Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
Rabbit (Mk1) 1.8L GTi is rated at 90hp crank (JH engine, 8.5:1 compression). Uses hydro-mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic. Some say the "90" was optimistic...

Golf (Mk 2) 1.8L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 102hp crank (RD engine; 10.1:1 compression). Uses CIS-E KE-Jetronic. Same basic hydro-mechanical with some electronics control. Later Digifant with 105hp.

Golf (Mk 3) 2.0L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 115hp (ABA engine?; 10:1?). UsesMotronic electronic fuel injection.

Golf (Mk 4) 2.0L (8-valve) was rated at 115hp (same ABA engine as Mk3, I believe?)

Bill (or whomever) please double-check this info.

Andy, you're not implying you won't re-run them through the classification process unless you have real-world, built, dyno numbers, are you...?
Your numbers are on the money Greg.

I think things would be a little clearer were it not for the "G" camshaft. That option kind of weaseled its way into common practice on the MkI GTI and I seem to recall that it makes a pretty substantial difference. That influences perceptions - positively - about what the car is capable of.
Kirk,

Any Rabbit GTI running a G-grind cam is flat out cheating. It is certainly a better cam than the stock GTI cam, but it's not legal in a Rabbit GTI. We keep hearing about some mythical allowance that let's people run them in the ITC 1.6 cars, but I have yet to see anyone produce anything, other than hearsay, that supports its legality. Jeremy certainly doesn't have anything. And, I suspect that were someone to protest one that was in an ITC car, that car owner would be shopping for a new camshaft.

Off the top of my head, here's the cam specs as best as I can recall. Stock Rabbit GTI cam, .396" of lift, stock 1.6 Rabbit/Scirocco cam .405" of lift, G-grind (euro GTI 1.6 10:1 Heron motor cam) .423" of lift.

The G-grind was an easy power gain on the GTI's, but ONLY if you dumped that horrible exhaust manifold first.

100whp out of a Rabbit GTI is pretty close to what you would expect from a good IT build, assuming you get a 30% gain out of IT prep. 30% may be a better estimate than 25%, as that stock exhaust manifold was really bad.

Jeff,

All else being equal (prep, driver, etc.), at the new weight, a Mk I and a Mk II are probably pretty well matched. No way does a Mk I stand a chance against a Mk III in that situation. The Mk II is pretty much in the same boat. 70# for 10 more hp in stock form (which turns into 13 more hp w/ a IT build)? Doesn't add up. 125-150#, maybe. Which is pretty much where Kirk puts it w/ his estimate of the car being 50# light.