Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (2NYS4YA)
prolly 120-125hp at 7000rpm's
prolly 120-125hp at 7000rpm's
What if the 1.8 had no T?
What would the power numbers be if the 1.8 engine didn't come with a turbo? Just curious.
[Modified by 2NYS4YA, 3:09 PM 11-30-2001]
[Modified by 2NYS4YA, 3:09 PM 11-30-2001]
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (2NYS4YA)
Volkswagen makes this engine. It's sold in Europe. I don't know the performance numbers off the top of my head, but 125 hp sounds about right.
-Nick
Volkswagen makes this engine. It's sold in Europe. I don't know the performance numbers off the top of my head, but 125 hp sounds about right.
-Nick
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (GTI 20v)
yup 125 would be correct sounds right to me
but its still a little low on compression.
Chris
yup 125 would be correct sounds right to me
but its still a little low on compression.
Chris
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (BALLIN-AUDI)
125hp used without a trubo by SEAT.
125hp used without a trubo by SEAT.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (Giancarlo)
Actually they have it rated at 150hp on a Golf - http://www.volkswagen.de/golf/index_g.htm
The Turbo model is 132Kw or 180hp. Interesting to see that the compression on the non-turbo engine is 9.3 instead of the 9.5 running on ours...
Actually they have it rated at 150hp on a Golf - http://www.volkswagen.de/golf/index_g.htm
The Turbo model is 132Kw or 180hp. Interesting to see that the compression on the non-turbo engine is 9.3 instead of the 9.5 running on ours...
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (Gambit)
The last series of 1.8t's dropped in compression and increased boost levels.
The last series of 1.8t's dropped in compression and increased boost levels.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (mrkrad)
If you look on the same page under the 132Kw engine (which is the new 180hp Turbo) you'll see that compression is still 9.5. There has been some talk around here about using an NA 1.8 head with the Turbo 1.8 because of larger valves...
If you look on the same page under the 132Kw engine (which is the new 180hp Turbo) you'll see that compression is still 9.5. There has been some talk around here about using an NA 1.8 head with the Turbo 1.8 because of larger valves...
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (Gambit)
Saw a GTI mk I running low 13 passes at Dubwarz w/a 1.8 na engine swap. Granted it probably only weighed 1500 lbs or so...
Saw a GTI mk I running low 13 passes at Dubwarz w/a 1.8 na engine swap. Granted it probably only weighed 1500 lbs or so...
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (GTI 20v)
Also, theres a 20v N/a engine, but it's a v5, putting out about 170hp?
I don't think VW makes the 1.8t in naturally aspirated form.
-Noah
quote:[HR][/HR]Volkswagen makes this engine. It's sold in Europe. I don't know the performance numbers off the top of my head, but 125 hp sounds about right.
-Nick[HR][/HR]
isn't that 1.8 a 16v? completely different engine? -Nick[HR][/HR]
Also, theres a 20v N/a engine, but it's a v5, putting out about 170hp?
I don't think VW makes the 1.8t in naturally aspirated form.
-Noah
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (THE Wuss)
When i was over in England this summer i picked up a A4 brocher, and it stated that the new A4 in a stick with only front wheel drive and 5sp (manual) did 0-60 in like 10secs. So that little Ko3 makes a BIG difference. Plus when i had my 97A4TQM i bought it with a broken turbo and my best 1/4 time was 18.81, so that little baby ko3 does make some power.
When i was over in England this summer i picked up a A4 brocher, and it stated that the new A4 in a stick with only front wheel drive and 5sp (manual) did 0-60 in like 10secs. So that little Ko3 makes a BIG difference. Plus when i had my 97A4TQM i bought it with a broken turbo and my best 1/4 time was 18.81, so that little baby ko3 does make some power.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (2NYS4YA)
...we would be drivin VR6
...we would be drivin VR6
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (Spec-ops)
how could a 1.8 in regular form have more HP than the 2.0 four cylinder? even if it had more valves, which it doesnt i dont think it could be faster than the 2.0
how could a 1.8 in regular form have more HP than the 2.0 four cylinder? even if it had more valves, which it doesnt i dont think it could be faster than the 2.0
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (enfi)
-Nick
quote:[HR][/HR]how could a 1.8 in regular form have more HP than the 2.0 four cylinder? even if it had more valves, which it doesnt i dont think it could be faster than the 2.0[HR][/HR]
Ummm, yes the 1.8 does have more valves. It has 5 valves per cylinder while the 2.0 has 2. That accounts for a lot more air flow, so it is entirely possible for a 1.8 n/a to be faster than a 2.0.-Nick
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (enfi)
quote:[HR][/HR]how could a 1.8 in regular form have more HP than the 2.0 four cylinder? even if it had more valves, which it doesnt i dont think it could be faster than the 2.0[HR][/HR]
Why not? That's not that much more displacement and it's much more efficient.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (Jman5000)
Well a 2.0 is larger stroke, and 2v has better low end port velocity, so it would make a bunch more torque than the 1.8T NA. Matter of fact the lack of torque in the 1.816V would probably be more prevalent in the 20V. Which is why they decreased the flow of the 2.016V and increased its stroke to reduce the low end weakness.
Well a 2.0 is larger stroke, and 2v has better low end port velocity, so it would make a bunch more torque than the 1.8T NA. Matter of fact the lack of torque in the 1.816V would probably be more prevalent in the 20V. Which is why they decreased the flow of the 2.016V and increased its stroke to reduce the low end weakness.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (mrkrad)
anyone know why VW doesnt put more valves in the 2.0 for greater speed? would this mess the fuel economy up a bit?
honestly I dont really see the point in buying a 2.0. I mean 115 HP? I was getting around 26-27 MPG... i think its only 1000-1800 more for a 1.8T engine. the salesman at the dealership say the same thing, that is of course unless you are interested in a 2.0
![]()
anyone know why VW doesnt put more valves in the 2.0 for greater speed? would this mess the fuel economy up a bit?
honestly I dont really see the point in buying a 2.0. I mean 115 HP? I was getting around 26-27 MPG... i think its only 1000-1800 more for a 1.8T engine. the salesman at the dealership say the same thing, that is of course unless you are interested in a 2.0
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (enfi)
Another thing to take into account on this new 1.8 NA is that in addition to the 5 valves it also has variable cam timing which could contribute to higher power output.
Another thing to take into account on this new 1.8 NA is that in addition to the 5 valves it also has variable cam timing which could contribute to higher power output.
Re: What if the 1.8 had no T? (wolfsburg_de)
quote:[HR][/HR]VW chose to initally sell the Golf IV with a 125 hp n/a 20v 1.8. The low end torque was lacking so they soon replaced it with the old 115 hp 8v 2.0. Basically, without a turbo, our engines would not be much to write home about.[HR][/HR]
Take a look at the above posted link (I translated it from german using babelfish) The 20v NA still has high torque starting at 1950rpm... I think that the earlier 20v NA has been replaced with the newer AWW type engine...1 - 20 of 31 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum
A forum community dedicated to all Volkswagen owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, new releases, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
