Hi all, Was wondering if anyone knows the exact performance benefits of putting a standard mk2 16v lump in a Mk1, i.e. 0-60 in 7.5sec. Will the torque be the same as my 8v lump or a bit more? I have been gathering info on what needs to be done, wiring loom, new mount e.t.c. but haven't found owt on performance yet. Cheers
the Mk2 16v was/is notorious for it's lack of torque, you'd need to rev it's clangers off to get some real nice go out of it. But it loves to be revved.
Why not go for a 1900/2000 bottom end with an 8v head instead if you prefer the torque of an 8v I am fitting a 1900 bottom end in my MK 1 very soon
If you put a 2L bottom end in with a flowed head it will probably go like sh1t off a stick There are some forum members with a 2L in a MK1, Also a work mate, chrismc has a 2L bottom end flowed head etc in a MK 2 and that is VERY strong Must sort out the sig pic, not sure how to get the max res allowed !
they go well with just a std valver in,remember the mk1 is alot lighter,but you can be still caught in the wrong gear if in right foot mode,best to go 2ltr 16v,be cheaper in the long run
Mine's a 1.8 16v, goes well enough... Don't know exact figures but I'm guessing low 7s to 60 if you get it right. Below 4000 not a great deal happens, but then it suddenly seems to pick up and launch down the road... It's easy to get caught out the power band at first, but you just have to remember that valvers love to be revved!
cheers for your responses, i take it that the 1.8 16v is a cammy engine. Does the 2litre 16v have as much torque low down, say between 2500-3500rpm as my current 8v? I find it perfect for driving round town, low revs, good power, chilled ride! I wouldn't want to lose that aspect of driving. Did vw do a 2litre 16v mk2? Or would it have to come from a mk3?
Put in a 2L short block 16v and you will have the best of both worlds! When i first put my 1.8 16v in my mark1, my car did 0-60 in 6.83sec and 1/4 in 15.2. With a good 16v, these are average times for a mk1. My mate did a 2.0 8v mk1 with a cam and 4 branch and he still couldnt beat me! But its up to you, the 1.8 16v does lack lustre under 4000rpm but the 2L 16v doesnt.
My Mk1's got a 2.0 16v tall block (ABF) and it fits a treat . 150bhp straight out the box with EFI. See how she goes as standard once I get hold of a few final bits. Mk1 & 16v's make a great combo!
I agree with VW_SINGH Go for 16V, go through your pvw mags and you will see his white mk1 16V. with the standard 16v in the MK1.. 0-60: 6.89, 1/4: 15.1 and with the flowed head he managed 0-60: 5.8, 1/4: mid 14's good driving = good performance times. my standard MK2 16V does 0-60: 7.0 and 1/4: 15.1 at santa pod.
This all comes down to the 8v vs 16v power...each guy (or gal) has there favourite...its a completely different driving experience...I myself dont like to rev the titties off cars engines and so prefer my 8v which has more tug down low and a much smoother ride but the 8v gets minced if you let a 16v get to max revs. Its all down to personal choice, I'd say a 2l 8v would be my dream engine
Im from Hayes myself and have seen VW Singhs car many times and mind u its looking mint! Well inters isnt too far away so I look foward too seeing all u boys down there.
there is no way a 2.0 8v would keep up with a 2.0 16v if they were similarly tuned. 2.0 16v has buckets of torque low down and buckets of power high up. best of both worlds.
