Discussion
aka_kerrly said:
VW engineers are rather conservative when it comes to power figures...
Or the figures from the rolling roads you frequent are a tad on the optimistic side (as most are - a happy customer is a happy customer 
)? We've had lots of new VW models on the rollers here (we use Beek Auto Racing in The Hague for our magazine road tests) and they generally do about what it says on the tin. We've had a road test car or two (no VAG products, although one did have a VW 2.0 TDI PD under the bonnet) that were rather obviously fettled with, though... 
I have to agree certain rolling roads do seem very generous... try TSR and there rebuilt standard engines producing 170 on their rollers - AS IF!!
or is it more that a factory fresh engine is a lot tighter and needs a few thousand miles to loosen up. There was a episode of top gear comparing a mk2 16v which was couple years old with a factory fresh one and on the 1/4 strip the one with a good few miles on it was considerably faster than the standard one. perhaps it is the case these engines get better with age!? almost be worth looking on you tube for it.
or is it more that a factory fresh engine is a lot tighter and needs a few thousand miles to loosen up. There was a episode of top gear comparing a mk2 16v which was couple years old with a factory fresh one and on the 1/4 strip the one with a good few miles on it was considerably faster than the standard one. perhaps it is the case these engines get better with age!? almost be worth looking on you tube for it.
"If i was on a budget i would keep things standard 16V or G60"
Theres no mention of 230hp from g60's, smaller pulleys etc etc.
This isnt a pissing contest, grow up mate.
"70hp gain over standard and you havent used FI (assuming you started with the 160hp VVC engine)"
dont assume
Theres no mention of 230hp from g60's, smaller pulleys etc etc.
This isnt a pissing contest, grow up mate.
Edited by sam919 on Friday 15th February 12:37
"70hp gain over standard and you havent used FI (assuming you started with the 160hp VVC engine)"
dont assume
Edited by sam919 on Friday 15th February 12:39
steady on!! that kind of tone can be misinterpreted.
the 230hp from modfying a g60 refered to the point made by a previous poster "900T-R" saying that over 200hp is far easier to achive if you start with a turbo (even though G60 supercharged)and that tuning NA is not a good starting point as it will be undrivable and unreliable. I was arguing that if a 200hp NA engine is said to cost a lot of money and not be worthwhile that a modified G60 is going to be far more costly and should also be considered unreliable. G-Ladders unfortunately have a very hit an miss reliability record, some take years of punishment some clearly dont.
as for assuming ... well "Sam" yes assuming can get you into all sorts of trouble. id just expect someone saying they have a 230hp K series to be a little more understanding about engine tuning the costs involved and the effect on engine life. changing exhausts air filters cams, p&p, even capacity increases does not inherently mean the engine becomes anymore unreliable as long as the components are well selected and installed correctly.
i still stand by my original statement that for someone on a budget a 16v will be a better choice than a G60.
I agree a g60 has the potential for more speed/power and at first it will come cheap but will require more regular maintenance and the charger needs rebuilding at lower and lower intervals the further you push it which is when things start getting very expensive.
the 230hp from modfying a g60 refered to the point made by a previous poster "900T-R" saying that over 200hp is far easier to achive if you start with a turbo (even though G60 supercharged)and that tuning NA is not a good starting point as it will be undrivable and unreliable. I was arguing that if a 200hp NA engine is said to cost a lot of money and not be worthwhile that a modified G60 is going to be far more costly and should also be considered unreliable. G-Ladders unfortunately have a very hit an miss reliability record, some take years of punishment some clearly dont.
as for assuming ... well "Sam" yes assuming can get you into all sorts of trouble. id just expect someone saying they have a 230hp K series to be a little more understanding about engine tuning the costs involved and the effect on engine life. changing exhausts air filters cams, p&p, even capacity increases does not inherently mean the engine becomes anymore unreliable as long as the components are well selected and installed correctly.
i still stand by my original statement that for someone on a budget a 16v will be a better choice than a G60.
I agree a g60 has the potential for more speed/power and at first it will come cheap but will require more regular maintenance and the charger needs rebuilding at lower and lower intervals the further you push it which is when things start getting very expensive.
aka_kerrly said:
refered to the point made by a previous poster "900T-R" saying that over 200hp is far easier to achive if you start with a turbo (even though G60 supercharged)and that tuning NA is not a good starting point as it will be undrivable and unreliable.
1) Note that I said 'forced induction' in my post, which includes both turbo- and supercharging.2) A rebuilt G-Lader with some sort of coating (IIRC) on it which is reported to sort the reliablity costs less than 1,000 euros here. Add an overdrive pulley and a fuel chip, and you're at 200 bhp without touching internals. So what if the G-Lader thingy goes again after 60,000 miles or so? It's less than replacing the exhaust system on most cars...
Now if we want to take a normally aspirated 2.0 litre engine from 150 to 200 bhp, we will have to find a serious improvement in volumetric efficiency and/or make the thing rev significantly higher while keeping up VE at those revs. That's way beyond the scope of a 'chip, filter & exhaust' job; even if you're adding a wild cam which will affect driveability, you'd be lucky to get more than halfway to your goal. Ergo: the head must come off, and as any decent engine builder will testify with modern head designs, what improvements you get will be directly proportional to time and effort spent by someone who knows his onions -> £££.
For the same kind of power, the wear loads on the N/A engine will be higher because a) it will need to rev higher, and b) forced induction offers a steady flow of pessurised intake air to the engine which smoothes intake pulses (this is the reason that it's quite hard to audibly establish the number of cylinders of a FI engine when ón the boost').
I fully agree with what you are saying, yes you can have a g60 rebuilt and last 60k or the same one might last 30k, i have been advised if you are running a 65mm or smaller pulley to reduce service intervals to 30k and have heard of more race orientated charges requiring rebuilds after 5k.
On a NA yes head work would certainly be required as would a higher lift cam and associated springs and guides require uprating. Realistically to get a 2.0 toward 200 you will need to consider ITBs and then thats a whole new ball game having to run new management for ignition maps etc and plenty of £££££
There are other factors to consider though other than which is most tuneable. i feel we have diverged so much now into the realms of engine tuning we are missing the original point that was which is best cheaper option as a VR6 is deemed too expensive and it seems we cannot agree that a G60 could be as expensive to run as a VR and a 16v although more limited in tuning potential is a sounder choice for a budget. Speedwise the extra 20HP from a standard G60 over a 16v does not help as the G60s gear ratios arent as long.
On a NA yes head work would certainly be required as would a higher lift cam and associated springs and guides require uprating. Realistically to get a 2.0 toward 200 you will need to consider ITBs and then thats a whole new ball game having to run new management for ignition maps etc and plenty of £££££
There are other factors to consider though other than which is most tuneable. i feel we have diverged so much now into the realms of engine tuning we are missing the original point that was which is best cheaper option as a VR6 is deemed too expensive and it seems we cannot agree that a G60 could be as expensive to run as a VR and a 16v although more limited in tuning potential is a sounder choice for a budget. Speedwise the extra 20HP from a standard G60 over a 16v does not help as the G60s gear ratios arent as long.
I agree with Eric - it is more expensive to get more gains from a N/A engine. I've spent a small fortune getting my VR6 to 230+ bhp and could probably have gone the supercharger route for a similar amount of money and got 285 bhp. I think the route I took was more fun though.
But getting back on topic, the G60 pretty much ceased production when the VR6 came out in 1992 so the G60 is always going to be the older car. The 16v was offered right up until the Corrado ceased production in 1995.
The 16v is a sweet car, as I understand, but you'd always be wanting the VR6. Of course, you could get the 16v and then when funds allow do an engine conversion to either the Audi 1.8T or the R32 Golf's V6 (which is a descendent of the VR6).
Oh, and one last thing, whoever is saying that the performance of the 16v and VR6 are roughly equivalent is talking rubbish. They are worlds apart.
But getting back on topic, the G60 pretty much ceased production when the VR6 came out in 1992 so the G60 is always going to be the older car. The 16v was offered right up until the Corrado ceased production in 1995.
The 16v is a sweet car, as I understand, but you'd always be wanting the VR6. Of course, you could get the 16v and then when funds allow do an engine conversion to either the Audi 1.8T or the R32 Golf's V6 (which is a descendent of the VR6).
Oh, and one last thing, whoever is saying that the performance of the 16v and VR6 are roughly equivalent is talking rubbish. They are worlds apart.
Adz , am really confused, sure there is someone using the Adz the Rat name who has a blue mk1 jetta on orange welller wheels and previously a burgandy mk1 golf. Perhaps it is a common name lol.
i dont blame you for wanting to save more and get the real deal so to speak. it will be worth it in the long run, i keep telling myself the same thing and control the urges to chuck another engine in my mk2 golf.
JohnRB.. what kind of spec are you running on your VR? Friend of mine is running a 2.9 bottom end, ported/polished Grant Motorsport head with custom reprofiled cams, 6 branch manifold cat back exhaust, k&n. That made 230HP on the rollers with slightly worn piston rings!
Are you thinking of going supercharged now? Have you spoken to the guys at Storm developments? they are doing Rotrex and VF supercharger conversions and certainly know there stuff or alternatively instead of FI a rebore to 3.0 or 3.1 can yield R32+ power.
oh and yes a VR v 16v can only be described as mildly competitive until you reach 70-80 then a VR is in such a different league the 16v might as well give up. 100+ in a VR is effortless and the speed increase in 4th is similar to some cars still in 2nd its amazing!!
i dont blame you for wanting to save more and get the real deal so to speak. it will be worth it in the long run, i keep telling myself the same thing and control the urges to chuck another engine in my mk2 golf.
JohnRB.. what kind of spec are you running on your VR? Friend of mine is running a 2.9 bottom end, ported/polished Grant Motorsport head with custom reprofiled cams, 6 branch manifold cat back exhaust, k&n. That made 230HP on the rollers with slightly worn piston rings!
Are you thinking of going supercharged now? Have you spoken to the guys at Storm developments? they are doing Rotrex and VF supercharger conversions and certainly know there stuff or alternatively instead of FI a rebore to 3.0 or 3.1 can yield R32+ power.
oh and yes a VR v 16v can only be described as mildly competitive until you reach 70-80 then a VR is in such a different league the 16v might as well give up. 100+ in a VR is effortless and the speed increase in 4th is similar to some cars still in 2nd its amazing!!
When we were looking for ours, we considered the 16v as an option. My wifes prewious ride was a carbed Golf Clipper, so anything was going to be a step up for her.
I think that the valvers represent good value, the VR6 is heavily affected by 'scene tax', we were looking at spending nearly £6000 for a nice low mileage one. Luckily a VR6 came into work as a part ex.
Before this, we had completed around 1000 miles looking at advertised mint examples, turning out to not quite be as described.
In all fairness, there wasn't much difference in insurance costs between the 2, and the VR6 really does make a glorious sound!
I think that the valvers represent good value, the VR6 is heavily affected by 'scene tax', we were looking at spending nearly £6000 for a nice low mileage one. Luckily a VR6 came into work as a part ex.
Before this, we had completed around 1000 miles looking at advertised mint examples, turning out to not quite be as described.
In all fairness, there wasn't much difference in insurance costs between the 2, and the VR6 really does make a glorious sound!
aka_kerrly said:
JohnRB.. what kind of spec are you running on your VR? Friend of mine is running a 2.9 bottom end, ported/polished Grant Motorsport head with custom reprofiled cams, 6 branch manifold cat back exhaust, k&n. That made 230HP on the rollers with slightly worn piston rings!
2.9L, gas-flowed enlarged throttle body, steel high-compression head gasket, Schrick 268deg cams, Schrick VGI inlet manifold, Fidanza flywheel and a rolling-road remap to Super Unleaded and with a higher rev limiter. Also have a lower final drive to shorten the gearing. 
JonRB said:
2.9L, gas-flowed enlarged throttle body, steel high-compression head gasket, Schrick 268deg cams, Schrick VGI inlet manifold, Fidanza flywheel and a rolling-road remap to Super Unleaded and with a higher rev limiter. Also have a lower final drive to shorten the gearing.
WOW that is a very nice spec but you havent had the head ported and polished yet? I belive if it is done properly will work very well with your other mods and can liberate a good few horses. Saying that as you have a steel headgasket fitted i doubt you want to take the head off inless it is essential. You have a schrick VGI as well, those are £££££ i have only ever seen a couple of them! all that combined with the lower FD your VR must be immense in 3rd an 4th!!!!!! 
Good looking alloys too. Enjoy!Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff