fuel to the fire: 16v's are BAD!

[sad_rocc at yahoo.com (Dan Smith)]

Damn dude, calm down. Who cares what year it is? The majority of us own engines that were built in or before 1988 and tuners haven't made huge advancements for our cars lately. I used to own a 16v, have 2 8v's now and personally just find the whole argument amusing. I like 8v's for my own reasons. You're limiting your potential no matter what engine you put in your car. The only thing that changes is where that limit is. This Drake guy talks about 170hp (from an 8v) not being a real far reach (your definition of far reach may vary) and that's pretty impressive for any NA motor. You say "Sure you can get decent gains with a big valve head, cam, and exhaust, but where do you go from there?" and my answer would be the same place as any other motor. The $ per hp curve you mention gets steep quickly with any motor with any amount of valves. Your point? You say the 16v head isn't the best on the planet and yeah, I know, I started this post to post a link to a very knowledgable source who
 says it's one of the worst heads and he backs it up with scientific reasoning. Whether or not YOU think it's a wonderful head or not is a matter of opinion. I don't know, but personally total hp numbers don't really impress me much because the bigger/better the engine, the easier (in theory) it is to get higher hp numbers. A gain of 25-30hp, which you say is common for 16v's, is not that big a deal in my mind. When you can spend half that amount, gain 2x as much HP doing the same mods, THAT'S what's really cool in my mind. That's just me and my personal opinion, which has nothing to do with anything and I don't want it to detract in any way from what Robert (the Drake guy) wrote about. In other words, don't bother arguing or debating or trying to change my mind about it because it's not worth it. And Brad, if you disagree with Robert that much, call him up and tell him how horribly wrong he is, his phone number is plastered everywhere, although who knows if it's still valid.
 
Dan

Bradley Peet <btpeet@effervescent.com> wrote:
What's weak is you quoting some Drake employee's opinion from 1988. The
dyno results don't lie and while it may not be CHEAP to go 16V, you are
clearly limiting your HP potential if you stick with an 8V powerplant. The
VW head isn't the best 16V head on the planet, but so what! It's STOCK and
plentiful, not some rare and elusive Drake or Oettinger part that you'd have
a bitch of a time replacing or finding parts for.

I see 16Vs dyno 150 to 160 at the wheels (170 to 195 crank) all the time,
but never a normally aspirated 8V. We all should know by now that dollar
per horsepower curve gets very steep, very quickly. This applies to you
beloved 8V motor as well. Sure you can get decent gains with a big valve
head, cam, and exhaust, but where do you go from there? THAT is the
question.

Bradley
1988 Scirocco 16VT 2.0L
2002 Audi S4 Avant Biturbo

> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dan Smith 
> Subject: fuel to the fire: 16v's are BAD!
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Message-ID: <20031005163547.35794.qmail@web42001.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Don't believe me? Read this old forum response to someone from a
> top Drake guy. Don't want to read the whole thing? Let me quote
> the good bits. "DON'T (read that again DON'T) get a VW 16v. They
> are absolutely junk." and "And, like I mentioned, it is a
> performce DOG. At 123hp (US spec), it is a weak puke of a motor."
> Hah! Haha! Take that 16vers!

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003


_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search