99-03 Golf is now in ITB - any thoughts?

[Beran]

Just saw the fasttrack and the 99-03 Golf is in ITB now.
Any thoughts on how good this car will be?
Beran

[shwah]

The first thought I have is that it is basically the same car as the Beetle. So why again is the Beetle a C car?

The MkIV chassis is not a huge advancement over the previous generations. It still has mac strut front, twist beam rear, bad camber curves and an instant roll center that moves too low if you lower it too much.

The unibody is a bit stiffer than the MkIII.

The motors are not significantly better IMO.

The brakes are better.

[JamesB]

Having worked on both the NB and many many many golfs of this platform there is a big difference. The NB would never get down to weight, but I think the mk4 could go on a diet and get pretty close to that min weight for ITB. The rear seatbacks alone weight more then the mk3 golf seatbacks. There is a LOT more insulation to remove. It does have 11.3 brakes, but camber will have to come strictly from the camber plates as there is no adjustments like the mk3 has at the spindle.

Motor is no better, gear ratios are about the same. The car should not be lowered too much if at all due to the front suspension geometry. Unibody is much better then mk3, but really nothing different after a proper cage is installed.

Disabling traction control is pretty easy, ABS is not as easy as some methods cause a complete limp mode. Good chip tuning support through the OBD2 port for instant programmming, though utilizing the aftermarket ECU rules and an early 99-00 drive by cable car would be easier then the later drive by wire cars. I dont know if I would build one myself, but I would definetly help anyone who wanted to build one up.

[Knestis]

The fact that there hasn't been a rush to build NB's for C was taken into consideration during ITAC discussions about the Golf. They are both close enough that the question becomes "perhaps too light in B or a fat-ass in C?" Consensus was that since the latter approach with the NB didn't seem to set anyone on fire, we'd lean the other direction with the Golf.

Not having any direct experience to call on, we presumed that the Golf follows current industry practice of simply piling more junk into a similar steel box as previous versions. Regardless, the ITAC is currently willing to accept that a too-low minimum weight might result - one that's REALLY tough to get to - if that's what the math says it should be.

At this point, the only reasons I'd go the MKIV route would be similar to those I considered when choosing a MkIII over a MkII - it's a generation newer so the parts stream will be longer. I wonder too (based on my experience now w/the MkIII) if the IV's share the awful rust problems we seem to be stuck with...

K

[JamesB]

For rust, I haven't seen it too bad, but they are later model cars. I guess it would depend on if it got past the insanely thick undercoating on these cars.

[shwah]

The brake are a big jump from the Golf III. Thus the spec weight surprises me.

I think it could be a competitive car.

[Knestis]

On 15x6" wheels.

I doubt that the brakes are going to make it significantly better than the MkIII. They've never been a limiting factor on my car, even at places like CMP. But then, I'm not King of the Late Brakers either.

K

[Bill Miller]

The fact that there hasn't been a rush to build NB's for C was taken into consideration during ITAC discussions about the Golf. They are both close enough that the question becomes "perhaps too light in B or a fat-ass in C?" Consensus was that since the latter approach with the NB didn't seem to set anyone on fire, we'd lean the other direction with the Golf.

Not having any direct experience to call on, we presumed that the Golf follows current industry practice of simply piling more junk into a similar steel box as previous versions. Regardless, the ITAC is currently willing to accept that a too-low minimum weight might result - one that's REALLY tough to get to - if that's what the math says it should be.

At this point, the only reasons I'd go the MKIV route would be similar to those I considered when choosing a MkIII over a MkII - it's a generation newer so the parts stream will be longer. I wonder too (based on my experience now w/the MkIII) if the IV's share the awful rust problems we seem to be stuck with...

K

Interesting Kirk, as that was one of the main arguments as to why the Protege went to C instead of B, because the B process weight would be tough to get to.

See my comments in the April FasTrack thread. Based on the published curb weights, is there really 260# of extra stuff (that can legally be removed) from a Mk IV over a Mk III?

As far as the NB in ITC, and people not jumping to build them. I wonder if it's a case of it being a car that people are not interested in racing? The fact that it's a tad on the heavy side would probably help push the fence-sitters. Regardless, maybe it makes sense to move it to ITB. If the philosophy is to class cars at weights that may not be achievable, why not?

[Knestis]

Yeah - it seems like for some of the options we're asked to list, there's no really good answer.

We can go heavy one way or light the other, but with the "tweeners" there are as many good reasons to NOT choose one course of action as there is to choose it. The MkIV tipped the scale one way, the Protege the other - based on the best information we had to work with.

It's impossible to know the Truth before someone an example of a new car, and frankly still really tough to sort the facts from fiction AFTERWARD. (See also, "1st generation MR2")

K

EDIT - And please remember that my comments about the ITAC as a body are filtered through my perceptions. I cannot see into the souls of my fellow committee members on a conference call. Recognize too, we work toward consensus decisions - one definition of which is that EVERYONE is a little pissed off about the final answer.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

You do know that you're making a pretty strong case for dual-classification w/ posts like this, don't you?

I admit, it's a tough call. Are people more likely to build a car that they know they can't get close to the spec weight on, or are they more likely to build one that's seems to be overly bloated? And I know it's not as simple as that. There's the issue of exactly which classes are in question. I don't think you'd have the same issues w/ ITS vs ITA as you would ITB vs ITC. By that I mean to say, I don't think the class would come into play (much) w/ the ITS/A case, as it would w/ the ITB/C case. ITS and ITA are pretty healthy, regardless of where you go. The same can't be said for ITC. So, people may be less inclined to build a car for ITC, regardless of the other factors. Having something that's carrying a bunch of extra weight doesn't help sway them in a positive way (assuming that you want them to build the ITC car).

So, why not class the cars in both places, and let the 'market' decide? I know it gets stick on the ITA/B side, because of the wheel issue. And I know it gets sticky when you have class weights that are on either side of the cage size boundaries. That means you probably won't get a lot of cross-over cars running both classes, but if you're looking at new cars, it becomes less of an issue, as people will build the cars for the class they want to race in.

I'm trying to get my hands around the resistance to dual-classification. Or at least what people see as major reasons not to.

Yeah - it seems like for some of the options we're asked to list, there's no really good answer.

We can go heavy one way or light the other, but with the "tweeners" there are as many good reasons to NOT choose one course of action as there is to choose it. The MkIV tipped the scale one way, the Protege the other - based on the best information we had to work with.

It's impossible to know the Truth before someone an example of a new car, and frankly still really tough to sort the facts from fiction AFTERWARD. (See also, "1st generation MR2")

K

EDIT - And please remember that my comments about the ITAC as a body are filtered through my perceptions. I cannot see into the souls of my fellow committee members on a conference call. Recognize too, we work toward consensus decisions - one definition of which is that EVERYONE is a little pissed off about the final answer.

[Rabbit05]

Now that the MKIV has been classified.

I wanted to ask for your guy's honest opinion. Since you all have been running VW's longer than I have, and have way more experience. Can the MKII Golf still a competitive package in ITB? I see that Beran , and Kirk are runnign MKIII's , along with Tim M.s MKIII here in the NE . Has the MKII gone the way of the MKI ?

Thanks for your Opinions in advance.

-John

[Beran]

John -
I have raced all three, the MK1, 2 and 3. I have most of my racing hours in a couple different MK2s. (since 1993)
IMHO the MK3 is better than the 2 and the 2 is better than the 1.
Of course car preparation and driver skill provides enough of a difference in lap times to allow someone to win or place ahead of the Mk3 or MK2.
So - driver and prep being equal the order is Mk3, Mk2, and Mk1.
This is especially true for longer tracks.... not as much true for shorter tracks like Lime Rock.
I actually like the feedback from the MK2 a little better than the Mk3.
We do have a 2 door Mk4 that I just picked up a couple weeks ago for $500 that is in very good condition. I have been driving it on the road and I like the feedback and general feel of the car allot however I am not positive it will be faster than the MK3 for a number of reasons.
We are in the middle of building a second Mk3 (2 door this time) and we are incorporating everything we have learned from my current Mk3 4 door... and changes that should make it better.
So far VW has made the MK series better each time they make changes even within the Mk3 platform... e.g. later years are better.... just not sure if that will carry to the Mk4
My .02
Beran
feel free to call or email me -
beran at beranpeter dot com
also - the front air dam and other stuff I use i'd be happy to share...

[Knestis]

I'm convinced at this point that if equally prepared and developed there's not much separating the MkII and MkIII platforms. In fact, I think you might be able to get closer with a moderate budget with a MkII.

I chose the newer one ONLY because I wanted something that was a generation farther from vintage status, with parts still available, etc. If you put a good shoe in the MkII that Bildon still hasn't sold (so far as I know), it would be competitive.

The MkIV is going to be right in there, too.

Your mileage may vary and note that Beran's judgments are from firsthand driving experience. Mine are bigger and wobblier so I'd trust his input if I were you.

K

[Beran]

I agree with Kirk.
The MK2 has not gone the way of the MK1 at this point. The MK2 is right there. In New England region there are MK2's that win and beat the MK3's consistently.
From an investment point of view, avilability of parts, and longevity - one would not consider an MK1 platform for ITB at this point. If the price is right then an MK2 is a great way to go. Some of the stuff you can move over from your MK2 to an MK3... struts, rims, etc. The MK3 will hold it's value longer if there is such a thing in a race car then the MK2.
B

[Rabbit05]

Well asking the guys in the know is what i was after. I have a MKII ,with all the go fast stuff, It just needs to be built. But with the addition of the MKIV ,I was interested in something new and exciting. I think I will stick with the older car, I tend to do better with those.

Beran ,
I have a few questions to ask of you about the MKII . I 'll drop you an email in the morning. Gotta run ,the future wifey is calling. (6 weeks and counting till W-Day)


-john

[Bill Miller]

I agree with Kirk.
The MK2 has not gone the way of the MK1 at this point. The MK2 is right there. In New England region there are MK2's that win and beat the MK3's consistently.
From an investment point of view, avilability of parts, and longevity - one would not consider an MK1 platform for ITB at this point. If the price is right then an MK2 is a great way to go. Some of the stuff you can move over from your MK2 to an MK3... struts, rims, etc. The MK3 will hold it's value longer if there is such a thing in a race car then the MK2.
B

Beran,

Do you feel that the decision to not go w/ a Mk I is solely based on age of the car / availability of parts? Rabbits (and Mk I Sciroccos) still seem fairly popular in ITC, although I don't know if anyone is building new cars out of them. And as far as the availability of parts, the mechanical stuff is all still readily available, it's the body parts that are getting harder to find.

[Conover]

I don't think it's going to be any better, probably a little worse. Mini Cooper is going to be nice, someone please send me a mini and a big ol check!

[Beran]

Bill - yes the Mk1 is impossible to get sheetmetal for. I can buy a fender or hood for an MK3 for cheap money and get it from many sources. You can actually buy almost any part including floor panels which we did for the current one we are building.
Sooner or later we all need body work done - either from on track stuff or even off track hauling, moving, dumb moves etc. Aside from age related issues they are great/fun and easy to work on.

John - feel free to email.

B

[Knestis]

... You can actually buy almost any part including floor panels which we did for the current one we are building.

Yay! Beran's in the club!

K

[Rabbit05]

I dont know if you guys know about this site, heres the page :

http://www.rsjparts.com/catalog/inde...44884fcea6493a

Not bad deal for MKI panels and stuff.

You would think the MKI would be a little better, being that it's lighter. And the GTI's came with vented front rotors..Does the MKI put out the same HP as the CIS MKII ?

-John