Small 1.6 starter vs. Big 1.6 Starter

QuantumDave · Post by **QuantumDave** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:09 pm

Hello all,

91 Jetta 1.6 N/A w/ small starter
81 Rabbit 1.6 N/A w/ big starter

I am getting indicators that my small Jetta starter is on it's way out. However, I have a big starter in a Rabbit that I had rebuilt not 4 months ago and it just seems to have more balls than the dainty starter in the Jetta. This could simply be that it's in better shape and at the top of it's game. I could have the small starter rebuilt, or get an older big starter core and have that rebuilt.
Any interchange issues with going to the big starter on the 91 Jetta? It seems like a better unit and I'm leaning towards upgrading with it. Lastly, why did the starter field body get downsized in the '91 Jetta like that?

Thanks,
Dave

v8volvo · Post by **v8volvo** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:28 am

I think the consensus is that the big direct-drive starter as found on the older cars kicks the engine over faster under all circumstances. The smaller gear-reduction unit used later is just lighter, I believe. Should be no interchange issues. Make sure your battery and electrical connections are up to snuff before blaming the starter, though. I had an intermittent no-crank thing for awhile that I thought was a grounded winding or something weird in the starter, and it turned out to be a loose negative cable connection.

QuantumDave · Post by **QuantumDave** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:17 am

Well, the small starter I'm talking about is not gear reduced at all. Still direct drive, just a physically smaller motor section to it. I wasn't aware VW had a gear reduced starter. Later today I'll be checking the connections as well as seeing how the big starter does in the Jetta

Dave

dchardy · Post by **dchardy** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:16 pm

I did this swap on my '89 jetta, whose starter was starting to get weak. It was a pain, and I don't know if I'd recommend it...in my case, anyway, the older starter had only 2 mounting holes, the newer, slimmer one has 3...I just left out the 3rd one. probably not a great idea. Also, the top, long mounting bolt was a bear to get in due to the larger diameter of the starter. But it all went together and seemed to work fine, and cranking speed is great.

David

dieselsnowmobile · Post by **dieselsnowmobile** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:09 pm

I agree with dchardy, if you look very closely at each starter, you will see the differences in the mount of the starter. I tried to put the a Rabbit starter on my 89 Jetta, but there is that third hole on the mounting bracket that the new style VW uses. So, I put everything back the way it was. I guess that it can be done, but you may want to change the front engine mount to to reflect that of a Rabbit. I am not sure on that one, but I would just get the Jetta starter rebuilt rather than doing all of that work, unless you are pinched for a dollar, then it might be worth it.

QuantumDave · Post by **QuantumDave** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:12 pm

It was WAY too cold to do anything outside today so I didn't get to do a swap and now that I see the concensus, don't think I will. Good to know it will work though in a bind. Just the other day I found a Golf diesel that has a good starter core I can have rebuilt and waiting on the shelf. Not using all 3 of the mounting bolts doesn't concern me- 2 was good enough for the big starter on Rabbits and I'm sure other mark I cars as well.

Thanks,
Dave

Post by **Fatmobile** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:40 pm

Well, the small starter I'm talking about is not gear reduced at all

Sounds like you had a gasser starter on it.
The gear reductions do crank slower but I've heard they do better in the bitter cold than the older ones.
So in real cold weather they mighty turn it a little faster than the direct drive.
I haven't tried this experiment yet, it's just something I've read on here quite awhile back.

v8volvo · Post by **v8volvo** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:44 pm

I too was thinking gas starter, but sounds like the guys on here with late-80s A2 diesels know what they're talking about. I had no idea there was ever a smaller direct-drive with 3 mount holes offered.

QuantumDave · Post by **QuantumDave** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:42 pm

My thoughts exactly, I really doubt that it's a gas starter- I've seen them this small on perhaps five other occasions. I'll talk to my starter rebuild guy and see what he has to say about the difference in performance between the two.

Speaking of no idea...where would I find a gear-reduced starter (excluding the TDIs)?

Dave

dieselsnowmobile · Post by **dieselsnowmobile** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:40 am

I just remembered that I had a picture I could quickly post so show that extra bolt on the A2 starters. If you remember what the Rabbit starter looks like, you will immediately see the differences.

1.6D-Nut · Post by **1.6D-Nut** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:06 pm

FWIW.......
I just swapped a new Bosch Solenoid, off a gasser starter, onto one of the old style big Diesel Rabbit starters. A perfect fit!
The old solenoid's battery cable stud snapped (I know...always use 2 wrenches) while I was disconnecting it.
I had a rebuilt gasser starter just collecting dust.
Only differences are that the gasser solenoid was held in place by Torx head screws, where the old Diesel one had slotted heads for a screwdriver. Bolts were exactly the same length.
2nd difference is an extra terminal (ign feed) on gas soleniod.
Tested, WORKS!
A penny saved is........mine to keep!

coke · Post by **coke** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:31 pm

The smaller starter on your 89 Jetta is a gear reduction starter, and you can swap a direct drive in without using the third bolt. I did it, and 100K miles later, and I can't even count how many starts, its still holding strong.

dieselsnowmobile · Post by **dieselsnowmobile** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:19 pm

Ok, that makes sense. You can probably just leave that bolt hole empty. I started to take the smaller starter off once, and I heard a pop. At that point, I realized that the bolts I was loosening for the starter were the bolts that attached to the motor mount on the back side. On my Rabbit, I was able to take the start off with no problem because the motor mount, I do not think had never been moved in 23 years, so the engine stade put, but the Jetta did not. At that point, it was just going to be much more work at the time than I wanted to do. I was able to jack the engine up to get it into position just to bolt that starter on. On top of that, I was only trying to eliminate that the starter was giving me trouble (but now I am pretty sure it was the rings), so I was just going to do an easy swap (so I thought) and it turned out to be much more work. Most farm equipment that I have taken starters off were just the two bolts plus wiring, and I thought the Jetta was going to be that simple. Now that I know what I am getting into, next time I have starter trouble I will prepare more and have more time to do that swap.

QuantumDave · Post by **QuantumDave** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:43 am

Coke is right... I would have never guessed, but lo & behold, the small starter is in fact gear reduced according to my starter rebuilder. It is a planetary type design using three small gears. VW did a nice job hiding it- I was relying on the classic 'offset' end frame to be able to tell the difference. Evidently, the smaller gear reduced unit develops more torque than the old direct drive unit does.

I have the direct drive unit installed now in my 91 Jetta and it's great. All of a sudden the engine is running- no time to hear the starter cranking. With the gear reduced unit it would have to crank the engine over 3-4 revolutions to start.

I much prefer the direct drive- it's a MUCH better way to go. Yes, you don't have as much TQ, but you have speed and speed is what makes for crisp, clean starts...everytime. Besides, the direct only works 1/4 the time to start the engine than the smaller one does. Should last longer as a result.

Someone needs to come up with a starter stud kit and a bracket to allow for direct drive starters mounted to A2 Jetta/Golfs which would hold the engine mount on that 3rd hole that does not get used and bring it under the head of the lower starter stud.

I have a side by side comparison to show, but can't seem to post pix without using a hosting site??

Dave

coke · Post by **coke** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:06 pm

Like I said Dave, I've put well over 100k miles on my direct drive unit without that 3rd bolt. I never noticed a difference at all. A decent machinist should be able to machine a bracket with two holes in it that would bolt to the top hole and allow you to bolt the 3rd bolt through the mount, though I wouldn't even worry about it.

Cranking speed, horsepower, and good battery all make a huge difference in starting results.