GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk2 => Topic started by: knobby on 05 August 2005, 06:19
-
Ok i think its probably common fact that in a straight line a 16v will out perform an 8v, as its got a faster top end and more BHP. I think people also know that each delivers the power differently and this is why there is always the argument of why which one is faster, hey the banter there is always gonna continue...
OK so heres my question.... Which engine is actually better? 8v Or 16v?
I've recently been having little digs at "Veedubgti16v" as he has got a real thing about 8v's and how 16v's are so much faster, also me and "monzablue16v" go on about it.... Well I thought i'd ask you lot the question...
So which is better, by better i mean, stronger, more reliable, ease to work on, etc. Does faster have to mean better?
-
its all said in jest mate, to be honest neither are that quick, its like the mk3 and mk2 thing. :laugh:
they are basically the same engine, but with different cylinder heads and usually fuel system. for these basic engines i prefer kjet, but digi would be better when supercharging,turboing. 8v easier to work on and cheaper to repair. cant really compare heads as they are completely different, obviously the 16v head is better tho :tongue:
-
Hmmmm 149 BHP and plenty of torque, 90 in third at 4.5k, sounds better than 8v, b!tch to work on!!!!
They both have good and bad points an 8v with a G60 aye I'd have one of them but G60 on a 16v I'd like to try that!
Head and manifold make it a b!tch to change plugs and such and also 16v seems to have more setup issues!
Still glad I bought a Valver though!!!! ;)
-
90 in third at 4.5k,
Must be something wrong with my valver then cos im pulling nowhere near that at 4.5k
mines more like 90 in fifth at 4.5k
-
This old chesnut again! Have a look at the power graph in the stick thread at the top of this board. That shows how the 16v is in no doubt a stronger engine. Power aside i would still say the valver is better because as standard the suspension is better as well as having more toys like electric windows. My opinion!
-
Guided missile!!!! shat my pants on my way to work this morning when I looked at the speedo after flooring it off a roundabout!!!!! I mean on a racetrack legally away from everybody else :ahem:
-
90 in third at 4.5k,
Must be something wrong with my valver then cos im pulling nowhere near that at 4.5k
mines more like 90 in fifth at 4.5k
No nothing wrong with yours Marco mine sits at 90 in 5th at 4.5k
That's why I can't help but cruise at 90 coz the engine is right in it's maximum torque range for powering past people.
-
Just need to find a RWYB at York want to know what it's 1/4 mile time is now I'm intrigued!!!!
28-29 Aug
GTi + Hot Hatch Spectacular
Sunday 28th:
-Tuners Shootout and Run What You've Brung for GTi and Hot Hatches
-Modders Shootout round 6
-RWYB for GTis, hot hatches and modifieds
Job done!!! ;)
-
After owning both 8v & 16v kjets' i'd say the 16v :)
monzablue16v - do me a favour when you are out today (on the track) :)
can you take note of your speeds at the same rev range for me please
let do it at 4.5k
1st =
2nd =
3rd =
4th =
5th =
I want to compare mine as i know yours is sorted now :)
Cheers
-
Hi, i currently drive an 8 valve, see my thread (1/4 million miles). Iv'e owned 7 golfs, 3 of them being 16 valvers. iv'e read with amusement the arguments that rage on with which is better. In the bigger scheme of things, neither of them are that quick, and to focus soley on this is to get caught up in BADGE SNOBBERY, which detracts from why both mk1 & mk2 are such iconic cars. The answer to your question though comes down to cash and time, an 8 valver would be a safer bet to seek out due to it probably having an easier life, remember even the youngest ones are close to 15, most 16 valvers tend to be thrashed, due to the power delivery, however if you have the patience and money and are prepared to seek out a good one then a well looked after 16, would be just as good a buy. Remember in the end your buying an icon be it 8 or 16. Enjoy.
-
never having ever even been in a 16v i cant really compare, but having an 8v digifant myself, with all its sensors for this n that (there is even a fart sensor which the ecu uses and if you fart the ecu retards the ignition slightly to avoid pre-ignition!!), id say that the 16v kjet is probably better as there are less things to go wrong perhaps?
-
I would have to go for 16v myself aswell, much better engine in my point of view, as it is a mechanical injection system, making it a hell of a lot easier to diagnose and consequently fix, where as (as mentioned) the digifant is a mass of sensors which if one goes wrong it ends up sending all the others out of sync. Meaning much hassel of metering all the circuitry.
Power and torque wise its going to be the 16v all day long. Also in my opinion the 16vs have a much larger capacity for modification, (this can include G60s, and turbos) i have never been happier in my 16v, and it just makes me happier to drive a valver more than a 8v as they lack a certain punch higher up the revs. :smiley:
-
the 16v is a proper cross flow engine as well :wink:
-
its all down to the driver and condition of the engine :undecided:
I had a helous blue 1989 8v and that left 16v's and honda Vtec's for dead
Not a fan of k-jet lumps so i always go for 8v digi's but thats just me.
8v's ike mine are slow but then again i had a 16v and that wasnt that quick either :undecided:
bit fo a 50/50 my end
-
16v is a much better unit. always has been always will be. more torque, more power, better delivery and a fantastic sound if its set up right.
as for people who say their 8v has wiped a 16v, then you raced a knackered 16v, or the 16v owner was a muppet. seem to be in equal measures nowadays.
-
I had a helous blue 1989 8v
What do you mean had? Have you sold y car blue?
-
Cant really comment myself. I choose the 8v due to petrol costs and the fact that a 3dr was out of my price range of £1k and i didnt want a sh!tter 16v for 1k.
After christmas when money is available i will be getting head work, 4-2-1 manifold, proper exhaust system and cams with a new ECU or, unless the stock can be remaped. Im sure that will keep my happy for a year or 2.
No doubt the 16v is faster, and would be EVEN faster with the above mods done, but IMO the costs are more for the valver. For example theres 2 cams to change, thats alot more already ;)
TBH theres not really many more cars that will beat either the 8 or 16v standard trim and n/a. Only the likes of a VTS etc which ways nothing, but bad electrics and safety lets them down. Prob the Pug GTI better? MI16 is a monster but there from the later 80's too!
-
I had a helous blue 1989 8v
What do you mean had? Have you sold y car blue?
ohh no i had this other one. I cant sell the Bright Blue one :wink:
-
i can't really compare the 2 as I've only had 2 16v. All I can say is that there aren't aht many engines and cars about from the 80s, that look as good, drive as well, and still run and sound sweet as a nut after 15 years of being thrashed about.
-
I can safely say the 16v has the advantage over 8v due to repsonding better at higher rev range. It comes into its own after 3k RPM. The 8v respondes better at lower revs.
Both are enjoyable therefore none is better. It is personal preference.
A lead on question.............................
Why didn't VW Supercharge the 16v engine?
answers please.
-
i was about to ask the same question martz, :angry:
and it was along the lines of, if the 16v is sooooo good, why did vw choose to supercharge the 8v :evil:
/me puts away his poking stick
-
At the moment I have both. Insurance company loves me, the misses don't! The 9a does seem quicker than the Rallye and I reckon it would run it. 16v is estimated at around 170bhp and the Rallye at 200bhp.
Been pinching parts of the 16v today!
Good question though!
-
yes, yes it is...probably something technical like the 8v had a lower compression/stronger head....
I dunno, im pissing in the wind here....
-
they did supercharge the 16v :wink:
-
they did..... :huh:
but i didnt become mainstream tho like the 8v.......
-
I've seen a buggy with 16v engine and a new mini supercharger bolted on looked ok. I dunno why VW never did it probably be a monster so thought no we'd better use the little 8v ;)
-
they did supercharge the 16v :wink:
ahh, the limited...
-
anyway the 16v is much more better than the 8v (didnt say faster. i said better). there i said it :lipsrsealed:
Mix..ohh yes the limited :cool:
-
16v supercharged eh, wouldn't that be nice :cool: *cough1.9cough*
-
*cough1.9cough*
Whats that Toph 0-60 time :)
-
Hey guys new to this MK2 stuff. having previously had a wicked Mk1 8v which was a great car to drive. I am picking up B-reg 1 owner MK2 8v on Saturday with only 64k on the clock :laugh:. What engine will it be? I love the cars and love the drive but I have no idea about engines etc....
Will post pics later.....
-
This old chesnut again...
It all depends on how you drive. If you spend most of your time driving as though you've sat on a wasp, the 16v is better, although bear in mind if you buy one you should budget for a new engine and gearbox, just in case.
The 8v is probably easier to drive as it has plenty of torque low down in the rev range. Whilst the graphs show that the 16v has more torque than the 8v at all rev ranges, the gearing is slightly different so you end up shifting more in the 16v, whereas there is less need to drop a cog to overtake in an 8v.
Both cars are great though and anything is better and, well, as long as its not French eh...
-
Hey guys new to this MK2 stuff. having previously had a wicked Mk1 8v which was a great car to drive. I am picking up B-reg 1 owner MK2 8v on Saturday with only 64k on the clock :laugh:. What engine will it be? I love the cars and love the drive but I have no idea about engines etc....
Will post pics later.....
probably the same kjet you had in your mk1.
kjets have more low down torque than digifant :grin: :grin:
-
I love my 16v and wouldn't swap it for anything (apart from maybe a limited :wink:) but I've got to admit that it really does lack guts low down in the revs...have to keep it above 4k all the time..ahh, the sound of a screaming valver :evil:
My neighbours got an 8v and he seems to have more probs with that than I've had with mine..but other than that don't know which is the 'better' engine, just know which one i'd choose everytime :grin:
-
I agree with shaunj- its a badge thing really..have owned 4 golfs: 1.6 carb, 2 x 8v gtis and now a 16v and love them all.
I keep on trying to stop this fixation by trying to buy other cars but there genuinely is something special about the mk2 golf.
At the grand old age of 28 i am slowly working through classic 80's performance cars (my insurance is cheap and so are the cars)
Its all very personal- In my humble opinion i found the 1.9 205gti, r5 turbo, astra gte 16v to be awful cars; any paper tiger will know they are 'faster' then standard 8v/16v golfs but each one has either nasty chassis gremlins, awful build, terrible ergonomics or quite frankly horrible styling/image that offset more power/better handling/grip/feedback etc. Also done Maestro turbo,m535i, Metro 16v, Mk1 Golf 1600gti, Nissan 180sx and 4.0 xj6 (if you havent been to le mans, buy a £300 jag, what a road trip!) I dont keep cars for long and usually break even/make a slight profit too!
Please dont take all this as me boasting- i am just speaking from lucky personal experience but the point is i keep coming back to the Volkswagen Golf Mk2 as the one car i want to own.
The Mk2 Golf Gti is a truly iconic hot hatch because it always seems to polarise opinion on the road..you either get respect or raced. There is a dick near me who often proves that his standard Nissan Almera Gti is quicker than my standard 16v but he must be quite sad to know he is in a Nissan Almera Gti. :undecided:
Mechanically I find 8v and 16v engines easy to work on ( downpipe joint aside :cry:) but the 16v takes slightly longer (e.g 32 tiny valve collets versus 16!)
As for the 8v/16v debate...my 16v is getting 2.0 litres soon which probably means i am heading for best of both...
-
I have never driven an 8 valve so i am going to be biased and say 16valve, but it depends how u want to drive i suppose, i like the fact the 16valves rev to 7200 rpm!
one thing that i always wondered was, why didnt they do a digifant 16valve on the later models, like they did withthe 8 valve? maybe vw thought that k-jet was better for performance?
but i must say as soon as i can afford one i will be getting an 8valve in the form of a G60!
-
They did do a digifant 16v, but it didn't appear until 1994, in the mk3 golf, engine code ABF.
-
I didnt think mark 3's were digifant
-
Based totally on finances I'd have to say my 8v is the best... it was free! :grin:
-
the 16v engines are fun an an 8v in a mk2 arnt that quick i puta digifant in my mk1 that was realy fun and reliable, till it justefd a tooth on the timing belt. good engines though
-
correct me if im wrong but dont the 16 tend to eat gear boxes?if so that cant be good!doesnt get away from the fact that wheather it be 16 or 8 i love the mk2 they are a badge of modesty to drive!
-
I have never driven a mark 2 8 valve so i wouldnt know what they are like! But at the end of the day its a GTI and would be proud to drive one whether it be 8 valve of 16 valve
Mine valver has done 155k and the gear box is fine at the mo, and i had one that had done 187k and that was ok, just the linkage was a bit shagged! I always thought the 16 valve boxes where a bit stronger anyway to cope with the more power (and prob the more abuse it is likely to take!!)
-
if i mention the 8v haveing more tirque lower down i think i will be hubng, drawn and quatered....
-
i am not sure if it does or not, but the 16 valve's power band is higher up than the 8 valve, so it may seem that way!
-
if i mention the 8v haveing more tirque lower down i think i will be hubng, drawn and quatered....
someone had to say it didn't they :laugh:
the 8v produces it's torque lower down so it seems better in that sense..but when the 16v hits it's sweet spot it produces more than the 8v and therefore sails past :cool:
-
hey i havent read any of this post but , i have a oak 3dr 16v minter , and a 8v 5dr silver shed , and the 8valver is the better punchyer car , for just about all driving sittuations, only 2 things a 16 valver has better really is , Amazing brakes (Amazing compared 2 the small sh!t disks ) , and if u wanna drive ure car really hard a put a lot of effort in then the 16 valver is better, but u need 2 have ure driving hat on, so i honestly would sat the 8v is better for nealy everything , unless u are boy racer who wrecks classic cars (shame on u) :smiley:
,
-
^^^^ completely disagree.
The 16v, is just as able bodied as the 8v in everyday situations. You all only seem to be viewing it from the point, "oh well the power is higher up the rev range in a 16v" errrr...... so what??? So you cannot drive a car like that normally without having to be on the power all the time???
That would mean all of you would prefer a 1.0 Fiat sh!tychento. :huh: :huh: instead of a 2.5l V6 audi bi turbo, because all of the grunt is lower down the rev range. :rolleyes:
It's nothing to do with where the grunt is and how high the torque band is, its purely on how you drive. I can happily pooter around in my valver without the need to put my foot down, and still keep up with everyday traffic. Saying that i can also stomp on the accellerator at every given oppertunity and drive like a complete tw@t. By the same token i can do exactly the same in a 8v.
If you want a comparison between engines the only thing you will be looking at is economy vs maintenance costs. On that score i would say that the 8v engine is the better one, slightly more economical because of the gearbox it is mated with, and it has a slightly lower rev range, thus giving it a more economical edge. Maintenance is pretty painless aswell, unless something electrical goes on a digi then you have to get the multimeter out.
16v engines, slightly more thirsty as they are always wanting to go higher up the rev range, and the box is geared to do so. Maintenance, again pretty painless, apart from when you need to get to the head. Being all mechanical then they are slightly easier to work on i find. Saying that i can still obtain about 40mpg on the motorway on mine and around 25-30 mpg around town (when it works)
So really the engines are on a par with each other, depending on what you want. I personally would go for a 16v each time, but then i like to slag mine down the strip. If i just wanted a pokey GTi i would go for the 8v. It's purely driver descretion and what it is needed for. :smiley:
-
can drive fast cars normally just saying 8v is better , for thrill , value and instant power , and yeah 16v drinks wee bit more fuel , so still go for the 8v
-
They did do a digifant 16v, but it didn't appear until 1994, in the mk3 golf, engine code ABF.
Thats not a true digifant is it? Thought it was a variation along the same theme i.e Motronic etc..........
*In Wales, miles away from the nearest manual and probably got that totally wrong*
-
yea thats what i thought about the mark 3 engines!
my valver is a nice drive around town, it is perfectly happy with pootling around, including doing about 30 in 4th, and when i need to have a serge of torque, i.e when the lights are changing to amber, when i put my foot down it is more than capable of doing what i want it to do!
We all like putting our foots down and i think the valver is a great car to be in to do so, i dnt mind the lag of power, when ur racing someone on a dual carriage way or what ever and they think they have beaten you or are beating you, its funny to see their faces as ur soar past as soon as the needle hits 4k rpm and goes beyond where the valver (as i am sure ur all aware) comes into its own! End of the day I love my valver and i am sure anyone who has an 8valve will like their care just as much! and fair play if they do!!
The main thing is to enjoy ur motoring!
-
Engine code ABF was fitted with Digifant 3.0, 3.2
8v engines had simos and digifant
vr6 had motronic
Its all the same sh!t at the end of day anyway! :laugh:
-
Its all the same sh!t at the end of day anyway! :laugh:
Could'nt agree more! :cool:
-
just some sh!t goes quicker than other sh!t :laugh:
-
Love the debate and thought I would give this link out for reference..
http://www.beedubs.co.uk/default.asp?location=statsnew.asp&compare=Compare&make=VW&model=Golf&spec=Mk2+GTi+8v&make2=VW&model2=Golf&spec2=Mk2+GTi+16v
7lb/ft is the difference between the two, one comes in early and the other later.
If you want a screamer then the 16v all the way.
If you are planning of force induction then the 16/20v crossflow head everytime also, good choice.
8v has simplicity and a plentiful motor for all budgets, Digifant a pain once it starts developing it's gremlins, but it can all be sorted with a little time and patience.
-
the reason VW didnt put the supercharger into the production 16v was due to costs. 16v's when first released where already being sold at a loss!!
16v engines are not as complicated as you think. once you have an understanding of them you can easily work your way around them
16v's are just generally better spec'd cars as std, and engine wise a std 16v never has less torque across the range than a std 8v
k-jet was designed around performance & responsiveness
Digi was desgined with efficency in mind
the 8v box is just as weak as the 16v box. its the diff rivets that are the weakspot in all them. the reason the 8v boxes dont go is because they aint put under as much strain as with the 16v.
-
Yea i always thought that K-Jet was designed with perfomance in mind, other wise they would of made a digifant 16valve in the mark 2.