ITB's seem like a bit of a tuning challenge.
I only dyno'd with 112 at wheels on my ABA/JH hybrid with factory gti fueling, but that was before I ported the intake runners, installed euro injection and ported/polished the TB. I was running a 286 cam. I went to a dyno day many years ago, and dyno'd better than any 16v that was there. (no turbos or ITB's). My car was more reliable as well D: They were not happy
That same cam and exhaust (2.25") gave me only 94 HP on stock JH motor. The runners are HORRIBLE on the mkI 8v intake, but can be hogged out nicely due to short runners and lots of metal to play with. mkII intake makes more torque, but has hard to reach bends when porting and puts throttle on wrong side.
A 16v on megasquirt would not be too hard to do at all. I like that option as well.
Do you want to be unique, or make a sporty street AND track car?I like the old school sound of the 8V on big lumpy cam. Especially with a 2L...
16v is always a nice motor... And puts out more when tuned properly... And you can turbo later on.
I am a believer in circumstance as well. I have had plans change on just about every project I have ever owned, due to availability of parts, or maybe something comes up like a friend selling off something to you for a good price
Raffi at Eurosport in SoCal had a 20v naturally aspirated motor. I love that car.
I vote 16v on Carbs if you have a good learning curve for old school tuning.
vr6 is not a trackable set up compared to a lighter motor. You don't need torque if the car is light. Rev the ish out of it...
I prefer ITB's due to reliability when tuned correctly. No need to adjust it all the time. Once you get the cams set up, and have everything ready to go, you just slap it on the dyno and tweak the fueling and timing. Carbs still need tuning time on a dyno if you want to do it correctly. But then the fueling is effected by atmospheric changes.
8v's are made into professional track monsters, so any engine can be built up to race spec...
Cleaning, inspecting, ordering parts, looking for parts in junkyard, collecting parts, modifying things...
Cockroaches and Chihuahuas are the bane of my existence.
As for VRs in A1s, they don't belong there. There is no way to swap it directly in with the use of entirely factory parts (as is the case w/ an A2 and the use of a Passat/Corrado subframe) and makes the A1 a front heavy roll over waiting to happen. The VR is a dynamo of a power plant, but my 2 cents is that it makes driving an A1 dangerous. I've worked on both engines and find them equally impressive, although for different reasons. My opinion: if you want a VR powered "go-cart", swap an A2.
swap a poodle
A Rabbit is not to be wasted on the tentative or weak. Only the worthy are invited, and then only at your own risk. If you have even a modicum of hesitation, DO NOT buy one of these cars. Instead, leave it for a worthy soul who has already matriculated to the sublime ecstasy of what those in the know refer to as a "MK1"
put a 16 valve up front so everyone concerned about handling wouldn't cry all night and then put a vr6 out back so everyone can tell you how great the exhaust note sounds... of course an o2a would be required at both ends. but please, if you do decide to go this route, don't skimp out when it comes to the diff... go ahead and spend a few more dollars and get a LSD.... sorry, just a pet peave of mine...
Nobody up-talking an Oil Burner swap?
AHU, direct bolt in. Tune and injectors.. your making over 250 ft/lbs of torque. With minimal efforts, weight addition, and 50+ mpg too!
These days, I would do a 1.8T hands down over a 16V or a VR...
I have owned N/A 16V, 16V-T, both 1.8s and 2.0s.. 8V NA and 8V turbo.. 8V EFI, 8V carbed.. VR6s in MKIIs and B3s.. and 1.8Ts... I never even remotely cared to have ITBs...If Im going to spend that kind of money, I will spend half of it(LOL) and put a turbo on that gives 5 times the gain...
The VR was a cool swap in the 1990s.. Do they have power? Yea, some.. But considering its 2.8L displacement, its a slug. I did a VR swap in my 92 Golf. The donor car was just sitting there, and 1.8T was out of my league at the time(2003 or 2004)... But you don't get decent power on a VR without big big bucks or a turbo. The cylinder heads are just horrible.. a 24V is just a polished version of the same turd, the ports are aweful.. But, they do sound wicked.
The thing that makes the VR less desirable is we are talking MkI's... Its just too much work to make it fit, and takes up way too much space.. If I was building a fast or fun MkI and I had a VR there free for the taking, I wouldn't use it.. Sorry.. In a MkII its atleast a bolt in..
16V's? Not worth it in my opionion.. The prices on 1.8L 20V's has come down so much that they go for a few hundred bucks of eachother..Arguably you could get a 20V cheaper because you never find 16V's in a wrecking yard, only private party at 3-500 for a complete motor.. You can get a complete "engine" from the bigger wrecking yards for 200 if you pull it yourself.. 1.8T Golfs, Jettas and Passats are alot more common in the yard than 16V's ever were here...If you leave the 16V naturally aspirated the most you can expect out of it is a very peaky 150hp... After spending a small truckload of green..
1.8T on the other hand, well over 200hp/300+lb ft of torque to the tires with only bolt ons, IF you keep the stock turbo... Put a t3/t4 hybrid on it and give up some of the bottom end(that just boils the tires off the car anyhow) and your well into 350hp territory..
A VR6T will make more power on paper, but you will likely never put it on the ground unless its on a set of drag slicks on a drag strip making a drag pass... 1.8T will be Lighter, easier to work on, easier to install...
And if you just want fun, cheap and reliable, don't overlook a well set up, EFI turbo 8V with a crossflow head.. They are seriously hard to beat. I'd put up a shadetree EFI 8V turbo car up against a ITB or carb'd car show it nothing but taillights.... Most likely with alot less money invested..
I love 8V turbo.. I did go VR on my 92, but at the time I also had an 8V turbo GTI... the VR was there, and would have been different to me.. My 8V turbo GTI would paddle my VR up and down the street... So for me these days its pretty much either a 20V turbo or an 8V turbo if its running on gasoline..
I'm one of those people that don't believe in putting a large motor into these cars. I'm even against VR swaps in MK2's.
If you are set on an engine swap, 1.8T is about as big as I would go. 180hp in a MK1 is a lot of power. It makes no sense to stuff a pig of an engine into the bay when the same power can be had with 2 cylinders less.
Last edited by nemo1ner; 08-27-2012 at 02:50 PM.
yet another guy on the 1.8T bandwagon.
how about as far as hp and tq figures? how does a carb'd cam'd 16v stack up against a 12v vr6? the VR starts out at about 175hp right? what have you guys seen a Carb'd 16v put down? I found one video where he was at 150hp? ...seems kind of low but what do i know
theres a even medium here guys.
not 4, not 6, but 5