1993 Golf III in ITB

I am a pessimist but I would recommend NOT including ineligible years. I don't know that the CB has the option of amending your proposal to correct the years or if instead, it might be a poison pill that kills the entire proposal. Only ask for things that they can't say "no" to...

Kirk
 
Allan--Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials. Just starting the second 25 years of my life sentence and its been just great. Hope you can get out a couple of times.

Joe--Don't worry, I bought an A3 this past Monday. Pros--looks to be in good shape and was cheep Con--requires a road trip from NY to balmy Milwaukee to get it. Thanks for puttting that stuff together and if I can help let me know

jerry
 
Guy’s, check out this great site. I have used this company and found price, service and warranty are one of the best in my area. They will ship any were in the US. www.specializedgerman.com

Knestis, being a pessimist with SCCA is the wrong approach. We all have to remember this is our club and we are members with a voice. Car classifications and rule changes are possible only if we act as a team. United one group has a stronger chance in making changes, than an individual.

For years SCCA has made mistakes with car classification and weight, this car is a good example, Corrado is another. If you don’t ask you won’t get.



------------------
Gary Semerdjian
#98 Corrado ITS
 
Me, a pessimist?
smile.gif


If that were truly the case, I wouldn't have stuck it out for so long and wouldn't continue to try to change things.

I just think it's asking for trouble to include model years in the request that aren't age-eligible, that's all. Picture these two scenarios:

1. (CB) "Next we have a request to classify Golf/GTI III, model years '94-98. No problem, since the specs are all the same as the already classified '93. All in favor?"

2. (CB) "Next we have a request to classify Golf/GTI III, model years '94-99. Heck, we can't do that - 1999 model's too new so isn't eligible. Denied. Next item..."

K
 
Joe,

I would agree with Kirk that the request should only contain legal model years, 93-98. I would also ask that you do include the four door golfs, just so a second request later on does not have to be done. If this four door request is going to muddy the water, leave it out.

Thanks again,
Alan
 
Joel,

I also recommend keeping your request on a narrow track. Other requests can be made later to supplement the original. I would also not ask for the Jetta as the ITA Jetta has not been the subject of the reclassification and the weight (in ITA) is greater.

I have found no meaningful differences in the basics amongst the various 93-96 models, other than the switch to OBDII in early-to-mid 96 build vehicles. The idle controls/throttle body had some changes at that time. Side intrusion seems to have been redesigned for 95. The first 2 door models appear in 94 as a GL. 95 has a GL and a Sport. The sport has discs in back. In 96 the Sport becomes the GTI (4cyl). The 97's started to get contented to catch up to the competition.

When does the "plus axle" start to come into play, and does it affect the 4 cyl cars?

There is also a hint at a different head at edmunds.com....

"What's New for 1997
....Meanwhile, the 115-horsepower inline four that powers the base GTI is fitted with a new cylinder head for smoother power delivery. "

But no other source I have found shows a different horsepower or torque rating. So perhaps we need to do more research.

For 1997 the 037 103 351 N is the 49 state head while 351 P is for California.

For 1996 the 037 103 351 J and M are the 49 state heads while 351 P is for California.

All take the same headgaskets: 037 103 383 M or N

If Mr. T DeRonne is still hanging around here, do you have access to these MVMA sheets?

Good luck to all.

Dave Z

PS: Joel, If you need help with those forms I'll help in what I can. [email protected]


[This message has been edited by Dave Zaslow (edited March 12, 2003).]
 
Someone had asked the overall length of the Golf.... 160.4 in.

I'm currently going on the Technical Specifications from VW that were part of the 1997 Product Guide that I got as a salesman.
I'm still in friendly contact with the local VW area rep who'll supply me with the needed technical data.
One of the "issues" that I've come upon is weight. I was surprised to learn that the GTI base weight is 2566 lbs and the Golf is 2540. I'm assuming that this is the difference between the GTIs having a standard sunroof and it being optional on the Golf.
I'll complile what I have and either post it or email it to any interestede parties later this week. JOE
 
Joe,

If you need something from an A3 Bentley manual I have access.

Dave Z

[This message has been edited by Dave Zaslow (edited March 13, 2003).]
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">For years SCCA has made mistakes with car classification and weight, this car is a good example, Corrado is another. </font>
Click to expand...

Yeah Gary, but they can't seem to recognize them all.

Dave, it's Joe not Joel
biggrin.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
 
Hello all. I have been a lurker here for some time, and thought I might add my $.02 worth.

I have run both an ITA Civic, an ITC Scirocco, and am building an ITB Golf now. I have sold parts for years, and have worked at a VW dealer in my time.

I am surprised that the A3 Golf has such a low weight, when compared to an A2 Golf, but I have not personally weighed each example. I am not 100% sure that you could get the A3 to that weight.

I see no difference between the 2 cars' suspensions, as most of the parts are interchangeable. In fact, some are exactly the same. Since the "Plus Axle" geometry is only on VR6 cars, it does not come into play here.

The A3 car has larger front brakes than the A2 car, but some do have rear discs, which would be the same as a rear disc A2. The rear drums on the A3 cars are the same as the 90+ rear drums on A2 cars.

The extra displacement and more advanced engine controls may yield more power and more than overcome the extra weight, but I would want to wait. I am not so sure that the car could be made to meet the min weight.

I still don't think that this car will dominate ITB, but it would fit right in.

Pete Mills
 
I've been sidelined for awhile but getting the itch again...

The A3 looks OK on paper, but has a fairly wide gearbox. Since it's much wider than an A2 GTI close-ratio, different R&Ps might be needed for different tracks.

A few hints: The first batch of '93s ALL had rear disks, although the later ones came with drums. Also, the Canadian glovebox slides right in to replace the pass. side airbag. '93s were all 4-doors. '94 2-doors exist but are quite rare. 2-drs are more common for '95-up. I believe the earlier cars had a distributor, while the later ones (at least '96-up) had direct ignition. It's not entirely clear whether they "all" had power steering. My brother's ex-girlfriend had a white '93 Golf "Citi" 4-door that he thinks had a manual rack. I might try to track that car down... There may also have been a switch from a metal intake to a plastic one at some point, but I'll have to do more digging. Oh, and a metal sunroof from an A2 is supposed to bolt in and be lighter than the glass one.

Eric
Yellow/Red #44 ITB Scirocco
 
First- Hi Peter Mills Give me a call sometime.
Second - should we be asking for a weight along with classification ?
Our group runs 5 A-2 golf so don't kill these cars completely[value and performance wise]
Just be careful in what you ask for.
Third- our canadian cars are somewhat different,mostly 1.8 litre throttle body
mexican motors,the only two litres are 94+up
GTi and 4 dr GL models.
 
Hey guys, as I said earlier I have built, and raced this car in ITA and have run into all these problems already... I could not meet min weight but I weigh 240 lbs, I was off by 70 lbs dry. All 2.0 ABA motors for US cars had aluminum intakes and all cars for the US ( even the "City" ) had power steering. As for the sunroof it needs to be removed and the legal sheetmetal installed, not the A2 panel,it weighs more than flat stock welded in. If it will help anybody I have the factory parts catalog on my computer and can check items if needed. If you look at the past two years of Fasttrack you will see I requested this change 5 times and have supplied the CB with several pages of specs
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If you look at the past two years of Fasttrack you will see I requested this change 5 times and have supplied the CB with several pages of specs </font>
Click to expand...

Well, at least you didn't get the "Quit bothering us, the weight is correct" response that all the Rabbit GTI guys keep getting!
rolleyes.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
 
Caution, I'm being oblique out of necessity....

1 - I have been led to understand that the comp board /IT Ad Hoc has received letters for and against the reclassification of the A3 into ITB. I have also been led to understand that most have been negative. However you feel about this keep those letters going.

2 - I have also been led to understand that the reclassification may only be for the '93 as originally requested. I have written, as I hope others have, to expand that to the full A3 Golf production run. If that does not happen we will have to request the classification in a later board action.

Again, it is important for you to voice your opinion.

Have Fun!,

Dave Z
 
Of course that is going to be the case that current ITB folks are going to be unhappy - it's the nature of the system.

The other option, should the Golf III move to B not fly, is to rally for support of creating IT2 above A. If the ITA index were returned to a pre-CRX/240sx/IntegraII level, the Golf might be in good company.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top