Audi A4 2.8L Quattro NA - ITS car?

Going through the GCR and thinking about what might be a cool car to run in ITS. I got to thinking about an Audi A4 2.8 Quattro. Stock this car makes 172 HP and weighs 3228 lbs. Normally aspirated.

This might be a very fun car to run in ITS and I'm curious to hear what others would think. I've been able to find decent examples for about $5K - not unlike the cost of an E36 tub.

This would make for some very cool replays of World Challenge from a few years ago. Give that Audi for any rain race B)


looking at years 1996-1999 B5 model.

So whaddyall think?

Cheers,

Ben

Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.

You might want to consider a different car if you want to run in ITS.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 02:02 PM
Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.

You might want to consider a different car if you want to run in ITS.

[snapback]61928[/snapback]

---

I should have been more clear. There is no listing for this car in anything but SSB today. I'd like to see what people think about trying to add the car to the ITS class.

Also, what do people thing about classing FWD and AWD. Would they have different weights?

Thanks,

Ben

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 09:02 AM
Well after looking at the current GCR, I don't see the Audi A4 classed in ITS. I know in the WDCR region the two A4's I know of that are built to IT spec are both running in ITE but they are not quattro.

---

At least one of those, IIRC, is the 1.8T motor. I don't know if the other is the 6 cyl or not....

joe

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jamsilvia@Oct 6 2005, 02:13 PM
At least one of those, IIRC, is the 1.8T motor. I don't know if the other is the 6 cyl or not....

joe

[snapback]61932[/snapback]

---

There's a 1.8 turbo and a 2.8 NA

I don't think the turbo would be permitted - too easy to tweak the hp and the class seems to avoid turbos in general.

Ahh Andy posted in your other thread and overlooked it. Currently IT does not allow AWD vehicals. So you could get a FWD 2.8 classed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesB@Oct 6 2005, 11:07 AM
So you could get a FWD 2.8 classed.

[snapback]61939[/snapback]

---

Yup we looked at this car. But at only 172hp we thought it would be too heavy.
So we went with another FWD 2.8L VW/Audi product weighing in at 2860.

If you can get the car classed at a similar weight then it would be worth it. But the BMWs are still going to kick our butts :blink:

Bill,

I thought it was the 2.8 VR6 that made 172, and that the 2.8 V6 from the B5 A4/Passat make 185 or 190 (have to look it up). And to the folks that want the Audi classified, ask for the Passat. Same motor, and plenty more FWD cars out there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 6 2005, 08:44 PM
Bill,

I thought it was the 2.8 VR6 that made 172, and that the 2.8 V6 from the B5 A4/Passat make 185 or 190 (have to look it up). And to the folks that want the Audi classified, ask for the Passat. Same motor, and plenty more FWD cars out there.

[snapback]61990[/snapback]

---

Shhhhhh B)
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

Passat ITS car :blink: hmmmmmm :D

Well, I've got the fomal request before the comp committee. We'll see what they say.

I'll post the result of the request. Any bets on the outcome???

Thanks,

The A4 1.8T Quattro can run in ITE?

Yes, pretty much anything can run in ITE.

I think what is needed (and I havent' gotten aroud to it myself yet) is to request the CRB to lift the AWD ban outside of Touring and SS. I don't think the ITAC can do it since the ban isn't technically in the ITCS it is in 11.2.1.Y.

Essentially the request needs to be made that in consideration of the Touring (and SS) cars that are currently AWD that existing AWD cars too old for those classes be classed in order to make the path for aging Touring cars clearer.

Once the AWD ban in general is lifted then send the ITAC the forms for requesting the vehicle be classed in IT.

If there is any view at all to the future the time to be thinking about how to work AWD into classing is now not in three years when the 03 Evo's, 04 STi's, 04 WRX's and 04 RS's start looking for new homes after Touring.

the problem is that while they could lift the ban, certainly the first few cars classified would be done very carefully. in other words heavy. that is just being cautious as I would expect the boards to be. if the cars are on the heavy side no one will build them. that may be interpreted as lack of interest so no more new cars will be classified.

It's even more dynamic than that: There's the belief - probably justified - that an AWD car will be THE tool in the wet, even if it's heavy in dry conditions. Most everyone will be very anxious about setting up a situation where a particular chassis has a demonstrable advantage in a particular set of conditions.

Someone in a past conversation said, "Now I need rain tires and dry tires. Will I need a rain car and a dry car?" Or words to that effect.

Personally, I think it's like ABS. Let it happen and understand that it's just another example of "different horses for different courses." This is the way it is now, just not to the degree that it might be with new technologies.

K

This AWD vs RWD/FWD cars issue has been debated several times on this site for "wet" and "dry" tracks, but I think that if you look up some of the results from the this past season with the T2 Subaru's or any other series including the Speed Touring GT cars that a "good driver" can drive any configured car to a victory in the dry or the wet. Whenever Audi has dominated with the AWD it has been on both wet and dry surfaces, and I don't think it is fair to say that AWD would give an advantage... especially with the HP that these cars have... we are not talking 700+ HP wich still wouldn't event represent ice, snow or dirt where traction is limited even with good tires wich is the only place that I see the cars clearly having an advantage.

Any car with the HP that IT cars have wouldn't get an advantage with AWD IMO. Same goes with the debate of FWD and RWD. RWD cars school FWD cars all the time with good drivers and good tires, as do FWD cars school RWD cars provided they have good drivers and good tires.

Raymond "another vote here to lift the ban, without penalty" Blethen

PS: I think that an AWD car is more forgiving and easier to drive, however matching good driver and good tires vs good driver and good tires I think you will still have a good race.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 7 2005, 04:27 PM
Most everyone will be very anxious about setting up a situation where a particular chassis has a demonstrable advantage in a particular set of conditions.

[snapback]62058[/snapback]

---

That is the thing the situation already exists and was accepted when they decided to mix FWD cars in with RWD cars.

Also everyone jumps on the supposedly abundantly clear wet advantage - but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination. Every formula used by everyone that allows AWD already penalizes both sides of the equation - they add more weight than they would for RWD or FWD on top of a weight that was calculated incorrectly on power output if you were to consider power that actually reaches the ground.

Actually, the 96-97 A4 12V did make 172, while the 98-up A4 30V made the 190. The 98-99 Passat had the same engine as the A4 (longitudinal) :) I tried to pick up a $1500 FWD 98 Passat, which is basically the same animal, and thought it might make a decent ITS steed. Unfortunately, someone beat me to the car so maybe we'll never know (unless it was another IT guy?). As for FWD vs AWD, the AWD cars are significantly heavier, so I don't think they'd ever do well in ITS ('cept in the rain).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 7 2005, 04:02 AM
Shhhhhh B)
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.

Passat ITS car :blink: hmmmmmm :D

[snapback]62003[/snapback]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 7 2005, 05:46 PM
........- but conveniently neglect the inherent drive train penalty. The cars would 1) be rated on brake hp and toque as if their drive train loss were equivelant and 2) then be awarded a 100# weight penalty on top of the wt/power determination.

[snapback]62069[/snapback]

---

How do you know that? Do you have the process and additional factors used by the ITAC?

And, just curious, your first line about embracing different configurations already, which is superior on a wet course, FWD or RWD?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 8 2005, 12:22 AM
How do you know that? Do you have the process and additional factors used by the ITAC?

And, just curious, your first line about embracing different configurations already, which is superior on a wet course, FWD or RWD?

[snapback]62084[/snapback]

---

ITAC doesn't evaluate AWD so it would only be hypothetical. But members have posted here the manner of their thinking in classing recently and they have only talked about brake hp and maybe another consideration or two but never has consideration for efficiency of one drivetrain vs another been mentioned. And those that actually have classed AWD in other organizations consistently have maintained the same brake power/wieght goals without considering the heavy drivetrain loss of AWD - no reason to think a hypothetical ITAC future decision would. There is such an unsupported perceived AWD advantage that those who think AWD should even be considered have said sure but only as long as their is a huge weight penalty. It is already evident in last year's classing of the STi in T1 - I have never seen a car so blatently overclassed by the SCCA before. Sure they corrected it - but the initial response illustrates the absolute fear of the unknown with which new things are brought into the process.

If I am wrong - I am always open to being corrected. But it is much more effective to do so with an example of a different result than I have put forth rather than just being told that I am wrong and don't understand. Help us understand.

FWD would generally be superior on a wet course - and if you are going to point out some situation with an exceptionally well prepared and well driven RWD car that is fine and the same condition would exist against an AWD car. Where is the competitive history and evidence that AWD would somehow in a large way reshape condition competitiveness?

This place is worse than social politics - one side is widely accpeted to loudly voice their view but if the other side espouses their own watch out, that isn't appropriate.