I am thinking of selling my Carlton and getting something that doesn't gobble as much fuel. Also the complexity of the carlton and stuff going wrong is beginning to scare me.
So, having sold my trusty Golf CL, I want to return to the fold but with more power and luxury. Clearly a post '90 car is the one to go for, but should it be 8v or 16v?
The 16v costs more to insure and some parts are considerably more than for the 8v. Also there seems to be an issue on with its suitability for running on unleaded - a problem the 8v doesn't have when fitted with digifant fuel injection.
Of course, there is more cache and power with the 16v. I have also heard people say the 8v is better to drive around town and not at full bore because more torque is produced at lower revs. Anyone got any real world experience to share?
|
Hi Phil,
I have had several Golfs,MkI, MkII 8V & 16V & MKIII 16V & VR6 There isn't too much difference between the fuel consumption when driving around town, but when you put the foot down in the 16V, it will chomp all your fuel!
Insurance is one of the main costs (as you point out), but your main problem will be finding a used example that hasn't been thrashed.
Have you considered a MkIII 16V? These are far more luxurious inside, and less dated than the MKII. Although a MkIII 16V is more expensive than a MkII, it is one of the last quality, fun cars that VW have produced (in my opinion).
If you decide to stick to a MkII, I would keep looking around for both types until you find a good example, whether it is a 8V or 16V.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Phil,
I've had Mk2 Golf GTIs D reg & then F. I also had a Mk3 GTI R reg. They were all 8v. I have also driven a number of other people's.
I found that the extra performance of 16v normally came at the expense of lower end power and smoothness.
I also got the feeling that when they introduced the Mk2 16v (1988ish) - the 8v was toned down.
I base this on my experience only in - pre '88 Mk2s that I have driven always seemed noticably quicker than their later versions.
Maybe someone in the BR can confirm this.
If you can get a well looked after '87 8v - you would be getting one of the best GTIs ever (IMHumbleO).
The Mk3's did have more toys & comfort - but paled as a drive.
|
Steve
Pre '88 GTI 8Vs had K-Jetronic injection, whereas later cars had VWs own electronic digifant injection. It is widely felt that this reduced throttle response and drivability.
Regards
Andrew
www.hispecgolfs.co.uk
|
|
|
Steve
Pre '88 GTI 8Vs had K-Jetronic injection, whereas later cars had VWs own electronic digifant injection. It is widely felt that this reduced throttle response and drivability.
Regards
Andrew
www.hispecgolfs.co.uk
|
As the owner of a 88 8v K Jetronic, I must say I love it! Very maintainable and excellent build quality. Mine was cheap (repaired ex cat D write off) and with a FULLY documented 70k miles. About 34 mpg for short trip use, and if I am caerful I can get approaching 40mpg for longer trips. It will benefit some TLC over the winter. But try to look for one that has not been boyracer abused or modified.
Non consumable spend over the past 12 months has been 2 front speakers and 2 rearbrake flexibles.
If you look round you will find that some specialist insurers will take it as a classic car at very reasonable rates.
Insurance for 16v may be more problematic.
pmh (was peter)
|
|
|
Hmmm, thanks for the comments all.
I actually got a quote and the price difference on insurance was only about £40. Mk2 is the only option as they are cheap - budget is my 92J Carlton Diplomat + £not a lot.
I want a big bumper model, not only for the looks but for the increased spec they got. I have pretty much decided to look for an 8v, the cons of the 16v seem to outweigh the pros. The difference is injection systems is interesting - I know a bit about the K-Jetronic system because of its use in Porsches of the 70s and 80s, but nothing about the digifant system.
|
Andrew Chapple has an immaculate MK2 for sale at the moment, try www.volkwizard.co.uk
Regards
Andrew
www.hispecgolfs.co.uk
|
He's the bloke I obliquely referred to in my message.
Matthew Kelly
No, not that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you were to go on the Club GTI forums and post this question the discussion could go on for days and days, despite the fact it crops up fairly frequently.
The argument generally runs thus – 8v is better round town and in “normal” driving conditions because of better low down torque. 16v is a real hoot when you get up the top end of the rev range, depends on what you like doing. There is also a school of thought that in actual fact the 16v has almost as much low down torque as the 8v but everyone forgets about it because of what it’s like over 5,000 revs.
I’ve owned two 8 valves (chosen largely because of the simplicity of running the Digifant models on unleaded) and they’re great cars. 16v are that bit more complex (and maybe a bit more tender) but your main difficulty is going to be finding a decent unmolested example. There’s one outside my house, but it ain’t for sale ! I see that you want a post ’90 model for the increased spec – well they don’t all have it, my big bumper model has neither power steering nor central locking but then that’s probably because it’s a 1990 model.
If you’re looking to spend over sensible money for one with an immaculate pedigree there is a chap based in the West Midlands who only sells what he considers to be top notch examples.
Matthew Kelly
No, not that one.
|
I'm not looking for a thoroughbred here - I am happy to do some fixer-upping. There are loads in loot and autotrader for around a grand - my price range! This is a 10 year old plus car after all.
PS. Is it me or do these thread replies not necessarily run in chronological order? How very strange.
|
Is it me or do these thread replies not necessarily run in chronological order? How very strange.
It depends on what message has been replied to. If the person replies to the first message, then it will appear at the end. If the person replies to a message posted mid way through the thread, then the reply will appear somewhere within the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
The argument about low down torque is not true. On a dyno it has been proven that the 16v has more power and torque all the way up the rev range. Buy a 16v , the 8v is gutless.
|
|
|
|
I own an '88F Jetta 16v. Early 16v's are quicker than the later cars, mainly due to a different bore inlet manifold. My car had the later 50mm type, so i swaped to a 42mm and gained around 7ft/lb of torque. I have a sawn off exhaust cam in place of the standard in-let, and a vernier pulley set at about 5deg advance. this set-up produces as much as 130ft/lb@5k rpm. If you get a later car,change the inlet. There is very little difference in bottom end power between my car and a good k-jet 8v. After 5k there is no comparison. I would deffinately go for a 16v. Big bumpers small bumpers, doesnt make any difference 2 me. Just buy one thats been looked after and stick some Kent 258 regrind cams in it. (about £120).16v's have better suspension than the 8v's. But at this age, if the suspension hasnt been replaced recently, its likely to be knackered, so budget for that too.
All these cars run on unleaded, the best to use is Shell Optimax. these engines were designed to run on 98RON minimum.
Ben
|
Top Gear once did a test between a brand new and a 60,000 mile mk2 8v in an off-the-line race. At 60 mph the car with the miles on it was well over a car length clear of the brand new machine. I do wonder whether memories of the 'k-jet being faster' had anything to do with this.
|
|
Not really. A run-in car ie 60000 miles the engine will be much looser and will therefore be quicker.
|
|
That's my point - pit a brand new digifant against a run in k-jet, and the fuel system becomes irrelevant.
|
|
Just finished working at a VW dealer in Salisbury and all the technicians owned MK2 GTis but they were all 8-valve models and they wouldn't touch the 16-valve models due to expense and problems with the cylinder head. These guys know alot and IMHO you should go for the 8-valve. I've driven both (and own an 8-valve) and I reckon the 8-valve has incredible amounts of low-end torque and I know it's seriously tough as mine's done 250k miles on the same engine! Hope this helps.
|
If you want it to last go for the 8v, I have had two, my first one I bought at 90,000 miles in 1991 and it got written off last year with 201,000 on the clock. The only major repair I had was gearbox rebuild apart; from that it was running well (the 5,000 mile oil and filter changes I did really do keep the engine sweet).
My last one I have just sold to my brother with 185,000 miles on the clock with no major repairs being necessary.
The 16v lasts well compared to most cars on the second hand market but it is IMHO nowhere near as good overall as a 8v.
good luck
Ian
|
I started this thread ages ago but someone seems to have resurrected it.
Anyway, i have a mint Helios Blue 89F 8v. I decided the extra insurance and the fact it is not unleaded friendly made it a no no. The 8v is also regarded to be more reliable.
The only problem now is getting rid of my Carlton Diplomat.
|
How much?
(did you pay for the Golf that is?)
|
|
£675. Almost full VWSH. Mint body and interior, completely unmessed with.
|
|
|
Theres no reason why the 8v should be more reliable, both the 8 and 16v have the same engine block, 16v has multivalve head.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I have owned two 16v's and both have been very reliable. The 8v is gutless , the 16v is a must.
|
Can't agree with that. The pre-87 8v is a much better car. I had both and have driven lot's of other examples.
The post 88 8v was "toned down" the previous comment on this thread gives the technical reasons but from a marketing prospective, too many 8v owners were unimpressed by the 16v which needs to get screaming before there was noticable improvement.
|
|
That was the idea of the 16v (high revving engine), much more fun to drive. Infact the 16v was very much like the old 1.6 8v k-jet which was also a high revver(lots of fun too).
|
cos,
That's where we differ. Having to stand on the throttle to get some extra thrills didn't suit me. My old D reg 8v used to fly without all that noise.
|
|
OK when it comes down to it the argument is very silly. Both the 8 and the 16v's are excellent cars. I now have a mk3 vr6, but i wouldn't mind having either as a second car. A friend of mine as just bought a scirrocco scala (1.8 k-jet 8v) and that is an excellent car.
|
|
I used to have a Scirocco GTX - loved it. Nearest I came to a heart attack was coming out of Lewisham Bowl one night to see all the cars in the row squirted with paint stripper - the toe rag ran out one car before mine! Took me a week to get my heart rate down again.
|
the toe rag ran out one car before mine!
Pity the toe rag didn't just run out into the flowing traffic.
|
|
2.0 16v ke motronic engine fitted to the passat was good, a bit less bhp (136) but loads more torque than the kr unit.
|
|
|
|
