob my audi (Mar 15, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Blitz16v)*

well, I thought I might chime in. All I can say, is that 16v's are damn expensive. How expensive? So much that I can't even afford to complete my project 16v, and start over with a X-flow 2.0 8v. I am hoping that the x-flow will give me the best of both worlds... so we'll see.


----------



## Andrew Foss (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: 8V (drive79rabbit)*

the fastest n/a vw draggers are all 2.0 8v rabbits.
have you ever seen a 190 hp 1.6 8v??? i have.
have i driven a 16v? yes. 
could i buy one? yes
could i buy 2? yes
" " " " 3? yes
why dont i then??? beacuse i would rather have my 8v.
nothing aganst 16v's but you guys need a reality check. my 8v is plenty quick, and now that i have switched the head to a crossflow it will be plenty quicker. and i HAVE put down 2.0 16v's before. ill be putting down vr6's and type r's before too long (n20 on its way)
-andrew


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Andrew Foss)*

Ok it always happens, gotta bring up race modded 8v stories against 16v's. Well the fastest is the 16v now, its a fact 750 hp. You beat a couple of probably stock 2.0 16v's with your very modded lightweight rabbit, thats cool. Could you beat a mildly built 16v built by tsr stuffed in a rabbit? Why not own a 16v too andrew?
It's well known that every one that has an 8v thinks it isn't much slower than a 16v, but it just is. Yes you can modd the piss out of an 8v and get what 140-150 hp na? Hey 16v's get way better gas milage too. You may take down a type r in your bunny but it wont be that easy to shut one down. And a modded one forget it. I've been to N.E. drag way and the fastest a1's there are 16v. It's all good though, I like my 84 8v gti alot.But I may slap a roco 16v in there some day. A classic combo for urban street fightin! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

To me I just don't understand, a mk1 with a crossflow 8v i/h/e and cam and a chip would have no problem keeping up with a stock mk2 16v, it will prolly outmuscle it as well to a certain point.
A mk2 8v with i/h/e cam/chip won't outrun a STOCK 1.8l/2.0l 16v, sure it might be close, you will need more than just boltons to outrun a "in tune" 16v thats just how it is accept it. 
another thing How many of you people have driven a 16v, that actually runs well?
The ones that have driven the 16v, were they pushing the car? none of this 6k shifting nonsense I mean more like 7k shifts and running the engine hard, they enjoy it. 
A mk3 8v with i/h/e cam/chip won't beat a STOCK 16V 1.8l/2.0l 16v PERIOD, maybe if the 16v is running like ass I can see it happening. With all these stories about a 8v beating a 16v nonetheless keeping up with it, I can swallow but the 16v's that you guys have raced aren't running well and the driver has no friggin clue how to drive it. Give me a brake I race my friends a3 8v with intake, and I absolutely blow him away and I don't consider my car a hotrod , there is no "keeping up" or whatever. I am not downplaying the 8v it is a great motor for what it has to offer, and can be great when used in the correct applications. You have to compare apples to apples not a modded 8v to a stock 16v "that runs like ass" Respect and protect thy 16v thats all.


[Modified by Blitz16v, 11:20 PM 12-24-2001]


----------



## Andrew Foss (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

hey man, 
im actually talking about in my 91' jetta. all im saying is that the 8v's are quicker then alot of you guys think, beleive me, i am a fan of the 16v motors, but i mean, really,alot of you guys act like you have the be all-end all of vw engines under your hoods, that really isnt the case. a 2.0 8v in an a2 with a cam and exhaust is just as fast as a 2.0 16v with exhaust (no cams though, of course) my engine isnt hightly modded, its the crossflow with a lightened flywheel, 272 schrick, catback exhaust, and a 9a tranny from an 87' gli. thats it for engine mods and it is faster then your average 16v with a cat back exhaust and a decent driver in the same chasis of course (in this case a2's)
i really have nothing against 16v's, im actually considering putting a 2.0 16v into my rabbit once i find a nice shell. and it will be pretty well modded (50mm intake, cams, headwork, and n20) the 16v's are fun to drive and stock vs stock the 16v is much much better, but once you get into serious modding the diffrences get to be less and less, sometimes 8v on top, sometimes 16v. the main reason i went with the crossflow motor in my 8v was becasue i can turbo it(i know you can turbo 16v's too, but you can go faster for less money in an 8v with forced induction), and because of the ease of the swap, plus the cis-e fuel system is not what i want to deal with, ever. 
and not to put down the a3 guys, but the 2.0 in an a3 running n/a is not what i am talking about when i say 8v's can be fast, unless you have crazy headwork and are running a 3.94 or 4.25 r&p. turbos can fix that though. 
this debate will never be solved, ever, but personally, i really dont care that much, fast is fast weather it be an 8v, 16v, vr6, 1.8t weather its a crazy n/a setup, or running turbos, nitrous or s/c, just remember we're all vw drivers, and we all like modding our cars, so nobody needs to get too pissy...
-andrew
ps- happy holidays everyone


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Andrew Foss)*

Andrew I know you are a motorhead and know your poop, but REALLY dude I am having a really hard time swalling a mk2 8V with a cam and exhaust, is faster than a 2.0l 16v with exhaust nonetheless a stock 2.0l 16v? Hell what happens when a 1.8l 16v races a modded 8v? Like I said I respect you and I know you know your poop just having a hard time swallowing those statements.. When I have raced modded 8v's and modded 16v's
merry christmas..


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Blitz16v)*

The *ONLY* fast 8v is a booosted 8v,..... even then, its just polishing a turd!!
















Hell, I dont even like Vr6, because they are overwieght glorified 8v's....(2 valve per cylinder) Now I DO believe that the 24v Vr6 is going to be a force to be reckoned with.
As a matter of fact,...last night on my way to pick up my coupe,.... in my heavy stock 90 GLI, with 3 people in it (2 of the 3 over 200 pounds each), I layed the smack down on a MK4 Jetta Vr6 from a stop all the way to 115mph.....(heavy for an A2, because it has sunroof, power windows/seats, big bumpers, ABS, AND a 8v block/head and supercharger in the trunk....stock except for a chip and catback,....rolling on bald Blizzacks...) Its not just the power of the 16v,...its the revability and gear ratios that win the races....
Honestly, anybody that talks poop about an 16v has NO idea what they are talking about...even my friends with the Vr6's know whats up,....*RIGHT FRANK???*


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

3 people x 200 =600 lb Engine 200+ lb =800 lb Plus 2500lb GLI = 3300lb hp 134 beating a 2900lb 170 hp VR6 with more torque than any 16v ever dreams of Sure buddy I believe you.







Sarcasm to the power of infinity.
Stock data
GLI 0-60 9.2 sec 1/4 mile 16.7 sec
VR6 Jetta 7.5 sec 1/4 mile 15.5

PS. Last night I beat a supra turbo with 450 hp with my Eurovan. Did I mention I have a K&N air filter? I have a single wiper too


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

the chances of this thread getting locked is 78.94% and the chance of this turning into a 9 page flamewar is 90% but if it gets locked chances are 0%
Kickster chill out man, I had planned on this being a mature discussion, just how I didn't flame Andrew Foss or no one else, regarding their point of few. I by no means think the 16v is the greatest engine on the earth, I am just laying down the facts, and experiences to back it up, show a little respect though here. As for your doubting PowerDub story, I don't know why he would lie








Mod's please don't lock this


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

1. - Only 2 of the people in my car weighed 200, not 3,..... 
2. - And a MK4 Jetta VR6 weighs more than 2900 pounds.... 
3. - You forgot to add in the drivers weight of the MK4 also. 
4. - Your data is wrong for the 16v....you prolly looking at a 1.8 16v, NOT the 2.0 16v.... IIRC the 2.0 16v 0-60 STOCK is aprox low 8's and I am sure if the MK4 was an auto, it would be a little slower....
And its true....... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I dont know if the VR6 was an automatic or not.....


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
Stock data
GLI 0-60 9.2 sec 1/4 mile 16.7 sec[HR][/HR]​I dunno where you got those stats, but gti16v.org has more around 7.8 seconds (or so, I didn't check) for the 0-60 for a 2.0 16v, doing stopwatch timings when I got my car I can say that that is VERY accurate. And I was on the vw.com website I read that the fastest GTI goes 0-60 in 7.7 (this was before the 180hp 1.8t)
I'm not gonna get into the "pissing match" here, but 16v's have no what??? low end???








but whatever, it's a dub, for each to his own,











[Modified by 88Jetta, 11:25 PM 12-24-2001]


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Acceleration
0-60 mph 7.9 sec
Taken off of http://www.gti16v.org/tspecs88.htm#tspecs88 
This is off a 1.8l 16v sure its alot lighter 2267lbs clean[88gti 16v] but that 7.9 is basically the showroom car I would think, and as the motor breaks in [16v's built extremely tight to the factory] it could only get quicker. For arguments sake I gteched my car repeatdly and ran 0-60 6.9 btw I am modded, and btw PowerDubs I really don't even wanna touch the comment of btw "that was prolly for a 1.8l 16v" 







The fact that the 2.0l mk2's weigh more than the 1.8l16v's and there top end is not as strong as a 1.8l 16v, poop I could go on and on and on about each car's pros and cons, we could talk numbers all day couldn't we? How about the people that have driven a 1.8l/2.0l and modded 8v reply to this thread from now on ok?


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

I did not mean to insult any one. However, I am a little tired of stories where a Suzuki swift beats a Ferrari F40.
Well beating a VR6 auto with 4 people while pulling a power boat with one spark plug missing is more close to reality
than a GLI with 3 people and a full engine beating a vr6. 

Now happy hollidays.


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

According to Motor trend magazine 92 GLI (16v) 0-60 is 9.2 
Road and track magazine 8.9
Car and driver 9.0
16v.org needs to review their facts. 
Rocco 16vs were the fastest 16vs 7.5 sec 0-60


----------



## fahrfrumlosin (Sep 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

Low end? what? are we merging through bumper to bumper traffic!!
I drove a 16v for the first time today and I'm hooked. OH, did I mention I drive a Corrado SLC daily? In the 16v, was doing 65-80mph constant was already getting 28+ mpg, not bad considering that you got a lot more pep in the 16v than the 8v.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]According to Motor trend magazine 92 GLI (16v) 0-60 is 9.2 
Road and track magazine 8.9
Car and driver 9.0
16v.org needs to review their facts. 
Rocco 16vs were the fastest 16vs 7.5 sec 0-60[HR][/HR]​


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (fahrfrumlosin)*

Good thing I don't own a 90 GLI 16V, cause damn 0-60 9seconds sure sounds slow.








Who says rocco 16v's were the fastest? Seriously that is such bull**** to think a GLI 16v would run 0-60 9 seconds.... lets not magazine race here. I pulled it off gti16v.org cause my model year for mk2 16v showed 7.9 and that is LEGIT. I pulled those times with my car before I started modding it. Sure it never said a GLI 16V can do it in 7.9 but gti16v.org is LEGIT so deal with it.
edit http://www.vortex.org/~grendal/slim/slim256k.rm 
just cause its cool.
[Modified by Blitz16v, 1:37 AM 12-25-2001]


[Modified by Blitz16v, 1:40 AM 12-25-2001]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

2.0 16v 0-60 7.8 from http://www.gti16v.org/tspecs91.htm#tspecs91 
Now if a 2.0 16v is 7.8 and a Vr6 as you stated is 7.5......whats so hard to believe that I couldve won, whether or not the VR6 was stick or auto? My chip and exhaust dont hurt either.....
Gimme a break...... Vr6 are NOT all that.... Like I said,....just a bigger 8v is all.....
Now Blitz,....the 1.8 16v's are cool and all,.....they will still STOMP 8v's.....but we gotta get you up to a 2.0 Motronic brother!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (fahrfrumlosin)*

9.2 is nowhere near a stock 2.0 16v, I remember when I was happy with my old stock 1.8 8v when I timed a 9.9 second 0-60








here you go, just exhaust, nothing else. I didn't even launch my car, just regular old style. Take your stopwatch, from the time I step on it to the time I let off in 3rd gear, no way in hell that that is 9.2 seconds.
http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif[/IMG] [URL="http://members.aol.com/webwiz99/acl2-60.mp3"]just exhaust at the time


[Modified by 88Jetta, 11:42 PM 12-24-2001]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Oh,...BTW,....Frank,....(who was one of the 200+ pound people in my car).....who was in front all the way to 115mph? Me or Mk4?


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

my turn








http://www.vortex.org/~grendal/slim/juliaroll.MP3


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Jetta 2.0 16v in 7.8 sec????? right and my 8v does it in 8 sec. right








I am not going to reply any more. It seems 16v ers are convinced they have a rocket and they 
have no respect for the actual data. If you think your jetta can out accelerate a Vr6 good for you 
I sure dont buy into it. I have test drove 16vs and they are nothing to brag about sure they are faster than
1.8 8v but that is where it ends.


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

Sigh well I have put my .02 cents in about the 92 Spec GLI's, and no point in me debating more, at least there is still respect for the 88 spec 16v's aww I love you Julia.








Well edit that, there is still a lack of respect for the 16v er's with this comment " It seems 16v ers are convinced they have a rocket and they have no respect for the actual data" Excuse me I hope that was not directed towards me! I don't think my car is a rocket at all , and have stated that on more than one occasion but I can only speak for myself. In general the 16v owners I have met though seem very knowledgeable about their cars, and hold nothing but respect for their fellow dubbers. What gives?









[Modified by Blitz16v, 1:55 AM 12-25-2001]


[Modified by Blitz16v, 2:00 AM 12-25-2001]


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

is a sub 8 second stock n/a 4 banger that hard to believe








I'm at sea level though...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

Face it,.....MK3, MK4 are HEAVY......as are Vr6....
And 8v's just plain suck........


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Jetta 2.0 16v in 7.8 sec????? right and my 8v does it in 8 sec. [HR][/HR]​
I just read your specs,....you spent an AWFUL lot of money to go *SOOO SLOW!!*
****Engine: 1992 GTI 1.8 8v Digifant 
Cam: Hor 270 
Intake: K&N, Ram air 
Exhuast: TT 2.25" piping, Dynomax muffler, high flow cat. 
Header: Brospeed header 
Horse power: 101.3 @5300 rpm at the wheel 
Torque: 110.00 @ 4500 rpm at the wheel 
0-60: Fastest run 8.6 sec consistant 9.2 sec 
1/4 mile: Fastest run 16.9 sec Consistant 17.05 ****

BTW,.....my 2.0 16v beat a stock MK4 Jetta 1.8T 5 speed, 3 runs in a row at the strip...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Heres my car (2.0 16v) being filmed by Jeff (2.0 8v crossflow aba) .....which would YOU rather drive???






















http://www.vortex.org/~grendal/slim/HawkRunGLI.mpeg 

Jeff IS an excellent driver, and has some SERIOUS balls for following me through there like that.... Just to give you some idea.....count the gears for an idea of how fast we were going through there,....and notice, no brake lights....
***thanks to blitz and grendal for hosting***



[Modified by PowerDubs, 3:33 AM 12-25-2001]


----------



## veedubs03 (Mar 4, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

damn 16.9s with all that work. cams chip exhuast and filter and guy ran 14.8 in it, 91 2.0l 16v


----------



## GTibunny16v (Aug 12, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (A3Jetta)*

Ive owned both 8v's and a 16v. Both in the same car. I did like the 8v it would take the 16v up to 330' out by probably a half of a car. After that its all 16v. I have no problem driving my car around town with the 16v. He still beats up on hondas and i have no problem smoking any Mk 3 2L around town or on the highway. Ive raced my friend that has a 94 Jetta w/ chip, exhaust, 268degree cam and eurosport intake and i roast him everytime by 4-6 car lengths. All I have is a 1.8l 16v w/ tt race pipe and 2"exhaust w K&N. I would take a 8v for a intown car anyday, just for the pull light to light. But after that i would rather own a 16v. They are both great motors and you cant really compare them. The 16v will always make more power (hp and torque) just at a higher rpm. The 8v will always out torque the 16v down low. Just depends on where you like to drive your car. Fighting about this is kinda stupid, we all own dubs. Who cares if they are 8v,12v,16v,20v, or 24v. Love your car and your motor, but dont sh1t on someones elses car or motor 'cuz its not yours.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (veedubs03)*

quote:[HR][/HR]damn 16.9s with all that work. cams chip exhuast and filter and guy ran 14.8 in it, 91 2.0l 16v[HR][/HR]​
Thats my point,.....plain and simple,...you need to put ALOT of money into ANY 8v to make it as fast as a STOCK 2.0 16v........ Whats the point? A couple simple mods on a 2.0 16v and your hunting Vr6's.....and handle a hell of a lot better....
quote:[HR][/HR]The 16v will always make more power (hp and torque) just at a higher rpm. The 8v will always out torque the 16v down low. [HR][/HR]​This is total bull****,.....just look at dyno runs,.... a 2.0 crossflow ABA may make more torque downlow than a 1.8 16v,...... but *a 2.0 16v makes more torque than a 2.0 8v at ALL rpms.......*!!! Do your homework.... Dont believe old wives tales....


[Modified by PowerDubs, 10:17 AM 12-25-2001]


----------



## robgti16v (Dec 21, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

I race a friend of mine who has a 91' GTI 2.0 cross flow with TT down pipe, TT exhaust and TT 268 cam. I have an 87 GTI 16V with exhaust, I have raced him a few times, by 60 I usally have about a car on him. The one time that I lost to him my car was running terrible. I had a crack in my flex pipe and lost a lot of power. This just goes to show if a 16v is not tuned right or not running right is very beatable. 
-Rob
87 GTI 16V


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

If that is the video I think (couldn't open it for some reason), did everyone notice that I missed 2nd gear, through it into 3rd and then back into 2nd.

And as for making an ABA faster costing a lot, I agree in the most part but my car runs 16.841 with just a chip and cut airbox.









I would love to have a 16v, but I am VERY proud of my 8v. I seem to have a rare engine that takes to mods better than most. Josh can attest to how fast my car is with very little work done.


[Modified by A3Jetta, 11:28 AM 12-25-2001]


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (A3Jetta)*

A3Jetta nah that is a video of a GLI ripping a 8v a new jerk in da TwiStIez.


----------



## Andrew Foss (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

damn, looks like i missed out on some fun while i was sleeping...
anyhoo, i chose the ABA so i could boost it. it all depends what you are doing with the car when you choose the motor, i looked into a 2.0 16v with cams and a fully built botom end, worked head ect ect. for my jetta, but the ABA is gonna make me faster, and much more 'streetable' for less money, to make a 16v run as fast as my 8v will be with the turbo, i would have to put much much more money into it, and it wouldent be as reliable, plus i would have to deal with cis-e wich i hate. 
there are also diffrences wich vary car to car, theres an 8v 92 gti (digifant injected 2.0 x flow) the runs a 14.9 with jsut a cam(tt 268), exhaust and chip. theres also a girl in the mk2 forum who runs a 15.2 in a 2.0 16v with just a filter, chip and exhaust, and blitz's car is faster then your average 16v as i remember his gtech numbers were very very good. there are exceptions, but your average 2.0 16v in an a2 (stock) vs your average 2.0 8v with a cam and exhaust are just about equal(provided both are 'running right' and both are running the same gear ratios and im talkin' a2's here). also remember all 8v's are not the same, there were diffrent compression models, models with really wide gear ratios, models with smaller intake valves, and theres a ton of other variables, im not a fan of the vr6, and i have beat a few mkIV vr6's both stock and lightly modded in my "slow 8v" the 2.0 16v's have raced, one is a 87' with a 1.8 head on the 2.0 block, running cis-e motronic and has a k&n and a catback exhaust, i know the kid who built it, and i raced it after he sold it to another kid from a dead stop to about 80, and won by over a carlength, the car runs well, i have driven it, though the body is pretty beat, the engine is fully rebuilt, but the internals are all stock. the other one i have no idea what he was running, it looked like a 91' or 92' it had exhaust, and was lowered, running 15" or 16" tsw hock r's. maybe it was an older one with upgraded bumpers, still running the 1.8, but i dont think so, it had the newer recaros (greyish/blue colored, im not sure im colorblind slightly) but i had him through first, and he stayed right with me, but couldent gain much ground. 
-andrew
ps- im also running a 9a tranny, and undersize (195/45/15) tires, so the acceleration gets a bit of help from that.


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V (16volt)*

All you people are talking so much trash about 16V and 8V motors. Ya'll ain't got sh*t on my Go-ped. I get better than 150 mpg and make almost 200hp per liter. That thing revs to almost 12,000 rpm's. Yeah baby, Briggs and Stratton power! You just don't know the power of the 'Ped. When you hear that BUZZZZZ, be afraid, be very afraid. Al you're gonna see is clouds of two-stroke smoke. 
Go-Ped California Blue
Expansion chamber and tuned pipe.
Custom Cardboard Ram-Air intake.
Shiny 4" wheels with Go-Ped spec. tires on them.
Oh yeah and a big fat Powered by Honda sticker (Just for fun) but it gives me like 20 more GP! (Gerbil Power)


----------



## Tarmac (Oct 3, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Clean97GTi)*

I got both. Airbody just shut the f*ck up!!!








The 8v is a great engine stock and all anyone needs to get around and for fun. However the 2l 16v pulls harder at all revs. 
If you are debating modded engines, the argument is truly endless... why even start? How much money you got, who's tuning it, etc etc...


----------



## maddassbus (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (GTibunny16v)*

I own a 84 GTI and 87 GTI 16V and the 84 feels faster stoplite to stoplite (Helped out by a 16V tranny) but GTIbunny is right...it's all good if it's a Dub!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







We should be getting together to figure out how we're going to burn some rice!!!


----------



## SpeedyD (Jun 9, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (maddassbus)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I own a 84 GTI and 87 GTI 16V and the 84 feels faster stoplite to stoplite (Helped out by a 16V tranny)[HR][/HR]​A 16V tranny in a Rabbit would actually make it SLOWER, not faster. How could you possibly think that a car with 90 hp is faster than a car with 123? I owned an '84 myself before my '88 16v and there is NO COMPARISON between those cars. I'd say that one of three things is happening. *a.)* You're on crack, *b.)* You don't know how to drive, or* c.)* Your 16V runs like ass. Sorry if it seems like I'm flaming, but there's just NO WAY you can compare those two cars and say the A1 is faster.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
A 16V tranny in a Rabbit would actually make it SLOWER, not faster. How could you possibly think that a car with 90 hp is faster than a car with 123? I owned an '84 myself before my '88 16v and there is NO COMPARISON between those cars. I'd say that one of three things is happening. *a.)* You're on crack, *b.)* You don't know how to drive, or* c.)* Your 16V runs like ass. Sorry if it seems like I'm flaming, but there's just NO WAY you can compare those two cars and say the A1 is faster. [HR][/HR]​relax man... I've got a bone stock 8v Rabbit and a built up 16v.... the Rabbit is more fun to zip around in even in stock form.


----------



## SpeedyD (Jun 9, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR] relax man... I've got a bone stock 8v Rabbit and a built up 16v.... the Rabbit is more fun to zip around in even in stock form.[HR][/HR]​Dude, I LOVE A1s, but neither me nor he said anything about FUN, he said it felt FASTER....


----------



## Andrew Foss (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

speedy is right about the tranny, the 84' came with a 4k, witch is the best tranny for acceleration, the 16v tranny would slow it down considerably (in low end) but it would top out higher. well eff you guys, im going to bed. 
-andrew


----------



## maddassbus (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I own a 84 GTI and 87 GTI 16V and the 84 feels faster stoplite to stoplite (Helped out by a 16V tranny)
A 16V tranny in a Rabbit would actually make it SLOWER, not faster. How could you possibly think that a car with 90 hp is faster than a car with 123? I owned an '84 myself before my '88 16v and there is NO COMPARISON between those cars. I'd say that one of three things is happening. *a.)* You're on crack, *b.)* You don't know how to drive, or* c.)* Your 16V runs like ass. Sorry if it seems like I'm flaming, but there's just NO WAY you can compare those two cars and say the A1 is faster. [HR][/HR]​ Theres always one...A) I did say stop lite to stoplite...I also said "feels". It amazes me how certain people are always trying to make themselves look good by trying to invalidate other people and there experiences...I've rode in and drivin many fast VW's not only here but in Europe (For example Jeron Diks 16V G60, Holland) and have enough track experience to hold my own, thanks. "Sorry if it seems like I'm flaming"..... don't really think your sorry... if you where you wouldnt....


[Modified by maddassbus, 3:22 AM 12-26-2001]


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

quote:[HR][/HR] relax man...  I've got a bone stock 8v Rabbit and a built up 16v.... the Rabbit is more fun to zip around in even in stock form.
Dude, I LOVE A1s, but neither me nor he said anything about FUN, he said it felt FASTER....[HR][/HR]​ok.... the Rabbit feels faster. The Golf just doesn't give you the feeling of speed until you look at the speedo


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

I'd like to say this about people also thinking the vr is a true performance engine and can't fathom the idea of a 16v having such a cult status that it created. I drive a vr6 jetta mk4 almost every day. The 16v was in it's day and still is a powerful fast engine, even compared to it's far east compettion. The vr is seriously out classed by it's rivals 6 cyl engines. big deal the 24v head will be out soon, what 5 years after ford? Almost any modern 6 from the far east has been 24v for a long time. The vr is not high performance as far as I am concerned. The g60 was a true vw performance engine (too bad we didn't get them in the golf instead of the pig heavy rado) The 16v came out as vw's main performance engine, and the 1.8t will no doubt be the successor to the 16v's crown. I have no problem with my 88 gti out gunning vr6's. I know the vr has good top speed, but unless your dragging one down a long straight, the 16v will give em hell. Oh yeah I have heard a few people complain that a 16v is expensive to mod, so what it's expensive to mod cars anyways. Vr's are expensive to mod. I'm not pro 16v ( i'm building up a solid lifter 8v now) I'm pro vw (Like most of us, I hope) Stock for stock any 16v is faster than an 8v. And for all the anti 16ver's out there don't belieave the hype, my rocco(and my gti 16v 240k miles!) is old and will still take most of you


----------



## SpeedyD (Jun 9, 1999)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (maddassbus)*

quote:[HR][/HR] It amazes me how certain people are always trying to make themselves look good by trying to invalidate other people and there experiences...[HR][/HR]​You're right, I'm not particularly sorry. Apparently your extensive "experiences" don't include knowing jack about VW trannies. You cited a mod that would make the car perform worse in the given situation you then say it feels faster in, which leads me to the conclusion you don't know what you're talking about. I've ridden in a 450hp VR6 turbo Rallye Golf - so what? Does that make me smarter? The bottom line is this - if the stoplights are far enough apart to exceed 4000 RPM in at least one gear the 16v will SMOKE that Rabbit.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

quote:[HR][/HR] far enough apart to exceed 4000 RPM in at least one gear [HR][/HR]​
Um.....thats about 10 feet apart by my guess..... considering I launch at 4k,....so as soon as I grab traction, I am well over 4000rpms......


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (burzum)*

I just had to point out a few of the good points









quote:[HR][/HR]...a true performance engine and can't fathom the idea of a 16v having such a *cult* status that it created. [HR][/HR]​It is definatly at cult status
quote:[HR][/HR]
. The g60 was a true vw performance engine [HR][/HR]​Another of vw's "unreliable" engines







, all the haters are just jealous and have to justify reasons why they don't have one
quote:[HR][/HR]
The 16v came out as vw's main performance engine, and the 1.8t will no doubt be the successor to the 16v's crown[HR][/HR]​quote:[HR][/HR]Oh yeah I have heard a few people complain that a 16v is expensive to mod, so what it's expensive to mod cars anyways. Vr's are expensive to mod
[HR][/HR]​You get alot for your money with the 16v (same as the g60)
quote:[HR][/HR] And for all the anti 16ver's out there don't belieave the hype, my rocco(and my gti 16v 240k miles!) is old and will still take most of you







[HR][/HR]​What hype, it's proven fact


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

Well, the G60 ENGINE is great,......its the chargers that ARE unreliable.
And yes, the 1.8T is a great hot-rod engine.....too bad all the cars are big fat pigs....


[Modified by PowerDubs, 12:35 AM 12-26-2001]


----------



## maddassbus (Sep 30, 2001)

*Re: ABA vs 9A: Battle of the century (SpeedyD)*

SpeedyD you know everything so you win.. You are the almighty VW god...I was wrong and you are right...I don't know poop and you know everything....







Your right I'm just talking out mya$$...feel better now???


----------



## BenGone (Sep 7, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

I have a 98 2.0 8v GTi with a chip and intake, i've raced a 90 GTi 1.8l 8v with intake exhaust, cam, and short gearing. dead even till 65ish even with less weight and shorter gears. then i raced an mk GTi 1.8l 16v with a K&N muffler and i added a chip to mine i got wasted flat out. with my 1.8l 16v rocco with 150k mi on the clock with a header, muffler, K&N and autotech's F.E. i raced my friends 1500mi fresh rebuilt 1.8l 8v 270 cam, header, full exhaust, K&N, centerforce clutch (rocco's wasn't to hot) all in a mk2 GTi. and it wasn't even close. i could play with him in ANY gear ANY speed and that GTi was faster than my new 8v GTi. i've never seen a properly running 16v that would lose to an 8v even giving the 8v pluses like cam header and exhaust, intakes, chips. the only way i could see an 8v beating a 16v is internal motor work. but even then you throw bolt ons at a 16v and it will beat a modded 8v. but i'm talking about people that know how to drive their cars and tune them right so your results may vary. just my opinion. oh and i don't worry about ever working on my 8v. is it because its new? or reliable?


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: 8V (BenGone)*

Look at the next post up.

Facts as I gathered:
9A has more torque all around then a ABA(lets keep it 2.0vs2.0-no 1.8s)
9A has more potential then a ABA for less money(this isn't the forced induction forum)
9A cars are lighter then ABA cars
ABA= Made in Mexico, yes even the WE are partly Made south of the border
16Vs rev higher
16V cars are usualy better equipted then 8Vs
9A is just faster then a then an ABA
Notice *NO* comparison to G60s, VR6s or 1.8Ts just ABA vs 9A


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: 8V (drive79rabbit)*

quote:[HR][/HR]well, I thought I might chime in. All I can say, is that 16v's are damn expensive. How expensive? So much that I can't even afford to complete my project 16v, and start over with a X-flow 2.0 8v. I am hoping that the x-flow will give me the best of both worlds... so we'll see.[HR][/HR]​Get a new job! My rocco costs-engine wise 1.8 to 2.0
used 9A-$400
Seals belts mounts gaskets water pump ect $300ish
PL 1.8L head rebuild $300
Body, trans, suspension ect are the same costs as an 8V, HTH would a 16Vs costs stop you from finishing your project? And adding the PL head isn't nessacery, just wanted the larger ports. If i'm wrong give me some examples VS digifants or Motronics, well heres one for you maybe a Downpipe, and I'm talking a real differnce not nickles and dimes.


----------



## blackflygti (Sep 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v*

I'd have to agree that generally the 16v will outperform an 8v. I just wanted to share two personal experiences though:
1. My '92 Golf 1.8L 8v with cam+chip+exhaust vs friend's '91 GTI 2.0L 16v with exhaust in a stoplight battle. My "slow" 8v absolutely roasted the 16v from the launch all the way up to 4th gear. I had a good launch, he didn't, but he still couldn't pull me in once we were moving. I have no delusions that my 8v was a lot faster than a 2.0L 16v but he couldn't make up the difference once we were both rolling at speed. I'm sure he would've eventually caught & passed me but by that time the race was over.
2. My '83 GTI 1.8L 8v vs friend's '92 Jetta 2.0L 16v. Both engines are stock except my '83 GTI has a header and TT exhaust. His 2.0L 16v was running good too. This was a 5th gear roll from 120km/h-160km/h. We both had a passenger too. Rolled up beside each other in 5th @ 120km/h. I pulled a 1/2 car length on him by the time we hit 160km/h. We were both shocked







I was completely expecting to get raped.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (blackflygti)*

quote:[HR][/HR]My "slow" 8v absolutely roasted the 16v from the launch all the way up to 4th gear[HR][/HR]​
HAHAHHAHHA,.....I blew coke out my nose....you should be a comedian...!!!
4th gear in my 16v STARTS at 80mph,....5th is around 100..... 
If your '92 1.8 8v Golf with the bolt ons can beat my heavy full power everything _STOCK_Jetta 90 2.0 16v from 0-80mph, I'll *GIVE* you my car.... I am that sure that 8v SUCK!!!
More than likely, I'd pass you before 2nd gear was up,....even with my bald blizzacks spinning all the way through 1st....


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

some of you people need to get a reality check.


----------



## kbs (Dec 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Bagchus)*

ill say one thing.. my 2lt 16v passat cant even flex a muslce to my 1.8 8v.. GLI unless your on the long open road...


----------



## SpeedyD (Jun 9, 1999)

*Re: 8V (kbs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]ill say one thing.. my 2lt 16v passat cant even flex a muslce to my 1.8 8v.. GLI unless your on the long open road...[HR][/HR]​Apples and oranges, my friend....it's called "weight".


----------



## blackflygti (Sep 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR] If your '92 1.8 8v Golf with the bolt ons can beat my heavy full power everything _STOCK_Jetta 90 2.0 16v from 0-80mph, I'll *GIVE* you my car....I am that sure that 8v SUCK!!![HR][/HR]​Holy Smokes. Gee PowerDubs you convinced me. Now i am absolutely sure that all 8v sux! 16v RULES!!!!








Well i guess i should have expected a response like this. I didn't make up that story. There's no speculation involved there....this happened for real with my friend. Before all the excuses start coming in, yes he does know how to drive and his 16v was running good. I'm not saying this would be an everyday occurrence, like i said, i respect that the 16v makes more power than the 8v. After reading all these posts about a stock 16v destroying every modded 8v in existence, i thought i'd post one for the 8v guys.


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (blackflygti)*

Amazes me how none of the moderators in here, have chimed in and got this discussion orderly, there is alot of pointing fingers and disrespecting of other cars. Is this forum moderated?


----------



## usdm (Jun 5, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Blitz16v)*

A little apples to oranges, but here is something that i got from my older files. The text comes from an website around 96-97, thereabouts. This is just a piece of the text, as its kinda long. I will try to put up the whole article when I have a chance:
"Any street car or race car is continuously accelerating or decelerating, and, assuming the brakes work and the handling is good, typically, the rate of acceleration is the way we judge the car’s performance and "power". As we’re talking about accelerating a given mass, torque is the most important component, assuming that we’re simply talking HP vs. Torque. If you can’t produce torque at the lower RPM ranges, it’ll take you all day to reach a "higher" RPM where you have torque (or HP.), and then you shift gears, and you’re back where you started. .........
........If you have torque, you simply gear the car accordingly, and you’ll match the competitions speed, and more importantly, you’ll be more likely to be running at the finish..........
......Let’s go to the mystery area that’s really what makes the car run….or accelerate.....How long does it take for an engine to recover from being yanked down 2000rpm on a shift and accelerate back to the redline again….that’s the mysterious quality that all killer engines have, and it’s not something that will show up in "conventional" dyno testing. Quite the contrary, I’ve NEVER seen an engine that possessed this quality make big HP. We rarely even look at HP#’s when testing (I stopped that in ’77). The only "number" I’m concerned in is: How much time does it take this engine to accelerate a given "load" from point A to point B. If the rpm range you anticipate operating in is for instance from 5000 to 8000rpm, the combination that will pull the "known load" from the bottom to the top the quickest will ALWAYS be the engine to run regardless of HP. Several years back, one of our NASCAR programs was so dominant that everyone said we had at least 695 HP. to run the way we did, and I will admit that we did have some engines that approached that number, however, all the "big HP." engines required more than 1.5 sec. more time to accelerate the load from 6000 to 7600rpm than another "special" engine we’d built. The "special" engine ran almost 10 mph higher lap speeds and it never made more than 590 HP. on the dyno when we decided to "check".




[Modified by usdm, 11:56 PM 12-27-2001]


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (usdm)*

Good lord. Why don't we throw all of the cars off a cliff and argue about which one really hit first. Who gives a good rat's ass if your car runs a 15 or a 14.9? It's not a dragster, it's a canyon carver.


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (cabzilla)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Good lord. Why don't we throw all of the cars off a cliff and argue about which one really hit first. Who gives a good rat's ass if your car runs a 15 or a 14.9? It's not a dragster, it's a canyon carver.








[HR][/HR]​Well said Cabzilla!!


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (A3Jetta)*

Having driven identically taken care of (meticulous!) 87' 8 &16v's AND '91 8v and 16v's I can say in MY opinion the car's are IDENTICAL below 3-3500 rpm's. We all know what happens after that







. Every tuner that REALLY knows these engines (not just wrenches on them, but "gets" the power curve issue!) will tell you they are the same UNTIL the extra set of valves open up at least partially (hmmm, 3-3500 rpm's, how about that!). Now if you're comparing a X-flow 8v to a 16v I couldn't say as my "99 JIII X-flow is a power-SUCKING auto. But I do understand the whole "valve envy" thing







. Seriously (as if you'll believe me because I said that







) though, my friends andI would switch in and out of each other's cars and do everything from bang-shifting 1/4 miles to high/low speed roll-ons and got the same conclusions 99% of the time (1% error, who are we, Car and Driver?). (edit: couldn't stand Blitz being one of the only sane poster's in on this.)


[Modified by 1sweet16v, 11:42 PM 12-28-2001]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]are the same UNTIL the extra set of valves open up at least partially [HR][/HR]​




























Um,......what? This isnt V-tec,......all 16 valves open at ALL RPMs........... 

You must NOT be sane!!


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

Yeah, I just re-read my post and it DOES sound like I'm talking V-tech?! My bad. I meant to say the closer you get to "full open", meaning the point at which all four valves are BASICALLY open. THAT starts @ ~ 3-3500 rpm's and goes to full song @ ~55-5800 rpm's. Sorry for friday brain-blip.


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

Ok volks, forget the 0-60 times/Quarter times - what matters on the street is interval times...engine flexibility
Post up in gear 3rd/4th gear 40-60, 50-70 times...this gives an idea of engine flexibility. I'll post the numbers my project Cabby did back in '93 when I dropped the 3A in... don't have any numbers for it now though since its still not running quite right...
82 Cabby (w/3A) FN tranny:
4th (.91) gear 50-70 7.4 sec
3rd (1.29) gear 40-60 4.3 sec
This was a Cabby with 2" exhaust, TT dual downpipe, JH head, G-grind, big throttle body, and match ported intake manifold...
What I did to obtain the times - find a flat stretch of road - get up to speed - start the stopwatch on mashing the throttle - stop it when the speedo reached the higher speed. Do the same run going the other way. Perform the above twice and average...
I would do this everytime I added a part to the car - ie prior to TT downpipe the car did a 7.9s 50-70...6% gain due to the downpipe in that rev range...




[Modified by Peter Tong, 6:18 AM 12-29-2001]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Peter Tong)*

quote:[HR][/HR]3rd/4th gear 40-60, 50-70 times[HR][/HR]​
Well,...if your looking to get an idea of how the car will perform in 'cruising mode' when you want to be lazy and not shift,....then thats fine. But when your talking about using the performance potential of the engine , then using your methods and ideas are useless,....
Like I said, a 2.0 16v with normal tranny will do 80mph in 3rd gear before shifting to 4th,....why would you want to test it at 4th gear 50-70? Thats taking the car out of its element....


----------



## blackflygti (Sep 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

Interval times/in gear acceleration times are commonly accepted performance figures over in Europe. Most european mags publish these numbers. It gives a more consistent number, eliminating driver skill and ability to launch when you do 0-60 runs. So you get a better idea of engine performance as opposed to driver performance. For example 50-70 @ 3rd gear is a test of top end power.


[Modified by blackflygti, 2:50 PM 12-29-2001]


----------



## blackflygti (Sep 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Peter Tong)*

Here's a few numbers i have from magazines:
Car - 50-70(3rd gear) - 50-70(4th gear) - 50-70(5th gear)
mk3 GTI 2.0L 16v (150hp) - 5.5 - 7.5 - 11.0
mk3 GTI 2.0L 8v (115hp) - 5.5 - 7.6 - 10.4
mk2 GTI 1.8L 16v (139hp) - n/a - 6.9 - 9.5
mk1 GTI 1.8L 8v (~134hp) - 4.9 - n/a - 7.9
The last one there is from VW&P's "Lurching Toward Success" project Rabbit which was a worked over 1.8L 8v. I'm also a bit skeptical about that 3rd gear run in the mk3 8v vs mk3 16v...but that's what they published








The only prob with these numbers is that each car has different curb weights because of different models and various trim packages that you get with a 16v over the 8v. Also each gearbox has slightly different ratios.
I'll try some of these runs in my Rabbit when it comes out in spring. There's no point in trying it with my '98 Jetta 2.0L 8v cuz that thing is a tank!


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (blackflygti)*

Why are we magazine racing to justify each other's car's performance? Face it if you haven't driven the car's we are talking about at hand then you haven't. You can tell a cars performance by going to page 34 and looking at a bunch of numbers. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (blackflygti)*

quote:[HR][/HR]mk1 GTI 1.8L 8v (~134hp) - 4.9 - n/a - 7.9
The last one there is from VW&P's "Lurching Toward Success" project Rabbit which was a worked over 1.8L 8v[HR][/HR]​to be fair, that car was a _fully_ worked over 2L with all the high end bolt ons availible in the day. I've driven that Rabbit and it would spank my built 16v in a point to point dash any day.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (16v)*

Let's end this MASSIVE speculation right now. Follow these instructions http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=196438 to the tee and we'll see who's got the F'ing torque. SOME of you 8v'ers need to get over the valve envy and admit you can't hang. Don't tell us stories about "roasting" a 16v when you say "he didn't get a good launch". So what's your point. If I start my 16v off in 2nd and my wife's grand am "roasts" me, WTF, no, WT HOLY F does that prove. "hey man, if you stay out of the powerband, i'll waste you". You just made one hell of an arguement to ignore you! Grab a stopwatch, run some tests, and THEN and ONLY THEN should you continue yapping.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

SERIOUSLY!! The proof is in the pudding. Any idea why that old ARSE saying is still getting tossed about? BECAUSE IT'S TRUE! The test results are kept private until you-yourself provides numbers of your own. The test involves NO shifting, so it's a "power" test. So far everyone involved in the testing has been VERY honest (IMO) in order to gain REAL (read: usable) data to benchmark your own modded/non-modded cars. Greatly helpful when you get out of the make believe world of car magazine racing and GET ON THE PAVEMENT.


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

I just posted my results on that other thread.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (A3Jetta)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I just posted my results on that other thread.[HR][/HR]​ I saw your post. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Great representation of the A *3* 8v's! My JIII is an auto, so it suffers two (







) many maladies. Always wondered how she'd feel w/ a stick.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]My JIII is an 8v auto[HR][/HR]​
**Shudder**


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]**Shudder**[HR][/HR]​ How did you know that's the sound it makes INSTEAD of accelerating.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

man you got screwed,.....puny 8v in a big fatass A3 with a slushbox? Please tell me its the wifes car???


----------



## FumetsuGolf (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

What is the point of this discussion? If you like your car, then fine, like your car. Dont diss everyone elses car. This is starting to turn into a frickin Honda argument. So your car has 8 more valves? Big deal! I want something different. It may be a bit slower, but its something to work with. As long as you are happy with your car (which I am, an 8-valve in a "fatass" A3) what should it matter if a 16-valver thinks he's better? The 2.0 16V isn't the God of engines, or even VW Engines for that matter. Get off yourselves and stop dissing other cars.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Please tell me its the wifes car???[HR][/HR]​Yes, it is.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (FumetsuGolf)*

Soon going to be an all Neuspeed-modded 2.0 ... Well, that explains it.







It's not about me thinking my car is _better._ Obviously I have had two 16v's for a reason, but that's just my choice as you stated. It's the folks in this thread that prompt my posts. The post about roasting a buddy's 16v after he didn't get a good launch. It's called bracket racing and it's the reason I've raced and beat 11 sec. cars, you start at different times and race to the finish. I'm sure quite a few 8v's would beat me bracket racing. 


[Modified by 1sweet16v, 8:28 AM 1-4-2002]


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

Bracket racing is a good measure of driver vs driver instead of car vs car. I have seen big old full-size station wagons that run 22 second 1/4s beat cars that run 14 seconds 1/4s. Consistency is the key to winning bracket racing. Enigne for engine, the 16 valve is definitely a faster car, but someone will always have a car that is faster than yours so be happy with what you have. I know I am, and even Josh has seen how happy I am with my car.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (A3Jetta)*

Yea,...Jeff sure can hustle that 8v pig around some turns....... 
The attitude makes all the difference. I would rather see a 8v getting driven hard, than a slammed, fenders pulled, prissy ***** show car crap!!


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

Hi,

This method of testing eliminates shifting, and driver skill in launching. It also is far less harsh on the engine mounts. It does take the cars aerodynamics as well as the car's inertia into account. It does not eliminate throttle response obviously but throttle response counts on the street as far as I'm concerned.
Its more or less a direct measurement of engine power in that rev range as applied for that car...but the power really isn't the point - the time is a much better indicator of the cars real life performance on the street and is comparable to other similarly geared VWs.
Just my $.02 worth.
Peter Tong
PS: engine elasticity is one reason I decided to go with a lysholm versus a turbo - boost is instantaneous at any rpm. Now if only I can get the setup fully debugged...I'll be sure to post interval times...
Anyways, post your 16v interval times. They'd be interesting...
quote:[HR][/HR]3rd/4th gear 40-60, 50-70 times

Well,...if your looking to get an idea of how the car will perform in 'cruising mode' when you want to be lazy and not shift,....then thats fine. But when your talking about using the performance potential of the engine , then using your methods and ideas are useless,....
Like I said, a 2.0 16v with normal tranny will do 80mph in 3rd gear before shifting to 4th,....why would you want to test it at 4th gear 50-70? Thats taking the car out of its element.... [HR][/HR]​

[Modified by Peter Tong, 5:03 PM 1-4-2002]


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (16v)*

Regarding the FULLY worked over Mk1 8v...
What is David Kennedy up to these days? Last I knew (4 years ago?) he was working on putting a supercharger on his Rabbit with G60 injection... he's definitely a good guy...
regards,
Peter Tong



[Modified by Peter Tong, 5:33 PM 1-4-2002]


----------



## FumetsuGolf (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*



> Soon going to be an all Neuspeed-modded 2.0 ... Well, that explains it.
> I live in California. Neuspeed makes their stuff CARB exempt. I have also had good experiences with their products, and this is why I am choosing them for all my aftermarket 8V needs because I am pleased with the quality of their products


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

Ok, ok lets end this debate. Enough with the bracket racer crap, the german magazine racer crap, your friends friends german uncle lurtz super rally spec 8v crap, etc...
One mile drag race (don't want to really embarass the 8v in the twisties) Title for title, any stock 8v in the car it came in (yes even the pig corrado G60) against any stock scirocco 16V(or even the GTI/GLI). Huh? I'll throw in an x-box to any 8v that wins (supreme confidence)


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (FumetsuGolf)*

Here here, I agree with FumetsuGolf 100%! You can talk about the VW 16V or 8V all you want, but just remember...the motors coming out of Japan at the same time were making much better power. VW makes very good cars with good engines. Honda, Nissan, Toyota now there are some manufacturers who know how to build a motor. When VW can reliably get its motors producing on the same levels as Japanese motors, then we can debate motors. Having a small motor gives you drawbacks and advantages. Drawback: not much torque. Advantage: Ability to rev to make HP. Thats what 4-cyl do best and Japanese 4-cylinders do it better. Not to bag on VW, (I drive one) but they seem to be lagging behind. Their larger engines are OK, but the smaller motors just don't measure up to their asian counterparts. Looks and handling are a different story, but we we're just talking engines.


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Clean97GTi)*

What you live in a cave or something (jk)? What about the 1.8t 180 hp engine? It's got 20 f_cking valves! Did I mention 180 hp stock? I think VW is not behind the asian cars but setting new standards my friends http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## FumetsuGolf (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (burzum)*

quote:[HR][/HR]What you live in a cave or something (jk)? What about the 1.8t 180 hp engine? It's got 20 f_cking valves! Did I mention 180 hp stock? I think VW is not behind the asian cars but setting new standards my friends http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif [HR][/HR]​He wasn't talking about the 1.8t, he was talking more about base/lower end motors. For example, Hyundai has a 2.0 that puts out 140. A Korean auto maker. VW's base motor, when you are paying 15,000-18,000 for a base car, should have something along those lines, not 115 hp. I like my 8v, honestly, but when cheapo Korean automaker Hyundai is now making a engine that costs less but puts out more, VW needs to rethink the 8V. As I said before, I love my 8V, and I am not saying that the 8V is inferior to the 16V because in all honesty I've never driven a 16V all I can say is that I was satisfied with my 8V. It was OK putting it into the A2 or A3 chassis but the A4 is getting a bit heavy and it needs to be reworked to put out some more power. With power-to-weight ratios in their base model, VW is behind. I'll admit that. I just don't think that fellow VW owners should bag on other VW owners cars. We do the best with what we have, to look nice, ride nice, and feel nice. 8V or no 8V, I love VW and it will be all I purchase from now until eternity, but we should be appreciating each others cars, not bagging down on them.


----------



## A3Jetta (Oct 25, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (FumetsuGolf)*

When you start comparing VW engines to other car company base engines, you should also realize that the other companies are all using 16v engines, not 8v.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Peter Tong)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Regarding the FULLY worked over Mk1 8v...
Last I knew (4 years ago?) he was working on putting a supercharger on his Rabbit with G60 injection... he's definitely a good guy...
[HR][/HR]​The red car went to the rabbit hutch in the sky on NYE. The motor is still waiting for a new home.
here is what was built to replace it 
it's "quick"


----------



## munkmaster (Dec 3, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

aight people listen up
i drive a 16 valve passat WAGON that is stock. 
and i reaced my friend that has a 8v golf with intake and wires. now for a wagon
u think the wieght would be my death. BUT
i kicked his asssssssssssssssss
he is still catchin up as we talk
thats all i have to say and thats all i need to say 
but watch out my g60 16 valve power wagon will be hittin up the roads this spring
wanna see it than go to import wars in hershey PA


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (burzum)*

Gee, 180 horsepower with a turbo... The Integra GSR makes 180 (approx) with the same size motor and NO turbo. Great, the motor has 20 valves. Seems like extra mass to me. Japanese engines seem to be able to generate better horsepower and mileage not to mention the insurance break you get by not having a turbo. Also, the 1.8 liter GSR motor has been making that much since 1994! Even the base Integra makes 140 hp(and weighs less than a Golf).While we know VW is certainly capable of making great engines, they sure seem to hide that fact very well. VW makes good cars (save for the 2nd gear graunch) but as far as engine tuning goes, well...they seem to be a step behind the Japanese. Hell, even the US automakers are even starting to get a clue. I guess its different strokes for different folks, but til hell freezes over, I'll be driving my dub...even if it is an 8V 2.Slow


----------



## burzum (Oct 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (FumetsuGolf)*

Go buy an integra then. My point was that VW is starting to take back a little of what they created. The 1.8t is a step forward from the wussy 2.0. Deny that. Oh yeah did I mention the 16v is still faster than your 2.0?


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (burzum)*

Yep, the 16V is faster than my 8V. Big deal, I don't pretend that my 8V is some super fast secret. It's bone stock, and it gets me around just fine. Thats why I bought it, I wanted a car that got good mileage, was fun to drive and wasn't just another cookie-cutter Honda or Nissan like everything I've seen recently. The 1.8t is a step forward, no doubt about that, but in a horsepower comparison with its Japanese counterparts, it doesn't stack up. What would you get if you turbocharged an Integra. Lets not forget the Twin Turbo inline 6 from the Supra. Or the twin turbo V6 in the 300ZX. Hell, what about the Turbo 3.8 liter V6 in the Buick Grand National? Those are awesome turbo powerplants and they were in production in the mid 80's. Hell, a little more boost pressure and a cam swap and they run 11's. Wow, some step forward, same level as a stock 86 Grand Nash. While the 1.8t is a step up from the 2.0, it is just barely on par (technology wise) with its Japanese and even American counterparts of 10 years ago. Besides, who would want an Integra, every Rice Fiend wants one or already has one, talk about a cookie cutter, geez. Thats one thing VW has is style. I'm not bagging on VW, but just saying that they could learn a little about engine design. Hell, take a look at the M3's Inline 6. Double VANOS and 300+ horsies, now thats a great engine. German engineering at its finest.


----------



## sethjvm (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Clean97GTi)*

CleanGTI,
The thing that you need to remember about the engines in the Japanese cars is that in order to get the 180 hp out of them you need to drive them around between 6000-9000 rpm. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to work my engine that hard all the time. That's the beauty of the 1.8T, its a smooth fairly flat hp and tourque curve (Japanese cars don't have nearly as much torque as the 1.8T does at any point on the rpm curve) which means that you can drive the 1.8T around town without having the engine constantly screaming at 6000+ rpm. The other great thing about the 1.8T is that it meets emissions standards in the US, why do you think there are hardly any cars with stock turbos for sale in America? Its because unless they are properly engineered they have emission issues. I just think that VW has found a different way to "skin a cat" without resorting to the complexity of VTEC style engines.
Its like you said, its all about what you want from a car. I wanted cheap relatively reliable transportation and speed isn't that important to me. So I drive an 8V 2.0, I don't care that I can't keep up with a 16V 2.0 since I never race. Enjoy the Ride.


----------



## 16v (Aug 4, 1999)

*Re: 8V (munkmaster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]aight people listen up
i drive a 16 valve passat WAGON that is stock. 
and i reaced my friend that has a 8v golf with intake and wires. now for a wagon
u think the wieght would be my death. BUT
i kicked his asssssssssssssssss
[HR][/HR]​
a 3500lb wagon would be hard pressed to do this, I had one and it was a P I G.


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (sethjvm)*

Finally, someone with a valid point!!! You are absolutely correct. The 1.8t does create more torque and the same HP at a lower point in the powerband. The only reason I brought up the 1.8 liter Acura motor was to counter the earlier statement of VW being at the forefront of engine technology and development. Overhead cam-multi valve engines have been in use since the 20's. Variable valve timing has been the most recent development in engine design and gives the best horsepower ratings. Well, have you heard about the new motor in the Civic Si? VTEC-i promises to eliminate the power spikes of earlier VTEC designs and give a more usable rev range. While VW may not have the most technologicaly advanced engines on the market, I don't think you stay in business for 70 years by making second rate cars. My 8V works great for my purposes...going to and from work and around town. Don't discount the 8V's racing prowess, it is a formidable Solo2 opponent. So what the 16V gets to a higher top speed faster, 1/4 mile is too short to matter and Solo2 rewards driver skill more than engine power. The only time that would matter is...um...probably never since legal speed limit in the US is 75 MPH. Lotta good it does you on those high speed blasts from one stop light to the next. Give me more low end torque any day.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Clean97GTi)*

quote:[HR][/HR] Lotta good it does you on those high speed blasts from one stop light to the next. Give me more low end torque any day.[HR][/HR]​ I would assume we are comparing NON-crossflow 8v's with the like 16v? If so, then this statement is such an old VW wive's tale , it's ridiculous. Otherwise, it's back to apples and oranges if we're talking crossflow compared to "old" 16v. Or we could go crossflow vs. euro "newer" 16v. Or... Or... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...idle conversation...murmur, murmur...


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

1sweet16v if you don't mind me quoting you...
"Anyone else notice this thread http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=175633 died after I basically said just that. The "yappers" may not know squat about veedub engines, but at least they know when to "zip it"."
and another quote from Stephen Webb if he doesn't mind








"For some people it's to learn something. Others it's to brag a bit. If nothing else, it's to put your money where your mouth is."
I wholeheartedly agree with you man. Although they are dedicated performance oriented 8v dubbers that made an appearance A3Jetta[good job man]! Seems like everyone else shutup










[Modified by Blitz16v, 3:19 AM 1-11-2002]


----------



## junkyardpirelligolf (Sep 15, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Blitz16v)*

OH that is sweet, link the end of a thread to the begining, had me thinking I'd lost my mind. I'd get a 16V if the distutator wasn't such a piece of cr*p. Has anyone run 8V block&distutator with a 16V head? Didn't think so. That means I would have to spend a wad of cash for a crank fired ignition to make that cr*p to be any good


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (junkyardpirelligolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR]Seems like everyone else shutup 
[HR][/HR]​Nah,....I think everyone just got bored of the subject. Winter blahs,....working on projects, waiting for spring,.... but 8v's still SUCK!
There may be a few of us headed down to Acto on Sun if it is warm enough and they open. I'll only be running my stock daily driver on snow tires just for fun, but it will still kick some 8v ass if anybody wants to play!!


----------



## Numbersix (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

I come to the Vortex to learn, to help other Dubbers if I can, and share a common enthusiasm about one of my automotive passions--VW's. Isn't that what brings most of us here and keeps us returning? 
The 8v vs. 16v pissing match is really quite pointless. Both motors are well-proven performance platforms and people have their reasons for choosing either to mod. In my case, my car is a daily driver which spends far too much time slogging through stop and go traffic and low-speed urban driving. Therefore, I prefer the excellent low-end torque and luggability of the 8v motor; so I'm going to do an ABA block swap instead of a 16v swap. 
I also have a 2nd car which is a high-revving 16v, so I do understand the rush that comes with watching the tach hit the power peak and scream to the rev limiter. However, that car (the 944S) is a VERY unhappy camper when forced to crawl through miles of stop and go traffic, or up the very steep hills in downtown Seattle. I also want something less complex than a 16v car in terms of maintanence. A head rebuild on my 944 is going to cost me $2000-2500. (Yes, I know a VW 16v head would be less.) I can get my 8v head done for roughly 1/5 that figure.
Let's also keep in mind that the 16v motor, much like the 2.0 Crossflow and the 5v 1.8/1.8T, is an evolution of the good 'ol 8v. 
I might also add:
This is posted in the _2.0 Liter Forum_. MANY of the guys with modded/built 8v's would not normally read this forum. Reading through this thread I noted the conspicuous absence of many of both the modded 8v and 16v guys, who would have added a considerable amount of knowledge and hard data.
Let's increase the peace, guys. SpeedyD/Trav's Roll-On Testing Thread is an informative and constructive way for us to get some hard comparison figures. 


[Modified by SeattleGLI, 7:30 PM 1-11-2002]


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (SeattleGLI)*

Come on folks, five bucks for a stopwatch and a flat stretch of road isn't too much to ask. Get your mouth to the road and go. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## BenGone (Sep 7, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (junkyardpirelligolf)*

[I'd get a 16V if the distutator wasn't such a piece of cr*p. ]
you gotta be kidding me. thats the best you can do? that actually makes me feel good about my 16vs'.


----------



## junkyardpirelligolf (Sep 15, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (BenGone)*

BENGONE my little 8V would love to teach your 98 about lowtech fast. But being real lets see, someone could P&P the 8v head, 3 angle valve job, get a big cam and still not flow as much as a 16v. Yes the 8v has more torque but the G60 has even more torque and more hp than a 16v


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (junkyardpirelligolf)*

How about doing some tests so we can see if your trips to the junkyard paid off.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (junkyardpirelligolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR]BENGONE my little 8V would love to teach your 98 about lowtech fast. But being real lets see, someone could P&P the 8v head, 3 angle valve job, get a big cam and still not flow as much as a 16v. Yes the 8v has more torque but the G60 has even more torque and more hp than a 16v







[HR][/HR]​Um,...ok genius,...then why dont you race that same G60 8v against a G60 16v??? And yes, for you people that dont know,...Vw DID make a G60 16v.....mmmm......limited....


----------



## junkyardpirelligolf (Sep 15, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

Dam-it you saw where I was going with that your pretty fast arn't you


----------



## BenGone (Sep 7, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (junkyardpirelligolf)*

your right i can't hang with your rabbit, my 98 GTi is slow. but hey its only an 8v what do you want?







Bamburg are you in the Army/AF?


----------



## hoodita (Jul 25, 1999)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]4th gear in my 16v STARTS at 80mph,....5th is around 100..... [HR][/HR]​Thats nothing! does your 16v go 130 in 4th. Well my 8v does. beat that 8v hater


----------



## blackflygti (Sep 19, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v*

quote:[HR][/HR]4th gear in my 16v STARTS at 80mph,....5th is around 100.....[HR][/HR]​4th gear in my A2 1.8 8v would also start at 80mph. 4th gear in my A3 Jetta 2.0L 8v starts at ~90mph.


----------



## Youngdubber4 (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (PowerDubs)*

this is stupid..let's bring the 16vT guys against the 8vT..thats where the fun is


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Youngdubber4)*

Dudes you guys keep talking about Japanese cars producing 190 hp but show me the torque!!! 190 hp and 120 torque at 5900 RPM.
WOW I am jumping up and down. There is a 1.6L 8v (rabbit engine ) produces 190 hp with carb and yes it is 8v.
The main question is show me a car that produces 170 torque with no turbo. I know a guy who is pushing 170 lb with a ABA and digi head plus lots of other mods. (no turbo SC or NO)
Torque wins races hp sells rice.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (kickster)*

quote:[HR][/HR]The main question is show me a car that produces 170 torque with no turbo. 
Torque wins races hp sells rice. 
[HR][/HR]​Motor: 
VW 16V, 84.5mm bore x 92.88mm stroke
Badger 5 individual throttle body kit
CCH cyl. head
JE pistons
balanced OE rods and crank shaft
ARP hardware
Schrick cams, 268 int. x 276 exh. 
TT 4-1 race header, 1.75" x 30" long 
TT stainless 2.25" exhaust w/ Borla muffler


----------



## jooe (Feb 4, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v*

Well hello everybody!
Ive been a mechanic for my father who drives vw in rallye and hillclimbs and i like to share some of my opinions in this matter.
By the way, Im swedish so please excuse my poor english.
I would also like to state that there are rules when it comes to "real" racing wich there isnt on the street.
When you are building a rallyengine you have to make compromises, you need both low end torque and hig end power. Im most experienced in 1.8l because of the restriction to original displacement in the car you race. 
When it comes to 1.8l vw engines there are some rules in one class witch restricts the 16v to it original intake manifold while the 8v can use individual trottlebodies. The 16v can then manage about 200hp att the crank (maybe a little bit less) with an acceptable midrange. The 8v with trottlebodies about the same but with a much better low end and midrange. And when it comes to race a car on a rally road or hillclimb dito the 16v has litte or no chance against the 8v due to its poor powerband and lack of torque.
But when you give the 16v the same opportunty as the 8v, to use individual trottlebodies it a whole different story. The 16v then kicks some serious a**. But its not that black and white as you may think, especially on a steep hillclimb events with a lot of twists and turns where the 8v can keep up pretty good because of the wider powerband.
So if you are going to build your self a quick N/A 16v engine you need to have individual trottlebodies. And still I see people spending loads of money on p&p heads, balanced crankshaft and other internal enginework and even worse on ported original intake manifolds. 41, 42, 44 or 51mm it doesnt matter its still a horrible design for a raceengine, the only reason that VW Motorsport used that manifold was because they had to.
Its the same thing with the 8v ofcourse, the stock manifold is so devastating to the engines perfomance so I havent even to bothered to mention it in comparision to 8v with trottlebodies or 16v with stock manifold type. And the g60 or sawed of Audi manifold are just as crappy too in the long run.
The problem with power is that you allways want more. Power costs money and sometimes you dont have enough money (or maybe allways







) but if you start in the wrong end you can spend the money individual trottlebodies costs on things that just dont give you as mouch gain as you think.
Remember that this is about N/A engines and that Im not trying to be mean to anybody with a special setup or anything Im just trying to share my experiences when it comes to rallyengines and as I have stated before its a BIG difference between the "street" an ss's.
good luck to you all I hope that 16v users and 8v users stop throwing poop at eachother.
If there is something that you find hard to believe or if you have another opinion please post a question or a statement so I have a chance to explain myself. I may have made some misstakes when trying to make myself understood.
Best regards Joakim


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (jooe)*

A voice of reason... on the vortex??







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Chrismilli (Jan 25, 2002)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (1sweet16v)*

all this is humbling, can 16v and 8v can both be good? or must there always be a definitive winner. I feel in all respect that to put down any VW engine any peice of VW work is to put down your own.
Chris


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Chrismilli)*

This is a thread that never ends it just goes on and on my friends, some people starting replying just for whatever reason cause, this is a thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends,some people starting replying just for whatever reason cause, this is a thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends,some people starting replying just for whatever reason cause, this is a thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends,some people starting replying just for whatever reason cause, this is a thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends


----------



## kbs (Dec 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (Blitz16v)*

WELL FIRST OFF... let say i own a 16v and an 8v... bonus ones a jetta and the other is a passat...
we live atop a 2 mile long big steep ass hill.. well guess what.. my( really built) 8v takes my old ladies 16v every time... its funny she get so pissed... 
part 2 of the story.. the other day some friends come from seattle to get some parts...one of them has a kinda built up (from what he said anyway) 16v.. GTi.. so he pull up to me.. id say we where cruzing at around 15mph.. then he guns it.. but i am ready and gun it too... we sat right next to eachother the whole way.. i think down low i was pulling of him but up on the higher range he was pulling starting to pull on me.. 
i would not say i would not own a 16v in fact im looking for one to play with.. im just saying i know that 8v's can be really freakin quick...my 2 sence


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V vs 16v (kbs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]WELL FIRST OFF... bonus ones a jetta and the other is a passat...
we live atop a 2 mile long big steep ass hill.. well guess what.. my( really built) 8v takes my old ladies 16v every time... its funny she get so pissed... 
part 2 of the story.. the other day some friends come from seattle to get some parts...one of them has a kinda built up (from what he said anyway) 16v.. GTi.. so he pull up to me.. id say we where cruzing at around 15mph.. then he guns it.. but i am ready and gun it too... we sat right next to eachother the whole way.. i think down low i was pulling of him but up on the higher range he was pulling starting to pull on me.. 
i would not say i would not own a 16v in fact im looking for one to play with.. im just saying i know that 8v's can be really freakin quick...my 2 sence[HR][/HR]​ I should hope your 8v stomps the passat 16v (one motor the passat should've never had!) as it's a heavy pig. And your second example is apples to oranges as you said you don't know what he's had done to it. Thanks for keeping the 8v=low end torque, 16v=ONLY high end hp wives tale going w/ your less than scientific tests.


----------



## SHH (Jan 18, 2002)

*Re: 8V (Acceleration Ace) vs 16V (High Speed Racer)? (jcadman)*

I have both the 2.0L 8V(Scirocco) and the 2.0L 16V(Rabbit), both modified. Both are traction limited in 0-60 runs. If you just do a street start, ie, you don't rev it up and side step the clutch, then the 8V is stronger up to 25 mph in 1st gear. After that, the 16V is much stronger. Because of better aerodynamics of the Scirocco at speed, it starts to be better than my Rabbit, once you hit 85 mph or so. If these engines where in the same body style then the 16V would win.
The 2.0L 16V does have considerable torque, at least with the 40mm/42mm intakes, but not what the 2.0L 8V has below 3,500 rpm. I agree with the statements about the 8V for cruising, there is torque everywhere in the 2.0L in the bottem end. From a cost and simplicity standpoint, it is one of the best conversions you can make.
But I am a hog. That is why I built both of these cars. The 16V in a 4 door Rabbit is such a sleeper.
Sean


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (SHH)*

*&#@ this topic never ends, it's always on the top 5 of my recent topics list
















there you go, 2.0 16v rises, 2.0 8v is flat all the way across, stock vs. stock, modded vs. modded, whatever you want, those are dyno graphs, look where the power is, and look at the power numbers, and look at the modifications performed!!




[Modified by 88Jetta, 5:02 PM 2-4-2002]


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: 8V (SHH)*

I got a 1.8 8v, a 2.2 16v, a pre 1990 2.0 8 v, and a 20V NA 1.9 diesel and when we race them up the hill the 1.6 carbed motor in the dasher always wins but for drags the 1.7L fuelie scirocco wins but for down hilll racing the G60 12V wins.
BTW I am a fruit salesman and I sell apricots














But when my wife drives the corrado she usualy looses. That was when the clutch was slipping tho.


----------



## pastpargolf (Jul 16, 2000)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

Well chip the 9A and add a K&N der
quote:[HR][/HR]*&#@ this topic never ends, it's always on the top 5 of my recent topics list
















there you go, 2.0 16v rises, 2.0 8v is flat all the way across, stock vs. stock, modded vs. modded, whatever you want, those are dyno graphs, look where the power is, and look at the power numbers, and look at the modifications performed!!
[Modified by 88Jetta, 5:02 PM 2-4-2002][HR][/HR]​


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (pastpargolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I got a 1.8 8v, a 2.2 16v, a pre 1990 2.0 8 v, and a 20V NA 1.9 diesel and when we race them up the hill the 1.6 carbed motor in the dasher always wins but for drags the 1.7L fuelie scirocco wins but for down hilll racing the G60 12V wins.
BTW I am a fruit salesman and I sell apricots














But when my wife drives the corrado she usualy looses. That was when the clutch was slipping tho.[HR][/HR]​LOL
When I raced a Zamboni that had a vw 8v engine, I won.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (pastpargolf)*

quote:[HR][/HR]
















there you go, 2.0 16v rises, 2.0 8v is flat all the way across, stock vs. stock, modded vs. modded, whatever you want, those are dyno graphs, look where the power is, and look at the power numbers, and look at the modifications performed!![HR][/HR]​ You're correct in stating the 8v has the flatter torque curve. It also happens to have *LESS* of it *EVERYWHERE* . It's the _perception_ , let me type (say) that again, _perception_ that it has more torque because of the lack of kick from 4K on up. And please don't tell me you have both and can "tell" because you cannot drive both at once, so we're back to the ever accurate "butt dyno".


----------



## kickster (Aug 15, 2000)

*Re: 8V (1sweet16v)*

Well the 16v mods cost more so if you P&P the 8v and add a 288 cam for better flow you will push close to what 16v is pushing.
However 16v with same mods will always produce more power than 8v. I dont know why this is being discussed!!!
The point is 8v engine is cheap to mod and cheap to maintain. if you can afford 16v then get it but if you are on budget like me then 8v will do just fine.
16v spark plug wire $160 8v $70
16v cam $500 8v $120
etc etc....


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (kickster)*

GOD NOT EVEN WORTH IT. MY CAR IS SLOW
[Modified by Blitz16v, 10:55 PM 2-4-2002]


[Modified by Blitz16v, 11:32 PM 2-4-2002]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Blitz16v)*


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

*And heres the flow behind the go!!!*


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

Pssssttttt,......this is what a _real_ engine looks like.........(sshhhh)


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

I tell ya what,.....it takes *ALOT* of boost on a 8v to make the numbers of the 16v dyno below,....and that is a NA 16v....yes, thats right, *over 180HP TO THE WHEELS!!*, no turbo, no supercharger, no NOS.
I have NO problem with a stock 8v,...because that is all they are good for,....driving to work and to the store, and to soccer practice... What makes me laugh is when people try to hop them up and pretend they are sportscars. C'mon already people,.....16v's are cheap nowadays,....you can buy a NICE 16v for 2500-3k, or a good running beater for 1k.
I mean, poop, Jettared, (no offense, just an example) has the neuspeed charger on a 2.0 xflow 8v WITH the higher boost pully and got what? 130ish to the wheels? A 2.0 16v will do that with only a chip, exhaust and a euro intake cam.


----------



## Clean97GTi (Nov 28, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

No, this is what an engine should look like...


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (Clean97GTi)*

quote:[HR][/HR]No, this is what an engine should look like...







[HR][/HR]​
mmmmmmmmmm..... Wankel
*edit for spelling



[Modified by 88Jetta, 10:08 PM 2-4-2002]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

quote:[HR][/HR]mmmmmmmmmm..... Wankel
][HR][/HR]​Yea,....good engines them Mazdas.......tis a shame they killed them.....


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]mmmmmmmmmm..... Wankel
]
Yea,....good engines them Mazdas.......tis a shame they killed them.....[HR][/HR]​a point of interest.....
did you know that the rotary originally came in a german car in the 60's, the company was NSU which became part of audi.
Research of the rotary continued through the 70's (VW bought up "Audi" in the late 60's). If you look at the k70 (first watercooled VW) and the Ro80 they are very similar.
------------------
back on topic







:
16v isn't very expensive to maintain, there are some things that are expensive to replace, otherwise it isn't that much more. The things that are "ill designed" on the 16v are:
distributor - oil leak - I've never had it happen, you can get a new one for $150
replacing timing belt more often - timing belt is ~$25 and a few hours on a weekend
alternator/ac/PS bracket on 2.0's has a flaw - 1.8 16v bracket at wrecker fixes it (some people haven't had this problem)
spark plug wires - $120-$160 (excluding nology "hot wires") - only once every 5-10 years isn't that bad
cams - euro intake $200, or get a stock exhaust cam from the wrecker flipped onto intake side - much cheaper than an 8v cam. Sets start at $400 (techtonics and autotech) and go to $800
head work (p&p or rebuild) - true it is more expensive, but 16v owners tend to be resourceful and buy the tools and can easily replace the valve seals/guides/springs themselves.
turbo manifold - only a few companies make them, again many 16v owners are resourceful and make their own


----------



## 92VdubSLC (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

People that bitch moan and groan over which is better need to STFU. This 6 page argument is over what.....20hp stock? Who cares? This is worse than the SLC/G60 argument. At least in the corrado forum theyve learned to just let it go. It doesnt matter what you have under the hood as long as you enjoy it. Lets just leave it at this: Enough with the my 16V is faster than you 8V or my modded 8V will beat your 16V. Its how fa$t you want to go. Both engines are capable of over 600 hp and in the front end of a VW for street use do you really need more? Enough with the sterotyping too. And for the 16V only drivers....there is no reason to make fun of the 8V. Some 8V ARE (yes its a fact) faster than some 16V. So when someone states that thier 8V beat a 16V there is no reason the say the 8V is a peice of sh!t and it sucks and that it could NEVER beat the almighty 16V...so on and so forth. That just makes you look unintelligent. It just seems that someone with an 8V will say their car is fast and a 16V will laugh and degrade the person and thier car. Are you really that much of an arrigant @sshole?? So enough already. 16V can be fast. 8V can be fast. In the end we're all driving VW and thats all that matters.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (92VdubSLC)*

blah,blah,blah...everyone needs to love one another AND their choices... *PLEASE!* Why can't people who have nothing to do with this thread just let the thread go. I'm beyond tired of the do-gooder's on here telling everyone to get along and tacking the GD







on the end as if that makes your useless-post-in-a-useless-thread any better. For the LAST time, the 8v and 16v are the same motor until the 16v hits 3.5-4K. Look above and tell me where the 8v CROSSFLOW makes as much torque as the 16v, let alone the old 8v. EXACTLY, IT DOESN'T. I *KNOW* I can't hang w/ a comparably weighted VR6 or 1.8t, so why do the 8v owners continue this charade? Yes it's a good motor, is it fast out of the box...NO. We can end this by letting the 8v owners come up w/ some tests. In gear roll-ons (been there), 0-60mph (done that), 1/4 mile timeslips (got 'em), top speed (only if the 8v owners promise to admit to the truth!). Name the test folks, obviously the dynos aren't convincing enough.


----------



## 92VdubSLC (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: 8V (1sweet16v)*

your exactly the type of @sshole I was refering too


----------



## Blitz16v (Nov 14, 2000)

*Re: 8V (92VdubSLC)*

"your exactly the type of @sshole I was refering too







"
Who me?


----------



## tnesh (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: 8V (Blitz16v)*









16v with a few bolt ons.


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (92VdubSLC)*

quote:[HR][/HR]your exactly the type of @sshole I was refering too







[HR][/HR]​Same here.







But thanks for getting this closer to a lock.


[Modified by 1sweet16v, 6:27 AM 2-6-2002]


----------



## nabilsx (Jun 8, 2000)

*Re: 8V (1sweet16v)*

I will post my point of view before this get locked.
1st of all I have a car that used to have a 1.6L 8v engine and now has a 1.8L 16v engine.
ok my car is a SEAT Cordoba which u don't have in the states but still a vw engine is a vw engine right.
so if u are comparing 8v to 16v I have a personal experience with this comparison but if u are comparing 2.0L 8v to a 2.0L 16v then take a sip








to start I bought the car new in 1999 with the motronic 1.6L 8v engine , I P&P the head, added a headers, cone filter that sucked cold air not hot air current, a sport back exhaust. I raced 2.0L 8v Cordobas that had a filter and an exhaust and my car was faster or maybe I had a better launch but I can tell u that with the stuff done on that 8v I had at least 10km extra speed on each gear ratio, and some gears I had a 15kms extra , my top speed went from 185km/hr to 195km/hr.
I raced 2.0 16v cars and "those 2.0 16v are the ABF 150hp cars stock" and I lost by about 2 cars length till 190km/hr but I was not ever been able to to closer than that distace to him. now before I went and stroked my block from 1.6L to 1.8L and swapped the head from 8v to 16v, I added a turbo to the 1.6L it was an IHI RHB5 turbo, G60 inj. etc.. I ran 8psi and 10psi and the car was fast as hell, a 16v can never c but the back of a good running boosted 8v at least on my car.
anway after a while I wanted to cange the Wastegate actuater and then my friend who is a VW mechanic calls me at work and says what do u think if I swapped the 8v head to a 16v so I said ok and when I finished my work I went to his garage to find out that he has swapped crancks so now Ihave the 86.4mm cranck ,81mm but 16v pistons "the 8v pistons are also 81mm but than are dished like the ABA", and a 16v head. but instead of the RHB5 turbo now I have a TB03 and instead of the G60 inj. now I have the ABF inj. which flows less than the G60 ones.
well off boost Ican tell u that the 1.8L pulls harder than the 1.6L although the 1.6 was an 8v and the 1.8 is a 16v, "P.S. I am still using the stock ECU" and under boost I really cannot remmeber how fast was the 8vt compared to the 16vt but if I ever race my brother inlaw MB 200 kompressor I will know how much faster is the 16vt , coz with the 8vt I was like 10 cars ahead of him when I was going 200km/hr and decided to stop the race. now my car hits its red line rev limiter at 5th gear 6300rpm at 211km/hr and on a crono. watch it did 0-100km in 5.x sec. I am waiting for my G-tech when its hear I will post times. 
before I finish I just wanted to say that my mechanic friend has the MKIII vwmotorsport official KIT car that participated in the WRC 1996-1997. his was prepared by SBG and it has a 2.0 16v engine "83mm bore and 90.8mm stroke I guess" not so sure of the stroke but that car has 265hp now, when it was the factory"VW" official car it had 280hp.
so be happy with whatever car u drive if u like it and think that it is fast enough for u then that is great, why should u care whose car is faster. u can make an 8v a rocket and u can make a 16v a rocket, but when its fast enough and up to ur expectations then that is what counts.
PEACE to u all


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (92VdubSLC)*

quote:[HR][/HR]People that bitch moan and groan over which is better need to STFU. This 6 page argument is over what.....20hp stock? Who cares? This is worse than the SLC/G60 argument. At least in the corrado forum theyve learned to just let it go. It doesnt matter what you have under the hood as long as you enjoy it. Lets just leave it at this: Enough with the my 16V is faster than you 8V or my modded 8V will beat your 16V. Its how fa$t you want to go. Both engines are capable of over 600 hp and in the front end of a VW for street use do you really need more? Enough with the sterotyping too. And for the 16V only drivers....there is no reason to make fun of the 8V. Some 8V ARE (yes its a fact) faster than some 16V. So when someone states that thier 8V beat a 16V there is no reason the say the 8V is a peice of sh!t and it sucks and that it could NEVER beat the almighty 16V...so on and so forth. That just makes you look unintelligent. It just seems that someone with an 8V will say their car is fast and a 16V will laugh and degrade the person and thier car. Are you really that much of an arrigant @sshole?? So enough already. 16V can be fast. 8V can be fast. In the end we're all driving VW and thats all that matters.







[HR][/HR]​ Well let's see, you found it necessary to use the old STFU, definitely called for







. We're not quite as grown up as the corrado forum, so this won't be dying any time soon







. Who the H came on this thread and simply posted the 8v is a piece of sh!t and could NEVER beat the almighty 16v... and so on and so forth? It seems you were looking for somewhere to vent some frustrations and decided to TRY and take the high road. You blew everyone's posts out of proportion to try and prove your point and tell US how unintelligent that makes US seem. How about not using the word unintelligent AND mis-spelling ARROGANT from now on. 600 hp? Uhh, ok.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (1sweet16v)*

I'll say the 8v is a POS......














IMHO it is....


----------



## vuu16v (Jul 18, 2001)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

quote:[HR][/HR]I'll say the 8v is a POS......














IMHO it is....[HR][/HR]​I *KNEW* you were going to come off w/ that







. This thread is going to get locked up soon, I can feel it. Let's all behave and actually start coming up w/ REAL NUMBERS!! You shouldn't even be posting smack if you're not prepared to back (w/ testing!) it up. We've already been down this road and kept the results private to keep it legit. Ante up or zip your yapper. edit: pisspoor grammer on my part now!


[Modified by 1sweet16v, 10:38 AM 2-6-2002]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (1sweet16v)*

quote:[HR][/HR]start coming up w/ REAL NUMBERS!![HR][/HR]​
Heres all the numbers we need,....lets see a NA 8v come anywhere _CLOSE_ to matching these numbers. much less beating them...








As for the thread,....it will either die out or get locked but this topic will live on forever....at least untill the last 16v dies.... then we will have threads remembering how great they were....
And honestly, both engines, or better yet, all 3 (8v, 16v, and VR6) are crap compared to some similer marketed Japanese engines, but we do the best with what we have. At least with the 16v we have the excuse that it is at least 10 years old. This is all just fun & games anyway... anybody who gets bent out of shape over this is off thier rocker..... I get busted on by my friends for driving an 'old' car....and I bust on them for driving fatass pigs (mk3-mk4, corrado, etc.). They bust on me for driving a 4 cyl,...I bust on their vr6 for being a overglorified 8v (2v per cyl still).... its all just for kicks..... oh yea, 8v still suck!!!


----------



## 88Jetta (Feb 18, 1999)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

What engine was limited to 150 hp rather than the 170 it was making so that it wouldn't "compete" with the new vr6.
AB..... no it wasn't ABA, it was ABF, aka the 2.0 16v that we never got b/c VW would have had to pay big money to get another new engine certified by the US gov't.



[Modified by 88Jetta, 12:20 PM 2-6-2002]


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 8V (88Jetta)*

quote:[HR][/HR]What engine was limited to 150 hp rather than the 170 it was making so that it wouldn't "compete" with the new vr6.[HR][/HR]​
Uhhh,......same thing with the 1.8T...... Notice they wait untill word of the 24v VR6 before they upped its power? Besides, the 1.8t always dynoed over its rated 150hp anyway..... but thats ok, my 16v still smoked my buddys 1.8t at the strip....


----------



## Johnny Octane (Feb 19, 2002)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

bump
my topic, im allowed to.


----------



## FumetsuGolf (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: 8V (Johnny Octane)*

For God's sake let it die!


----------



## mums (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: 8V (FumetsuGolf)*

Wow This is heavy. Take this into consideration. stock 16v pre 1990 bottom end size 81mm bore 86.4 mm stroke (1.8l) 123hp 120lb trq. Post 1990 16v 82.5 bore 92.8 stroke(2l) 134 hp 133lb trq. Any post 1993 8v bore 82.5 stroke 92.8 (2l) 115hp 122 trq. As the numbers show the earlier 16v's had a little less torque than the current 8v's. This is strictly due to difference in the stroke length. A longer stroke equals more torque, more air flow =more power. The newer 16v have the same bottom end size as the current 8v's. We can see the diffeence in Hp and Trq. Now with double the valves and flow in the head there is someone on here telling me that bone stock 8v outperforms a bone stock 16v? Which planet are you pepole living on? Now there are going to be 8v cars that beat 16v cars but I'll tell you the engine is not the only reason. Power to weight ratio, driver skills etc most probably played a role there.My 2 pence







.
Looking at the numbers, taking into consideration state of tune, a3 8v golf or something could probably take out a pre 1990 16v jetta.


_Modified by mums at 5:44 PM 6-4-2003_


----------



## Johnny Octane (Feb 19, 2002)

*Re: 8V (mums)*

Top be completely fair, the power output of the engine is not the only significant contributing factor to how fast a car is. <Where's the 1.6L 8v guys chiming in?>
Facts are facts, an 8v engine will produce more torque at a lower rpm than a 16v will, stock. On the other hand, a 16v will flow more air and will "always" have the potential to create more horsepower than any 8v.
What does this mean? Depending upon where you are racing, the setup of your car, and your own skills, either car, with an 8v or a 16v could be faster. In general, long courses where there are many opportunities to reach high speeds, a 16v will be faster. Short courses with many more low speed tight turns will favor an 8v that can accelerate faster, without losing time downshifting, from lower revs.
Which is better? Impossible to tell. Depends on where you drive and how you drive. Which is faster? Depends. An 8v may be much faster 0-30 mph than a 16v while an 8v can't catch a 16v from 30-top speed. It depends on the context.
Aside from PowerDub's attempts at becoming the biggest jerk on the Vortex, and more importantly in this thread, I think there's much we can admire about each other's engines <whatever they may be>.
Remember:
It's not what you drive, it's how you drive.
<Are some of the 16v guys listening?>


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 8V (Johnny Octane)*

Jeebus, I'd be willing to bet that when this thread was started half the people on vortex weren't driving VWs.
Back on topic. Why can't we have the best of both worlds, VW should have brought us the ABF 16v in the Mk3.


----------



## der_panzer (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_I'll say the 8v is a POS......














IMHO it is....

Ok, I've read enough of your slander. I now have to step up to defend the honor of my beloved 8v.
The 8v is NOT a POS. If it were, you would also be calling a 16v a POS, since it shares many parts with it.
Neither one is better than the other - they just have different ways of getting things done. Some people, like myself, prefer an 8v with its broad operating range versus a 16v. My built 2.0 8v pulls hard from 3000 to 7400. That's a larger portion of the tach than most any 16v. Couple that with a wide ratio trans, and you get a combo that eats V8 Mustangs and Camaros on the streets and gets 34 MPG highway (only 4300 RPM @ 100 MPH in 5th). I only shift twice from 0-95 MPH. Try that with a 16v / close ratio. Shifting wastes time. 
If you want to impress Hondaboyz with your high revving 16v, go right ahead. Personally, I prefer to hunt larger prey. As the old adage goes, "Horsepower sells parts, torque wins races."
Either way, it is a VW. Enough already with the VW bashing.
I can only hope for the day when a VW packing a built 8v stomps your guts out.


----------



## Johnny Octane (Feb 19, 2002)

*Re: 8V (PowerDubs)*

bump


----------



## eggman95 (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: 8V (Johnny Octane)*

sorry to go off topic but i was just wondering something. i've heard people saying that they have like short gear ratios or something and it makes the car accerate faster but loses top speed? does that make any sense? im a newbie to engine talk


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: 8V (eggman95)*

Put in a taller 5th gear, and you'll resolve the problem of not being able to "stretch out its' legs".....


----------



## Johnny Octane (Feb 19, 2002)

*Re: 8V (VW97Jetta)*

HAHAHA
i love how you answer his question about confusing car talk, with more jargon of your own....nice...


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: 8V (Johnny Octane)*

WTF are you talking about


----------



## FumetsuGolf (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: 8V (eggman95)*


_Quote, originally posted by *eggman95* »_sorry to go off topic but i was just wondering something. i've heard people saying that they have like short gear ratios or something and it makes the car accerate faster but loses top speed? does that make any sense? im a newbie to engine talk









How Stuff Works: Transmissions


----------

