sebj
Member
Registered: 4th Sep 03
Location: Gavesend Kent
User status: Offline
|
Just wondering why vaux stopped putting the c16xe engine in the corsa after 1994? I know the c16xe is quicker but is the x16xe stronger or something
Cheers
SebJ
|
Keithie
Member
Registered: 31st Dec 03
Location: Isle of Lewis
User status: Offline
|
i think it was to make it more environmentally friendly
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Yes, the first letter in the engine code denotes emissions standards compliance. X has better figures in this area.
|
sebj
Member
Registered: 4th Sep 03
Location: Gavesend Kent
User status: Offline
|
Cheers Ian and Keithie.
|
Adam-D
Member
Registered: 11th May 02
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
yeah all to do with lower emissions
there less elctronic stuff to stuff up on the c16xe
like on the x16xe the egr valve etc always seem to give trouble
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
they could have just kept the C16XE engine design though, and bolted on all the emissions crap to it. why did they re-design the whole engine to have less performance?? They reduced the compression, reduced the stroke, and just generally scrapped the gsi image. such a waste 
|
Murray
Member
Registered: 22nd Feb 01
Location: Scotland
User status: Offline
|
3 bhp doesn't exactly make much of a difference, nothing any1 could notice.
|
Ryan L
Member
Registered: 4th Mar 03
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Murray
3 bhp doesn't exactly make much of a difference, nothing any1 could notice.
true if they were the same engine but the acceleration curve on a C16XE is much better than that on a X16XE IIRC
|
Big Col
Member
Registered: 8th Sep 99
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland Drives: '00 Astra 2.0 SRi
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Murray
3 bhp doesn't exactly make much of a difference, nothing any1 could notice.
Yes it's only 3bhp but the C16XE produces it lower down the rev range. Same with the torque figures : more at a lower rpm. I test drove several GSi's with both engine types and much preffered the C16XE. It pulls harder from lower down. It makes a better noise too. The X16XE is only superior above 5500rpm.
|
Big Col
Member
Registered: 8th Sep 99
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland Drives: '00 Astra 2.0 SRi
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
reduced the stroke
the stroke is exactly the same
|
Greasemonkey
Member
Registered: 17th Apr 02
Location: Drives a Tractor
User status: Offline
|
yeah stroke is the same, i got a X16XE crank in my C16XE, they are identical
|
Edtrix_GSI16V
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 03
Location: Sheffield,South Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
i dont find any difference between the two engines at all,the c16xe might be 3bhp more but its basically nothing in a race between the two,but i have to admit the egr shit is aload of crap.
|
miles
Member
Registered: 25th Mar 02
Location: plymouth Drives: Astra Sport
User status: Offline
|
The engines are based on the same thing and were not redesigned! They did pretty much just bolt the egr stuff to it...
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Col
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
reduced the stroke
the stroke is exactly the same
oh What else is different between the two apart from compression? Besides, both engines behave very differently on the road. The C16 is a fair bit quicker than the X16, especailly when pulling away
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cybermonkey24
They reduced the compression
May as well evolve the reliability a little bit while you're at the drawing board....
|
Edtrix_GSI16V
Member
Registered: 3rd Sep 03
Location: Sheffield,South Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
ive raced a few c16xe gsi's in my x16xe and theirs been nothing between them all the way to 100,but i know on paper the c16xe is apprantly quicker,then again how many gsi's are they about which dont have engine problems.
[Edited on 31-05-2004 by Edtrix_GSI16V]
|
Murray
Member
Registered: 22nd Feb 01
Location: Scotland
User status: Offline
|
Yeah driven both nothing in them really. Only the lack of egr makes the c16xe any better. Good engines but made of toffee though, got a x16xe & rebuilt it 3 times!!!!!!!
|
Greasemonkey
Member
Registered: 17th Apr 02
Location: Drives a Tractor
User status: Offline
|
The main differences between the two are, as already mentioned the EGR system was put inplace for emmision and economical reasons, and the heads are slightly different, the C16XE has a slightly more efficient head, its got bigger exhaust valves than the X16XE so responds better to tuning than the X16XE, once ya start porting and polishing and ditching the EGR system on the X16XE the engines soon become indenticall, they only remain different in mild states of tune, once ya get past a certain state of tune there wont be anything in it.
I always preffer the C16XE cos it throws up some massive gains when ya start to modify it, as i always state there has never been a X16XE that has put out 160+BHP with just a chip exhust filter and mantzel power box, the C16XE has done this a number of times
|
Hammer Man
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 04
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Col
quote:
Originally posted by Murray
3 bhp doesn't exactly make much of a difference, nothing any1 could notice.
Yes it's only 3bhp but the C16XE produces it lower down the rev range. Same with the torque figures : more at a lower rpm. I test drove several GSi's with both engine types and much preffered the C16XE. It pulls harder from lower down. It makes a better noise too. The X16XE is only superior above 5500rpm.
Superior above 5500? with smaller exhaust valves?
|
Andy
Member
Registered: 28th Dec 99
Location: Cumbria, UK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Greasemonkey
as i always state there has never been a X16XE that has put out 160+BHP with just a chip exhust filter and mantzel power box, the C16XE has done this a number of times
+51bhp from a powerbox, exhaust, chip and filter?
[Edited on 01-06-2004 by Andy]
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
i was thinking that 160bhp is a bit optimistic. i thought 140bhp at best.
|
Greasemonkey
Member
Registered: 17th Apr 02
Location: Drives a Tractor
User status: Offline
|
Its been done twice for definate, no laughing matter 
Did i say thats the gains ya WILL get, i said these engines CAN throw up surprises, thats why i like them 160BHP from 2 engines not ALL of them, i got these mods on mine and more, but i dont expect 160BHP BUT it has been done, never heard of a X16XE doing this, thats all said my bit
[Edited on 01-06-2004 by Greasemonkey]
|
Andy
Member
Registered: 28th Dec 99
Location: Cumbria, UK
User status: Offline
|
Add a gas-flowed head, mappable chip and 4-2-1 manifold to that list and you might, repeat MIGHT get close to 160bhp. Even throttle bodies and full engine management will only get you just on 160bhp on this engine
|
Cybermonkey
Member
Registered: 22nd Sep 02
Location: Sydney, Australia
User status: Offline
|
im agreeing with andy here. Unless massive amounts of air can be forced into the inlet, the engine is not going to break through 150bhp easily.
|
Greasemonkey
Member
Registered: 17th Apr 02
Location: Drives a Tractor
User status: Offline
|
Well unless the RR figures are way out on these too cars im only saying what i know
|
