Mark II Golf engine builder builder?
Discussion
Are there any left? Or have they all died or retired?
I'm looking for an enthusiast old-school engine builder to bore my 1.8 16V Mk 2 out and build a proper little screamer. Response more important than power. (I know that I could drop in a later turbo engine, and while I can see the logic, this is purely for fun and personal taste, and a turbo is all wrong for the kind of n/a engine I want for this type of car.)
Slim pickings on Capt Google though. Is there anyone old-school like that even left for old Mk IIs?
Ta
I'm looking for an enthusiast old-school engine builder to bore my 1.8 16V Mk 2 out and build a proper little screamer. Response more important than power. (I know that I could drop in a later turbo engine, and while I can see the logic, this is purely for fun and personal taste, and a turbo is all wrong for the kind of n/a engine I want for this type of car.)
Slim pickings on Capt Google though. Is there anyone old-school like that even left for old Mk IIs?
Ta
Have you looked at www.clubgti.com? Its not as busy as it once was but there are some really knowledgable members who should be able to give you some pointers.
Good suggestion with TSR, they have been around for many years and have a good reputation, I had one of their Pack A heads on a factory 2.0 bottom end in a MK2, went great.
My memory is a bit hazy but I seem to remember a 1.9 being preferable to a 2.0 if you want revs, I wouldn't dismiss the original K Jet if its set up right should be more than up to the job of supporting a flowed head, cams etc. Personally never saw big gains by switching to ITB's, you really need to increase compression to warrant the expense
Good suggestion with TSR, they have been around for many years and have a good reputation, I had one of their Pack A heads on a factory 2.0 bottom end in a MK2, went great.
My memory is a bit hazy but I seem to remember a 1.9 being preferable to a 2.0 if you want revs, I wouldn't dismiss the original K Jet if its set up right should be more than up to the job of supporting a flowed head, cams etc. Personally never saw big gains by switching to ITB's, you really need to increase compression to warrant the expense
pistolpedro said:
. Personally never saw big gains by switching to ITB's, you really need to increase compression to warrant the expense
The singular benefit of ITBs is the minimum downstream inlet volume allowing the use of extreme cams, ie cams with lots of overlap, and hence huge flow reversals at low speed. In a common throttled plenum architecture those reversals lead to very rough running as they push fuel back up into the plenum where it gets swallowed by the other cylinders, on a ITB, the closed throttle plate prevents those reversals.Modern engines that run crank sycronous injection angles can these days get some of the same effect by simply injecting only on a open inlet valve at light load to prevent fuel standoff / reversal, and so a large plenum (say 3 or more times bigger than the swept capacity) can be used to still support a large gulp factor and hgih rpm peak power.
For any road driven car i would always go for swept capacity over just about anything tbh, so go 2.0 rather than 1.9 etc as the extra 10Nm of torque across the full rev range is worth far more than any extra bhp at high rpm
tones61 said:
Jason at JMR Plymouth ;-)
Ta - is this him - not in Plymouth though ... https://www.johnmitchellracing.co.uk/
Max_Torque said:
The singular benefit of ITBs is the minimum downstream inlet volume allowing the use of extreme cams, ie cams with lots of overlap, and hence huge flow reversals at low speed. In a common throttled plenum architecture those reversals lead to very rough running as they push fuel back up into the plenum where it gets swallowed by the other cylinders, on a ITB, the closed throttle plate prevents those reversals.
Modern engines that run crank sycronous injection angles can these days get some of the same effect by simply injecting only on a open inlet valve at light load to prevent fuel standoff / reversal, and so a large plenum (say 3 or more times bigger than the swept capacity) can be used to still support a large gulp factor and hgih rpm peak power.
For any road driven car i would always go for swept capacity over just about anything tbh, so go 2.0 rather than 1.9 etc as the extra 10Nm of torque across the full rev range is worth far more than any extra bhp at high rpm
Thanks for the info that’s really useful Modern engines that run crank sycronous injection angles can these days get some of the same effect by simply injecting only on a open inlet valve at light load to prevent fuel standoff / reversal, and so a large plenum (say 3 or more times bigger than the swept capacity) can be used to still support a large gulp factor and hgih rpm peak power.
For any road driven car i would always go for swept capacity over just about anything tbh, so go 2.0 rather than 1.9 etc as the extra 10Nm of torque across the full rev range is worth far more than any extra bhp at high rpm
The preferred cams for the 16v were always the Schrick 268/276 combo some good info here, although moving to ITB’s sounds like it could allow even more extreme profiles,
https://www.clubgti.com/forums/index.php?threads/2...
From what I read at the time the 1.9 was a more square engine then the 2.0 so was more willing to rev, in my head I’ve always had it more suited to a mk1 as its that bit lighter than the MK2 so any torque deficit to the 2.0 is less noticeable
I favoured the larger capacity (2.0) as it suited my requirements for the car, the ultimate 16 valve in period was the RE2100 club sport 2.1 litres and 190bhp, not bad for 1990! Another benefit of the 2.0 is that post 1990 the 2.0 16valve was available from factory in Corrado, Passat, Audi 80 and Coupe so if you find a donor you can put one in a mk1/2 for very little outlay, the mk3 ABF is also another option, slightly taller block IIRC but believe it is still an easy swap
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff