(first posted 12/9/2017) Sometimes, great engines are applauded and commended from day one, like the small block chevy engine. But other times they are equally as good, being produced for decades, without anyone even noticing, like the Buick V6 or Audi’s EA827. Are these the underdogs of the car world?
Audis engine line-up in the 60s was solely based on the 4 cylinder you see above, an OHV of 1.5 – 1.9 liters capacity. Developed initially by Mercedes for military purposes, Audis engineers pushed the compression to 11.2:1(!), in order to boost performance and efficiency. NVH levels were subpar (because of the high pressures) as was the reliability.
Clearly, a new engine was needed and it was dubbed EA827 (EntwicklungsAuftrag = development assignment). Audi, already in VAG ownership by 1966, started work on it in the late 60s. The initial goal was to develop a cheap to build, 4 cylinder, 1.2 liter mill with a non-crossflow head, belt-driven SOHC, bucket tappets and 2 valves/cylinder to power the future Audi 80 (Audi Fox in the US). It had an 88mm bore center spacing and was angled 20 degrees to the right, two defining features that remained through to its successors (EA113 and EA888). The bore center spacing would later limit the diameter of the cylinders and subsequently the capacity, favouring torquey, vibration-prone, long-stroke engines. As launched in 1972, it ended up having 1.3 – 1.5 liters but the engine block could still take this increase unmodified. In the Audi 80 B1/VW Passat B1 body, even the small EA827 pushed the radiator to the left.
Running a rubber belt for timing was still posing a problem in 1972. A lot of conflicting forces wear it out, and the fewer, the better. The first belt-driven car, the 1961 Glas 1004S did this by running auxiliaries like oil pump/gas pump/distributor directly from the crankshaft. Fiat, with its 1966 Twincam engine and Pontiac with the 1966 OHC Six choose to run an intermediate shaft of the timing belt for all the auxiliaries. It sounded complicated, but it worked. As Audi’s OHV engine already powered its oil pump and distributor through the camshaft in the block, they would use a similar setup in the new engine. VAG would produce belt driven engines with intermediate shafts through 2013, bringing joy to any owner whose timing belt snaps without reason. To be fair, most of the gas EA827 were non-interference engines, but the derived diesels weren’t.
Solving all of these problems, Audi’s brand new engine for 1972, was introduced in the Audi 80 and right into troubled times. The oil crisis was crippling the industry but VAG had problems of its own. Beetle sales were going down fast, the VW 411 was a flop to begin with and the adopted VW K70 from NSU proved to be a big disappointment, despite having the modern layout with a watercooled engine and FWD.
The EA827 came in 3 versions at launch, 1.3 55HP, 1.5 70HP and 1.5 85HP, with respective engine codenames ZA, ZB and ZC. Soon after, Audi and its engine proved it had the right package for the times. The engines were praised for being revy, economical and light. Together with light bodies they had good performance for the day, leaving even some 02 BMWs behind. The early 1.5s had a 76.5mm bore which remained in production in the 1.4 VW Citi Golf up to 2009.
To make sure the competition stayed behind, the EA827 got a big makeover already in the 1973 Audi 80 GT. The water channels between the cylinders were deleted and the bore was increased from 76.5mm to 79.5mm, making now 1.6 liters and 100HP (Codename XX). Together with the fuel injected 110HP 80 GTE (EG) these were the fastest Audis of their time. This engine also helped the Golf GTi define a new genre: the hot hatchback. In this application, the induction was placed on the left because of the bulky airflowmeter. The surprising reliability of the new 1.6 version showed a sound engine block design.
This made the engineers dieselize it, launching the revy 50HP 1.5 Diesel in the VW Golf (Rabbit) in 1976. Yet another improvement that will sport a new generation of diesel cars in Europe.
Needless to say, the 1.6 replaced the 1.5 in its duties, powering a large array of midrange models throughout the late 1970s and 1980s usually making 70 – 85 HP, ending up even in the base Audi 100 C1 and C2. In the later, it even had room to spare, the radiator was finally in front of the engine!
Towards the end of the 1970s, VW’s own smaller and cheaper engine EA801 was also growing and making inroads in the Golf and Passat, replacing the EA827 in the popular 1.3 displacement. If it was to survive, the EA827 had to grow.
The first measure was to stroke the 1.6 in 1978, resulting a new 1.7 engine, of 79.5mm bore (as in the 1.6) and a new 86,4mm stroke. The engine was made available first in the 4×4 VW Iltis. It was the first marriage between an EA827 and an early version of the Quattro system. This engine also provided power for the 1978 Dodge Horizon, making 76HP.
In 1977 the 1.7 was developed into the EA828 2.1 liters 5 cylinder engine with 136HP, helping Audi become a premium brand quickly and cheaply through the 1980s. While the 5 cylinder version shared a lot of parts with the lowly 1.7, it didn’t have the heavy&bulky intermediate shaft. The four would lose its intermediate shaft only with the advent of the EA113 in 1994.
And there was a six cylinder version too; gasoline and diesel versions were used in VW’s LT light truck, and the diesel was used in Volvos. The gas versions were not common; here’s one from an LT.
In 1981, through new casting techniques the bore was increased to 81mm and combined with the 1.7’s crankshaft it made a new 1.8 liter engine. For better NVH, the piston rods were lengthened and the engine deck was heightened. The resulting engine, codename DD, was rated at only 75HP, presumably not to stress the thin cylinder walls too much. Testers found it rough at first, but NVH levels improved a lot through its production run. A faster version, launched in 1982, codename DX, produced 112 HP and powered the Golf I GTI, VW PASSAT 32i GT and Audi 80 B2. Together with the better insulated Golf II of 1984, it gave markedly better high speed cruising capabilities. With 112HP, the heavier Mk2 GTi was more a warm- than a hot performer. A 16V head helped cure this, bumping power to 139HP (KR) in 1986. The timing belt conveyed motion only to one camshaft, while a small chain would power the second cam from the first one.
Later, the 1.8 was combined with a centrifugal supercharger to up the power to 160HP in the 1988 Corrado G60 (PG), as an 8v SOHC. Its healthy torque curve and virtually no throttle lag caused a sensation. This engine was later introduced in the Golf 2 sporting a host of limited editions. The Golf G60 Limited had, for example, AWD, DOHC and 210HP. Reliability problems with the supercharger shortened its production life considerably, being dropped by mid 1993.
The concept of having a softly charged engine with good torque throughout the rev range outlived the failure prone G60 and came around in the form of the influential 1994 1.8T. Technically belonging to the successors EA113 series, the first iteration of this engine was a curious mix of EA827 block with intermediate shaft but EA113 heads and auxiliaries. It was also the peak of EA827 career, as from here, the successor engine would gradually replace it in many models.
Back in the 1980s, the flexible 1.8 covered the ground from 75HP to 210HP, bringing you to 60 Mph in 17s if you were in the Audi 100 with 3+E gearbox or in 7,4s if you were sitting in the Golf G60 Limited, quite a stretch. As if that wasn’t enough, two 1.8 16V 139HP engines formed the basis of the first modern V8 of Audi, with, wait for it, 2 x 1.8 = 3.6 liters capacity and 250HP.
During the 1980s, the 1.6 also kept getting better. Especially NVH levels were improved for the 1.6 by strengthening the engine block where necessary against vibration (they learned a lot from the diesel versions). Gradually increasing the bore and reducing the stroke, gave the 1.6 an oversquare ratio in the 1983 MY (EZ). It now used the new 81mm bore from the 1.8. Of course, NVH levels were further lowered down the drivetrain by longer ratio gearboxes and the mass introduction of the 5th gear.
The final EA827 incarnation pushed the limit of physics in every direction. Stretching the bore to 82,5mm, the thickness of the neighboring cylinder walls comes down to 5,5mm creating the 1.9 liter in the 1986 Audi 80 (SD). Later, in 1988, a new crankshaft + once again heightened engine block brings a monster stroke of 92,8mm, making for an under square 2.0 liter producing 112HP (codename 3A). Because of its awkward dimensions the base engine didn’t like to rev that much. A 16V head brings 136HP in the Passat B3 (9A) and Audi 80 B3, but higher revs make the engine loud and sound unsporty, especially in the Audi, whose body is prone to resonating. Furthermore, there are reports on excessive engine wear and high oil consumption. The 2.0 16V was definitely a step too far in 1988, but VW tries again 6 years later with the new Golf III GTi. The 2.0 liter comes with improved reliability and more power, 150HP to be exact (ABF).
The 1.8 & 2.0 DOHC 16V engines have a crossflow head and long intake runners for better midrange torque, giving the last major improvement to the EA827 series. This crossflow head eventually gets carried out on the smaller 1.6 in 1994 with 100HP (AEK) and variable intake runners (AFT) and the basic 1.8 & 2.0, albeit as cheaper 8V SOHC.
The EU emissions regulations are strengthening and the successor EA113 is already in production by 1994. The EA827 is set to die out in the old world together with the Golf Mk3 platform. Production ends in 1997 for the Mk3 hatch but the cabriolet is built through 2002. The 1.6 8V (AFT/AKS) and 1.8 8V (ADZ) are dropped in 2000. The related 2.0 8V version lasts longer, being the final EA827 on offer in the 2002 Golf IV Cabrio (ABA/AWG/AWF).
The final versions, especially the 1.8, took a back-to-the-basics approach, with a counterflow head, mechanical distributor ignition, 8 valve head and central fuel injection. As seen above, the white Golf 3 doesn’t look much different than the green Golf 1 under the hood. By 2002, the EA827 had been exactly 30 years in production, having fulfilled its mission to save VAG from bankruptcy and then some. In developing countries the engine survived a couple more years thanks to more relaxed emissions regulations.
In South Africa and Brazil, it survived through 2009 in the VW Citi Golf (installed transversely as 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8) and in the VW Gol as seen above (installed lengthwise as 1.6 and 1.8 and still keeping the radiator to its left). In China, the 1.6 VW Santana ended production as late as 2013, finally bringing this engine’s story full circle, born, raised and killed off together with the B1/Bx platform of VAG.
Thanks for the comprehensive history/timeline on this engine family, very interesting!
I like these engines and especially the way they sound, both the 4s as well as the 5s. I never had any reliability issues with the main engine components either in the various vehicles I’ve owned with them or their variants installed over the years.
I love all the colors of the various VW/Audi models pictured. A veritable rainbow!
I wasn’t even trying to find colorful cars… it’s just what came up.
This engine had quite the long history, and you’ve done a fine job of presenting it. it’s hard to imagine VW’s recovery without it.
I’m not 100% sure if it’s related, but I believe there is a version of this engine with 6 cylinders and 2.4 liters of displacement.
It was used in the Europe-only Volkswagen LT and made it’s way to the US in the Volvo 240 and 740 Diesel.
The only reason I think it’s related is because the fellow who built the engine in my 240 Diesel used 1-and-a-half sets of VW 1.6 Diesel pistons during the rebuild. I think he still has the other 2 pistons on the shelf.
Yes there was. There were gas and diesel versions used in the LT light truck, and the diesel was used by Volvo for some time, including in the US.
I’ve added it to the post.
Yay! I got one right! 🙂
Great work here, an interesting read. I came here to learn more about the EA827 as I have recently bought a late Golf 3 with the 1.8 mono, and was delighted at how it’s essentially the same engine as the Golf 1.
An aside; the VW LT 6 cylinder gasoline 2.4l engine was also produced between 1988-1995 with Digifant Engine Management and Fuel Injection. I have a low miles example in my possession here in Australia, imported from the UK:
Yup, forgot about the 6 cylinder. Thanks for noticing. I plan on talking about the diesels in another article, as they are similar, yet somehow different engines.
I had the injected 1.6 litre in a 1980 golf (rabbit) GTI. It was a great motor especially when I warmed it over with a rebuild, new clutch and a set of headers. Never had any problems with the motor after that aside from an alignment of the plunger on the fuel distributor. I really liked the simplicity of the cis injection which was still mechanical at that point and the only thing close to a computer was the aftermarket cd deck. It even still had points (remember those). Great little car I was sad to see it rust away after selling it to a buddy. When he sold it for parts the engine was still running years later.
The 1.6 turbo diesel I had in my 1992 Jetta looked very similar but was not as rev happy but felt like a tank and got excellent fuel economy.
I wonder how is the 2.5 l five cyl gas engine in T4 transporter related to the family. Is it 2l 8 valve four with one more cylinder attached?
I don’t know much about this 5 cyl. but at quick glance it has the same bore&stroke as the contemporary 2.5Tdi, the first tdi ever. It may be a diesel block converted to petrol, but i have no proof.
Thanks, a great, in-depth history of this engine family, which has powered, and still does, millions upon millions of VAG vehicles on the roads of Europe and beyond, including some in our household.
Just for historical accuracy, the G-lader superchargers, featured on the Polo G40 and Corrado / Golf G60 engines, aren’t centrifugal, in the normal use of that term. They’re actually a scroll-type supercharger, containing two elements with sort of spiral-shaped air passages, nested together, and one oscillating within the other. This principle was originally conceived by French engineer Leon Creux, in 1905. A good concept in theory, less so in practice.
As MNC rightly says, the Time Between Overhauls for G-laders turned out to be less than desirable, although reportedly the engines were nice to drive up to that point.
Great engines indeed. Owning two of them currently, in carb’ed 1.6- and 1.8-iteration from mid-80s. Especially the smaller one is almost confusingly brisk and sings a sweet song. The mx-5’s 1.8 running alongside is rather rumbly and trashy in comparsion, at least before it climbs 4k.
Fascinating and well written article. That sometimes great engines can be “produced for decades, without anyone even noticing” is a great observation.
The first photos show how truly front engine some of the Audi’s were, with the engine mostly ahead of the front axle line even. Longitudinally mounted as well. Very interesting.
The timing belt system is interesting too. Owned several cars, but no Audi’s, with a timing belt, and they all were very reliable and performed well. The timing belts did eventually have to be replaced. Too often with many marques that can be difficult to do. Just curious how difficult it is to do a timing belt replacement on these engines.
Timing belt replacement was pretty easy on my 1980 GTI with the 1.6 litre. You had to remove the accessory drive belt. There was a cover to remove and then loosen off the tensoner which was easier if you had a special tool. Line up the notches on the pulleys before putting the belt on so you didn’t screw up the timing. I think it took me an hour or 2 the first time. The big scam was some shops would say the motor had to come out to replace the belt and charge something like 6-8 hours to do the job. The motor did not have to be removed for this job.
Thanks. Very interesting. Sounds easier than some of the cars I’ve had.
Very similar to my diesel Citroen, accessory serp belt off covers off swap belt and tensioner rollers reassemble every 160,000kms, its a driveway job nothing complicated and I have no special tools for this engine, which is good because the engine I have is quite rare here, it was a limited end of model run sent here to see how the hew next gen high performance diesels would run on our crap fuel,
The VW Golf I drove yesterday probably had a version of this posted engine family but looking under the bonnet didnt give any clues theres literally nothing to see under there.
Despite the fame and ubiquity of the air-cooled flat-four VW motors, the water-cooled inline motors have now been in production, even setting aside the Audi antecedents, for about as long and presumably even higher volumes. We just bought a Mk7 Golf, which I learned is a new engine, no longer an EA827, but it’s still an amazing balance of power, economy, and flexibility/refinement. It’s our 3rd water-cooled VW four (well, fourth if we include a wasserboxer Vanagon, but I’d rather forget that one), the first of which was a1600cc EA827 in a Scirocco, and they certainly deserve to join the ranks of other classic engines.
While you mention the SBC, I must add the small block Ford (221, 260, 289, 302) to this list. Shelby was winning races with these before most people saw one, let alone had one in their shiny new Fairlane for ’62. And it powered many Ford products, without a whimper, to the year 2000. Do not even get me started on the Industrial and Marine versions.
Nothing about the early engines with no valve guides? It turned out to be a bad way to save money; they started burning lots of oil @ low miles.
Nothing about dropping the subframe on the 5-cylinder models to change the timing belt?
Nothing about the 330-lb/ft torque on the 5-cylinder front pulley bolt?
Are these the sludge-maker series?
Don’t know, but aren’t the VR series engines the sludger engines?
I guess it’s appropriate that I saw this article’s “headline”, and passed over it. Why? I owned a 74 Audi Fox with a manual transmission and what an engine that car had. Robust, but light and “playful” in it’s responses, pulling that light car like a breeze pulling a kite. And yet, no memorable exhaust note, no legendary feel as it “got on the cam”.
Some might say workaday, while others would say unobtrusive, either way, yes, it went about it’s job without drawing any attention to itself.
I did have an opportunity to drive several Rabbits over the years (though most were still fairly new) both gas and diesel, and no matter the displacement they were always good engines.
Two points:
1.) I traded the Fox for a Pinto. The Lima 2.3 is a rock solid, dependable performer but especially compared to the VW engine, it was/is a real boat anchor.
2.) VW seemed very resistant to join what was the “fad” to put twin cams on their engines, I can imagine the engineers felt (and rightly so) that they already had a great performer and they need not complicate it.
Finally, these engines (probably) ran so well because the fuel delivery system was very well matched to the engine….not something that could be said about many manufacturers (looking at you, Big 3).
Any word on how these ran in the Omnirizon with the Chrysler carb & distrbiutor?
I’m talking 80s here: In its homeland the engines recieved a vast variety of carbs, the manually choked 2V by Keihin being the most reliable of them, delivering good performance and economy for decades untouched, while the more common Pierburgs, especially the later, thermowax-ridden 2E granted great performance as long as they ran right but quickly turned into an iffy running, fuel guzzling, hardly curable nightmare as soon some of the numerous vacuum- or later electrically-actuated governors went south.
As for the FI-variations: The CIS in K- and KE-Jetronic guise did well in day to day service potentially to no end, but if left to sit for a longer period (say a year or more), could eventually turn into a gift that keeps on giving, similar to a Pierburg 2E.
The electronically controlled SPI and MPI-systems finally are fine and fun, except for some rather easy, cheap(ish) and less common issues like grimy idle control valves, aging sensors and injectors getting leaky, again due to age and wear.
Not to mention, that all of the systems are quite interchangeable between engines, so fiddling with the EA827-playset is rewarding fun and rather popular amongst VAG-heads.
My point is: The hardware is reliable and quite adaptable so if the added carb and ignition prove themselves reliable in other applications and ChryCo put some thought into jetting the carb, the engine will be fine.
The way I remember them is not complimentary.
They were oil-burning pigs. Valve seals/valve guides tended to get the blame. When Chrysler replaced that series of engine with their own, they went to a significantly-larger displacement because the 1.7 was way under-powered.
I’m not sure about the carburetion. I saw a lot of problems with the Holley two-barrel, and the rubber isolator it was mounted on–but I don’t know if that was on the Audi 1.7L or the newer Chrysler 2.2L. The things shook so bad that the choke shaft would rattle around and wear-out the pivot hole in the zinc casting. We’d sleeve the hole using a short length of double-wall seamless steel brake tubing.
I also remember issues with distributor shafts wobbling around because the bushings in the distributor housing wiped-out–again I’m not sure if that was the 1.7L Audi engine or the Chrysler 2.2L.
Like a Chrysler- they still kept our old friend, the ballast resistor, and got a Lean Burn computer attached to its air filter housing, too.
I had one of these engines, the 1.5 liter version, in a ’75 VW Dasher (Passat). The engine itself was wonderful, you could wind it tight and it would sing like an operatic tenor. The rest of the car was not so much. It was just too lightly built, and things broke on a regular basis, items that went beyond my skills to fix. When the monthly repair bills approached a new car payment, I sold it on and rode my bicycle for a while. But the engine, oh yes!
Nice write up on the EA827, the one in my ’86 Jetta GL has topped 300k miles and is only down about 1/2 quart at it’s 4000k mile oil change, so basically still never needs to be topped up. At 90 HP it’s no race engine, but has enough to keep up with traffic with it’s 5 speed manual trans. The wide range ACN transmission is another stoutly built and long lived drivetrain component, it’s still quiet and smooth shifting at over 300k and has only had a couple of gear oil changes in it’s long lifetime. Did once snap a T belt, no damage to this non interference motor.
The 1.5 and 1.6 versions in my ’75 and ’77 Rabbit’s were sweet running engines, smoother and more willing to rev then the 1.8, but with less torque. The ’75 did have it’s valve seals replaced, this was a weak point on the ’70’s versions, but it’s an easy fix. VW did recall the fuel injected ’70’s versions with no mileage restriction’s and replaced the seals at no charge.
The K-Jet fuel injection has been long lived as well, injector seals were replaced once, and the main fuel pump lasted until 298k miles.
I was working at an American Porsche Audi Dealership at the time these came out. Audi was already starting to get a bad rap for 100 LS with their Inboard brakes and some other various issues. What made things worse was we were still in the oil crisis of the 70′ so the cars were shipped with “Dirty Fuel”. Water, trash and just old stale gas were put in the tanks . They wouldn’t run long enough to get them off the docks and on to the transporters. Every one we got had to have the carburetor completely disassembled, cleaned and rebuilt. After that they ran fine until they rusted out. The Saying was “You Audi Not a Boughti” I moved on to Mercedes Benz in the late 70’s and left to join the digital revolution in the early 80’s. I worked for a company that sold Emissions Exhaust Analyzers. One day I get a call to this little shop out by the airport. It was hidden away and had no signs. It was Audi Engineering and they running quality assurance tests on new models. They had crews running them 24hrs a day on american roads up and down the Southeast. After the cars were on the road for a few months. They would take off the painted bumpers and send them back to Germany for microscopic paint analysis. This was an all out effort to repair their reputation. I was very impressed. Now they have a great Rep and I lust for a R8.
If the 3.6 V8 used in the Audi V8 was derived from a pair of 1.8 EA827s, to what degree was the later 4.2 V8 also derived from the EA827?
It was a major evolution of the previous Audi V8, with mostly all-new components. It’s not really derived directly from the EA827.
The actual year that they stopped making the ea827 was 2015 or maybe 2016, they still produced it for the vw caddy ecofuel which runs a 2.0 8v crossflow configuration and runs on gasoline and natural gas and is only made to run on 98 octane pump gas or natural gas which has a very high octane rating(due 13.5:1 compression ratio)
While have read the EA111 and EA827 referred to as small block and big block engines respectively, is it known to what degree the EA111 was related to EA827?
The EA827 was sold in Canada until 2011 in the City Golf, and until 2010 in the Jetta City. Same plastic intake as shown in Raoul’s photo above.
With the EA827 engine originally being conceived as a 1.2-litre engine, it is possible the engine first appeared as the 45 hp 1198cc water-cooled engine in the 1967 Volkswagen EA235 prototype.
In the Brazilian-Argentina joint-venture Ford-VW called Autolatina were produced the EA827 in big quantities and called AP (alta poténcia) engine in 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 versions. These engine not only was fitted in all the VW line, also in some Ford models such as Escort or Del Rey and some models from VW sold as Ford brand.
The EA827 in these countries is one of favourite replacement engine because is powerful and very easy to fit in every old car, especially Soviet or other brands with hard-to-find parts. For example, in the market you can found adaptation kits for Lada gears.
In “Frankenstein” models from Autolatina such as VW Gol and Ford Del Rey, the high-line were offered with an EA827, while the basic-line came with an AE (alta economía) engine known as Ford CHT, a modified Renault-Sierra. Because this is possible to fit the EA827 in, for example, the Renault 12 without or some minor adaptations.
Did it ever get a balance shaft?
Nope! In the 90s it did get a 16mm taller block and 16mm longer rods, which smoothed it out somewhat. They also finally removed the mechanical fuel pump cam from the intermediate shaft at the same time.
Having bought a 1978 Scirocco in 1981, I’ve owned nothing but VWs since then, all with this engine, in different displacements (1.7, 1.8, and 2.0 litres). In 50 years of driving, only 7 of them weren’t when I owned one of these ( I had a 1974 Datsun 710 with 1.8 litre before the VWs).
Even my Dad had one, albeit not in a VW (he owned a ’59 Beetle which of course was a different aircooled engine). He bought a new ’80 Dodge Omni so he beat me by a year having this engine (of course he went on to buy other cars where I stuck to variations of this engine in other VWs.
Seems like it did what it was designed to do, transition from the aircooled to the watercooled models, allowing quite a bit of flexibility in detail.
The 3 VWs I’ve owned: a ’78 Scirocco, ’86 Golf Gti, and currently a 2000 Golf GLS (original owner). No, I don’t buy cars very often, and these VWs were my only car (with some overlap after I’d bought one but hadn’t sold the predecessor.
What is the advantage of a counterflow engine with fuel injection? I assume all counterflow spark ignition engines are 2 valves/cylinder and all 3 and 4 valve/cylinders are cross flow. I also assume that cross flow engines have better volumetric efficiency for the same valve sizes, timing and lift. Is that assumption correct?
I can imagine the VAG engineers wished for an extra 3 mm in bore spacing!
Fuel injection offers its specific benefits regardless of the head design/flow: precise fuel management and of course it’s indispensable with modern emission controls (3-way cat). Your assumptions are correct, generally speaking in principle, as there are undoubtedly exceptions when comparing specific engines. A modern 2-valve counterflow head may well have better volumetric efficiency than an older cross flow head.
Thank you for your reply Paul. My question was not about the advantages of electronic fuel injection, but about crossflow vs counterflow. Counterflow engines warm up faster than crossflow engines and in cold climates carburetors need all the heat they can get to run adequately while warming up. Electronic fuel injection manages all of that much, much better, vastly reducing the advantage of having the intake above the exhaust. In under the hood space management counterflow can be more compact than crossflow. I am guessing that staying with counterflow for so long reflects a conservative and cost sensitive engineering ethos.