VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

This is the place to discuss DIESEL engine modifications.
Brett
Regular Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:11 pm
Location: Seattle, WA area

VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby Brett » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:25 am

Hi all,

With a lot of us being small diesel fans I was wondering if anyone has experience (good or bad) with the VW 1.6 liter they put in the Caddy's, Rabbits, etc.

Can they even be compared to the Isuzu C223. My guess is that the Isuzu is a much more robust engine, but the MPG numbers on the VW are pretty amazing. I had a Jetta years ago and even when it was in need of rebuild it got close to 50mpg.

Are these engines even in the same ballpark? Im particularly interested in the Caddy. A light truck that can potentially get 50 MPG. Don't worry my Isuzu isn't going anywhere. Just curious.

thanks
Brett (1981 isuzu pup longbed diesel, about as bare bones as it gets)

User avatar
JoeIsuzu
Site Admin
Posts: 20094
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:11 am
Location: Germantown (next to Elvistown), TN
Isuzu vehicle(s): Original owner, '83 LS Diesel, 5-spd, 2wd, Long Bed, restoration in progress!

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby JoeIsuzu » Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:46 pm

I've had both. I'll weigh in when I'm not on my phone. Short answer: VERY different driving characteristics.

Jack

Adam1
Regular Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:24 pm
Location: MN
Isuzu vehicle(s): 81 Luv 4x4 2.2NA

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby Adam1 » Sat May 07, 2016 11:05 am

I have a 81 caddy 1.6td. It is a fun truck, but not very reliable. I may have just got a bad one, but I have had more problems with that vehicle than I care to list. Others swear by the 1.6 for reliability but is has not been my experience. Also, doing the timing belt on a 1.6 is frustrating, it is much more logical on a c223.

User avatar
JoeIsuzu
Site Admin
Posts: 20094
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:11 am
Location: Germantown (next to Elvistown), TN
Isuzu vehicle(s): Original owner, '83 LS Diesel, 5-spd, 2wd, Long Bed, restoration in progress!

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby JoeIsuzu » Sat May 07, 2016 11:42 am

I forgot about this thread. Adam brought it back "to the top", so I'm back now. I'm not sure if the '80 had a 1.6, or a 1.5.

If that's the same as the '80, mine was really weak on low-end torque compared to the C223. It's hard to stall the P'up, but that Rabbit was not at all forgiving on takeoffs. It had a redline of 5,600 RPM, and it was happier (although less economical) at higher RPMs. It didn't really go until you got into about the top 1/2 to 2/3 of its operating RPM range. I didn't have a tach, but I'd estimate somewhere around 3,500-4,000 was when it started pulling. Translate that to the highway, and it required more downshifting than the P'up to maintain speed on moderate hills.

I had no issues with the engine itself, but in my opinion, the VW electrical systems were overly complex and really unreliable over time.

Jack

User avatar
Paul
Regular Member
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:14 pm
Location: Central Calif Coast

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby Paul » Sun May 08, 2016 1:00 am

We own an '81 4 door n/a diesel Rabbit, which I put a Spearco turbo kit on almost immediately. The car has about 165k miles on it now and the engine has never been apart. I maintain the car pretty carefully and am a conservative driver.

I think the VW engine runs well and pulls pretty good, even at low speeds. It is a smaller engine than the C223 in a smaller vehicle. If you don't hammer it, it holds up OK. It has an aluminum cylinder head and may not be quite as tough as the C223. Our car gets about 45 plus mpg, occasionally higher on a road trip. With the turbo it performs very well at high altitudes, as in our Sierra mountains.

Here is a shot of the car, having towed a trailer with two dirt bikes and three people over the Sierras to Gardnerville in Nevada.

Paul

PS-- Jack, the '81 was the first year that the engine went to 1600cc.
Attachments
Super Rabbit in Gardnerville w ICE & Denoise.jpg
'84 P'UP 2 wd diesel, 5 spd with 0.78 fifth gear and differential back to 3.73.

getsomesy
Regular Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Eugene, OR for now
Isuzu vehicle(s): 86' TurboDiesel Spacecab 4x4 :D

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby getsomesy » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:46 pm

I own a 2.2 c223 n/a 4x4 1982 pup with 129k for a month so far.
i owned a 1.6 n/a 1982 caddy with ~200k for two years.
aproximantly same diameter tires, rabbit had wider tires.
both had 4 speed transmissions


caddy 2000 lbs.
averaged 37mpg at worst with a very full, but not overloaded vehicle. up to 45mpg average in more optimal curcumstance with light leaking from fuel pump. on many occasions made it 550 miles on a ?15? gallon tank.
fwd better traction light load/empty
unibody, lighter, lower, double wall bed
top speed ~87mph runs out of power
lower oil pan, more suceptible to damaging lower radiator hose
more air intake noise better flowing air box
more room under the hood
wider (beter) spacing between gears
fuel pump more easily accesable
parts more availible
knowledge more widely availible
narrower body more manuverable
lower frontal wind resistance area
less ground clearance
unibody more susceptible to irreprible significant damage
shock towers suceptible to being pushed up.
less space in cab
bucket seats more comfortable, harder to sleep it
smaller side mirrors
smaller wheel wells
does not come stock with sway bar
damper in coil front shocks, more difficult to replace.
sporty handling, very good imo
better acceleration
holds speed up hills better, could make steep hills in 3rd
revs higher
good but slightly less luggable
brakes stop better
sleeker apearrance.
tail light assembly very difficult to source, very expensive.
parking brake between seats can be uncomfortable, in the way
a 3rd passenger can put a buttcheek on each seat.
manual cold start device perferable, less troublesome
fuel pump more accesable.
very difficult to change driver side engine mount, timing belt must be removed
sucsessfully hauled 420 lbs of human 2x 250 lb dirtbikes and another 100 lbs of gear over 3k' pass reasonably
drives well overlaiden aside from lacking traction on steep uphill slopes (reversing up very steep stuff works better)
better for average driving conditions
anemic at over 4000 ft elevation

pup
im currenly averaging 24mpg per tank with a range of 280 miles. ( leaking cold start device may be affecting milage) 1drip:3seconds
rwd/4wd better traction loaded
3000lbs
top speed ~72 mph runs out of power
traditoonal truck frame body arrangment.
much worse handling, boatlike.
higher center of gravity
better ground clearance
more spacious cab
lugs better, more torque on bottom
does not rev as high
does not seem to have as much hp
does not have as good of a power to weight ratio
slightly more space in bed due to single wall construction
nicer rear bumper, easier to stand on, seems less prone to bending.
torsion bar front suspension easier to service shocks and less space taken up by shock towers
larger mirrors provide better visability
parking brake located frontally, less in the way
harder to seat someone in the middle, but it does have a center seat belt
more space exiting engine compartment for 2" exhaust
noticed significant change in handling from adding 400 lbs of humans in the back in addition to the 350 lbs in the cab.
always anemic
bonus points for being more rare and weird.
probably a better vehicle for being frugal booping around a mountain town.

i tried to go buy a rabbit pickup last night, but the thing was a thinly veiled basket case.
I would really like to have one of each between my gf and i.
1982 Isuzu Pup 4x4 N/A. 129K+ Rust free and running slowly.
Had a VW Caddy 1.6; wanted 4x4, bench seat, truck frame. - Behold the PUP new to me at 128k
Currently working on giving it the TLC that's been forgone and getting to know it.

User avatar
DieselJeep
Regular Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:28 am
Location: Mansfield, Oh

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby DieselJeep » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:47 pm

The 4fb1 ohc diesel is very close in appearance to a VW diesel. But with a much better cross flow head.

And the 4fb1 acts just like that, at least N/A. Doesn't really accelerate until ya REALLY wind it out, which is still weird to do to a diesel.
Even after 2 years.
Unskilled, uneducated, inexperienced, tools/facilities lacking, and faint of heart, be warned:
All vehicles are hunks of crap. Designed by individuals, the majority of which, have never turned a wrench.
Which one do you want to fall in love with?

User avatar
Halden
Regular Member
Posts: 2667
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:20 pm
Location: Marysville WA
Isuzu vehicle(s): 1983 Diesel LS Long Bed 4x4

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby Halden » Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:48 pm

DieselJeep wrote:The 4fb1 ohc diesel is very close in appearance to a VW diesel. But with a much better cross flow head.

And the 4fb1 acts just like that, at least N/A. Doesn't really accelerate until ya REALLY wind it out, which is still weird to do to a diesel.
Even after 2 years.


My brown imark pulled really hard through the whole range. From idle to 5k. Mind you it wouldn't snap your neck... But it certainly weighs a lot less than a jeep...
It's not pronounced "Ih-soo-zoo", it's pronounced "It-screws-you"

User avatar
DieselJeep
Regular Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:28 am
Location: Mansfield, Oh

Re: VW 1.6 compared to Isuzu C223

Postby DieselJeep » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:16 pm

Actually, the CJ only weighs 2,600 lbs without the steel top. That's after I added 2-300 lbs to the tub beefing up the hat channel floor supports, from 14 gauge to 1/8" replacements I fabbed.

Light enough it won't set off a certain local left land turn lane stop light trigger coming out of a grocery store :roll:

But still way heavier than a 1,843–2,035 lb chevette!!


And I have 3.73 final gear ratio. Don't the Imarks/chevette have steeper?

Yeah I gotta wind her still. HATE it, and HAVE to get that turbo ON!
Unskilled, uneducated, inexperienced, tools/facilities lacking, and faint of heart, be warned:
All vehicles are hunks of crap. Designed by individuals, the majority of which, have never turned a wrench.
Which one do you want to fall in love with?