Author Topic: mk 3 2.0 16 v conversion?  (Read 1711 times)

Offline rubjonny

  • 10k hero
  • *
  • Posts: 16,349
  • Hello, my name is John and I'm a dub addict.
Re: mk 3 2.0 16 v conversion?
« Reply #10 on: 23 April 2006, 11:08 »
well whoever said that was wrong ;)  Theres no way you can bolt an 8v bottom end onto a 16v without some serious modification, otherwise all us 8v owners would have chucked on 16v heads years ago ;)
Hello my name is John and I'm a dub addict.

Offline gti turbo

  • Not said much yet
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: mk 3 2.0 16 v conversion?
« Reply #11 on: 25 April 2006, 21:06 »
sorry to butt in lads, but Im getting confused now is nt the simplist thing to put the whole mk3 16v lump in then not only will you have more bhp to begin with , you can also chip it as as said earlier, forgive me if im talking bollocks its all new to me.

rub jonny: when you say late mk2 looms will plug straight in to a 2.0 16v fuse box, how late do you mean.I have a 1990 16v is that to early, cheers

Offline Devon Joe

  • GTI forum regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Liebe zum ropey Automobil
Re: mk 3 2.0 16 v conversion?
« Reply #12 on: 25 April 2006, 22:00 »
Whoa that 'both bottom ends are identical' pony!! I thought they were and bought a 2.0 8v (2e)bottom end and then found it wouldnt fit...its the pistons that are different- the 16v ones are angled to clear the valves. The distributor on the 8v is driven off the oil pump drive shaft whilst the 16v has a blanking plate and the dizzy drives from the cams. The blocks are the same otherwise.
Dont anyone else make this (expensive) mistake- i was gutted as i spent ages looking for a block and then brought the wrong one and then had to find the right one... :grin:

However- the 6a and 9a 2.0 16v (2j) bottom ends are identical except for the sumps and manifolds. The '6a' is fittted to Audis and is in-line, whilst the Passat/Corrado have a transverse '9a', hence the different shaped sumps. I trhink the oil pump is different too- i fitted a brand new 9a one anyway but forgot to compare them!
There are more Audis kicking around and so i bought a 1991 Audi 80 Quattro 2.0 16v and then just swapped the entire engine over. If you go for the later ABF type it is a 'tall block' design and as has been mentioned it will ding your bonnet.
I also heard it was detuned to not embarrass the VR6. The 6a/9a had to run a cat and so had a milder cam than the 1.8 KR 16v, this is why peeps swap the cams over- its only one (exhaust i guess) thats different but i swapped both anyway...

If you want an easy swap go for a 6a/9a as it all swaps over without having to rewire anything. If you want to be able to chip it go for an ABF as its more powerful as standard anyway and has funky elektronik stuff..:nerd:

I only speak from my experience (sorry if i am wrong on any of the above!) but either engine will transform a mk2!! :smiley:
If only my Volkswagen was as reliable as everyone else's...

Offline rubjonny

  • 10k hero
  • *
  • Posts: 16,349
  • Hello, my name is John and I'm a dub addict.
Re: mk 3 2.0 16 v conversion?
« Reply #13 on: 25 April 2006, 22:02 »
if you already have a 16v, the easiest thing is to chuck any 2.0 lump under the existing head, no need to mess about with the abf head & loom no advantage really you can get the same gains.

You want a 90 onwards MK2, check the hazard switch if its on the steering column then its a late spec.  If you have an 8v its easier to fit an ABF, all you need is the matching engine loom, even the fuel pump is the same etc.

Hello my name is John and I'm a dub addict.