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

[Rabbit16v@attbi.com (Rabbit16v)]

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