ITAC News.

[lateapex911]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

See my above comments...those factors are from an early version that was written before my time.
I'm inferring here that the reason those factors came to play is because, at the time, the big bad boys of IT were teh BMW E36, and the CRX in ITA. Both cars were unique in their ability to exceed factory rated hp by a significant amount, but it wasn't due to architecture. But, I think the authors of that document were reacting to those two cars, and that Process was the result. SOP hasn't followed those recommendations for years.

[jjjanos]

Mr. Dowd strongly implied that any versions of the process after TGRA were void and null, or at least I infered it.

Let's run the numbers again using the 1.25/1.30/1.35 multipliers

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1935 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 195
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.25 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -95

Now that imples that a CRX with it's poor torque and much smaller brakes has either a suspension or other advantage that requires a 290 pound weight advantage for the Newer Golf.

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.30 * 17 = 2010 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 120
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.30 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -190

Darn, thought we had it when the CRX weight increased, but so does the Golf. The CRX is a 310 pound better car now.

So, let's take the highest multiplier for the CRX - 1.35 and the lowest for the newer Golfs (1.25) ...

CRX: 2130 (OW) - 2090 (Pre-adder weight) = 40 pounds too heavy
"Golf": 2350 (OW) - 2445 (Pre-adder weight) = 95 pounds too light.

So, the difference between the two translates into throwing 135 pounds onto the CRX. Let me see... both are FWD cars so it cannot be that. Torque? I'd say advantage Golf, but let's call it a draw. Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

[shwah]

Mr Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

Somebody must have because the ITAC's own math says the ITB CRX is a heck of a better car than the VWs. It's got to be suspension, brakes or torque.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

For the ITC CRX, the rears are useful for keeping the car from rolling off the jackstands when the front is in the air. For the ITB car - same sized front calipers as the ITC car, the extra weight and extra speed, the drums come into play.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

Won't matter... neither an error nor omission as defined by the CRB.