-
Pros n cons of 1.9 and 1.6?
by
Torchd
on 13 Mar, 2008 02:10
-
Which engine is better to extract performance out of it??
1.6 or the 1.9??
Engine taking more beating n all?!
-
#1
by
subsonic
on 13 Mar, 2008 06:29
-
That question is too broad. Are you looking for low end pull, maximum HP or TQ, power for a daily or track?
Both can offer different aspects.
-
#2
by
CoolAirVw
on 13 Mar, 2008 19:37
-
there's no replacement for displacement.
-
#3
by
burn_your_money
on 13 Mar, 2008 22:56
-
fast revving is a nice trade off to displacement
-
#4
by
flapjack
on 14 Mar, 2008 20:06
-
from one of Malone's old threads:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2015590
-1.9L
..more likely to find a good engine
..much more off boost torque, better low/midrange power, keep the small turbo to augment this characteristic
..very heavy internals, poor ports, especially exhaust. NOT a revver.
..nice to have a serpentine belt system for alternator & /a/c.
..Prone to total engine failure due to poorly designed crank sprocket keyway. Sprocket loosens and the bolt can sheer.
..Some engines didn't come with LDA on pump. (extra fueling with boost)
-1.6L
..more difficult to find a decent condition engine
..low end power pretty soft, distinct turbo lag compared to tiny turbo'd 1.9L
..can be revved quite high
..better port design.
..rat's nest of belts if using p/s & a/c. Alternator belt needs tightening frequently.
..pretty well bulletproof engine. No common failures noted.
-
#5
by
CoolAirVw
on 14 Mar, 2008 20:32
-
Difficult to find a 1.6?
I've never even seen a 1.9 IDI. Were they even sold in US?
Edit: Oh, your in Jersey. So your scarfin up those canadian 1.9's???
-
#6
by
Black Smokin' Diesel
on 14 Mar, 2008 20:36
-
I would personally go with a 1.6 because the idea of a high revving diesel make me all giddy inside.
A good performance build is a 1.6td hydro block with a P&Ped 1.9 head, 1.9 headgasket, head studs, VNT turbo, intercooler, worked injection pump and much much more. With a similar setup you could have great power, wide powerband and good mileage.
-
#7
by
Black Smokin' Diesel
on 14 Mar, 2008 20:37
-
Difficult to find a 1.6?
I've never even seen a 1.9 IDI. Were they even sold in US?
Edit: Oh, your in Jersey. So your scarfin up those canadian 1.9's???
He means that 1.6 engines are older thus harder to find in good condition compared to 1.9 engines. He's not talking about rarity.
-
#8
by
spencebm
on 14 Mar, 2008 21:11
-
the 1.9 is has lots of power, i like it, but you can't go wrong either way
-
#9
by
Torchd
on 14 Mar, 2008 22:57
-
I personally love the 1.6 TD.. but im going for the 1.9 anyways.... and putting a turbo from 1.6..
so hoping that i'll get sum good power out of it.!
-
#10
by
stewardc
on 15 Mar, 2008 04:48
-
I've had em both, and when it came time to build a torquemonster for my Caddy, the choice was clear. I rebuilt a 1.9 and am more than pleased with the outcome. Much better driveability, IMHO.
-
#11
by
malone
on 15 Mar, 2008 13:38
-
Which engine is better to extract performance out of it??
1.6 or the 1.9??
Engine taking more beating n all?!
Check out 935racer's 1.6TD dyno thread. 192 horsepower at the wheels with stock injectors and 9mm pump head! Lots more potential to come with extra fueling. He has a well-ported 1.9TD head (with reground 1.6TD camshaft IIRC) but the bottom end (rods, pistons, crank, etc.) is still 1.6L.
He might have a bent rod so a 1.7L may be in the plans; basically a 1.6TD block with 1.9 pistons.
My personal experience with a 1.6TD + giles pump that is otherwise 100% stock: The 1.6TD in a fat-arsed 1997 MK3 Golf accelerated from a stop (minimal boost)
better than a 1.8L 8v or 2.0l 8v with the same transmission. When the turbo starts kicking in at around 3,000 RPM it really starts to go. Thus, I don't really desire the extra low RPM torque of a 1.9L if it means sacrificing top end HP.
The 1.9TD will still have more low-RPM torque potential if that's your primary goal. If you want a modest HP increase, like 150hp, then a 1.9TD will be a well-rounded engine. If you want 200hp then it's hard to say which engine is easier or cheaper to begin with; the 1.6L or 1.9L (probably better to mix the two).
-
#12
by
subsonic
on 15 Mar, 2008 14:21
-
No bent rod, but there was valve to piston contact.
Well, I spoke with Dave this morning, and he had pulled the head after the alternator bracket broke and knocked out the water pump, the motor got kinda hot, so he pulled the head just to be safe.
The head was flat, and all rods and pistons were in good shape, and there were NO BENT RODS!! It looks like one of the valves has made contact with the piston, it was checked over was straight no damage to the piston or the valve, so it was put back in and the valve spring was checked over. Now if you have been following the franken motor thread you will know that the big limiting factor to this point was that the turbo was surging above 26psi so Dave custom machined an anti-surge compressor housing for it and now can run 35psi, however above 32psi it just flutters now as the external gate spring is to soft, so Dave is going to get a harder spring, and attempt to re-dyno it this weekend. Both with the stock injector's and then with some 1.9 dual springs with some merc nozzles. It still needs an equal length exhaust manifold, and a cam, but it is getting there. :wink:
.
-
#13
by
spencebm
on 15 Mar, 2008 14:32
-
when you push your engine that hard then reliability decreases pretty rapidly, if you aren't going to rod the engine all day then i doubt it would matter, the 1.9 is better at daily driving
-
#14
by
malone
on 15 Mar, 2008 15:11
-
No bent rod, but there was valve to piston contact.
Nice!
