Results 1 to 20 of 148

Thread: Results, rumours and inuendo...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    That torque beyond on par with an A2 VW, but we weigh less, so it should wash out.

    I just keep wondering if our local Fiero was pulling my leg with the 190lb-ft comment...
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Belmont, CA
    Posts
    226

    Default

    That torque beyond on par with an A2 VW, but we weigh less, so it should wash out.
    [/b]
    No idea how much torque on the A2 VW, but it is even lighter than the mk III, right? 2280? So, it's torque is less than 120ft-lbs, rear wheel on dynojet in IT trim?

    Figuring in weight, the fiero is about the same torque as Kirk's mk III golf, tho the golf is still better. Golf is 18.36lbs/ft-lb, and Fiero is 18.75lbs/ft-lb. It is much worse for HP. Golf is 21.36lbs/hp and Fiero is 27.13/lbs/hp.

    But, as i said, this is just specific individual examples...not the best thing to base classing on. As i showed before, the stock numbers are worse for torque, but a bit better for HP, though still show a very large disparity (15.4lbs/ft-lb vs 16.5lbs/ft-lb and 16.3lbs/hp vs 20.8lbs/hp, golf vs fiero, respectively).

    I just keep wondering if our local Fiero was pulling my leg with the 190lb-ft comment...
    [/b]
    That's what i said!!! I think that would be difficult for the v-6 (ITA)...it isn't imaginable for the 4 banger.
    Scot Mac - Mac Motorsports
    88 ITB Fiero #41, SFR, NWR, ICSCC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    No idea how much torque on the A2 VW, but it is even lighter than the mk III, right? 2280? So, it's torque is less than 120ft-lbs, real wheel on dynojet in IT trim?
    [/b]
    Realizing that my info is just one data point, and that not everyone here knows the VW stuff like Kirk and I, here are the salient differences between the A3 and A2 Golf:
    A3 has 2 liter vs. A2 1.8 liter - much of this is longer stroke, thus my comment about expected torque gain
    A3 has crossflow 8v head vs. A2 counterflow 8v head
    A3 has an ever so slightly less desireable cam profile
    A3 chassis is pretty close to a 11/10ths scale version of the A2
    both cars can run rear drum or disk - and yes some think drums are better (I started this way, but changed to disks for ease of maintenance, and lower rotational inertia despite higher assembly weight).
    A3 has 10.1" vented front disks vs A2 9.4" vented front disks
    EDIT - A3 can run 14x6 or 15x6 wheels vs A2 13,14 or 15x6 options
    A3 has a more advanced 'Motronic' engine management system, A2 can run Bosch CIS-E continuous flow system or VW Digifant electronic system (I run CIS-E, the A2 that ran at the front of the ARRC was Digi)
    A3 is speced at 70# higher weight.

    They are similar on the macro scale, but are different cars in the details, and have different strengths. I do think the A3 is the car to start with between the two if you want to go as fast as possible, but I am also a bit bull-headed and think I can build an A2 that can beat them - and hope to do that. Success or failure will both provide some fun times, but the former would be much sweeter.

    You won't find me complaining often (hopefully at all, and if I come across that way it is not intended) about the competitiveness of my car of choice, as I beleive it is a 'prototypical' ITB car. I also appreciate that it has had a long run as one of the the front runners in ITB in general. A2 Golf owners are the last ones in the world that have a reason to complain about classing IMO.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •