I just re-read this thread, enjoyed it! Relevant to this thread. So if my VR6 with cams and chip /breathing mods 'only' makes 205hp, I'm pretty confident that our 170-180hp 16v's of days gone by will be 150-160hp at best on a Dyno Dynamics RR?
i was thinking this! my mk2 abf digi makes 149.5hp and up 10lbft on book power on a dd machine. looks like vr6 is the only cost effective way to go to see 200hp
Loving this thread, subjectivity will out! How about another dyno day with Professor Toyotec in the near future for some direct objective comparisons, then after that we can have an endless row/discussion about drivabilty and feel. (I'm a 16V nut and have never driven a MK2 VR so WILL NOT pass comment!)
You can spend months tuning a 16v to 180bhp which would be cool but when a VR6 with subtle mods can kill it no problem it is a waste of time if your starting from scratch, unless you really want to build a valver cause you enjoy it. I have a KR with weber 45's in my mk1 and i own a VR6 highline with stage 1 head, schrick cams, magnex exhaust and the obligatory K&N. It'd be a VR6 in a stripped MK2 for me all day long, better box and widetracked. Would be rapid and better on the hill climb part of the ring than the valver by a long way.
To move this thread into the new decade unless you are thinking of going FI, start with a 4 valve per cylinder engine. Prices and availabilty are improving and the potential for NA tuning is significantly higher. Yes you can make good power with 2 valve engines but tuning of these on a budget is relatively limited. NA tuning of 16 valve and 24 valve engines, well, it depends on your budget, but ultimately if you are looking for 180 to 200, one does it straight out of the box, the other will need extensive modification and input. On the flip side, the 16v is lighter. I'm not sure on competition regulations, but if you wanted to use a VR I think you would end up in a class with some "big boys"...
Horsepower is just a number if you do not consider engine twist. What kills the brutish go of a VR6 engine is the gearing, namely the final drive. VR6 motors have at least 180lbft@4200rpmish which is way more than any N/A valver will have ( using Dyno Dynamics as the reference). The downside is in std form they hold on to this torque like an 8v engine. Change the FD from 3.39 to 3.68 or lower and up the rev limiter and you will have a 16v slayer in a straight line at least. You can make this torque hold on longer as GVK has shown in his DD dyno plot, with new camshafts and a recalibration. Stock system for stock is different story though. I know eatonMK2's MK3 16v w/150PS@6100rpm, as used in the AIS study can ease past me @ 143mph + in my 180PS@5800rpm MK3 VR6, both of us at full chat. This was not on a "private runway" but on the road...on the limitless Autobahn A1 in Germany. I may have more measured power but not as much axle torque at full wack as the valver. It is all in the gearing.
I am up for that but want to give the guys a chance to update their setups. A MK2 N/A VR6 setup like Gary's will give a good set-up valver a few problems. All in the same chasiss of course.
I'd be willing to come down for it if a good bunch of various spec'd cars were 'booked in' Agree,the 3.3 FD on the VR6 does it no favours at all. 3.68 in my mk2 with DPA gearset + Peloquin torque-biasing 'diff.
100% agree, this is the point that most seem to 'miss' when the whole 16v v's VR6 debate gets going. The 3.3 ratio is b100dy useless, waaaay to long. Having said that, the 3.6 (in the MK3 16v) is not that 'kind' to the ABF! VR6 needs the 3.6 from the 16v box (or a 3.9 to really fly!) and the 16v needs a 3.9 Given 'parity' of gearing the VR6 simply slays the 16v in any given situation (and I own both too ) edit - But I prefer to drive my 5 stud wide-track MK2 16v, it's handling is just 'nicer'
the comparison should really be a VR6 (2 or 4 valve) vs a 1.8T - same class in many racing series (over 2L) Anyone overlayed 2-valve and 4-valve VR engine plots?
But is this about being in a racing series or road use with a bit of track fun thrown in? I think Pascal's VR engined MK3 is reasonably competitive but lets face it, not really a road car any more than Bill's Ibiza. Having re-read this thread it seems the aim is "cheap" & "fun", it seems to me that either a tuned ABF OR stock (ish) VR6 will meet the 180-200bhp power target (though the VR clearly has a tad more bhp & torque). So I would say it's more down to the individuals own preference, how they drive, how they like a car to feel, etc, etc?
yep - down to individual preference at the end of the day, and often in reality, what parts you have / come across at the right condition and price
It is useless for the enthusiasts yes...But if like me you use your 1285kg mk3 as a daily, on a 100mile round trip to work and back, sometimes with A/C and a full tank, you would be glad they at VW chose that long gearing to match the 180lbft ( in my case 188lbft) found on the middle somewhere to claw back some type of fuel economy. In gear accels are much more lively than a N/A 16v in the same chassis slightly tuned or not, having also used eatonMk2's MK3 16v on the same trip. Seeing I can't legally drive at 143+ mph in the this country that makes my car to joe public the faster and more relaxing car to drive. Plus I get the VR6 hum .
the previous owner of my 4motion had rolling road plots done see the thead below they are a bit jumpy but you can see the 4 valve vr6 has more torque higher up the rev range than 2 valve vr6 rolling roading a car with haldex 4wd
The 24v 2.8 cars, which in a 1400kg MK4 4motion aint really all that, have more torque from the increased valve area and the twist lasts as long as your modified 8v in STD all compliant form. More if you can access the calibration on the STD engine. You would expect a larger R32 motor to benefit from a torque increase due to larger capacity and the same again with a R36. The horsepower war and the balance with drivablity, increased weight, safety and brand standing was responsible for fueling these capacity increases. But with all the CO2 this and global warming that, downsizing with, direct injection and forced induction is where it is at.
Well I daily a Corrado (VR6) rather than a MK3 (though I do have a MK3 VR6 too) but anyway, you could always do like me and fit a 3.94 final drive but change 5th for a diesel .71 ratio, gives you a kind of VR6 "4 + e" By my calcs this gives me 24.3 per 1000rpm v's the stock 24.2 so pretty much the same mph/1000rpm in top. The first 4 are MUCH lower of course and I'd advise an LSD, mine was a bit 'skittish' while it was 1 wd the wheel torque can be a bit much in the lower ratio's (but then you'd know all about that with yours anyway...)
24v info...Girlfriend's old R32 at 'chippedUK' rollers. mk4 R32 Revo software Schrick 264 cams Milltek unresonated exhaust with sports cats.
I believe you but ...nah. Car is not broken so not touching it..yet. If I truly want to make rapid progress, I just go get my boosted 315PS 4 cylinder from storage, **** myself for the day then park it up, job done .
