Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[lateapex911]

And that saying seems to be something of a misnomer. There was a good discussion on here about the affect of gearing on acceleration. High hp/low torque cars that rev high can still generate good torque/acceleration at the wheels via appropriate gearing. High torque cars typically don't rev that high and thus gearing has less of an effect. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.

David

Yup, there are a lot of factors. I linked an article that showed how it all works. But, in the end, if tq was the be all end all, the Cummings diesel would be faster than an F1 car.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Yup, there are a lot of factors. I linked an article that showed how it all works. But, in the end, if tq was the be all end all, the Cummings diesel would be faster than an F1 car.

Speaking of Audi's and Diesel's... They are pretty fast!

[trhoppe]

Could this be that a CRB member has an ITB car???

:black helicopter:

[shwah]

I still think an issue like this, where the process does not match the perception (define as you will) could be addressed with the 'two step' adjustment that I proposed in the other thread. If that sort of thing were allowed...

Don't anyone worry about the blocks, they are the same. No possible benefit I can think of. Just make sure the right head is on top.

[RSTPerformance]

Dave-

I have not had much time to post today.... probably a good thing

Anyway, we did OK at the 2 ARRC events we went to, but we didn't kill the competition as people suggest. We were well off the pace of a track record, and we spent a lot of money on that one event... things were set up perfect for us. We had new tires just about every session, the cars were weighed specifically to end every session with 2 maybe 3 pounds extra weight, we had a huge crew that flew in, we ran the test day with both cars and gather TONS of data and tweaked the set-up on the car between every session (sometimes during the sessions. Anyone whom would have brought that "game" would have done equally as well or better. The only tracks where are cars have historically done really well are at Pocono and at the Road Atlanta. We do not have the fastest straight line cars. Every BMW 2002 we have raced against out pulls us on the straights, so does the new Golf III and the Volvo's pull us even if we have a draft on them. The only thing that helped us that year and years prior at Pocono is the top end gearing/speed. On the street an older Audi will run up to 125 - 130mph before it runs out of gearing, A VW will reach 115 -120. I have tested it. I have noticed several times the only thing the Audi has is a higher top speed (FROM FACTORY), and with the newer cars classed I don't think that is an advantage anymore.

Now as for legality... I am glad people question it! We all should question anyone whom has done well be it Peter Keene and his Accord, Sam Moore in the Volvo, Chris Albin in any of his VW's or My brother in the Audi (obviously it would be him and not me!). The MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE is that CRB/ITAC/BOD members all say, we do not classify cars based on "on track performance." WHY US??? It is not right. It is not faire to me and it should not be affecting ALL IT classes. At this point I wish my car was illegal so that the process was perfect and knowone questioned it. I regret ever putting in a request, and no member should ever have to feel this regret.

I am also extremely disappointed in the lack of responses I have received over the past year to my requests. I have received plenty of great feedback from ITAC members however the CRB is completely useless at this point. I wrote e-mails last night to the CRB and received zero replies. I Cc’d a steward that I respect a lot and I included my BOD representative, I did not expect a reply, tonight the e-mails will go further and include all BOD members asking for their help. I hope someone is able to help me.

Raymond

PS: Not sure if we could ever find 200 lbs...

PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.

[gran racing]

For the record Ray, I agree with what you said. Don't rush into an e-mail if you're not ready for it yet. I know that I'm holding off till next week after I absorb some of this more.

[seckerich]

You hold off until the BOD has their October meeting and you might as well not bother. It will be all done for next year--period.

[shwah]

PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.

Raymond - I figured the block is no more likely than any other block in IT to gain an advantage. We can all put bigger pistons and cranks in without anyone seeing it when the hood is up (well not Jake...). I don't 'know' anything about any specific cars, and didn't mean to sound like I did - sorry about that. I was talking to the audi in general, and I could swear there were some 5cyl heads with bigger valves, so if I were trying to find by sight something wrong with that motor I would try to figure out how to differentiate the heads.

[pfcs]

From an old memory-there were 3 5cyl blocks, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3L, several piston configurations, and there were several heads.
The classified ITB cpe engine is the low compression (8/1 2.1/2.2L version with small intakes (38mm) and, I believe, a pretty mild cam.
I expect that except for the 5th cylinder, it resembles the 85-87 non GTI/GLI 1.8 Golf/jetta CIS Lambda cars which were 90?hp (38mm in/lo compr/mild cam) while the ITB classed Golf GTI and 88-92 Golfs were 105/107hp (40mm in/10/1, more cam).
Certainly theres a lot of combinations of ingredients that could produce much more than expected/illegal output.