- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,789
- Points
- 437
My 8v was 130bhp standard, therefore only 20bhp more from the 16v. The turbos are the same i believe.
8v FTW :slayer:
8v vs. 16v
- Thread starter maddogmorg
- Start date
Currently reading:
8v vs. 16v
My 8v was 130bhp standard, therefore only 20bhp more from the 16v. The turbos are the same i believe.
8v FTW :slayer:
If I remember rightly, one of the first mass produced and affordable road going 16 valvers was the Triumph Dolomite Sprint, which was available from around 1973 onwards. However, The Beard is correct in stating that 16v engines didn't become more commonplace until the mid 1980's onwards with the likes of the Golf GTi 16v, Citroen BX 19 16v and Astra GTE 16v.
Never driven a 16v car that didn't need to be revved to get the best of it. In my opinion VVT makes the difference between in the powerband and not worse in my car its night and day. Below 4.5k you on a driving to the shops map engine is gutless because to get good official mpg and CO2 figures the engine is pretty much running the least fuel possible. Take it above 4.5k the MPG meter hits the floor, the engine note changes, the rev counter surges and you are left thinking WTF? why the hell can't it be like this all the time? But my car has long gears 2nd is good for 60 so you have to rev the nuts off it to stay above 4.5k when you change up.
worms said:
**** this ****
Right...
Seems a couple of dim wits haven't read the haynes manual.
That is the manual for the mk1 punto. There was a statement in the servicing section that mentioned that the fuel filter need not be changed on the 8v engine as it's designed not to.
I can't prove this as it's been a while since I read it and just recently got rid of the thing. Incendently while the mk2 punto manual has more pictures so you can be sure of what you're doing they seem to have negelected to put in a guide for changing the, "filter." Oh well.
Ok, you have a point. I just checked the Punto mk1 Haynes manual and it states in section 1A.11 that:
"Note: 1242cc (8-valve) engine models from 1998 onwards are equipped with a modified fuel system incorporating a fuel filter intergral with the fuel pump. On these engines fuel filter renewal is not required."
However this then means that all 1242 8 valve models pre-1998 still have to have their fuel filters changed at the same interval as the 16 valve engines. On that basis it isn't so much that the 16 valve engine requires more maintenance, it's more that the design of the fuel system changed part way through production. What can also be argued is that with the fuel filter being intergral to the post 1998 8v fuel pump then if it gets damaged/ blocked then the whole fuel pump itself will have to be changed. This would cost far more than changing the fuel filter on the 16 valve engines so perhaps we should now assume that 8v engines will cost more to maintain than a 16 valve?
Besides, changing a fuel filter isn't exactly a major job
accumalative fuel filters may equal fuel pump
So the filter needed to be changed after all. Guess that's why I didn't get on with my old car.
1242 16v brava has fuel filter in the tank so doesn't need changed at every service either sorry to negate the argument :devil:
sorry to negate the argument :devil:as does the 1108cc 8v MPI Seicento where as the 1108cc 8v SPI Seicento does not. it's naff all to do with the amount of valves in the engine, it's just when fiat happened to change it.
on topic; having gone from 1242 8v to a 1368 16v in my car.. the 16v is torquey low down, yeah its a bigger engine but not by much? the 8v engine sounded much better tho, fiat superfire engines never sound 'right'!
on topic; having gone from 1242 8v to a 1368 16v in my car.. the 16v is torquey low down, yeah its a bigger engine but not by much? the 8v engine sounded much better tho, fiat superfire engines never sound 'right'!
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,694
- Points
- 322
I've always prefered 8v's myself, love low down torque.
When i went back from driving my mums 2.0 16v honda accord into my 1.2 8v grande punto, you could feel the difference in the engine type at low revs.
My old 1.8 8v laguna had noticably decent pulling power, even though it took 13.5 seconds to 60.
High rpms = empty fuel tank!
When i went back from driving my mums 2.0 16v honda accord into my 1.2 8v grande punto, you could feel the difference in the engine type at low revs.
My old 1.8 8v laguna had noticably decent pulling power, even though it took 13.5 seconds to 60.
High rpms = empty fuel tank!
had my 1.2 8valve sitting steady 90 yesterday
following toyota supra
following toyota supra
i bet that supra was struggling to get away
lol
i have noticed that the 16v on the multijet tends to pick up a bit more at high revs then the 8v of the jtd previously.... in the jtd i would put my foot down at 1700/1800rpm and get a decent kick of... in the multijet it seems to be just over two but its revable to a bit more rpm
yes it was a track beginning with an m forgot its name
Eee, the laughs I had with Wolf Barnato, especially racing the Blue Train. Let's see who gets that reference without Googling or Wikepedia-ing (WTF?) it.
You have to put things into a degree of historical perspective. The vast majority of engines up until the late '70s were OHV with the camshaft down in the block somewhere which wasn't great for 4 valve per cylinder actuation.
All Chrysler engines were ohv. Until the arrival of the Maxi, all BMC engines were ohv. I think Triumph were slightly ahead of the game with their 1.8 and 2 litre Dolomite engines which formed the basis for Saab power plants for years. Rover 2.0 and 2.2s were ohc but the 3.5 was decidedly old school. Vauxhall brought out their 1.6 and 2 litre versions in 1968 and Ford followed with the Pinto unit in 1973-ish. FIAT had some ohc engines but mainly for more sporty end of things as did Lancia and Alfa.
It took a while before the DOHC 16 valve format became the norm. You also have to remember that 40 years ago some cars still needed a service every 4500 miles and those with 6000 mile service intervals were considered to be state of the art. Of course the limiting factors were oil and filter technology rather than the engines themselves.
The Jaguar XK series was an early twin cam design from the '40s but only had 2 valves per cylinder, nearly all Alfas were 2 valve designs until the 155, although the Montreal, I think had 4 valves. Even Ferrari didn't get it until the 328 qv. If my memory serves me well, which is becoming increasingly doubtful nowadays, even the Ferrari V12s just had a SOHC, even the legendary Daytona.
The Dolly Sprint was unusual because unlike the Italians with 2 cams and 2 valves per cylinder, the Triumph had only one camshaft but 4 valves and was possibly the first truly Sporting saloon. Top speed of about 120 and 0-60 in around 8 seconds from 127bhp. Pretty impressive for 1978.
Once you got away from homologation specials like the Chevette HS/HSR, RS 1600/1800, Sunbeam Lotus and their ilk it was probably the late '80s or early '90s before Vauxhall, or almost anyone for that matter, had a series production 16v and even Ford's Sierras only had a 2 valves per cylinder despite having DOHCs.
What really forced the issue of 16V was stricter emissions legislation which meant 8v engines couldn't really produce enough power so, more valves = more power.
Now we have Engine Management Systems that have more processing power than a desktop of 20 years previously and electronically controlled valve timing, the whole idea of vice free multiple valve engines now works. Before it was all compromises, now there aren't really any downsides; until it goes wrong of course.
Sorry if there are any errors in that lot but it was all from memory. Probably not entirely accurate and may well have been the answer to the question no-one asked.
Last edited:
8 vs 16 isnt the real issue imo. valve size (diameter) and position (degrees to chamber) and shape (flow characteristics of port) make the difference.
look at ford's zetec- 16 tiny valves with ports that create loads of drag. a half decent 8v design will offer better flow than a 16v zetec head. 16v was more of a selling point by the late 80's. you needed a 16v badge on your midrange models just to sell them.
look at ford's zetec- 16 tiny valves with ports that create loads of drag. a half decent 8v design will offer better flow than a 16v zetec head. 16v was more of a selling point by the late 80's. you needed a 16v badge on your midrange models just to sell them.
Had both 8v and 16v Cavaliers years back and the differences were quite noticeable. If you wanted to make less gear changes then the 8v was a good choice, however, if you want to overtake lots of caravans on the Snake Pass, the 16v would be a better idea. More top end.
Having had a number of Focuses (Focii?) they were a great compromise and while lacking a little in the performance stakes in comparison with the Cav 16v managed to combine the best of both.
Mrs. Beard's Stilo 1.4 is really a good engine, although not much happens at low revs, it's smooth all the way from 1000 revs upto the red line. With the improvements in electronics, if buying a GP, for instance, it would have to be 16v.
Last edited:
