Scirocco II's in ITC

[Bill Miller]

Figured I'd start another topic in the VW section, as not everybody might be reading the other thread in the ARRC section.

Here's a link to the original thread. http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=5939 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5939)

The issue at hand is two fold:

1) Was a 1984 US-model Scirocco ever delivered w/ a 1.7 (1715 cc) engine
2) Was either a 1983 or 1984 US-model Scirocco w/ a 1.7 engine ever delivered w/ a close-ratio transmission (2H, 4K, FK, or 9A codes).

Trying to find evidence that supports either of the above issues, as the available data (sales brochures, VW parts database) indicate that the cars don't exist.

Hopefully, this will get to more of the VW folks out there.

Thanks,

Bill

[madrabbit15]

Good Idea Bill

I dont care which trans I have to run I just want to run the most competitive gear box that is legal. If we find that I cannot run the close ratio so be it, and I do not have any problem with that what so ever. My only frustration is that it was my understanding that is was close ratio was legal and I was told there was info to support it, hence why it was added to the GCR. To me that made sense. If it turns out I cant run it, thats fine as I would not want someone else runningsomething not legal. It does cost more than you estimated to make the wide ratio gear box legal, because you have to track down and buy the correct ring and pinion or have one made :( . If that is what I have to do that fine, I just do not want to go through another whole set of expenses if I dont have to especially if turns out that I can use the gearbox.

Derek

[Bill Miller]

Derek,

I'm not sure what you mean about the R&P. Is it a case of not having the right ratio readily available? Do you think that the one you have in your current box won't work in a wide ratio box? The 3.67, 3.89, and 3.94 units should be pretty available. If you can use it, I think I have one of each. We can talk about it. If you're looking for a 4.20/4.23/4.25, that's going to be a bit tougher (and more costly) to get.

My only goal in all of this is to get the proper specs and cars classified.

[Bill Miller]

Amazing, 120+ views, and only Derek and I have anything at all to add to this topic? :blink:

[Greg Amy]

I spoke at length with Dick Shine this past weekend. He is aware of the issue at hand. He said that:

Point A, the 1.7L engine was delivered in Sciroccos in 1984, but not a hell of a lot of them. You had to actually request it or find a dealer trying to sleaze on on you without telling you there were better options.

Point B, the 1.7L was never delivered with the close-ratio gearbox in any car, any year, any time. Period.

So what we have here is a case of some documentation that was presented to the CRB that noted the 1.7L engine was available in 1984 and the close-ratio 'box was available in 1984, and the implication was made that they were available together as a package. However, there is no way someone presented to the SCCA proof that the two were delivered as a package, because - obviously - they weren't. The problem now becomes one of documentation to support that point: given that any changes must come from proving the prior positions incorrect, how does one prove a negative, that the close-ratio 'box was not available on the 1.7L engine? Virtually impossible, I suspect.

The only way this can reasonably be done is via protest. As is traditional in a protest situation, the proof of legality lies on the protestee to prove the car is legal, and the publication of the specs in the ITCS is not de facto proof of legality. Thus, in a protest situation the protestee must provide the supporting documentation. So, if you guys feel really strongly about this, I suggest you pony up the $25, write the paper, and get it resolved via the GCR-supported means. If the protestee cannot provide sufficient supporting documentation, then you guys have a basis for changes to the ITCS. Worst case, you lose $25.

Greg

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

Thanks for the info. My hope, in starting this thread, was to get people like Dick to chime in and contribute. Also, giving the timing of this whole thing, it's probably a moot point for the balance of '05. I got this from a current CRB member.

While I haven't seen it, my understanding about the supporting documentation is, that it was from a late '84 Owner's Manual. It didn't actually state the gear ratios, however, they were derived from what the suggested break-in speeds were.

As far as the '84 w/ the 1.7, the anecdotal (sp?) accounts are great, but I want to see photos of VIN tags that show the proper engine code and year code.

[madrabbit15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 31 2005, 11:37 AM
Amazing, 120+ views, and only Derek and I have anything at all to add to this topic? :blink:

59370




There are a lot of hondas that want to see the scirocco go down, down, down........

[Knestis]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 31 2005, 02:29 PM
There are a lot of hondas that want to see the scirocco go down, down, down........

59390


I don't buy that this situation is that cut-and-dried, or that most drivers - Honda, ITC, or otherwise - are quite THAT vindictive.

There might be more people like me, who have an academic interest in the outcome - since it really is a case study in how our system works - but don't want to pee in Derek's punchbowl. It won't do any good for me or anyone else to stir the pot with questions, "answers," or rehashing of issues, until the system has plugged along for a while and we know more about what's happening. (I'm taking on faith that it has been officially "opened" by the ITAC.)

Regardless, nothing will be done this season. It's completely inappropriate to make this an issue for the remainder of the season - or at the ARRC - since, even if the ITCS IS wrong, it won't be E&O'd until the beginning of '06 at the soonest.

It's possible too that some people do want the Scirocco to get clobbered with the book and are just too polite to pick at the issue's scab at this point...

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 1 2005, 12:27 AM
I don't buy that this situation is that cut-and-dried, or that most drivers - Honda, ITC, or otherwise - are quite THAT vindictive.

There might be more people like me, who have an academic interest in the outcome - since it really is a case study in how our system works - but don't want to pee in Derek's punchbowl. It won't do any good for me or anyone else to stir the pot with questions, "answers," or rehashing of issues, until the system has plugged along for a while and we know more about what's happening. (I'm taking on faith that it has been officially "opened" by the ITAC.)

Regardless, nothing will be done this season. It's completely inappropriate to make this an issue for the remainder of the season - or at the ARRC - since, even if the ITCS IS wrong, it won't be E&O'd until the beginning of '06 at the soonest.

It's possible too that some people do want the Scirocco to get clobbered with the book and are just too polite to pick at the issue's scab at this point...

K

59462



Kirk,

Those are the last things I want to see happen in this thread. My goal was to 'get the word out' and see if we could find someone that actually was in posessoin of, had access to, or knew where to find the evidnece that got this stuff put into the ITCS in the first place (or at the very least, would support keeping it there).

I don't want to see anybody spend money they don't have to. Certainly not because of something in the rules that was incorrect. The fact that Derek's a fellow VW racer, makes that even more the case.

[Eric Parham]

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 1 2005, 12:27 AM
I don't buy that this situation is that cut-and-dried, or that most drivers - Honda, ITC, or otherwise - are quite THAT vindictive.
59462


Kirk, I agree, but let's have some fun. I have never met a vindictive HONDA! I've met some vindictive Miatas, BMWs and GTIs, but no HONDAs (after all, the HONDAs have nothing to be vindictive about) ;)

Bill, thank you for finally moving this somewhere where we VW racers can all see it. I can't imagine your motivation for originally raising the issue in the ARRC thread. For the record, I did not add the '84 Scirocco 1.7 to the listing. I believe that it has either been there all along, or was added by someone before I started paying attention. I have, however, seen a handful of them over the years (mostly in boneyards) so I have no doubt of their existence!

Derek, I'm out of the country for a few more weeks. If I recall after all these years, I think the gearbox information that you seek may best be found in the early '84 Scirocco Owner's Manual (not the '84.5 version -- check publication date on back cover). Where the '83.5 version showed two sets of break-in speeds, the early '84 version only showed one. Get it? Now, go get 'em!!!

Cheers!

[Bill Miller]

Eric,

The only reason this came up in the ARRC thread, was that we were discussing Derek's car. Some folks make comments about it being allowed to run the GTI gearbox. As I've stated before I brought this issue up a while ago, and I asked to have it corrected when I wrote the letter to have the 1.7 cars moved from ITB to ITC.

I keep hearing anecdotal accounts of '84 cars w/ 1.7s. Still haven't seen a VIN tag or build sheet that confirms this.

[Eric Parham]

Bill,

1) I respect you, and we've had some great discussions in the past, so I hope you won't resent me speaking my mind. You raised the legality issue in the ARRC thread, and proceeded to make a number of factual errors. I won't bother listing them since most have already been very diplomatically corrected by others. You've admitted in the past that you've never owned Sciroccos and had very limited first-hand knowledge of them, but failed to mention that in your ARRC-thread postings. You may also recall from our long-past conversations that I've owned, driven, bought, sold, repaired, parted, and scrounged in boneyards for many dozens of them over the years. I have no doubt of your superior GTI knowledge, but when it comes to Sciroccos, perhaps in spite of your best intentions, you will never have the first-hand knowledge of others gleaned from studying boatloads of recently-built cars (I say first-hand as opposed to hearsay or book-derived).

2) Frankly, I'm tired of VW GTI (Golf or Rabbit) drivers who have similar but non-identical documentation problems trying to knock down the Scirocco on this forum for unstated reasons. Yes, there weren't anywhere near as many Sciroccos built as GTIs, and correspondingly there are fewer people who know them well. The fact that they were built in Germany mostly for export while the GTIs were built in Pennsylvania with leftover or shipping-delayed drivetrain parts just complicates the differences. You and I both know that the Rabbit GTI doesn't even have a close-ratio listed in the approved factory shop manual. Thus, even you might have had a hard time proving that your former-ITB GTI came with a close-ratio if not for the pure numbers of people in SCCA who've owned them. Speaking of the former ITB car, did it become the Prod car or is it in storage for some future use??

3) I object to a gearbox that was clearly offered in Sciroccos being called "the GTI gearbox". It's confusing, and there's a negative implication that is completely inappropriate. Your issue seems to be whether it (actually one of two gearboxes) was offered in the 1715cc (1.7L) Scirocco, but I believe that you accept that it was at least offered in the 1781cc (1.8L) Scirocco. A more accurate term at this point would be "the 1984 Scirocco 4K or 9A gearbox", which differ only in R&P ratios (3.94 and 3.67, respectively). Although the 4K was offered in both Rabbit GTIs and Sciroccos in 1984, the 9A was offered only in the Scirocco in 84 (and in the Golf GTI starting in 85).

4) Thank you, I didn't know that you wrote "the letter" getting the 1.7 Scirocco moved to ITC. That was very generous of you, particularly in light of your apparent lack of Scirocco knowledge. I suggest that you may have written a letter to get the Rabbit 1.7L moved, with an aside in an attempt to knock down the potential of "the other" inevitable ITC 1.7L VW. I guess Derek and I might owe you a beer after all (temperature to be determined).

5) You mention not seeing any pertinent Scirocco VINs or build sheets. In all my years of Scirocco hoarding (now over at request of wife), I think I've only come across one or two original window stickers (assuming that's what you mean by "build sheet"). The problem may have been that they were glued to the rear window and removal wasn't easy, but that's not a question I can answer. As far as providing VINs, that would be a stretch at this point even if we knew exactly what we were looking for. Many Scirocco 1.7L cars were sacrificed to restore 1.8L cars, and the 84 was never a desireable race car (slightly heavier, less durable and less aerodynamic than 82-83). In addition, the VINs do not indicate the gearbox type, so it all seems rather pointless to me. Finally, I just don't have time for it.

6) Is it fair for you to second-guess every detail ever decided by the Comp Board or ITAC without a proper protest? Back in the 10:1 engine debate, I spent so much time on this forum that my Scirocco suffered from lack of maintenance when I finally did make it to the track. I won't repeat that -- it's just not worth it to me (or to my family who count on me to be conscious afterwards).

Very truly yours,
Eric

[Bill Miller]

Eric,

I appreciate you speaking your mind. I'll speak to your points in order.

1) Actually, I have owned a few Sciroccos, and currently have 2 (76.5 and 81). And by all means, please list the factual errors that I've made. I certainly don't consider myself a Scirocco expert, which is one of the reasons that I started this thread here. I'm trying to get at how these cars really came. And while I may not have the level of personal experience that you have, I do respect the information that I get from people such as Dick Shine. Anyone that's been involved w/ VWs as long as we have, knows how bad their docs are, and how they mixed and matched parts. If there's evidence out there that disputes what's in ETKA and the other relevant docs, I'll be just as happy as Derek if it's found.

2) You're right, there is no mention of the close-ratio box in the Bentley manual, either for the GTI, or the Scirocco. But, there is a significant amount of documentation that shows the close-ratio box (actually, a couple) in the Rabbit GTI. That's anything from sales brochures, to the factory parts database (ETKA). I have yet to find similar documentation for the Scirocco. The old car was sold.

3) I apologize for labeling the 4K the "GTI gearbox". However, I believe it was Mark Coffin that first referred to it as such, (on the first page of the thread in the ARRC forum, Derek also refers to it as the 'gti box' in the next post). I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading, or confusing. And as far as the 9A goes, it was listed in both the Rabbit and Scirocco for the end of the model year (7/84) in ETKA. And why would't I 'accept' [sic] that the close-ratio box came w/ the 1.8 8v Sciroccos? There's plenty of documentation that supports it (sales literature, ETKA).

4) I wrote the letter to have ALL the 1.7 VWs (Rabbit, Scirocco II, and Jetta I) moved to ITC, because they stood no chance whatsoever in ITB. I wasn't trying to 'knock down' anything. I resent you implying that I was.

5) By 'build sheet', I mean the sticker that's on the inside, between the tail lights. It would look similar to this, and would indicate the engine and trans code, as well as the VIN #


***************************************
SORT. NR. 1014 ??-1-9680 422 UA
FAHRG. NR.
Chassis NO. WVWCAO53 ? DK034452
533 R44
MOTORKB / getr. kb
ENG CODE/ TRANS CODE JH 2H
LACKNR / INNENAUSST
PAINT NO/ INTERIOR [Y9V 92

M-AUSST / OPTIONS D04 D73 R82 002 027
425 465 651
*************************************





And while I know you can't determine the transmission from the VIN #, if you'll check the issues listed at the start of this thread, I was attempting to document an '84 car w/ a 1.7 engine. This is something you can tell from the VIN #, as it includes a year digit as well as an engine size digit. I never expected the VIN # to answer the transmission question. Sorry if you got that impression.

5) I'm not sure why you feel that a correction in specifications should be addressed through the protest process. The way I understand it, that's not what the protest process is for.

You talk about looking at the Scirocco owner's manual for engine break-in speeds, and the fact that the late '83 (83.5 to use your label) contained two sets of break-in speeds. Your conclusion is that that is an indication of two different transmissions. I don't dispute the fact that there were two different transmissions (as well as two different engines) available in the Sciroccos in '83. The ETKA documentation shows the 1.7 and the wide-ratio transmission, offered throughout the entire '83 m/y. It also shows the 1.8 and the close-ratio transmission offered from 1/83 (83.5?) to the end of the m/y (7/83). I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the two different break-in speeds imply that a 1.7 came w/ a close-ratio transmission. Especially in light of the case that there appears to be no other documentation that supports this. To me, the much more logical conclusion is that:

higher engine break-in speed = car w/ 1.7 and wide-ratio box
lower engine break-in speed = car w/ 1.8 and close-ratio box

[Eric Parham]

Bill,

Thank you for your considered response.

1) Those are Scirocco I's rather than II's that you own. They're no closer to a Scirocco II than your GTI, IMHO.

I also respect Dick Shine's VW expertise, possibly above all others. I will speak with him when I get back to make sure that he wasn't misquoted and is certain that he correctly remembers the facts. I think it's safe to say that until this year, the Scirocco II 1.7 probably wasn't exactly a car of interest to him.

2) Thank you. But I don't understand why you say "I have yet to find similar documentation for the Scirocco" since the documentation seems to be roughly equivalent to the GTI's.

3) Fair enough, but please be more careful not to perpetuate the mistakes of others.

4) I apologize for the implication. Consider it retracted.

5) Ah yes, the old trunk decal. I've found more of those with errors than correct, and I would hate for this discussion to hinge on such unreliable information. For example, I've seen an old Scirocco label that indicates it came with an Audi engine (the longitudinal type, no less). I have a Golf in my driveway that indicates a gearbox that I know didn't come in it (it has a known history). My Mom had a Jetta Carat that really came with an AUG close-ratio but said ACN (wide ratio) on the sticker. I've found others where the VIN didn't match the rest of the car! In addition, even if we manage to find a surviving and intact 84 1.7, the chances that the trunk decal will still be intact and legible are slim to none (especially if they ever had a flat tire in the rain).

The VIN does include a year digit and an engine size RANGE digit. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, but I recall not being able to get Denver to recognize my 1984 Jetta GLI 1.8L (1781cc) because I could not prove that it had a different engine than the Jetta 1.7L (1715cc) that they already had listed. If I'm not mistaken, the engine range code for German built 1984 cars was exactly the same letter for 1715cc and 1781cc cars. I don't have any docs with me (I'm out of the country until the end of the month), but I think this info is in the microfiche or the Bentley (I recall that it was missing from ETKA). Please check it if you have time and LMK.

6) Hmmm, interesting point of view. I don't see how the interests of the members currently running the car in question can be adequately represented without some sort of protest. If the change were being requested by that car owner then the interests are reasonably protected, but why should any party NOT IN INTEREST be able to unilaterally request a change to another member's car specs? For example, I don't see the Rabbit GTI close-ratio gearbox as listed in the ITB specs in the factory shop manual, so even though I don't own a Rabbit GTI and I'm not even in the same class, should I be allowed to write Topeka for a "correction" to delete it and list the wide ratio instead???

To clarify, my point with the owners manuals was NOT that the two transmissions in the 83.5 manual evidenced a close-ratio in the 1.7L for 83 (although, on reflection, maybe they don't preclude it). What my original point was is that the single transmission (indicated by break-in speeds) in the 84.0 manual did indicate a close-ratio in ALL early 84 Sciroccos. It may not be evident to a casual observer, but the percentage change between each speed-in-gear number can be compared to the gear ratios for potential gearboxes, and in this case they match up perfectly to a close-ratio type. You might ask if the owner's manual could be in error, and I'd have to admit that it's possible. But still, it is pertinent EVIDENCE of a close-ratio gearbox in a 1984 Scirocco with 1715cc engine.

Cheers,
Eric

[Bill Miller]

Eric,

1) Those are just the current Sciroccos that I own. And yes, I realize that they are Mk Is. I've owned an '82 (1.7) and an '84 (1.8).

2) While the physical documentation is there, it does not indicate a Scirocco II w/ a 1.7 and a close-ratio box, nor does it indicate an '84 Scirocco II w/ a 1.7

3) Will do

4) Thank you

5) If the build sheet can not be taken as accurate, then how do we know what came w/ what? And yes, there is a digit in the VIN # that indicates the engine size. It's the 5th digit, and for the years in question, a 'C' indicates the 1780 (1.8) engine. This is the digit that prevents anyone from using an '83 or '84 Rabbit shell to build a GTI out of.

I think anyone has the right to request a correction to the spec line of any car, provided they have evidence to support it.

The owner's manual that you refer to, that you're using as evidence that the early '84 Sciroccos came w/ a close ratio engine, what engine size does it list for the car? If it lists a 1.7, that's great. If not, you can't use that to support a close-ratio box w/ a 1.7, if in fact there ever were '84 S IIs w/ 1.7s. And if you're going to discount the build sheet, why would an owner's manual get more credibility?

[Eric Parham]

Okay. Now we're actually getting somewhere.

If a "'C' indicates the 1780 (1.8) engine" for an 82-84 German-built car, please tell what letter indicates a 1715cc (1.7L) engine for an 82-84 German-built car. Please don't rely on US-built Rabbit/GTI knowledge here, since I've already pointed out that it's different. If it's really a different letter for each engine, then it might be easier to find just by doing a DMV search even if the car has since had an engine swap.

I don't have any documentation with me (currently out of country). If my memory serves from about 5 years ago, I believe that the 84.0 owner's manual listed both engine sizes rather than one or the other. I think that the published owner's manual has much greater credibility than the trunk decal for the following reasons (note that I'm not saying "build sheet" because I don't know if that's a valid assumption):

A) The published owner's manual is typically checked at several levels, including by engineering, advertising and legal departments. If there was an error in the recommended break-in speeds, can you imagine the liability implications for VW?

B) I don't really know how the trunk decals work, but I suspect that they are typically filled in on-the-fly on the assembly line (either that or they're typed up ahead of time but not followed accurately). Mistakes are made due to typographical errors, parts confusion and laziness ("aw, it's basically the same as the last one, right Fritz?"). Clearly, these things almost never get checked by anyone, except for the occasional paint code reference (which is unfortunate because that's often wrong as well -- just ask any paint shop).

As an aside, I sometimes find what might be called a "build sheet" tucked into or under the rear seat. It's usually in German and somewhat cryptic, but I'm fairly certain that it only refers to interior and trim and not to any drivetrain components. Sometimes they're actually initialed or checked off.

[Bill Miller]

Eric,

The digit value for a 1.7 (1715) is either "A" or "B", for the period 1982-1984. For that same period, "C" is the only code for the 1.8 (1780).

The owner's manual for the '84 Scirocco I had, only listed 1 engine, the 1.8 (1780). Unfortunately, I can't tell you if it was an early, or late car.

And while I can understand that mistakes are made during assembly, the presence of an EN/4K or EN/9A (even EN/2H or EN/FK) would be a solid indication that a car w/ a 1.7 and a close-ratio box was delivered. If you can't find any official documentation that the car was delivered that way, even if there are examples out there, they would be considered 'mistakes', and not cars generally offered for sale.

As far as the engine break-in speeds go, are there 2 different sets of values for the late '84 cars? I would think so, as the end of the m/y got the 9A trans, which you've pointed out, has a 3.67 R&P ratio, vs. the 3.94 for the 4K trans. I would expect to see the break-in speeds for the two, for each gear, to differ by ~7.5%.

[madrabbit15]

Heres one for you guys........

wvwca0537ek019556

'84 scirocco 1.8 liter. According to all of the books if this was a 1.8 the fifth digit should be a 'C", but its not. Its an 'A' so this car must not exsist. :P This car is on ebay if anyone wants to take a look.

Sorry could help myself.

Derek

[Eric Parham]

Nice goin' Derek :) I'd say that's a Bingo! The car has the small rear spoiler but two front wipers which is exactly what I'd expect for an early '84 1.7L. The VIN indicates a 1.7L (according to Bill) since the 5th digit is an "A" as well as an '84 model year since the 10th digit is an "E". The seller says it has a 1.8L, but the engine code he gives is "GX" which is for an '85 to '86 base model Golf (never originally installed in a Scirocco), so it's obviously had an engine swap. As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed! Let's go racin'!!

[Bill Miller]

Nice find Derek. Would certainly seem to indicate that you could get an '84 w/ a 1.7. Although, I couldn't find the car on ebay. Could you provide the link to the auction?

Eric,

While it may support an '84 w/ a 1.7, it certainly doesn't close the close-ratio trans issue.

[madrabbit15]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1984-8v-vw-...997234368QQrdZ1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1984-8v-vw-scirocco_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6783QQitemZ799 7234368QQrdZ1)



There is the link, it is an '84 red scirocco. I might try to get the vin number in a picture or something seeing how Topeka doesnt even believe that vin came in '84.



Derek

[Knestis]

Okay - this is a really academic question but why are we working so hard to find a VIN number that proves the 1.7 Scirocco II exists, when the one on Derek's car should be proof enough?

K

[Greg Amy]

Allow me to summarize:

1) The '84 Scheisrocket has been classified in ITC with a 1.7L engine, listed with either the wide- or close-ratio transaxle.

2) Neither Bill Miller (nor I) believed that a) the 1.7L was available in '84, and B) the close-ratio box was ever available with the 1.7L engine.

3) After speaking with Dick Shine and a few other folks, I learned that the 1.7L *was* available in '84, although it was extremely rare. However, I could find no evidence that the close-ratio box was ever delivered with a 1.7L engine, in any year, any car. The former point has been supported with VIN identification, the latter point unsupported.

4) Therefore, the "1984 1.7L Scirocco" point is moot.

So the issue at hand is now: is there any documentation to prove that the close-ratio transaxle ever came on any 1.7L Scirocco (or any other car with a 1.7, for that matter)? - GA

[madrabbit15]

Greg,

I appreciate your interest, but I feel you have missed something. From my understand all that Topeka has asked is to see at this point is a vin # from a '84 1.7. At this point that is what I am trying to find. They already have the 84' owners manuals.

Derek

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 7 2005, 01:31 PM
From my understand all that Topeka has asked is to see at this point is a vin # from a '84 1.7.
59805


Exactly WHERE did you garner this understanding?? WHO has asked this??

[madrabbit15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 31 2005, 02:01 PM
I got this from a current CRB member.

While I haven't seen it, my understanding about the supporting documentation is, that it was from a late '84 Owner's Manual. It didn't actually state the gear ratios, however, they were derived from what the suggested break-in speeds were.

As far as the '84 w/ the 1.7, the anecdotal (sp?) accounts are great, but I want to see photos of VIN tags that show the proper engine code and year code.

59385



Here ya go, Bill posted this after speaking to someone on the CRB. Thats where I got it.

Greg,

After finding that vin # with the engine code "A" as all of the records say is a 1.7 (other than a "C" for 1.8) and being an '84, I think you owe someone a six pack. I prefer a four pack of guiness. I will send my address if it will make a difference.

Thanks,

Derek

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 7 2005, 07:08 PM
...I think you owe someone a six pack. I prefer a four pack of guiness.

I do believe you are correct, my man! (damn archives... :023: ) How about we go double-or-nothing on the close-ratio? ;)

Hell, I'll buy the 'twelve' anyway and share it with ya...

[madrabbit15]

This is a question for everyone.........

So If I were to actually find and have in my hand a vin tag from an '84 1.7 car :unsure: , and all of the vw microfiche and other crap you guys are posting say that the wide ratio gear box was never put into an '84 car, then would that be any kind of evidence that a 1.7 might have come with other than a wide ratio box?

I just want to hear some options.............


Thanks,

Derek

[Knestis]

Again, I'm only in this for rules NERD reasons and don't have a dog in the fight, but...


Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 7 2005, 11:37 PM
..... So If I were to actually find and have in my hand a vin tag from an '84 1.7 car :unsure:

You SHOULD already have one on your car, if that's what you've built. This is precisely the reason the VIN number, "can't build a model" requirement is on the books. If you don't have a VIN tag that says you have a "Scirocco II 1.7 (82-84)" then I'm afraid that you would lose the protest if I heard it. That's a dumb rule, I agree, but that's how it is.

On the other hand, I would find in your favor this season re: the close-ratio "GTI" gearbox, since that's what's in the rules (the ITCS spec line for your car), too. I am NOT in a position to come down on any side of the question, in any official capacity but I think my findings are supported by the current paperwork.

That all might change with the next ITCS release, of course.


... and all of the vw microfiche and other crap you guys are posting say that the wide ratio gear box was never put into an '84 car, then would that be any kind of evidence that a 1.7 might have come with other than a wide ratio box?

I'm not sure I understand the question here. The absence of evidence AGAINST something is NOT evidence to support it, if that's what you are asking. I think that at the end of the day, it's necessary to have something that shows the actual ratios before you can have anything defined into the spec line.

If that something - not an inference from break-in revs, since that's a huge stretch - shows the "wide ratio" (slow, economical) gearset, then that's legal. If it shows the "close ratio" (zoomy, GTI-spec) gears, then THEY are OK.

If documentation exists that shows both, even if it's in different places, then they logically would both be fine. I can completely believe that any of these resolutions are possible, given VW practice during transition builds but until it is in print in an official pub, it's not "right" and might get changed by CRB action.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think Kirk stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

:happy204:

AB

[DENNISC020]

what info from VW would be helpful? I have a VW rep going to be at my dealership 9/14 and he has offered us his help. He is from Auburn Hills so he may access to info that may help us with production numbers. (1.7 vs 1.8)

[madrabbit15]

Kirk,

The reason we are seeking an '84 vin is because that is the year that the gearbox would have come on a 1.7. My car is an '83. '82-84' 1.7 scirocco II are on the same spec line. If it turns out that the gear box did come on an '84 and they want to add an new spec line because of it, thats fine, but right now they are on the same spec line. There are lots of cars in the gcr that were different models in different years that are on the same spec line.

People are doubting that a 1.7 even came in 84. That is something I think we know for a fact now. As far as the gear box, I hope it did, but right now it doesnt look like it. I am not a microfiche worm so I really do not research it to the extent that some of those guys have. I have gotten what I need to run either way. Ya, I would still like to use the close ratio, so if i find something that might support it great.

As far as my question goes, you answered it, and I tend to agree with you.

Derek

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 7 2005, 07:08 PM
Here ya go, Bill posted this after speaking to someone on the CRB. Thats where I got it.

Greg,

After finding that vin # with the engine code "A" as all of the records say is a 1.7 (other than a "C" for 1.8) and being an '84, I think you owe someone a six pack. I prefer a four pack of guiness. I will send my address if it will make a difference.

Thanks,

Derek

59836


Wow Derek, talk about taking something totally out of context!! Why didn't you quote the whole post??


Greg,

Thanks for the info. My hope, in starting this thread, was to get people like Dick to chime in and contribute. Also, giving the timing of this whole thing, it's probably a moot point for the balance of '05. I got this from a current CRB member.

While I haven't seen it, my understanding about the supporting documentation is, that it was from a late '84 Owner's Manual. It didn't actually state the gear ratios, however, they were derived from what the suggested break-in speeds were.

As far as the '84 w/ the 1.7, the anecdotal (sp?) accounts are great, but I want to see photos of VIN tags that show the proper engine code and year code.



The "I got this from a current CRB member" comment was in the previous paragraph, and was in reference to something happening this year. It had absolutely nothing to do w/ the supporting documentation. I got that information from Eric Parham.

Shame on you Derek! Are those the kind of tactics you're going to resort to, taking comments totally out of context? As I said, I'll admit that I was wrong about an '84 Scirocco w/ a 1.7. I'll even send you your beer. In fact, I hope you enjoy it. But, it still doesn't prove squat for the close-ratio trans.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 8 2005, 01:35 AM
... The reason we are seeking an '84 vin is because that is the year that the gearbox would have come on a 1.7.
That clarifies things - thanks, Derek. You are saying that the CR gearbox didn't come out until '84, so IF it were available, then that would be the only year that it could have been on the 1.7 Scirocco II, right? So far, that tracks. That's only half the battle, though - it's still necessary to demonstrate that it actually DID come on that car with that engine, but you know that. :)


My car is an '83. '82-84' 1.7 scirocco II are on the same spec line. If it turns out that the gear box did come on an '84 and they want to add an new spec line because of it, thats fine, but right now they are on the same spec line.
That is good news, as far as the ARRC is concerned for example. Worst case, you ditch the good 'box and you are protest-resistant. Thanks for indulging my curiousity.

K

[Bill Miller]

Well, it looks like if nothing else, VW is consistent w/ their inconsistent documentation. While the reported VIN# decode shows only a "C" engine code for the 1.8, it looks like VW didn't follow that. Here are pictures of VIN# info and trunk stickers from two different '84 Sciroccos

Grey car: Brown interior, Cruise control. Build: 10/83, Pewter Grey Metallic
http://www.vintagewatercooleds.com/tech/Link/Build-graycar.jpg

White car: Blue interior. Build: 12/83, L90E - Alpine white
http://www.vintagewatercooleds.com/tech/Link/Build-whitecar.jpg

http://www.vintagewatercooleds.com/tech/Link/sticker-graycar.jpg


Note that both have an 'A' for the engine code digit (5th digit) in the VIN#, however both are listed as JH motors (1.8) on the trunk stickers. Based on the sequential section of the VIN# (last 6 digits), looks like first car was built prior to the one that Derek listed from fleabay, and the second one was built afterwards.

Also notice that there's a window sticker for the 1st car, which indicates a 1.8 engine. I know that Eric has stated that the trunk stickers can be in error, but I doubt that the window sticker would be in error. Talk about liability, advertising the car w/ a 1.8, when it has 1.7 in it.

So, I think it's pretty safe to say that you can not tell the engine size from the VIN# on (at the very least) a 1984 Scirocco.

Doesn't disprove that an '84 w/ a 1.7 doesn't exist, just shows that we can't go by the VIN#. Not sure what can be used then. Window sticker? Trunk sticker? Madam Zelda and her crystal ball?

Guess I'll have to drink that beer myself! :023:

[madrabbit15]

I swear,

Production racing is sounding better and better all the time especially if you run a vw. This documentation thing with vin#s and build codes and vw documents that are not right makes it hard to prove anything and impossible to prove nothing.

Good find Bill. I guess after all this, I might have to drink a couple of six packs with you.


Derek

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Sep 8 2005, 05:54 PM
I swear,

Production racing is sounding better and better all the time especially if you run a vw. This documentation thing with vin#s and build codes and vw documents that are not right makes it hard to prove anything and impossible to prove nothing.

Good find Bill. I guess after all this, I might have to drink a couple of six packs with you.
Derek

59891


I suspect that more than a few Miatas will head to Production as well once SM gets a little crazy after it's a national class. And I agree with Derek, when you're racing a 20 yr old car, it's a pain to have to race with and document "stock" parts on a race car. :014:

Derek, when you're ready to come on over to prod, we'll be here to welcome you!! I'm doing my best to recruit VW racers and convert them to prod racers!

:birra:

MC

[charrbq]

If you think finding accurate documentation fromVW is tough, try a Honda. Honda continually modified parts throughout a year run and didn't tell anyone about it! This has been a major problem in the past, but it's been covered by the GCR/ITCS.
Derek, IMHO, if you built your car to the specs listed in the ITCS, it's legal. Unless the specs are modified in the future, screw 'em. You're fast, with a fast car...well built and well developed.
My only fear was the same as what I had when the fuel injected Civics came into C and the same as when the CRX's were dropped down from B. I feared that the development time involved and to be involved would be for naught as someone new came onto the block and kicked sand in my face. That's not been the case.
I didn't know you when you first raced with me in Atlanta. Admittedly, I was a slug which I found to be a broken header (and bad driving), but you rocketed by me in the ECR like I was sitting down. During the SARRC, I saw the difference...you were there, but not dominate. Again, my fear was that the car was new to the class and someone had built one that fast out of the box without the development time to come.
This is the same fear that the 510's and the Corolla's had when the Honda's came into ITC. History shows they were justified.
You and your car are front runners...that's all. When you get up towards the top, the air is thin.

As far as production, it's a great way to make a small fortune into pocket change. You can do more to a car, but then you have to. IMHO
;)

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by charrbq@Sep 13 2005, 04:04 PM

As far as production, it's a great way to make a small fortune into pocket change. You can do more to a car, but then you have to. IMHO
;)

60078


I agree with you there. :023: If you want to run at the front in any class, you have to ante up. However, what's the going rate to run up front in ITS?? Talk about turning a fortune into pocket change! :119:

When I ran ITC, I just grew bored of not being able to do anything to the car to make it faster and with ITC fields shrinking, I decided to step up to the next level. I do miss the wheel to wheel racing in ITC but I DON'T miss dodging Wreck Pinatas... :bash_1_:

MC

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by racer14itc@Sep 14 2005, 02:24 PM
I agree with you there. :023: If you want to run at the front in any class, you have to ante up. However, what's the going rate to run up front in ITS?? Talk about turning a fortune into pocket change! :119:

When I ran ITC, I just grew bored of not being able to do anything to the car to make it faster and with ITC fields shrinking, I decided to step up to the next level. I do miss the wheel to wheel racing in ITC but I DON'T miss dodging Wreck Pinatas... :bash_1_:

MC

60147



Just wait 'till next year Mark!!!!

[charrbq]

I really enjoyed crewing for a National Champion in H production. We won the first year they raced in Mid Ohio, but we suffered many years of not so good finishes. If I was to go back, I would love to be somehow in every turn and straight in Topeka during the Spec Miata race. It's amazing how many of them have come from out of the wood work, and how many drivers have come from out of the woods. No offense intended, but as in most spec classes, the have's are there for a reason, and the have not's are there to pass.

I'll agree with the ITS deal. A friend did everything he could to talk me into building an ITS 240Z. I decided that there was more to be gained from improving my driving than from horsepower. I confirmed that last year with a ride in a potential ITA championship winning car...I was a sled. I turned faster times 6 months later at the same track in my own ITC car.

Peter Principal.

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 14 2005, 09:11 PM
Just wait 'till next year Mark!!!!

60177


I really HOPE that we never get grouped with the Wreck Pinatas. If anything, they'll have their own group or get grouped with Showroom stock, as they should. However that being said, if here in the southeast division a race chairman gets seriously stupid and puts the prod cars in with the SM's then I'll definitely consider skipping that race. :angry:

On the bright side, an extra 40-50 cars per national will bring in more money for the regions.

MC

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by racer14itc@Sep 16 2005, 07:47 AM
I really HOPE that we never get grouped with the Wreck Pinatas. If anything, they'll have their own group or get grouped with Showroom stock, as they should. However that being said, if here in the southeast division a race chairman gets seriously stupid and puts the prod cars in with the SM's then I'll definitely consider skipping that race. :angry:

On the bright side, an extra 40-50 cars per national will bring in more money for the regions.

MC

60364


Mark,

You're probably right, there will probably be enough of them to get their own run group. But, that presents the problem of how do you add another run group.

And I doubt that it will be 40-50 NEW cars. Sure, you'll get some new folks out there, but probably not that many. I think it will be mostly guys moving from Regionals to Nationals. So you get to charge them a bit more.

Good luck in Ohio!! Do us VW drivers proud! :023:

[Knestis]

Originally posted by racer14itc@Sep 16 2005, 11:47 AM
... if here in the southeast division a race chairman gets seriously stupid and puts the prod cars in with the SM's then I'll definitely consider skipping that race. :angry:

Scott Giles did an informal study of ITC entry numbers and the data suggest that they are less likely to show up when grouped with the Me-otters.

K

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 16 2005, 12:05 PM
Mark,

You're probably right, there will probably be enough of them to get their own run group. But, that presents the problem of how do you add another run group.

And I doubt that it will be 40-50 NEW cars. Sure, you'll get some new folks out there, but probably not that many. I think it will be mostly guys moving from Regionals to Nationals. So you get to charge them a bit more.

Good luck in Ohio!! Do us VW drivers proud! :023:

60366


My theory is that many of the local guys will run their local national, and still support the regional series. The hardcore national SM guys will run more than the minimum 4 races, so at least the national races will make more money than now. What will the net/net result be? I have no idea.

If the region puts on a straight national race, there is room for the SM race group. IIRC, the Summit Point national has a vintage group in there (it did the '04) so the region may have to drop a support race like that to fit the SM's in. If the regions get greedy and try to stuff 40-50 cars in with another race group then some other folks will reconsider racing that national.

In Atlanta for example, they have Pro-IT races during the national race weekend. I'm curious to see what happens there... :blink:

MC

[charrbq]

No offense against the SM guys, their cars, the drivers, their driving styles, etc. They put on a helluva race to watch, but not be in the middle of in another class of car. They are on a seperate mission on the track. I've benefited from some of them screwing up and racing with ITC, and I've been screwed up by the same.
Placing them in a group with us is as maniacal as when they used to group Spec Renaults with the small bore sedans and production cars. Lap times are close to the same, but driving, handling, braking, acceleration, etc. are all drastically different.
I&#39;d rather race my ITC car with the entire IT field or the small production cars than with SMs. There are differences in performance, but you aren&#39;t in the middle of a 5-10 car group battling for the same piece of turf. Nor are you involved with someone too slow to run with his class and settles for a race with a lower classed cars just to get his cookies off. <_<