is there much difference btween 8 and 16v

[cupra8vandy]

thinkin bout getin 16v or mayb mk3 1.8t,any advice

 

[Jamin Berry]

save up for a mk3. Ive got a 16v, wish i had waited for a mk3

 

[jcs356]

8v is easier to drive if you are lazy as the power and torque comes on stream low down the rev range but it then runs out of puff higher up the rev range. 16v like all multivalve units needs more revs and then it goes - and it goes very well.

I like my 8v for the low down grunt but tbh a 16v would have been a better car for its current job on the track.

If you can afford it, save up for the Mk3 1.8T. But be prepared as I bet you'll have it chipped...

 

[Ant FR]

yes, i would say so, i have driven both, and the 8v just did'nt feel exciting enough. Think its cos i like to rev the Tits off a car and the 8v only likes it up to 5k then it starts to get all asthmatic IMHO of course

 

[Martin M]

I've had both and like everyone has said, the 8v has more low end torque whereas the 16v doesnt get going until atleast 4000rpm. Both fun to drive but i prefered the 16v.

 

[RobT]

the 8V handles better but when your on the gas, the 16V is quicker, better brakes also, used to get fade on my 8V when pushing on

either car is great - currently looking for a nice 8V as an everyday car - plenty quick enough and cheaper to insure than a 16V (but I will put 280mm brakes on it, at least)

I doubt there would be much in it on a track, 16V vs turbo, so long as the turbo wasn't tuned. On the road I would expect the turbo to be quicker.

 

[old 'uns]

decide now on 16v or turbo,nobody seems to like 8v anymore just look how many people want to tune or replace 8v engine.
mind you... here's one who is wise

either car is great - currently looking for a nice 8V as an everyday car - plenty quick enough and cheaper to insure than a 16V (but I will put 280mm brakes on it, at least)

i can offer ours Rob, not mint but standard apart from Remus ex. usual probs with paint & interior bits ie parcel shelf brackets & d/s dash flap just hanging on!
also right colour if you need bits for Pickle

 

[acidstrato]

decide now on 16v or turbo,nobody seems to like 8v anymore just look how many people want to tune or replace 8v engine.

i like mine, especially now i've finally got it working!!

its very fun to drive just not as powerful or reliable as my turbo

 

[jcs356]

Yeah, I love driving my 8v - nice and lazy. And I swear is it quicker 0 - 10mph than my S3 on a dry road thanks to that low down grunt, not having to wait for the turbo, and not karting around 4wd gubbins.

 

[HarveyGTI]

owned an 8v, and now own a 16v, 16v is better in everyway, period

 

[rocket_ronnie]

i wanna go in a 16v (never been in one)......see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Mckellar]

been in both, 16v burns loads more petrol as it takes til about 3.5k > 4k revs before it starts to really show its potential..but worth the wait.

8v is fun to drive and like its been said, easy to drive as all the main power is down low in the rev range..

mk3 turbo is a nice car too tho, but around £4000 more for a good one!

 

[WeeJase]

the 8V handles better but when your on the gas, the 16V is quicker, better brakes also, used to get fade on my 8V when pushing on

either car is great - currently looking for a nice 8V as an everyday car - plenty quick enough and cheaper to insure than a 16V (but I will put 280mm brakes on it, at least)

I doubt there would be much in it on a track, 16V vs turbo, so long as the turbo wasn't tuned. On the road I would expect the turbo to be quicker.

how does it handle better rob?lighter engine?

 

[Brummy]

8V is a hoot... the low end grunt gives an edge in the real world.. if you were track daying or m/way driving a lot, then 16V is prolly better, but for town/city /everyday driving, the 8 is more than adequate..

 

[Czechboy]

i wanna go in a 16v (never been in one)......see what all the fuss is about.

Come down to Kingston (South London) and I'll let you have a test drive . But in turn will have to have a go in your NOS'd beast, because it would be purely rude not to

 

[m0rk]

8V is a hoot... the low end grunt gives an edge in the real world.. if you were track daying or m/way driving a lot, then 16V is prolly better, but for town/city /everyday driving, the 8 is more than adequate..

I used to have dyno plots in data format for the 16v & 8v from the same dyno day

If you over lay them the 8v has 105% of the torque below 3000rpm of the 16v

so the mountain of grunt people talk about isn't there

however, I'd have an 8v - I think they're great.... but since I have a 16v I'll be keeping that

 

[rocket_ronnie]

czechboy - kingston might be abit far for me to travel lol but i'm sure there'll be a meet soon

 

[edc]

I used to have dyno plots in data format for the 16v & 8v from the same dyno day

If you over lay them the 8v has 105% of the torque below 3000rpm of the 16v

so the mountain of grunt people talk about isn't there

however, I'd have an 8v - I think they're great.... but since I have a 16v I'll be keeping that

I have done exactly the same thing. 1 16v and 1 8v on the same dyno same morning and the result is pretty much the same. IIRC the 8v does have slightly shorter gearing which may compound the difference?

I'd still take a 16 any day of the week.

 

[soamer]

i must have a wee bit of aproblem with my 8v low down is good but when it hits 3500 to 4000 it takes off, 2nd 65mph 3rd 95 is this right the rev limiter kicks in at 6.500
it is also quicker than my old clio 1.8 16v

 

[jcs356]

I think there are bound to be some 'good' ones. When mine was RR'd before the rechip, it was showing 145 or so lb/ft. Standard it is only supposed to have 112! Not quite sure where the extra 30 odd 'torques' as Jeremy Clarkson talks about came from.

Shame I don't have a scanner as I'd post the graphs.