For those of you who haven't been paying attention, yes, I have just bought a 20vt.

All right, you can get up now. It's one saved from the grave by Joe; a decent shell (in black, naturally) with a replacement 40k engine and the obvious parts replaced while they were easily accessible; belts, clutch, hose of death.

So far I've done a couple of hundred miles, most of which, it has to be said, have been in fairly grim conditions - rain and blow and dark and generally nasty.

However, I do have some first impressions. Note that this is effectively a standard car; no decat, no fancy exhaust, not even any dials (hey, it doesn't even have a widget yet, till I get some more connectors!). Bog standard (bar one of Mariuz's front bumpers - I can live with that.

Note also that these are all subjective; they're not back to back and of course I'm comparing to a 16NA with 150k on it.

The first impression is weirdest: the 20vt feels slow. Unless it's on the turbo - in which case, naturally, it goes like a scalded cat, it's a heavy lazy car. The 16 is immediately responsive to the throttle position; while the maximum power is obviously much lower, there's an urgency to the way the engine note changes and the way it starts to accelerate. The 20vt sits there and thinks about it, and unless you change the throttle position significantly, there's no significant change to either engine noise or the vehicle's motion. Also, the engine braking is far worse on the 20vt. Take your foot off and it just keeps moving...

Oddly, at roundabouts and t-junctions, it needs more throttle than I immediately expect to start it moving.

This is to be expected, I think; off-boost it's a low-compression engine with a high final drive ratio - it's always going to be revving more slowly than the 16 at the same road speed.

Suspension and steering: the 20vt is *much* softer than the 16. The extra weight on the front is very noticeable, but the power steering applies too much assistance and makes the steering too light. It makes the car feel much less stable in a straight line. We won't discuss the ridiculous turning circle...

Brakes: They might be big fat Brembos on the front, and they certainly work, but they don't inspire confidence. There's little or no initial bite, and it seems to need a heavier foot that the 16 to get a particular rate of retardation. Mind you, the handbrake works fine.

Interior: I think I have to say 'acquired taste'. I prefer the layout of the 16, I hate the analogue clock which is totally out of place in my humble opinion, and I'm not happy with soft switches instead of push'em'in and leave'em proper buttons. The radio's in a better position, though; I can see what channel I'm on without having to peer around the gear stick.

Noise, vibration, harshness: It's quieter, too; my 16 suffers from wind noise in the sunroof (the 20vt doesn't have one) and around the door seals, and transmits a lot of road noise, even after a complete suspension rebuild last year. The 20 is undoubtedly better in this respect, but again this emphasises the feeling of overall softness.

Conclusion: The 20vt isn't a bad car. It's a pretty good car, all around. And I'll be using it more over the next few months, and I may change my mind (I want to give the 16 a bit of a rest, and sort some niggles, and fix one or two outstanding issues)... but at the moment, I have to say I do not regret either my original choice, nor later choices to swap to a 20vt... the 16NA is the better car for *driving*.

Neil (hurriedly donning his flame-proof overalls!)

You think it's slow off boost now, wait until you've fitted the SIP induction kit and 3" exhaust you PM'd me about

Nice read though Neil, can't believe you prefer that old style dash though.

Hey, I've lived with it fourteen years. I'm kinda used to it!

Me neither, I've had a 16v (albeit a 1.8) with the old dash and never really liked it. Much prefer the 20vt one.

The 20vt does feel slow low down in the revs. If you drive it every day you won't notice as much though and being a turbo'd car you just need to drive it differently to get the most out of it. Mine is pretty good once over 2k revs, very nice over 2.5k revs and pretty quick over 3k

i agree about the steering,so much lighter on the 20vt.Especially with this wet weather i feel alot more cautious driving the 20vt due to how light the steering feels.

I much prefer the steering on my 16vt ,felt more planted and fixed(if that makes sense)had more confidence in these wet conditions.

Neil, I think you spotted the differences very well. I have driven every model there is and have asked opinions of friends and even parents every time I had one around. When my mother and sister drove the 20vt she just drove it. When I then took them for a spin they were amazed / terrified how the car could perform when you really go for it. Then when I once had a 2.0 16v and my mother drove it, she felt it was a lot more 'nervous' on the throttle and heavier in general. She loved the 20vt (well... apart from the 6-point turns to get in the local supermarket parking lot) but she understood how someone would prefer the 16v - which for its power output feel very sporty indeed.

One thing though is the brakes on the 20vt. I've drive quite some Coupe's on track and in the city and I've always felt the brakes to have great feedback - at least if they're in good condition. They don't "bite" that much initially, but I think that's a good thing rather than a bad thing. I find current cars have way too much bite. One of the reason I don't like VW's (apart from the fact that they lack any kind of personality.) I found the standard brakes to offer generous amounts of feedback as long as you're not afraid to lean on them. As for the steering: I agree, it's a bit too light, though it doesn't really lack in the communication department. And as for engine braking... agree on low revs, not higher up the revs.

The dash will grow on you too. I found the digital clock to be a sign of its time of birth.

In general: I loved your review and I agree with 90% of it. Apart from the "hurriedly donning his flame-proof overalls" as I don't feel your description is criticism - rather just an evaluation of the difference in character.

honestly, thats exactly the review I expected Neil, And genuinely you have hit the nail on the head with exactly everything you have said there.
(All be it which type of traits you prefer a personal preference)

Although on the outset the coupes all look the same car, they all drive, handle, stop in completely different ways. The turbo does take a lot of getting used to, you have to work much more for any power and the way its delivered, you like it or you hate it, there is no middle ground.

for day to day driving ill take the 20v ever time, its just easier to live with around town

I personally think where the turbos come in to there own is GT driving and dair I say it, motorway driving. The power delivery and gearing all lend its self to long sweeping roads, not back lane bashing or town hopping.

I hope over time you learn to love the 20vt a little more, I do suspect however there will be a tad more sence of urgency to see your 16v back on the road

(we all know of course the 16vt is by far the best coupe to own, I hibread of all the best bits ((*runs away after dousing thread with petrol)))

Well, I can add a bit to this review, but coming from completely the opposite direction.

I've run my current 20VT for six years, and I had my previous 20VT for a couple of years before bending it.

I absolutely LOVE the turbo rush, especially on my modded example, but there's always a trade-off and with the 20vt it comes in the form of extra weight and a slight softening of many of the responses

When I drove my son's 16v N/A, I was stunned by its purity of responses - the steering is less assisted (and feels better for it). The throttle response from tickover upwards is instant and a joy after having had turbo lag for so many years. You can definitely feel the reduction in weight on the front tyres. Id say that Lee's 16v turns in as sharply as my 20VT (remembering that my 20VT has a truckload of handling mods - Lee's car has 17" alloys, and that's it)

However, I can't get away from the fact that just as the 16v is reaching its limits, my 20VT is just starting to really fly - 100mph comes up in the same time as the 16v reaches 60. I'm doing well over 150 by the time the 16v gets to three figures. If I'm pushing it, I've only just changed out of fourth at the 16v's top speed.

Also (for me) the sound is what sets the 20VT aside. Whilst the Lampredi lump is one of the best-sounding four pots I've ever driven, it's just so 'ordinary' compared with the off-beat five pot lump.

However, for all the 20VT's speed, noise, extra luxury and slightly more up to date mechanicals and electricals, I still think the 16v is brilliant - if I could find a good condition very low-miler, its the only Coupe that I'd consider owning purely to preserve and to keep as Mr Bangle intended.

Great to see that the DarkSide has tempted you Neil, but I'm pretty sure I know where your true loyalties still lie...

Ah, I can't argue about the turbo rush... but not a lot of call for that when you're as law-abiding and commuting as I am most of the time.

Annoyingly, I have to drive to Skye over xmas but because I'm bringing my parents south, the coupe isn't really suitable. So it's the other 20vt - the cupra - for that trip. Boooriiing!

I'm glad that I am not alone in this view. You all know I've banged on about the 16NA for years, but most who have taunted have not had the opportunity to drive both... and the only 20vt I ever drove for any significant period of time was Joe's/Eldinho's - hardly standard even then! (And Joe did comment how much he enjoyed driving my 16 when we swapped!)

I think the appeal is the response, not the power. The 16 feels as if it's doing something, even if it's not going to be that spectacular, you know that it's enthusiastic about it!

Sadly the 16v n/a is the only version of the coupe I haven't driven! But I can sortof imagine how it drives Actually it's pretty hard work to keep up with a well driven 16v on a twisty road with a 20vt.

I did have a 1.8 however and although that this engine shouldn't have been in a coupe at all (the 20v despite only having 15bhp more or so was loads more fun) it was pretty good round the twisty bits (only 1155kg). The 20vt feels kinda lazy and comfy when pootling around and manic when going for it.

I have driven all standard-engined variants.
I long-since came to the conclusion that in the real-world, the 16V was better handling/steering and just plain more fun to drive on a daily basis.
It will achieve classic status more readily due to dwindling numbers.
PS. Blitz blue is the most colour.

I'm wondering if Rog/ Ruben will post in this thread

Clearly nobody can dispute to the contrary ...

Didnt know Barnacles opinion is held in statute

16v's are so incredibly slow. I simply dont understand how it can be classed as a 'sports' car.

the tables will turn after a fw months of 20VT useage im sure neil.

It's not ... clearly his resolve has been poisoned by the dark side.

Actually, I've a question.

Do you find much difference in fuel consumption?

I've only briefly driven a 20vt and to be honest I'd love the extra power over the 16v but I think I'd miss the handling. I get very very little understeer to speak of which seems to be the biggest complaint of 20vt drivers (maybe I'm not trying hard enough though). I think if the 16v could be brought up to around 170-180bhp it'd be a very very competent car.

Well a chip for the 16v is going to happen, the wheels are (forgive the pun) in motion!

I don't consider *any* of the coupe range as sports cars. Off the shelf, the most any of them are are grand tourers. They're a car you can get into at London and not get out - bar fuel and pee stops - until Caithness or Berlin or Prague or Torino.

To me a sports car is exclusively for that; something which you can drive to the track, bash around for a few laps without anything falling off and without embarrassing yourself too much, and drive home again. Creature comforts are not high on the list, two seats maximum, probably a small boot.

The coupe is to big and too heavy for that. It's great for a long distance cruise, but it's basically a saloon that goes quickly, with a really nice shape.

The 20vt goes quickly in a straight line - but I rarely drive through Germany and in the UK I prefer to remain somewhere around the speed limit. And to be honest, I'm long past the age where I have to prove anything at the traffic light grand prix - I've been driving thirty years and more.

And I remain - in spite of currently owning two - convinced that a turbo on a petrol engine is not a pleasant way to get extra power. As our friends across the water say - there ain't no substitute for cubic inches. I really don't like the non-linear response of the turbo and I don't like the off-boost performance.

Your mileage may vary...

J_K, I haven't driven far enough to get a good idea of the fuel consumption yet, but it looks as if it's no worse. But the fuel gauge on these things sings songs from Stevie Nicks... I would not argue with your assessment of an unblown 170bhp - but ideally from perhaps three litres, probably a V6, and of higher capacity... maybe just two valves per cylinder, too - I *like* bottom end torque. The 16 isn't wonderful, but it's better than the 20vt.

Neil, forgive me if i'm wrong, your posts are however coming across as quite negative? I take it even in its some what short stint of ownership that you have already come to the conclusion that the 20vt is not the car for you?

No, no, you misunderstand me. I bought the 20vt with my eyes open, and I have no intention of losing it in the next couple of years, probably longer. It is an excellent car in many ways... but it's not the world-beater that many seem to think. Straight line speed is not the be-all and end-all.

If I want to commute to work, I'll take the 20vt. If I want to drive, I'll take the 16na... I'm a very smooth driver; the response from *any* turbo engine changes so much over the rev range that it becomes impossible to maintain that smoothness and still make progress quickly.

I didn't pick the 16na on a whim or because I couldn't afford the 16vt; I tested both exhaustively before purchase (to the great annoyance of the garage!) and decided that I just plain preferred the response of the NA engine. The absolute power and top speed were largely immaterial to me.

As I said - the review was always going to be subjective. And I'm pleased that I've stopped another chassis being scrapped. But my no means is the 20vt not for me. It's just that I prefer to get my kicks at lower speed.

Leighton, I'm very interested in your plans for this - should be discuss it in a separate thread?

Ahh, Ok, thanks for the clarification there

I have a question for you then!

why the 20vt? the 16vt and 20v vis/20v are in no short supply at the moment. As you had taken the 16vt out in the past and decided you didn't like it im curios to why you picked the 20vt?

Dont get me wrong, Its nice to have a good review from some one coming from a 16v and for once singing the N/A's prasses. to a very large extent I agree with everything you have said

Largely from the fact that there are a lot more parts out there, and from newer vehicles, than the 16vt.

Better to keep the 16vt engines in one piece, so I can use them on the bottom of my na if I ever need to!

Amen to that! One thing I don't miss about my 20VT is the off-boost performance, However, I do miss the surge when the turbo had spooled up

Totally agree with you Ben. I loved the midrange grunt of the 20VT, but not the low rev performance.

Exactly the same between my Plus and the GF's 20V VIS, to the extent that for the first couple of seconds someone driving the VIS without knowledge of the difference between it and a 20VT would think it would leave a VT standing...but then it runs out of puff early on and that's about that, just as the VT is getting into its stride. As much as I like the turbo rush and have done since the tender age of 18 (Uno Turbo) I do find myself liking using the GF's car around town (but don't tell her!)


Odd - my Plus' brakes are v v sharp with loads of initial bite - so much so in fact I tend to press the pedal a bit too hard for the first couple of miles after driving the GF's car and sending myself & passengers towards the windscreen!

Great thread Neil

leighton, my apologies for not letting you have the 16v chip, it has been a mission to get the 16v off the road for a week or so, but as we now have a runaround to lower miles on the coupes i can let you have it if you still need it?

pm me if you do

matt.

Neil, i was struck with similar thoughts when i tried a 20vt.
by no means is it slow, but im with you on the way you have to keep it on boost to enjoy the power, and its very odd compared to my 20v.
like the 16v, as you are not waiting for a surge of power from the turbo, the power range seems to grow and grow as you rev it, rather than nothing, nothing, nothing... and you are doing a ton.
far be it for me to be critical of the turbo brotheren, they are very fast cars, and very desirable, BUT, would i swap my 20v or 16v no.
That said, and i am guilty of it, i have tweaked my 20v to im guessing around 170-80bhp, and like you i am interested to see what a chip might do for the 16v, so i do appreciate that they are neither particularly scary out of the factory.

regardless though, they are all coupes, and as i have said in the past, even the quickest coupes can be destroyed by some cars today, but its the sheer look of the bloody thing that keeps us all happy.

my two cents anyway.

Your bang on Neil.
I much prefer the handling on my old 16V na too the 20VT.

never driven a 16 so i cant comment on that - i have however driven loads of cars. some of the comments mystify me, particularly about the brakes - my first 20vt was very sharp braking on standard discs and pads, and now i've changed the discs and pads on my plus that is very sharp too. maybe it's that particular car?

i also dont have any issues with it's performance in and around town, it doesn't differ that greatly when sitting in moderately moving traffic. but when it starts to pick up the adrenalin rush is unbeatable.

i also have to give a nod to flea, as since he mapped it it is very smooth in all departments and faster than you could ever need right through the rev range from quite low down...

just my findings/opinions

each to his own, and i'm glad we're all different