The old VTR vs VTS thread..

1. c7borg Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2007 Nottingham - UK Posts: 125 Saxo VTR

   #1 17th June 2011, 13:24

   I've read a couple of times that the torque is better in the 8v than 16v is there any truth in this? has anyone got any power graphs..
   
   Or are they talking about when the torque comes in ie is it earlier on an 8v VTR?
2. Saxovch22 Established Member Joined: Feb 2011 Scotland Posts: 1191 02 Saxo Vts

   #2 17th June 2011, 13:29

   I'm sure they both have the same torque figure
3. Era Regular Poster Joined: Aug 2004 Telford, Shropshire Posts: 253 '96 Eunos VR-Ltd '51 Saxo VTS '61 VW Golf

   #3 17th June 2011, 13:33

   VTS torque 107 lb-ft
   VTR torque 100 lb-ft
   
   VTR has peak torque a lot further down the rev range than the VTS (3500-ish RPM / 5200-ish RPM respectively iirc)...
4. c7borg Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2007 Nottingham - UK Posts: 125 Saxo VTR

   #4 17th June 2011, 13:42

   really.. so a cammed 8v would be a better car than the 16v? or is this opening up a bag of worms?
   
   Just thinking as 8v engines are a lot cheaper to replace ie £50-70 compared to £200-300 and I could just keep swapping the cam from engine to engine.. assuming it ever blows
   
   I'm just thinking of the cheapest route long term..
5. Saxovch22 Established Member Joined: Feb 2011 Scotland Posts: 1191 02 Saxo Vts

   #5 17th June 2011, 13:55

   Depends how you like your power , low down or high up.
   
   A vts with breathing mods should blow away a vtr.
   These threads are always a nightmare as you get people who big up each one saying there vtr does 0-60 in 6 seconds etc
6. Gandi699 Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Apr 2011 Posts: 9100 Amazon green VTR 16v, Inferno RS clio 182

   #6 17th June 2011, 14:01

   The 16v is a better engine end of, more power more torque. Its hardly a fair comparison when you cam an 8v TU and compared to a non-cammed J4. However the 8v was made in many guises and what I intend to do in the future is try an s1 rallye on a 1600 xsi bottom end with associated inlet mods etc- has anyone done this, and what figures did it make?
7. user_47680 Infrequent Poster Joined: Oct 2010 Cornwall Posts: 236 2001 Saxo VTR

   #7 17th June 2011, 14:44

   Oh god not another one. There was another thread explaining why 16v engines are better than 8v. Mostly due to the amount of flow the engine gets when taking in air and fuel and then releasing exhaust gases.
8. LeeM Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Feb 2008 Liverpool Posts: 7393 Black Corsa C SRi

   #8 17th June 2011, 15:02

   16v is better, vtr produces its peak torque lower in the range but when you drive both you dont notice this anyway
9. c7borg Infrequent Poster Joined: May 2007 Nottingham - UK Posts: 125 Saxo VTR

   #9 17th June 2011, 16:21

   Quote:

   Originally Posted by Gandi699 Its hardly a fair comparison when you cam an 8v TU and compared to a non-cammed J4.

   Kind of.. but from a budget point of view it would cost me £400 to get a VTS setup in my VTR and probably not far off the same to get figures close to that of a VTS with the VTR engine (buying second hand) my thought is after this initial outlay say the engine blew the ongoing costs might be better with the VTR and cam option?
   
   I just thought it was quite interesting as there's not a huge amount in it, unless you have got a larger budget.
10. Gandi699 Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Apr 2011 Posts: 9100 Amazon green VTR 16v, Inferno RS clio 182

    #10 17th June 2011, 16:25

    If the engine blows yes, VTR units are cheaper to buy but you'll still have more options with the vts engine. I'm saying all this and run an 8v myself! haha
11. user_12874 Frequent Poster Joined: Dec 2006 London, England Posts: 734 Saxo VTS, Audi A6 Avant Quattro.

    #11 18th June 2011, 11:31

    No need to "keep swapping engines" My 16v's had a ragging of a lifetime over the last 85k (now on 115k) and its fine, just spend a few more pennies looking after it.
12. Saxovch22 Established Member Joined: Feb 2011 Scotland Posts: 1191 02 Saxo Vts

    #12 18th June 2011, 11:41

    I find that daily driving the vtr has more then enough power to keep you happy aswell as returning good MPG.
    I would only ever put the vts engine in if I was wanting to chase power figures
13. KamRacing Saxperience Addict Joined: Nov 2006 A farm shed in Aylesbury Posts: 14916 Corolla AE86 Peugeot 205 B18C (in bits)

    #13 18th June 2011, 13:07

    theres no can of worms to be opened. The 16v is simply faster.
    When the 8v has peaked due to being unable to get enough air and fuel in fast enough the 16v is coming on song and continues to pull away.

    2 users thanked this post: raunchz, unreal106
14. Sophia_Bush Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Jan 2007 Shropshire Posts: 9994 Moonstone Blue 106 GTi

    #14 18th June 2011, 13:29

    Jonseys VTR is a proper beast considering the few mods it has only need to ask parry and pip how well it goes

    1 user thanked this post: jonesy9
15. KamRacing Saxperience Addict Joined: Nov 2006 A farm shed in Aylesbury Posts: 14916 Corolla AE86 Peugeot 205 B18C (in bits)

    #15 18th June 2011, 13:34

    of course they can be made fast but if you are wanting the most powerful possible its going to need to be a 16v, unless you fancy working with the 8v rallye engine which has a superior inlet manifold design.
    Personally I like the 8v engines for other reasons than straight line speed, but a higher rev limit and longer power band is a big advantage.

    1 user thanked this post: user_15516
16. blackie_2k5 Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Oct 2008 Birtley Posts: 22253 VTR Turbo, 106 xsi track slag, Transit recovery, B

    #16 18th June 2011, 15:09

    the thing ppl dont often mention when thinking about these is that the tu 8v is a actually a pretty good engine,
    
    but as mentioned the 16v is better and has more potential, it just depends what you want out of it, there are some pretty quick 8vs about,
    
    even my stock vtr engine was pretty quick for an 8v, was actually quicker then my ph3's vtr engine!
17. chinkostu Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Aug 2008 The wrong carpark Posts: 5152 Xantia 1.9TD

    #17 20th June 2011, 22:27

    As has been said, vts is far and away faster. My vtr is quick enough but if i did the same to a 16v id be laughing/dead
18. f13sta Established Member Joined: Sep 2010 loughborough Posts: 2229 1988 ford fiesta mk2 1.4- 2001 black saxo furio (d

    #18 21st June 2011, 19:09

    it all depends what you want from an engine.
    yes the 16v can get more are/fuel into the combustion chamber and also exhaust it faster to to and extra valve on both inlet and exhaust. however this can be overcome on a 8v by a big valve head
    
    personally 8v all the way the are so much simpler to work on only having 1 cam so timing belt replacemnts are easier so are wanter pumps replacements too.
    
    it all down to choice