8v vs 16v

Larnica

Larnica

Larnica

Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2006
Posts
1,509
Hiya Again

Not sure how complex this question may be or may become but in general is there a major difference between a 8 Valve Engine and a 16 Valve Engine?

Regards,

Larnica
 
the 8v generally gives less performance.
This is because an 8v engine has 1valve in and 1 valve out per cylinder.
A 16v engine has 2valves in and 2valves out per cylinder, the valves are smaller but the two combined have a greater surface area than 1 larger valve, therefore a 16valve engine can get more air in per cylinder than an 8valve engine. 16v tends to be the normal now on a lot of cars, and in the early 90's 16v can be classed a sporty, with many top end cars having 16v badges on.

For example a pug 306 1.4 gives a useless 75hp as the engine is an 8v, yet the 1.4 astra (R reg to 04 ish reg not sure on the mk) gives 89 hp as it is a 16v, obviously the are other factors invloved as the engine is a newer design.

Another example is a VTR saxo gives 100ish hp and is 1.6 8v yet the 120hp 1.6 VTS gives 120hp.
A punto 1.2 has 55hp yet the 1.2 16v has 80hp, massive difference! 16v engines are usually much much better performance wise.

I would say go for a 16v engine if possible

hope this helps a bit:)
 
to hugely simplify the matter, 8v = better low rpm and 16v = better high rpm and more overall power. 16v are probably more efficient or something too.
 
Cool.

Thanks for the Information. Ive been looking at some cars and got excited when I saw some "Newer" Punto's with the face lift for a decent price, but when I did enquire most of them where 8v (Around 03/04 Puntos). Still hunting for a first car, so might just bite the bullet and go for the 8v as im getting VERY DESPERATE

Thank You again
 
In regards to the FIRE engine in the Punto, the 16 valve is the powerful one, and the 8v is the cheap to run one, it's a "safe" engine, meaning that if you loose a cam belt the piston won't ever reach the valves to smash them.
 
Don't be put off by 8 valve engines. My old Saxo VTR, which has a 1.6 8v engine, performed plenty well enough and had a decent amount of low down torque to make town driving pretty nice.
 
mglover070588 said:
in the early 90's 16v can be classed a sporty, with many top end cars having 16v badges on.
Click to expand...

i wub my 16v EFI sticker :p


16v > 8v, wouldnt have become the norm otherwise



as for looking at the newish end of the market, if you are struggling, go back a few years and pick up an older, similar kitted car, with a nicer 16v engine in...age isnt everything in a car. some top specced 10yr old cars have more kit in than some brand new low spec cars, and are a darn site cheaper
 
saitrix said:
Funnily I have a 16v car first made in '73 but there isn't any 16v badging on it!
Click to expand...

go 2 halfords
mid_trillogy_g10.jpg

you get 1 for a few quid :p:D
 
A punto 1.2 has 55hp yet the 1.2 16v has 80hp, massive difference! 16v engines are usually much much better performance wise.
Click to expand...

small correction.. the 1242cc 16v engine is around 80bhp, but the equivilant 1242cc 8v is 75bhp. It is the 1108cc 8v that is 55bhp, there is also a 1242cc 8v which is 60bhp however it is not MPI like the 16v - so if you are comparing to show differecnes between 8v and 16v, then you wanna be keeping other factors same/similar. So its 75bhp for the 8v and 80bhp for the 16v.
 
GeX said:
small correction.. the 1242cc 16v engine is around 80bhp, but the equivilant 1242cc 8v is 75bhp. It is the 1108cc 8v that is 55bhp, there is also a 1242cc 8v which is 60bhp however it is not MPI like the 16v - so if you are comparing to show differecnes between 8v and 16v, then you wanna be keeping other factors same/similar. So its 75bhp for the 8v and 80bhp for the 16v.
Click to expand...

Thanks Everyone :)

If I was to purchase a Fiat Punto 16v Im talking a few hundred pounds more (Not too bad) but then I checked the insurance, hell no :p. Gonna have a look round today, hope and to try and go view some :D
 
I drove cymatty's Saxo VTR on Saturday and I was impressed... I come from a 200bhp 2 litre turbocharged car and the Saxo didn't feel slow at all :o

Of course, when he put his foot down in his new toy... that's when I realised just how slow the Saxo was.
 
Last edited:
Mhmm

I've just been speaking to my uncle and dad :p and theyve pretty much told me the same thing. They seem to think in a 16v, pretty much any 16v it gives it a bit more ooomph, especially when accelerating / hills and that.
 
GeX said:
small correction.. the 1242cc 16v engine is around 80bhp, but the equivilant 1242cc 8v is 75bhp. It is the 1108cc 8v that is 55bhp, there is also a 1242cc 8v which is 60bhp however it is not MPI like the 16v - so if you are comparing to show differecnes between 8v and 16v, then you wanna be keeping other factors same/similar. So its 75bhp for the 8v and 80bhp for the 16v.
Click to expand...

Correction wasn't needed.

The 1242cc 8V FIRE in the 176 Punto came in 55, 60, and 72 flavours.
 
Clarkey said:
to hugely simplify the matter, 8v = better low rpm and 16v = better high rpm and more overall power. 16v are probably more efficient or something too.
Click to expand...

This is how I understand it too. Nowt wrong with an 8v engine :)

Saab produced a 16v head in the mid to late 70's but wasn't readily available until 1985 model year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom