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

[JoshuaA.Conner@VerizonWireless.com (JoshuaA.Conner@VerizonWireless.com)]

Taken from E/C Jan 1993 article written with Techtonics.  All numbers were
derived from testing on a Superflow SF-300 flow bench. 


			Intake port flow testing on Superflow Flow Flow
bench at 28-inches

Valve lift		.100-in		.150-in		.200-in
.250-in		.300-in		.350-in		.400-in

 1.8 16V Head 		75.7		107.8		138.2
161.2		175.3		181.0		183.4
 2.0 16V Head		67.7		101.4		130.7
143.3		163.2		197.9		171.1		
		
TT Streetport 16V	75.8		110.9		146.5
175.0		190.6		199.1		209.4



			Exhaust port flow testing on Superflow Flow Flow
bench at 28-inches

Valve lift		.100-in		.150-in		.200-in
.250-in		.300-in		.350-in		.400-in 	

1.8 16V Head		67.4		96.1		114.9
121.1		124.2		125.2		126.3	
2.0 16V Head		60.9		91.1		115.9
129.3		136.5		138.3		140.8	

TT Streetport 16V	66.8		99.2		125.4
138.7		152.3		160.2		165.6	


It is interesting to note that TT at the time of this article was using 1.8
16V cores for there Streetport 16V($1000).  Thus it seems there is quite a
valid argument for using the 1.8 stock head versus 2.0 stock head.  That
being "out of the box" performance is greater with the 1.8.  Porting is very
much a craft "BEST" done by those very experienced and with a flow bench.
However if you got a spare head give it a shot, you never know until you
try.   Summary:  if you got serious porting skills or serious cash for a
already ported head prolly get a 2.0.  Cheapasses on a budget get the 1.8
and go fast( not as ultimately fast, but remember the budget?)

Joshua C.
'88 Red 16V 2.0block 1.8 head