the Official 16v thread

[velly_16v_cab]

lol, Valver, not everyone can afford turbos!!!!


yes breathing on a valver is important,good flowing inlet manifold and ported inlets on the head.

180-190bhp should be ball park for a sorted 2.0 16v

[twin eng, twin turbs]

10%? That's well worth it!

Yep KR dude.

I told you ages ago that the cast exhaust manifold is good but a set of 4-1 extractors are going to yield gains over it. Especially considering you want to race yours bro!

[Preen59]

lol, Valver, not everyone can afford turbos!!!!

And some people don't want one either..

Turbo, Shmurbo..

[aprr32]

4 branch Manifolds (Exatractors) make one hell of a difference!
Esp at the top end where a 16v tends to live most of it life.
My mates 2.0 16v GTI Egnineering jetta had a polished and ported standard cast manifold and he was told that will do him. After alot of playing about he later changed it for Ashley manifold and gained 10BHP @ wheels and broke the 190bhp @ flywheel.
He now fits them to all this 16vs builds (he has since built 2 mk1 16v's)[/QUOTE]

You don't get BHP at the wheels,it's at the fly.

[velly_16v_cab]

160 bhp @wheels

ps, the is currently @ the nurburgring with a broken clutch...has been there since october!!!!

[Preen59]

160 bhp @wheels

ps, the is currently @ the nurburgring with a broken clutch...has been there since october!!!!

Price of getting to drive it huh!

[ausgolfer]

They are crap engine design for an NA motor. They just develop good torque and sound great

Sounds like a quote by Drake or Oettinger when they were trying to market their aftermarket heads to the performance VW crowd.

The reality is they're a good compromise and nothing wrong with them in terms of tunability.

[Valver.]

They aren't total crap... Just a long stroke which negates too much peak horsepower.

I love them as much or more than anyone, but they really aren't anything special in the scheme of things The head is just a nightmare. I'd love to drive a Drake or Oettinger version, as I'm sure they're an entirely different story

Just because you're a fan of something doesn't mean its design is ideal... look at all the clowns obsessing over old Fords and Holdens - heck, even the new ones are junk.

Edit: And re the turbo quip, the only reason I have money (relatively speaking...) is because I probably work 30hrs a week more than anyone else on this forum to do so!!! And, even so, turboing one isn't ideal either; it's just that I love these engines regardless of their design. My point was merely that they are not well designed by modern (and even some 30yr old) standards - and pure and simple, they're not. Cut one of the heads in half and have a look - the exhaust ports are a joke. So many people claim to have big hp na 16vs with stock/near stock heads, and that is bollocks. The head cannot flow more than 180hp (even that is pushing it) without a lot of work. Turboing one only bypasses some of this problem for obvious reasons, but a 16vT with a worked head will still make far more power than one without.

The Opel C20XE (direct competition to the ABF) makes nearly 100hp/litre with throttle bodies alone. I won't even raise some of the Jap options. I wouldn't like to own any of these engines, but that isn't the point

[twin eng, twin turbs]

Your right valver, i have ported and polished quite a few different heads and the VW 16v is good but some of the jap gear of the era puts it to shame unfortunately. sr20's, ca18's, b16 etc. A standard 16v does gain considerable power from porting and polishing especially when you get oversize undercut valves and a set of cams to suit your application. I havn't heard of anyone making more than 180bhp with a stock head, claims are one thing a dyno print out is another..... As far as the 1.8 kr being a better choice over the 2.0litre 9a or abf due to the shorter stroke i would chose the 2.0 without hesitation the extra low end torque makes for a far more enjoyable daily driver and when you lighten, balance and knife edge the crank combined with a lightened flywheel they love to rev and will allways make more power than a 1.8! Thats why the vast majority of serious tuners chose the 2.0 litre....

[Preen59]

All very true comments, and in a straight out and out performance comparison, yes, the old 16v would get flogged.

But the fact is, we aren't racing these engines in a very restricted class and horsepower is only beneficial to a point.

This thread was started so that we could discuss the 16v engine in terms of performance modifications, general servicing etc.

So let's not get into a discussion about how bad the engine's design is or the fact that a 10 year newer engine has a better design.

[WABIT]

yep, its a thread about make do with what you got! it is said on many build projects in the uk that a 9a with KR cams is said to put out inbetween 160 and 165HP

dom

[16v80]

Audi A4 btcc touring cars had 2L 16v engines in them 96 on I think,
depending on the year these were either 295 or 305 BHP,
These engines are N/A,
From what i can find out they are basically 6A engines, solid lifters, big cams, throttle bodies, they produce max power at @8500rpm,
In my opinion these are the ultimate 16v engine, imagine this in a stripped mk1/2 gti

[Valver.]

This thread was started so that we could discuss the 16v engine in terms of performance modifications, general servicing etc.

So let's not get into a discussion about how bad the engine's design is or the fact that a 10 year newer engine has a better design.

lol, yes fair point

[Valver.]

yep, its a thread about make do with what you got! it is said on many build projects in the uk that a 9a with KR cams is said to put out inbetween 160 and 165HP

dom

In reality, they'd have about 140/145hp - perhaps less now that they're so old

[velly_16v_cab]

you will get that from a STD 1.8 KR valver,

155-160 for a std 2.0 would be ball park, i think Dom is on the right track