VTR cammed or buy a VTS

[Mi5terSIR]

Originally Posted by welshpug

nope. 16v is faster everywhere in the rpm range.

i would have to disagree with that, the 8v is definately better in the lower rpm range, having driven both i do feel that it does have a bit more torque somewhere lower down, although i do agree the 16v will sing up the higher revs and beyond (anything above 5k i reckon)

i would be curious to see what would happen if you got an 8v and 16v head, and had them both p+p to flow the same (or as close to) i dont think that anybody would blow that kind of money to prove such a small point though, and i would agree.

[Gandi699]

It might "feel" better but the 16v makes more torque


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dany4494]

Look at some dynos 16v make more torque and bhp right the way through the rev range /thread

[hard_corejoeboy]

Having had both engines the VTR seems a bit dead and theres no decent "kick" I power it just feels the same from 1k-6k whereas the VTS engine seems okay and then once 4-5k hits all hell seems to break loose! I would definately go for the 16v option. If you can DIY it then it can be done VERY VERY cheaply nowadays!

[Gandi699]

The vtr was a cost cutting insurance friendly hatch, there really is nothing great about it. 16v is a much more lively unit as are most 16v engines. Unless it's a special 8v from say a rallye or the 1.3 just go 16v, seriously


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk