Vauxhall 2Li 16v with TB's , now that is a good valver engine Met a chap the other day who has one in his kit car 220bhp
although in all seriousness Dave Carvell did tell me the 180bhp 8v out of the scirocco was for sale to put their new big bore 1940cc short stroke motor in. And with chris placing all these bets i reckon he's got the inside knowledge
Nope, haven't spoken to Gary at all. Just instinct! The Carvell motor I though was already an ultimate vw-cup spec 2 litre 8V? So 1940 doesn't look like a change... (or a reduction if anything)
Wasn't a chap called Ned was it? I've not met him but i've been watching his car with interest this one?
Carvell motor *was* a 2 litre 8v - but they now run a 1.8 - the 2 litre wasn't quick enough. (basically it's a matter of gearing, the 1.8 has higher redline, and they've gone as far as they are happy to with wheel sizes to raise the gearing, so they need the higher revs to get the top speed. At snetterton they were still at the redline by about half way down the back straight)
Strange Chris hasn't commented............................... Maybe it's because they're *allegedly* nose heavy < runs, hides >
A Mk2 VR6 with a 4.25 FD would be a cracking track car, especially with all the chassis mods GVK has already. 200bhp/200lbft of NA power and the 6 pot burble, hmmm ... lurvly
That FD would be too short from my experiences Lowering the FD is very much depends on where the power is in the rev range - RallyeVR6 on here built a MK2 VR (2.8) with a 3.94FD but with cams and chip and its ideal. Top speed is about 120-125. My old mk2 VR was a standard 2.9 but with a 3.6FD. I had previously run it with a 3.94, but I was forever changing gear in it, the 3.6 suited the engine a lot better
absolutely - if the engine will pull it, a lower FD is better, less gearchanges = faster high gears useful with small cc's and narrow powerbands - not exactly a VR !
You talking about me commenting? I dont want anyone who uses their car on track to have a VR in it - I'm trying to stay ahead of the pack, not let them up and past me! (not that I have seen many of them on track in the last few years so few have my outings been) Mine was definitely nose heavy, it had an engine in the front and nothing in the back.........but there again so does a MK2 valver, and MK1 1800
I'm running a 4.25 on my 2.1. It's pants!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too short for the power ofthe engine and a right b4stard on anything but a short sprint or small tight circuit.
had a 3.9 in my 2l 8v, was spot on, have a 3.6 in my vr6, also spot on! 3.9 in a vr6 is too short for daily driving imo
I always get confused with these things, does 3.6 give you lower revs at higher speed, i.e motorway...or is the other way round Whats the std FD for the VR ?
