1.8 Vs. 2.0 Revisited AKA why 1.8 instead of a 2.0 head

[SCIROCCO_SPEED@msn.com (Brandon Smith)]

I don't really understand why the AVAILABILITY of the 2.0 head was even
brought up.  That particular head had been around for 3 years in 93'.  What
does the AVAILABILITY of the head have to do with the performance you get
out of it, especially when you do the exact same thing to it as you do to
the 1.8 head.  I mean sure, maybe they weren't exactly a dime a dozen, but
still.  We're still talking about a DOHC 16v VW Engine here.  I could
understand if it were a VR6 and we were seeing test done in 1995 or
something.

And yes, I do agree that smaller ports mean a faster air velocity, but look
at the big picture and take into consideration Volume of air moved.  When
the exhaust valves are closed, the slight increase in "how quick" the air
reaches the combustion chamber isn't as important as "how much" air gets in
there.

But I do agree with you when you say the shape is important.  However, when
you mention cooling, it seems that the more material in head the more it
would insulate right?  Well yes, but maybe too well, just remember, it may
take longer to heat up (resist heat longer), but that just means it's gonna
take a whole lot longer to cool down.

Sorry to keep this thing going, but it's like asking the question "How many
licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop". . . "the world
may never know."   - Well actually we will eventually know the answer to our
questions because we are all smart and intuitive individuals that can think
for ourselves. That's why we are on this list.


*******NEW TOPIC******

Is the Throttle body on a 2.0 16v the same exact size as it is on the 1.8
16v?  I need to know, I am starting to design an intake manifold for the
16v.  I've started some cad drawings, and eventually it will resemble a
Shrick VR6 manifold.


thanks,

-Brando

> I feel I need to chime in here.
>
> First, I think Haygood's got a good point about the availability of the
> heads and that this would defineately need to be taken into consideration
> before using TT's record of what type of head they used in 93.
>
>
> Oh, and one last little item.  Although I agreed with BH that the
> availability was an issue, I need to correct him when he says that a
larger
> port is better.  Larger would be better with high boost race cars and even
> then the shape is still more important.  The fact that the 2.0L head has
> more material in it's ports is a very good thing not only for even better
> shaping but also for added cooling.  Remember that hot oil and coolant run
> through the head and weave in and out of the ports throughout the head.
> Plus, a little low end torgue is nice when you have the monster top end
> power that a 2.0L 16v with the right mods can give you!  HTH!!
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Haygood" <haygood@aemail4u.com>
> To: <JoshuaA.Conner@VerizonWireless.com>
> Cc: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:59 PM
> Subject: Re: 1.8 Vs. 2.0 Revisited AKA why 1.8 instead of a 2.0 head
>
>
> > keep in mind that the article was from '93.  TT could prolly get the
> 1.8heads more cheaply since the 2.0l heads hadn't been around as long and
> weren't in as many cars (I'm guessing) at that time.  Also, 2.0l needs
more
> material removed before benefits are seen in flow bench.  2.0l head is not
> simply worse flow in stock form.  Flow benches only measure constant peak
> flow.  Real engine operation involves pulsed flow and factors like low rpm
> performance.  The 2.0l head was built for low end torque.  I'm just saying
> that's what it was for, not that that is what we want.
> >
> > BH