Can anyone tell me what differences there are between the CIS-E and Motronic (1.8 and 2.0) injectors other than the threads. Does anyone know why, if they're the same why did they thread them differently?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Ben Randolph Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: 2.0 > From: "Clayton Petree" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: 2.0 > > for some reason or another does not do an adequate job of making > the engine go up high... and the shift point changes from redline or beyond > to about 5800. That is what I mean by 'dosent rev'. I've researched this. > Not only my car but other people as well. i'm glad you poseted that link, becuase it confirms what ive said in the past. that is: the jetronic can be tuned to be just about as good as the motronic, at one point. that would be about 4200 on this guy's car. i surmise that he could have tuned the jetornic to perform just as well as the motronic at, say, 6000. the only problem is that the jetronic would have suffered quite a bit down low. ive spent many an hour on the jetronic with my timing light and 3mm allen proving this. once again, the reason motronic is better than jetronic is because you can optimize the fuel and ingnition over the entire rev range, rather than at just one point. its still CIS-E, it still has all the same parts, it still does all the same things. and the lower that point is on the tach, the less advantage the motronic has over the jetronic. > Anyway, my point is, if you are 'upgrading' to > 2.0l, do it with a Motronic management system as well i know i butt heads with some people on this, but after doing the motronic conversion to my 87, i came away wishing i had spent my money and time elsewhere. a set of cams, perhaps. for me, the ends didnt justify the means (and that doenst have anything to do with the 2 months it took to straighten out my motronic conversion, which is a whole nuther story.) i stand by my past suggestions to pass on the motronic conversion, unless you get the motronic system for dirt cheap. (i.e., ~$100 or less) then i would agree that its a good idea. and i *strongly* encourage anyone looking for more power in their 1.8's to upgrade to 2.0, regardless of the fact that you may or may not convert to motronic as well. when you start bolting on the high rev toys, the 2.0 doenst suffer nearly as badly as the 1.8 does on the left side of the fun gauge. many years ago when i first got into VW's, i was told the 2.0 swap was pointless without the motronic. then i got my 87, and assuming the guy knew what he was talking about, i held off on the swap. too bad, because now i know he didnt know what he was talking about. > or just punch out > your 1.8l to a 1.9l. "punching out" a 1.8 to 1.9 is EXTREMELY cost inefficient (think about where youre going to find the bigger pistons...), and is basically a very bad idea. lots of money, little return. better to spend as much, or even LESS money and just swap in a 2.0. i looked into it, i quickly decided against it. you want revs? take your 2.0 crank to weight watchers. > My car is no faster on the track and I still have the > same top speed on the straighaways. but on top of that, you have alot more torque and power lower in the rpm range. and everyone will agree that the low down to a straight stock to stock block swap is what you get in the down low. rev my ass. ben "60+ in second, 120+ in fourth, 142+ in 5th" randolph 93 C. just a chip. _____________ 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 _____________ 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
