VW = ITA Competitive ? Yes or No ??

[Rabbit05]

My friends and I were BSing the other night over a few Pints , and we were dicussing all the new Vw news and the classification of the MKIV and all that fun stuff. One question came up that seems to got me baffled , so i put the question out before the IT VW community, or anyone else who could give a crap.....


What about the 2.0 16V GTI in ITA ...?? Would this not be a competitive car ?


Discuss....


-John

[JamesB]

I know someone with a 1.8 16v, the car is overweight but he can still hold in ground in the bottom 10 positions. I think if we where to get the weight off and take some more time to get power out of the engine he could move up.

However, if I wanted to be in the front of ITA I would probably not build a VW today.

[Knestis]

I'm biased but I think a full-tilt 2.0 16v might be a pretty good ITA car - particularly as we get the no-VIN rule change in effect. It would be an affordable starter build with the right MkII shell and guts out of a Passat, it seems...?

K

[JamesB]

The biggest difference is CIS-Motrinic. If you can backdate to CIS-E you might be better off. Motrinic is a pain and noone really programs chips for that ECU anymore. I just dont know if it can make the power you want though.

[Knestis]

Fully programmable injection FTW (as the kids say)...

K

[JamesB]

How can you have fully programable injection if you cannot change out injectors? You still have the CIS box and the DPR to deal with. I have yet to find a solid solution on the CIS-E or motronic system other then more finite control of the timing maps. Its one reason I been considering swaping my ITB car to digifant so I can go with a stand alone system on pulse fired injectors using a MAP sensor and just leaving the oem air meter in place by the rules. On the 16v you only had CIS-E and CIS-Motronic.

[Knestis]

Duh. Your wrote "Motronic" and I read "Digifant."

This is why Cameron makes the technical decisions.

K

[JamesB]

I should ping him some time for thoughts.

[Rabbit05]

Does any one have an exact HP # for the 2.0L 16v ? And I think the weight is at ,2450 lbs ?...

You would think this might be able to give the spec Acuras a run for their money ?

Or, if a strong enough lobby would get the weight knocked down or did this happen already with the GA ? .....( not Greg Amy ) .... (( sorry greg))


Right now in the NE there is a decent mix of cars... I know of a certain Miata that is quick , numerous Acura's and there are some Nissan's that are showing their mettle....or is it metal ?

I would love to see some more VW's in the action...

-John

[JamesB]

the 9A 16v (2L) was rated stock at 134HP at 5800 and 133ft/lb of torque at 4400. So IF you can get 25% more out of the motor (which I dont think is possible without the 50mm intake manifold which was not offered on US spect cars) your looking at around 167hp and 166ft/lb. Plausable that it could do well, but it would depend on what you can get out of CIS-Motronic which at least if you can find someone that remembers how to flash the chip you can work out some of your fueling and your ignition map.

But from the specline your at 2475 vs. 2220 for the 1.8L.

[Rabbit05]

I am curious to know what some top Acura's/Miata's are putting out... I heard somewhere in the 160-170 hp range...but that might be alot of smoke as well...



-John

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am curious to know what some top Acura's/Miata's are putting out... I heard somewhere in the 160-170 hp range...but that might be alot of smoke as well...



-John

If you are thinking crank numbers, then you are correct. WHP is WAY below that as you can imagine.

And IIRC, the 2.0L is 140hp stock at the crank.

[Rabbit05]

Ball-park you lose about 10-15% from the crank ?? I cant remeber ...

-John

[Andy Bettencourt]

I estimate 15% for a FWD and 18% for a RWD.

[shwah]

I actually think the 1.8 would be the one to run. Back in the day it was a winner for Mathis (but it seems to be heavier now - strange).

Andy, the 2.0 is 134 hp. The 1.8 is 123.

If the vin rule goes away, I have considered tossing a 1.8 in my car and giving it a go.

[Knestis]

... Or, if a strong enough lobby would get the weight knocked down or did this happen already with the GA ? .....

Point of order - there's no such thing as "lobbying" to get a weight reduction. The most that can be asked is that the specification process be applied.

K

[Rabbit05]

That is what i meant...just tongue in cheek type o' way...sorry to offend...


Is the 134 hp at the crank ..? Or wheels..?

-John



-john

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is what i meant...just tongue in cheek type o' way...sorry to offend...


Is the 134 hp at the crank ..? Or wheels..?

-John



-john

Crank. Don't know of any fully developed 2.0's that I have seen dyno sheets for.

[shwah]

The both are restricted on the exhaust side of the head, and with conservative cams.

The 1.8 has nicer intake ports on the head.

Some (or all?) 2.0s have a slightly larger intake runner diameter (not the 50mm it needs to be though).

They have different plenum volumes as well.

I don't know if Chuck's old car ever saw the dyno.

I do know that brakes become more of an issue, as there is more weight on the front with the bigger head, and more speed on the straights with a bit more power. Good ducting and wheelfans did enable them to work OK.

I think the car may still be around, it got sold and moved east sometime around 2000.

[JamesB]

I been trying to gett matt to put his 1.8L on a dyno to see what its making, so far no dice. But thats a CIS-E car with as much fuel as we could pull out of the DPR using the stock brains.