GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: chrissywood on 24 October 2009, 13:17
-
hi all i can get a pack A head off of a mate of mine for my mk3 2.0 16v are they any good??? And how much power am i looking at and wot other hidden costs am i looking at to fit it il get i fitted cheap as i work as a valeter for VW so a saturday job for a techy???
-
You are not going to need any other parts. Would be a direct swap, although fitting a more flowed head would be better with other parts changed at the same time. Might be good to fit new cams at the same time.
How many miles as it done since it was built?
-
it has done a few thousand but has just been rebuilt has got aftermarket cams in it already! anything els worth doing first or at the same time as fitting and will it need a remap when done??
-
it has done a few thousand but has just been rebuilt has got aftermarket cams in it already! anything els worth doing first or at the same time as fitting and will it need a remap when done??
What engine is it coming off?
KR or ABF?
Some cams will run in a KR that won't in an ABF as the long duration causes pulsing in the plenumn that the ECU can't adapt to....so you need to know which cams too?
As for gains from the head alone...on an otherwise stock engine...probably next to nothing.
The standard head will flow just fine up to 170-180 BHP so just giving it the capability to flow more will give you very little unless you can get more air in - but with cams fitted, other components optimised and the ECU properly re-mapped, you should be looking at around 20-25 BHP depending on the spec of your current engine, and the cam selection.
Costs, oil, filter, coolant, gaskets & head bolts - probably £150.
Fitting, say another £150, unless you do it yourself.
Vernier pulley - unless it has one (you may or may not need it...but won't know until you fit it and try) - maybe another £100
ECU re-map - £300ish maybe?
The rest of the engine will be fine at that sort of power...although porting the TB and modifying the airbox will help a bit when running with cams/head.
Depending on ther cams, you may be able to play with a set of internal cam verniers and optimise several other little bits to gice a cumalative gain...no reason why you couldn't see 190+ BHP if you spent enough time and effort...but much will depend on the spec of the head - A Pack is just a porting job, I believe.
You won't need a fancy exhaust, high flow cat or anything else at that sort of power.
-
the head with cams is costing me £300 and fitted for about £80 is it worth the money doing it?
-
They are about £900 new, or 650ish with an exchange for an old head, without cams.
So providing its in good nic, i reckon its a good deal.
-
the head with cams is costing me £300 and fitted for about £80 is it worth the money doing it?
Yeah...go for it.
But you NEED to find out which cams are in it!
If they will run...great.
If not, use your current ABF cams.
-
As stated before it will depend if its a kr or abf head.
ABF head will be no problem.
If its a kr head it will fit but the dia of the combustion chamber is slightly smaller than the bore. You will need a steel abf head gasket, and all other abf gaskets apart from the cam cover gasket. You will need an early abf or kr cam cover and cam cover gasket. You will also need a cam cover set of bolts.
Depending on how much the head has been skimmed you might need to shave down the dowels on the block slightly to allow the head to seat properly.
Ess three's info tells you about the possible gains.
TSR pack A heads can be done privately for about £400 and cams will cost you £300plus so the price looks good.
Paul
-
i keep getting toldto look at ess three's info but how do i do that?
-
what that user has posted in this thread. lol.
it has done a few thousand but has just been rebuilt has got aftermarket cams in it already! anything els worth doing first or at the same time as fitting and will it need a remap when done??
What engine is it coming off?
KR or ABF?
Some cams will run in a KR that won't in an ABF as the long duration causes pulsing in the plenumn that the ECU can't adapt to....so you need to know which cams too?
As for gains from the head alone...on an otherwise stock engine...probably next to nothing.
The standard head will flow just fine up to 170-180 BHP so just giving it the capability to flow more will give you very little unless you can get more air in - but with cams fitted, other components optimised and the ECU properly re-mapped, you should be looking at around 20-25 BHP depending on the spec of your current engine, and the cam selection.
Costs, oil, filter, coolant, gaskets & head bolts - probably £150.
Fitting, say another £150, unless you do it yourself.
Vernier pulley - unless it has one (you may or may not need it...but won't know until you fit it and try) - maybe another £100
ECU re-map - £300ish maybe?
The rest of the engine will be fine at that sort of power...although porting the TB and modifying the airbox will help a bit when running with cams/head.
Depending on ther cams, you may be able to play with a set of internal cam verniers and optimise several other little bits to gice a cumalative gain...no reason why you couldn't see 190+ BHP if you spent enough time and effort...but much will depend on the spec of the head - A Pack is just a porting job, I believe.
You won't need a fancy exhaust, high flow cat or anything else at that sort of power.
-
Pack A spec is gas flowed and ported / polished.
-
Pack A spec is gas flowed and ported / polished.
Which, sadly, is marketing blurb...and tells us nothing about what has actually been done to the head....and in some ways the term itself is a poor one as polishing certain parts of the head can reduce performance!
They are reasonable heads...not the ultimate...but then again, the price reflects this. But people need to accept that the gains won't be massive without additional work.
-
the guy who does them has about 20 years experience porting 16v heads and used to do them for gti engineering back in the day. there are better heads out there but i believe his are the best 'street' heads before you start machining the valve guides etc
i didnt realise tsr charged £900 for them! what a rip off!! like paul says if you know where to go you can have a new one for £400
-
Hi Ya Ess-Three,
You mention there are better heads in the thread, where can i find these? Also are there any companies you may know of for engine block rebuilds, i know of TSR was wondering if there are any other options.
Let me have any info ya can.
Thanks
Spam.
-
I am surprised tha Wayne hasnt given us chapter and verse on this as he worked for TSR! :rolleyes:
-
I am surprised tha Wayne hasnt given us chapter and verse on this as he worked for TSR! :rolleyes:
If you looked up, I have replied, no point in me saying much more as you will only slag me off as normal.
-
I am surprised tha Wayne hasnt given us chapter and verse on this as he worked for TSR! :rolleyes:
If you looked up, I have replied, no point in me saying much more as you will only slag me off as normal.
Well as your comment was dismissed as marketing blurb, I was surprised you didnt give us the benefit of your inside knowledge.
-
Pack A, is a standard head which has been acid dipped, new guide and seats, gas flowed and polished / ported.
-
Wot no power gain info?
-
Wot no power gain info?
Never saw a 16v rolling roaded, 8v would add a little but not much.
-
TSR do good work, i would use them if it wasnt for the price to be honest.
Any head work that will be done on my VR will be done at local trusted places, plus i have heard that porting a VR head is almost pointless for the gains, so i will be just uprating valve springs, and have it all reseated etc.
-
Reseating valves is a right pain!
-
Hi Ya Ess-Three,
You mention there are better heads in the thread, where can i find these?
You'd need to go to the specialists, asking for a specific thing...
Mine was done by Bill Blydenstein...who has sadly passed away since.
The TSR heads and others done by the same person, are good...on a standard engine with mild / standard cams.
But to get bigger gains, you need to have more work done - and that starts getting expensive!
-
Never saw a 16v rolling roaded, 8v would add a little but not much.
I doubt it will on a standard 16v either...
The standard head will flow what standard cams need...so no real gain.
Put some lairy cams in though, and you need a head capable of flowing more...so the gains are bigger.
-
Any head work that will be done on my VR will be done at local trusted places, plus i have heard that porting a VR head is almost pointless for the gains, so i will be just uprating valve springs, and have it all reseated etc.
You have heard wrong...
You can get good gains from a VR6 head - again, along with cams.
I saw 30+ BHP from a friends VR6 with a properly re-worked head (Big valves) and Schrick 268 cams....and the engine is awesome.
Not all the gains are from the head, of course...but not all from the cams either...but do both...and the gains are there.
-
Bill Blydenstein! Wow!
He did a lot of work on Vauxhalls and the race Firenza droop snoot!
-
Bill Blydenstein! Wow!
He did a lot of work on Vauxhalls and the race Firenza droop snoot!
Yup, he did my Nova head/engine back in 1995 too!
I kept in contact and asked him if he'd do a one-off ABF and silly VR6 head for me...which he did.
-
He did articles in Custom Car way back on head work. Things like using a pipette to take water out of the head combustion chamber to measure the volume!
-
He did articles in Custom Car way back on head work. Things like using a pipette to take water out of the head combustion chamber to measure the volume!
Most head specialists do that, David Vizard and Richard Longman both did the same when building Mini engines.
-
Yea but as that was like over 30 years ago it was news to me at that time! Also showed you where to take metal out etc. etc.
-
Yea but as that was like over 30 years ago it was news to me at that time! Also showed you where to take metal out etc. etc.
To be honest, I was looking at around 16 years ago myself when I had my Mini engine built.
-
Any head work that will be done on my VR will be done at local trusted places, plus i have heard that porting a VR head is almost pointless for the gains, so i will be just uprating valve springs, and have it all reseated etc.
You have heard wrong...
You can get good gains from a VR6 head - again, along with cams.
I saw 30+ BHP from a friends VR6 with a properly re-worked head (Big valves) and Schrick 268 cams....and the engine is awesome.
Not all the gains are from the head, of course...but not all from the cams either...but do both...and the gains are there.
Sorry, i was meaning that what i have heard is that you dont get much from having the head ported on a VR6. Although if i had the money, i would have bigger valves dropped in for sure.
TSR for a pack c head, with bigger valves etc you are looking mega bucks.
-
I saw 30+ BHP from a friends VR6 with a properly re-worked head (Big valves) and Schrick 268 cams....and the engine is awesome.
I'd hope you'd see atleast 30BHP from a VR. The ported head has decreased BHP dramtically! :grin:
-
Any head work that will be done on my VR will be done at local trusted places, plus i have heard that porting a VR head is almost pointless for the gains, so i will be just uprating valve springs, and have it all reseated etc.
You have heard wrong...
You can get good gains from a VR6 head - again, along with cams.
I saw 30+ BHP from a friends VR6 with a properly re-worked head (Big valves) and Schrick 268 cams....and the engine is awesome.
Not all the gains are from the head, of course...but not all from the cams either...but do both...and the gains are there.
Sorry, i was meaning that what i have heard is that you dont get much from having the head ported on a VR6. Although if i had the money, i would have bigger valves dropped in for sure.
TSR for a pack c head, with bigger valves etc you are looking mega bucks.
Don't think you can get bigger valves in to be honest.
(I will stand corrected if wrong)
-
VR6 12v Pack 'C' (only for 2.8 engine)
We are able to fit 2mm larger valves in the twelve-valve VR6 head, resulting in vastly improved flow and subsequent power and torque gains, especially when fitted to a 2.9 litre engine.
This head also gives excellent results from the 2.8 litre engine without having to resort to a bottom end rebuild or other costly engine work.
To gain even more benefit, we advise a gas flowed throttle body (£295.00) be included in your budget.
-
VR6 12v Pack 'C' (only for 2.8 engine)
We are able to fit 2mm larger valves in the twelve-valve VR6 head, resulting in vastly improved flow and subsequent power and torque gains, especially when fitted to a 2.9 litre engine.
This head also gives excellent results from the 2.8 litre engine without having to resort to a bottom end rebuild or other costly engine work.
To gain even more benefit, we advise a gas flowed throttle body (£295.00) be included in your budget.
:lipsrsealed: :lipsrsealed:
I wonder then if the 2.9 has bigger valves as standard.
-
Apparently the heads are the same on 2.8 and 2.9, or thats what i read on vr6 oc i think. Although might have read it wrong.
-
Apparently the heads are the same on 2.8 and 2.9, or thats what i read on vr6 oc i think. Although might have read it wrong.
Just wondered why they say only for the 2.8.
-
VR6 12v Pack 'C' (only for 2.8 engine)
We are able to fit 2mm larger valves in the twelve-valve VR6 head, resulting in vastly improved flow and subsequent power and torque gains, especially when fitted to a 2.9 litre engine.
This head also gives excellent results from the 2.8 litre engine without having to resort to a bottom end rebuild or other costly engine work.
To gain even more benefit, we advise a gas flowed throttle body (£295.00) be included in your budget.
The Blydenstein head I had has 3mm larger inlet valves and 2mm larger exhaust valves.
The gas flowed TB you can do yourself with a Dremell and save £295!
-
Sorry, i was meaning that what i have heard is that you dont get much from having the head ported on a VR6. Although if i had the money, i would have bigger valves dropped in for sure.
I don't think you get much on a standard engine...but that's the same with every engine.
Standard cams, TB, etc are all designed to work with the strandard head...bolting on a head that can flow lots more, doesn't mean it will flow lots more...you need the cams as well.
Do both, and see big gains.
Same on a 16v...
-
the tsr 'pack a' is a generic head. a good head for the price. but a huge mark up. for those in the know. not alot of flow bench figures around for them.
jmr and jnl racing are both expert engineers that will provide flow figures. they are around the same price as tsr's units. yet with alot more hours gone into them. as well as the flow bench time. im going with jmr as this man really knows his stuff. and publically quotes his cfm figures
-
the best head if you are looking for cfm figures is the cnc head, but its expensive!
-
F*ck me. Just looked up their big vlave head for mine and it's £1200 exchange and that doesn't even include the big valves themselves.
Add one of their custom camshafts and a final hand polish finish and the bill comes to £2070 incl VAT plus still needing the valves to go in the head.
nick
-
actually we can use that site for the 8v 16v argument :laugh:
Std 16v inlet 117 cfm
Std 16v exh 91
ported inlet 142
ported exh 104
std 8v inlet 81
std 8v exh 60
ported inlet106
ported exh 77
ported big valve inlet 118
ported big valve exh 79
so the 16v inlet ports flow 44% better as standard, 34% better ported, and 20% better vs big valve 8v
and the 16v exhaust ports flow 51% better as standard, 35% better ported and 31% better vs big valve 8v
:nerd: :laugh: :smug: :tongue:
-
No argument then! :grin:
-
No argument then! :grin:
Except when fitted in an oil tanker :wink:
nick
-
the best head if you are looking for cfm figures is the cnc head, but its expensive!
Be careful with cnc's flow figures. They don't quote them in the same way as some other engineers.
Paul
-
really? how so?
the 8v 16v comparison should be pretty acurate though as all that data was from the same flow bench, so even of its inaccurate, its proportionally inaccurate!
-
really? how so?
the 8v 16v comparison should be pretty acurate though as all that data was from the same flow bench, so even of its inaccurate, its proportionally inaccurate!
Yes their figures should be ok as a comparison to other figures of their own.
They have used the wrong size bore adaptor in their tests (3.9 inches approx 100mm). You will find their max flow will go down when they use the correct sized bore adaptor.
Paul
-
So Paul86S2 where is the best place to buy a flowed/big valve head from?
-
actually we can use that site for the 8v 16v argument :laugh:
Std 16v inlet 117 cfm
Std 16v exh 91
ported inlet 142
ported exh 104
std 8v inlet 81
std 8v exh 60
ported inlet106
ported exh 77
ported big valve inlet 118
ported big valve exh 79
so the 16v inlet ports flow 44% better as standard, 34% better ported, and 20% better vs big valve 8v
and the 16v exhaust ports flow 51% better as standard, 35% better ported and 31% better vs big valve 8v
:nerd: :laugh: :smug: :tongue:
Large pinch of salt needed with those figures, 16v ports are a lot smaller so I cannot see even with work how it can be that much better.
-
Maybe smaller but twice as many! We all know that quantity counts! :grin:
-
So Paul86S2 where is the best place to buy a flowed/big valve head from?
It all depends what you want Len. As far as I can ascertain you can only really go 0.5mm bigger on the valves without major work.
If you want a decent fast road head, ported and polished with 3 cut valves and seats, new valve guides and seals then I would suggest going on CGTI for the group buy (£350 plus vat), apparently its done by the same guy who does the TSR heads and a few other companies. He also works on a lot of race series and for Radical I believe.
The same guy will do a head to any further spec you want including bigger valves etc.
You do pay your money and take your chance with a lot of work like this. I saw a head recently that cost over £500 and all they had done was some basic port grinding.
Porting seems to be a bit of a weird science, more flow doesn't always equate to more power, you also need to maintain the speed of the mixture through the head.
Paul
-
actually we can use that site for the 8v 16v argument :laugh:
Std 16v inlet 117 cfm
Std 16v exh 91
ported inlet 142
ported exh 104
std 8v inlet 81
std 8v exh 60
ported inlet106
ported exh 77
ported big valve inlet 118
ported big valve exh 79
so the 16v inlet ports flow 44% better as standard, 34% better ported, and 20% better vs big valve 8v
and the 16v exhaust ports flow 51% better as standard, 35% better ported and 31% better vs big valve 8v
:nerd: :laugh: :smug: :tongue:
Large pinch of salt needed with those figures, 16v ports are a lot smaller so I cannot see even with work how it can be that much better.
it cant be true then if you dont believe it :rolleyes:
numbers dont lie wayne, theres no opinion there, just maths
-
So Paul86S2 where is the best place to buy a flowed/big valve head from?
It all depends what you want Len. As far as I can ascertain you can only really go 0.5mm bigger on the valves without major work.
If you want a decent fast road head, ported and polished with 3 cut valves and seats, new valve guides and seals then I would suggest going on CGTI for the group buy (£350 plus vat), apparently its done by the same guy who does the TSR heads and a few other companies. He also works on a lot of race series and for Radical I believe.
The same guy will do a head to any further spec you want including bigger valves etc.
You do pay your money and take your chance with a lot of work like this. I saw a head recently that cost over £500 and all they had done was some basic port grinding.
Porting seems to be a bit of a weird science, more flow doesn't always equate to more power, you also need to maintain the speed of the mixture through the head.
Paul
its a balance to the speed of the motor, so for higher revving engines its more important to get the air in quickly, so smaller ports are good.
-
actually we can use that site for the 8v 16v argument :laugh:
Std 16v inlet 117 cfm
Std 16v exh 91
ported inlet 142
ported exh 104
std 8v inlet 81
std 8v exh 60
ported inlet106
ported exh 77
ported big valve inlet 118
ported big valve exh 79
so the 16v inlet ports flow 44% better as standard, 34% better ported, and 20% better vs big valve 8v
and the 16v exhaust ports flow 51% better as standard, 35% better ported and 31% better vs big valve 8v
:nerd: :laugh: :smug: :tongue:
Large pinch of salt needed with those figures, 16v ports are a lot smaller so I cannot see even with work how it can be that much better.
it cant be true then if you dont believe it :rolleyes:
numbers dont lie wayne, theres no opinion there, just maths
Sorry but I don't believe those figues, to me 1 large valve against 2 smaller valves does not add up to the big difference shown by those figures.
-
do you have the valve sizes to add to the thread?
lets keep this factual, opinions are not welcome!
-
do you have the valve sizes to add to the thread?
lets keep this factual, opinions are not welcome!
Nice attitude :smiley: I love this site at times.
-
So Paul86S2 where is the best place to buy a flowed/big valve head from?
It all depends what you want Len. As far as I can ascertain you can only really go 0.5mm bigger on the valves without major work.
If you want a decent fast road head, ported and polished with 3 cut valves and seats, new valve guides and seals then I would suggest going on CGTI for the group buy (£350 plus vat), apparently its done by the same guy who does the TSR heads and a few other companies. He also works on a lot of race series and for Radical I believe.
The same guy will do a head to any further spec you want including bigger valves etc.
You do pay your money and take your chance with a lot of work like this. I saw a head recently that cost over £500 and all they had done was some basic port grinding.
Porting seems to be a bit of a weird science, more flow doesn't always equate to more power, you also need to maintain the speed of the mixture through the head.
Paul
I want the biggest valves possible and the greatest flow! Plus high lift/dwell cams. Will be fed by either throttle bodies or carbs and a good tube exhaust manifold.
Money isnt my first consideration at this point, I want to find out the very best and then decide if I want to pay out!
-
do you have the valve sizes to add to the thread?
lets keep this factual, opinions are not welcome!
Nice attitude :smiley: I love this site at times.
put some numbers on the table then to prove your opinion! what a kop out :rolleyes:
-
I have told you before Wayne, get a piece of paper and a compass, draw two circles and a slightly larger single one!
Or actually calculate the valve opening with good old pye R squared!
-
Much more to it than just valve sizes, consider as well the size of inlet ports, 16v is tiny against 8v.
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
Oh yes he is!
Forget logic and Maths!
Wayne was told by the folks at TSR when he worked there that an 8v would flow much better than a 16v! :rolleyes:
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
No I am not but I do find those figures hard to believe. :rolleyes:
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
Oh yes he is!
Forget logic and Maths!
Wayne was told by the folks at TSR when he worked there that an 8v would flow much better than a 16v! :rolleyes:
You are a tosser.
I was never told that, all I was saying is that I find those figures hard to believe.
After you told me I was only the teaboy so what would I know.
-
you find those figures hard to believe because........?
my calculator must be broken then if wayne doesnt believe it :grin:
-
you find those figures hard to believe because........?
my calculator must be broken then if wayne doesnt believe it :grin:
Forget it, end off
You along with most other 16v owners are so full of self importance with it being the best engine ever made that you cannot see reason.
-
i cant see reason? your the one arguing fact against opinion. pick up your dummy on the way out
-
8v > 16v any day.
-
So Paul86S2 where is the best place to buy a flowed/big valve head from?
jnl or jmr racing. heads should be ported around what cams your using. not a generic stage 1 etc.
phone up jp from jnl and be blown away with his understanding of porting work
-
I looked at jmr yesterday and all I could find was air-cooled stuff!
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
Oh yes he is!
Forget logic and Maths!
Wayne was told by the folks at TSR when he worked there that an 8v would flow much better than a 16v! :rolleyes:
You are a tosser.
I was never told that, all I was saying is that I find those figures hard to believe.
After you told me I was only the teaboy so what would I know.
Wayne mate you are the tosser and liar!
That is what you said. Dont make me go back and find the quote! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
why do you guys always pick on each ther on here?
this man is doing mine... a flowbwnch is the only way to go. with hundreds of hours of research going into what sort of porting/texture on the inlet/ex ports. inlet manifold too!
http://www.clubgti.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146976
is every head consistently the same when done by hand? of course not. only cnc can do this. but as said, they overinflate their cfm readings. but g-werks use these heads to massive success.
a good head with manifolds blended will cost £750 all day long.
you wont see massive gains without cams. which we all know is a no-no with abf management. the best we can do is use ess_three's research work research
http://www.clubgti.com/forum/showthread.php?t=186393&highlight=16v+tuning
i wish i could afford other management. as a set of 268 schricks would be awesome in an abf. also, i would say the figures ess_three gets is due to his amazing head, from the late mr.B
-
I looked at jmr yesterday and all I could find was air-cooled stuff!
http://www.teamjmr.com/index.php?p=index&s=home
his work is liked in the cgti post
-
Paultownsend is the man to listen too, he sounds like he knows first hand what he is talking about.
Lens advice and additions to this thread are no better than that josho kid. lol
-
Been meaning to read Ess-three's thread! :embarassed:
Thats why I am thinking about carbs as then you can do away with the abf management! You can get an electronic dizzy from Mallory or Lumenition.
-
Been meaning to read Ess-three's thread! :embarassed:
Thats why I am thinking about carbs as then you can do away with the abf management! You can get an electronic dizzy from Mallory or Lumenition.
Carbs is stooopid on an ABF. You all ready have an engine with all the sensors you need to run ITB's and Megasquirt (or other). What's the point in taking a backwards step in fuel management by fitting carbs?
Nick
-
Been meaning to read Ess-three's thread! :embarassed:
Thats why I am thinking about carbs as then you can do away with the abf management! You can get an electronic dizzy from Mallory or Lumenition.
Carbs is stooopid on an ABF. You all ready have an engine with all the sensors you need to run ITB's and Megasquirt (or other). What's the point in taking a backwards step in fuel management by fitting carbs?
Nick
Can't you tweak them a little more to gain more BHP?
-
what are you trying to say, 8v's flow better than 16v's? do you understand how i worked out the percentages?
Oh yes he is!
Forget logic and Maths!
Wayne was told by the folks at TSR when he worked there that an 8v would flow much better than a 16v! :rolleyes:
You are a tosser.
I was never told that, all I was saying is that I find those figures hard to believe.
After you told me I was only the teaboy so what would I know.
Wayne mate you are the tosser and liar!
That is what you said. Dont make me go back and find the quote! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No need to find the quote, it has been removed anyway but you called me the teaboy and I know nothing.
-
Been meaning to read Ess-three's thread! :embarassed:
Thats why I am thinking about carbs as then you can do away with the abf management! You can get an electronic dizzy from Mallory or Lumenition.
Carbs is stooopid on an ABF. You all ready have an engine with all the sensors you need to run ITB's and Megasquirt (or other). What's the point in taking a backwards step in fuel management by fitting carbs?
Nick
Can't you tweak them a little more to gain more BHP?
In days gone by when comapring to older fuel injection systems but modern ITB's correctly set up with good management will produce more power and use less fuel than a set of carbs.
Carbs do sound ace though!
nick
-
Its just a thought Nick! :rolleyes:
Just starting out on a long road of discovery and investigating ALL possibilities!
-
im not all that. i cant fix the bloddy idle on my abf conversion! but i can work a spanner.
iv done alot of research because im tight :cool:
a sh!te analogy. you can but a bloody nice suit from paul smith. lovely fit and the colour you want. or you could go to savile row and get custom fitted for a little more £. the experts not (relatively) mass produces
the big brand tsr head will be fantastic, but more can be had
a local lad to me has bike tb's on his abf. r1 i think. with megajolt i think. got it up and running real cheap. on the same rr (dyno dynamics so very accurate) his made +20hp +18lbft up on mine (digi 3.2). no headwork and bodge manifold. it sounds like thor! i heard it minutes before i saw it. so responsive once warmed up. but before that? they have no cold idle controll, so as a daily, very hard work to live with. track car? perfect! believe danny_p is brewing one up now!
-
Well mine wont be a daily! Have the Passat for that. Wont be a track car either. It will be a very fast road car with very little compromise.
-
as long as you get rid of the lights and them wheels it will be :grin:
-
and to put this 8v/16v thing to bed. my mk2. i had a 2.0 8v. big valve head. newman 268'. ported inlet and exhaust manifolds. it made 138hp and 145lbft. and it cost a fortune to build.
i then put in a 16v abf running digi 3.2. 149.5hp 139lbft. same jetex exhaust as the 8v. also the same lightened fly and aug 020 box.
the only difference i can tell is the 16v has a little less grunt at the lower end. not worrying. but i can still potter around at 30 in 5th everywhere.
yet, where the 8v, even with its oversized valves and longer duration, higher lift cam, used to run out of puff at 6k, the 16v pulls to 7k and gets there a hell of alot quicker.
my favorite piece of private track, a long'ish straight, the car is a good 20mph quicker. thats off the clock blasting through 3-5 between 5-6.5k in all gears.
with a ported head and matched inlet track/ex. custom fueling map, this car will be a daily animal
-
and to put this 8v/16v thing to bed. my mk2. i had a 2.0 8v. big valve head. newman 268'. ported inlet and exhaust manifolds. it made 138hp and 145lbft. and it cost a fortune to build.
i then put in a 16v abf running digi 3.2. 149.5hp 139lbft. same jetex exhaust as the 8v. also the same lightened fly and aug 020 box.
the only difference i can tell is the 16v has a little less grunt at the lower end. not worrying. but i can still potter around at 30 in 5th everywhere.
yet, where the 8v, even with its oversized valves and longer duration, higher lift cam, used to run out of puff at 6k, the 16v pulls to 7k and gets there a hell of alot quicker.
my favorite piece of private track, a long'ish straight, the car is a good 20mph quicker. thats off the clock blasting through 3-5 between 5-6.5k in all gears.
with a ported head and matched inlet track/ex. custom fueling map, this car will be a daily animal
So the greatest engine to ever be fitted to a Golf had less torque than the 8V :rolleyes:
-
my 8v made more torque than most. but less hp for some reason. the point is the abf is standard. economically, you could never get an 8v to the same figures a tuned 16v will be producing.
i would love to be able to afford emerald management to get rid of that pesky map sensor. but my shell isnt woth it. guys, if i wer to do another conversion, it'd be a 2.9 vr6 with headwork, increased valve size, short runner intake and cams. monster monster
-
Having watched a MKII VR6 understeer it's way round Brands at the weekend I'd avoid that lump iron in anything you want to handle like the plague. I stoof next to the car in question when it was parked up in the paddock and 90% of the engine was infront of the wheel centre line!!!!!!!
nick
-
Just for information, had an email from cnc heads and yes they do do a head for the abf, although not shown on their website.
head = £1050
big valves = £400
cams = £500
And another £100 for an infill to the injector holes if you run throttle bodies.
Now I have a starting budget! :grin:
-
Just for information, had an email from cnc heads and yes they do do a head for the abf, although not shown on their website.
head = £1050
big valves = £400
cams = £500
And another £100 for an infill to the injector holes if you run throttle bodies.
Now I have a starting budget! :grin:
£1950 :shocked: is it ever worth it.
-
Oh and have just quoted 278bhp @ 8500 rpm on a 2160cc block!
Hmmmm we'll see! Bit sceptical about those figures!
-
which retard quoted those figures? a mapped bam with ko4 struggles to make that.
210 is the max upper limit with on any 16v head without some sort of forced induction. and what bottom end will tke 8500k?
and after the machining, pistins, rods, bolts you wont have much change 2.5k. forget a bos that'll handle or put down the power
-
Has already been said that cnc tend to exagerate figures! :grin:
-
Oh and have just quoted 278bhp @ 8500 rpm on a 2160cc block!
Hmmmm we'll see! Bit sceptical about those figures!
Not a chance :rolleyes:
-
Just for information, had an email from cnc heads and yes they do do a head for the abf, although not shown on their website.
head = £1050
big valves = £400
cams = £500
And another £100 for an infill to the injector holes if you run throttle bodies.
Now I have a starting budget! :grin:
£1950 :shocked: is it ever worth it.
That actually adds up to £2050.
The pertinent word was budget! In my world a budget is never exceeded and to be considered as maximum spend.
Worth? Well I wouldnt go out and buy a brand new Golf gti and lose 4 grand in 6 months!
So its all relative.
-
I can't see why anyone would spend that much money on a 16v lump unless it was for competition use and to fit within regs. There are far cheaper ways of getting that kind of power.
Nick
-
I can't see why anyone would spend that much money on a 16v lump unless it was for competition use and to fit within regs. There are far cheaper ways of getting that kind of power.
Nick
Thank you, someone with sense.
-
Why? Because I can, because I want to. Sense has no bearing on it.
If money was an issue I wouldnt have spent what I have already.
-
Why? Because I can, because I want to. Sense has no bearing on it.
If money was an issue I wouldnt have spent what I have already.
You actually considering spending that kind of cash on your motor then?
I mean yeah fine it's your money and all that but tuning a ABF to within an inch of it's life for that much money compared to a mild fettle and an eaton charger doesn't make sense other than the "because I can" argeument which is lame.
nick
-
i know that this isnt the thread to discuss. but the mk2 vr6/weight argument is almost as bad as the 8v/16v.
a properly executed mk2 vr6 using the full front suspension, wide track+ matched damping is a fantastic thing.
the widetrack gives great stability, and properly matched damping/spring lb (kw through g-werks do a specific kit) makes it handle very, very close to a normal tall block.
check this....
http://www.clubgti.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123
this thing wins races!
iv driven one of these, although with a vf supercharger. wide tracked, h+r 25mm bar, corner weighted and some clever geometry. and it handled perfectly. you just have to change your driving style. smoothly, mure accurate
-
Why? Because I can, because I want to. Sense has no bearing on it.
If money was an issue I wouldnt have spent what I have already.
You actually considering spending that kind of cash on your motor then?
nick
YES!
Lot less than spent already!
-
i know that this isnt the thread to discuss. but the mk2 vr6/weight argument is almost is almost as bad as the 8v/16v.
a properly executed mk2 vr6 using the full front suspension, wide track+ matched damping is a fantastic thing. the widetrack gives great stability, and properly matched damping/spring lb (kw through g-werks do a specific kit) makes it handle very, very close to a normal tall block.
check this....
http://www.clubgti.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123
this thing wins races!
iv driven one of these, although with a vf supercharger. wide tracked, h+r 25mm bar, corner weighted and some clever geometry. and it handled perfectly. you just have to change your driving style. smoothly, mure accurate
I'll never argue that you can't get them to handle but your starting off from a very bad position in the first place. All the MKII VR's I have seen on the move look awkward and a right handlful. Just seems that you'd be better off starting with an engine that sits in the right place to start with. Nothing can beat that noise though!!!!
nick
-
Anything is possible if you have enough money. The Golf 3 Kit cars produce over 260 bhp, but who's got £20k for an engine that will need rebuilding every so many hours running time, and they will be a real pain around town.
If money was the real issue no-one would spend anything on their Mk2 or 3 Golf.
Len - I would seriously look at head work, cams, Megasquirt management, and ITB's. Anything over a 260 or 264 cam set up will need stand alone management and a rolling road set up. Jenvey offer a good ITB set up but its not cheap. Carbs are a step backwards and suffer from poor fuel economy and can ice up in the winter.
Wayne - yes we all like our 16v's but thats what this thread is about. If the 8v was the better car why did VW find the need to produce a 16v? Why would the 8v get a weight advantage in the Mk2 racing series? It's horses for courses. We know you like the 8v and there is nothing wrong with the 8v but its not the best place to start for a good revving free flowing tuned engine.
16v's will always flow better in a head than 8 large valves, why else would car manufactures make them? The 8v's peak torque is too low down the rev range for this application. How did we get onto 8v v's 16v again.
Paul
-
Just seems that you'd be better off starting with an engine that sits in the right place to start with.
nick
[/quote]
bet you wouldnt be saying that if i gave you a 911 :grin:
oh that sound is amazing. but charged? its the best sound in the world. if i could afford a 20vt. i would. agu with a k04. second to that would be a vr6. boat anchor with 200hp.
back on topic. join the main cgti forum, get on the head group buy. save £££. then get the car mapped with r-tech with a decent exhaust, gutted airbow with k£n. get a solid 175 all day long, on any rollers. no point going further without stanalone management for cams.
-
Just seems that you'd be better off starting with an engine that sits in the right place to start with.
nick
bet you wouldnt be saying that if i gave you a 911 :grin:
Ha ha you're right :grin:
nick
-
How did we get onto 8v v's 16v again.
Paul
It's all good natured banter (for the most part). I'm getting itchy throttle foot at the moment and can't wait for 2010 track action. Hopefully see you at some of the 928 days over the year for some 8 vs 16 fun :wink:
nick
-
Both Pauls - hear what you're saying but ....
I only mention carbs because I would love to have a completely non eletronic engine. I know thats not really possible but hey I can wish.
Plus as its got a CAT you have to have a Lambda etc. and you need an electronic dizzy at least! Plus I would like to keep the abs.
So I am stuck with electronics!
Wont be happy with just say 175 bhp, the thirst for ultimate power is there. By that I mean a non race engine that doesnt need rebuilding every 5 minutes!
Will probably follow Ess-three's lead and try to take it further.
-
No way on this earth would I spend £2k on making a mk3 quicker, I would sell and buy something quicker.
Stupid and daft idea but would expect nothing less from Len.
-
From a man who spends money on a Vauxhal vectra! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
From a man who spends money on a Vauxhal vectra! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Whole different league, I got the car for £600 and yes I spent money on mods but once I had finished I removed all the mods and sold them on, then sold the car for nearly £800, did the same with the Golf.
Blowing £2k on engine which you will never see back is bonkers. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Why bring up the Vectra anyway that was 3 years ago, I only have a picture as my sig due to you calling me a chav.
-
its the head that makes ess_threes power. i bet thats a good £750 head. and you wont find a schrick inlet cam on its own. newman or cat maybe?
seriously id get the head done, a map, a decent exhaust and a bloody good service with all new sensors. go to steralth and il bet youll get 190hp. but thats a pub figure. what we should be chasing, is torque.
infact, the best thing for these abf's, is a lightened flywheel.
can i ask what suspension setup your using? how quick a car is isnt always about the engine
-
FK Konigsport coilovers. Will probably change arb's and poly bush that and possibly other bushes.
Yes Ess-three was adamant about the flywheel. :grin:
-
FK Konigsport coilovers. Will probably change arb's and poly bush that and possibly other bushes.
Yes Ess-three was adamant about the flywheel. :grin:
Ha Ha, my lightened flywheel is on its way to me today!!
Uprated ARB's will definately make a big differance to the handling, they actually made my car more comfortable!!
Paul
-
How did we get onto 8v v's 16v again.
Paul
It's all good natured banter (for the most part). I'm getting itchy throttle foot at the moment and can't wait for 2010 track action. Hopefully see you at some of the 928 days over the year for some 8 vs 16 fun :wink:
nick
I've got one more day planned for later this month - then its time to fit the lightened flywheel etc. Yes I'll see you at the 928 days, might even take the 928 for a spin around Combe next time, about time I made use of the 310 bhp, Leda suspension and manual gearbox again.
Paul
-
How did we get onto 8v v's 16v again.
Paul
It's all good natured banter (for the most part). I'm getting itchy throttle foot at the moment and can't wait for 2010 track action. Hopefully see you at some of the 928 days over the year for some 8 vs 16 fun :wink:
nick
I've got one more day planned for later this month - then its time to fit the lightened flywheel etc. Yes I'll see you at the 928 days, might even take the 928 for a spin around Combe next time, about time I made use of the 310 bhp, Leda suspension and manual gearbox again.
Paul
Bagsie a passenger session! :evil:
Nick
-
928 engine! Hmmm now that might be an engine swap worth doing! :evil: :grin:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
V8? :laugh:
-
928 engine! Hmmm now that might be an engine swap worth doing! :evil: :grin:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Artz in Germany did a few Golf Mk1's with the original 4.5 litre 928 engine. They had to cut the shell in half and widen it by a fair few inches.
Looked very odd but i bet it went well :evil:
Paul
-
the std 8v 020 fly is lighter than a worked 16v 02a fly :grin: a lightened 020 fly is silly light! will make a big difference boys!
before the engine work, id treat the old boat to some roll bars and poly bushes. rod ends and ball joints. top mount bearings too. i upgraded to the late mk3/vr separate bearing top mounts. there awesome!
will be awesome then! dont listen to the polybush haters either!
-
the std 8v 020 fly is lighter than a worked 16v 02a fly :grin: a lightened 020 fly is silly light! will make a big difference boys!
before the engine work, id treat the old boat to some roll bars and poly bushes. rod ends and ball joints. top mount bearings too. i upgraded to the late mk3/vr separate bearing top mounts. there awesome!
will be awesome then! dont listen to the polybush haters either!
Yes you're right an 020 lightened flywheel will be lighter (smaller dia) but as far as I know you can't fit the 16v clutch to an 020 flywheel.
Paul
-
your right, they cant be swopped over. my 8v 'hotgolf' fly went on a major diet. its such a good mod. it went from 4.9kg to 3.1kg
-
your right, they cant be swopped over. my 8v 'hotgolf' fly went on a major diet. its such a good mod. it went from 4.9kg to 3.1kg
My 16v "hotgolf" flywheel has gone from 9.5kgs to about 5.5kgs. I'll weigh it when it arrives.
Paul
-
No way on this earth would I spend £2k on making a mk3 quicker, I would sell and buy something quicker.
Horses for courses...
I have my Mk3 I've spent a fortune on...and wanted something faster so bought an S3, then a 911. Got bored 5 years later...and sold it.
Still got the Mk3 though...
Still NA...
Never fitting a 1.8T heap...
...and I'll still keep spending money, time and effort in the Mk3. Sometimes the pleasure of doing it outweighs the easy option of buying something faster, no?
-
its the head that makes ess_threes power. i bet thats a good £750 head.
Try double that.
That'll be nearer the mark, especially when you add in the Ti retainers, new valves, valve seals, springs, lightweight lifters, etc.
can i ask what suspension setup your using? how quick a car is isnt always about the engine
Exactly...you'll be quicker A to B with a standard engine and a sorted chassis.
Power is nothing without control, and all that.
-
16v's will always flow better in a head than 8 large valves, why else would car manufactures make them?
Are people forgetting that it's not just the amount of air/fuel you get in that makes power...it's how well it mixes and how complete the combustion.
16vs mix better and burn better for the same air/fuel (in general) hence more power...they also flow more...so even more power potential, whilst being more efficient (using less fuel) and giving better emissions.
-
so who do i get to sort my head (which will have moody cams in it) and what management do i need to run and what's it all gonna cost!!! :evil:
-
thats an expensive head. but after speaking to some proper engineers, im not supprised. the man hours going into it i suppose.£750 is my limit. then some arp bolts while im there.may as well :smiley:
how much would be gained ess_three, from bottom end work? based around, say, a eurospec crank? would it make the engine spin up much quicker?
without going into fored induction. itb's, tb's or carbs. what can be the absolute DRIVABLE power limit from an abf? is it the tb and inlet that restrict?
say, a fully blended head, in/ex tract. 260-268 cams. stanalone management, and a lightened/worked bottom end to handle the extra revs?
mike_h had a 2.1 hotgolf abf bottom end for sale which i missed out on. shame :sad:
-
No way on this earth would I spend £2k on making a mk3 quicker, I would sell and buy something quicker.
Horses for courses...
I have my Mk3 I've spent a fortune on...and wanted something faster so bought an S3, then a 911. Got bored 5 years later...and sold it.
Still got the Mk3 though...
Still NA...
Never fitting a 1.8T heap...
...and I'll still keep spending money, time and effort in the Mk3. Sometimes the pleasure of doing it outweighs the easy option of buying something faster, no?
This is fine if you have bags of money, sh!t loads of tools and a massive garage with ramp etc.. not to mention another car while your mk3 is in the shop. If your like me and find yourself doing most of your own maintenance takes enough time then you have to agree with wayne on this. Sell your mk3 for a grand, then you have three grand. Go and buy yourself a mark four 1.8 turbo in black, save a little more money and buy a better turbo for it, job done .:wink:
-
it depends what you want really, noones gonna agree on this. if you really want something and cant afford it, save up untill you can.
its not really an upgrade getting a mk4 now is it. the attractiveness of the abf is how it makes power, throttle response etc. these turbo motors with more torque than hp go really well, but dont exactly feel exciting :undecided:
-
No way on this earth would I spend £2k on making a mk3 quicker, I would sell and buy something quicker.
Horses for courses...
I have my Mk3 I've spent a fortune on...and wanted something faster so bought an S3, then a 911. Got bored 5 years later...and sold it.
Still got the Mk3 though...
Still NA...
Never fitting a 1.8T heap...
...and I'll still keep spending money, time and effort in the Mk3. Sometimes the pleasure of doing it outweighs the easy option of buying something faster, no?
This is fine if you have bags of money, sh!t loads of tools and a massive garage with ramp etc.. not to mention another car while your mk3 is in the shop. If your like me and find yourself doing most of your own maintenance takes enough time then you have to agree with wayne on this. Sell your mk3 for a grand, then you have three grand. Go and buy yourself a mark four 1.8 turbo in black, save a little more money and buy a better turbo for it, job done .:wink:
Thank you :smiley: , someone with a level head.
-
that makes sense, a mk4 probably is about as exctiting to drive as a vectra
-
that makes sense, a mk4 probably is about as exctiting to drive as a vectra
I never said a Vectra is a good drive, but I would never waste £2k that you will never see back on a 13 year old car.
-
erm. mk4? the usual mods. the same youd do to any mk2. say weitec springs, dampers and arb's. poly bush everything. and you have a good handling car. k03s and a map and exhaust and your away! ever driven a sorted mk4?
iv seen a few good mk4's for going for 2k
car 2k
service kit 150
weitec sus+arb 550
polys 150
k03s 200
r-tech map 250
total 3300
a 200hp good handling, good looking oem+ car. no, not massively exciting, but very compitent. i often perv the mk4 section. some very focused cars in there.
however, no-one can say a mapped aug with a k03s in a mk2 isnt exciting. not with that turn of speed blasting through the right ratios
-
how much would be gained ess_three, from bottom end work? based around, say, a eurospec crank? would it make the engine spin up much quicker?
Assuming you go up in compression too...probably around 20 BHP from going 2.1 high Comp bottom end...with little more top end revs...if you are going solid lifters and looking for 8000RPM+ and fitting the cams to suit (276-305) then 30-40 over a spec similar to mine.
without going into fored induction. itb's, tb's or carbs. what can be the absolute DRIVABLE power limit from an abf? is it the tb and inlet that restrict?
I'd say 210-220 BHP on a standard bottom end is possible with no issues. (Good head, cams, ITBs, standalone etc)
Over 200 the plenum restricts (not the TB as it's the same size butterfly as a VR6) so you are limited by what cams you can get to run. Ditch Digi 3.2 and you should be able to run 276s with no problems (as KRs can) but I’m unsure if you’ll run out of headroom on the injectors.
say, a fully blended head, in/ex tract. 260-268 cams. stanalone management, and a lightened/worked bottom end to handle the extra revs?
That lot should give around 200 BHP I’d guess, especially on 268s.
-
This is fine if you have bags of money, sh!t loads of tools and a massive garage with ramp etc.. not to mention another car while your mk3 is in the shop. If your like me and find yourself doing most of your own maintenance takes enough time then you have to agree with wayne on this. Sell your mk3 for a grand, then you have three grand. Go and buy yourself a mark four 1.8 turbo in black, save a little more money and buy a better turbo for it, job done .:wink:
Fine, if you wanted an awful Mk4...each to their own though.
People who are considering spending £1000s on a Mk3 aren't doing it to have the fastest car they can though...they must be enthusiasts who do it for the pleasure as much as the results.
Different thinking...
-
I never said a Vectra is a good drive, but I would never waste £2k that you will never see back on a 13 year old car.
If it's your hobby?
So what?
I know people spending £10k on a Mk2...and the end result is something way more special than a £10k Euro-bland modern box...so why not?
To them it's not wasting...
To you it is.
Horses for courses.;
-
This thread is almost starting to imply that a mk3 is fun to drive...... calm down boys.
-
Which is fine...
So if somebody wants to spend £3000 of their money on a 13 year old Mk3, let them.
So what if you could but 100 Vectras or a BT Mk4...who gives?
It's their money...let them spend it as they wish.
-
I never said a Vectra is a good drive, but I would never waste £2k that you will never see back on a 13 year old car.
If it's your hobby?
So what?
I know people spending £10k on a Mk2...and the end result is something way more special than a £10k Euro-bland modern box...so why not?
To them it's not wasting...
To you it is.
Horses for courses.;
You have your views and I have mine.
Spending a lot of money and building a show car is one thing, to try and make a bad handling and not that quick car as standard by spending £2k to me is pointless, starting with a mk2 would be a better bet as it lighter.
-
Spending a lot of money and building a show car is one thing, to try and make a bad handling and not that quick car as standard by spending £2k to me is pointless, starting with a mk2 would be a better bet as it lighter.
This is where you are showing your ignorance...
Mk3 isn't much heavier than a late Mk2 when you get them lightened a bit...and with a significantly stronger 'shell, you end up with a stiffer platform to mount the suspension.
Take both to the extreme, and the weights will be similar...Mk2 needs more of a cage as the base shell os not as stiff (more weight) but Mk3 has wider track. Road car vs road car...the lighter Mk2 vs stiffer Mk3 with better brakes.
I was quicker round Knockhill in my Mk3 8v than my mate in his Mk2 16v (both road cars...both on uprates suspension and wheels/tyres)
So you take a heavy, ill handling Mk3 and spend a few £1000 wisely and you will be bang on Mk2 pace...
The Mk2 accellerates quicker, the Mk3 brakes better.
Can you tell me why a Corrado VR6 handles better than a Mk3 VR6?
It's not much...I can assure yoiu...minor tweak that turns a turd into one of the best handling FWD cars ever.
-
mk3's arent that bad once sorted tbh, its the standard car thats dire. there was a very quick mk3 vr6 at the vee festival.
dont tell the mk2 boys i said that though!
-
mk3's arent that bad once sorted tbh, its the standard car thats dire. there was a very quick mk3 vr6 at the vee festival.
dont tell the mk2 boys i said that though!
Yeah that MKIII VR was sooooo much better than the MKII VR which just understeered around the circuit all day!
Nick
-
Can you tell me why a Corrado VR6 handles better than a Mk3 VR6?
It's not much...I can assure yoiu...minor tweak that turns a turd into one of the best handling FWD cars ever.
because vw put some springs from a matress on the vr6 which resulted in boat like handling. the corrado vr6 handles very well (2nd best fwd to the integra back in the day)
-
Spending a lot of money and building a show car is one thing, to try and make a bad handling and not that quick car as standard by spending £2k to me is pointless, starting with a mk2 would be a better bet as it lighter.
This is where you are showing your ignorance...
Mk3 isn't much heavier than a late Mk2 when you get them lightened a bit...and with a significantly stronger 'shell, you end up with a stiffer platform to mount the suspension.
Take both to the extreme, and the weights will be similar...Mk2 needs more of a cage as the base shell os not as stiff (more weight) but Mk3 has wider track. Road car vs road car...the lighter Mk2 vs stiffer Mk3 with better brakes.
I was quicker round Knockhill in my Mk3 8v than my mate in his Mk2 16v (both road cars...both on uprates suspension and wheels/tyres)
So you take a heavy, ill handling Mk3 and spend a few £1000 wisely and you will be bang on Mk2 pace...
The Mk2 accellerates quicker, the Mk3 brakes better.
Can you tell me why a Corrado VR6 handles better than a Mk3 VR6?
It's not much...I can assure yoiu...minor tweak that turns a turd into one of the best handling FWD cars ever.
Is the Corrado not based on a mk2. :rolleyes:
-
yes it is
Yeah that MKIII VR was sooooo much better than the MKII VR which just understeered around the circuit all day!
Nick
ex vw cup car i believe, its a seriously well developed car.
-
Is the Corrado not based on a mk2. :rolleyes:
No, it's not actually, not when you look at the bits that make it go...
It has a Golf VR6 front end (suspension arms, hubs, steering rack, ARB, engine, gearbox, brakes) with a Passat rear beam & brakes.
No Mk2 bits in there at all.
So it's actually a Golf 3 / Passat hybrid...not Mk2 as those who have never had one / worked on one suppose.
Golf VR6 to Corrado VR6 main difference = negative camber on the Corrado.
Add that to the Golf 3, with a similar spring/damper set up and they drive the same...so not so hard to make a Golf 3 handle then?
-
because vw put some springs from a matress on the vr6 which resulted in boat like handling. the corrado vr6 handles very well (2nd best fwd to the integra back in the day)
Indeed it does...so if you put similar springs and dampers, with similar suspension angles onto a Mk3 Golf (which is lighter) what happens to the handling difference?
-
looking at a race prepped one last weekend the floorpan is identical to a mk2's. so the shell is based on a mk2
the vr6 has a mk3 axle setup, but the g60 down all have a mk2 axle setup at the front. most rado owners agree that the g60 handles better than the vr6, but thats down to the engine weight and position
passat rear beam setup = mk2 but a bit wider
so yeah its based on a mk2
-
because vw put some springs from a matress on the vr6 which resulted in boat like handling. the corrado vr6 handles very well (2nd best fwd to the integra back in the day)
Indeed it does...so if you put similar springs and dampers, with similar suspension angles onto a Mk3 Golf (which is lighter) what happens to the handling difference?
im sure theres more to it than that. have you had a tape measure across the suspension turrets on both models for example?
having never driven a vr6 im not really in a position to comment
-
Is the Corrado not based on a mk2. :rolleyes:
No, it's not actually, not when you look at the bits that make it go...
It has a Golf VR6 front end (suspension arms, hubs, steering rack, ARB, engine, gearbox, brakes) with a Passat rear beam & brakes.
No Mk2 bits in there at all.
So it's actually a Golf 3 / Passat hybrid...not Mk2 as those who have never had one / worked on one suppose.
Golf VR6 to Corrado VR6 main difference = negative camber on the Corrado.
Add that to the Golf 3, with a similar spring/damper set up and they drive the same...so not so hard to make a Golf 3 handle then?
looking at a race prepped one last weekend the floorpan is identical to a mk2's. so the shell is based on a mk2
the vr6 has a mk3 axle setup, but the g60 down all have a mk2 axle setup at the front. most rado owners agree that the g60 handles better than the vr6, but thats down to the engine weight and position
passat rear beam setup = mk2 but a bit wider
so yeah its based on a mk2
I was thinking the same so just checked Wikipedia and they say it is a Golf mk2 front and and a Passat rear.
Conceived as a successor to the successful Scirocco, it is a three-door hatchback with a 2+2 seating layout. The Corrado used Volkswagen's B3 platform in the rear of the car, while using the A2 platform technology up front, which it shared with the then-current Golf Mk2 and Jetta. It shared many mechanical parts with other Volkswagen A platform cars as well. In 1990 the Corrado went on sale in the United States.
B3
The B3 Volkswagen Passat was the first B platform car to be called Passat in the United States. The B3 was also the first Passat with an independently designed platform, it did not share parts with Audi models. Instead, the design borrowed heavily from the Volkswagen Group A2 platform.
Volkswagen Passat B3 (Typ 35i, 1988-1993; 1990-1994 in US)
Volkswagen Corrado (1988-1995, hybrid platform with A2)
The "B3" designation is also used to refer to the "Typ 89" version of the Audi 80/90 produced from 1987 to 1992 and the "Typ 8B" Audi Coupé and S2. However these are not based on the same platform as the "B3" Passat.
A2
A2 platform cars (Typ numbers in brackets):
Volkswagen Corrado (53I) (hybrid platform with B3)
VW Golf Mk2 (19E)
VW Jetta II (19E)
SEAT Toledo Mk1 (1L)
Chery A15
-
looking at a race prepped one last weekend the floorpan is identical to a mk2's. so the shell is based on a mk2
Shell isn't based on anything...it's bespoke.
Running gear is Mk3 based...on a VR6 - which is what we were talking about.
Looking at the platform - which I'm sure you'll agree means more thyan the 'shell - a Corrado is closer to being a Passat coupe, than a Mk2 coupe.
the vr6 has a mk3 axle setup, but the g60 down all have a mk2 axle setup at the front. most rado owners agree that the g60 handles better than the vr6, but thats down to the engine weight and position
Interesting that the G60 wasn't rated as being as good handling by the media...despite the Corrado owners obviously knowing better.
passat rear beam setup = mk2 but a bit wider
Like a Mk3 then?
If you care to search ETKA, you'll find more in common with a Mk3, than Mks - on a VR6 Corrado - which was what we were speaking about
-
im sure theres more to it than that. have you had a tape measure across the suspension turrets on both models for example?
having never driven a vr6 im not really in a position to comment
Not when you set them up with aftermarket suspension, there isn't...
I've driven/owned them, so can tell you from experience.
The part numbers on some of the kits are the same too...so add the same suspension settings in, and there is NO difference between a C VR6 and a Mk3 VR6 handling wise.
-
I was thinking the same so just checked Wikipedia and they say it is a Golf mk2 front and and a Passat rear.
Conceived as a successor to the successful Scirocco, it is a three-door hatchback with a 2+2 seating layout. The Corrado used Volkswagen's B3 platform in the rear of the car, while using the A2 platform technology up front, which it shared with the then-current Golf Mk2 and Jetta. It shared many mechanical parts with other Volkswagen A platform cars as well. In 1990 the Corrado went on sale in the United States.
B3
The B3 Volkswagen Passat was the first B platform car to be called Passat in the United States. The B3 was also the first Passat with an independently designed platform, it did not share parts with Audi models. Instead, the design borrowed heavily from the Volkswagen Group A2 platform.
Volkswagen Passat B3 (Typ 35i, 1988-1993; 1990-1994 in US)
Volkswagen Corrado (1988-1995, hybrid platform with A2)
The "B3" designation is also used to refer to the "Typ 89" version of the Audi 80/90 produced from 1987 to 1992 and the "Typ 8B" Audi Coupé and S2. However these are not based on the same platform as the "B3" Passat.
A2
A2 platform cars (Typ numbers in brackets):
Volkswagen Corrado (53I) (hybrid platform with B3)
VW Golf Mk2 (19E)
VW Jetta II (19E)
SEAT Toledo Mk1 (1L)
Chery A15
Wikipedia wrong?
Heaven forbid…
How about checking ETKA?
I have Corrado front arms, balljoints, hubs on my Mk3…they came off a Corrado VR6 I broke.
If they were Mk2, they’d be 4 stud…and non-Plus suspension.
The engine (VR6), gearboxe (02A), steering rack, arms, balljoints, hubs etc are all Mk3
Not Mk2.
Give Wikepedia it’s due…it does state that the Corrado is a hybrid B3 platform – Passat…a Passat/Mk3 hybrid, as I said earlier.
-
Not wishing to pee on your cornflakes Ess_Three as generally you speak the truth but in this instance you are in fact slight;y wrong. The Corrado is a hybrd MKII/Passat beastie. The fact the MKIII shares the VR6 bits is beacuse they were robbed from the Corrado VR6 to put on the Golf III. The early corrado's are all MKII front set up and then the VR and later 16v's were wide tracked and this is the stuff they used on the MKIII golf. The Corrado uses a MKII Golf floor pan, and the rear part of the chasis legs up to the suspension points and then has a B3 floorpan at the rear with the Karmann body on the top. It really is a bit of a parts bin special.
nick
-
Not wishing to pee on your cornflakes Ess_Three as generally you speak the truth but in this instance you are in fact slight;y wrong. The Corrado is a hybrd MKII/Passat beastie. The fact the MKIII shares the VR6 bits is beacuse they were robbed from the Corrado VR6 to put on the Golf III. The early corrado's are all MKII front set up and then the VR and later 16v's were wide tracked and this is the stuff they used on the MKIII golf. The Corrado uses a MKII Golf floor pan, and the rear part of the chasis legs up to the suspension points and then has a B3 floorpan at the rear with the Karmann body on the top. It really is a bit of a parts bin special.
nick
Thank you Nick, I was thinking that was the case.
-
i thought you were talking about all corrados tbh
think about it, corrados with mk2 engines will have a mk2 setup and corrados with mk3 engine will have mk3 setup.
anyway didnt the corrado come out before the mk3? how can a car be based on a car that hasnt been released yet?
-
i thought you were talking about all corrados tbh
think about it, corrados with mk2 engines will have a mk2 setup and corrados with mk3 engine will have mk3 setup.
anyway didnt the corrado come out before the mk3? how can a car be based on a car that hasnt been released yet?
Exactly what I was thinking.
-
anyway didnt the corrado come out before the mk3? how can a car be based on a car that hasnt been released yet?
When did the Corrado VR6 get released?
When was the Mk3 Golf released?
I had a L plate Corrado VR6...one of the early ones...and the Mk3 VR6 was out then.
Go and trawl through ETKA and tell me how many of the bits that account for drive and handling are shared with as MK2 compared to a Mk3.
Do you all understand platform sharing?
Platforms exist before somebody puts a body on them.
The fact remians, the Corrado VR6 is a Mk3/Passat hybrid...with less in common with the Mk2 than either of those two...and since we are universally agreed, the Corrado VR6 shares it's front end 'bits' with a Golf Mk3...it should come as no surprise to hear that you can make a Golf Mk3 VR6 handle like a Corrado VR6.
-
yes the vr6 has a mk3 front axle. we have established that. repeatedly
have a read mate, we are talking about corrados in general. the vr6 wasn't the only model
i dunno why your getting defensive about the mk3, i was saying how well they can be made to handle earlier in the thread!
-
whatever the corrado is, its a beautiful car. to drive and look at.
back on topic. im ringing emerald tomorrow for management.
-
Taken from: http://www.corrado-vr6.info/background.htm
The Corrado is based on the Mk2 Golf floor-pan with some parts donated from the Passat. However, some of the parts and much of the bodywork was made by Karmann.
:undecided:
Anyway back on topic.
-
And from edition 38
"Chat here about your never-did-as-well-as-the-golf-and-nobody-knows-why little beauty"
:D
-
Thought this was about heads?
-
I didnt even know what tsr pack a head was till now. Thought it was a type of games console or summit.. :embarassed:
-
Thought this was about heads?
It is / was but as per normal it has gone off topic.
-
Just because the corrado uses mk3 parts, it still is essentially a mk2 golf chassis.
Ess-Three, you're gonna have to admit you are wrong for once :laugh:
-
Just because the corrado uses mk3 parts, it still is essentially a mk2 golf chassis.
Ess-Three, you're gonna have to admit you are wrong for once :laugh:
Nope...
I was talking of the differences in handling between a Corrado VR6 (not an earlier 4 stud car) and the Golf VR6....and the comments stand.
Anyone who can be bothered to trawl through ETKA will conform which bits are shared with a Mk2, Mk3 and Passat respectively.
So before everyone decides otherwise, perhaps they should try that...and have their eyes opened and blinkers removed.
-
No-one is talking about bolt on parts. Otherwise i would agree with you.
I'm talking about bare chassis, its a mk2.
-
your arguing with yourself ess three :grin:
the question asked by wayne was 'is the corrado based on a mk2', to which the answer is 'yes'
i dont have etka, but i do own a corrado and have owned 6 mk2's and worked on all of them a hell of a lot and i can tell you the corrado is most definately based on a mk2. it used more mk3 parts later in its life but that makes sense as the mk2 stopped production and mk3 was released. As Nick has said its a parts bin special.
and anyway theres not a chance in hell i would have bought a car based on a mk3 :laugh:
-
theres not a chance in hell i would have bought a car based on a mk3 :laugh:
Why not?? :huh:
-
i just dont like em, i like the abf though (in a mk2)
-
Just out of interest here are some pictures of a TSR Pack A head. It came of their donnington engine and is an ABF head which would have suited the bore size of the donnington engine. As far as I know it was done by "The man in the shed" from the CGTI group buy, (but I cant guarantee this).
Paul
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii211/Paul86S2/head.jpg)
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii211/Paul86S2/combchamber.jpg)
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii211/Paul86S2/inlet.jpg)
(http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii211/Paul86S2/exhaust.jpg)
-
That does look like it was done by the guy that used to do them, his name was Dave but I cannot remember his surname.
-
Erm, arnt those ports supposed to be polished? They look clean, but supposed to look like a mirror finish inside arnt they?
-
Bear in mind the head is used, but no they aren't meant to be mirror polish finish. The inlet needs to be slightly rough to encourage the fuel and air to mix properly.
Paul