What is my BHP likely to be for a Mk3 2.0 16v Gti M Reg

[AudiA8Quattro]

185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.

[Ess_Three]

185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.

Not just a capacity increase...

The inlet manifold if different - bigger plenumn, better design.
The TB is a better design, with a bigger casting opening for the same size throttle plate...
The ECU mapping is different.
...and it's a bit bigger in capacity.

You get gains by putting C VR6 TB and inlet manifold onto a G VR6...but not the full power gain.

185BHP on a 2.8 IS achievable...but it takes work.
Modified Corrado TB & inlet manifold,  modified airbox and K&N panel filter, with a re-map to suit will see 185+ genuine out of a 2.8 VR6.

190+ from a standard 2.8 VR6 is fiction, sorry.
Regardless of what the dyno says.

...and getting 170+ ATW (genuine, not made-up) is going to cost you £4000+ every day of the week...

[AudiA8Quattro]

185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.

Not just a capacity increase...

The inlet manifold if different - bigger plenumn, better design.
The TB is a better design, with a bigger casting opening for the same size throttle plate...
The ECU mapping is different.
...and it's a bit bigger in capacity.

You get gains by putting C VR6 TB and inlet manifold onto a G VR6...but not the full power gain.

185BHP on a 2.8 IS achievable...but it takes work.
Modified Corrado TB & inlet manifold,  modified airbox and K&N panel filter, with a re-map to suit will see 185+ genuine out of a 2.8 VR6.

190+ from a standard 2.8 VR6 is fiction, sorry.
Regardless of what the dyno says.

...and getting 170+ ATW (genuine, not made-up) is going to cost you £4000+ every day of the week...

So vw achieved an extra 14bhp with inlet manifold and throttle body mods, and a better map?
The cc difference is only 69.
I've always wanted to know the difference between the engines, no-one has been able to answer that before...
I think the corrado has also got a better exhaust than the golf, if i remember right from working on both.

[Ess_Three]

So vw achieved an extra 14bhp with inlet manifold and throttle body mods, and a better map?
The cc difference is only 69.
I've always wanted to know the difference between the engines, no-one has been able to answer that before...
I think the corrado has also got a better exhaust than the golf, if i remember right from working on both.

Yeah, C VR6 TB is a much straighter shape, and at a lesser angle to the Inlet Manifold, with less by way of 'ramps' to improve air-flow at low speed but to obstruct flow at high airflows.
The inlet manifold has a far larger plenumn - turn them both over and have a look!
Quite a difference!

I seem to recall the ECU runs slightly more timing advance on a C VR6 too...and presumably a bit more fuel.

Interesting that VW had to re-engineer the engine to get 190BHP out of it...whereas many people believe their 2.8 makes more power standard!

[AudiA8Quattro]

Thats hardly re-engineering the engine is it?
The main block and head are pretty much the same, as you said they have just tweaked the tb/manifold.
Thats a pretty good gain in real terms for that sort of work.
Just proves that a 2.8 can be tuned easily.
Out of interest, how much have spent on your 16v to get it to 190bhp+?
Is it likely to be reliable in the long term? 

[Ess_Three]

Thats hardly re-engineering the engine is it?

I would call a different bore, piston size, inlet manifold, TB and ECU differently engineered.
It's hardly bolt-ons from the Ripspeed catalogue, now is it?

The main block and head are pretty much the same, as you said they have just tweaked the tb/manifold.

The head casting is the same...the block is not.
The 2.9 has a different bore.

They may may be 'pretty much the same'...but are fendamentally different, in that the 2.9 has a larger bore.
The TB and manifold isn't a 'tweak' as such. It's a different design completely.
Bigger plenumn on the inlet manifold upper (lower is the same) and a completely different TB casting (although the plate size is the same).

Thats a pretty good gain in real terms for that sort of work.
Just proves that a 2.8 can be tuned easily.

In my experience of tuning them, a 2.8 with a re-map and C VR6 TB and upper inlet manifold will give C VR6 power - around late 180s-190 BHP.

Chip a C VR6 and you gain a few more, above that though.

Port the C VR6 TB and you can pick up another couple of genuine BHP, same with a modified airbos with decent filter - NOT an induction kit!
The Golf TB is terrible and not possible to port out...just fit a C VR6 one.

The 2.8/2.9 can be tuned to 195ish BHP easily with OEM parts, modified OEM parts or basic bolt-ons...but after that, it's expensive and difficult.
Adding 10BHP to a 2.8 is easy...and cheap.
The next 20 BHP will cost you £4000.
The 20 BHP after that, probably another £4000-£6000.

Out of interest, how much have spent on your 16v to get it to 190bhp+?

I have no idea...I dare not add it up.
8 years worth of work...and around £3000 to get to the headline figures...another  £4000 making it capable of using it every day and handle properly. Probably more if I really did into it. It's hard to put a price on custom made parts.

Is it likely to be reliable in the long term? 

Utterly...
Rev limit is only the same as the early ABFs anyway (give or take a 100 RPM or so) at 7300, and with a considerably lightened set of internals, it'll spin at that all day on good oil. (Synta Gold).

Nothing magical about getting the power either...just fitting the best parts you test and fing to work.
2.0 ABF, lightweight flywheel, Blysenstein Big Valve Head (1/2mm larger valves), titanium retainers, lightweight lifters, re-worked and re-profiled TB, match ported inlet manifold, match ported and opened up downpipe and exhaust manifold, 100 cell high flow Cat, Supersprint exhaust, Schrick 268 in/std ex cams, bespoke re-map. 196 BHP on the dyno it made 151 BHP on when I bought it, with around 160 lb-ft of torque.
CDA gearbox ratios with low FD, Quaife diff, 312 front brakes (Black Diamond discs, mintex M1155 pads), Koni coilovers, Eibach ARBs, Poly bushes, aggressive geometry settings. Standard Anni wheels.

[AudiA8Quattro]

Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?
What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.
The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.
When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.
I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.
I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.

[Ess_Three]

Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?

I'd argue that whilst it may not be a complete redesign - Incidentally, I never said it was - it's a re-design none the less, as suitable bigger bore pistons didn't exist in 1992, nor did the bigger volume inlet manifold, nor the different TB.
I suppose it depends on what you think of as a redesign.

Was the ABF a redesign of a KR, as the heads are interchangable, despite the ABF having better exhaust ports/flows?
Or a new design?
I'd say new design.

What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.

Yes...both VR6s.
But different.
AAA vs ABV have enough differences for VW to give them a bespoke identifier....and more than just a turbo trim change as on some of the 1.8Ts.

The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.

I agree...
A little more torque capability on the 2.9 perhaps?

When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.

Fair enough...I doubt the exhaust made any difference...and the re-map probably 6-8 BHP...so possible...on a slightly optimistic dyno, I'd agree.

I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.

So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
However, it will always handle sigificantly better in a similar car, and have lower gearing to offset the lesser torque...so performance in a straight line is similar...and through the corners the 16v is simply better (same set-up).
You can't defy physics...

A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
The VR6 will always have more torque...
The 16v always lighter and carry it's mass in a 'better' place.
Horses for courses...

I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.

Yup, I agree.
Compound effects I guess. Lots of little gains working together.

[DazVR6]

Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?

I'd argue that whilst it may not be a complete redesign - Incidentally, I never said it was - it's a re-design none the less, as suitable bigger bore pistons didn't exist in 1992, nor did the bigger volume inlet manifold, nor the different TB.
I suppose it depends on what you think of as a redesign.

Was the ABF a redesign of a KR, as the heads are interchangable, despite the ABF having better exhaust ports/flows?
Or a new design?
I'd say new design.

What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.

Yes...both VR6s.
But different.
AAA vs ABV have enough differences for VW to give them a bespoke identifier....and more than just a turbo trim change as on some of the 1.8Ts.

The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.

I agree...
A little more torque capability on the 2.9 perhaps?

When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.

Fair enough...I doubt the exhaust made any difference...and the re-map probably 6-8 BHP...so possible...on a slightly optimistic dyno, I'd agree.

I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.

So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
However, it will always handle sigificantly better in a similar car, and have lower gearing to offset the lesser torque...so performance in a straight line is similar...and through the corners the 16v is simply better (same set-up).
You can't defy physics...

A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
The VR6 will always have more torque...
The 16v always lighter and carry it's mass in a 'better' place.
Horses for courses...

I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.

Yup, I agree.
Compound effects I guess. Lots of little gains working together.

I would have to disagree about getting a vr6 to 210bhp being more expensive than getting a 16v to a similar power, i would estimate that to get my old vr to that figure i'd have needed cams-£400, remap-£250 and maybe a second hand shrick manifold-£1000.

Now if i was to spend £3000 it could be running 260-280 after being charged.

To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.

[AudiA8Quattro]

Agree with the above.
The only way you'll get a 16v over 200bhp is with forced induction.
You won't need to do that on a vr.
Also another point to ess_three, changing the exhaust on my old golf more than likely made a difference.
The standard golf system isn't very good, i would say the jetex system was definately more free flowing, more like the corrado system i would say.