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]

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

[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]

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).

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

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?