GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk2 => Topic started by: GT.TDI.PD on 27 December 2004, 22:08
-
What are the official VW performance figures for the MK2 GTI (8v and 16v)?
ie) top speed, 0-60, bhp, torque
-
8v 112bhp, 114lb(?) 0-60 about 9 secs
16v 139bhp, 124lb(?) 0-60 about 7.5 secs
everyone has their own opinion on the 0-60 but id say a good example of each should get those times
-
i thought the 8v was faster than that?? :huh:
-
yeah thats what the 8v owners say too :grin:
-
b!tch!
-
official figures from VW are abit more promising
16v 7.5secs
8v 8.3secs
these are rolling road figures though. although i can quite easily keep up with mk4 gti's in an 8v those that arent remapped tho lol, altho they do have the edge once they hit 70 cause it gets scary when the dash starts to vibrate and the steering wobbles.
-
Official vw figures for an 8v are actually 10 secs to 60, that is for a digifant.
-
bah here we go again! :undecided:
-
8v 112bhp, 114lb(?) 0-60 about 9 secs
16v 139bhp, 124lb(?) 0-60 about 7.5 secs
everyone has their own opinion on the 0-60 but id say a good example of each should get those times
now shhhhh :wink:
if any 8v owner there has goot proof of their 0-60, like a drag run or a reading from a g tech or similar device please put it up, but if its read from the speedo and a stopwatch it means nothing :laugh:
-
Whats a digifant. and how do you know if you have 1 lol?
My 1990 (H) 8v is MUCH faster than 10seconds to 60 :undecided: , my sodding 1.3 'old' mini takes 12 secs and that seems like an ice age :grin:
-
The early 16v manual states that 0-60 time is 6.9 secs.
Not sure about the 8 valve.
Im currently running about 8 secs to 60 but my manifold is split
-
manual times mean sh!t, according to the manuals the 16v is between 6.9 and 8.5 and the 8v is 8.1 to 10.5 all vw quotes :laugh: as they are 15 yr old cars the time has to be PROVEN :wink:
-
Whats a digifant. and how do you know if you have 1 lol?
My 1990 (H) 8v is.......
digifant is the ignition system. yours will be judging by its age, digifant came in around '88-'89???? mine's an '89 and its digifant so yours will be. have a look at a haynes manual to see the difference
-
if youve got fuel lines coming out the top of your airbox then its a k-jet :wink:
-
Digifant is the fuel injection system. It has fuel injectors on a rail which are solenoid controlled.
This is the main difference between k-jet and digifant, on digifant the fuel injection is controlled by the ECU, on k-jet the fuel injection is a mechanical system.
Both digifant and later k-jet had electronic ignition.
-
digifant came in the late 89 cars few early ones will have it too but if your unsure take a look at the air filter box if there is like 4 pipes connected to the top then its K-jet if there is some tubes connected to the side its a digifant least thats what the haynes shows, there is a 3rd type in 8v's but it looks the same as the k-jet i think anyone shed some light on it abit more?
-
As far as i know there are only 2 types on UK cars.
-
0-60 in an 8 valve does seem to vary !!
I must say i've got a mildly modded 8v and there's no way it's more than 8 secs to 60 - infact last year at Inters I was smoking 16v's for breakfast - new members probably won't know about this but my ickle baby is the reason GavG60 has a G60 .. his J plate 16v that was rolling rolled to 139bhp a few weeks prior couldn't cut the mustard !!
For 'Digi' GTi's there 2 variants as some have Cats and some don't - the Cat models have 107bhp - and the stock engine management for them is poo - you guys must have heard of 'Digi' lag before - the ECU polls it's variables at 3 second intervals - so some times it's a full 3 seconds till full throttle means full throttle! Gaybar !
Personally everyone should have DCOE 45's and a wild cam in my book :wink:
-
Racing 8 v 16v will also depend alot on the driver. To say a good 8v is quicker than a 16v is like saying a 16v is quicker than a vr6 :grin:
-
Apparantly the vr6's are slow as someone I know claimed his standard 106 gti just kept pulling away from it. I think not!
-
An 8v should pull away quicker but once the 16v gets those revs spinning it should then make up the difference and then some.
The 8 v has a lower ratio
What is the 0-60 time like on a G60?
-
G60 is is suppose to be around 7.0 to 7.5 somewhere there, old parkers guide says rallye 6.6, but its the same story as the 16v and 8v wild exagarations and so called official times that are way off.
8v 89 digifant from a g-tech in 3 runs i did 9.5, 8.0 and 8.7 goner try again when i go pick the missus up hopefully its dryer out and i wont spin so much but not to say 8.0 isnt a fluke but think i need to average it out with a few more runs :D
-
thge rallyes are awful standard, i dunno where vw got their figure from, but they have only got 20bhp more than a 16v and weigh an extra 1/2 tonne :shocked:
with a g tech i can constantly get 7.5's my best is 7.34 :laugh:
-
whats a gtech? is it one of those things that calculate your bhp by inertia? and the thing that does your 0-60 and g force round corners etc??? if that is what i think it is, how reliable are their readings?
-
http://www.gtechpro.com/accuracy.html
+/- 0.2mph is f**k all, basically the closest accuracy before you strap professional equipment to the outside of your car. also the best toy you can buy for your car under ?50 :laugh:
-
An 8v should pull away quicker but once the 16v gets those revs spinning it should then make up the difference and then some.
The 8 v has a lower ratio
What is the 0-60 time like on a G60?
dont kid yourself, 8v is dead from the start.
-
I never understood the 8v v 16v argument.
Both have 1781cc, but obviously the 16v has more valve area, so better breather = faster car.
In effect if the valve area was drastically increased on an 8v engine, the difference between the two engines would disappear.
-
In effect if the valve area was drastically increased on an 8v engine, the difference between the two engines would disappear.
but they are not. thats life.
-
http://www.gtechpro.com/accuracy.html
+/- 0.2mph is f**k all, basically the closest accuracy before you strap professional equipment to the outside of your car. also the best toy you can buy for your car under ?50 :laugh:
yeah after i posted this i found the website! so where did you get yours from? on the website it says they are $200. i know the exchange rate is good at the moment but......!
your guildford way right? i'd be quite interested in getting one if you could point me in the right direction. cheers.
-
i got it off ebay from america, if you get the 2 week delivery its cheap as chips :smiley:
-
cool, actually i've got a friend in detroit i might get him to sort one out for me! thanks alot.
-
get him to say its a gift too then you wont have to pay the import duty tax charge, even cheaper :grin:
-
Official figures for 1990 model 8v and 16v, are 8.3 and 7.9 secs 0-60mph
(http://www.navalon.co.uk/temp/gti/1990-GTi-Specs.jpg)
-
yeah cheers zoid, starting to sound like a broken record now mate :undecided:
we all know those figures mean sh!t so stop posting them trying to make the 8v look better eh? :wink:
-
Just face it, 8v's are wank :grin:
-
What next? 1 leg is better than 2? :grin:
By the way the owners manual that comes with 1991 year model states 10 secs 0-100 km/ph(0-62mph) for an 8v.
If you can't get your head round it, then i'll scan it in for ya :laugh:
-
so would a 16v rape the arse of the 8v or only jst??
-
so would a 16v rape the arse of the 8v or only jst??
To be honest I'm not quite sure about its sexual orientation. Buy it a beer and see how far you get. :kiss:
-
:rolleyes: ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
8v's are still good, it just gets a bit boring when all you 8v owners think they are on par with a better car, and i know there are dillusional people that still think they are better because of the 'low down torque' bullsh!t. theres still a good 1 to 1.5 secs difference in the 0-60, and after that a lot more. :laugh:
-
Look I've just been and seen a Mk2 16v today, 3door, metallic black, full VWSH, only87k, which I should be the new owner of next week :cool:
However the different between the 2 cars is not massive like many 16v owners would like to make out, the way some of you guys go on about them is if there are F1 cars. Quicker than an 8v, absolutely, 1.5 secs quicker to 60mph, no way Jos?. Driving the 16v today I totally agree the 8v doesn't have more torque, the valver I drove pulled really well from low down, and it pulled really hard all the way to the red line, long after the 8v has run out of puff. This is for me what makes it more rewarding to drive, when you want to push on, the vavler is more than happy to oblige.
-
theres a good 1 to 1.5 secs difference in the 0-60. give me some proof 8v owners and ill shut up ok?
and zoid you have to drive the 16v different :wink: power doesnt run out at 5,000rpm anymore
-
and zoid you have to drive the 16v different :wink: power doesnt run out at 5,000rpm anymore
I know, that's why I said...
"and it pulled really hard all the way to the red line, long after the 8v has run out of puff."
As in the 8v runs of steam @ 5.5k, where as the valver pulls hard all the way to 6.5k
-
so how can you say its less than a second difference? you can rev all the way to 7,000/7,100 in a 16v, and ive seen dyno results that prove its not worth going over 5,000 in an 8v.
-
Look I've just been and seen a Mk2 16v today, 3door, metallic black, full VWSH, only87k, which I should be the new owner of next week? :cool:
However the different between the 2 cars is not massive like many 16v owners would like to make out, the way some of you guys go on about them is if there are F1 cars. Quicker than an 8v, absolutely, 1.5 secs quicker to 60mph, no way Jos?. Driving the 16v today I totally agree the 8v doesn't have more torque, the valver I drove pulled really well from low down, and it pulled really hard all the way to the red line, long after the 8v has run out of puff. This is for me what makes it more rewarding to drive, when you want to push on, the vavler is more than happy to oblige.
how shall i put this - alot of 16v's are not giving their best.
a friend bought a 70k 16v a year ago. beautiful car, vwfsh, hundreds of receipts, and very original.
nice fast car, except my valver would leave it for dead. thats life.
-
I Agree, the last 2 16v's I've driven must have been down on power and were quite disappointing, the one I drove yesterday pulled much better in the higher revs, and was much more what I was expecting. All I'm saying is the difference is not as much as allot of owners make out. For me it's not so much about performance (personally I couldn't give a rats arse if a 16v just a bit quicker or miles quicker) it more about enjoyment, I just found the 16v I drove yesterday more enjoyable, with slightly sharper handling, and being able to hang onto the revs.
Oh and there's something about having that red '16v' badge that makes it feel that little bit special :smiley:
-
I just found the 16v I drove yesterday more enjoyable, with slightly sharper handling, and being able to hang onto the revs.
i think you are spot on. the 8v owners dont understand that the 16v is a totally different package.
-
you will find when you drive hard you need a revvy engine to take corners quick aswell. its not just about the 0-60, its where the power is thats important i think. theres probably more of a difference between the two on a track than a drag strip anyway :huh: theres nothing wrong with 8v's they are just not the race machine a 16v is :laugh:
-
what about a 20v mk2? :grin:
somewhere around 6.8 last time I checked :rolleyes:
-
yeah but thats cheating :grin: :tongue:
-
the reasons 16v pull so hard is cos they get peak power at 6.5k where as 8v are about 5k, plus there are usually and extra 10-15 horses hanging around in the valver.
I have raced the misses old 8v in my 16v and they are about even until 3rd gear when the valver will lift off and go leaving the 8v behind.
-
How would the lupo Gti compare to the 16v? Would it be close?
-
personally i would say that the lupo would beat it due to power : weight ratio, as everything it pretty similar performance wise, would be interesting to see.
-
iirc lupo's weigh more/about the same as/than the humble mk2.
-
8v 112bhp, 114lb(?) 0-60 about 9 secs
16v 139bhp, 124lb(?) 0-60 about 7.5 secs
everyone has their own opinion on the 0-60 but id say a good example of each should get those times
now shhhhh :wink:
if any 8v owner there has goot proof of their 0-60, like a drag run or a reading from a g tech or similar device please put it up, but if its read from the speedo and a stopwatch it means nothing :laugh:
you know mnine is quicker than that! soon as the roads imporvoe you better get your g tec out boy!
-
How would the lupo Gti compare to the 16v? Would it be close?
i think its a little bit lighter, but not by much. the 0-60 is slower, and the top speed is slower. the mk2 wins.
-
8v 112bhp, 114lb(?) 0-60 about 9 secs
16v 139bhp, 124lb(?) 0-60 about 7.5 secs
everyone has their own opinion on the 0-60 but id say a good example of each should get those times
now shhhhh :wink:
if any 8v owner there has goot proof of their 0-60, like a drag run or a reading from a g tech or similar device please put it up, but if its read from the speedo and a stopwatch it means nothing :laugh:
you know mnine is quicker than that! soon as the roads imporvoe you better get your g tec out boy!
you better get somewhere to plug it in then :grin: and we will see :kiss:
-
I'll second that - prepare to be humbled by an 8v :smiley:
Right, Inters this Year we need a 8 valve Vs. 16 valve and see who comes out on top :cool:
But i will concede, if they were that similar why did VW bother to build the 2 side by side ???
BUT a later 8 valve in good condition, that's nice amd loose with a sneaky chip and exhaust / filter will more than give you a run for your money!
The 16v really does lose out in by book by having mechanical fuel injection ... so bin it and get some DCOE's !! That's half the reason you seem to get such a mixed back - dodgy tuning and making it worse !!
-
Dizzie
You have a 20VT conversion dont you??
does it take 6.8 0-60?
Im currently running 7 secs to 60 with a fairly standard 16 valve lump.
is 6.8 right???
how much boost are you running?
Cheers Drew
-
i was gonna say that, would have thought a 1.8t would be quicker :undecided: have you got traction problems?
I'll second that - prepare to be humbled by an 8v :smiley:
surprised maybe, but not humbled :wink: :grin:
-
i have an old VW marketing advert where they state the 0-60 for a 16v is 7.3s. the 7.9s book figure is with a passenger and half tank of fuel
most 16v's nowadays are well over 125k, and if your over that and havent got a new set of rings at some point then you'll be slightly down on power.
8v vs 16v - will it ever cease!!! ive put up graphs showing the 16v is better across the whole rev range than an 8v
-
I'll second that - prepare to be humbled by an 8v? :smiley:
Right, Inters this Year we need a 8 valve? Vs. 16 valve and see who comes out on top? :cool:
But i will concede, if they were that similar why did VW bother to build the 2 side by side ???
BUT a later 8 valve in good condition, that's nice amd loose with a sneaky chip and exhaust / filter will more than give you a run for your money!
The 16v really does lose out in by book by having mechanical fuel injection ...? so bin it and get some DCOE's !! That's half the reason you seem to get such a mixed back - dodgy tuning and making it worse !!
another 8v owner i see....
-
So, does everyone agree about the top speeds then, being 119 and 129mph?
-
I can confirm the 8 valve top speed to be about that (GPS Confirmed too so no dodgy speedo readings).
After 120 she's off the clock and revving past it's peak power, so anything more is academic really. I'll say one thing though, she gets there pretty quick!
-
I'm as chuffed as a dog with two d1cks reading this thread as it seems that a standard mk2 8v has the same bhp (112) as my hairdressers car !!!! :wink: :grin: :grin:
-
mk2 8v has the same bhp (112) as my hairdressers car
But because it has a roof made from tent material it wont keep up :rolleyes:
-
mk2 8v has the same bhp (112) as my hairdressers car
But because it has a roof made from tent material it wont keep up :rolleyes:
In that case it would have less weight so would be a better power to weight ration surely :wink: You should have mentioned that due to the "tent material" roof the weight was made up in a heavier floorpan. I was takin the p1ss by the way :rolleyes:
-
i doubt there will be much difference really they both weigh pretty much the same :huh:
-
I was takin the p1ss by the way
dito :grin:
-
for those who don't know:
as gibby said, the heavier floorpan will make up for the weight of the missing roof.
however, i think its worse than that.
if you can imagine a car being a shoe box with the lid on, the box is quite rigid, it wont flex much. however, if you remove the lid, you'll find the box will now flex quite badly.
a car is much like the principle you see in that shoe box.
if you put the lid onto the bottom of the shoe box, you'll find that it flexes just as much as without the lid anywhere near it, yet with the lid underneath the weight of the box is still the same as when the lid was on top.
the key to Cabr designers is to put in enough metal underneath in such a way to limit that flexing (which i think is called Scuttle - not sure). the increase in cold hard metal then takes the vehicle way beyond the original weight.
the problem with the new cabs by renault and someone else with the automatic roof is not the weight of the roof or mechanism so much as the increase in weight from reinforcing the damn thing - its a big car, with a huge open deck - and you still have a metal roof and the power mechanism.
so when merc make a cab that doesn't weigh as much as a Sherman, you begin to understand how well designed they are in the first place and why they tend not to go for the "grinder" option to create a cab.
it could also be a reason why a mk2 cab was never made.
-
that shouldnt affect the 0-60 that much, but the tintop will be laughing all over the soft top in the corners :laugh: :evil:
dont matter really because cabs are for posing :grin: :tongue:
-
theses 8v Vs 16v posts makes me laugh :grin:
I mean it never ends 8v this but 16v this, i mean wot next??? :huh: You'll be getting yr coc k's out next and seeing who has the biggest :grin: :laugh:
-
oi shut it ford lover :grin: :evil:
-
wanna race :wink:
-
in about a year and a grands worth of mods :grin:
wanna change my oil filter in under a day? :tongue:
-
that shouldnt affect the 0-60 that much, but the tintop will be laughing all over the soft top in the corners :laugh: :evil:
dont matter really because cabs are for posing :grin: :tongue:
eh?
were you replying to my post?
-
yep, comon lets argue :evil:
-
i dont want to argue, but do you seriously think weight doesn't play an important part in 0-60?
-
eh? whats weight got to do with stiffness :huh: 8v cab and 8v mk2 roughly weigh the same :wink:
-
that shouldnt affect the 0-60 that much
erm, because you said it did!
the mk1 cab and mk2 may weigh similar amounts, but in general cabs weigh alot more than their tintop companion.
edit: weight plays a huge amount in stiffness. cabs are less stiff, so you add material to make them more stiff. more material more weight.
-
i was saying the stiffness wouldnt affect it much, read through again its just under your post about STIFFNESS :wink: still they roughly weigh the same so compare a mk1 tintop against a mk1 cab, then youll see a difference :wink:
-
my original post was a general post just saying that cabs are less stiff than tintops hence the weight goes up to stop the flexing. it wasn't so much about mk1 cabs vs mk2s.
-
so?
(http://www.karlos.34sp.com/nonetooshabby/galleries/smileys/fencing.gif?PHPSESSID=702776bf9fe36436bf15c93fe54bae29)
-
so......we're not arguing.
-
Thats where we should leave it.
There is no argument about whats better, 8 or 16v.
-
i think the arguemtn was faster not better :S got a bit confused along the way lol better is prefernce and faster is obvious :D
my poor old 8v :( anyone know how much it is to get it supercharged :P
-
faster IS better :grin: :evil:
-
helps if you go in a straight line too :S
-
For all-out performance, the 16v is better. Around town the 8v is perfect. There is power from low speeds in every gear, whereas the 16v suffers when you're not "on the cam" (screwing it). Yes the torque figures show that the 16v is better in all rev ranges but the gearbox is different and it does affect the drive. The 16v has a much longer 2nd gear, which is why it has such an impressive 0-60 time. Kinda sucks at 30mph in 4th though!
The differences in quoted 0-60 times for the 8v vary because there are two different injection systems involved. Later 8v's used digifant2 and the early ones used K-jet. The 0-60 time for one using k-jet is marginally quicker.
I love my 8v, but a 16v would be nice as something for the weekend!
-
I love my 8v too. It suits me down to the ground as a quick daily driver. Weekends? Well I'd blow you all into the weeds in the mini!!!!
-
Kinda sucks at 30mph in 4th though!
then use 3rd
-
yeah right. :grin:
i drive mine between 2k and 3k rpm most of the time, no problems with torque :tongue:
-
cant comment in the difference between the two coz i only have driven the valver but i know that an eight valve has never gotten one over the valver. Which is the better engine kjet or digi? Why would VW bother to make a 16v if the eight valve was as fast? Wouldnt they be waisting their time? All I know is I love my valver, don't quite get 129 out of her though, more like 122
regards
marco
by the way ....is an eight valve mk3 faster than a 16v mark 2?
lol
:grin: :shocked: :rolleyes: :tongue: :undecided: :evil: :wink: