March 2011 Fastrack

[jjjanos]

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

Exactly why additional documentation is needed. I know jack about these cars, but using google, the consistent HP is given as 110. Another.

110 * 1.25 * 17 * .98 = 2290

Not saying the 120 is wrong, but the source of that 120HP suddenly becomes a big "?".

[JeffYoung]

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

[Bill Miller]

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

[JeffYoung]

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

[Bill Miller]

Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the same level of rigor that's applied to the application of PCA's should be applied to deviation from factory spec during the initial classification. You just don't have the benefit of on-track performance during the initial classification. However, in the case of cars that get 're-processed', I think a deviation from factory spec is a de-facto PCA, and therefore should be required to meet the same standards. Just because it got hosed in the initial specification process doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair shake. Especially in this situation, where there's really no evidence to point to it being an overdog. You've got 1 or 2 data points, at best, from 6 years ago.

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

/edit

Jeff, regarding the DIN to SAE Net conversion, I thought I saw something in the other thread that indicated that 100hp DIN ~= 98hp SAE Net. So your 118 DIN number is closer to 115-116 SAE Net, not 120.

[JeffYoung]

We were told the correct factory hp from an Audi document was 120. That's not a deviation, if true. It's a correction.

I will do what I can find out what I can about this.

Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the same level of rigor that's applied to the application of PCA's should be applied to deviation from factory spec during the initial classification. You just don't have the benefit of on-track performance during the initial classification. However, in the case of cars that get 're-processed', I think a deviation from factory spec is a de-facto PCA, and therefore should be required to meet the same standards. Just because it got hosed in the initial specification process doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair shake. Especially in this situation, where there's really no evidence to point to it being an overdog. You've got 1 or 2 data points, at best, from 6 years ago.