16v Cars

[imsafanct]

Guys,

I need a refresher...Did the SCCA move the 2.0L 16v ('90-'92) cars to ITA and or move the 1.8L 16v cars to ITB? I still love the idea of winning in IT w/ a 16v car but I don't recall is being possible for some time now. Any input?

-Eric

[Knestis]

2.0 16v is now in A but the 1.8 16v is still there, too.

I would love to build one of the 2.0 cars but they're just too damned rare. And people tend to take care of them, so they think they are all worth real money...

K

[shwah]

2.0 16v is now in A but the 1.8 16v is still there, too.

I would love to build one of the 2.0 cars but they're just too damned rare. And people tend to take care of them, so they think they are all worth real money...

K
[/b]

I don't think the 2 liter is worth the extra weight. These cars have the same everything, except for 11hp stock, and probably not much more difference in IT trim. You gain some torque, but the brakes are still little 9.6 inch affairs up front.

Having said that, I think the 1.8 could still win in ITA. It would be fun to find out, but I have other fun to trys on the list before I get to that one.

[Ron Earp]

How much fwhp can you guys make from a 2L VW 16V? Just interested as the motor is essentially very similar in many aspects to my own 2L 16V JH motor. However, the JH is in S, not A. Once I get some dyno data I'll post mine openly to share.

Thanks,
Ron

[RSTPerformance]

Some have suggested that extra weight has helped VW if it is in the rear... with that I would wonder if the extra weight is an inconveinence rather than a reason not to want an extra 11hp to start with?

Raymond

[shwah]

Some have suggested that extra weight has helped VW if it is in the rear... with that I would wonder if the extra weight is an inconveinence rather than a reason not to want an extra 11hp to start with?

Raymond
[/b]

You can get the 1.8 well within weight and keep it where you want it too, but still not have all that extra mass to stop and turn. I just don't see any way the 2 liter is worth all that weight. It would be cool to see someone prove me wrong.

[imsafanct]

Ron,

Perhaps I'm mis-understanding your post but are saying there are 2 different versions of the 2.0L 16v engine? I always though there was one?

What do you mean when you say the JH is in S not A? Thanks.

As an aside, I still feel it's too bad that the SCCA can't appropriately class or adjust the specs of smilar cars produced during roughly the same periods of time.

I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.

-Eric

[lateapex911]

Ron,


I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.

-Eric
[/b]

I'll have to double check the years and models etc to be sure I'm being accurate, but.......

How do you know they aren't???

[insert old quote mode ON] "...bla bal bla, IT isn't about balancig every car on the head of a pin, Some cars have qualities that make them better race cars than other very similar cars, It's the competitors choice as to which he wishes to run, and for what reasons, bla bla bla..." [insert old quote mode OFF]

Other factors could very well play into the equation as well. Acuras are very very well developed, and have a huge base of players, where other marques haven't seen the same support. That support equates nearly directly into speed on the track.

[Eric Parham]

Did the SCCA . . . move the 1.8L 16v cars to ITB? I still love the idea of winning in IT w/ a 16v car but I don't recall is being possible for some time now. Any input?[/b]

Not yet, but I recently sent in a letter about the weight or class of the Scirocco 1.8L 16V, which is currently at a whopping 2320 pounds in ITA. No A1 chassis car should be forced to carry that much weight, IMHO. If they drop the weight to that of the other Sciroccos, it might be worth a try in A. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother trying one until they eventually (inevitably?) move it to B.

[Eric Parham]

I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.[/b]

I'm afraid that you're mixing apples and oranges here. AFAIK, all of the 1.6L and 1.8L 16V Integras were VTEC (an earlier form of variable valve timing). With the stock camshafts in IT, even a 1.6L VTEC (142 hp stock?) is going to make more power than a 1.8L 16V VW (123 hp stock) or even a 2.0L 16V VW (134 hp stock), for example. VW finally sold a variable valve timing engine in the US with the later 1.8L 20V, but unfortunately they all came with turbos so not eligible for IT (Europe got some in N.A. form).

[Knestis]

...What do you mean when you say the JH is in S not A? Thanks.[/b]
Ron's talking about the 2 liter 16v Jensen Healey that he's built. It's got a Lotus engine.


...I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.[/b]
The primary reason is probably there aren't three really well-built, well-driven examples of those cars all living in the same place. The fact of the matter is that so few IT cars are really built to the maximum allowed by the rules, AND driven with high degrees of talent, that comparisons are impossible.

K

[shwah]

Not yet, but I recently sent in a letter about the weight or class of the Scirocco 1.8L 16V, which is currently at a whopping 2320 pounds in ITA. No A1 chassis car should be forced to carry that much weight, IMHO. If they drop the weight to that of the other Sciroccos, it might be worth a try in A. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother trying one until they eventually (inevitably?) move it to B.
[/b]

I do think the Scirocco 16v should have a weight penalty compared to the 1.8 16v GTI. The 1/2" larger brakes and lower drag bodywork need to be accounted for. I don't know what that weight should be, or whether it is correct now.




I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.

-Eric
[/b]

Next time you have a chance, take a look at the exhaust ports on the VW 16v head. You will see why it is a leg down on more recent efforts by other manufacturers. The flow can be improved here, but not within IT rules.

The 1.8 16v head has larger intake ports than the 2.0 head, but they both have a difficult exhaust side. This is why the factory cam set has a more aggressive exhaust side. The 2.0 will have noticibly better torque out of tight turns, the 1.8 should feel better up top. At least those are my impressions after driving 16V vws on the street for the last 11 years.

Stock power for the motors was 1.8=123, 2.0=134. The CIS-E injection on the 1.8 is easier to tweak to get the right fueling than the CIS-E Motronic on the 2.0. You would need a method of burning custom chips for the 2.0 to really get it right. These facts and the huge weight difference for an otherwise identical car are all reasons that I would still not seriously consider a 2.0 16v GTI.

[Eric Parham]

I do think the Scirocco 16v should have a weight penalty compared to the 1.8 16v GTI. The 1/2" larger brakes and lower drag bodywork need to be accounted for. I don't know what that weight should be, or whether it is correct now.[/b]

Careful there, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges too. The ONLY real similarity that those 2 cars have is the "PL" 1.8L 16V engine (actually just the long block). The A1-chassis Scirocco 16V is simply a re-styled (in '82) 1975 Rabbit/Scirocco chassis with some added urethane flairs. As I believe was pointed out in another thread, the A2-chassis '87 Golf 1.8 16V is actually more aerodynamic (lower Cd), particularly in race trim (windows down, etc.). Yes, the Scirocco has front brakes that are probably overkill for braking, but also weigh a lot more (both unsprung and rotating inertia) than the perfectly adequate vented front brakes on the Golf. On many tracks, I suspect that the lighter brakes might have the advantage. Back on point, though, they are completely different cars aside from the long block (even the manifolds and motor mounts are different).

On the actual Scirocco weight issue, please keep in mind that the 86-88 Scirocco 16V has the same suspension and front hubs as its 1975 predecessors. This is well-known as a serious weak link in these cars, so they should not be forced to carry too much extra weight. For the record, I do still run the stock ones in my '83, but I would never protest anyone for running non-compliant larger ones after some of the failures/crashes that I've seen. Contrast that with the '87 Golf 16V, which had better ones, and even those were significantly strengthened yet again for the '88-'89 Golf 16V (same ITCS line).

Edit: When comparing 16V VWs, don't forget that even though the '89 Mexican-built Golf GTI 16V didn't get them, the '89 German-built Jetta GLI 16V went to 10.1 inch (256 mm) front brakes that year. I just noticed that the ITA VW brake specs listed in the '06 ITCS are completely wrong for the Jettas. Actually, there are several errors there for the Jetta 1.8L 16V including wheelbase, 5th gear, and brakes. I guess no one's been running one so it probably wasn't noticed before.

[shwah]

As I believe was pointed out in another thread, the A2-chassis '87 Golf 1.8 16V is actually more aerodynamic (lower Cd), particularly in race trim (windows down, etc.).[/b]
And when this is multiplied by the much smaller frontal area of the s-roc the result is less drag.


Yes, the Scirocco has front brakes that are probably overkill for braking, but also weigh a lot more (both unsprung and rotating inertia) than the perfectly adequate vented front brakes on the Golf. On many tracks, I suspect that the lighter brakes might have the advantage.[/b]
We can't write the rules to accomodate individual system designs, but they are correctly written to consider basic design parameters. In those terms 10.1" brakes are better than 9.6" brakes. I can make my 9.6s work, but honestly could use more force in my system and would find 10.1s beneficial.


Back on point, though, they are completely different cars aside from the long block (even the manifolds and motor mounts are different). [/b]
I just installed a used suspension from a 1984 GTI on my 1986 GTI this year. There were some minor changes to make, but they are not fundamentally different from a race car engineering perspective.


On the actual Scirocco weight issue, please keep in mind that the 86-88 Scirocco 16V has the same suspension and front hubs as its 1975 predecessors. This is well-known as a serious weak link in these cars, so they should not be forced to carry too much extra weight. For the record, I do still run the stock ones in my '83, but I would never protest anyone for running non-compliant larger ones after some of the failures/crashes that I've seen. Contrast that with the '87 Golf 16V, which had better ones, and even those were significantly strengthened yet again for the '88-'89 Golf 16V (same ITCS line).[/b]
Go take a look at the hubs on that 16v rocco next time. I don't have a set handy anymore, but I could SWEAR they were the larger bearing hubs. Let me know what you find. Regardless, this is part of the car selection process in IT.


Edit: When comparing 16V VWs, don't forget that even though the '89 Mexican-built Golf GTI 16V didn't get them, the '89 German-built Jetta GLI 16V went to 10.1 inch (256 mm) front brakes that year. I just noticed that the ITA VW brake specs listed in the '06 ITCS are completely wrong for the Jettas.
[/b]
You are right. The only A2 car with the 10.1 inch brakes is the 16v Jetta. It should be heavier than a 16v Golf IMO.

[Greg Amy]

I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail...
[/b]

Am I lost here? They are! My NX2000 is the same exact car as the Sentra SE-R, 1.8L 16V Integras have been kicking ass for a few years now, and the 2.0L GTi is being developed as we speak (and won a rain race at New Hampshire this year; its one of two or three appearances, as I recall...)

Shine's crew seems to think that the GTi can't be competitive (at 2475#) against the NX/SE-R (2515#) and the Integra (2595#) but I think they just need to get down-and-dirty and make it happen.



...Scirocco 1.8L 16V, which is currently at a whopping 2320 pounds in ITA.[/b]

Compared to similar cars already at nearly 2500#? I think that's a pretty good weight advantage!



AFAIK, all of the 1.6L and 1.8L 16V Integras were VTEC[/b]

Incorrect. The ITA Integras are not VTEC. Neither is the NX2000/SE-R.



...please keep in mind that the 86-88 Scirocco 16V has the same suspension and front hubs as its 1975 predecessors. This is well-known as a serious weak link in these cars...[/b]

Eric, next time we paddock together, go take a look underneath my Nissan. That suspension design is going to look AWFUL familiar to those with A1 Volkswagens...crappy econo car struts all the way around, baby!

[Eric Parham]

And when this is multiplied by the much smaller frontal area of the s-roc the result is less drag.[/b]

Good point on the frontal area and multiplier, but the final result does not necessarily follow. I'll give you that it may follow, for now :)


We can't write the rules to accomodate individual system designs, but they are correctly written to consider basic design parameters. In those terms 10.1" brakes are better than 9.6" brakes. I can make my 9.6s work, but honestly could use more force in my system and would find 10.1s beneficial.[/b]

Fair enough, especially since I think you're actually supposed to be running 9.4" (239mm).


I just installed a used suspension from a 1984 GTI on my 1986 GTI this year. There were some minor changes to make, but they are not fundamentally different from a race car engineering perspective.[/b]

True, I've done the opposite on a rallye car but it took a drill and some modified parts not legal for IT. I would still not consider the result as good as the original A2 equipment. The point is that it can't be done at all for IT.

Edit: Perhaps you were just talking about struts. I was talking about full uprights/bearings/hubs/tie-rods/balljoints etc. too.



Go take a look at the hubs on that 16v rocco next time. I don't have a set handy anymore, but I could SWEAR they were the larger bearing hubs. Let me know what you find. Regardless, this is part of the car selection process in IT.[/b]

I wish you were right, but I'm quite certain. The only difference on the A1 16V cars (and later A1 8V cars) was a thinner inner circlip to allow clearance for the larger 100mm later CV joints. The hubs themselves are exactly the same as the early junk.


You are right. The only A2 car with the 10.1 inch brakes is the 16v Jetta. It should be heavier than a 16v Golf IMO.[/b]

Okay, you'll get no argument from me that an A2 GTI deserves a slight weight break compared to and A2 GLI due to the better front brakes, better weight distribution, and better aerodynamics of sedan with spoiler versus hatchback. But I don't buy your argument that this type of equalization should extend to an A1-chassis Scirocco. They're just too dissimilar. BTW, I did just send an email to the Comp Board to try to get some of the errors fixed for the ITA 87-89 VW Jetta GLI 1.8L 16V, only, in case anyone wants to actually run one (but why bother at 50lbs more since even the Golf 16V doesn't seem competitive at less weight).

[Eric Parham]

Am I lost here? They are! My NX2000 is the same exact car as the Sentra SE-R, 1.8L 16V Integras have been kicking ass for a few years now, and the 2.0L GTi is being developed as we speak (and won a rain race at New Hampshire this year; its one of two or three appearances, as I recall...)[/b]

A rain race, eh?


Shine's crew seems to think that the GTi can't be competitive (at 2475#) against the NX/SE-R (2515#) and the Integra (2595#) but I think they just need to get down-and-dirty and make it happen. Compared to similar cars already at nearly 2500#? I think that's a pretty good weight advantage![/b]

Maybe... I just don't know. If a VW could do it (and I'm not convinced that it can), I'd have to think the ITA 90-92 Jetta GLI 2.0L 16V would be the best shot.


Incorrect. The ITA Integras are not VTEC. Neither is the NX2000/SE-R.[/b]

Didn't realize that. Thanks for the correction. My friend's old 1.6L Integra used to blow the doors off of my 1.8L 16V Scirocco, and both were stock at the time. I guess I incorrectly assumed his was VTEC. We swapped cars too, same result (Acura noticeably faster than VW).


Eric, next time we paddock together, go take a look underneath my Nissan. That suspension design is going to look AWFUL familiar to those with A1 Volkswagens...crappy econo car struts all the way around, baby![/b]

If you're implying that I should build an ITA 16V Scirocco and hope to hold a candle to your Egg, I think you may be giving me more credit than I deserve. No question that I would like to try it, but I just don't see it rising above an also-ran status at its current weight, even if I managed to finish a race on those poor little overstressed hubs. (Eric rosins violin bow for Greg).

[shwah]

Fair enough, especially since I think you're actually supposed to be running 9.4" (239mm). [/b]
I knew it was .1 off of 9.5.


True, I've done the opposite on a rallye car but it took a drill and some modified parts not legal for IT. I would still not consider the result as good as the original A2 equipment. The point is that it can't be done at all for IT.

Edit: Perhaps you were just talking about struts. I was talking about full uprights/bearings/hubs/tie-rods/balljoints etc. too.[/b]
Yes struts/shocks/springs


Okay, you'll get no argument from me that an A2 GTI deserves a slight weight break compared to and A2 GLI due to the better front brakes, better weight distribution, and better aerodynamics of sedan with spoiler versus hatchback.[/b]
The brakes are the only real advantage IMO.


But I don't buy your argument that this type of equalization should extend to an A1-chassis Scirocco. They're just too dissimilar.[/b]
For classification purposes they are both very similar. FWD, unibody, rear twist beam/front McPhereson, same short block, head and injection, but the S-roc has less drag (we need to find this on out) and bigger brakes. Again I don't know that the weight right now is correct, but I do think it should be heavier than the Golf.

[Eric Parham]

For classification purposes they are both very similar. FWD, unibody, rear twist beam/front McPhereson, same short block, head and injection, but the S-roc has less drag (we need to find this on out) and bigger brakes. Again I don't know that the weight right now is correct, but I do think it should be heavier than the Golf.[/b]

If you're making an argument that the Golf should lose weight too, I don't disagree. I already admitted that your aero assumption is possible, but I think we can continue to disagree on the aero point. Unless you have some free wind-tunnel time, you're making an argument that can't be properly supported when based on unknown or disputed "facts".

Yours isn't a bad broad-stroke argument. If you ask everyone to overlook the details and just class and/or weight the Scirocco based on overall configuration, your argument that it should weigh more than the Golf seems to work just fine. I think that was the intention for the realignments last winter. Fortunately for my position, we can now address the real-life details with weight adjustments for next year. At the moment, the ITA A2 Golf 1.8 16V weighs 2220. Fortunately, the 1985-up A2 suspension (and hubs) is sufficient to deal with such weight. Some say the Golf already needs a significant weight adjustment to remain a viable option. I make no comment on that because I simply don't know. I never ran one and I don't plan to in the future. If you have an interest and a good argument, I suggest that you request a weight reduction for that car. No idea if it will help, but it probably can't hurt.

The ITA A1 Scirocco 1.8L 16V is saddled with 2320, or 100 POUNDS MORE than the similarly classed Golf. It's over 200 POUNDS MORE than the same car with a different engine in ITC. For reference, 100 lbs is the actual difference between the weight of a VR6 6-cylinder engine and the VW 4-cylinder's. The Scirocco 16V is not just marginally uncompetitive in ITA, but so much so that I've never even seen one at any of the northeast tracks. I've heard that one set some records somewhere (fast tracks down south?), but that it was later discovered to have had the wrong engine (a 2.0L, if I'm not mistaken). Sure, they all have rear torsion axles, but the Golf's 10-year newer design is stronger, lighter, has better geometry change characteristics, and seems to behave more like an independent rear suspension than does the Rabbit/Scirocco's.

Frankly, I don't even care what the Golf weighs. At the moment I care more about what the Nissans, Mazdas, and Acuras weigh compared to how much more power they make. One of my points was simply that there's no comparison between an A1 Scirocco and an A2 Golf. My new point is that there's no comparison between a car that I'd like to make competitive and anything that isn't already competitive. To reiterate some other points, the A1 suspension holding up the Scirocco was never designed to carry as much weight as is currently placed on the ITA Scirocco 16V. The same body with different engines weighs about 200 pounds less in ITB and ITC trims. 2100-2150 is the kind of weight that the A1 chassis can support (and just barely according to most reports, especially with legal sized hubs). 2320 is just ridiculous for an A1-chassis car.

[Greg Amy]

2320 is just ridiculous for an A1-chassis car.[/b]

Eric, that would be true if it were an ITC car, but it's not; it's an ITA car. Given that, it's almost 300 POUNDS lighter than class-killer ITA cars! Dude, that's like having almost two passengers in the car with you! It's even lighter than the 1.8L Miata, and damn close to the 1.6L Miata...

If you think it's too much, make your case with the ITAC boys. Your best strategy is to point out comparisons to the 1.8L Miata vis-a-vis lesser chassis capability and lesser horsepower. It shold be apparent that the Miata chassis is far superior, and work your way from there... - GA

[Eric Parham]

Good advice Greg, but the email letter's already sent and I wouldn't want to confuse it with supplemental info (unless asked). Note that the ITA Miata 1.8 weighs 2380, ITA Miata 1.6 weighs 2205. So yes, the ITA Scirocco 16V at 2320 is already slightly lighter than the Miata 1.8, but 115 lbs HEAVIER than the Miata 1.6. If there's one thing I can compare with after this year, it's that my ITC Scirocco 1.7 at 2110 is significantly slower (say 3 seconds per lap) than a well-driven SSM Miata 1.6 that weighs 2300 in SSM trim and runs 1:03s at Lime Rock.

Now, subtract a second for the SSM to ITA mods, and another 1/2 second for the 95 lb SSM to ITA weight reduction, and the Miata will be running 1:01-1:02 at Lime Rock (born out by Andy's recent track record, although I think he did it with a Miata 1.8). The ITC Scirocco 1.7 at about 2110 can run 1:05-1:06 at Lime Rock. The ITB Scirocco 1.8 8V at about the same weight can run 1:04-1:05. The ITA Scirocco 1.8 16V, if it were reduced to weigh 2100-2150 lbs, might be able to chase the Miatas. At 2320, there's simply no chance. At the current weight, I think it would be an incredible feat just to break into the high 1:03s, with 1:04s more likely. If it gets a meaningful reduction, I'll probably build one. If not, it's simply not worth the effort.

[shwah]

If you're making an argument that the Golf should lose weight too, I don't disagree. I already admitted that your aero assumption is possible, but I think we can continue to disagree on the aero point. Unless you have some free wind-tunnel time, you're making an argument that can't be properly supported when based on unknown or disputed "facts". [/b]

Yeah sorry about that. I just didn't have any facts available. I do know that the Golf has a lower drag coefficient than a Jetta. I would expect the Scirocco to have a better drag coefficient, and know that it has substantially less frontal area due to the much lower roof line. I used this assumption in my comments.

I just did some digging to see if we could inject some facts into the point and found this. The data is from a UK site 'carfolio.com':

1986 Golf 2 16v
cd = .34
A = 1.91m^2
Cx = 0.65

1985 Jetta GTI
cd = .36

The Golf reportedly had a 19% improvement in cd over the Rabbit. Thus:
Rabbit
cd = .40

At Scirocco.org I found the S1 cd = .42 and,

Scirocco 2
cd = .38 (this is the original car, w/o the 16v spoiler/foam weight)

That is all that I could find.

[Eric Parham]

Thanks Chris, that's interesting info. I really expected the Jetta to be better than the Golf. Oh well. I wonder if the Jetta GLI 16V rear spoiler would help?

On the issue of the Scirocco 16V urethane/foam stuff, I've heard that it was more for looks than anything else. Someone knowledgeable told me that he thought it would increase drag over the cleaner 8V trim. Either way, it's hard to say what happens in IT trim with the windows down, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good advice Greg, but the email letter's already sent and I wouldn't want to confuse it with supplemental info (unless asked). Note that the ITA Miata 1.8 weighs 2380, ITA Miata 1.6 weighs 2205. So yes, the ITA Scirocco 16V at 2320 is already slightly lighter than the Miata 1.8, but 115 lbs HEAVIER than the Miata 1.6. If there's one thing I can compare with after this year, it's that my ITC Scirocco 1.7 at 2110 is significantly slower (say 3 seconds per lap) than a well-driven SSM Miata 1.6 that weighs 2300 in SSM trim and runs 1:03s at Lime Rock. [/b]

The ITA 1.6 Miata weighs 2255 per the Feb Fast Track addendum. It also makes 116 hp stock. LRP may not be the best track to use as comparision against a Miata. Try something a little more power intensive.

I think these cars are heavy as listed. *I* think the 2.0 should be around 2375, the 1.8 Golf should be 2180, the Rocco aroud 2230...all based in un-debated 'process' numbers.

For the record, I don't believe that I have seen any ITA VW's that have the development that the Integra's have, that my Miata has, and most certainly that Greg's NX has (Northeastern reference points). Until one goes 100%, it's hard to compare.

[shwah]

Thanks Chris, that's interesting info. I really expected the Jetta to be better than the Golf. Oh well. I wonder if the Jetta GLI 16V rear spoiler would help?

On the issue of the Scirocco 16V urethane/foam stuff, I've heard that it was more for looks than anything else. Someone knowledgeable told me that he thought it would increase drag over the cleaner 8V trim. Either way, it's hard to say what happens in IT trim with the windows down, etc.
[/b]

I agree, I thought the Jetta might be better. I do expect the GLI wing would help separation at the trunk and make a bit of difference. I also expect the 16v Scirocco airdam would help. The 16v rear wing looks like it would help separation more than the little 8v wing, but then again the Porshce 928 looks like it should be more aerodynamic going forward than backwards, which in 1978 was not true...

[Eric Parham]

The ITA 1.6 Miata weighs 2255 per the Feb Fast Track addendum.[/b]
Missed that. Thanks for the correction :)


I think these cars are heavy as listed. *I* think the 2.0 should be around 2375, the 1.8 Golf should be 2180, the Rocco aroud 2230...all based in un-debated 'process' numbers.[/b]
Those do sound reasonable. I don't think it would be enough for the Scirocco, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.


For the record, I don't believe that I have seen any ITA VW's that have the development that the Integra's have, that my Miata has, and most certainly that Greg's NX has (Northeastern reference points). Until one goes 100%, it's hard to compare.[/b]
Maybe not in ITA, but there was one in ITS. Jeff Poor, now greatly missed, used to drive the wheels off of a GTI 2.0L 16V when it was in ITS at 2220 lbs. My understanding is that Jeff's car had undergone an all-out mechanical effort by SRS. It moved to ITA at 2475, quite a significant weight increase from its old ITS weight. At the old weight, I'm pretty sure that he just managed to break into the high 1:02s at Lime Rock, on occasion. I know he had some decent times at NHIS too, but I don't know what they were.

I think the GTI 2.0L 16V would have been a competitive ITA car at its old ITS weight. I don't think there's much more to be had after that. Extrapolating to the smaller displacement but similar VW 1.8L 16V, I simply can't imagine that anything over about 2150 would have any chance at all in ITA, IMHO.


I agree, I thought the Jetta might be better. I do expect the GLI wing would help separation at the trunk and make a bit of difference. I also expect the 16v Scirocco airdam would help. The 16v rear wing looks like it would help separation more than the little 8v wing, but then again the Porshce 928 looks like it should be more aerodynamic going forward than backwards, which in 1978 was not true...[/b]
Just to clarify, both the Jetta GLI 8V (and some Wolfsbergs) and the Jetta GLI 16V had rear spoilers, but the ones that I've seen on some of the Jetta 16Vs seem to have more surface area (these are usually body colored rather than black).

The Scirocco 16V rear spoiler is identical to the last iteration of the Scirocco 8V rear spoiler. The Scirocco 16V front air dam isn't much, and would normally be replaced with something more useful under the IT rules, or simply removed (if allowed, not sure on that).

[Greg Amy]

I think the GTI 2.0L 16V would have been a competitive ITA car at its old ITS weight (2220).[/b]

Well, DUH!!!!

No offense, Eric, but am I in some alternative-VW world this week? You're telling me that you believe the Volkswagen 2.0L DOHC 16V FWD strut-equipped Golf should weight **300 pounds less** than my Nissan 2.0L DOHC 16V FWD strut-equipped NX2000 (and 150+ pounds less than a 1.8L Miata)? Why in the world would you think that? Do VWs really suck that bad...? I doubt it.

And this is coming from a guy that's owned, enjoyed, driven, and raced some form of VWoA product since I was allowed to!

You boys just gotta get outta your pouty "going to the garden and eat worms" attitudes and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Show me a max-out build on a Golf (and that means probably spending $25k minimum and running serious shocks instead of off-the-shelf Bilsteins, 9# wheels instead of stock VWs, new Hoosiers, etc) driven by an experienced, skilled driver that's failed to consistenly run at the front, and we can chat. Otherwise...

[Eric Parham]

You boys just gotta get outta your pouty "going to the garden and eat worms" attitudes and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Show me a max-out build on a Golf (and that means probably spending $25k minimum and running serious shocks instead of off-the-shelf Bilsteins, 9# wheels instead of stock VWs, new Hoosiers, etc) driven by an experienced, skilled driver that's failed to consistenly run at the front, and we can chat. Otherwise...[/b]
Greg, first of all any whining was only in jest. I'd just like some options for next year.

The Bilsteins aren't as bad as they might seem to you. For example, mine might look "off-the-shelf" to a casual observer, but the rears have been both re-valved and modified so they're externally adjustable, and the fronts are re-valved (actually reasonable through Bilstein's mail-in motorsports program) european rallye units stuffed into stock off-the-shelf Bilstein housings, which, in turn, have been modified for the Hypercoil coil-overs. If you think I (or anyone else with seemingly "off-the-shelf" Bilsteins) haven't spent enough money, I (and especially my wife) only wish you were right ;)

I was merely using the GTI as a point of reference. Honestly, all I care about right now is the Scirocco 1.8L 16V. As to how much was spent on the aforementioned ITS GTI effort, I can only shudder at the thought. I really have no idea, but it was described to me as "all out" and he sure drove it to the limit, IMHO.

[Bildon]

What's the fastest 2L 16v lap at WGI or LRP that you can recall?

[Andy Bettencourt]

What's the fastest 2L 16v lap at WGI or LRP that you can recall? [/b]

You also have to take into account the timeframe. The Late Jeff Poor ran high 1:02's in what year? Understand that all classes continue to develop and get faster with continued development and newer technologies - like tires and shocks. In 2001, top ITS times were in the mid-1:02's. That's 1.5 seconds slower than the current track record. Same kind of cars.

[Eric Parham]

-delete-

[Eric Parham]

What's the fastest 2L 16v lap at WGI or LRP that you can recall?[/b]
Found some archives. The ITS GTI 16V that I was thinking of may not have had a working transponder in 2000, as "no time" is the theme there. In 2001, I see a 105.1 at Lime Rock on 7/4/01 (http://www.mohud-scca.org/Race/2001/Results/results2.html). I actually remember that day, but perhaps I got the times confused with another GTI that used to run ITE. In that case, the 1:02 or 1:03 is simply irrelevant since the ITE car was well beyond ITS prep.


You also have to take into account the timeframe. ... Understand that all classes continue to develop and get faster with continued development and newer technologies - like tires and shocks. In 2001, top ITS times were in the mid-1:02's. That's 1.5 seconds slower than the current track record. Same kind of cars.[/b]
All good points. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have bothered trying to use the GTI 2.0L 16V as a reference in guessing the potential for the Scirocco 1.8L 16V. It's probably more accurate extrapolating to ITA from more recent ITB and ITC Scirocco times with lower hp engines -- fewer variables.

[shwah]

The only 1.8 16v that I had much contact with on the race track ( I have had a few Sciroccos on the street ) was Chuck Mathis' ITA car. It was a very competitive car at the time, and while it is ancient history, I don't know of any other VWs that won ITA at ARRC.

We were just talking about different classes a few weeks ago, and were thinking that the 1.8 Golf could probably still be a winner today if prepped right.

[Eric Parham]

We were just talking about different classes a few weeks ago, and were thinking that the 1.8 Golf could probably still be a winner today if prepped right.[/b]
Do you mean the Golf/GTI 1.8 8V in ITB or the GTI 1.8 16V in ITA? If anyone really wanted to try another 100% build on an ITB Golf 1.8 8V at this point, I may have stumbled onto the proverbial one-in-a-million stock part to make it happen.

[shwah]

Do you mean the Golf/GTI 1.8 8V in ITB or the GTI 1.8 16V in ITA? If anyone really wanted to try another 100% build on an ITB Golf 1.8 8V at this point, I may have stumbled onto the proverbial one-in-a-million stock part to make it happen.
[/b]
I meant a 1.8 16v in ITA.

[Eric Parham]

I think these cars are heavy as listed. *I* think the 2.0 should be around 2375, the 1.8 Golf should be 2180, the Rocco aroud 2230...all based in un-debated 'process' numbers.[/b]

I've combed the data a little better this time. Although I'm not certain about ANY VW 16V efforts, I have to agree with Andy at least to say that no all-out Scirocco 16V efforts have ever appeared in the Northeast. Perhaps I asked for a little too much with the 2150, especially considering some of the faster/hp tracks elsewhere. I'm going to round up a non-sunroof contestant just in case, and if it drops to 2230 lbs or better I'll see you bums in ITA next year. :cavallo:

Now, considering the extra weight and all, which is better: cryo-treated hubs or shot-peened hubs? Should they be "seasoned" first or straight off the shelf?

[Eric Parham]

What's the fastest 2L 16v lap at WGI or LRP that you can recall?
[/b]


Still haven't found much for 16Vs, but here's what I've done in the 8V Sciroccos:

2000 ITB Scirocco 1.8L 8V on Goodyear GSCS:
Lime Rock: 1:04.3 (24"-drafting a Volvo, normally in the 1:05s)
WGI Long: 2:26.5
WGI Short: 1:35.5 (probably drafting a Volvo and/or BMW)

2006 ITC Scirocco 1.7L on Hoosier R6:
Lime Rock: 1:05.2 (12"-drafting a Miata, normally in the 1:06s)
WGI Long: 2:28.7


The following might be possible with an all-out effort for next year (assuming reduction from 2320 to 2230 lbs):

2007 ITA Scirocco 1.8L 16V on ???:
Lime Rock: 1:02.7 (guesstimate, lap record is 1:01.4 by Andy :happy204: )
WGI Long: 2:23.5 (guesstimate, lap record is 2:17.9 :wacko: by Greg :happy204: )

[StephenB]

You boys just gotta get outta your pouty "going to the garden and eat worms" attitudes and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Show me a max-out build on a Golf (and that means probably spending $25k minimum and running serious shocks instead of off-the-shelf Bilsteins, 9# wheels instead of stock VWs, new Hoosiers, etc) driven by an experienced, skilled driver that's failed to consistenly run at the front, and we can chat. Otherwise...
[/b]


This always blows my mind... I think we should start ITAC (C for regional Club racing) with a buy on car set at 10,000.00 Afterall this is regional amatuer racing isn't it?

[Eric Parham]

This always blows my mind... I think we should start ITAC (C for regional Club racing) with a buy on car set at 10,000.00 Afterall this is regional amatuer racing isn't it?[/b]
I know how you feel. When faced with the possibility of building a brand new car model from scratch recently, my wife wanted to know how much I planned to spend (both time and money). With my Sciroccos, I've been gradually collecting parts and clues since I got my first one almost 20 years ago. Thus, the expenditures have been gradual over time and easier to handle, if they're even noticed. That's actually the main reason why I ultimately abandoned the ITS GTI VR6 that I'd been planning. With a Scirocco 16V in ITA, I'd hope to be able to recycle many of the same parts, like the suspension, for example. That would significantly reduce the current-year outlay. Frankly, if I had enough cash on hand to build a totally new model from scratch, I think I might just buy a SRF and forget about the rest. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on who you ask) I just don't have that much free cash, and probably won't now that we've started the "education fund" for the little one.

[JimLill]

Eric,

as to 16V VW, I know John and George Morris have run Golfs in ITA for awhile. I think George has retired his after the rollover in Sep 2006.

[Eric Parham]

Thanks Jim. I went back and looked for their names in the results for the July 23 race at the Glen, and it looks like John turned a 2:23.9 on the long course (not too shabby :) ), but was down 2 laps for some reason. Do you know if his is a 2.0 or a 1.8 car? George DNS. Please PM me if you have contact info handy for either.

[Eric Parham]

Well, DUH!!!!

No offense, Eric, but am I in some alternative-VW world this week? You're telling me that you believe the Volkswagen 2.0L DOHC 16V FWD strut-equipped Golf should weight **300 pounds less** than my Nissan 2.0L DOHC 16V FWD strut-equipped NX2000 (and 150+ pounds less than a 1.8L Miata)? Why in the world would you think that? Do VWs really suck that bad...? I doubt it.

And this is coming from a guy that's owned, enjoyed, driven, and raced some form of VWoA product since I was allowed to! [/b]
Greg, I wouldn't say that VWs suck, but I would say that *ALL* of the current VW ITA options have signifcant drawbacks under the current IT rules when compared with other currently classed makes. Two very significant VW 16V differences come to mind: 1) a really terrible cylinder head design (exhaust has to turn more than 90 deg after getting past valve, thus eliminating most of the usual cross-flow advantages; and 2) CIS injection (basically a glorified carburetor), which is not only continuous, non-cylinder-specific and non-sequential, but provides significant intake restriction and cannot even be tuned very well under the current intake and computer/sensor/injector rules (that is, any computer is pretty much useless since there's so little that's controllable -- it's basically just a fuel pressure regulator for cold-start and emissions).

[shwah]

Greg, I wouldn't say that VWs suck, but I would say that *ALL* of the current VW ITA options have signifcant drawbacks under the current IT rules when compared with other currently classed makes. Two very significant VW 16V differences come to mind: 1) a really terrible cylinder head design (exhaust has to turn more than 90 deg after getting past valve, thus eliminating most of the usual cross-flow advantages; and 2) CIS injection (basically a glorified carburetor), which is not only continuous, non-cylinder-specific and non-sequential, but provides significant intake restriction and cannot even be tuned very well under the current intake and computer/sensor/injector rules (that is, any computer is pretty much useless since there's so little that's controllable -- it's basically just a fuel pressure regulator for cold-start and emissions).
[/b]
The 1.8 16V is CIS-E, which is not very hard to control fuel wise. No chipping required.

The 2.0 16V is CIS-E Motronic which can do more, but mostly via chip tuning, and there are few that can do this in a customized format as an IT racer would need.

[Eric Parham]

The 1.8 16V is CIS-E, which is not very hard to control fuel wise. No chipping required.

The 2.0 16V is CIS-E Motronic which can do more, but mostly via chip tuning, and there are few that can do this in a customized format as an IT racer would need.[/b]

CIS is great. It's virtually fool-proof, but it has no potential in IT when compared with the real EFI on most other modern cars. CIS-E and CIS-Motronic are really the same system for IT purposes (and haven't changed much since the mid '70s). Same inputs and outputs, just a fancier computer to control the fuel pressure on the Motronic (but same sized box). In fact, I've interchanged between CIS-E and CIS-Motronic fuel distributors (inputs and outputs are self-contained) on street cars without any problems at all. The tolerances may be slightly different, and occasionally they need readjusting, but it's the same system controlled by a slightly newer design "computer" (glorified fuel pressure controller). The one difference is that CIS-E has a separate ignition system box, while CIS-Motronic pulls it into the same box as the fuel pressure controller. The fact is that changing the fuel pressure for the entire system simply can't be done fast enough to even compare with real electronic fuel injection systems. The various chips simply allow it to run richer than the original lambda sensor output would allow with the stock computer. Most just yank the Lambda on these things and set it open-loop. The chips can't help it there (other than recurving the ignition on the CIS-Motronic). Some even disconnect the "computer", run a separate ignition, and adjust the mixture manually with fuel pressure or metering pin height.

Edit: CIS really is just a glorified (and spread out) carburetor, although it's more like a Zenith-Stromberg than a Weber. At least it's more reliable, though.

[shwah]

CIS systems also do a much better job of atomizing fuel than 'electronic' fuel injection systems.

CIS-E Motronic has a larger fuel plunger and can support a higher max hp than CIS-E; neither of which really matters for IT spec engines.

The mass air flow sensor in CIS type systems sure may seem like a big restriction when you look at it, but if you consider the size of the opening, and the cross sectional area exposed when you raise the flow plate, I don't think it is as restrictive as people expect.

[Eric Parham]

CIS systems also do a much better job of atomizing fuel than 'electronic' fuel injection systems.[/b]
That used to be very true, and may still be true to some extent, but many modern EFI injectors now have excellent atomization.


CIS-E Motronic has a larger fuel plunger and can support a higher max hp than CIS-E; neither of which really matters for IT spec engines.[/b]
Yes, a slightly longer rod with slightly longer fuel metering slits, as I recall, but no additional functions. They're the same animal for our purposes.


The mass air flow sensor in CIS type systems sure may seem like a big restriction when you look at it, but if you consider the size of the opening, and the cross sectional area exposed when you raise the flow plate, I don't think it is as restrictive as people expect.[/b]
Depends a lot on the control pressure for CIS-basic and CIS-lambda (that's another reason why we try to reduce it). I believe that CIS-E and CIS-Motronic may not be tunable in the same way, but I haven't reviewed it lately. If I'm correct, they may be even worse for our purposes than the older stuff.

[shwah]

It is painfully easy to tune CIS-E.

Get yourself a 0-10k linear potentiometer. Install it in line with the coolant temperature sensor. Go to a dyno and make some runs while measuring air/fuel ratio with a wideband O2 sensor. Turn the potentiometer until you find the optimum setting for power (typically 12.7:1 on these motors). Measure the resulting resistance, and replace the potentiometer with a fixed resistor of that value. People use different methods of switching this enrichment device into and out of the circuit manually or automatically based on WOT switch.

It is consistent, reliable and functional. One thing you are giving up to a programmable system is ignition mapping ability, but in the racing operation range you are typically at max timing regardless of the lower load/speed maps, making this a moot point.

[Eric Parham]

It is painfully easy to tune CIS-E.

Get yourself a 0-10k linear potentiometer. Install it in line with the coolant temperature sensor. Go to a dyno and make some runs while measuring air/fuel ratio with a wideband O2 sensor. Turn the potentiometer until you find the optimum setting for power (typically 12.7:1 on these motors). Measure the resulting resistance, and replace the potentiometer with a fixed resistor of that value. People use different methods of switching this enrichment device into and out of the circuit manually or automatically based on WOT switch.

It is consistent, reliable and functional. One thing you are giving up to a programmable system is ignition mapping ability, but in the racing operation range you are typically at max timing regardless of the lower load/speed maps, making this a moot point.
[/b]
I do agree that the limited adjustments that are possible with CIS-E are easy, but as with most things in life, I'm afraid that the gains are proportional to the difficulty (i.e., not much gain for the easy work). I actually had to do as you suggest with an added potentiometer on a street car once. I put a 16V engine into an 8V GTI and had to make do with the 8V fuel computer. Fortunately, I was able to use a digital multimeter to measure the milliamp current at the fuel pressure actuator and did not have to pay for any dyno time to adjust the pot.

The point I was trying to make in my last post is: 1) the control pressure can be reduced for CIS-basic and CIS-Lambda, and the reduction in control pressure reduces the downward force on the fuel-metering plate thereby reducing intake restriction, in addition to increasing injector pressure; but 2) the force on the fuel metering plate cannot be reduced in this manner for CIS-E and CIS-E-Motronic (collectively "CIS-E"). Also, any reduction to the force on these CIS-E systems would cause a reduction in injector pressure (the opposite of the older systems). Thus, while tuning the basic offset for the fuel mixture may be easy, these CIS-E systems simply cannot be tuned to reduce intake restriction like the older ones could.

[shwah]

OK. I see your point. I honestly just don't have enough CIS 'basic' experience to know that you tune the control pressure for fueling, which in turn reduces the resistance provided by the airflow plate.

FWIW that simple CIS-E tuning method can offer 20+ hp in situations. The factory system runs lean, especially at higher rpm.

[shwah]

I must have been asleep at the keys last night.

I should have mentioned that the CIS-E system also reduces the control pressure to affect mixture, which reduces the tension on the airflow plate. It just uses a different mechanism to do so - this is the DPR that you measured the miliamps at when tuning your street car.

[Eric Parham]

I must have been asleep at the keys last night.

I should have mentioned that the CIS-E system also reduces the control pressure to affect mixture, which reduces the tension on the airflow plate. It just uses a different mechanism to do so - this is the DPR that you measured the miliamps at when tuning your street car.
[/b]

I believe that is incorrect. I seem to remember that the plunger and plate are controlled by SYSTEM pressure in CIS-E, and not by control pressure as in the slightly older CIS. Yup, verified. See ch. 5, p. 24, Fig. 5-10 of Bosch Fuel Injection and Engine Management, Probst 1989 (Robert Bentley Pub). The so-called "pressure actuator" in CIS-E only controls the fuel flow to the injectors, and this controlled flow cannot affect the force on the plunger or plate. It might be a slightly more accurate way of regulating injector pressure, but it sure takes away one of the greatest tuning features of the older CIS.

[shwah]

The differential pressure regulator is what varies the fueling in CIS-E. As the name implies it varies the differential pressure across the system, it does so by changing the control pressure.

[pfcs49]

Sorry Swah, but he's right. I even consulted my Probst to be certain. phil

[shwah]

OK. Chalk up one more in the wrong column for me. ;)

[Eric Parham]

FWIW, I wish you'd been right. :birra:

[shwah]

I think I am going to rig up a flow bench type test with my shop-vac and compare the Digi and CIS-E air metering systems at different positions of the metering 'doors'. Maybe later in the winter I will get around to this.

[Bildon]

>> I think I am going to rig up a flow bench type test with my shop-vac
:023:
As accurate as any Superflow. And that's not my opinion. It was proven at a Ford engineering facility.

http://www.flowperformance.com

[shwah]

Thanks for the link Bill.

[16v]

You boys just gotta get outta your pouty "going to the garden and eat worms" attitudes and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Show me a max-out build on a Golf (and that means probably spending $25k minimum and running serious shocks instead of off-the-shelf Bilsteins, 9# wheels instead of stock VWs, new Hoosiers, etc) driven by an experienced, skilled driver that's failed to consistenly run at the front, and we can chat. Otherwise...
[/b]

hey hey.. didn't Brian do that in the A car? It was no match for the field of Acuras, Nissans

[shwah]

Didn't catch that until it was quoted above. $25k?!

Some of these $$ numbers people assume are required to build a car still floor me. Sure if you pay for all the work, it takes a big checkbook, and for many that is the only way they have time to race. I totally respect that. However, what I see at the race track is that most IT racers are of the more budget minded type, who are more than willing to figure out how to do much of this stuff themeselves, or do things a different way - think for themselves and try the 'wrong' way that does not invovle buying the 'trick' parts offered by race shops - and succeed.

I don't believe for a second that $25k is any kind of threshold or standard to define a 'fully built' ITA car. Especially with the A2 Golf, the existing chassis development is extensive, the parts are available, they are not outrageously expensive, and they are tested in almost every ITB race across the country every year. The only missing peice is the motor for the 16v, and if you are putting $10k into that motor, you are spending too much IMO.

[Greg Amy]

Chris, I got the same response a year or so ago when I stated it would take $15k minimum to build a pointy-end Spec Miata; nowadays the entry price for a winning SM is double that.

I can respect your opinion, but I place you firmly in the "Dave Gran Camp" of "what it takes to race", not "what it takes to win everything". There's nothing - absolutely nothing - wrong with that attitude, either.

But, there's just NO WAY you can build a nationally-competitive ARRC-winning ITA car for much less than that. Even if you bought one ready to go, there's going to be a lot of work to do. The ONLY way you can do it is if you possess ALL the skills for building a race car and can do it yourself: welding, fabrication, engine builds, transmission builds, chassis development, have the equipment to bust and balance your own tires, you own an engine dyno, you own a shock dyno, etc. And that's only if you put ZERO value on your time; well, if you have all this equipment and skills then you're a genius and you simply can't do that!

Are you like that? Not me! Know anyone like that that's willing to build it for you for free? Please send me their contact info...!

On the way home from Atlanta we bantered about what it would take to replicate the NX2000, given what we know now. We figured out that it would take approximately $13-15,000 just in car, rebuldable engines and trans, performance and replacement parts, supplies, and sublet work (machine work, final welding, etc). And that's with zero value on anyone's time. And that's with everything already figured out. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that we've "invested" (hah!) a hell of a lot more than that.

Smart? Hardly. Worth it? Well, this week it is...don't know about next week, though ;)

[shwah]

See I know what you are doing here.

Just when I feel like I have my B car ready to be competitive, and have started to think about a future FProd effort, you are trying to draw me into ITA by saying it can't be done :P . I love a challenge, and it would be tempting to make a move that lets me re-use so many components and spares.

FWIW - I am not in any way satisfied with just being out there. I just keep reminding myself that running the past few years with a used stock motor was making me a better driver, allowing me to focus on chassis setup, and keep hoping that I made myself good enough in the process to justify the motor build taking place this winter. It takes time to get there, and I hope I am getting closer, but IMO you race to win or don't bother. If the new family dynamic allows (new baby due March, #2!) I hope to be measuring how much farther I have to go at Road Atlanta next fall.

I don't doubt that your effort was a costly one, but there is a huge difference between making an 'oddball' competitve and making a known quantity competitive. I have an honest $5-6k in my car. It is under weight, has exactly the gearbox I want, has exactly the cage I want, has the suspension I want and is waiting on the engine I need as well as the 'right' tires. Development never stops but I expect to have an all out ITB car under me by the end of next season for less than $10k. I don't see how running the same car with a differnt engine (needs to be a different shell due to VIN but the are the same thing) adds $15k to the mix.

Of course I may also post back here next winter to report that we have an honest $15k into the mix to be competitve. Time will tell.

[Greg Amy]

I honestly, truly, sincerely wish the best in that effort. In fact, prove it can be done and I may be back in the VWoA camp!

But this racing stuff is pure EVIL! Man, if I could be a future-Stan and travel back 5 years, and say, "Dude! You're gonna win the ARRC one year! Great job!! And *this* is what you're gonna spend in money, time, effort, and mental abuse to get there!" I'd go back and slap myself more-stupid or something like that...

Evil. Pure evil.

[shwah]

Agreed, pure evil :bash_1_:

Didn't mean to imply that I would go win the ARRC. But that IS the goal in doing this IMO. If you don't set the target, you are unlikely to hit it. I expect to have a very capable car, and go down to have some hard lessons taught to me next year. No other way to find out where I stand.