http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2346138&page=2 there you go, VR6T's are beter than 1.8T's, proven. Theclock said it, not me...
Don't even need to read it to know exactly what it's like. Everyone seems to lay into the 1.8T boys over there I'm currently having issues with a 'respected tuner' who can't get it into his head that 3000 for a Motec ECU might not represent excellent value for money for every project
Hmmmm, as a 1.8T driver I feel I should stick my oar in... Firstly, they don't wanna know about anything under 400BHP which rules out most 1.8Ts out there, so already it's a biased discussion. As said in the thread, if you wanna build a big BHP engine then you may as well start with a big lump. I completely agree with that and would love to build a VRT in the future. As the saying goes; "There is no replacement for displacement". I think that is why you probably see more high BHP VRTs. But these things cost cash which is probably why there aren't many of them over here. But, as also stated in the thread, if you only want circa 300 BHP then the 20vT wins hands down. They are plentiful in supply, easy to install and relatively economical to run. Bear in mind that we in the UK pay a lot more for fuel than our American friends which may well play a factor. To sum up, the 1.8T is the better engine for up to 300 ish BHP. After that you need to spend some serious money on any engine that you want a healthy dollop of power from so, as you say, why waste your time and effort on the 4 pot? Don't think it proves VR6T's are better though. Just that there are horses for courses. That said, hurry up and sell me your f**kin sub frame!!
Just to lob a spanner in the works, let's have a go at all of the commonly used VW engines: 16V - crap head design. I mean what were they thinking of? Can't tune it to anything like the Ford or Vauxhall equivents. 1.8T - spindly valves, valve heads drop off. Flat torque conveyor belt, cotton reel turbo. VR6 - heavy, not 4 valve, rumours of handling-induced deficiencies, funny chain in funny places. (bear in mind I have one of the engines I've just criticised) ... but really, you usually find people who have a complex about certain engines being in any way inferior decide, for some reason, they have to prove to others it's not the case. (a bit like our g@y friends feeling as though they need to prove they exist by having to get married... Yeah, what flippinever) And if that doesn't get Phatty going, I don't know what will <stands back> Edited by: Chris Eyre
It's on Vortex FFS, you may as well ask your bird for an opinion, it's as knowledgeable as the yanks. They wouldn't know real performance if it over-took them, hand braked in front of them, pulled them out the car and buggered them over their own bonnet, sorry, hood.
And anyone remember the time when I went onto Vortex and posted a question regarding a possible pinking problem on my 16V? I put time and effort into carefully writing somewhat lengthy but concise and very courteous first post that conveyed as much information as possible, thinking that this would persuade Vortex experts to try to help me solve my problem. And what do I get? Two pages worth of stupid f*cking yanks orgasming over the fact that we say 'pinking' instead of 'pinging', and NO help whatsoever. Maybe I would have 'gotten' a better response had I used words like 'shizz' or something... whatever that actually means.
true, hence why I'm now totally 24v. the old vr head is crap, and SOHC (despite what the egine cover says.). and also, I'm going turbo........be afraid......i won't settle for anything less than 600bhp
as for the yanks not knowing anything..... http://www.schimmelperformance.com it'a also worth noting that's there a mk2 golf 24v turbo in the states that runs 10's.....in all these PVW group thrashes I rarely see any cars getting into the 13's, pathetic.
Lets be careful with the facts here, on the 12V VR there are two cams, one for the exhaust and one for the inlet and are of the SOHC design, and this is the same on the 24v VR also...... Dont doubt that there is a lot packed in that head for the size of it and I'm not knocking it either If I could find the damn picture of the 24v head I would be able to show a little clearer
But North Americans ( a nod to our Canadian cousins) are obsessed with 1/4 mile numbers. so they do everything they can to get them low. We brits seem much more interested at getting to 60mph. If you look at the origin of the American muscle car, it was built for that purpose. couldn't brake or go round corners....had 400bhp as the auto gear box sucked 40% of that power..... It took Carroll Shelby to reinvent a British chassis with a US powerplant to create an "American car" that could actually win races that had corners. They don't seen to be interested in anything that has 4 cylinders, less than 4 "liters" and has fuel consumption in the single digits. What I don't understand is why US high end "sports" cars are still running 6 litre V8's but barely get 60 bhp per litre. What are they not getting? Even Audi as a monster in the production world have managed to produce a volume n/a engine that produce close to the holy grail 100/litre in the range of FSI engines. rant over. who wants the soap box next?
