Results 1 to 20 of 86

Thread: is a mk2 16v competitive?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post

    I'm not sure how to address this but have been sorely disappointed with the ITAC's initial allowance of open ECUs - the rumor mill says that this was because the cheating was so rampant and there was no simple way to verify ECU programming that the ITAC decided that it was better to finally legalize the cheating than to try and crack down on the various and sundry "tunes" being run in EFI cars.

    .
    Well, as to the choices in ITA, as I mentioned above, the Nissans, the Hondas, the Acuras, and others (Saturns, SE-Rs, Miatas, BMW E30s) have ALL been capable of winning top notch races for years. Most of those cars have been stable for 5 years. That many choices, and satability for over 5 years is NOT a Car of the year class, IMHO.

    And don't spend $20K!!! Go buy AJ Nealy's CRX. Fast fast fast that car is, and I think he's asking $12K.

    Regarding the ITAC and the ECu situation.

    First, when cars with ECUs became available, there was no ITAC. Carb cars have always had optional carbs allowed, and have allowed jetting/air bleed needle/accel pump changes, along with ignition timing changes.

    In the begining, FI cars were not allowed any such changes. It's really unclear if the weights assigned FI cars acounted for the lack of allowable tuning. Most will tell you that weight setting at the time was a hotley debated subject, and transparency and repeatibility was non existant. So there are serious doubts as to some of the weights at the time.

    In order to allow fuel injected cars the same advantages carbed cars had, CRB decided to allow the same category of mods, and did so by allowing "chips". Rumours suggested that you couldn't police the chips anyway, and the true intent of the rule will likely never be know, lost to the ages.

    Regardless, smart competitors replaced chips with sister boards and so on, using the chip socket. Others complained that chips weren't available for their cars. ooops! Unintended consequence. The CRB (the ITAC hadn't been created, or was in it's infancy and had no real role) decided that it was out of control, and came up with the "in the box" solution.

    Than, the ITAC came into being, and created a "process" to set weights. It did a Grear Realignment" and set/reset weights of many cars, and assumed they'd be getting the power available through the allowed ECU changes.

    If you hate the new rule, hate me. I brought it to the ITAC, because the old in the box version had tons of inequities. I knew going in that:

    A- under the ITAC system FI cars were getting classed with a power factor that assumed they'd be taking advantage of the 'open ECU rule' even though it was only truly open to those who had the $ and could fit their solution in their box. So many many ECu cars were racing at a weight that was set assuming they'd have the ECU power gains, but they did not.

    B- that allowing these cars to acheive their full potential would be removing a disadvantage, and would result in some competitive changes. Trust me on this one, as an owner of an ITA RX-7 with no torque, and carbs, and racing at a weight set based on a suspicious commitee, (years of look the other way ported rotaries skews teh perception of whats actually possible) any gains fuel injected cars made would send me down the reults charts right quick.

    But, it was the right thing to do, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of....me!

    (An interesting aside: We asked for input on the ECU rule, and we got it! Many letter writers went beyond their little world, and saw the big picture. Some said, essentially, "I don't own an ECU equipped car, so any change to their favor will hurt me, but opening the rule up is the right way to go". Those letters REALLY carried some weight)

    The rule corrects a bad situation, but it isn't perfect. In the IT philosophy, we are beholden to "Genre" rules. No model specific adjustments of rules are allowed. Certain exceptions DO exist in the ITCS, but we've been working on removing those.

    In the end, the new ECU rule has allowed more racers to get what the rules allowed them to do already, easier and less expensively than in the previous to the rule. The path was bumpy. Technology changes do that. But we have the old racing with the new pretty equally now, in many cases.

    Bottom line, if the Golf II isn't competitive because of empirical issues, or you think the weight has been arrived at in error, feel free to wrte in and present a well crafted case as to why. If that case can be coroborated, and documented, there is a chance (no guarantees) that the car could see an adjustment.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    The 16V is just like the Toy MR2, well developed from the factory. Legally , it wont go much faster. Add a few pounds, drop it into ITB. It should be very close at 100# over the 8V. It is still limited by the extra front weight that goes with the 16V, as well as the small cams that wont let it run to 8K.IMHO. Mike Ogren ,
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Here's the problem with that idea Mike.

    The process predicts it will make XYZ horsepower. Weight is specified based on that. When a car comes up for a request of it's weight to be reviewed, the ITAC does the math.

    So, the process Hp number is the same for ITB or ITA. The weight applied is what varies, as the two classes have different weight factors.

    So, if it can't make the predicted output in ITA, it won't make it in ITB. Ergo, it will be as competitive, or as uncompetitive in B as it is in A.

    I would vote against such a move, as everyone will need to dump all their wheels and tires and get new ones....(the cost), and the results (the potential benefit) won't change one bit.

    Cost vs benefit in this case is bad.

    (Regional arguments might vary, as one class is a "bigger pond' in one region or another, but the math shows the car will have equal chances in either class, all things being equal)

    If the car was making power, but nobody could get the car within 100 pounds of min weight, lets say, THEN there would be a benefit to moving the car.

    The real trick, in this case, (if what you say is true) is preparing a case that shows the car fails to meet process power, and having the weight adjusted downward in it's current class. If the resulting weight is unattainable, THEN it goes down a class, at a higher, and attainable weight.

    Proving that 'negative' is very hard, but not impossible.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    The 16V spins to about 7500 max ,with legal cams. The 8V spin about 6600 max , with a legal cam. The 1000 or less rpm, doesnt make 40 hp more needed to run ITA. It just wont burn enough fuel.
    The wheels for B are very easy to find, and cheap. I doubt that anyone still driving a 16V would not make the jump to B. I had one ,and it was the very same speed as my ITB Rocco. It is now an 8V car.
    It would just be too easy to down class this car and try it for a year or two. The former ITA Honda Civic, has set new levels in B. It also needs looked at. Pretty soon the whole SCCA will be spec cars. It is a lot easier to not do anything than it is to balance the class. I know that there are a lot of people that work on just this problem. And It is not going to please everyone.
    When I decide a car to race in a venue. I start with #/CC, than valve size, than intake size, etc. One of my current circle cars has had to add 125#, to slow it down. Regardless of why it is so fast..
    IMHO , a Golf 2,(1.8) 16V @ 2350 will still not beat a fair Golf 3, and maybe not a good Mk 2 , 8V.
    Sorry to bother you, MM
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyinglizard View Post
    Pretty soon the whole SCCA will be spec cars.
    I truly hope that's NOT what the future has in store for SCCA - NASA is already doing that with their Spec (fill-in-the-blank) series including Pinatas, Foci, 3-Series BMWs and I'm sure there will be more to come.

    All of my belly-aching aside, I really don't want to drive the same car as the other 30 people in my race group. The VW does some things very well (what they are has yet to be determined ) but it does do some things better than the comparable Honda, Mazda or Nissan. It's just frustrating to race one of the few cars that got shot squarely in the a&& by the changes in the rules.

    For the time being, I'll stick with what I've got and see how far down I can move in the finishing order (top 10 for the past 6 or so years in year-end points) before I decide it's time to go Japanese or move into the last decade.
    Haz-Matt Racing

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Or, if you want to stay in ITA, and are tied to the German thing, build an early 911
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Thanks but no thanks - a local racer built a 911-E for ITS and is now selling it b/c it apparently doesn't meet his level of competitiveness. Having raced side-by-side with the car and watching it try to swap ends under heavy braking, I'll stick with my porky, underpowered VW for the time being - at least it doesn't require 150% of my attention just to keep it moving in a straight (or relatively straight) line...
    Haz-Matt Racing

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    The process predicts it will make XYZ horsepower. Weight is specified based on that. When a car comes up for a request of it's weight to be reviewed, the ITAC does the math.

    The real trick, in this case, (if what you say is true) is preparing a case that shows the car fails to meet process power, and having the weight adjusted downward in it's current class. If the resulting weight is unattainable, THEN it goes down a class, at a higher, and attainable weight.
    So what is this process power for the 1.8L 16V? It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTIspirit View Post
    So what is this process power for the 1.8L 16V? It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.
    Help me with the stock hp...
    And there have been plenty of weight adjustments to get cars aligned with the process when requests have been made. Some stay the same, others get changed. I don't know what the ratio is, but it's absolutely not "Always that the classification is ok".
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateapex911 View Post
    Help me with the stock hp....
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    Haz-Matt Racing

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Elkridge, MD
    Posts
    303

    Default

    I would think that a 16V Golf like Matt's would need like ~200 lb to go into ITB. Matt's good driver, and his car is good, but he's turning lap record times at Summit for ITB with his car now, I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...
    Washington DC Region
    Scuderia Tortuga
    MARRS ITC Scirocco #12

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    Process power is 153.75 at the crank (130.68 at the wheels) for the 1.8
    and 158.75 (135) for the 2.0.

    2220 current weight, of 1.8, without knowing the car that well, I think that's pretty close, within 30 or so pounds.
    current weight of the 2.0 :2475 yeah this one seems heavy.

    I can't remember without digging through the records when/if these were processed. It might not be a bad idea to request a review.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgyip View Post
    Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
    I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTIspirit View Post
    ...It would be interesting to see what is the gap to the perceived/theoretical power that the SCCA has in mind. I noticed that the '87 GTI 16V has one of the lowest weights in ITA, so I would think the SCCA perceives some kind of shortcoming to the other cars in it's class based on the mystical formula. And whenever I see someone request a weight review the ITAC always says the classification is ok as is, no adjustment.
    Lots of language in here that simply doesn't apply to how the ITAC works - "perceived," "theoretical, mystical." As Jake mentions, we do simple math unless we've got compelling evidence that a car makes more or less power than the standard system expects.

    On that latter point, take a look at the September Fastrack thread. There are quite a number of recommendations from the ITAC to the Board that are waiting on approval. With any number of requests processed, frankly the chance of them being RIGHT ON - that is, "ok as is" is very slim.

    ...Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?
    I don't think that's fair, Bill. I haven't seen anything in Jake's posts here that I can't agree with - unless I missed something...?

    I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added?
    Write the Comp Board - [email protected] - and ask them to review the weight. I'm pretty confident that it hasn't been done under the "modern" regime.

    K
    Last edited by Knestis; 08-22-2009 at 08:55 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Emailed them today so we will see what comes back. As soon as I get a reply I will post it.
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.com

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    109

    Default

    They say it will be addressed at the next meeting and will be posted in the fastrack. we will see.
    James Coyne
    CFR
    1987 VW Golf 16V STL
    coyneracing.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
  •