Hi there i wonder if anyone can help me out, i have a mk1 gti 1.8 8v and I'm looking for an engine upgrade I'm not really interested in the turbo route would rather have a big capacity naturally aspirated engine the trouble is I'm not sure what would be better 16v or 8v. Obviously i know the 16v engine produces more powerfrom what i hear they have to rev themhigh to get it.but i do love the throttle respoce of the 8v. If they both had the samestate of tune what would be better. any help would be great
I've managed 144atw at tsr so I'm quite happy, will find out how quick she is now i started to strip her out & im using a mk1 shell . To be honest it's a stupid debate because they are such different engines in my opinion.
A race-spec 1800 8v will put out 210bhp. Great if you're limited by the regulations of your race series but it's a hell of a lot cheaper getting big power figures from 16v engines. Pound for pound spent on engine cost and tuning, a 16v will always be better than the equivalent 8v. Do a search for 8v vs 16v - it's been covered thousands of times on here!
How big's your wallet?! That kind of power would be possible from a Formula 3-spec engine. I don't know the details of the engine specs they used but they were very high compression, full-on race cams, twin 45 carbs, etc. Definitely race- use only and very highly strung, high-revving engines.
To get an 8v to hold together at higher revs you have to start talking about forged pistons etc. edit: & im only running over bored pistons with a diesel crank not anything hardened. Edited by: fthaimike
Put it this way, not knocking oakgreen88 as what he's done is a bit different and it's refreshing to see that.., but he's got a 2 litre 8v with a big Schrick cam, cross flow head, throttle bodies and DTA managment, for the cost of just the bodies and ECU you can fit a 9A 16v running on K-Jet with KR cams in a mk1 and get the same end result. (170bhp) Ok, so it's all about the response of the throttle bodies blah blah blah... Edited by: GVK
If you're worried about the lack of low down torque of a 16v, you can play about with gearing to compensate. Besides, you won't notice the lack of torque in a lighter mk1 shell.
lack of torque in a 2.1 16v? red line is torque on a modified 1.8 16v, blue line is the torque curve from my 2.1 16v
I was aiming that comment at the people who always say "you've got to rev a 16v to get the best out of it"
Full on race spec 1.8 8V's make about 170hp. I go sprinting with a lot of guys who use old F3 cars (Ralts etc) with VW brabhams in them - 8V's - and they reckon even with TB's (or webbers or kugelfisher FI) they make no more than 180hp. They are all getting their bottoms kicked presently by the motorbike engined chaps and really need 250hp to be competitive - so they are putting 16V's in them............. You can buy new US-F3 spec engines from Bertils engines in USA - crossflow 8V's with roller TB's etc - they make about 210 I believe (not 100% sure though) but HUGE $ Rob
2.0 16v, flow the head, put in a 4.25 final drive (cheap from vag) and enjoy 180bhp and 150+lbft torque. I a light mk1, you would be very very fast! 125mph top speed tought but who cares? Only bikes would get there quicker! . Too much torque is just gonna cause extreme wheel spin in a mk1 anyway.
