Mk4 Golf 2.0 GTI engine spec question???
14 January 2004, 12:07 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: "Every one should have a friend called Dave - they're the human equivalent of a Swiss Army knife!!"
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the 2.0 GTI engine have an 8 or 16 valve cylinder head???
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
14 January 2004, 01:41 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: "Every one should have a friend called Dave - they're the human equivalent of a Swiss Army knife!!"
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a MK3 mate, its a MK4.
All the details we have is its a 2001 'Y' 2.0 GTI. Problem is no web site I have found so far gives the details of 8v or 16v, even VW UK!!!
HEEEEEEELP!?!
All the details we have is its a 2001 'Y' 2.0 GTI. Problem is no web site I have found so far gives the details of 8v or 16v, even VW UK!!!
HEEEEEEELP!?!
Trending Topics
What's the story?
14 January 2004, 02:02 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: "Every one should have a friend called Dave - they're the human equivalent of a Swiss Army knife!!"
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car is as above, a 2001 'Y' MK4 Golf GTI in standard spec just as it came from the factory.
14 January 2004, 02:05 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no no no no, the 2.0 GTi is a 2.0 8v. The original normally aspirated Gti was a 1.8 20V. Basically the 1.8T engine without the T. This engine was quickly discontinued and relaced by the old 2.0 8v due to being unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding.
14 January 2004, 02:07 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
IIRC it is actualy a 2.0 8v...
They started the MK4 with the 125bhp 1.8 20v N/A engine, but due to poor drivability (you had to rev the nuts off it to go anywhere) and worse fuel consumpion than the 1.8 20valve Turbo unit, they swapped back to the 2.0 8v which was slower to 60 (115bhp vs 125bhp of 1.8)), but gave a more relaxed drive having developed its torque further down the rev range.
You tried www.uk-mkivs.net ?
Hope that helped mate...
Cheers,
Grant
They started the MK4 with the 125bhp 1.8 20v N/A engine, but due to poor drivability (you had to rev the nuts off it to go anywhere) and worse fuel consumpion than the 1.8 20valve Turbo unit, they swapped back to the 2.0 8v which was slower to 60 (115bhp vs 125bhp of 1.8)), but gave a more relaxed drive having developed its torque further down the rev range.
You tried www.uk-mkivs.net ?
Hope that helped mate...
Cheers,
Grant
14 January 2004, 02:31 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prodriva just go with the first answer, it's correct.
I'll avoid getting too pedantic over this, but I do work for a company that compiles price, specification and sales data for cars, vans and trucks worldwide, so it's safe to say I'm not wrong.
I'll avoid getting too pedantic over this, but I do work for a company that compiles price, specification and sales data for cars, vans and trucks worldwide, so it's safe to say I'm not wrong.
15 January 2004, 10:22 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Our old MY98 Audi A4 1.8 20v SE N/A, with just over 100k miles on the clock did a 17.6 second 1/4 mile... That was at Crail, and it was the Sunday before the Tuesday we traded it in!! 
Cheers,
Grant
Cheers,
Grant
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
