Printable View
My friends and I were BSing the other night over a few Pints , and we were dicussing all the new Vw news and the classification of the MKIV and all that fun stuff. One question came up that seems to got me baffled , so i put the question out before the IT VW community, or anyone else who could give a crap.....
What about the 2.0 16V GTI in ITA ...?? Would this not be a competitive car ?
Discuss.... :014:
-John
I know someone with a 1.8 16v, the car is overweight but he can still hold in ground in the bottom 10 positions. I think if we where to get the weight off and take some more time to get power out of the engine he could move up.
However, if I wanted to be in the front of ITA I would probably not build a VW today.
I'm biased but I think a full-tilt 2.0 16v might be a pretty good ITA car - particularly as we get the no-VIN rule change in effect. It would be an affordable starter build with the right MkII shell and guts out of a Passat, it seems...?
K
The biggest difference is CIS-Motrinic. If you can backdate to CIS-E you might be better off. Motrinic is a pain and noone really programs chips for that ECU anymore. I just dont know if it can make the power you want though.
Fully programmable injection FTW (as the kids say)...
K
How can you have fully programable injection if you cannot change out injectors? You still have the CIS box and the DPR to deal with. I have yet to find a solid solution on the CIS-E or motronic system other then more finite control of the timing maps. Its one reason I been considering swaping my ITB car to digifant so I can go with a stand alone system on pulse fired injectors using a MAP sensor and just leaving the oem air meter in place by the rules. On the 16v you only had CIS-E and CIS-Motronic.
Duh. Your wrote "Motronic" and I read "Digifant."
This is why Cameron makes the technical decisions. :)
K
I should ping him some time for thoughts.
Does any one have an exact HP # for the 2.0L 16v ? And I think the weight is at ,2450 lbs ?...
You would think this might be able to give the spec Acuras a run for their money ?
Or, if a strong enough lobby would get the weight knocked down or did this happen already with the GA ? .....( not Greg Amy ) ....:blink: (( sorry greg))
Right now in the NE there is a decent mix of cars... I know of a certain Miata that is quick , numerous Acura's and there are some Nissan's that are showing their mettle....or is it metal ?:rolleyes:
I would love to see some more VW's in the action...
-John
the 9A 16v (2L) was rated stock at 134HP at 5800 and 133ft/lb of torque at 4400. So IF you can get 25% more out of the motor (which I dont think is possible without the 50mm intake manifold which was not offered on US spect cars) your looking at around 167hp and 166ft/lb. Plausable that it could do well, but it would depend on what you can get out of CIS-Motronic which at least if you can find someone that remembers how to flash the chip you can work out some of your fueling and your ignition map.
But from the specline your at 2475 vs. 2220 for the 1.8L.
I am curious to know what some top Acura's/Miata's are putting out... I heard somewhere in the 160-170 hp range...but that might be alot of smoke as well...
-John
If you are thinking crank numbers, then you are correct. WHP is WAY below that as you can imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit05
And IIRC, the 2.0L is 140hp stock at the crank.
Ball-park you lose about 10-15% from the crank ?? I cant remeber ...
-John
I estimate 15% for a FWD and 18% for a RWD.
I actually think the 1.8 would be the one to run. Back in the day it was a winner for Mathis (but it seems to be heavier now - strange).
Andy, the 2.0 is 134 hp. The 1.8 is 123.
If the vin rule goes away, I have considered tossing a 1.8 in my car and giving it a go.
Point of order - there's no such thing as "lobbying" to get a weight reduction. The most that can be asked is that the specification process be applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit05
K
That is what i meant...just tongue in cheek type o' way...sorry to offend...
Is the 134 hp at the crank ..? Or wheels..?
-John
-john
Crank. Don't know of any fully developed 2.0's that I have seen dyno sheets for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit05
The both are restricted on the exhaust side of the head, and with conservative cams.
The 1.8 has nicer intake ports on the head.
Some (or all?) 2.0s have a slightly larger intake runner diameter (not the 50mm it needs to be though).
They have different plenum volumes as well.
I don't know if Chuck's old car ever saw the dyno.
I do know that brakes become more of an issue, as there is more weight on the front with the bigger head, and more speed on the straights with a bit more power. Good ducting and wheelfans did enable them to work OK.
I think the car may still be around, it got sold and moved east sometime around 2000.
I been trying to gett matt to put his 1.8L on a dyno to see what its making, so far no dice. But thats a CIS-E car with as much fuel as we could pull out of the DPR using the stock brains.
James - you can get 170+hp worth of fuel out of CIS-E with stock brains....
The head and cams are the limiting factor on the 16v and 8v IMO.
All engines suffer from stock cams. CIS-E if you can get it to behave itself will give you the fuel you need to run a 300hp turbo motor. But getting there and it staying there is what most people have to contend with.
Right now my 8v is built and should make more power, but even after swapping brains twice i still run very lean (great for power but bad for longevity of the motor.) So I been trying to get it tuned to stay in the comfortable fueling range.
I can run as rich as I want on my car, though it does have a slight slope from rich to lean through the power band moving from high 12s to low 13s on a typical dyno pull.
That was the plan for this year with my car, but then my house took away my dyno monies, so I am still doing what I can using just and AF meter.