"When a dead horse just isn't enough......"
The 2.0 16v head IS the better head vs the 1.8 16v head!----Um, well okay. But
under what circumstances is the 2.0 superior? Stock form? With a trick set o'
Schricks? P&P'd? All or none of the above?
From a stock and budget-minded performance standpoint, the 1.8 head's
intake tracts simply flow better. The reason for this is simple: They're larger
and capable of flowing a greater amount of air at higher engine speeds.
As far as the 1.8's smaller and thus "flawed" exhaust ports are
concerned, that is fact and can be easily and empirically demonstrated. But
don't you think that it would be cheaper to employ a little cogitative energy
(instead of $$) and adjust the cams' LCA (overlap) along with an exhaust that
will effectively improve exhaust gas scavenging? Might not match the 2.0's
abilities, but I'd be willing to bet it'll come close.....
Actually, I think it'd be neat to track down one of der engineers responsible
for the design of the head and get the real scoop.....
Now, anyone for an arg...er "free exhange of ideas" regarding intake
velocity and resonance tuning vs. airflow capacity?( a.k.a. "Why the $$ for
50mm intake would be better spent on guns, hookers and top-shelf gin.")
Cheers, Ralph
