which is better for tunning

1. Grover-VTR L-plater Joined: Jul 2009 Whitstable, kent Posts: 62 Saxo vtr

   #1 6th June 2010, 08:18

   Hi ,Guys
   
   Right quick question which lump is better 2 tune vtr or vts ive got a vtr but have got hold of a vts lump just need sum help choosing cheers
2. Quick Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Mar 2003 United Kingdom (England) Posts: 7064

   #2 6th June 2010, 08:28

   VTS, 120 vs 90/98bhp to start with.
3. KamRacing Saxperience Addict Joined: Nov 2006 A farm shed in Aylesbury Posts: 14916 Corolla AE86 Peugeot 205 B18C (in bits)

   #3 6th June 2010, 09:24

   with 8 more valves you can get more air in at high revs. More air means more power...
4. Grover-VTR L-plater Joined: Jul 2009 Whitstable, kent Posts: 62 Saxo vtr

   #4 6th June 2010, 17:02

   ok kool cheers guys
5. blakey260 Infrequent Poster Joined: Mar 2010 Rotherham/Sheffield Posts: 137 Ford Focus Zetec

   #5 7th June 2010, 01:33

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by KamRacing with 8 more valves you can get more air in at high revs. More air means more power...

   i didnt know that i thought 16v would be better? saying that the old cavalier sri 2.0 litre 8v is faster then the 2.0 litre 16v
6. titchster Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Jan 2008 Down't road from Sheffield Posts: 4641 Was:16v 106 XS ..... Now: Import 1.8 MX5

   #6 7th June 2010, 02:13

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by KamRacing with 8 more valves you can get more air in at high revs. More air means more power...

   Last thing I knew, 16 was more than 8.
7. user_10418 Saxperience Addict Joined: Jun 2006 Wirral Posts: 13584 Wickerd red VTS MK2, Two tone VTS MK2,vvc Metro..

   #7 7th June 2010, 02:42

   vts mate..................
8. Grover-VTR L-plater Joined: Jul 2009 Whitstable, kent Posts: 62 Saxo vtr

   #8 7th June 2010, 07:19

   cheers guys do u know if the engine loom of the vts will fit the rest of the vtr loom
9. SR91 L-plater Joined: Jun 2010 Preston Posts: 88 Track Saxo VTS

   #9 7th June 2010, 09:48

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by blakey260 i didnt know that i thought 16v would be better? saying that the old cavalier sri 2.0 litre 8v is faster then the 2.0 litre 16v

   No it isnt! The C20NE (2.0 8v) is only 130 BHP whereas the C20XE (2.0 16v) Is 150 bhp...
10. KamRacing Saxperience Addict Joined: Nov 2006 A farm shed in Aylesbury Posts: 14916 Corolla AE86 Peugeot 205 B18C (in bits)

    #10 7th June 2010, 10:39

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blakey260 i didnt know that i thought 16v would be better? saying that the old cavalier sri 2.0 litre 8v is faster then the 2.0 litre 16v

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by titchster Last thing I knew, 16 was more than 8.

    I'm confused with this confusion....
    The vts has 8 more valves than the VTR and performs better at higher revs...
11. titchster Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Jan 2008 Down't road from Sheffield Posts: 4641 Was:16v 106 XS ..... Now: Import 1.8 MX5

    #11 7th June 2010, 16:49

    I was pointing that fact out to blakey. Realise looking back now, that it does look as though I was trying to say the VTR was 16v.
12. Josh-VTR Established Member Joined: Sep 2009 Peterborough Posts: 1292 Mk1 Saxo VTR, MK1 Saxo VTS, Ford Ka

    #12 7th June 2010, 17:05

    I think the Blakey read it wrong maybe?
13. motty L-plater Joined: May 2010 Ashby de la zouch Posts: 75 Seat Ibiza Cupra Ko3s Turbo 250.2 bhp. S2000gt

    #13 7th June 2010, 17:08

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blakey260 i didnt know that i thought 16v would be better? saying that the old cavalier sri 2.0 litre 8v is faster then the 2.0 litre 16v

    kamracing ment 16v, it said 8more valves 8+8= 16