Early 2.0l 16v head, desirable & different?

[rfkellner at snet.net (Rick Kellner)]

Thanks for the input.  I will have to check his part number at the next
meeting.  Sounds like a 1.8 head.
Rick 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik [mailto:pats16v@columbus.rr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:33 PM
To: David Utley; Rick Kellner; scirocco-l@scirocco.org
Subject: Re: Early 2.0l 16v head, desirable & different?

As usual Ron has done some of the dirty work for us

http://scirocco.dhs.org/cheapassron/16V/16Vheadcompare/index.htm

Erik
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Utley" <fahrvegnugen@cox.net>
To: "Rick Kellner" <rfkellner@snet.net>; <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: Early 2.0l 16v head, desirable & different?


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scirocco-l-bounces@scirocco.org
> [mailto:scirocco-l-bounces@scirocco.org]On Behalf Of Rick Kellner
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:03 PM
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Subject: Early 2.0l 16v head, desirable & different?
>
> Has anyone heard of a different 2.0l 16v head that was on the earlier
> 2.0L motors?  A member in our local club said that he has a 2.0l 16v
> head that is better than the later, more common 2.0l head.  The
> advantage of this early version is that it supposedly has smaller
> dividers between the intakes.
>
> Thanks, Rick K.
>
>
> I don't know of any, I would say they are refering to the 1.8 head,
which
is
> identical except for that fact, and excpet for the general shape of
the
> ports...  Somewheres on Vortex there was a side by side comparison of
2.0
> and 1.8 heads cut through the center of the ports...  Pretty
interesting...
>
> Cheers,
>   David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l