I know VW didnt put the 2.0 ABF engine from the mk3 in a Corrado (for some as yet unexplained reason) and the 1.8 and 2.0 16v Corrado weren't that much different in BHP terms. BUT is there any advantage at all to getting the 2.0 version? What are the specs on them and how do they compare performance wise to a mk2 1.8 16v? Anyone driven both? or even all 3? (perhaps wishful thinking)
I'd love to but this is an interim car that im not planning to be keeping forever. and therefore dont want to spend the money on buying and running another vr6.
Well your in luck as I have a 9a Corrado and sold a KR about 3 months ago. Both have been RR'd and the Kr had 150bhp with 125 ft/lb torque where as the 9a was 133bhp with 130ft/lb (different RR mind). The 9a defiently feels faster as it has more mid range and is torquier. Its the inlet cam and to some extent the CAT that really strangle the 9a. Just about to replace the inlet for a KR which should improve the car a lot from what I have been told.
Isn't the 1.8 corrado quite a bit faster than the 2.0? I don't think either of them are quicker than mk2 16v either... Personally I'd got for a mk2 16v as the corrado is too heavy to have anything other than a VR6 lump or fiddled with G60 in it imo, much like the lardy mk3 Golf.
The Rado 2.0 has the crap 9a cams. Gary is running a 9a engine in his Golf, and it had 170+ bhp as a standard 9a on KR cams. No reason why a similarly played 9a can't make that in a Rado.
Sorry Jeff but thats not correct..... VR6 Corrado weighs the same as a 3dr Mk3 VR6 (1210kg) so like for like the are the same...... Ive driven a 2.0 16V and a chipped and pulley'd G60 Corrado (mine!) and they are not fast in 16V guise - the G is just about what id class as reasonably swift. In fact my friend who has the 16V rado is selling it for the reason that its too slow and buying a VR6 Golf! Pete.
ok i stand corrected on the corrado weights, altho b'locks i think you mean lb not kg and tubs, hmmm interesting! I can see a 16v corrado + stealth trip could be fun Reasons for asking is im looking at mk2 16vs but to find a decent one, im gonna have to pay more than for a corrado, so it seems. And I've always said I'll have another corrado...
The KR was in my old Corrado. I driven a standard Mk2 16v as well and theres not much in it. I would have a Corrado over a Golf any day, thats why I am on my fourth so far.
I considered a 16v Corrado while I was looking for a golf. As already stated the 2.0 is choked a bit by milder cams and the cat - according to VW the KR and 9A both give the same top end power.. In relation to performance compared to the golf, not only is the corrado heavier (not sure how much - my golf turned out to be about 15% heavier than VW quote) and apparently it also has the cable change box with crap ratios. If you can be arsed I'd imagine the best setup would be an early 1.8 car with a 9A block, KR cams, Mk3 16v box, and no cat The corrado's a lardy old lump.. I decided against one in the end as I don't think a peaky 1.8 through a long ratio box is the correct appratus to lug it all around.
If it's a stop gap car then why worry about performance? Corrado might have it's faults but it's a Corrado whereas a Golf is still a Golf no matter what engine it has in it.
