as title really... 0-60, 1/4 that kinda thing they have the smaller inlet manifolds yes? can you just bolt a bigger mk2 one to them? im sure they must be a fair bit heavier aswlel judging by the weight of panels... i would take a stab at saying they're slower, can you make them faster than a mk2? i couldnt be having a slower car than i already have... what goes wrong with them, or if its quicker (being a vw), what goes right with them...
I had a Coraddo 1.816v It was able to do 142mph indicated and was a quiet and sporty ride. They are cheap enough now to buy one for fun.. I give it the thumbs up.
I thought the Corrados had an engine in a lower state of tune? I admit I only drove one and was very disappointed against my 8V Mk2 so bought a VR6 but that's another story
yes, but it won't make any real difference yes, just tune it up in the same way you would any 16v/na engine mechanically similar to mk2 so expect similar issues. things like panels and lights etc are more expensive and you are less likely to find parts in a scrappy
No but it was all rebuilt and ported and polished. I said indicated, as its arround 10% out. I was on a very long road at full chat and it just kept going.. I was staying with a Carrera 4 at the time and my friends Honda Prelude 16v ran out of go and he said he watched us just out pace him.. prob a real speed of 125 or so.
uhu, didnt realise you had head work or such, i think those engines factory figs have a top of 129, but dont take my word for it Iv also heard takes can be way out at high speeds
The corrado is made slower by the less than ideal ratios in it's cable change box, and the fact that it's heavier. You could always do a bit of work to the engine, but then the same in a golf will always be quicker
had few mk2 16v's and now have rado 2.0 16v 9a and mk2 16v is quicker to 0-60 and more envolved driving experience especialy early models with no pas...but corrado seems better handling car in standard form and once on coilovers and poly bushed...not much between them...im a mk2 man at heart but now had rado for 18months...and no complaints...great fun car to drive and even returned 44mpg on 700mile run at steady 70-ish
They are a terrific handling car, around Knockhill I was easily carrying more speed in and out of the corners behind a stripped out caged MKII Golf, couldn't get by him as he was far lighter..... we both had standard engines and were very closely matched. Designed as a buying guide, but touches on specifics worth changing particularly wipers and headlight loom..... http://wiki.the-corrado.net/the_corrado_buying_guide_checklist.html The 1.8 16V Corrado up to 1990 should have AGC gearbox with its lower 3.984 final drive it's nippy despite its proportions.
My Corrado has the ABF engine in it and its pretty quick. its quick enough for what I want anyway. They are a lot more comfortable and nicer to drive. The make up and build is similar to that of 16v Golf. Parts for it are slightly more expensive mind. What he said. 142 is rather fast for a 1.8 16v?
I had a mk2 8v, which was a great car. I now have a Corrado 2.0 16v and I'm hooked. With the engine setup I have it should be somewhere around 160-170bhp, so a bit quicker than standard, but you'd have to offer me far more than it is worth to make me even consider parting with it. There is something special about a Rado, which a mk2 just does not have for me. I sold mine, regretted it and managed to buy it a 2nd time!
I Had a 2.0 9A and I hated it, no torque no fun ideal for motorway cruising. Thats me comparing to my 2.0 8v mk2 golf. overal very nice to look at but very boring to drive. VR6 probably more suited.
I think yours had had a hard life, TBH, despite all the improvements you made to it Corrados are about 25% heavier than a Mk2 golf, so need a lot of work to make them as quick in a straight line. A 3.9 diff would be a good place to start. Those in the know seem to reckon they handle better though (stiffer shell, better geometry on the 5 stud models?) so a stripped out one could still be a good track project. I'd view a roadgoing one as a cruiser rather than a sprinter though
It was a totally different car after installing the replacement engine and sorting all the other niggles but performance wise still not my cup of tea. Also I think the 9a is only listed as producing 136hp so quite a bit less than an abf
I have to say the ABF made a massive difference to it. I prefer it to the KR engine. It definitely does cruse very well - its still perky when you need it to be as well. Its possibly down the torque!
Aye the Rado's a heavy bugger compared to the Golf. Having just got back into a Mk2 in 10years and having had every iteration of the Corrado the Mk2 feels so old where was the Corrado still feels fairly modern. Pace wise in standard form the Golf would beat the Corrado. When I was on track with my KR it was not much faster than an 8v Golf. TBh even the standard VR isnt that quick IMO, not now anyway.
ABF is a glorious engine on digi, kjet, or aftermarket ecu (side note: I think the mk3 golf 16v is going to become extinct soon because as soon as they get a minor ding or MOT failure they are broken up and the ABF winds up in a mk2 / mk1 / corrado etc.) However, as demonstrated by Phil, the 9A can be made to be angry too lol
