Getting started with a VW in IT

[speedlife]

Hey guys new to IT but not to racing. I'd like to buy or build a VW of some sort for IT, on the cheapo if possible. Looking at ITA and ITB due to large field size and operating costs. Any ideas on what would be good? Saw a bunch of ITB VW's for sale, but not much as far as ITA. Seems just by digging through old race results that the VW's fare better in ITB and ITA is owned by Mazda.

Would also be open to using it at some point for hillclimb or maybe event rally cross. Trackdays and enduros for sure.

I'm in New England Region.(for now)

[Knestis]

The only ITA VW options are pretty much outclassed, although a full-tilt (e.g., not on the cheapo) 2.0 16v Golf might be an interesting 'challenge.'

The MkII and MkIII Golfs are well positioned in B. I'd recommend the latter, because of their torque and the fact that they are just newer so one generation farther from being a vintage race car. That said, the TRULY affordable answer would be to buy an already prepared MkII 1.8 Golf. There are lots of them around and there's NO way you could duplicate most of them for the money. If you can find someone to help you shop, who knows the rules, you'll be more likely to dodge bad decisions.

Kirk

[JeffYoung]

Corrado VR6 in ITS!

Seriously, what Kirk said.

[speedlife]

^I wish! Is there any reason, other than age to steer clear of an MK1? GCR min weight is 200-300lbs less than MK2 and 3.

[gran racing]

Kirk, how does the IV fare comared to the III? With bigger front brakes, is it a better option?

[Knestis]

I'm pretty sure that's the only difference between the MkIII and MkIV but we've NEVER had trouble with the brakes on the MKIII, even in enduros. We'll do the VIR 13 on one set of Blues on the front, and still have pad left for several sprint race weekends. In fact, I've thrown away partially used fronts because I got tired of moving them.

The tie breaker for me at THIS point - III vs IV - would be rust. The Golf III is a notorious rust bucket. the IV might be inherently better(?) and is now old enough that donors are getting cheap enough to make sense.

K

[Knestis]

^I wish! Is there any reason, other than age to steer clear of an MK1? GCR min weight is 200-300lbs less than MK2 and 3.

People will tell you that they just won't make the power. If your goal is literally to just get out there and have fun however, that might be a great choice.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nobody thought the VR6 could compete and it did. I often wonder about the 2.0 16V car in ITA. ITB and ITC have plenty of VW options.

ITA can be won by a CRX, Miata, Integra, Saturn, NX2000, SE-R...all in New England, all in the past 2 years!

Welcome to IT in NER! It's a great group...

[JeffYoung]

Whatever happened to the Bildon VR6 Corrado?

[shwah]

ITB Golf 2 or 3 is a great choice. A1 could be competitive at tracks that suit it, but the age of the car scares people off now. I think the A4 chassis will be tough to get to weight.

I would choose the 1.8 16v for ITA. Better flowing intake ports, and since these things are head flow limited in IT, I would take lower weight over a few hundred cc. We have not seen a successful VW ITA effort in over a decade that I recall.

[JeffYoung]

What about the 16v Scirocco in ITA?

[Greg Amy]

What about the 16v Scirocco in ITA?

Same exact mechanical car as the Golf, with slightly better aero...they suffer the same handicap in ITA as the NX2000 does, that being strut-based suspensions in a field of nice-geometry cars (e.g., Honda Integrae and CRXen, Mazda Miatae). In order to consistently win in that field you'll need a strong power advantage... - GA

[rsportvolvo]

I'm surprised GA missed this one.

Build a MkI Rabbit for ITB using this car:

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=27594

don't buy the MacPherson strut propaganda. They work, just in the right hands. Here's a good example of an underpowered FWD strut car winning by using a better suspension setup:

http://www.exetc.co.uk/motorsport/casestudies/volvo.htm

**I'm sure most have never seen a fabricated mono-arm strut like this before, I certainly had not.

[JeffYoung]

And with 120ish stock hp, probably not a contender?

It's interesting to me that S cars primarily are strut based suspensions (RX7, Z car, BMWs, my car), and the fast As are double As. Maybe that explains why the gap between S and A seems to have closed quite a bit (unless your name is Huffmaster).

Same exact mechanical car as the Golf, with slightly better aero...they suffer the same handicap in ITA as the NX2000 does, that being strut-based suspensions in a field of nice-geometry cars (e.g., Honda Integrae and CRXen, Mazda Miatae). In order to consistently win in that field you'll need a strong power advantage... - GA

[Greg Amy]

I'm surprised GA missed this one.

Eh, I haven't fully resolved to turning my baby into a race car. But, if the right person (and right offer) came along, I'd do it.

Here's a good example of an underpowered FWD strut car winning by using a better suspension setup:

Hah, was that the one built in England by Prodrive, was it? I remember the article in Race Car Engineering on it a few years ago: they had COMPLETELY redesigned the rear suspension on that thing, it was suh-WEET! In fact, Kirk and I discussed how we could do something like this within the IT rules, and we think with some creative interpretation (what, actually, is a "swaybar"?) it can be done to a limited degree.

I think I scanned in that RCE article and posted it here a few years ago, might do a search for it.

And with 120ish stock hp, probably not a contender?

Who knows? Depends on what you can get in IT trim, and what its weight is. My NX was 140 crank stock, and we saw low/mid 150s wheel and a flat torque curve @ 2515#(?) min weight.

It's interesting to me that S cars primarily are strut based suspensions (RX7, Z car, BMWs, my car)

BMWs are the standard in overall design (a la Miata in A); RX-7 is light and has independent rear with good power; Z-car is the champion lightweight (and fully ind. rear too, yes?).

Of course, none of those are FWD; strut-based and FWD is a lethal combo...you're just asking too much out of the front suspension when you combine FWD and struts.

GA

[Greg Amy]

Nope, it wasn't the Volvo I was thinking of; it was the VX Racing Opel Astra. December 2004 Race Car Engineering, article name "Light Beam".

Quote: "When is a beam axle not a beam axle? VX Racing managed to stay the right side of this definition yet designed a suspension that brought four consecutive titles."

[rsportvolvo]

That Volvo S60 has a multi-link rear suspension. Pretty decent setup out of the box. Heck the S60 would make for a nice IT car for the FWD fans. The mono-arm strut is the cool part. I believe the Super Touring BMW's used a mono-arm setup to shift the bending loads to the upper mount. Unfortunately in IT we can't reinforce the strut towers so a less than tank like structure may not see the gains of this design.

The beam or live axle, whether FWD or RWD, is pretty much open in IT. It's just a matter of going the extra mile to design and fab it up. A good example of this for a FWD car is the World Challenge Nissan Sentra's from a few years back. They had a 3-link rear end. Everyone bitched until they actually read the rules. Then they appreciated it, although most begrudgingly.

Anyone have examples of IT folks exploiting the beam axle section?

[JLawton]

I'm not convinced the A1 can't be made competative at least on the shorter tracks. Horse power isn't everything. I'd love to give an A1 another try.

[JeffYoung]

I'd like to understand this thinking some more.

I know you can add a panhard bar (I have one), or a watts link, and any "traction bar." Sway bars are free. Bushings are too, essentially. But, you can't move suspension pickup points and you can't delete parts unless specifically allowed.

So, with my car -- live rear, RWD -- I can add a panhard, and basically any other bar I want attaching the rear to the chassis. but I can't move springs or shocks, or where the upper and lower links attach to the chassis. Yes, I know I can use air bushings on them and locate the axle using the free sway bar and traction bar rule, but other unbinding the upper linkes and adding a third link, not sure why you would want to do any of that.

I'm all ears though.

That Volvo S60 has a multi-link rear suspension. Pretty decent setup out of the box. Heck the S60 would make for a nice IT car for the FWD fans. The mono-arm strut is the cool part. I believe the Super Touring BMW's used a mono-arm setup to shift the bending loads to the upper mount. Unfortunately in IT we can't reinforce the strut towers so a less than tank like structure may not see the gains of this design.

The beam or live axle, whether FWD or RWD, is pretty much open in IT. It's just a matter of going the extra mile to design and fab it up. A good example of this for a FWD car is the World Challenge Nissan Sentra's from a few years back. They had a 3-link rear end. Everyone bitched until they actually read the rules. Then they appreciated it, although most begrudgingly.

Anyone have examples of IT folks exploiting the beam axle section?

[Knestis]

It's not as simple as "any beam axle is wide open."

The rear axle of an Golf/Jetta is literally an antiroll bar, by the definition in the GCR and in its function. Further, there's a specific provision in that definition that recognizes that an ARB can serve other functions - specifically, that it may locate the suspension. ARBs may be added, modified, or removed/replaced...

ERGO, that thing on the back of my Golf is free game - as long as it mounts in the stock chassis pick-up points and bolts to the stock stub axles, etc. I figure it would cost me a couple grand to make it happen - not counting someone actually doing some engineering math to help make sure it doesn't break in half.

Now, if it were a straight axle like on the back of an Audi, located by arms, the same allowance wouldn't apply.

K