OT and not OT: towing ability

[jason@scirocco.org (Jason)]

At 11:23 AM 3/31/2003, Joe Doty wrote:
> >
> > And yes, the 16v vs 8v torque debate was debated and finally proved
>along
> > time ago, that a 16v motor has more torque across the entire rev range
> > than an 8v.
> >
> > (Though, I'd like to see a stock 16v compared to an RD motor, not a
> > JH...more fair comparison because of similar compression ratios)
> >
> > Something about 16vs though, makes them feel like they have less low
>end
> > grunt....probably because the bump in power in the high revs makes the
> > rest of the rev range feel soft...dunno.  Definate case of the butt
>dyno
> > lying, thats for sure.

The explanation I've come up with is the 1.8 16V's severe lack of torque 
from 1000-2000rpm.  Under 2000rpm, the 1.8 is just not happy:  My dyno runs 
show under 70 lb-ft of torque off idle.  The 2.0-16V, which is known to be 
a low-end torque-monster by comparison, makes 15lb-ft more (more than a 20% 
gain).

Over 2000rpm, the 1.8 16V is happy.   At 2000rpm, it's up to 90lb-ft and by 
2500, it's at 98lb-ft, on its way to a peak of 105 @ 4250.  (These are all 
at-the-wheel numbers).    The 1.8 16V retains at least 85% of its peak 
torque from 2000rpm to 6000rpm.  It's just at the extremes (over 6k and 
under 2k) that it performs less robustly in stock form.

And that deficit under 2k is why, IMHO, people think it's got now low-end pull.

Jason