On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Mark Radelow wrote: > I think the jury is still out as to whether the Five-Valve head is really > that superior to the 4-valve design. In Europe the normally aspirated > 5-valve 1.8 liter makes approx. 130hp (72hp/liter) compared to the 150 made > by the 2.0 (75hp/liter). The 5-valve head has a lot more reciprocating mass > in the head along with the rocker design which limits cam profile design. I > doubt the costs justify the end result. For me, if I were to turbo a VW I > would use a G60 head. Same thing, designed for boost and you can easily get > 250 HP out of that motor with a turbo. >
That motor wasn't built to be naturally aspirated.. in the great tradition of giving people 9,000 engine choices to put in their golf, some dudes at vw and audi said "wouldnt it be cool if we made a NA 20v?" With the same displacement, as you approach max efficiency for a head on the motor, the gains arent going to appear that big. If you could rev a 20v to 10krpms or above, I guarantee that it would make more power than a 16v. That whole game changes though when you start cramming air into the motor... you don't need to rev it to 10k to get the power out of it. _____________ List Sponsor: http://www.netsville.com To remove yourself from this list, send mail to [email protected] with 'unsubscribe a2_16v' in the body of your message See us on the web at http://www.a2-16v.com Visit the 16V Homepage at http://www.gti16v.org
