[Question for all those with a 16v 2.0 block and 16v 1.8 head]

[dwitt1@satx.rr.com (dale witt)]

Good information...interesting.  I had my head work done many many years
ago..........One of the reasons I have been a member of this list for years.

Dale
82 and 86 16v Sciroccos

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rabbit16v" <Rabbit16v@attbi.com>
To: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Question for all those with a 16v 2.0 block and 16v 1.8 head]


> Ok, just got off the phone with Collin at TT and he faxed me the flow
charts
> of three different 16v heads (2.0L, 1.8L, and TT 16v).  Below is the exact
> wording on this flyer (that was sent out with catalogs quite some time
ago):
>
> Airflow testing of intake ports of three different 16v cylinder heads show
> the 1.8L in its standard form out flows the 2.0L version (intake charts).
> At this point they go into how the TT head flows and what they did to
> increas the flow.  The amount that the 1.8l outflows the 2.0L is about 10
> cfm.
>
> Same three heads as the above test, but this time we are testing the
exhaust
> ports.  The same rules apply (increase the flow without increasing the
> diameter of the port).  Notice the 2.0L exhaust port was better than the
1.8
> by a fair amount.  The TT street port head flowed even better than we
hoped
> with gains of over 30%.
>
> The chart shows that the 2.0L head flows about 15cfm better on the exhaust
> than the 1.8.
>
> Overal is that the 2.0L head flows better than the 1.8L head.  Albeit by a
> very small amount but still better.
>
> Lastly, Collin said himself, that the 2.0L head is much easier to work
with
> when porting and said that the 2.0L head has more potential.
>
> All that said, since we are all porting and messing with our heads, the
> stock form is irrelevant.  BUT, what isn't irrelevant is that the 2.0L
head
> is a bette base to start with having more potential and being a newer
> casting with newer everything.
>
> If anyone wants this chart I can email it to them.  Or, better yet,
whoever
> is in charge of the Scirocco.org site can get together with Collin and get
a
> real copy sent to them.  My faxed copy isn't necessarily website worthy.
>
> HTH!!
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dale witt" <dwitt1@satx.rr.com>
> To: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Question for all those with a 16v 2.0 block and 16v 1.8
head]
>
>
> > Dave, are you sure that the 2.0 head has better air flow than the 1.8?
I
> > found the opposite to be true.  Tuners and shade tree mechanics seem to
> feel
> > that the 1.8 (p/p) on top of the 2.0 bottom is the way to go....maybe I
> have
> > been talking to the wrong peeps for a long time??  I have used the 1.8
on
> my
> > 2.0 and 2.1.
> >
> > Dale Witt
> > 82 2.1 16v
> > 86 2.0 16v
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rabbit16v" <Rabbit16v@attbi.com>
> > To: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Question for all those with a 16v 2.0 block and 16v 1.8
> head]
> >
> >
> > > It's the same as a stock 2.0L 16v.  The combustion chambers in the
head
> > are
> > > the same betweent he 1.8 and 2.0.  Actually, the 2.0L heads re better
> than
> > > the 1.8L heads (flow better stock, more material to port with).  Plus,
> as
> > > far as pump gas is concerned, the regular octane (which is 87 here in
> the
> > > US) is better for the 16v and the knock sensor system than the higher
> pump
> > > octane (92).  Someone did a dyno with each on the same car and came
out
> > with
> > > better numbers with the lower octane fuel.  Anyone remember who that
> > was???
> > > Now if you racing, the 110 or 112 at the track will be better just
from
> a
> > > pure octane point of view (it's been my experience anyway).  HTH!
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cathy Boyko" <losinit@usa.net>
> > > To: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Question for all those with a 16v 2.0 block and 16v 1.8
> > head]
> > >
> > >
> > > "Nathan Frechette" <desertwind16v@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > > Attachment:
> > > > MIME Type: multipart/alternative
> > > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > What does the compression ratio come out to be.  I have been searching
> on
> > > the
> > > tex and haven't been able to find good answers.  Thanks
> > >
> > > Nate
> > >
> > > Ah the great mystery of life. I've had one for two years and have yet
to
> > see
> > > definitive numbers. From a practical aspect, it'll be happier on high
> > > octane,
> > > but good pump gas works fine. But did anyone ever find this number?
> > > Somebody's
> > > going to have to do some measuring with an engine apart I think. Maybe
> an
> > > "experiment" for Cincy, who's got some heads laying around? With he
> skills
> > > on
> > > this list, and the known CR for the 2L, it should be do-able, right?
> > > Cathy 2L/1.8L 16V "The silver headache"
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scirocco-l mailing list
> > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l