GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: A2VR6 on 16 September 2005, 04:00
-
Hey guys I was wondering if you had any information for me.
I was wondering how much HP a naturally aspirated 1.8l 20v engine makes in Europe, and how much HP the 16v placed into the MK3Â’s made.
BTW IÂ’m not 100% sure if they made a naturally aspirated 1.8L 20v engine. But it should be the same as the 1.8t engine from the MK4Â’s but with out a turbo, and adjusted compression ratioÂ’s of course.
Thanks!
-
aye they do a m/a 1.8l 20v lump here, ive got it in my mk4 golf, 125bhp is its output, pretty naf really!! wont be for much longer though,,,, :laugh:
the 2.0l 16v lumps in the mk3 gti were 150bhp in standard form i thinks
:evil:
-
I dont know about the mk4 bit but the mk3 16v is supposed to give out 150bhp.  :smiley:
-
both quotes from above are correct.
mk4 N/a 20v = 125bhp
mk3 16v = 150bhp
Although just as food for thought the standard 16v engines in the Mk2's were pushing 139bhp without any tinkering, and they are good for a nice upgrade which far surpasses the mk3 valver engine in power and performance. :smiley:
-
^ and why isn't the mk3 engine "good for a nice upgrade" too?
"theres no replacement for displacement"
yes the car is faster as the mk3 is a bit lardy.. but you will never outmod the power of the engine doing the same mods to a higher capacity engine. dont mix up car performance with engine performance..
people who've RR'd MK3s also claim they're up on stock figures.. up in the 160-170 range...
the mk2 16v came in two flavours right? as i understand it it goes like this..
MK2 1.8 16v K-Jet - mechanical fuel injection
MK2 1.8 16v Digifant - electronic fuel injection
MK3 2.0 16v Digifant 3 - eletronic fuel injection
As i understand it the MK2 people prefer K-Jet over whats been called "digi pants" as since the electronic stuff.. although more efficient when working is a lot more sensitive to problems with all its sensors n stuff.
Another factor is that apparently digipants "scans" its sensors periodically.. e.g. when accelerating stomping the throttle can introduce a lag if the processor loop is at the 'farthest' part of its scanning cycle. however.. as they're ECU based the digipants cars are chippable.
-
I give up. I purposefully didn't comment on mk3 engines. Ignore my comments as the happy clappy people are just going to jump on my remark as a mk3 baiting comment.
-
eh?
i take it you suggested the mk2 as another engine alternative.. I just pointed out that the mk2 16v engine is still less powerful IF modded equally against the ABF
-
I didnt know there was an 1.8 16v Digi? Is there?
-
oh was that only on the mk2 8v's and the g60's.. i'd assumed all mk2's got updated from k-jet to digifant at the same time.
-
As far as i know the mk2 16 valvers only came as k jet. The upgrade to digi or electronic came with the mk3 2.0 16v ABF engine.
-
yeah i just looked it up mk2 8v's got updated as did the corrado when the engine size got bumped from 1.8 16v k-jet to 2.0 16v digifant.. and from what i can tell all golf and 'rado g60's had digifant
-
Hey guys I was wondering if you had any information for me.
I was wondering how much HP a naturally aspirated 1.8l 20v engine makes in Europe, and how much HP the 16v placed into the MK3Â’s made.
Check these sites for tech specs of uk cars. www.parkers.co.uk (http://www.parkers.co.uk) Click on 'Reviews'
:smiley:
-
Cool guys thanks a lot!
I was just curious about the N/A 1.8l 20v and was considering it for an engine swap into an MK1. But it looks like I will just stick with the 2.0 16v swap for it :laugh:
Thanks!
-
Why not go for a 20V turbo conversion ? :wink:
-
^ :D
i'd look into this a bit more.. i have a feeling there may be an easier swap than the ABF..
The ABF is a tall block engine, I have a feeling the 9a short block 16v 1.8 or 2.0 may be an easier swap into a mk1 shell
tall is 236mm , short is 220mm
here's a post about ABF vs 9a which gets pretty in depth and talks about putting one in a mk1
http://clubgti.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105
-
I've had both a Mk2 16v and a Mk3 16v and both engines are good, but to compare them properly you'd have to put them both in to identical shells with identical mods to see which was better performing, or more to the point, better for your driving style.
Mk2 1.8 16v engines are cheaper and cos they were mechanical injection, they have less to go wrong, the Mk3 2.0 16v has electronic systems that can go wrong and mine had plenty of issues which is why I got rid of it.
If you're putting it into a Mk1 shell, I'd probably go for a 1.8 16v as it seems like an easier swap and definately cost less than the 1.8T 20v.
-
unless.......
your thinking of running on carbs.... :evil: it was on a u.s site they were doing tests with the n/a 1800cc 20v lump, as its a bit of a rareity over there, they had a play and found it was the best free flowing none forced induction head vw had ever done, now this im sure was done on a set of 40/45s carbs, but using the standard exhaust manifold which is tubualr from the factory coupled to a large bore exhaust, some how they also managed to fit a distributor etc so it ran on either a vacume or cent timing, no ecu, carbs back to basics.... power was in the 170-180s with out any porting/head work etc, which is roughly where it should be, thats the kinda figures the mk2 16v 1800 lump can make on carbs with decent exhaust, after all its a very similar design but with 3 inlet valves per cylinder as opposed to the 16v's 2, bit annoying all this emmisions/noise bollix why the restricted the fecking thing to 125bhp in uk!!!
ill have a hunt around and find the link to what website im talkin about!!!
:smiley: