Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[pfcs]

So if you ran the Coupe thru the process at 120hp stock and a 25% multiplier, what would the process weight be??
@30%??
Assuming, of course, that there are people who still believe all problems are solvable.

[JeffYoung]

At 25% it loses like 200 lbs. At 30%, 125 I think?

You need to use a 40%+ multiplier to get to its current weight.

There are a LOT of cars like this in the ITCS. The 318i in ITA (could be a great, fun ITA car). The V6 Mustang in ITS.

So if you ran the Coupe thru the process at 120hp stock and a 25% multiplier, what would the process weight be??
@30%??
Assuming, of course, that there are people who still believe all problems are solvable.

[pfcs]

Jeff-is this at 120hp stock? (NOT 110)

[Z3_GoCar]

At 25% it loses like 200 lbs. At 30%, 125 I think?

You need to use a 40%+ multiplier to get to its current weight.

There are a LOT of cars like this in the ITCS. The 318i in ITA (could be a great, fun ITA car). The V6 Mustang in ITS.

And which 318i in ITA, as they all got adjusted down to 2600lbs along with the Z3 during tGR?

Btw, the m-42 318ti only lost 25lbs while the e-36 318i sedan/coupe lost 240lbs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff-is this at 120hp stock? (NOT 110)

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.

[pfcs]

Then it seems to be pretty close to properly spec'd @2490, doesn't it? Maybe your magic formula works with the right information, eh?!!
As an aside-regarding my comments about the A2/101hp and so forth: when I built my A2 I KNEW I was building an underdog, but I did it anyway because it was easy for me to do and I could adapt it for the hand controls I needed. I knew I was not going to be as competitive as I had been in my Volvo, but that it would be a suitable anvil, and so it was. (God bless the Pimple, RIP!)
I still think the Golf 2 is classed a little heavy. Maybe, if all this confusion gets settled, and some common sense prevails about power/weight issues, it will loose some weight.
Many people seem to think that LEGAL IT engine prep yields major power increases. I don't think so. Not many IT motors get the benefit of quality engine dyno time, but the 142E motors did, and for years. I spent a lot of time with Griff running them on his Stuksa brake. He has a fairly ideal dynamometer bay, and I'll certify that Harvey Stucksa (or whoever replaced him) gets his load cell and recalibrates it regularly. And Bob certainly knows his way around race motors. Despite all the efforts put into the B20E unit (at least before the open ECU), despite countless header changes/collector designs. near zero leakdown, etc, the best we ever saw out of the (130hp stock)motor was 149hp. 15%!
And as stated earlier, chassis and hub dynos are notoriously variable, as if the dyno makers were in their own horsepower war.
That the 1442E doesn't have a large increase to IT mods is understandable-it's pretty good to start with and breathes well stock. Still, I think the multiplier you choose are a little optimistic. But if you apply them across the board, they wash each other out and you just need a little dither to account for those that benefit more from IT prep and those that don't.
Sounds like a solvable problem!

[RSTPerformance]

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.

-50 solid rear beam axle
-50 FWD

puts it at 2400?

Seams realistic for the Audi based on Phils #'s.... But this data Phil is providing is new to me and I image the ITAC. We are working on the Dyno...

Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed.

What WHP #'s are we looking for in the Audi? - what do people feel it should be making at 2490 and the later car classed at 2540.

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

[Dave Zaslow]

Fyi

[Bill Miller]

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

Raymond,

With all due respect, don't get involved in things you don't know anything about.

[gran racing]

With all due respect, keep it private then.

[Andy Bettencourt]

-50 solid rear beam axle
-50 FWD

puts it at 2400?

Seams realistic for the Audi based on Phils #'s.... But this data Phil is providing is new to me and I image the ITAC. We are working on the Dyno...

Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed.

What WHP #'s are we looking for in the Audi? - what do people feel it should be making at 2490 and the later car classed at 2540.

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

No Ray, that 2500 IS with all adders. There is no deduction for beam rear and the FWD is in there already.

Bring your car to us so that it can be TUNED. I have NO idea how you can think stuff is optimized if you have never been on a dyno and tuned it.

[Gary L]

Despite all the efforts put into the B20E unit (at least before the open ECU), despite countless header changes/collector designs. near zero leakdown, etc, the best we ever saw out of the (130hp stock)motor was 149hp. 15%!

Phil - I have to respectfully disagree with your math... well actually, not your math... but your assumption of stock horsepower. The Volvo 130 hp rating was SAE Gross, evidenced by the fact that the exact same engine was rated at 124 hp DIN in Europe. And it was the exact same engine, as there were no differences at that time (1971) between US and European powerplants coming off the Volvo line. I have some calculations/cross-references somewhere to back this up, can't find them ATM... but I believe the stock '71 Volvo B20E was in fact a 120 hp engine SAE Net. This would put your 149 hp dyno number in the neighborhood of a more typical 24% increase over stock.

[rcc85]

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.

So, if a 120 hp car comes in at 2500 lbs then the math on my Dodge Daytona should be:

99 stock hp * 1.25 = 123.75 IT hp (about 105 whp)

123.75 IT hp * 17 = 2104 lbs

Less 50 lbs for the strut front suspension = 2054 lbs.

That's 576 lbs less than the GCR weight of 2630 lbs!!

And the Audi guys are worried about a mere 200 lbs?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

That's right Bob, and there are a lot of examples of cars like that in the ITCS...although yours might be the most "off." We are trying to come to an agreement with the CRB on how to address these cars within the new framework we have been given.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, if a 120 hp car comes in at 2500 lbs then the math on my Dodge Daytona should be:

99 stock hp * 1.25 = 123.75 IT hp (about 105 whp)

123.75 IT hp * 17 = 2104 lbs

Less 50 lbs for the strut front suspension = 2054 lbs.

That's 576 lbs less than the GCR weight of 2630 lbs!!

And the Audi guys are worried about a mere 200 lbs?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

No -50 for strut suspension and AGAIN, we use 25% as the first step in the process, it is NOT locked in as such. That 2.2L had a ton of iterations so it would be one for much more research. That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

But again, cars like this DO SCARE me. They DO have the potential to rip up a class if that stock power number was a dumbed down 80's number that wakes up with no emission equipment and a good exhaust. It would be my vote to have to have the competitor supply a ton of information for cars of that era so that a much more educated guys can be made.

[Rabbit05]

I am unsure of where you are getting 120 hp for the Coupe. This is a crappy pic of my Factory Owner's Manual from my 1985 Coupe GT, pulled from my glove box .Which the first line says, Maximum output SAE net : 110 hp @ 5500 rpm.

Every site I have researched , forums and such, and the giant pink factory manual I have says 110 hp stock for 1985 Audi Coupe GT. I believe this is correct from 84 to 86.5 or 1987. Then they had the special 2.3 motor which were in 87.5 Coupes.


-John

[JeffYoung]

I understand Andy's concern, but on that car, the Mopar 2.2 is not going to make a ton of power naturally aspirated. It's torquey but doesn't rev. It's a B car I think (Dayontas were not that heavy stock) and it is another example of a car classed due to curb weight that is several hundred pounds at least off where process would put it.

It is these cars that might be a bit scary, but that also are probably the ones hurt the most by the current moratorium on changes.

[rcc85]

Don't be afraid of the Daytona, Andy. In order to rip up the field at 2630 lbs, I would need to make something like 150 hp at the crank (or 128 hp at the wheels). That would be more than a 50% increase over the highest factory hp rating of any normally aspirated engine installed in a Daytona (99 hp). I'm not ever gonna see numbers like that. I'd be thrilled with 105 whp.

The Daytonas came with the restrictive throttle body fuel injection which, of course, can't be changed in IT trim. ECU mods do a lot of things but they won't increase airflow.

I don't think the TBI cars have the same power potential as the carbed Mopar 2.2's. Glassburner's Omni and Hoffman's TC3 have proven that the carbed 2.2's can be competitive but those cars are also 300 lbs lighter than a Daytona per the GCR.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[pfcs]

"Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed." (Raymond)

Although many things that have happened to IT in the last decade I find regressive (headliners, door gutting, open ECU, etc), the realignment is possibly the most enlightened.
Look at this in a positive light-that the CRB and ITAC are both right. I've been at the front of plenty of ITB fields and the Coupe is competetive as classed and on a par with other ITB front runners. (except maybe the Golf 3) I don't think it needs to loose a lot of weight, possibly none.
The CRB isn't crazy to resist a 200lb reduction; maybe their job performance is commendable.
The ITAC is doing a good job also if the 120hp spec is right . If that is the right hp (and I believe it is) then it goes foward in proving the integrity of The Process and affirms their good work and brings both parties into coherence.
Some simple math: A2=1781cc; Cpe=2220cc; Cpe has 1.246 more displacement!
If so, and knowing the architecture is VERY similar, and the A2=107hp, what would you expect from the coupe-110 or 120 hp? (hint: 1.246x107=133.2).
Finally-I believe that manufacturer's hp numbers-although they may not always be 100% accurate-are more reliable than dyno numbers. (from all over the country from all kinds of different dynos from all kinds of operators, some who may have a need to make big numbers or car owners who's desires are opposite) In my experience, dyno results (esp chassis) are so variable as to be useless unless all performed on the same unit. And all concerned need to be scrupulous when there is an apprent anomaly like the Coupe. The truth WILL set you free-and all problems really are solavable.
AND-I just can't resist-it's hard to behave for long-Bill-what drug are you on to believe a legal A1 could put 100hp to the ground? Spare me a reply.

[lateapex911]

Phil made me laugh. (And I agree with some/many of his points, to a degree.)