View Full Version : Quickest cupra's
HARVEY SRI
20-10-2001, 16:47
Whats the different in performance between the beezer cupra's 1.8 20vt 2.0 8v 2.016v which is the quickest o-62mph top end etc, on paper and out of personal experience.
Once raced an Ibiza 20VT with my old 2.0 16V. Both cars were totally stock and the differece in acceleration between the two cars was negligible! Believe it or not, a stock Ibiza 20VT is not faster than a stock 2.0 16V! It could only gain less than ~1 meters between two traffic lights but we were sitting two in the 2.0 16V!
Then i also raced a chipped 20VT with the same 2.0 16V (still stock). The guy who driven it couldn't get traction for the first 100 meters. My 16valver gained some lead -- the audience were quite surprised too ;), but as the 20VT finished smokin its tires, it pulled away just like when taking over a slower car on a motorway ;).
Then i also raced a chipped 2.0 8V with a sports back box. Guy claimed it had pushing out ~130 BHP. The two cars were going neck and neck until my 16V reached ~4500RMP, when i could safely take him over.
Thats all.
ibizacupra
21-10-2001, 11:32
Originally posted by HARVEY SRI
Whats the different in performance between the beezer cupra's 1.8 20vt 2.0 8v 2.016v which is the quickest o-62mph top end etc, on paper and out of personal experience.
0-62 acceleration is one thing, in gear acceleration is another.
If your kick is traffic light grand prix then fair enough... close run thing it seems. In real driving though it is'nt as close.
20VT will waste a n/a 16v gear for gear , 30-70, 50-70 etc etc.
Torque on the 20VT is the advantage more than overall bhp.
Bill
HARVEY SRI
21-10-2001, 14:29
Thats what i like to hear. Me and my 20vt have been challenged by a 2.0 16v but im still running her in but we will soon see has soon has she is run in and I 210bhp her ha ha ha:p
No doubt, chipped 20VTs are a lot better than 2.0 16Vs, but stock, i would say: almost the same. When a stock 20VT runs out of torque, the 2.0 16V just awakens. I know it tested both.
Anyway, i think who doesn't empoy all the potentials of a 20VT (i.e: doesn't chip it ;) he/she doesn't even need it ;).
ibizacupra
21-10-2001, 21:17
Originally posted by Sim
No doubt, chipped 20VTs are a lot better than 2.0 16Vs, but stock, i would say: almost the same. When a stock 20VT runs out of torque, the 2.0 16V just awakens. I know it tested both.
Anyway, i think who doesn't empoy all the potentials of a 20VT (i.e: doesn't chip it ;) he/she doesn't even need it ;).
My 2ltr 16v Jetta just gets better as the rpms climb (7700rpm), the 20VT runs out of puff at the higher rpms (6000rpm), so a different driving style is req'd. Not so simple to jump in and out of them as they delivery their power so differently.
Both feel fast though in their own way.
16v feels torque-less though after driving the 210.
210 feels breathless after driving the Jetta...
:)
Both are good fun though.. :)
Agreed! I truly enjoyed every minute i spent in my 2.0 16V! Looking forward to receive my 20VT in some weeks! Can't wait!!!
cordobabrendy
21-10-2001, 21:38
bill,
see the way a 2.0 gets chipped and the rev limiter is bumped up 200 rpm, does the power continue to rise right up to the new limit or is it just the safety limit moved up slightly?? in my 16valver the power starts to die by 6700 :(
thinking of getting mine done if there is a trackday on the 2nd november...
also , just want to know as much as possible before i let go of my hard earned beer tokens!!!!!:fart:
ibizacupra
21-10-2001, 23:15
Originally posted by cordobabrendy
bill,
see the way a 2.0 gets chipped and the rev limiter is bumped up 200 rpm, does the power continue to rise right up to the new limit or is it just the safety limit moved up slightly?? in my 16valver the power starts to die by 6700 :(
thinking of getting mine done if there is a trackday on the 2nd november...
also , just want to know as much as possible before i let go of my hard earned beer tokens!!!!!:fart:
I don't think there would be more power in the extra 200rpm. The 2ltr motors are not the screamers the 1.8's were.
Mine runs a very modified gas flowed cylinder head and split duration cams and is blueprinted with ARP fixings, so I can take it higher in the revs than std, and still keep it in one piece.
I hear a chip change on an otherwise stock engine can release some good power and response.
Bill
Rev limiter cuts in at 6800 on the standard 2.0 16V. At remapping they usualy let the engine rev up to 7200 which they still accept "happily" ;)
cordobabrendy
21-10-2001, 23:59
waheyy
that means that 1st would be good for closer to 50mph
2nd about 70-72 nice!!!!
smile factor ten ahoyyy!!!:cheers:
cordobabrendy
22-10-2001, 00:00
forgot to ask,
how much extra torque does it make??
ibizacupra
22-10-2001, 08:17
Originally posted by Sim
Rev limiter cuts in at 6800 on the standard 2.0 16V. At remapping they usualy let the engine rev up to 7200 which they still accept "happily" ;)
The earlier 1.8 16v's in Golfs etc had a 7200rpm rev limiter.
Should be no problem for the car at all.
Whose chip will you choose?
Bill
Scoobster
22-10-2001, 10:29
When you consider that in gear acceleration of the 20vT cupra is actually considerably greater than in the Renault Clio 172 (as seen in an article posted on another thread), would also note that when accelerating in gear in a 20vT you will waste a 2l 16v n/a car.
The new beeza's are heavier than the old model (air con units) and so 0-62 acceleration is a bit stunted considering the potential power of the 1.8T engine, so old and new will run fairly close, however if you stick the two next to each other while moving at 30mph and in 2nd gear and plant your foot the new 20vT will be doing 105mph in 3rd gear before you can even get the old 16v up to 6800rpm to try and get it 'on song'. That is the advantage of having low down torque and grunt. why do you think the TVR's and Porsche's are such powerful machines that will leave most things for dead when accelerating 'in gear'.
I have a couple of mates that have 16v cupra's (stock) and hammer them for in gear accelerating everytime we go off on one and give it some stick when we see each other out on the roads.
I just personally love that turbo.. like being fired out of a catapult, you feel it wind up and then rocket forwards as the boost builds... Love it.. Everyone should have one.. lol
But each to their own I suppose.. All just enjoy what ya got..
ibizacupra
22-10-2001, 11:02
Originally posted by Scoobster
When you consider that in gear acceleration of the 20vT cupra is actually considerably greater than in the Renault Clio 172 (as seen in an article posted on another thread), would also note that when accelerating in gear in a 20vT you will waste a 2l 16v n/a car.
The new beeza's are heavier than the old model (air con units) and so 0-62 acceleration is a bit stunted considering the potential power of the 1.8T engine, so old and new will run fairly close, however if you stick the two next to each other while moving at 30mph and in 2nd gear and plant your foot the new 20vT will be doing 105mph in 3rd gear before you can even get the old 16v up to 6800rpm to try and get it 'on song'. That is the advantage of having low down torque and grunt. why do you think the TVR's and Porsche's are such powerful machines that will leave most things for dead when accelerating 'in gear'.
I have a couple of mates that have 16v cupra's (stock) and hammer them for in gear accelerating everytime we go off on one and give it some stick when we see each other out on the roads.
I just personally love that turbo.. like being fired out of a catapult, you feel it wind up and then rocket forwards as the boost builds... Love it.. Everyone should have one.. lol
But each to their own I suppose.. All just enjoy what ya got..
This is the old road driving and track driving difference. On track my 16v is quicker as it can be kept in it rev zone but on the road this is not possible without being locked up!
Such very different power deliveries. I love them both in their own way.
:)
bill
Scoobster
22-10-2001, 13:55
I agree with you there Bill..
I am sure that the 16v can take more of a screwing and you will get better performance when pushing it hard, but unless you are driving on track you don't see those benefits in day to day use.
That is why my opinion is that the new 20vT is a better engine for a road car. Also as I mentioned the reason why other cars with low down grunt are very popular in todays market and increasingly so over the japanese style 'scream the bollox off it' cars.
I do give my car a bit every now and then and will take it to about 5500-5800rpm where it starts to die off and time for the next gear but always in the knowledge that as soon as I change up the engine will be 'on song' and providing me with some big phat boost to keep pulling through the power and launching you forwards.
I have driven n/a cars that are quick and need to be driven at high revs (japanese cars like celica's and mazda's) and have driven S4's, Boxsters, and the like.. where the grunt is all low down due to big engines and turbo's and I just personally think that for on the road (not the track) the style adopted in the new 20vT is more appealing.. but then again.. as I have stated many times.. IMHO.. I see your point as very valid and agree. depends how you drive init.. :)
I've got a 16v with different head and cams, and it does need to be revved a lot.
You can drive like it on roads, but the noise really draws attention, which is not always what you want.
When i'm late for work in the mornings, I sometimes find myself putting it in third gear on the motorway. The thing is, people look at me as i roar past, which i'm sure they wouldn't in a nice quiet 20VT.
Neil P
ibizacupra
22-10-2001, 20:29
Originally posted by Scoobster
I agree with you there Bill..
I am sure that the 16v can take more of a screwing and you will get better performance when pushing it hard, but unless you are driving on track you don't see those benefits in day to day use.
That is why my opinion is that the new 20vT is a better engine for a road car. Also as I mentioned the reason why other cars with low down grunt are very popular in todays market and increasingly so over the japanese style 'scream the bollox off it' cars.
I do give my car a bit every now and then and will take it to about 5500-5800rpm where it starts to die off and time for the next gear but always in the knowledge that as soon as I change up the engine will be 'on song' and providing me with some big phat boost to keep pulling through the power and launching you forwards.
I have driven n/a cars that are quick and need to be driven at high revs (japanese cars like celica's and mazda's) and have driven S4's, Boxsters, and the like.. where the grunt is all low down due to big engines and turbo's and I just personally think that for on the road (not the track) the style adopted in the new 20vT is more appealing.. but then again.. as I have stated many times.. IMHO.. I see your point as very valid and agree. depends how you drive init.. :)
I love them both... in very different ways!
:)
ohh Errr.
Bill
The flat torque curve of the 20VT results in a lot more drivable car, no doubt. Though, I would not "write off" the old 16 valvers as Scoobster does. As i said, the stock 20VT could not take me over with my stock 16 valver!!! They also have "some" torque, you just have to rev the car. It also produces some very nice noise in my opinion (especially with an ind. kit or modded airbox), a lot nicer than the 20VT ticking...
It is true, that driving a 16v and a 20vt is a completely different story. 20VT kicks you in the back when changing gears, but as the engine revs up, one may get a bit disappointed feeling that engine loses power dramatically in the higher RPM range. On the contrary, a 16v begins with moderated acceleration, but it gets stronger and stronger as the RPM rises. In fact, it is a bit scary, coz all of my passengers excpected the car to get weaker as the engine gets louder, but not. Acceleration in fact gets better and better, not like in the 20VT.
I think no reasonable comparison can be made between a naturally aspirated and turbochanged engine - i would not bet againts the turbo either, but those 16Vs in old cupras are wonderful engines (personal opinion) and in fact they are a lot more reliable even. Just think about that, 16 valvers deliver almost the same power without a turbocharger... How about efficiency then?
Do not misunderstand, i am not saying that 16Vs are better than 20VTs. FYI: Just sold my 16V and already ordered my 20VT cupra in august, but i get a little bit upset when people start writing 16 valvers off...