8v and 16v engine

[mr bognor]

Hi people what are the + and - points of a 8v and a 16v engine is it 16v rev more than the 8v but the 8v has more low down power ???

 

[M1TCH]

I've always been led to beleive that an 8v engine has more torque than the equivilant sized 16v engine. not 100% on that but someone like vince (run115) will know for sure, that guy knows too much lol

 

[The Fatty]

16v lets 100% more air/fuems in/out. thus being better. 8v + 16 Rev the same....

 

[theduck]

think u hit the nail on the head mate

 

[The Fatty]

16v has more bhp. ie. 1.2 8v = 60bhp, 1.2 16v = 75bhp

 

[mr bognor]

so no real + points of a 8v engine over a 16v one ?

 

[The Fatty]

none what so ever...thats why everyone want 16v

 

[theduck]

8v has more low end torque. so an equivalently powered engine 16v engine will get off the line slower than the 8v.

 

[BenR]

I've always been led to beleive that an 8v engine has more torque than the equivilant sized 16v engine. not 100% on that but someone like vince (run115) will know for sure, that guy knows too much lol

8v's have built the reputation of being more torquey because in std and mildly modified trim, they run much less radical valve timing events. Couple this with average port velocities that are higher at lower rpm's and you get an engine which lends itself to high VE's at low rpm's. Thus it creates more torque at lower rpm and feels punchier. Once you start maxing out an 8v it becomes incredibly peaky and less tractable than a 16v because the higher the state of tune, the narrower the effective rpm band becomes.

16v's are better in every aspect.

 

[The Fatty]

8v has more low end torque. so an equivalently powered engine 16v engine will get off the line slower than the 8v.

i wouldnt agree with this....tryed it and 16v's quicker by far....

 

[BenR]

16v lets 100% more air/fuems in/out. thus being better. 8v + 16 Rev the same....

not quite, on that basis, it should make double the power.

 

[run115]

Agree with ben on the topic, had both 8v and 16v engines, and the latter one is a lot better, on the basis of what and how ben explained.

Thanks for the compliment mitch!!

Vince

 

[steven.m]

From my past experience I have noticed that my 1.2 16v clio doesnt accelerate as quickly as my mates fiesta 1.3 8v until it reaches higher revs then sprints past the 8v... not sure if its maybe just me or not or if that is definatly the case.

 

[mr bognor]

Thanks people was just getting some thoughts on this as having a think about new car v soon . Was thinking about a 106 GTI a Saxo VTS / VTR ( thats what the 16v vs 8v was about ) and maby a 306 xsi 16v £ 3000 max to spend and do 70 % driving on motor way what you think ???

 

[run115]

106gti and saxo vts use tha same lump, the vtr is basically the same 1.6 engine with an 8v head. Get the vts, or dont bother. Its quite tunable and its a light car as well.

Vince

 

[BenR]

saxo vts will be the fastest and cheapest. If you get round the stereo type they are fantastic cars. 106 and vts are exactly the same cars....but the 106 is a tad heavier, although nicer inside and out.

 

[mr bognor]

Yeah thast what im thinking 106 gti or saxo vts but the 2.0 in the xsi is tempting as doing a far few motor way trips and only group 11 ???

 

[The Fatty]

From my past experience I have noticed that my 1.2 16v clio doesnt accelerate as quickly as my mates fiesta 1.3 8v until it reaches higher revs then sprints past the 8v... not sure if its maybe just me or not or if that is definatly the case.

maybe thats because his is a '1.3' and yours is a '1.2'. the 1.2's are only 1149cc (not even 1200), i think the ford fessa 1.3 has a 1340cc....cant really compair these 2 really.