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.

[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.

[Scirocco#28]

Does anybody know if the MkIV Jetta is in the pipeline for classification? They seem to be way easier to source from the wreckers and insurance yards.

[Knestis]

Nobody has requested classification - at least not that's made it from the club racing office to the ITAC agenda.

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I'm not sure why a proactive approach wasn't taken on the Jetta. Same chassis/drivetrain as the Golf, same suspension, etc. Only difference is the body configuration. All of the other generations of Golf/Jetta are classified.

I do see where it might be an issue though, as it shows a curb weight of ~220# greater than the Golf (2892# vs 2671#). I would expect the spec weights to be the same. Given that it's still a big ? if the Golf can actually make weight, it's probably a real stretch for the Jetta to lose that extra 220#.

A little further digging shows the Jetta to have a great curb weight than a New Beetle from the same year, in the same trim level (2892# vs 2817#).

[Knestis]

I made a little noise on the ITAC web forum about doing just that but there's enough business on the committee's plate that I think we need to pay attention to actual members' requests first. Had it been as simple as duplicating the Golf IV, we could have done it but I looked at the curb weights, too and came to the same questions you've listed. Those "can it make weight, what class is it in?" conversations use up a lot of conference call time - particularly to list a car that nobody has requested and might never get built, so I didn't push it.

K