Re: 16v heads - 2.0 or 1.8?

[brett@kodak.com (Brett VanSprewenburg)]

> 
> Alright, I know we've gone through this before but I wasn't paying
> attention...

Ok, one more time for those sitting in the cheap seats. :)

> 
> I recently acquired a '91 Passat parts car with a 2.0 16v engine (only
> 66,000 miles!) with intentions of putting the 2.0 shortblock into my 16v
> pickup.  I had planned on using the head from the 1.8 16v that's
> currently in the truck.  This project will have money put into it... 
> cams, header, and maybe in the future a supercharger. 

Supercharger eh? Won't 170+hp be enough in that lil' truck o yours?
 
> Do I want to use the 1.8 or 2.0 head?  
> I received the following in an email from a guy
> that I don't really know whether to believe or not (he wants to buy the
> 2.0 head):
> 

<somewhat incorrect answer deleted for clarity>

> 
> Any suggestions?  I like low end torque...  that's what I'm hoping to
> gain by installing the 2 liter shortblock.  However, I like top end
> horsepower also  :)

Here's what I've gleaned over years of listening:

In order to increase the low end torque of the orginal 1.8 16v in US spec,
the intake runners where made 40mm instead of 50mm.  This increased intake
air velocity for good low RPM breathing, but throttled the engine a bit at
higher end.  That's not to say the engine won't rev, it just changed the 
shape, slope, and peak of the torque curve for drivability.  Now, with the
increased displacement of the 2L 16v, low end torque wasn't as much as a
concern, so the 2.0 head itself has different flow characteristics.
In comparison, the intake side of the 1.8 head flows better then the 2.0 (the
2.0 didn't 'need' to flow as well due to increased displacement);  while the 
2.0  exhaust side flows a bit better then the 1.8.  I trust Techtonics in this 
observation.  Sooo, for stock heads, it's probably the 1.8 that I'd go for.
However, if you're going to port it, and it sounds like you are, then the
2.0 might be a better candidate. The reason for this (so I've heard) is that 
there's more material to work with, and 'port' into, within the 2.0 head 
casting.   With porting and more agressive cams, I don't think that this is
formula that you'll be dissipointed with.

> 
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions, and forgive me for not paying
> attention the first time

Alright then, I hoped this helps.  If it were me, I wouldn't give up an
expensive and working spare part. :-)

> 
> John
> 

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

------------------------------