Josh,
Thanks very much for the reply. I am new to the A2-16v list, and it's
cool to exchange info & ideas with a higher caliber of VW enthusiasts than
one finds on say, the "Vortex". In the immortal words of Ringo Starr, "I'm
just happy to be here."
However, there were a couple of points in your reply that I'd like to
ask for clarification.
For example
> While you could adjust lift on the exhaust cam to
> match the 2.0, what happens when you install that same
> cam in the 2.0 head with it's already larger intake
> ports?
When you say "adjust lift" with respect to the exhaust cam, could it be
you're referring to something else, like say cam to cam timing? AFAIK, once
you've bought the camset there's no changing the lift or duration except
with maybe a grinder or layers of JB Weld/dried chewing gum (all prolly bad
ideas)....
Also: > The stock cams have more lift on the exhaust side.
> Obviously the exhaust side is the more important of
> the two.
>From what I understand, it's not so much the exhaust side is more important
than the intake (in fact, I might argue the opposite), it's just that the
idea of positioning the exhaust valves directly overhead then forcing the
spent gasses to travel a ninety degree bend to exit "sucks ass" from a
design standpoint. That's why using an exhaust cam with longer duration
and/or lift (like the 260/276 combo) can be considered an attempt at
imporving a poor design....
As far as the 50mm/42mm plenum volumes (and the differences), I'd love to
know what they are, 'cause I'm too lazy to pour water into 'em then measure
the amounts. Then again, I work harder than that trying to mix a decent
martini...If you've got the figures on each I'd really appreciate a
post......Cheers, Ralph P.S.: Am I spelling "gasses" correctly?
- Original Message -----
From: "josh Wyte" <[email protected]>
To: "Ralph Smith" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [A2-16v] Re: 1.8 vs. 2.0 Heads
> According to TT today, the 2.0 head is better in stock
> form as well as the base for beginning to port.
>
> While you could adjust lift on the exhaust cam to
> match the 2.0, what happens when you install that same
> cam in the 2.0 head with it's already larger intake
> ports?
>
> The stock cams have more lift on the exhaust side.
> Obviously the exhaust side is the more important of
> the two.
>
> When talking with Dick@Shine Racing, he tells me that
> when he wants to port a 16v head, he hardly touches
> the intake ports at all, just cleans up the bowls a
> little. He spends the majority of his time on the
> exhaust ports...
>
> On the 50mm intake mani's, I think it's been proven to
> give about 5 more hp up top then stock. Obviously
> with further mods (cams, etc) your gains may be
> larger. Only you can decide if that's worthwhile or
> not...
>
>
>
> -josh
>
>
> --- Ralph Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2-16v mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://maillist.myip.org/mailman/listinfo/a2-16v
>
>
> =====
> Josh Wyte
> Momentum Motorsports
> 508-833-3024 After 5 pm EST
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
