yaar Fli_GTi, i m not opinionated. Nor am i a stubborn mule, lolsss. i was just setting a few records straight, but this discussion seems to be going towards an argument for the sake of argument. THAT i dont want. i read ur mail and did some research on the net (so far, my views were just cuz of my superficial knowledge but my further comments would be after the research )!first of all, like i said, i have owned a 2.0D and what i used to do was change the oil around 5k; also a generic filter. i sold the car with about 120000 at the odometer and the engine was still going strong. thus my comment was from experience. i suppose the manufacturers service schedule has a shorter time period just to be on the safe side.
secondly, acceleration IS due to torque. now THIS is from my research on the net!!! apparently, diesel engines have excellent low-end torque as compared to petrol engines. the trouble is, due to its very high compression ratios, the diesel engine does not have high rpms, thus low HP. ur formula for conversion of HP into torque is right, no denying that, but what i am trying to say is, a 2.0 D will accelerate faster than a GL cuz by the time the GL reaches its optimum torque levels, the diesel has been there and done that, so to speak! try this sometime, shift around 3500 RPMs on a diesel and u will see how quickly u reach 100. Also, the weight of a car is an important factor. in this case, the 1.6 engine is more than adequate for the corolla. the 1.3 is underpowered while the 2.0D is somewhere in between. i once raced a 1.6 GLi in an 83 corolla with the 2C engine installed , and believe you me, he couldnt shake me off his tail. neways, thats what my experience says, others might think otherwise.
Regarding the F and G heads, they are both used for different purposes. the F is more efficient for street use, the G has more power, though not as good street usability. the SCISSOR GEARS have no realtionship to the head design (which is almost the same for both except for the valve angles (22.5 degrees(F) vs 50 degrees(G)). The point that i initally contradicted was that scissor gears mean more power. They DONT, they mean more efficieny. I fully agree with everything else u say about the F and G heads!
another thing, gasolines are more polluting than diesels cuz diesels are more fuel efficient, thus producing lesser pollution than a gasoline engine of the same size. Overall, a diesel is good for the ENVIRONMENT. It produces lesser greenhouse effect inducing gasses, thus is favored more in Europe now. The details of the different gasses prodcued by both types of engines are beyond my "Dil Ka Zor", lol. BUT, the fact remains, diesels are better for the environment, which was the original discussion if i remember correctly
about SHOCKABSORBERS, all i said was, in the 1990 wagon, u have to install the stronger shockabsorbers, or as u say, stronger SUSPENSION and the car will be stable as before. any contradicitons to that??? progressive rate coil springs have not been used in the 1990 wagon so are beyond the scope of this discussion...but i still say that ur comment " the CE100/120 and the EE100share same coils, but with different spring rates" is wrong. same coils cant have different spring rates.
And lastly, twin turbos. My mistake, i admit. i was under the impression that the GTti had twin turbos. i stand corrected, thanks
hmmm, if it has a single turbo, are you SURE it can beat a 3C-TE if put in the same car? like i said, weight is a VERY important factor. i feel that a GTti engine will lag considerably against a 3C-TE if both are put in a 1990 wagon.
Awadkhan, the discussion was started cuz the guy wants a slightly better engine, not a hot rod! i suggested the 3C-TE or even a 3C-E cuz this engine will fare better than a 4A-FE that he currently has in the car, and will give better economy too! if serious performance is required, then sky is the limit
Anyways, Fli_Gti bhai, i am sure we dont need to keep arguing over engines which both of us havent created, lolssss. my knowledge about engines is not as good as urs i suppose, but this discussion originally originated cuz trueno20v said the 2C was jurrasic. i stand firmly by this engine, even NOW it the best mix of economy and performance (NOT street racing performance, just everyday usability).