March 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

Of course the factory information takes precedence. The issue here is a complex one that I don't fully understand - I relied on others on the committee who did the digging. I posted that for Stephen as a start. I'll find what was actually used and post it.

JY -- Who bristles [snip because I'm not stooping to your level].

Which source takes precedence: Wikipedia or the factory shop manual? If the former, then as a tech inspector can I overlook technical information printed in the FSM, superseding it with that "written" on Wikipedia...?

Just askin'...

GA, who bristles anytime someone uses Wikipedia as a source...for anything. Except maybe info on Britney Spears. Or Pink. Or maybe Constitutional Law...

[cchandler]

This is gonna be cool!! Lots of track time for Nimmer.


"#3783 (Robert Nimkoff) Classify Aston Martin N24 in STO
In 9.1.4.1.H, add "Aston Martin Vantage N24 (2007-08)", 4280 cc at 2900 lbs."

[Greg Amy]

Yeah, and it's a BEEEUUUTEEFUL car, and sounds WUNNERFUL. See Top Gear UK, S10E01, the one where they went looking for the best driving road in the world. They hated the car on the street, but it's obvious it'll be a super race car (it was developed by Aston for the Nurburgring 24 race).

I'm glad we were able to get him on the track, I can't wait to see - and hear - that car run. - GA

[preparedcivic]

Of course the factory information takes precedence. The issue here is a complex one that I don't fully understand - I relied on others on the committee who did the digging. I posted that for Stephen as a start. I'll find what was actually used and post it.

JY -- Who bristles [snip because I'm not stooping to your level].

This is a VAG car being talked about. The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley, at least for vehicles like these produced in the '80's. Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.

[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.

[Greg Amy]

The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley...Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.

Rob, these are not Haynes or Chilton manuals we're talking about; Bentleys *are* the factory shop manuals. They were contracted by VWAG to create the manuals, and the data that's in the manuals was provided to them by VWAG. I personally know guys that worked for Bentley and they were provided factory-new cars to pull apart, to measure all the stuff, and to put them back together to create those manuals. Hell, the techs in the VWoA dealerships use Bentley as their exclusive source for repair procedures and data specifications.

I don't know where this prejudice against Bentley comes from within the non-VWoA crowd, but I'd trust Bentley info LONG before I'd trust anything else, because that's as factory as it can ever come. And, anecdotally speaking, I've found the Bentley manuals to be the most-useful, most-complete set of information I've ever found for the decades of VWoA products I've worked on. I've got a shelf-full of them (but, sadly, not one covering this Audi Coupe GT). I'd trust nothing else*.

Personally, I have no dog in this fight, but since the Bentley (as posted by John above) indicates 110hp, regardless of what anything else on the Internet lists (short of official specs posted on VWoA's own web site) is simply wrong. The Bentley is the factory specifications. Period.

That's not to say we can't adjust it on "what we know", but given we're not being made aware of any evidence that this engine makes more than "process power" we have to rely on what the Bentley says...

GA

* Well, John Muir's "Idiot" book was far more useful in terms of the Zen of working on air-cooled VDubs, but I'd hardly call it "official" data. "Interesting and entertaining", yes; but not "official".

[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]

This is a VAG car being talked about. The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley, at least for vehicles like these produced in the '80's. Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.

Rob,

At the risk of getting into a VW vs. Honda pissing match, how about providing some evidence to support that. Like Greg, I've been using Bentley manuals for years to work on VW's, and they're solid. I know both dealer VW techs as well as guys that work at indy shops, and that's what they use, Bently manuals.

[pfcs]

"In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate." Jeff Young

That's pretty nasty, and I bet you can't support it with facts. Steven and I may be on opposite sides of some issues, but one personal interchange with him made it clear to me that he is humble, honest and has integrity. I don't guess for a second that he was being deceptive about what he "knew" about stock horsepower numbers and I think he's due a sincere apology. This stuff (finding what's real about complex questions like old [&new] engines/modified) isn't simple and maybe impossible given what this community has to work with. I do appreciate that an effort is made, however. See below:

"We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.)." That's the truth for sure. Unfortunately it's true for many cars, perhaps every car.

PS: Steven-could you possibly take down that face now?

[JeffYoung]

I just dropped $120 to have a 84-87 Audi Coupe and GT Bentley manual overnighted to me.

The indications I have seen today in some searching are that the 86 and 87 cars may have gotten a 118 DIN/120 SAE version of the 2.2 motor. We were told on the con call that 120 was in the factory shop manual.

I will now see if that is the case.

[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.

[Greg Amy]

I just dropped $120 to have a 84-87 Audi Coupe and GT Bentley manual overnighted to me.

Holy f**k, dude....I'll give you "that's dedication"...but couldn't we have looked around for one before you dug into your pocket...?

Every VW engine has an engine code, typically two-digits alphanumeric. That engine code is unique for the equipment, and results in an output. there are rare cases where the same engine code has "in reality" different engine outputs, but in those rare cases it's kinda like the 1.8L Miata where there's two ratings, but for a reasonable point (e.g., the whole G-grind camshaft thing, which was in reality a parts-system superceded camshaft.)

Your goal will be to find what engine codes were used throughout the Audi Coupe GT range (they'll be listed in the front of the book in a "specs" section) and, if necessary, classify the cars based on those engine codes, which themselves determine output.

Kudos, bud. But next time let's see if we can't do it cheaper...

[JeffYoung]

It's KX for this motor.

I'll sell you my Lawrence Tribe American Constitutional Law and On Reading the Constitution for $120 to make up for it.

Holy f**k, dude....I'll give you "that's dedication"...but couldn't we have looked around for one before you dug into your pocket...?

Every VW engine has an engine code, typically two-digits alphanumeric. That engine code is unique for the equipment, and results in an output. there are rare cases where the same engine code has "in reality" different engine outputs, but in those rare cases it's kinda like the 1.8L Miata where there's two ratings, but for a reasonable point (e.g., the whole G-grind camshaft thing, which was in reality a parts-system superceded camshaft.)

Your goal will be to find what engine codes were used throughout the Audi Coupe GT range (they'll be listed in the front of the book in a "specs" section) and, if necessary, classify the cars based on those engine codes, which themselves determine output.

Kudos, bud. But next time let's see if we can't do it cheaper...

[Greg Amy]

It's KX for this motor.

I'll sell you my Lawrence Tribe American Constitutional Law and On Reading the Constitution for $120 to make up for it.

Hell, I may actually buy that guy from you to add to my shelf collection...there's a big hole in there for the Audi Coupe GT waiting to be filled...

On edit: I'll give you one "F**K Bentley!": I can't get paper for my '00 S4 or my '10 Jetta; it's all electronic. What a major PITA! Ever try using your laptop while trying to install a water pump/timing belt? Maybe I'm becoming a "Get off my lawn!" but give me paper and post-it notes for marking and working on a car.

Besides, DVDs laying down on a shelf aren't sexy.

[preparedcivic]

Rob,

At the risk of getting into a VW vs. Honda pissing match, how about providing some evidence to support that. Like Greg, I've been using Bentley manuals for years to work on VW's, and they're solid. I know both dealer VW techs as well as guys that work at indy shops, and that's what they use, Bently manuals.

I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

[Greg Amy]

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

[StephenB]

Mine is not in great shape... been to the racetrack and back for 11 years... most of which I wasn't very carefull with it! However I would send it to you to look at as long as you will send it back. Not sure if that is a conflict of interest but it's all original. I think it is missing a few pages but I am sure they are not in that section.

If you did purchase it feel free to contact me when you get it. I would love to go page by page with you. Heck I would do it on a conferance call format and anyone could listen in.

Stephen

PS: Doing this is a good example of your dedication and character. We will certainly agree to disagree on a lot of things in our future but I respect you and if you stick to what you honestly feel is best and you listen to feedback then none of us can be upset with your decision... Disagree yes but upset no.

[Bill Miller]

I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

What would you like to know?

Jeff,

Like Greg said, you get a dedication award for that one. And you also make a point about it being errata rather than a deviation. Was it that kind of documentation?

Greg,

Not only don't those DVD's look sexy, you can't look back through them and remember what job you did by the grease smudges on the pages! I've got an '81-'84 Rabbit/Scirocco/Jetta Bentley that I've had for the better part of 25 years. Got a couple of dog-eared pages and a few stains on it. A little duct tape too, but that was the time I threw it across the shop.
No

[pfcs]

https://improvedtouring.com...2&postcount=67
https://improvedtouring.com...3&postcount=72
https://improvedtouring.com...1&postcount=80
https://improvedtouring.com...5&postcount=99
https://improvedtouring.com...&postcount=100
https://improvedtouring.com...&postcount=102
https://improvedtouring.com...&postcount=110
Jeff-I have the Bently GT manual and confirm what Steven saw in it-it's somewhere in the conversations above. Perhaps you should re-read the whole lengthy thing (not just these snippets). Answers and the truth are not always so simple.