Anyone swapped an 8v with a 9a 16v

hulkb3 · 17-12-14, 07:12 PM

Dilemma.

I'm trying to stay true to stock roots with my project, but the 8v in my B3 a) runs rough especially when warm b) smokes more than my old man and c) grunt figures just don't do the car justice...

So, whilst there isn't an abundance of them out there, i'm thinking of a stock(ish) 16v lump to replace it. With no 6a's or ACE's on the market as far as i can see, what about the 9a - I know the sump pan, manifold need swapping but what about mounts, gearbox etc

Would the 8v ancillaries work with the 16v?

Anybody done this who can advise on the swap, and the end result?

Cheers

JMLAudi · 17-12-14, 07:33 PM

Hi

i doing this now......its not so easy
the space near brake mastrr is very close

Dont use the ACE engine....if you use thr std mounts
hard to get brackets to fit to subframe
unnless you weld the B4 mounts to B3 chassis

All the other parts are a good fit
wiring and position of ignition units are my next project
thats whay o can think of at mo
Good luck
cheers
john

JMLAudi · 17-12-14, 07:36 PM

Might be easier to use a 16v from a B3 Audi or a 16v from a Golf Mk 2
and use the ignition system from a Mk3 Golf 16v......for ease and fittment

cheers
john

msh · 18-12-14, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMLAudi

Might be easier to use a 16v from a B3 Audi or a 16v from a Golf Mk 2
and use the ignition system from a Mk3 Golf 16v......for ease and fittment

cheers
john

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkb3

With no 6a's or ACE's on the market as far as i can see

msh · 18-12-14, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulkb3

Dilemma.

I'm trying to stay true to stock roots with my project, but the 8v in my B3 a) runs rough especially when warm b) smokes more than my old man and c) grunt figures just don't do the car justice...

So, whilst there isn't an abundance of them out there, i'm thinking of a stock(ish) 16v lump to replace it. With no 6a's or ACE's on the market as far as i can see, what about the 9a - I know the sump pan, manifold need swapping but what about mounts, gearbox etc

Would the 8v ancillaries work with the 16v?

Anybody done this who can advise on the swap, and the end result?

Cheers

9A is 6A transverse twin. Like any mk2/mk3 4 pot engine, it will fit in B2/B3 audi, when parts that are different are swapped. Don't know about ancillaries, as I had no need to acquire such knowledge [fortunately I long time ago swapped 1.8 8v for 2.0 8v, not 16v - 16v would have been big mistake], but I do know that there are some differences in engine managements - between 6A and 3A the difference is just in having one more knock sensor and, of course, different metering head and ECU, as for 9A, there are a couple of more differences, at least for late production examples - although it doesn't prevents such B3 passat from running with 3A ECU.

I personally wouldn't make such swap - can't see any reason to put in 16v, which has thirst of a V6 and torque of 4 pot engine.

Tom C · 18-12-14, 10:51 AM

Will completely agree with the above, think the 16v is a very overrated engine I owned an 80 16v, fuel consumption was awful and performance that certainly didn't match what you'd expect for shoveling that much fuel in!

I was getting the same fuel consumption from my TT 225 (remapped to 250bhp) and the same as my volvo S60 R (300bhp) and previously I found a boxster to put out better fuel consumption than any of those...

Targus · 18-12-14, 03:59 PM

the 16v is about as much use as another certain forum, talks the talk but doesn't actually get you anywhere.

Flying Frank · 18-12-14, 05:27 PM

Yup, I also agree that the 16v engine is overrated....had a 16v B3 saloon and comparing it to my B3 2.3 coupe is like comparing white with black. The 2.3 has more torque, possibly uses about the same amount of fuel, but has that extra pot to give it far more aural appeal !!! No contest in my book.

hulkb3 · 18-12-14, 06:02 PM

Cheers for the information, the plan was always to try and keep it stock but if it needs replacing, improve it...

Sounds like what you gain in bhp you lose everywhere else, including the wallet.

vorsprung durch technik · 18-12-14, 07:45 PM

I wouldn't go for the 16V 2.0 engine.I drove a 1994 one in 1997 when it was almost a new car as a mate was buying a B4 saloon. The experience shocked me at how utterly gutless it felt unless you revved it and kept it at around 4k rpm plus and at those revs it felt course and rough and totally out of character with the B4 quality car it was. My mate bought a 2 year old B4 2.0 8v sport instead as it felt much much better lower down.

18-12-14, 10:51 AM	#6
Tom C Grown up member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 627	Will completely agree with the above, think the 16v is a very overrated engine I owned an 80 16v, fuel consumption was awful and performance that certainly didn't match what you'd expect for shoveling that much fuel in! I was getting the same fuel consumption from my TT 225 (remapped to 250bhp) and the same as my volvo S60 R (300bhp) and previously I found a boxster to put out better fuel consumption than any of those... Last edited by Tom C; 18-12-14 at 04:13 PM.

17-12-14, 07:33 PM	#2
JMLAudi Grown up member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Knaresborough/Shipley Posts: 951	Hi i doing this now......its not so easy the space near brake mastrr is very close Dont use the ACE engine....if you use thr std mounts hard to get brackets to fit to subframe unnless you weld the B4 mounts to B3 chassis All the other parts are a good fit wiring and position of ignition units are my next project thats whay o can think of at mo Good luck cheers john

17-12-14, 07:36 PM	#3
JMLAudi Grown up member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Knaresborough/Shipley Posts: 951	Might be easier to use a 16v from a B3 Audi or a 16v from a Golf Mk 2 and use the ignition system from a Mk3 Golf 16v......for ease and fittment cheers john

18-12-14, 03:59 PM	#7
Targus Grown up member Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 312	the 16v is about as much use as another certain forum, talks the talk but doesn't actually get you anywhere.

18-12-14, 05:27 PM	#8
Flying Frank 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Kernow, Gods own county !! Posts: 2,388	Yup, I also agree that the 16v engine is overrated....had a 16v B3 saloon and comparing it to my B3 2.3 coupe is like comparing white with black. The 2.3 has more torque, possibly uses about the same amount of fuel, but has that extra pot to give it far more aural appeal !!! No contest in my book.

18-12-14, 06:02 PM	#9
hulkb3 Grown up member Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Manchester Posts: 30	Cheers for the information, the plan was always to try and keep it stock but if it needs replacing, improve it... Sounds like what you gain in bhp you lose everywhere else, including the wallet.

18-12-14, 07:45 PM	#10
vorsprung durch technik 4 ring whore! Classic Audi Club Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Near Watford. Posts: 7,762	I wouldn't go for the 16V 2.0 engine.I drove a 1994 one in 1997 when it was almost a new car as a mate was buying a B4 saloon. The experience shocked me at how utterly gutless it felt unless you revved it and kept it at around 4k rpm plus and at those revs it felt course and rough and totally out of character with the B4 quality car it was. My mate bought a 2 year old B4 2.0 8v sport instead as it felt much much better lower down.