is a mk2 16v competitive?

[evofool]

What's up guys, I have never raced befor ebut after spending all of last weekend at the track watching qualifiying and the what not i'm hooked. I have a old '87 bumping around that i was thinking of converting but wanted to know if it would really be worth it or shoud i look for a better option. thanks guys

[Knestis]

The later 2.0 16v was made eligible for ITA a few years ago but I don't know if anyone's built one. I don't think they are perfect on paper but they should be in the ballpark, assuming build quality, budget, and driving skill are comparable.

The 1.8 is listed 275 pounds lighter than the Rat motor. I've seen a couple of examples of that car and they seem to struggle. I don't know if it can actually get down to its race weight.

Under current rules, it's legal to turn an 8v or early 16v into a 2.0 if the car you end up with is exactly the same as it would have been if you'd started with a "real" 90-92 GTI (e.g., big bumpers).

Where are you located? There might be people near you who can help...

K

[shwah]

Way back at ARRC 1 it was good enough to win, though a wet race IIRC.

The US intake cam is awfully weak on those, and the exhaust side ports are pretty crappy without a good work over (which can't be done in IT). Those factors may make it tough to keep up on the straights. The chassis is a known quantity. I would go with the lower weight 1.8 myself. Actually considered doing it sometime just to see what it does.

If you do go 2.0, you may not be limited to big bumpers as many early 90 cars came with smalls.

Also note the Jettas have 10.1 front brakes (so do the Sciroccos), the GTI has 9.4. But that has no bearing on how the ITAC classified them, so I am told.

[Beran]

Switch it over to a 1.8L 8V..... Then compete in ITB.
It is very competitive there.
Currently, It is not competitive in ITA with the 16 valve.


Beran

[JLawton]

What's up guys, I have never raced befor ebut after spending all of last weekend at the track watching qualifiying and the what not i'm hooked. I have a old '87 bumping around that i was thinking of converting but wanted to know if it would really be worth it or shoud i look for a better option. thanks guys

I know a lot of guys like the build as much as the racing, but if you want to save a ton of money and save on frustration you should probably buy your first car. You can get some decent cars for dirt cheap these days. There are two Saturns in the For Sale section (for example) that would be very inexpensive to get on the track and they are both good cars

[Knestis]

What Jeff says should NOT be neglected.

It might *seem* like it would be cheaper to "do it a little bit at a time" but it almost never works out that way. If you can't afford the $$ to buy a car outright, you're better off opening a savings account and putting the dough in it rather than into a project. When you have saved enough, go shopping. If you DON'T save enough, at least you have the money rather than a half-finished stack of parts that are worth pennies on the dollar.

K

[CRallo]

What Jeff says should NOT be neglected.

It might *seem* like it would be cheaper to "do it a little bit at a time" but it almost never works out that way. If you can't afford the $$ to buy a car outright, you're better off opening a savings account and putting the dough in it rather than into a project. When you have saved enough, go shopping. If you DON'T save enough, at least you have the money rather than a half-finished stack of parts that are worth pennies on the dollar.

K

the words of a very wise man...

[Scooter]

I built my car and while I like my car a lot, it's taken forever to get it right and it costs way more than you could imagine. Used race cars can be really cheap....

[jmracer17]

I run one now. Its a 1.8. I haven't touched the motor yet because I am still learning (17yrs old only 5 races). As far as I can see when someone else was in the car, there is nothing for the miatas or integras. Yes they have motors in them other than stock but still, Daytona they all walk away. Sebring is the same. I know most of it is me because I don't know the tricks of speed good enough yet but still, not very competitive. Great learner car though. Hey and I couldn't beat the price.... FREE!

[evofool]

yeah, i'm kinda figuring it would be slower i suppose, the car has a 1.8l in it... i'll probably stay with it and see what happens, weight ratio wise it seems to make more sense. whats the average cost for a cage in one of these things.(this is my 3rd mk2, been driving the hell out of them for awhile)

[Knestis]

Where are you located? Qualified cage builders who know the rules (very important) aren't very common.

K

[JLawton]

yeah, i'm kinda figuring it would be slower i suppose, the car has a 1.8l in it... i'll probably stay with it and see what happens, weight ratio wise it seems to make more sense. whats the average cost for a cage in one of these things.(this is my 3rd mk2, been driving the hell out of them for awhile)


He's not listening!!

:cool:

[shwah]

So what car is it that you are staying with? 1.8 or 2.0? Couldn't tell if that comment was about the previous post, or about your car.

Now with the 1.8 you must retain the small bumpers.
I don't recall whether they were available without power steering. I know the Scirocco 16v came that way...
Getting the fueling right above 5k rpm will make a big difference. Like 10+ hp all by itself in some cases. When you get to that point, get it on a dyno and get it right.

[Flyinglizard]

The 16V needs to turn to 8000rpm to get to the power level for ITA(150+hp). The stock, legal, cams wont allow much over 7200. 7200 is about the max for the 8V with the best cam and the ECM that allows proper fuel metering. After 20 years of racing both engines , the 8V comes alive much better, class wise, and cheaper than the 16v. And the 8V will tolerate the stock style fuel system better.
I worked for VW about 1991 or so and power steering was "standard" . I have never seen any 16v delivered without PS. They may exist ,but not many came that way.IMHO. Maybe 1987.5 Golfs, just after the Rocco intro.
You have to use the standard details the 16V to spin. IE, piston to wall needs to be about 005. Total Seal rings. The cams need to be closed up,as much as the rules allow. The compression highest, etc.
When you get all done, the car is still an aero brick, the roll centers are too high, the windsheild angle is too steep, etc. The ITB has a lower terminal V and the aero stuff is less of a factor. The ITA should go about 135 @ Daytona, The ITB goes about 120+-3. The 16V Golf wont go 135, the Rocco barely does.
The 16V Jeta is much better balanced and aero wise it is a lot better, FWIW. The VW makes a great track car and midpack racer, dont ever expect to get any money back out of the vast amounts spent.
You can buy one done for 6000$ usually. About half of the parts cost. The price is low because of the racing results, winning cars are worth more.

The 16V is a very nice power package. We drive an old beater Jett 16V. At this point in time, they are better kept than most 8V
James, I meant to talk to you more @ Sebring about your 16V, but I was busy with our new Spiniata.
I can send you a good base line setup for your car(known good values) E mail me ,I'll get back to you about wed next week. (Off to Summit today)
[email protected]
MM

[Knestis]

... The cams need to be closed up,as much as the rules allow. ...

Okay, I'll bite. What does this mean...?

K

[Sandro]

the owner of eurosport Raffi, owns one and races it in ITA, he has won several races and is competitive. From what I understand it is not a fully developed car either.

[markw]

Buy A Used Race Car!!! But buy one as it comes off the track. You will have plenty to do sorting a used car. I know where there is an ITC Scirocco with a DOM cage suitable for Production with a quaife and a 4.40 something ring and pinion. It is just sitting collecting dust in South Florida. Regards

[evofool]

i'm in the northwest and haven't seen anything for sale yet... i'm listening, just alittle stubborn i suppose.

[Tom A]

What is your budget? There are a couple cars on the Council forum that look interesting.

http://www.icscc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100
http://www.icscc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293

If you are set on a VW, there is this:
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25914
Not local though.

On Edit: You are close enough to get a car from Norcal, so also keep and eye on the NASA Forums, as well as craigslist for any place between San Francisco and Seattle. Search for SCCA and NASA, you will sometimes find good deals, like this: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/cto/1236970395.html

Tom

[Bill Miller]

the owner of eurosport Raffi, owns one and races it in ITA, he has won several races and is competitive. From what I understand it is not a fully developed car either.

That begs the questions of where does he race and who is he racing against? A 1.8 16v or a 2.0 16v isn't going to stand a chance in a North East ITA race. Cut the weight of the 2.0 closer to that of the 1.8, and you might have a chance.

[mgyip]

That begs the questions of where does he race and who is he racing against? A 1.8 16v or a 2.0 16v isn't going to stand a chance in a North East ITA race. Cut the weight of the 2.0 closer to that of the 1.8, and you might have a chance.

That's always the question - just b/c a car wins a race doesn't mean that it's competitive if the "usual" leaders didn't show for the event.

I've been racing a 1.8 16v for years (b/c I'm stupid) and the car is far from "maxed out" so it's slow in comparison to at least half the field. That having been said, it's been reasonably durable and it's a veritable tank in a sea of Japanese tin-foil.

I think it's possible to get weight down to minimum but it takes alot of effort and a very thin driver (which ain't me). Even so, as noted, it has the aero of a large brick BUT at least you become everybody's friend b/c you'll find at least 5 cars stacked up behind you on the straights as they draft their way past...

[jmracer17]

Very true. Its not really competitive but at least its a reliable car that you can go around and beat. For sure its a tank. I'm a Miata's favorite guy at Daytona lol. If the weight wasn't so heavy it maybe able but I don't see that happening. But hey, were all out here to have fun, being in the back by yourself is not but as long as you have some cars to play with it doesn't matter front or back.

[jlinfert]

Very true. Its not really competitive but at least its a reliable car that you can go around and beat. For sure its a tank. I'm a Miata's favorite guy at Daytona lol. If the weight wasn't so heavy it maybe able but I don't see that happening. But hey, were all out here to have fun, being in the back by yourself is not but as long as you have some cars to play with it doesn't matter front or back.
James,
With that attitude you'll go far club racing. And honestly a 16v can be competitive, maybe not a front runner but certainly a top 5 car. Keep working at it young man and don't hesitate to ask us for help.

[Beran]

Here in the NE a 16v is not competitive in ITA no matter how much prep you give it.
I have been racing and building VW's since 1993. We converted a number of 16v's to 8v to compete in ITB where there are competitive. I think it's a very easy change... just change the head.
VW's are very durable and very cost effective to run.
Having said the above, it depends upon who shows up and what the talent of the VW and other competitors driver skill is. But on average it is at a performance disadvantage.
Here in the NE we do use stock cams and cams cannot be "closed up" since the rules do NOT allow this ;-)
Although no one has really tried to use a custom map system yet with the 16v - maybe this might give it more of an edge. Any thoughts?

[Bill Miller]

Here in the NE a 16v is not competitive in ITA no matter how much prep you give it.
I have been racing and building VW's since 1993. We converted a number of 16v's to 8v to compete in ITB where there are competitive. I think it's a very easy change... just change the head.
VW's are very durable and very cost effective to run.
Having said the above, it depends upon who shows up and what the talent of the VW and other competitors driver skill is. But on average it is at a performance disadvantage.
Here in the NE we do use stock cams and cams cannot be "closed up" since the rules do NOT allow this ;-)
Although no one has really tried to use a custom map system yet with the 16v - maybe this might give it more of an edge. Any thoughts?

Not exactly Beran. Putting a GX (8v) head on a PL (16v) bottom end will give you ~13.5:1 CR.

[GTIspirit]

Although no one has really tried to use a custom map system yet with the 16v - maybe this might give it more of an edge. Any thoughts?

I've been considering this from an academic perspective for a while and cannot figure out how this can be done with off the shelf ECU hardware. The PL engine with CIS-E does not have a toothed crank wheel, only a hall effect cam sensor. So I don't know how one could install an aftermarket ECU to run fuel and spark, as allowed by the new IT rules. (Well, it was allowed before, just had to be within the stock box.)

If you can write the software I have thought of one way to do it easily. And that is to have an ECU read in a wideband O2 sensor and then based on a map of say engine load and rpm, output a simulated switching O2 sensor to bias the DPR as desired. Essentially intercepting and fooling the stock O2 sensor input. But this would only work for closed loop operation, not open loop.

There is one other way, and that is to remove the CIS-E unit and run the DPR control out of a programmable ECU. But again, that only affects closed loop operation and not open loop.

So the new ECU rule is useless to those of us with mechanical fuel injection and no stock toothed crank wheel. Since the new open ECU rule doesn't benefit everyone, I wonder if the SCCA would consider a clause to allow sensor/actuator parity to go along with the open ECU rule? Probably not.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

...I wonder if the SCCA would consider a clause to allow sensor/actuator parity to go along with the open ECU rule? Probably not.....

:shrug:

This has actually been a topic of conversation recently on the ITAC.

[GTIspirit]

Hmmm, I think we've strayed a bit off topic talking about the open ECU rule in this thread. ;) Even if there is such a discussion in the ITAC, I don't ever see them allowing mechanical fuel injectors to be replaced by electric fuel injectors, distributor being replaced by coil system. :shrug: That would also be necessary to create parity with cars that are so equipped to take advantage of the open ECU rule. Otherwise just allowing a standard sensor set, i.e. to include crank and cam wheels and associated sensors wouldn't really give us all that much.

But back on topic, I wonder how much a programmable ECU would benefit a PL engine to make the Mk2 16V competitive in ITA? I'm not convinced it would gain a whole lot over a CIS-E system in good working order.

[Beran]

Bill - thanks for the correction/data regarding 16v & 8v. I guess the motors need to be completely swapped.

[shwah]

The distributor has a 4 window hall effect sensor, which can be read by some fuel injection computers effectively as engine speed (though not as nice and accurate as a multi tooth wheel).

Controlling the CIS-E can be done, but no one has gotten there yet. We are taking a non-IT useable route on a production car, and for my 8v I would rather loose the extra weight of the CIS-E parts and gain the more readily available parts of the Digifant on my conversion, so I won't be figuring it out right now.

[vwcorvette]

SO...digi conversion is legal for IT? I've done this on my DD passat 16v and love it. But it seems week down low.

[jlinfert]

SO...digi conversion is legal for IT? I've done this on my DD passat 16v and love it. But it seems week down low.
Since the VIN rule is gone, yes you could convert a CIS-E 8V car to digi and then use an aftermarket ECU to contol it (Megasquirt would work well). I suspect a properly done MK2 digi car with an MS system would be VERY competitive in ITB.

[shwah]

Digi conversion (or converting digi to CIS-E) has always been legal for the 8v cars because the spec line includes both systems. The vin rule being 'fixed' means you can now turn an 16v into an 8v and vice versa.

[mgyip]

Just a quick update - after what I've seen this w/e, the 16v GTi in 1.8l trim simply is NOT competitive in ITA. In other words, whomever is building one can either spend s**tloads of money to bring it to mid-pack or just spend their money more wisely and purchase either a Miata or a Honda product.

[Beran]

Hmm - Let's see this is a VW forum.
Screw the honda and Miata talk here.
One should buy an MK3 or MK4 and compete in ITB! Or a VW in Showroom stock.
;-)

[GTIspirit]

spend their money more wisely and purchase either a Miata or a Honda product.

Wasn't that the whole reason for Spec Miata? Because people felt the Miata wasn't competitive in ITA?

[jlinfert]

Hmm - Let's see this is a VW forum.
Screw the honda and Miata talk here.
One should buy an MK3 or MK4 and compete in ITB! Or a VW in Showroom stock.
;-)
or a 98 99 new beetle and play in ITC

[Marcus Miller]

Just a quick update - after what I've seen this w/e, the 16v GTi in 1.8l trim simply is NOT competitive in ITA. In other words, whomever is building one can either spend s**tloads of money to bring it to mid-pack or just spend their money more wisely and purchase either a Miata or a Honda product.

What did you see that caused this change of heart? :026:

[mgyip]

I've getting WALKED by CRXs with stock final drives and Integras with 300K on the engine... Sure, I can spend big dollars and get the car back into the top 10 but I have serious doubts that the 16v will ever be a winner in ITA.

Competitive? Sure - if you don't mind racing for the top 15 (out of 14 cars) and I will say that it's fun to race regardless of finishing position. However, it's no fun to know you're vying for DFL and the only reason you're not is b/c you're younger and more angry than the guy who just wants to turn some laps.

Back in ancient history, BSI told me that I was a fool for racing a 16v - conversely, SRS was convinced that the car could be a winner. I'm starting to think that Stu was more correct especially since I don't have bottomless pockets for a hobby whose big "winning" is a nice plastic trophy.

Yes, this is a VW-related forum but to ignore the competition (Honda, Mazda) is just plain stupid. It's like reading VW Vortex, a rather large VW-oriented forum, whose entire premise is "We're so blinded by VW that we'll overlook everything else so we can remain brand-loyal".

[mgyip]

Wasn't that the whole reason for Spec Miata? Because people felt the Miata wasn't competitive in ITA?

I think you're confusing Wreck Pinata with Wreck RX-7 - IT7 came into being b/c SCCA couldn't get their heads out of their butts to realize that the RX-7s (ITA) were getting slaughtered by the fuel-infected cars. Wreck RX-7 came about first to give ITA RX-7 drivers a place to race where they wouldn't automatically be DFL.

I'm not sure why Wreck Pinata came about but on Saturday's race, a mildly prepared ITA Pinata won and the same car took 2nd on Sunday so it's certainly competitive.

[cjb25hs]

You could always switch the car over to an 8v car and run itb and be up towards the top 5 if prepped properly.

[mgyip]

I know - we're in the midst of converting an ITB car to ITA - talk about the irony.

Then again, we have an A3 ITB car in our area that's doing quite well. I'm sure there would be an ITB revolt if VWs were beating the Volvos and 2002s...

[Beran]

Well - yes we have to know the competition... but we should be wise about where our VW's will win. When I came back to club racing 5 years ago I knew I wanted to build and race a VW. I did research and figured out quick where the right place to be is.... ITB with an MK3... this will change.
Back when SRS was saying the 16v was good in ITA was in the mid 90's... then more cars ended up in ITA and it became less competitive. Many of the IMSA Firestone Firehawk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Motor_Sports_Association#IMSA_Showro om_Stock ) cars ended up in SCCA ITA. My first race car was an ex VW Firehawk car which I raced in ITA from 93-96.

There is a VW that is allowed to race in ITB that has not been build yet and that is the MK4. I have no idea if it will be slower, the same, or faster.
Anyone know if anyone is building one?

[GTIspirit]

I've getting WALKED by CRXs with stock final drives and Integras with 300K on the engine... Sure, I can spend big dollars and get the car back into the top 10 but I have serious doubts that the 16v will ever be a winner in ITA.


So you think the 16V is uncompetitive in ITA because of the engine, rather than the brakes or handling? I'm curious, how much power/torque would make the 16V a front runner in ITA?

[jmracer17]

Well how much more power does a "well built" 16v make over a "well built" 8v? I dont know if its possible, but why doesnt it get droped to itb? Woud it just then walk away from the field? Sorry if its a dumb question but really dont know the output/handling/braking diference.

[mgyip]

So you think the 16V is uncompetitive in ITA because of the engine, rather than the brakes or handling? I'm curious, how much power/torque would make the 16V a front runner in ITA?

In those terms, both power and handling are weak points for the A2 chassis in general, especially with the current rules of "open ECUs BUT no standalone units". Ironically, the CRB hides behind "Not consistent with the intention of the class" and yet allows open ECUs which are every bit as pricey (if not more expensive) than a standalone unit. Then again, SCCA has to be incredibly cautious about their decisions and they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings - hence the stupidity about not requiring a HNR but that's another argument entirely.

How much power would a front runner make? Dunno - I'm putting about 130 to the flywheel (last year before freshening the bottom end) - I'm figuring the Hondas and Datsuns, er Nissans are 140ish since they benefit from the open ECU allowance.

The VWs with CIS and CIS-E CAN be tuned but that requires going to a dyno, grabbing one's ankles and saying "Thank you, may I have another" when the tuning is done. While the EFI tuning programs are similar, their "tuning" is much more simplified b/c it involves a dyno and a computer rather than a dyno and a myriad of VW-specific tools and gadgets to trick the CIS-E computer. Furthermore, while an EFI system can be tuned across the entire RPM range, CIS-E, because it is dumb system (both figuratively and literally), can only be tuned for a specific RPM range. This isn't bad and that's how Nastycar tunes their cars BUT the caveat is that when the car drops out of that RPM range, all the other cars sail past...

[mgyip]

why doesnt it get droped to itb? Woud it just then walk away from the field?

Because it's still too fast for ITB. The Catch-22 in this game (and I'll well aware of it and not complaining as much as stating fact) is that SCCA provides us a place to race but does NOT guarantee a car's competitiveness in any given class. This is part of the racing game - if you want the fastest car in a class, you'll virtually have to purchase a different car every year.

In my case, I'm stubborn (and apparently stupid) because I've been racing the same type of car for 12 years. After 12 years, I'm finally READING the writing on the walls - it's been there for 15 years but I just didn't read it. The question I keep asking myself if "Do I want to continue being DFL? Do I want to switch to a different car and/or class? Do I want to sell this car and take up underwater basketweaving?"

I'm tired of being DFL - I know that. Like most of us who race a certain make/model of car, I have a plethora of spares. Junk to most people but spares to the racers who can appreciate a 130K mile engine that ran when it was removed 8 years ago. Underwater basketweaving sounds like fun but in the Mid-Atlantic, we can only do that about 7 months out of the year before it gets too cold...

[GTIspirit]

with the current rules of "open ECUs BUT no standalone units". Ironically, the CRB hides behind "Not consistent with the intention of the class" and yet allows open ECUs which are every bit as pricey (if not more expensive) than a standalone unit.

How much power would a front runner make? Dunno - I'm putting about 130 to the flywheel (last year before freshening the bottom end) - I'm figuring the Hondas and Datsuns, er Nissans are 140ish since they benefit from the open ECU allowance.


Sorry, but I don't understand the difference between an "open" ECU and a "standalone" unit. Could you please elaborate?

A few years ago when I was re-building my PL engine to IT spec I bought the parts from Raffi at Eurosport. I'm pretty sure he said that about 150hp could be had out of the 16V. But I haven't been to the dyno and so have no idea the output of my rebuilt engine, rebuilt with all the allowances.

I can think of a few easy ways to install an aftermarket ECU to control spark and fueling on the KE-Jetronic system, without changing injectors or the distributor. But the limitation is the four-window hall effect camshaft sensor. Without an allowance for a toothed crankshaft wheel and sensor, it would require customized software and the spark timing wouldn't be very accurate. Which is why I had earlier suggested that the SCCA define a common sensor set so that all cars may take equal advantage of the open ECU rule and have a level playing field.

[jmracer17]

Wow. Ok. I agree it sucks being DFL. Esp. after i took my schools in A sedans. Well Im still on a bone stock motor so I am way down on power but I just cant see dropping 3k in a motor to still be DFL. In CFR, the ITA field is allot of Miatas. Yes, allot of it is driver but the other part is the car. I guess if you want to be up front you have to drop big money and for me, not going to happen. Im just starting college and cant afford it so it sucks. I guess thats why they say "cubic dollars" or "be born rich."

[Marcus Miller]

Wow. Ok. I agree it sucks being DFL. Esp. after i took my schools in A sedans. Well Im still on a bone stock motor so I am way down on power but I just cant see dropping 3k in a motor to still be DFL. In CFR, the ITA field is allot of Miatas. Yes, allot of it is driver but the other part is the car. I guess if you want to be up front you have to drop big money and for me, not going to happen. Im just starting college and cant afford it so it sucks. I guess thats why they say "cubic dollars" or "be born rich."

Not really; its about choosing your ride.
You can replicate my mid to upper pack (depending on driver) car for ~7K.

[lateapex911]

Because it's still too fast for ITB. The Catch-22 in this game (and I'll well aware of it and not complaining as much as stating fact) is that SCCA provides us a place to race but does NOT guarantee a car's competitiveness in any given class. This is part of the racing game - if you want the fastest car in a class, you'll virtually have to purchase a different car every year.



I'm tired of being DFL - I know that. ...

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I seriously doubt you're DFL. If you are, you have other issues than the car. There's a lot of talent levels out there, and you have to work to be DFL. I'll assume you're exaggerating for effect.
That aside, I have to call BS on the "new car every year" comment.. that's a HUGE exaggeration. I recently chatted with a CRX owner who complained his car was "junk" now. Yea, he's running tenths off (or under in testing) track records, and he's complaining that other cars have easier time tuning because they are OBDII. Boo hoo, LOL. Hard to not chuckle at that point of view when you look at the process used to class, the reported power levels, and dare I cite it: results. A car like his, a CRX, has won the ARRCs, (*)and the IT-Fest last year, and has been competitive for years. Except when they were beaten by Acuras. Or Nissan 240sx's. Or Nissan NX-2000. Yea, those cars are the same configuration as they've been for years.

If you had to buy a new car every year, that wouldn't be the case.

Regarding the possible move to ITB, here's how it plays out. (And, oh, let's not paint the picture of the Volvos and the 2002s getting all pissed if they were to be challenged, they might be big in the MARRS series, but lok around. Track record in Watkins Glen: Prelude. Atlanta? Golf III, I think. Or Accord. Point is, there are lots of candidates, and the Volvos and 2002s are only two of them.)

So, to move the car, you get to run the car through the process, (Assumed power times ITB factor plus minus any "adders".) That results in a new ITB weight, heavier than the current ITA weight. AND you get to buy a quiver of 6" (lightweight!) wheels and tires, and go testing the new wheel tire setup.

The ITAC looks hard at such class changes, because it's rather upsetting to many who are happy racing their cars as is. Whenever moves like that are made, there ARE people who are negatively affected...it's got to be clear case of the car not being able to make weight or some clear disadvantage.

Sorry to say, (and MAtt, I know you understand this, I'm just restating it...) but we all choose our cars, and we accept the warts, whether they are handling oddities, or difficult to deal with ECU systems, or components that wear excessivley.

* the win was taken in tech due to a cold air intake infraction. Same car is now running a compliant system, and won the IT Fest.

[lateapex911]

. Im just starting college and cant afford it so it sucks. I guess thats why they say "cubic dollars" or "be born rich."

If you're in college AND racing, you're living pretty large. Patience, grasshopper!

[mgyip]

DFL is certainly a relative term - we have cars that are well prepared and driven "gently" by drivers whose talent isn't at "the next level". Having a tiny bit of experience, I feel that I'm wringing out at least 90% (or more) out of my antique POS and yet the car keeps moving backwards in comparison. The "fast" ITA cars are in the 1.26 and 1.27s while the old VW is turning 1:30s on a good day (with a tailwind). Hence the comments that the car is no longer competitive. Heck, I'd be ecstatic to just break into the 1:29s but that probably won't happen in my lifetime or without a JATO.

Let me clarify further that a new car isn't necessary EVERY year but part of this is just the nature of the beast - as newer cars are classified, the older cars fall further down the food chain. At some point, the question must be asked whether it's better to spend $20K to fully prep an ITA CRX or an ITA Pinata.

I'm not so interested in running the car in ITB as I am about making the ECU ruling more fair to cars that don't have EFI. The ruling, as I read and interpret it, allows EFI cars to run anything they'd like on top of the factory system. Unfortunately, the non-EFI cars (in particular CIS and CIS-E cars - BMW, MB, Volvo and VW come to mind), don't have that benefit since their injection system is little more than a glorified electronic carburetor. I'm not sure how to address this but have been sorely disappointed with the ITAC's initial allowance of open ECUs - the rumor mill says that this was because the cheating was so rampant and there was no simple way to verify ECU programming that the ITAC decided that it was better to finally legalize the cheating than to try and crack down on the various and sundry "tunes" being run in EFI cars.

Yes, I opted to race a VW product and I've been living with the drawbacks - this holds true for ANY car since we all know (hopefully) that there is no such thing as a perfect car. Honds are fast but twitchy and fragile, 240s are heavy and the engines are tempermental....the list of issues goes on and on...

I'll hang on to my POS a while longer - until someone wants to pay me way too much money for an ITA car so I can either move on to something different or just "retire".

[lateapex911]

I'm not sure how to address this but have been sorely disappointed with the ITAC's initial allowance of open ECUs - the rumor mill says that this was because the cheating was so rampant and there was no simple way to verify ECU programming that the ITAC decided that it was better to finally legalize the cheating than to try and crack down on the various and sundry "tunes" being run in EFI cars.

.

Well, as to the choices in ITA, as I mentioned above, the Nissans, the Hondas, the Acuras, and others (Saturns, SE-Rs, Miatas, BMW E30s) have ALL been capable of winning top notch races for years. Most of those cars have been stable for 5 years. That many choices, and satability for over 5 years is NOT a Car of the year class, IMHO.

And don't spend $20K!!! Go buy AJ Nealy's CRX. Fast fast fast that car is, and I think he's asking $12K.

Regarding the ITAC and the ECu situation.

First, when cars with ECUs became available, there was no ITAC. Carb cars have always had optional carbs allowed, and have allowed jetting/air bleed needle/accel pump changes, along with ignition timing changes.

In the begining, FI cars were not allowed any such changes. It's really unclear if the weights assigned FI cars acounted for the lack of allowable tuning. Most will tell you that weight setting at the time was a hotley debated subject, and transparency and repeatibility was non existant. So there are serious doubts as to some of the weights at the time.

In order to allow fuel injected cars the same advantages carbed cars had, CRB decided to allow the same category of mods, and did so by allowing "chips". Rumours suggested that you couldn't police the chips anyway, and the true intent of the rule will likely never be know, lost to the ages.

Regardless, smart competitors replaced chips with sister boards and so on, using the chip socket. Others complained that chips weren't available for their cars. ooops! Unintended consequence. The CRB (the ITAC hadn't been created, or was in it's infancy and had no real role) decided that it was out of control, and came up with the "in the box" solution.

Than, the ITAC came into being, and created a "process" to set weights. It did a Grear Realignment" and set/reset weights of many cars, and assumed they'd be getting the power available through the allowed ECU changes.

If you hate the new rule, hate me. I brought it to the ITAC, because the old in the box version had tons of inequities. I knew going in that:

A- under the ITAC system FI cars were getting classed with a power factor that assumed they'd be taking advantage of the 'open ECU rule' even though it was only truly open to those who had the $ and could fit their solution in their box. So many many ECu cars were racing at a weight that was set assuming they'd have the ECU power gains, but they did not.

B- that allowing these cars to acheive their full potential would be removing a disadvantage, and would result in some competitive changes. Trust me on this one, as an owner of an ITA RX-7 with no torque, and carbs, and racing at a weight set based on a suspicious commitee, (years of look the other way ported rotaries skews teh perception of whats actually possible) any gains fuel injected cars made would send me down the reults charts right quick.

But, it was the right thing to do, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of....me!

(An interesting aside: We asked for input on the ECU rule, and we got it! Many letter writers went beyond their little world, and saw the big picture. Some said, essentially, "I don't own an ECU equipped car, so any change to their favor will hurt me, but opening the rule up is the right way to go". Those letters REALLY carried some weight)

The rule corrects a bad situation, but it isn't perfect. In the IT philosophy, we are beholden to "Genre" rules. No model specific adjustments of rules are allowed. Certain exceptions DO exist in the ITCS, but we've been working on removing those.

In the end, the new ECU rule has allowed more racers to get what the rules allowed them to do already, easier and less expensively than in the previous to the rule. The path was bumpy. Technology changes do that. But we have the old racing with the new pretty equally now, in many cases.

Bottom line, if the Golf II isn't competitive because of empirical issues, or you think the weight has been arrived at in error, feel free to wrte in and present a well crafted case as to why. If that case can be coroborated, and documented, there is a chance (no guarantees) that the car could see an adjustment.

[Flyinglizard]

The 16V is just like the Toy MR2, well developed from the factory. Legally , it wont go much faster. Add a few pounds, drop it into ITB. It should be very close at 100# over the 8V. It is still limited by the extra front weight that goes with the 16V, as well as the small cams that wont let it run to 8K.IMHO. Mike Ogren ,

[lateapex911]

Here's the problem with that idea Mike.

The process predicts it will make XYZ horsepower. Weight is specified based on that. When a car comes up for a request of it's weight to be reviewed, the ITAC does the math.

So, the process Hp number is the same for ITB or ITA. The weight applied is what varies, as the two classes have different weight factors.

So, if it can't make the predicted output in ITA, it won't make it in ITB. Ergo, it will be as competitive, or as uncompetitive in B as it is in A.

I would vote against such a move, as everyone will need to dump all their wheels and tires and get new ones....(the cost), and the results (the potential benefit) won't change one bit.

Cost vs benefit in this case is bad.

(Regional arguments might vary, as one class is a "bigger pond' in one region or another, but the math shows the car will have equal chances in either class, all things being equal)

If the car was making power, but nobody could get the car within 100 pounds of min weight, lets say, THEN there would be a benefit to moving the car.

The real trick, in this case, (if what you say is true) is preparing a case that shows the car fails to meet process power, and having the weight adjusted downward in it's current class. If the resulting weight is unattainable, THEN it goes down a class, at a higher, and attainable weight.

Proving that 'negative' is very hard, but not impossible.

[Flyinglizard]

The 16V spins to about 7500 max ,with legal cams. The 8V spin about 6600 max , with a legal cam. The 1000 or less rpm, doesnt make 40 hp more needed to run ITA. It just wont burn enough fuel.
The wheels for B are very easy to find, and cheap. I doubt that anyone still driving a 16V would not make the jump to B. I had one ,and it was the very same speed as my ITB Rocco. It is now an 8V car.
It would just be too easy to down class this car and try it for a year or two. The former ITA Honda Civic, has set new levels in B. It also needs looked at. Pretty soon the whole SCCA will be spec cars. It is a lot easier to not do anything than it is to balance the class. I know that there are a lot of people that work on just this problem. And It is not going to please everyone.
When I decide a car to race in a venue. I start with #/CC, than valve size, than intake size, etc. One of my current circle cars has had to add 125#, to slow it down. Regardless of why it is so fast..
IMHO , a Golf 2,(1.8) 16V @ 2350 will still not beat a fair Golf 3, and maybe not a good Mk 2 , 8V.
Sorry to bother you, MM

[mgyip]

Pretty soon the whole SCCA will be spec cars.

I truly hope that's NOT what the future has in store for SCCA - NASA is already doing that with their Spec (fill-in-the-blank) series including Pinatas, Foci, 3-Series BMWs and I'm sure there will be more to come.

All of my belly-aching aside, I really don't want to drive the same car as the other 30 people in my race group. The VW does some things very well (what they are has yet to be determined :D) but it does do some things better than the comparable Honda, Mazda or Nissan. It's just frustrating to race one of the few cars that got shot squarely in the a&& by the changes in the rules.

For the time being, I'll stick with what I've got and see how far down I can move in the finishing order (top 10 for the past 6 or so years in year-end points) before I decide it's time to go Japanese or move into the last decade.

[lateapex911]

Or, if you want to stay in ITA, and are tied to the German thing, build an early 911 ;)

[GTIspirit]

The process predicts it will make XYZ horsepower. Weight is specified based on that. When a car comes up for a request of it's weight to be reviewed, the ITAC does the math.

The real trick, in this case, (if what you say is true) is preparing a case that shows the car fails to meet process power, and having the weight adjusted downward in it's current class. If the resulting weight is unattainable, THEN it goes down a class, at a higher, and attainable weight.

So what is this process power for the 1.8L 16V? It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.

[lateapex911]

So what is this process power for the 1.8L 16V? It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.

Help me with the stock hp...
And there have been plenty of weight adjustments to get cars aligned with the process when requests have been made. Some stay the same, others get changed. I don't know what the ratio is, but it's absolutely not "Always that the classification is ok".

[mgyip]

Thanks but no thanks - a local racer built a 911-E for ITS and is now selling it b/c it apparently doesn't meet his level of competitiveness. Having raced side-by-side with the car and watching it try to swap ends under heavy braking, I'll stick with my porky, underpowered VW for the time being - at least it doesn't require 150% of my attention just to keep it moving in a straight (or relatively straight) line...

[mgyip]

Help me with the stock hp....

Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.

[evanwebb]

I would think that a 16V Golf like Matt's would need like ~200 lb to go into ITB. Matt's good driver, and his car is good, but he's turning lap record times at Summit for ITB with his car now, I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...

[lateapex911]

Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.

Process power is 153.75 at the crank (130.68 at the wheels) for the 1.8
and 158.75 (135) for the 2.0.

2220 current weight, of 1.8, without knowing the car that well, I think that's pretty close, within 30 or so pounds.
current weight of the 2.0 :2475 yeah this one seems heavy.

I can't remember without digging through the records when/if these were processed. It might not be a bad idea to request a review.

[mgyip]

I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...

Money injection ALWAYS helps (which is why I don't race in a GT class where cubic dollars always beats talent). A better driver certainly wouldn't hurt the GTi, that's fer sure.

Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

Perhaps I should run the car all season, put it in the top 10 (again) and then ask silly money for the car b/c the VW fanbois will pay big bucks for stuff like that. Then I'll take my ill-gotten earnings and learn how to read Japanese whilst deciphering an Integra...:shrug:

[lateapex911]

Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

..:shrug:

Well, you write a letter to the CRB asking us to run it through the process. If it's been run recently, the number will be the same. If it hasn't been run, there could be a change. Up, or down.

Now, if it's down, I think you said you're getting close to minimum, so that could be a gift that just doesn't give, ...

The 1st gen RX-7 got a review that resulted in a weight that the RX-7 guys cried at, "It can NOT be done". Well, I can name tow or three versions from different years that are at minimum weight. But it requires scrupulous work, hollow sway bars, titanium mufflers, and so on. Nobody said it would be easy. Some cars don't cooperate.

If the process weight turns out to be way lower, then it gets a good discussion about dropping it a class, but, A to B is a big hurdle, and the ITAC is loath to do it.

So, you have the data. You now know what YOU make for power, and what the process expects you to make. And you know your weight, and how low you can go. So, you've got options.

[Bill Miller]

Matt,

So w/ the VIN rule having gone by the boards, why not drop a 2.0 in it and convert to digi-fizz? That'll get you the ECU benefit and get you some more power. Not to mention that you probably won't have to worry about that extra chili dog. :eek::D:p

I agree though, w/ the VIN rule gone, doesn't make sense to built a 1.8 16v Golf for ITA anymore.

And a minor correction, IIRC, the published hp for the 2.0 16v cars was 135.


Jake,

Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?

[mgyip]

I'd considered switching to a 2.0L 16v BUT I have 5 1.8 16vs reposing quietly in my garage. Beyond that, the VW fanbois worship the 2.0L 16v so finding one (or more) is a pricey proposition. I'll try my best to prove Stu Brummer (BSI) correct that I'm a moron for racing a 1.8l 16v in ITA. 11 years thusfar so if nothing else, I'm persistent...

[jmracer17]

Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.

I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added? :shrug:

[Knestis]

...It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.

Lots of language in here that simply doesn't apply to how the ITAC works - "perceived," "theoretical, mystical." As Jake mentions, we do simple math unless we've got compelling evidence that a car makes more or less power than the standard system expects.

On that latter point, take a look at the September Fastrack thread. There are quite a number of recommendations from the ITAC to the Board that are waiting on approval. With any number of requests processed, frankly the chance of them being RIGHT ON - that is, "ok as is" is very slim.


...Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?

I don't think that's fair, Bill. I haven't seen anything in Jake's posts here that I can't agree with - unless I missed something...?


I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?

Write the Comp Board - [email protected] - and ask them to review the weight. I'm pretty confident that it hasn't been done under the "modern" regime.

K

[jmracer17]

Emailed them today so we will see what comes back. As soon as I get a reply I will post it.

[jmracer17]

They say it will be addressed at the next meeting and will be posted in the fastrack. we will see.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

My comment was related to post #54. Going as far back as the 2000 ITCS, FI cars were adjust the fuel mixture by changing the resistance values going from the sensors to the computer. Based on the way things are in that ITCS, looks like the alternate needles / jets for the carbs was new for 2000.

[Knestis]

Alternate needs/jets were allowed starting with the very first national IT rules in 1985.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

K

[mgyip]

I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added? :shrug:

In theory, the 2.0l 16v used CIS-E Moronic which should be more tunable than CIS-E. My car is roughly at the 2.0L 16v weight (well, it used to be) and it didn't seem to make the car significantly faster or slower with that add'l weight.

[jmracer17]

Ok. Well. Put in for a review of the car to the crb so hope they can make something of it. I love the car and love to drive (which Is why we all are out here for, right?). Hope they can do something to make it a little more competitive in the class, or how ever they do. I just want to race against people with "equal cars". I know that will never happen but we can all dream right?

[Bill Miller]

Alternate needs/jets were allowed starting with the very first national IT rules in 1985.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

K

Kirk,

I based my comment off the way the text in the 2000 ITCS was formatted. There were vertical bars on both sides of the paragraph, and the following text was in quotes:

"Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized."

The convention then, was to identify a paragraph that had changed since the prior year, w/ the vertical bars. The new / altered text was in italics. Maybe that stuff was already there, but they just diddled the language a bit. Sorry if I had it wrong, but that's the oldest GCR I could find in my bookcase.

[VWralley]

Just starting my build up of an EP/ITA gti, planning on running the 2L with cis-M. My region doesn't seem to be nearly as hardcore so hopefully i'll be able to run mid pack. Just looking for some track time for a while haha

[shwah]

I will just reiterate that IMO the 1.8 CIS-E car is the more competitive choice. That is a lot of weight on little front brakes, and the CIS-E is much easier to tune right.

[VWralley]

what would be the weight difference between the 2 engine choices? Will probably be running EP here but would like to have the option to run ITA to maximize track time. Not looking to be nationally competetive or anything, just looking to get on the track and do some racing as finances permit...

personally i have had a hell of a time working with cis-e compared to the motornic setup. If i had my choice it would be 'squirted but trying to build something that fits into our regional classes haha!

[shwah]

The EP classification is for the 1.8 motor as well. An ITA car will by wayyyy out clased in EP though. That is a Level 1 prep = any cam, any head porting, convert to solid shim under bucket lifters, manifold porting, any CR, pistons, rods, crank. To be competitive there you would want something north of 220 crank hp. If the goal is track time I totally understand, but for a better shot at dual purpose a 1.8 8v in ITB and Level 2 prep HP might be a better choice.

A potentiometer (adjustable resistor), a normally closed relay and some wires are all it takes to setup CIS-E so you can turn a knob while on the dyno to set the AFR wherever you like. It does not get much more simple. Remove the knock box, and trigger the ignition module straight from the hall sender to 'pin' the timing right where you want it, and go racing.

The 2 liter is 2475#, the 1.8 2220# for the GTI 16V in ITA. You can definitely make the lower weight. I have 100# bolted to the floor of my 2280# ITB car, and have to watch fuel levels to make weight.

[VWralley]

Oh i think you are thinking i meant E Prepared? I'm speaking of E Production, which is very similar in prep to the IT classes (ICSCC up here)

i calculated the race weights for EP and it is 2412 w/ 2L and 2286 w/ the 1.8. The top EP car in the region is a 16v gti, and he also runs in the front of the group. My goal would be to be able to come in to the group and run somewhere in the middle and develop the car from there as i get more time in the drivers seat.

I have a 2L block and head, the block has a few rally events on it after a fresh rebuild and the head has less than 1500mi on it. So for me to build a 1.8 to similar condition would run me a whole lot more dough. The advice is VERY much appreciated though thank you!

[VWralley]

I was also curious how strict it is for body trim/flairs/bumpers...Ideally i think i would like to run small bumpers but could run either without much of a difference. However the shell i got has a few minor body modifications that would make it a pain to ad side trim (mounting holes shaved). And the front marker lights have also been shaved.

[shwah]

I am referring to SCCA's E Production. Sounds like a different animal than what you have there. Sorry for the confusion.

I totally get working with what you have. I do that all the time.

IT is A-OK with pulling side moldings and filling those holes. The side markers should be there, but a pair of fenders is not real pricy.

[VWralley]

Yeah that is kinda what i was leaning towards. Basically get on the track and go from there. Seat time first then more car prep :)

Ah i forgot about the SCCA production classes, yes totally different animal from what i can tell haha! I think the only big difference in the conference EP and ITA is maybe the weights...not sure. Anyways thank you for the suggestions, gonna pick the brain of the front runner and see what info he'll give up! haha