16v Cars
- Thread starter imsafanct
- Start date
shwah
New member
I don't think the 2 liter is worth the extra weight. These cars have the same everything, except for 11hp stock, and probably not much more difference in IT trim. You gain some torque, but the brakes are still little 9.6 inch affairs up front.
Having said that, I think the 1.8 could still win in ITA. It would be fun to find out, but I have other fun to trys on the list before I get to that one.
RSTPerformance
New member
Some have suggested that extra weight has helped VW if it is in the rear... with that I would wonder if the extra weight is an inconveinence rather than a reason not to want an extra 11hp to start with?
Raymond
Raymond
Ron,
Perhaps I'm mis-understanding your post but are saying there are 2 different versions of the 2.0L 16v engine? I always though there was one?
What do you mean when you say the JH is in S not A? Thanks.
As an aside, I still feel it's too bad that the SCCA can't appropriately class or adjust the specs of smilar cars produced during roughly the same periods of time.
I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.
-Eric
Perhaps I'm mis-understanding your post but are saying there are 2 different versions of the 2.0L 16v engine? I always though there was one?
What do you mean when you say the JH is in S not A? Thanks.
As an aside, I still feel it's too bad that the SCCA can't appropriately class or adjust the specs of smilar cars produced during roughly the same periods of time.
I would like to know why a '91 Sentra SE-R w/ a 2.0L 16v, a '91 Integra w/ 1.8L 16v and a '91 16v GTI w/ a 2.0L aren't running nose to tail to nose at regionals. Sorry, I know I'm beating a dead horse here.
-Eric
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'll have to double check the years and models etc to be sure I'm being accurate, but.......
How do you know they aren't???
[insert old quote mode ON] "...bla bal bla, IT isn't about balancig every car on the head of a pin, Some cars have qualities that make them better race cars than other very similar cars, It's the competitors choice as to which he wishes to run, and for what reasons, bla bla bla..." [insert old quote mode OFF]
Other factors could very well play into the equation as well. Acuras are very very well developed, and have a huge base of players, where other marques haven't seen the same support. That support equates nearly directly into speed on the track.
Eric Parham
New member
Not yet, but I recently sent in a letter about the weight or class of the Scirocco 1.8L 16V, which is currently at a whopping 2320 pounds in ITA. No A1 chassis car should be forced to carry that much weight, IMHO. If they drop the weight to that of the other Sciroccos, it might be worth a try in A. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother trying one until they eventually (inevitably?) move it to B.
Eric Parham
New member
I'm afraid that you're mixing apples and oranges here. AFAIK, all of the 1.6L and 1.8L 16V Integras were VTEC (an earlier form of variable valve timing). With the stock camshafts in IT, even a 1.6L VTEC (142 hp stock?) is going to make more power than a 1.8L 16V VW (123 hp stock) or even a 2.0L 16V VW (134 hp stock), for example. VW finally sold a variable valve timing engine in the US with the later 1.8L 20V, but unfortunately they all came with turbos so not eligible for IT (Europe got some in N.A. form).
Ron's talking about the 2 liter 16v Jensen Healey that he's built. It's got a Lotus engine.
The primary reason is probably there aren't three really well-built, well-driven examples of those cars all living in the same place. The fact of the matter is that so few IT cars are really built to the maximum allowed by the rules, AND driven with high degrees of talent, that comparisons are impossible.
K
shwah
New member
I do think the Scirocco 16v should have a weight penalty compared to the 1.8 16v GTI. The 1/2" larger brakes and lower drag bodywork need to be accounted for. I don't know what that weight should be, or whether it is correct now.
Next time you have a chance, take a look at the exhaust ports on the VW 16v head. You will see why it is a leg down on more recent efforts by other manufacturers. The flow can be improved here, but not within IT rules.
The 1.8 16v head has larger intake ports than the 2.0 head, but they both have a difficult exhaust side. This is why the factory cam set has a more aggressive exhaust side. The 2.0 will have noticibly better torque out of tight turns, the 1.8 should feel better up top. At least those are my impressions after driving 16V vws on the street for the last 11 years.
Stock power for the motors was 1.8=123, 2.0=134. The CIS-E injection on the 1.8 is easier to tweak to get the right fueling than the CIS-E Motronic on the 2.0. You would need a method of burning custom chips for the 2.0 to really get it right. These facts and the huge weight difference for an otherwise identical car are all reasons that I would still not seriously consider a 2.0 16v GTI.
Eric Parham
New member
Careful there, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges too. The ONLY real similarity that those 2 cars have is the "PL" 1.8L 16V engine (actually just the long block). The A1-chassis Scirocco 16V is simply a re-styled (in '82) 1975 Rabbit/Scirocco chassis with some added urethane flairs. As I believe was pointed out in another thread, the A2-chassis '87 Golf 1.8 16V is actually more aerodynamic (lower Cd), particularly in race trim (windows down, etc.). Yes, the Scirocco has front brakes that are probably overkill for braking, but also weigh a lot more (both unsprung and rotating inertia) than the perfectly adequate vented front brakes on the Golf. On many tracks, I suspect that the lighter brakes might have the advantage. Back on point, though, they are completely different cars aside from the long block (even the manifolds and motor mounts are different).
On the actual Scirocco weight issue, please keep in mind that the 86-88 Scirocco 16V has the same suspension and front hubs as its 1975 predecessors. This is well-known as a serious weak link in these cars, so they should not be forced to carry too much extra weight. For the record, I do still run the stock ones in my '83, but I would never protest anyone for running non-compliant larger ones after some of the failures/crashes that I've seen. Contrast that with the '87 Golf 16V, which had better ones, and even those were significantly strengthened yet again for the '88-'89 Golf 16V (same ITCS line).
Edit: When comparing 16V VWs, don't forget that even though the '89 Mexican-built Golf GTI 16V didn't get them, the '89 German-built Jetta GLI 16V went to 10.1 inch (256 mm) front brakes that year. I just noticed that the ITA VW brake specs listed in the '06 ITCS are completely wrong for the Jettas. Actually, there are several errors there for the Jetta 1.8L 16V including wheelbase, 5th gear, and brakes. I guess no one's been running one so it probably wasn't noticed before.
shwah
New member
And when this is multiplied by the much smaller frontal area of the s-roc the result is less drag.
We can't write the rules to accomodate individual system designs, but they are correctly written to consider basic design parameters. In those terms 10.1" brakes are better than 9.6" brakes. I can make my 9.6s work, but honestly could use more force in my system and would find 10.1s beneficial.
I just installed a used suspension from a 1984 GTI on my 1986 GTI this year. There were some minor changes to make, but they are not fundamentally different from a race car engineering perspective.
Go take a look at the hubs on that 16v rocco next time. I don't have a set handy anymore, but I could SWEAR they were the larger bearing hubs. Let me know what you find. Regardless, this is part of the car selection process in IT.
You are right. The only A2 car with the 10.1 inch brakes is the 16v Jetta. It should be heavier than a 16v Golf IMO.
Am I lost here? They are! My NX2000 is the same exact car as the Sentra SE-R, 1.8L 16V Integras have been kicking ass for a few years now, and the 2.0L GTi is being developed as we speak (and won a rain race at New Hampshire this year; its one of two or three appearances, as I recall...)
Shine's crew seems to think that the GTi can't be competitive (at 2475#) against the NX/SE-R (2515#) and the Integra (2595#) but I think they just need to get down-and-dirty and make it happen.
Compared to similar cars already at nearly 2500#? I think that's a pretty good weight advantage!
Incorrect. The ITA Integras are not VTEC. Neither is the NX2000/SE-R.
Eric, next time we paddock together, go take a look underneath my Nissan. That suspension design is going to look AWFUL familiar to those with A1 Volkswagens...crappy econo car struts all the way around, baby!
Eric Parham
New member
Good point on the frontal area and multiplier, but the final result does not necessarily follow. I'll give you that it may follow, for now
Fair enough, especially since I think you're actually supposed to be running 9.4" (239mm).
True, I've done the opposite on a rallye car but it took a drill and some modified parts not legal for IT. I would still not consider the result as good as the original A2 equipment. The point is that it can't be done at all for IT.
Edit: Perhaps you were just talking about struts. I was talking about full uprights/bearings/hubs/tie-rods/balljoints etc. too.
I wish you were right, but I'm quite certain. The only difference on the A1 16V cars (and later A1 8V cars) was a thinner inner circlip to allow clearance for the larger 100mm later CV joints. The hubs themselves are exactly the same as the early junk.
Okay, you'll get no argument from me that an A2 GTI deserves a slight weight break compared to and A2 GLI due to the better front brakes, better weight distribution, and better aerodynamics of sedan with spoiler versus hatchback. But I don't buy your argument that this type of equalization should extend to an A1-chassis Scirocco. They're just too dissimilar. BTW, I did just send an email to the Comp Board to try to get some of the errors fixed for the ITA 87-89 VW Jetta GLI 1.8L 16V, only, in case anyone wants to actually run one (but why bother at 50lbs more since even the Golf 16V doesn't seem competitive at less weight).
Eric Parham
New member
A rain race, eh?
Maybe... I just don't know. If a VW could do it (and I'm not convinced that it can), I'd have to think the ITA 90-92 Jetta GLI 2.0L 16V would be the best shot.
Didn't realize that. Thanks for the correction. My friend's old 1.6L Integra used to blow the doors off of my 1.8L 16V Scirocco, and both were stock at the time. I guess I incorrectly assumed his was VTEC. We swapped cars too, same result (Acura noticeably faster than VW).
If you're implying that I should build an ITA 16V Scirocco and hope to hold a candle to your Egg, I think you may be giving me more credit than I deserve. No question that I would like to try it, but I just don't see it rising above an also-ran status at its current weight, even if I managed to finish a race on those poor little overstressed hubs. (Eric rosins violin bow for Greg).
shwah
New member
I knew it was .1 off of 9.5.
Yes struts/shocks/springs
The brakes are the only real advantage IMO.
For classification purposes they are both very similar. FWD, unibody, rear twist beam/front McPhereson, same short block, head and injection, but the S-roc has less drag (we need to find this on out) and bigger brakes. Again I don't know that the weight right now is correct, but I do think it should be heavier than the Golf.
Eric Parham
New member
If you're making an argument that the Golf should lose weight too, I don't disagree. I already admitted that your aero assumption is possible, but I think we can continue to disagree on the aero point. Unless you have some free wind-tunnel time, you're making an argument that can't be properly supported when based on unknown or disputed "facts".
Yours isn't a bad broad-stroke argument. If you ask everyone to overlook the details and just class and/or weight the Scirocco based on overall configuration, your argument that it should weigh more than the Golf seems to work just fine. I think that was the intention for the realignments last winter. Fortunately for my position, we can now address the real-life details with weight adjustments for next year. At the moment, the ITA A2 Golf 1.8 16V weighs 2220. Fortunately, the 1985-up A2 suspension (and hubs) is sufficient to deal with such weight. Some say the Golf already needs a significant weight adjustment to remain a viable option. I make no comment on that because I simply don't know. I never ran one and I don't plan to in the future. If you have an interest and a good argument, I suggest that you request a weight reduction for that car. No idea if it will help, but it probably can't hurt.
The ITA A1 Scirocco 1.8L 16V is saddled with 2320, or 100 POUNDS MORE than the similarly classed Golf. It's over 200 POUNDS MORE than the same car with a different engine in ITC. For reference, 100 lbs is the actual difference between the weight of a VR6 6-cylinder engine and the VW 4-cylinder's. The Scirocco 16V is not just marginally uncompetitive in ITA, but so much so that I've never even seen one at any of the northeast tracks. I've heard that one set some records somewhere (fast tracks down south?), but that it was later discovered to have had the wrong engine (a 2.0L, if I'm not mistaken). Sure, they all have rear torsion axles, but the Golf's 10-year newer design is stronger, lighter, has better geometry change characteristics, and seems to behave more like an independent rear suspension than does the Rabbit/Scirocco's.
Frankly, I don't even care what the Golf weighs. At the moment I care more about what the Nissans, Mazdas, and Acuras weigh compared to how much more power they make. One of my points was simply that there's no comparison between an A1 Scirocco and an A2 Golf. My new point is that there's no comparison between a car that I'd like to make competitive and anything that isn't already competitive. To reiterate some other points, the A1 suspension holding up the Scirocco was never designed to carry as much weight as is currently placed on the ITA Scirocco 16V. The same body with different engines weighs about 200 pounds less in ITB and ITC trims. 2100-2150 is the kind of weight that the A1 chassis can support (and just barely according to most reports, especially with legal sized hubs). 2320 is just ridiculous for an A1-chassis car.
Eric, that would be true if it were an ITC car, but it's not; it's an ITA car. Given that, it's almost 300 POUNDS lighter than class-killer ITA cars! Dude, that's like having almost two passengers in the car with you! It's even lighter than the 1.8L Miata, and damn close to the 1.6L Miata...
If you think it's too much, make your case with the ITAC boys. Your best strategy is to point out comparisons to the 1.8L Miata vis-a-vis lesser chassis capability and lesser horsepower. It shold be apparent that the Miata chassis is far superior, and work your way from there... - GA