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

[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

[gran racing]

I'm sure Andy and Jake are thinking "that's just what Dave needed to hear." LOL! Out of curiosity, do you guys use the 50+/- for all IT classes? Or do you use a different tolerance for slower classes that have 100 hp where 50 lbs means much more than a car that has 240 hp?

So why shouldn't the MK IV be classed at the process weight of 50 lbs higher? Now granted if the Golf III is essentially the same car and classed at the lower weight, it could be easily argued that the new Golf should have the same weight. Or do you class another car knowing it's off by 50 lbs, while not sure what long-term consequences it may (or probably wouldn't?) have. I can't honestly say which way this should go since the Golf III will remain at its current spec weight.

One part of me thinks back to what happened to ITA. One car got in there classed incorrectly, which lead to more and more then it became the new class standard. Is the Golf III now the car in which new cars are being classed to mirror? I also recognize that what essentially became the spec CRX / Integra class was a much greater difference than 50 lbs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the MKIII is classed right on in terms of the process. There is no 'mirror' car.

Where ITA is now isn't exactly where you think it is Dave. If you are refering to the CRX, remember, once the process was applied, cars got heavier and lighter that were outside that envelope (100lbs). So that envelope is not designed around anything that was 'misclassed'.

David M came up with a good idea to use a % of weight and I am trying to think about how to put that into 'production', but yes - currently 100lbs is the barometer for consideration (not +/- 50). I am thinking 4% right now. That's 100lbs on a 2500lb car, 80lbs on a 2000lb car and 120lbs on a 3000lb car. But then again, are we squabbling over 20lbs in IT?

[gran racing]

Where ITA is now isn't exactly where you think it is Dave. If you are referring to the CRX, remember, once the process was applied, cars got heavier and lighter that were outside that envelope (100lbs). So that envelope is not designed around anything that was 'misclassed'.

Sure it is. Prior to this regime, a car(s?) was classed and it did better than anticipated. Another car was classed to be on par with that. The once front running RX7s and other cars got pushed down in terms of their competitiveness potential in the class. A new standard was created.

[JLawton]

I think people are getting too wound up thinking the MK1 is not competative. It is FAR from going the way of the 1st gen RX7. And from what I've seen so far (granted, I'm going by on-track performance <slapping own hand>) the MKIII is not the next BMW 325.

[Knestis]

>> Or do you class another car knowing it's off by 50 lbs...

Dave - you need to revisit the difference between what "Kirk thinks" and what the "ITAC knows."

My personal position (and I'm allowed to have them distinct from the ITAC) is influenced by my rounding down to make sure folks understand that I'm not pimping my own ride. I'm going to continue to take a conservative view of my own make/model's competitive position because frankly, I don't for one second buy that the we got our ARRC win because of 50 pounds. Or 100 pounds. Or whatever you think should be added to the MkIII. And I think perceptions of my role on the ITAC are more important than whatever minuscule advantage a few less pounds might get me.

ITAC members don't really have the luxury of being able to lobby for their personal interests, like some folks spend a lot of effort doing.

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure it is. Prior to this regime, a car(s?) was classed and it did better than anticipated. Another car was classed to be on par with that. The once front running RX7s and other cars got pushed down in terms of their competitiveness potential in the class. A new standard was created.

I will disagree. The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class. Tough to define the 'new standard' when they all fit the process.

[gran racing]

I don't for one second buy that the we got our ARRC win because of 50 pounds. Or 100 pounds. Or whatever you think should be added to the MkIII

Kirk, I never said that nor ever meant to imply it. I fully agree and honestly am no longer lobbying for the Golf III's weight to be increased. While I still think it's a bit light, it's been through the process and it is what it is. But how could this thread not peek my interest? And how it could impact the classification of another Golf model.

The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying; maybe you read it too quickly or I didn't write it clearly? My point was that ITA had a performance target, cars were classed which eventually lead to that target being increased (by accident, ala CRX / Integra), which caused issues. Isn't that exactly why you guys reduced the RX7 weight among the other adjustments?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying; maybe you read it too quickly or I didn't write it clearly? My point was that ITA had a performance target, cars were classed which eventually lead to that target being increased (by accident, ala CRX / Integra), which caused issues. Isn't that exactly why you guys reduced the RX7 weight among the other adjustments?

But we decreased the weight of the RX-7. So the target was somewhere in the middle of the two cars original weight.

Maybe my point is that each class NEVER had a documented performance taget. That was the whole trigger for a need for a process. There was never a methodology or any written targets. So to say it 'moved' is why I am hung up on it.

[gran racing]

There was never a methodology

So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in? Maybe it wasn't document, then again nor is "the process" at least on a public level, but I don't for a minute believe previous ITAC members completed their jobs blindly.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in? Maybe it wasn't document, then again nor is "the process" at least on a public level, but I don't for a minute believe previous ITAC members completed their jobs blindly.

I'll give you my opinion on that over a beer in private...

[JLawton]

>> ITAC members don't really have the luxury of being able to lobby for their personal interests, like some folks spend a lot of effort doing.

K

Ahmen brother. As the song says, "shut up and drive!!"

[Knestis]

>> So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in?

Prior to the Miller Ratio idea (c.2000) and Darin taking the first draft of the "Process" to the board, prior to the Great Realignment, you only WISH it was that repeatable. IT History Quiz: What year did the 2-liter Nissan NX finally find its way out of ITS? We need to remember that it was not long ago at all, that things were well and truly f'd up.

K

[shwah]

Heck the Rabbit GTI started life as an ITA car. That is how much the classing process has changed over the years.

One comment on all the hp numbers that keep getting bantered about on this board. Whp numbers car vary widely using the same car on the same brand machine, heck even the same machine - due to the variables involved - even when applying a correction factor. Yet they are often tossed out as gospel.