Dyno figures for 8v 16v and VR6

[Paul86S2]

After all the recent debate about who's got the most valves and how many are best i have found some independant testing of a 97 8v GTI, a 97 16v GTi and a 96 VR6 syncro.
All the info came from:
http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29&List=U-Z
The manufacturers stated output were as below with the actual results in brackets:
8v 114bhp at 5400rpm (102bhp at 5998rpm) and 122 lb/ft torque at 2600rpm (115 at 2802rpm)
16v 148bhp at 6000rpm (136bhp at 5993rpm) and 133 lb/ft torque at 4800rpm (123 at 5500rpm)
Vr6 syncro 188bhp at 5800rpm (168bhp at 5811) and 181 lb/ft torque at 4200rpm (167 at 4201) vr6 syncro had more power than Vr6

All cars performed less than the manufacturers claims which could be down to overoptimistic claims or the way they were tested, but they are all out by about the same percentage so it seems a fair comparison. All cars had about 3k kms on them.

I have put all three results on a graph which is below. The main points of interest are:

Max BHP on all 3 engines is reached between 5800 and 600 rpm
Max torque on the 8v is reached at 2802 rpm and slowly drops off to 4000 rpm where it starts to then go down faster.
Torque on the 8v is better than the 16v from about 2200 rpm to 2800 rpm.
Max torque on the 16v is reached at 5500 rpm.
Max torque on the VR6 is reached at 4201 rpm and then tails off.
The BHP curve on the 8v and 16v are very similar all the way up to 3500 rpm and then they seperate.

Anyway some info instead of opinion.

[AudiA8Quattro]

Vr6 synchro had the corrado lump 2861cc.

[Wayne]

Interesting but look how little torque the 16v has.

[AudiA8Quattro]

Interesting but look how little torque the 16v has.

Yeah who would buy one of them? 

[Wayne]

This is interesting, look how much more revs the 16v needs for peak torque.

122 lb/ft torque at 2600rpm (115 at 2802rpm)
133 lb/ft torque at 4800rpm (123 at 5500rpm)

[AudiA8Quattro]

It shows that in gear times on a 16v are actually worse than an 8v.
And people say a 16v is as fast as a vr6 

[Horney]

Interesting stuff!

Nick

[Paul86S2]

This is interesting, look how much more revs the 16v needs for peak torque.

122 lb/ft torque at 2600rpm (115 at 2802rpm)
133 lb/ft torque at 4800rpm (123 at 5500rpm)

The problem with looking at the figures without the graph is that you don't see that the 16v produces more torque than the 8v all the way from just below 3000rpm. The 16v's torque is increasing from 1000 to 5500 rpm whereas the 8v is only increasing from 1000rpm to 2802rpm  and then drops off very quickly. So you have a useable amount of torque for 1802 rpm in an 8v and for 4500 rpm in a 16v. The 16v has overtaken the peak torque of the 8v by 3000 rpm and continues to increase the torque right up to 5500rpm.

You say how little torque the 16v has. But compared to what? The 8v? The graph shows it has more, for a longer period of time. Remember the extra BHP and Torque is only coming from what is basically a differant head whereas the VR6 has a larger capacity engine by 45%.

The VR6 would look better if it didn't reach its peak torque at 4200 and the drastically drop off.

Paul

[Mikester]

im loling between the 2 and 4k revs, comparing the 8v and 16v.....

[Paul86S2]

im loling between the 2 and 4k revs, comparing the 8v and 16v.....

Don't forget the graph doesn't take into account any times.

It doesn't state which car revs the quickest, which car reaches it peak performance the quickest. It purely shows the performance graphs.

No time line in seconds to compare where each car is at any given time.

Paul