Volkswagen Mark IV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
between the 1.6, and 2.0 boras, is there massive difference in performance.

ive checked on the parkers site, and there seems to be hardly any big difference in it!

not enough difference to justify the extra money id have to pay to insure a 2.0.

are they really that similar in performance and charicteristics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
not that much betweeen them as you say.

the 1.6 is 16v and free-er revving than the 2.0 8v, which relies more on the torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
Quote: posted by 02 Bora on 21/10/2004 13:27:25

not that much betweeen them as you say.

the 1.6 is 16v and free-er revving than the 2.0 8v, which relies more on the torque.

so what does that mean?

my 1.6 8V is 100BHP but the 2.0 GTI non turbo is 115. 15% more (golf this is)

as said the insurance diff is loads.

same with GT TDI 115

its because of the GT rather than BHP so i am almost happy with my 1.6 until i can go for something much better ie 180BHP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Quote: posted by golf-ball on 21/10/2004 13:07:35

between the 1.6, and 2.0 boras, is there massive difference in performance.

ive checked on the parkers site, and there seems to be hardly any big difference in it!

not enough difference to justify the extra money id have to pay to insure a 2.0.

are they really that similar in performance and charicteristics?

Can't comment on the 2.0 but I've been very impressed with the 1.6 16v golf SE in terms of the torque and drivability of the car. The four door is quite a heavy car but the engine copes really well unless you are really loaded up. It's obviously cammed for torque at lower revs than to be revvy at the top end though, because for a 16v it seems to run out of puff quite early in the rev range.

It's also returned a pretty consistent 41mpg ave in mixed driving over the last 2 years, I doubt if the 2.0 would break 35mpg in the same conditions.

David.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
my 1.6 8V gives about 41mpg too.

however i find that the car wants to get out of low revs ASAP.

if you let it get passed 3K it starts to open up and then at 4K it just pulls off and will keep going till about 5.2K (about as high as i dare).

thus i dont think it runs out of puff. however this is based on slower speeds. if you are at very high speeds on the M'way at 4K then 4.5K to 5K+ is lacking a bit in puff. but then it is only a 1.6 and 5th is not a pulling gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,247 Posts
Quote: posted by golf-ball on 21/10/2004 13:32:17

would either be quicker than my mates focus TDCi ??

I very much doubt it. I assume the focus, even though a heavier engine, will be a lighter car overall. What bhp is the TDCi [?].

IMO if your looking to buy, your better off going for one the lower power'd VW TDI's if you can afford it (110 or 115 TDI).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,686 Posts
As 02 Bora says there is very little in terms of performance to seperate them, they just drive differently; the 2.0 has more low down pull and the 1.6 is revvier but the difference is insignificant. Plenty of people have 2.0s and its perfectly ok, I personally preffered the 1.6 because you get similar performance for less money. To an insurance company a 1.6 is a lot less scary than a 2.0 even though they both are virtually identical.

However as has been said at this end of the spectrum a diesel might be worth a look if you don't mind them; a PD115 definetly feels a bit quicker than both!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
Is the 2.0 really that bad? Does it not even feel quick? I'll be on the market for a Beetle in the near future and I can only realistically afford the 2.0 115bhp engines. Sounds like its a real dog of an engine. I have driven a 1.6 8V golf before but I really couldnt get on with it but I heard the 16V engines are a vast improvement.

Yes same q to Mike, u in London yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
I have the 2.0 and I'm well impressed with it. It does what I ask of it, when I ask. It's no racing car but still wows people at traffic lights. Got more than enough poke to keep me smiling.

The engine itself is old but it is a trusted design and fairly bulletproof. My MPG is much worse than everyone else in the world cos I drive like a clown...I've never driven the 1.6 16v...

If anyone's in the area and fancies a drive, no probs! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
The 2 litres are only group 8 insurance, which is a lot lower than the equivalent golf so I would try a quote first. I doubt there is much performance difference, it depends on your driving style. If you rev it lots all the time the 1.6 will probably be better if you normally change about 3-4k revs a 2 litre might be better suited, the only way to tell would be to drive them back to back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
When I bought my golf the choice was between 2.0 GTI and 1.6 SE which was cheaper and newer.

Driving them both back to back the GTI has more low end power and doesn't need reving as much to make decent progress.

I can also fill the car with 4 people plus a roofbox and it barely notices the difference.

It's a really easy car to trundle through traffic compared with my previous 16v mondeo.

That together with the way nicer interior swayed me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
A mate of mine had a black 2.0 for a while and I really liked it.

Then he became the victim of some jealous loon and it got:

1)Pain stripped twice.

2)Windscreen smashed.

3)Broken into three times.

So he got rid of it nd had to get a Puma. Comedy as he's 6'5"!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Quote: posted by golf-ball on 21/10/2004 13:32:17

would either be quicker than my mates focus TDCi ??

I'd hedge my bets on the TDCi - more torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Hi mate. Have only just got my car golf gti 115.

I think its ok myself, am used to driving cars with loads of umf. Its not the quickest but its quiet and still pulls well all the way up the rev range.

Having said that, does anyone have any tuning ideas, is it worht it? Chip, air filter etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,211 Posts
I have had my 1.6 16V 105 BHP for over 5 years now and yes it is a good car and the power i must say is a bit on the small side for the amount of juice it drinks and as you say when loaded you have to really give it the beans to get anywhere so that is why i have changed the engine for a 2.8 V6 as the fuel usage is not far off the same as the 1.6 and i have 100 horses more lol

More power = less thrashing = more dosh in the pocket for mod?s LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
No the 2.0 unit is not bad at all. They take a while to loosen up (I would say 50K miles) but it is a bullet proof unit, and you don't need to rev it hard to make good progress. Another advantage of the 2.0, is that they share the same drivetrain components as the 1.8T and more powerful engines, so with the 2.0 unit these components are not unduly stressed and should therefore be very reliable. The 1.6 on the other hand, has the same gearbox design etc. as the 1.4 unit (derived from the lighter MKII Golf).

The 2.0 is not the smoothest in the world but it is a strong and flexible unit; you don't need to change down when going up hills etc.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top