GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk2 => Topic started by: GolfGTiMk216LoveIT on 23 December 2005, 15:01
-
am considering which lump to put in my mk2 golf. i am looking at doing this early next yr but cant decide which route to go down? any suggestions pros and cons?
-
Ive never raced a mk2 vr in my mk2 2.0 16v but expect the vr would be a little quicker.
As for the conversion the 2.0 16v would be the easiest route as you only have to change the bottom end plus it will be cheaper.
All depends on your time money and expertees.
-
i am a total monkey when it comes to mechanics dont get me wrong i can do easy stuff like change disks pads and service(which i was quite proud of myself the other day :tongue:) and general stuff but as for engines id prob end up putting it in bckwards :laugh:
as for funds i have about 2500 to spend so i have enough for both conversion just dont know. as i am still a student i travel about 20 to uni and back everday so petrol consuption isnt a majour problem. i just need to know if its would be better in my interest to go down the vr or 16v route i guess the only bonus atm i can see of the 16v in obviously i have half the parts and the insurance is cheaper :laugh:
-
Ever thought of doing the 20v Turbo conversion. Tis the future!
On your budget you can do either. The 2.0 16v will be the cheapest and easiest by far. You will only need a hundred or 2 to do it. With the rest of the cash you could get the head ported and polished, 4 branch manifold, etc etc. I bet you could get close or past 200bhp from a 2.0 16v with that money.
-
i drove a mk2 a couple of years ago with a 2.9 vr lump and it was awsome  :smiley: , the noise was unbelievable and was well quick. The owner reckoned the handling was not as good as his previous mk2's due to the weight of the engine. I've never had a go in a 2ltr 16v so cant really compare though! I reckon i would go 20vt though! :grin:
-
wow that was my 100th post, now got 3 stars!! yay :grin:
-
hmmm the 2.0 does sound good but with the vr you can surpass 200 and smack a superchrger on it where as doin all that stuff to the 2.0 i would worry about it going bang bang on me wot u think? where as i think the vr would b able to handle 200bhp easy
-
a well built 2ltr will be able to handle 200bhp...but would need looking after properly...
if your looking to do something else further down the line then maybe the vr is the best option...they sound awesome supercharged :evil:
-
valver. :smiley:
-
on that budget I'd say valver.
If you had several grand to spend and wanted really big power then turbo'ing a VR would be the way forward.
a 200bhp 16v would be a lot of fun and rev happily :D
-
a 200bhp 16v would be a lot of fun and rev happily :D
Indeed it would... oh no wait a minute.... :wink: :cool: :cool:
-
ha ha lol thought it didnt work atm
-
yeah alright smart arse it doesn't but i have decided to have one last go at it, and try to get it working. Nothing could equal the grin i got when driving that thing.
-
Vr6 conversion does add a lot of weight, a guy I know has to run 5 degrees of negative camber just to get some front end grip back. The weight upfront will tend to make the car understeer.
:smiley:
-
i stay well away from trying to ralley my car round corners anyways :laugh: bad experiences
-
5 degrees?? i need to see a picture of that :grin:
-
Go for a vr, 200bhp is easily achievable and reliable.
-
^You heard the man :smiley:
Ill be doing a vr6 swap in my mk2 some time next year if i still have it. Been talking to Rob whos half way on his (lasy git) and have been getting a few ideas :wink: . They sound awesome but even better supercharged :shocked:
-
5 degrees?? i need to see a picture of that :grin:
Here you go:-
________
/ \
/________ \
[Oo====oO]
----------------
\_\---------/_/
-
thats positive isnt it :grin:
serously i cant believe he runs 5degrees thats a f**king lot :shocked:
-
oops, yeah should be
\----/
He did say it munches tyres !