Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 86

Thread: is a mk2 16v competitive?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTIspirit View Post
    So what is this process power for the 1.8L 16V? It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.
    Help me with the stock hp...
    And there have been plenty of weight adjustments to get cars aligned with the process when requests have been made. Some stay the same, others get changed. I don't know what the ratio is, but it's absolutely not "Always that the classification is ok".
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Thanks but no thanks - a local racer built a 911-E for ITS and is now selling it b/c it apparently doesn't meet his level of competitiveness. Having raced side-by-side with the car and watching it try to swap ends under heavy braking, I'll stick with my porky, underpowered VW for the time being - at least it doesn't require 150% of my attention just to keep it moving in a straight (or relatively straight) line...
    Haz-Matt Racing

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    Help me with the stock hp....
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    Haz-Matt Racing

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Elkridge, MD
    Posts
    303

    Default

    I would think that a 16V Golf like Matt's would need like ~200 lb to go into ITB. Matt's good driver, and his car is good, but he's turning lap record times at Summit for ITB with his car now, I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...
    Washington DC Region
    Scuderia Tortuga
    MARRS ITC Scirocco #12

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    Process power is 153.75 at the crank (130.68 at the wheels) for the 1.8
    and 158.75 (135) for the 2.0.

    2220 current weight, of 1.8, without knowing the car that well, I think that's pretty close, within 30 or so pounds.
    current weight of the 2.0 :2475 yeah this one seems heavy.

    I can't remember without digging through the records when/if these were processed. It might not be a bad idea to request a review.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evanwebb View Post
    I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...
    Money injection ALWAYS helps (which is why I don't race in a GT class where cubic dollars always beats talent). A better driver certainly wouldn't hurt the GTi, that's fer sure.

    Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

    Perhaps I should run the car all season, put it in the top 10 (again) and then ask silly money for the car b/c the VW fanbois will pay big bucks for stuff like that. Then I'll take my ill-gotten earnings and learn how to read Japanese whilst deciphering an Integra...
    Haz-Matt Racing

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post

    Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

    ..
    Well, you write a letter to the CRB asking us to run it through the process. If it's been run recently, the number will be the same. If it hasn't been run, there could be a change. Up, or down.

    Now, if it's down, I think you said you're getting close to minimum, so that could be a gift that just doesn't give, ...

    The 1st gen RX-7 got a review that resulted in a weight that the RX-7 guys cried at, "It can NOT be done". Well, I can name tow or three versions from different years that are at minimum weight. But it requires scrupulous work, hollow sway bars, titanium mufflers, and so on. Nobody said it would be easy. Some cars don't cooperate.

    If the process weight turns out to be way lower, then it gets a good discussion about dropping it a class, but, A to B is a big hurdle, and the ITAC is loath to do it.

    So, you have the data. You now know what YOU make for power, and what the process expects you to make. And you know your weight, and how low you can go. So, you've got options.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Matt,

    So w/ the VIN rule having gone by the boards, why not drop a 2.0 in it and convert to digi-fizz? That'll get you the ECU benefit and get you some more power. Not to mention that you probably won't have to worry about that extra chili dog. :eek:

    I agree though, w/ the VIN rule gone, doesn't make sense to built a 1.8 16v Golf for ITA anymore.

    And a minor correction, IIRC, the published hp for the 2.0 16v cars was 135.


    Jake,

    Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    I'd considered switching to a 2.0L 16v BUT I have 5 1.8 16vs reposing quietly in my garage. Beyond that, the VW fanbois worship the 2.0L 16v so finding one (or more) is a pricey proposition. I'll try my best to prove Stu Brummer (BSI) correct that I'm a moron for racing a 1.8l 16v in ITA. 11 years thusfar so if nothing else, I'm persistent...
    Haz-Matt Racing

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTIspirit View Post
    ...It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.
    Lots of language in here that simply doesn't apply to how the ITAC works - "perceived," "theoretical, mystical." As Jake mentions, we do simple math unless we've got compelling evidence that a car makes more or less power than the standard system expects.

    On that latter point, take a look at the September Fastrack thread. There are quite a number of recommendations from the ITAC to the Board that are waiting on approval. With any number of requests processed, frankly the chance of them being RIGHT ON - that is, "ok as is" is very slim.

    ...Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?
    I don't think that's fair, Bill. I haven't seen anything in Jake's posts here that I can't agree with - unless I missed something...?

    I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?
    Write the Comp Board - [email protected] - and ask them to review the weight. I'm pretty confident that it hasn't been done under the "modern" regime.

    K
    Last edited by Knestis; 08-22-2009 at 08:55 PM.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Emailed them today so we will see what comes back. As soon as I get a reply I will post it.
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    They say it will be addressed at the next meeting and will be posted in the fastrack. we will see.
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Kirk,

    My comment was related to post #54. Going as far back as the 2000 ITCS, FI cars were adjust the fuel mixture by changing the resistance values going from the sensors to the computer. Based on the way things are in that ITCS, looks like the alternate needles / jets for the carbs was new for 2000.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Alternate needs/jets were allowed starting with the very first national IT rules in 1985.

    http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

    K

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmracer17 View Post
    I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?
    In theory, the 2.0l 16v used CIS-E Moronic which should be more tunable than CIS-E. My car is roughly at the 2.0L 16v weight (well, it used to be) and it didn't seem to make the car significantly faster or slower with that add'l weight.
    Haz-Matt Racing

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Ok. Well. Put in for a review of the car to the crb so hope they can make something of it. I love the car and love to drive (which Is why we all are out here for, right?). Hope they can do something to make it a little more competitive in the class, or how ever they do. I just want to race against people with "equal cars". I know that will never happen but we can all dream right?
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    Alternate needs/jets were allowed starting with the very first national IT rules in 1985.

    http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

    K
    Kirk,

    I based my comment off the way the text in the 2000 ITCS was formatted. There were vertical bars on both sides of the paragraph, and the following text was in quotes:

    "Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized."

    The convention then, was to identify a paragraph that had changed since the prior year, w/ the vertical bars. The new / altered text was in italics. Maybe that stuff was already there, but they just diddled the language a bit. Sorry if I had it wrong, but that's the oldest GCR I could find in my bookcase.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Just starting my build up of an EP/ITA gti, planning on running the 2L with cis-M. My region doesn't seem to be nearly as hardcore so hopefully i'll be able to run mid pack. Just looking for some track time for a while haha
    Traksclothing.com SpitfireEFI.com Meistergaugefaces.com DemonRally.com

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    I will just reiterate that IMO the 1.8 CIS-E car is the more competitive choice. That is a lot of weight on little front brakes, and the CIS-E is much easier to tune right.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •