Re: To bore, stroke, and breathe

[brett@kodak.com (Brett VanSprewenburg)]

> 
> > 	I was talking to my cousin earlier who was talking to his friend who
> > was talking...  Anyways, my cuz told me that VW made one head for the
> > 1.8 and 2.0L blocks.  The 2.0 head can be modified for a healthy
> > increase in hp.  However, the 1.8 cannot be ported because it is already
> > factory ported to make up for the weak low-end.  Basically, because the
> > 2.0 has the extra grunt over the 1.8, there was no need to port it out. 
> > Is this true?  
> 
> I'm not quite sure I follow your statment? The 1.8l head flows 
> significantly better than the 2.0l head  (the port is 11cc larger on the 
> 1.8). The 2.0l head (due to its smaller port) will have more velocity at 
> low engine speeds, hence more torque on the low end). The 2.0l head can 
> be ported out exactly the same as the 1.8, it just takes longer to do it, 
> as there's more material to remove. Tell your cousins friend to stop 
> talking out his butt, the 1.8l head responds to porting)

Incidentally, I have the Techtonics Tuning Amazing Dyno Stories booklet
right in front of me.  A couple of graphs compare their flow ported
16v heads with the 1.8 and 2.0 16v heads on the same graphs for both
intake and exhaust.  I quote:  "...the 1.8 liter in its standard form
out flows the 2.0 liter version."  for Intake ports.  For exaust ports
I quote:  "Notice the 2.0 liter exhaust port was better than the 1.8
by a fair amount."  The graphs are in CFM and valve lift.  At the high
end of the exhaust graph (.500 lift) the 1.8 head is at about 125 CFM,
while the 2.0 head is up above 142 CFM.  The 1.8 doesn't match the 2.0
head until .200 lift at about 117 CFM.  The TT head of course flowed
30% better then anything else on the graph. Food for thought and grains
of salt not included.

==Brett
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@privateI.com,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.