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

[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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does the MKI put out the same HP as the CIS MKII ?

-John

Not being a wise-ass, just trying to stay up to speed...

SHOULD they put out the same hp? There is a 200lb (10%) difference in min weight...

Bill could answer this probably: Max whp for each of the 3 Gens.

[Greg Amy]

Rabbit (Mk1) 1.8L GTi is rated at 90hp crank (JH engine, 8.5:1 compression). Uses hydro-mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic. Some say the "90" was optimistic...

Golf (Mk 2) 1.8L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 102hp crank (RD engine; 10.1:1 compression). Uses CIS-E KE-Jetronic. Same basic hydro-mechanical with some electronics control. Later Digifant with 105hp.

Golf (Mk 3) 2.0L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 115hp (ABA engine?; 10:1?). UsesMotronic electronic fuel injection.

Golf (Mk 4) 2.0L (8-valve) was rated at 115hp (same ABA engine as Mk3, I believe?)

Bill (or whomever) please double-check this info.

Andy, you're not implying you won't re-run them through the classification process unless you have real-world, built, dyno numbers, are you...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am trying to remember why the 90hp VW is not in ITC. I have a feeling it is because it responds well to IT prep.

[AjG]

Oh come on… trying to decide which Golf is worse.
All four of them probably still make the top 5 ITB “cars to have”.
My eyes hurt from rolling.

[Greg Amy]

I am trying to remember why the 90hp VW is not in ITC. I have a feeling it is because it responds well to IT prep.

The Rabbit GTi had a TERRIBLE exhaust manifold from the factory. Absolutely dreadful. The head is NOT a crossflow, though the cam was a bit aggressive (certainly relative to the 76hp 1.7L.) It'll get some ponies from the 1/2 compression bump. I'm thinking we saw ~100 wheel ponies from Jeff Lawton's old Kessler-built Rabbit GTi...?

I suggest the most likely reason it's not considered for ITC is that it started in ITA (I actually raced one way back then), and is now in ITB. Plus, the drivers probably don't want to go to ITC. With a base of 90 ponies, it's certainly, on paper, an ITC candidate... - GA

[Knestis]

I think things would be a little clearer were it not for the "G" camshaft. That option kind of weaseled its way into common practice on the MkI GTI and I seem to recall that it makes a pretty substantial difference. That influences perceptions - positively - about what the car is capable of. I've been clear with Andy and the rest of the ITAC that I continue to be uncomfortable with the practice of using "known gains" or "real power" in classification decisions, but there's still a strong temptation to gut-check the math against perceptions.

I'm also pretty sure that there's no way we can be expected to account for something as qualitative (and small) as the differences between CIS and Digifant injection.

Finally, I am on record as thinking that the MkIII Golf is about spec'd about 50# light, relative to where the raw math puts it. General practice says that +/-50 is within the tolerances that ITAC members are OK with - in this case, the error is in favor of the MkIII. That accounts for some of the difference.

K

[Bill Miller]

Rabbit (Mk1) 1.8L GTi is rated at 90hp crank (JH engine, 8.5:1 compression). Uses hydro-mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic. Some say the "90" was optimistic...

Golf (Mk 2) 1.8L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 102hp crank (RD engine; 10.1:1 compression). Uses CIS-E KE-Jetronic. Same basic hydro-mechanical with some electronics control. Later Digifant with 105hp.

Golf (Mk 3) 2.0L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 115hp (ABA engine?; 10:1?). UsesMotronic electronic fuel injection.

Golf (Mk 4) 2.0L (8-valve) was rated at 115hp (same ABA engine as Mk3, I believe?)

Bill (or whomever) please double-check this info.

Andy, you're not implying you won't re-run them through the classification process unless you have real-world, built, dyno numbers, are you...?

Your numbers are on the money Greg.

I think things would be a little clearer were it not for the "G" camshaft. That option kind of weaseled its way into common practice on the MkI GTI and I seem to recall that it makes a pretty substantial difference. That influences perceptions - positively - about what the car is capable of.

Kirk,

Any Rabbit GTI running a G-grind cam is flat out cheating. It is certainly a better cam than the stock GTI cam, but it's not legal in a Rabbit GTI. We keep hearing about some mythical allowance that let's people run them in the ITC 1.6 cars, but I have yet to see anyone produce anything, other than hearsay, that supports its legality. Jeremy certainly doesn't have anything. And, I suspect that were someone to protest one that was in an ITC car, that car owner would be shopping for a new camshaft.

Off the top of my head, here's the cam specs as best as I can recall. Stock Rabbit GTI cam, .396" of lift, stock 1.6 Rabbit/Scirocco cam .405" of lift, G-grind (euro GTI 1.6 10:1 Heron motor cam) .423" of lift.

The G-grind was an easy power gain on the GTI's, but ONLY if you dumped that horrible exhaust manifold first.

100whp out of a Rabbit GTI is pretty close to what you would expect from a good IT build, assuming you get a 30% gain out of IT prep. 30% may be a better estimate than 25%, as that stock exhaust manifold was really bad.

Jeff,

All else being equal (prep, driver, etc.), at the new weight, a Mk I and a Mk II are probably pretty well matched. No way does a Mk I stand a chance against a Mk III in that situation. The Mk II is pretty much in the same boat. 70# for 10 more hp in stock form (which turns into 13 more hp w/ a IT build)? Doesn't add up. 125-150#, maybe. Which is pretty much where Kirk puts it w/ his estimate of the car being 50# light.