Beaten down by a Nova.

[ausgolfer]

Gotta agree with that. An 8v mk2 should never have been a gti, ......And this is not a debate about 16v VS 8v (the fact of the matter is it's been proven several times the 16v is higher power and torque EVERYWHERE in the rev range).

i cant believe that this has ended up with people talking about 16V's being better than 8V's AGAIN!....
sorry guys, i tire of reading the sme old crap posted over and over again.

What have I done....

For not a lot more money and a fair bit more performance do exactly what Loon suggested. Use a Mk.3 2.0 bottom end with the 1.8 head to retain the Digifant to keep costs down. With the mild cam and 2.0 manifold and 'zorst' you will gain a lot more performance. I am using the word performance advisedly because there is a lot more to making a car quicker and more enjoyable to drive than outright HP numbers. Torque is what makes a car feel good and accelerate especially from low engine revs.

The 2.0 modification may not have much more than 120hp but the driveability and 'in gear' performance will be in another suburb.

I hope this advice from somebody who has actually done it helps.

AMEN! or May the force be with you

[gldgti]

I've got those parts left over from the MK3 I just wrecked, if you're after a bargain uprade.

Pete

thats what i like to see

[mrgolf]

Blardy hell... People go on and on about how crap the 8V engine is, and I point out that the 8V from the euro spec engine, particularly the early K-Jet ones, are a completely different engine. Mine was good for mid 8 sec 100's when it was stock, and in gear was as quick as other hot hatches like the Pug 206 GTI180, MCS and MkIV Golf GTI. In TLGP's (in my younger days) it was easily a match for any 6cyl NA commodore or falcon.

The Australian 8V was certainly a LOT slower than the euro spec one. So dont sully the 8V name by lumping it in with the Australian engine. 8V isnt slow. With mild blueprinting, mine is as fast as a Pogo GTI.

As for the 16V vs 8V arguement, the 16V's were ultimately better in terms of outright power, and a 16V will always be faster around a track. But a tuned 8V such as mine offered better low down torque meaning you didnt have to row through the gears as much to get the performance. For the record, mine puts out 100wbhp, a 16V has 105wbhp.

If I owned an Aus spec, I would just transplant. A 2.0 8V would be a great start. Then look at silly power. I wonder if a 2.0FSI would fit???

[aliasmk2]

I am completely amazed at how people on this forum jump at the chance to knock an Australian delivered mk2
They might not have the initial take off grunt that an EV engine running on kbasic, but they do perform quite well once rolling on the open road, being a good car for overtaking & general touring, out driving a lot of cars that it should'nt
I get the feeling that most of the people on here don't get out of their own suburb to often or are just to busy dreaming of good old england
I live in Lismore which has no traffic lights,a population of 40,000 & 4 Australian delivered mk2 gti's & 1 CL (sorry no gay 2 door imports). None of the other owners in Lismore use this forum, they all praise their standard mk2 gti's(Australian) for its overall qualities of reliability, economy, build quality & most of all its performance on the open road with no traffic lights & lots of corners
I use to have a mk1 with an EV motor runinng on kbasic extractors 2inch zorst & all that stuff. Off the mark it was very quick, much more than my mk2, but when it comes to hills or overtaking the Australian mk2 gti would leave it for dead, no Q's asked
This car was never really built for TLGP, but it does do the job that it was designed for very well

[mrgolf]

I never said the Aus 8V's were terrible. I just said the euro 8V's were better. I have driven both in MkII's, and I can say categorically that it doesnt matter what kind of driving you do, the euro 8V (EV motor as you correctly pointed out) is faster than the australian 8V motor. Most of the 2 doors you refer to are small bumper euro models with more grunt and less weight than their officially imported counterparts, so more grunt and less weight = faster in any conditions.

You are completely correct in saying it is good, reliable transport. And they handle great too. They are slow, though. No if's or but's. Great car. They just lack the outright grunt of the euro 8V's and 16V's. Beyond this, people are just expressing their opinions...

[Peter Jones]

meh. Everyone hates the stock motor in the Golf they drive.(Well most of the people on here anyway)

Mk 1 Most people upgrade the 1600
MK 2 See saga above
MK 3 - The 2.0 Slow
MK 4 Chips , and bolt ons
MK 5 Chips and bolt ons.
VR6s into Ibizas, 16v s into 1s, 2s and 3s it's all part of the fun.

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you have , you'll always want more.

I'm yet to see a thread titled

"Help! My car has too much power, how do I detune it?"

I like spending money on my car, the more I spend the faster it goes.

The trick is deciding how much to spend and using that money wisely to the best effect.

We each know how much we can afford to spend and can look to this forum for the wisdom to find the right solution to meet our requirements and budget.

Some people have differing opinion on the solution that represents the best value for them it's up to the vehicle owner to chose whatever solution suits his or her personal requirements and budgets.

So it's up to the collective wisdom to help out here to make suggestions, but refrain from judgement, that job's for Spyda.

Peace out.
Pete

[Spyda]

If it gets beaten by a 68kw nova, it needs to be knocked. I dunno about reliable though or economical, 9.8l in a 1.8.......

Anyway, a 2L bottom end, cam and mk3 exhaust are good and would be nice but you would still be left behind by most cars. Id like to hastle some of my mates VS V8s, and VT's so a bit more work would be needed. Ideal 140hp min. Anything less then that for me is not worth the effort.

The argument about 8v and 16v is stupid and i havnt realy looked in to it. As far as i know and 8v needs alot of work and money to make 180hp, a 2l 16v needs KR cams to make 180hp. Mrgolf said "But a tuned 8V such as mine offered better low down torque meaning you didnt have to row through the gears as much to get the performance." That is probly true but wouldnt a 16v have more torque anyway, so regardless of where the torque is thourgh the power band, the tuned 16v has more. If a tuned 8v has 150nm at 3000rpm and a max of 160nm, wouldnt a tuned 16v with 190nm have about the same at 3000rpm?

meh. Everyone hates the stock motor in the Golf they drive.(Well most of the people on here anyway)

Mk 1 Most people upgrade the 1600
MK 2 See saga above
MK 3 - The 2.0 Slow
MK 4 Chips , and bolt ons
MK 5 Chips and bolt ons.
VR6s into Ibizas, 16v s into 1s, 2s and 3s it's all part of the fun.

It doesn't matter how much horsepower you have , you'll always want more.

I'm yet to see a thread titled

"Help! My car has too much power, how do I detune it?"

I like spending money on my car, the more I spend the faster it goes.

The trick is deciding how much to spend and using that money wisely to the best effect.

We each know how much we can afford to spend and can look to this forum for the wisdom to find the right solution to meet our requirements and budget.

Some people have differing opinion on the solution that represents the best value for them it's up to the vehicle owner to chose whatever solution suits his or her personal requirements and budgets.

So it's up to the collective wisdom to help out here to make suggestions, but refrain from judgement, that job's for Spyda.

Peace out.
Pete

You are genius. The is exactly it.

[aliasmk2]

I never said the Aus 8V's were terrible. I just said the euro 8V's were better. I have driven both in MkII's, and I can say categorically that it doesnt matter what kind of driving you do, the euro 8V (EV motor as you correctly pointed out) is faster than the australian 8V motor. Most of the 2 doors you refer to are small bumper euro models with more grunt and less weight than their officially imported counterparts, so more grunt and less weight = faster in any conditions.

You are completely correct in saying it is good, reliable transport. And they handle great too. They are slow, though. No if's or but's. Great car. They just lack the outright grunt of the euro 8V's and 16V's. Beyond this, people are just expressing their opinions...

Now no need to get personal or intolerant of other peoples views

What I am saying is that they are not slow on the open road & would out run a mk1 with a EV on kbasic blah blah blah

What can I say?????? but this is the awful truth

[mrgolf]

The claim about the EV motor in a MkI, I would say there must have been something wrong. Maybe an overdrive gearbox. In gear, an EV would destroy a aus spec GTI. I have driven both. My 8V with K-Jet, another 8V with Digi and a few Aus spec MkII's. Story is the same each time.

[mrgolf]

The argument about 8v and 16v is stupid and i havnt realy looked in to it. As far as i know and 8v needs alot of work and money to make 180hp, a 2l 16v needs KR cams to make 180hp. Mrgolf said "But a tuned 8V such as mine offered better low down torque meaning you didnt have to row through the gears as much to get the performance." That is probly true but wouldnt a 16v have more torque anyway, so regardless of where the torque is thourgh the power band, the tuned 16v has more. If a tuned 8v has 150nm at 3000rpm and a max of 160nm, wouldnt a tuned 16v with 190nm have about the same at 3000rpm?

This is commonly the belief of many people regarding the 8V euro motor. On the UK forums, a lot of people comment that the stock 8V requires less gear changes than the 16V by virtue of the fact that it comes on cam much, much lower. So if you are attacking twisties, you dont have the irritation of having the revs too low for 3rd and too high for 2nd. In the 8V, you leave it in 3rd and you are done. Of course a 16V would be ultimately quicker, but it is a more difficult drive because you are swapping cogs more often. This is what makes the 2.0T in the MkV such a winner. Torque everywhere down low. The 16V motor by design is a peakier engine. It all comes down to personal choice.

Can I just say that I am talking specifically about stock motors. Modifying makes a custom engine that performs how you prefer it to. With my MkII, I made the torque band shift higher a bit, but still lower than the 16V. Best of both worlds... or at least a good compromise while leaving the car fairly stock with its original engine.