Audi A4 2.8L Quattro NA - ITS car?
- Thread starter benspeed
- Start date
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by Bildon@Oct 7 2005, 12:02 AM
Shhhhhh
Yah the Audi made ~190 not 172. I was just copying what he'd written. But the Corrado Storm (2.9L) which is what we run (+.040) made the same 190hp. Point is...the Audi was too heavy.
Passat ITS carhmmmmmm
[snapback]62003[/snapback]
Bill,
Wasn't the Corrado Storm a UK-only model? I haven't been able to find anything about them being sold in the US, nor have I found any US cars w/ a 2.9.
Eric Parham
New member
I believe that Bill (Bildon) was simply referring to the 0.040 pistons, which are allowed in IT and make the overbored engine into a "2.9". It's just nice that the 0.040 pistons are readily available for this application due to the fact that VW actually built the UK Storm models with those pistons. Otherwise, one would have to search for identical aftermarket 0.040 pistons, which isn't always as easy or inexpensive.
Bill Miller
New member
Yep, wasn't sure if that's what he meant, or that they were running the 2.9 AND +.040. And yep, it's handy to have the +.040 pistons be stock ones for another motor.
Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 6 2005, 01:55 PM
Going through the GCR and thinking about what might be a cool car to run in ITS. I got to thinking about an Audi A4 2.8 Quattro. Stock this car makes 172 HP and weighs 3228 lbs. Normally aspirated.
This might be a very fun car to run in ITS and I'm curious to hear what others would think. I've been able to find decent examples for about $5K - not unlike the cost of an E36 tub.
This would make for some very cool replays of World Challenge from a few years ago. Give that Audi for any rain race
looking at years 1996-1999 B5 model.
So whaddyall think?
Cheers,
Ben
[snapback]61925[/snapback]
It would have to be the 'front track' car.. awd is not allowed...
I think it would be mighty tough on both front tires and brakes, and the motor is not Audi's best...
I had the B5 and currently drive the B6 (modded of course), but I wouldn't take it on the track! - you'd get killed by the 325
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So much to comment on here:
The Audi RS6 is classed at 3200lbs and the Z06 is at 2950 IIRC for Speed WC. Think there is a difference between AWD and others?
I just don't think this could be true. Apples to apples across the board, I just don't buy it.
This thread was started about an car that would fit into ITS...Over 200 hp at the crank is MORE than enough to spin the tires. Crips, you can spin the tires in an ITS RX-7 in tight stuff with a Torsen and 128 ft/lbs of torque.
I have a hard time beleiving that those proponents of AWD don't think, even a little, that there is an advantage. This is all just for the good of the class right?
So you think that an AWD car, everthing else being equal should weight the same as a FWD or a RWD car?
Ed, this is your incorrect assumption. Who neglected anything? We haven't even done the excersize of classing one yet. I refer to my first statement. Why is Speed GT is the Audi so much heavier than the Z06? Traction. The same traction that might be equivilant to IT cars in the rain? Drizzle? Insert your track condition here.
You don't read enough of the BB. We most CERTAINLY take into account WHP when we have it. In the case of new classifications, we estimate crank HP. In the case of developed cars, we compare known dyno numbers to our crank estimates to see if they fall into the same ballpark. Heck, we even talk to engine builder whose crank numbers we know and THEN see dyno results for the same motors...we take into account all those factors.
And what is so wrong with this? Don't we owe it to our membership to enter into the unknown cautiously without wrecking established classes? They FIXED IT? Oh the horror!!! This isn't an issue with dry racing. I think that AWD is an advantage in the dry, but not so much so that it shouldn't be anything more than just another 'adder' we take into account like RWD, double wishbones, aero, etc. It's an issue of creating a class killer in the wet.
Submit to us your data that shows that AWD ISN'T superior to FWD or RWD in the wet. To me it's OBVIOUS it is. How can we reasonable assume it isn't? How come the fastest Rally cars aren't FWD or RWD?
Plllease. Disagreeing is way different that it not being appropriate to voice your opinion. My only beef that you critisize the 'traditional thinking' - without providing any data to prove otherwise.
Let's turn this thing around. Where can we find data that sheds some light on this. I will contact SCCA and ask them what the current thoughts are on AWD - and the 'penalties' for running such a configuration.
Let's start with those 'other organizations'...
USTCC:
A4 AWD 1.8T: 2680
Subaru RS: 2600lbs
GTI VR6: 2450
Acura RSX: 2380
2006 Civic Si: 2380
No penalty for AWD? The RS Subaru is 165HP. It has to weigh just 50lbs less than an E36 325 Bimmer (2650) with 24 less stock HP? Do I see a trend?
Lets hear from the 'it's no advantage' crowd. FWIW, the engine allowances for the above class are a LITTLE more restrictive than IT so power levels can be compared generally IMHO.
Seriously, educate us. If we are wrong, it could only add cars to IT, and that is never a bad thing - as long as they don't upset the balance of a class.
AB
The Audi RS6 is classed at 3200lbs and the Z06 is at 2950 IIRC for Speed WC. Think there is a difference between AWD and others?
I just don't think this could be true. Apples to apples across the board, I just don't buy it.
This thread was started about an car that would fit into ITS...Over 200 hp at the crank is MORE than enough to spin the tires. Crips, you can spin the tires in an ITS RX-7 in tight stuff with a Torsen and 128 ft/lbs of torque.
I have a hard time beleiving that those proponents of AWD don't think, even a little, that there is an advantage. This is all just for the good of the class right?
So you think that an AWD car, everthing else being equal should weight the same as a FWD or a RWD car?
Ed, this is your incorrect assumption. Who neglected anything? We haven't even done the excersize of classing one yet. I refer to my first statement. Why is Speed GT is the Audi so much heavier than the Z06? Traction. The same traction that might be equivilant to IT cars in the rain? Drizzle? Insert your track condition here.
You don't read enough of the BB. We most CERTAINLY take into account WHP when we have it. In the case of new classifications, we estimate crank HP. In the case of developed cars, we compare known dyno numbers to our crank estimates to see if they fall into the same ballpark. Heck, we even talk to engine builder whose crank numbers we know and THEN see dyno results for the same motors...we take into account all those factors.
And what is so wrong with this? Don't we owe it to our membership to enter into the unknown cautiously without wrecking established classes? They FIXED IT? Oh the horror!!! This isn't an issue with dry racing. I think that AWD is an advantage in the dry, but not so much so that it shouldn't be anything more than just another 'adder' we take into account like RWD, double wishbones, aero, etc. It's an issue of creating a class killer in the wet.
Submit to us your data that shows that AWD ISN'T superior to FWD or RWD in the wet. To me it's OBVIOUS it is. How can we reasonable assume it isn't? How come the fastest Rally cars aren't FWD or RWD?
Plllease. Disagreeing is way different that it not being appropriate to voice your opinion. My only beef that you critisize the 'traditional thinking' - without providing any data to prove otherwise.
Let's turn this thing around. Where can we find data that sheds some light on this. I will contact SCCA and ask them what the current thoughts are on AWD - and the 'penalties' for running such a configuration.
Let's start with those 'other organizations'...
USTCC:
A4 AWD 1.8T: 2680
Subaru RS: 2600lbs
GTI VR6: 2450
Acura RSX: 2380
2006 Civic Si: 2380
No penalty for AWD? The RS Subaru is 165HP. It has to weigh just 50lbs less than an E36 325 Bimmer (2650) with 24 less stock HP? Do I see a trend?
Lets hear from the 'it's no advantage' crowd. FWIW, the engine allowances for the above class are a LITTLE more restrictive than IT so power levels can be compared generally IMHO.
Seriously, educate us. If we are wrong, it could only add cars to IT, and that is never a bad thing - as long as they don't upset the balance of a class.
AB
I would say that an expectation that one side provide more support than the other side is expected to show is a fair enough indication that my feeling is not unwarranted.
I never said there was NO advantage. I said that the advantage is usually overrated with only its advantages listed as the reason for penalty and no one who ever classes it brings up its inherent disadvantages of weight and drive train loss. And I have not seen WHP mentioned in any classing discussions that have been made public. My concerns are the awarding of high weight penalties solely based on the benefits of AWD without anyone ever having mentioned that they understood the costs of it.
Rally isn't comparable as it is dealing with loose surfaces which is not the same as a wet tarmac.
Not directly comparable due to USTCC REWARDS weight system, but OK we can discuss an existing program where there is AWD history. USTCC uses an exact brake HP, torque ratio to come up with weight and a bonus weight of 50# for AWD. They do not explicitly consider the costs of AWD traction (or any drivetrain power efficiency of any car) though I believe by settling on 50# they actually have considered it. 50# is significantly less weight penalty than has been discussed on other threads on this topic and definitely couldn't have been the adjustment to the power/weight when the STi got tossed into T1. All indications to me was that the impression was the benefit had to be much more than 50#. Because I actually doubt that the STi was put there with an expectation that it had no hope of competing just to see how it did. Of course they adjusted it, did they have any choice? But at a cost and frustration to attracting those who are or could be new members. Despite the frustrations with many of the processes and more the results, I believe the SCCA tries to act in good faith so the classing wouldn't have been a lets put it in way over its head. I think it is more likely that AWD was considered as being some sort of far superior advantage - one that is more than it actually is.
If the ban is lifted and if the ITAC awards 50# for AWD over other considerations normally given, rather than the 100+ discussed frequently before I would think that was a pretty fair consideration. The tone has been that I suspect there would be a desire to add a lot more than 50#.
If membership participation and size is a goal, then fairness to all members should be the mantra - not preferential defense of entrenched ones. A lot of talk about classing can't harm existing cars by the creation of class killers on AWD, but the consideration given is more than the benefit that would be brought to the track IMO. And by all appearance a completely different tack was taken with the Miata where its advantages were recently glossed over IMO rather than penalized in weight and the most telling indication to me was one of the listed reasons for the recent decision - "why not give it a place to run." Why not give all member's desires the same consideration?
Has anyone followed up to see how many of those free memberships given to Subaru purchasers for a few years actually renewed? Has anyone asked why? I don't know the numbers but I do know the Subaru boards are full of people who said no way am I paying to be in the SCCA based on how they felt they were treated at regional autocross and how inaccessible getting on track was to them relative to other organizations.
Yeah I know that if AWD is ever classed in IT that the ITAC will eventually get to the right answer (if I didn't think that the SCCA can't ever get to the right answer I wouldn't be here) but I also don't want to see the right answer arrived at from a way far off initial answer. If the approach and attitude taken to class AWD was close to the public answers given for the recent Miata classing I think that would actually be more than I would hope for - but something closer to that than what has been espoused in AWD threads would be comforting.
I never said there was NO advantage. I said that the advantage is usually overrated with only its advantages listed as the reason for penalty and no one who ever classes it brings up its inherent disadvantages of weight and drive train loss. And I have not seen WHP mentioned in any classing discussions that have been made public. My concerns are the awarding of high weight penalties solely based on the benefits of AWD without anyone ever having mentioned that they understood the costs of it.
Rally isn't comparable as it is dealing with loose surfaces which is not the same as a wet tarmac.
Not directly comparable due to USTCC REWARDS weight system, but OK we can discuss an existing program where there is AWD history. USTCC uses an exact brake HP, torque ratio to come up with weight and a bonus weight of 50# for AWD. They do not explicitly consider the costs of AWD traction (or any drivetrain power efficiency of any car) though I believe by settling on 50# they actually have considered it. 50# is significantly less weight penalty than has been discussed on other threads on this topic and definitely couldn't have been the adjustment to the power/weight when the STi got tossed into T1. All indications to me was that the impression was the benefit had to be much more than 50#. Because I actually doubt that the STi was put there with an expectation that it had no hope of competing just to see how it did. Of course they adjusted it, did they have any choice? But at a cost and frustration to attracting those who are or could be new members. Despite the frustrations with many of the processes and more the results, I believe the SCCA tries to act in good faith so the classing wouldn't have been a lets put it in way over its head. I think it is more likely that AWD was considered as being some sort of far superior advantage - one that is more than it actually is.
If the ban is lifted and if the ITAC awards 50# for AWD over other considerations normally given, rather than the 100+ discussed frequently before I would think that was a pretty fair consideration. The tone has been that I suspect there would be a desire to add a lot more than 50#.
If membership participation and size is a goal, then fairness to all members should be the mantra - not preferential defense of entrenched ones. A lot of talk about classing can't harm existing cars by the creation of class killers on AWD, but the consideration given is more than the benefit that would be brought to the track IMO. And by all appearance a completely different tack was taken with the Miata where its advantages were recently glossed over IMO rather than penalized in weight and the most telling indication to me was one of the listed reasons for the recent decision - "why not give it a place to run." Why not give all member's desires the same consideration?
Has anyone followed up to see how many of those free memberships given to Subaru purchasers for a few years actually renewed? Has anyone asked why? I don't know the numbers but I do know the Subaru boards are full of people who said no way am I paying to be in the SCCA based on how they felt they were treated at regional autocross and how inaccessible getting on track was to them relative to other organizations.
Yeah I know that if AWD is ever classed in IT that the ITAC will eventually get to the right answer (if I didn't think that the SCCA can't ever get to the right answer I wouldn't be here) but I also don't want to see the right answer arrived at from a way far off initial answer. If the approach and attitude taken to class AWD was close to the public answers given for the recent Miata classing I think that would actually be more than I would hope for - but something closer to that than what has been espoused in AWD threads would be comforting.
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
I hear what you're saying, and I think the concerns are very valid. As an excercise, where would the FWD versions of the B5-platform Audi A4/VW Passat w/ the 2.8 V6 fall, weight wise, in ITS? Stock hp is 190, IIRC.
I hear what you're saying, and I think the concerns are very valid. As an excercise, where would the FWD versions of the B5-platform Audi A4/VW Passat w/ the 2.8 V6 fall, weight wise, in ITS? Stock hp is 190, IIRC.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
190hp is at the very upper end of ITS. Remember, the E36 325 has 189 and the 944S has 188. Both respond very differently to IT prep however...
3150ish? Too heavy for anyone to build one really...but the power is just outside the envelope...
The early car at 172...could/should be right around the VR6 cars at 2700 (maybe a little light but...)
AB
3150ish? Too heavy for anyone to build one really...but the power is just outside the envelope...
The early car at 172...could/should be right around the VR6 cars at 2700 (maybe a little light but...)
AB
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Maybe we are talking about two differnt things. I think that classing AWD for dry-only is something could happen in a second and the 'penalty' would be nominal. The issue is wet weather racing. Is it the RIGHT thing for club racing to create Regional classes that are weather dependent? The STi and the Evo are immensly popular in Solo 2, and especially Pro Solo. When it rains at the Solo 2 Nationals, the game is over. So much so in fact that there has been controversy in the recent past over drivers switching cars due to weather conditions - a "mecahnical"? You make the call.
I disagree. First off, we don't know how many MEMBERS want AWD in IT. Maybe we should put it out for member comment. My sense is that the CURRENT membership sees no need for a potential headache. If you class the car so it can run faily in the dry, and it is a class killer in the wet, have you searved the membership in that class? No. I say you have just created 'the car to have'...and that is a bad this. Having said that, I DO NOT know the true effects of AWD vs FWD vs RWD in the wet, but my experience has shown it to be substantial. I would like to see data to the contrary.
Second, The Miata fits the process. We received some letters quoting 133hp. That was for the 96-97 car not on the list yet. 128hp was the peak for the 94-95 cars. The same consideration has been made in the past for other cars that have significant current logbooks that were not classed competitively and have been finding other homes. It's not SPECIAL consideration mind you, just focused consideration with a goal. Member retention and development. What sepcific 'glossing' over do you speak of? It should be a very viable choice in ITA but the fact remains you will have to do 100% prep in order to run with well developed 240SX's, Integras and CRX's.
As a matter of fact, I have PERSONALLY. Last year, I had a AWD driver in our Region put a poll out on the Subaru site. It was part of the SCCA's 'Retention Program'. Very limited amounts - and I say VERY limited amounts of owners were renewing. Why? The VALUE wasn't there for them at the time. Solo 2 didn't provide enough track time for that demographic, Road Racing was way to much of a step for a brand new car, Rally was going to mess up the condition, etc. You do see however, that with the new prorams SCCA has launched over the past year - the time trialing, etc - is targeted at this PDA-type crowd. How they were treated? Is that from a philisphical classing persepctive or on a personal level? Autocross has GREAT places for AWD to run...but if it's truely HOW they were treated, it's a REGIONAL problem, not an SCCA problem.
While I agree with you in principle, the Miata has no unknowns. It will either be classed right or wrong, same as the myriad of other changes we have made in the past 2 years (using the same PROCESS that has corrected many a misclassed car, creating no instant overdogs) If wrong, the CRB can add restrictions to slow it down. AWD is a whole different animal IMHO because the issues are weather related.
Botom line? Let's find out what the membership wants - and if they want it, we will make it work - and the membership that asked for it will live with the unintended conciquenses, should there be any.
AB
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
...and the next time your car comes into our shop...maybe it won't leave faster than it came in!!!Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 10 2005, 11:42 AM
Well, after we put the car into IT trim with exhaust, intake and a full tune we were able to get the car to dyno at 225 HP.
(only messing with ya...)
[snapback]62204[/snapback]
Bill Miller
New member
Yep, those don't look like stock front brakes!!
I think his point was that from a power base perspective they are limited absent a car specific allowance. There is a lot more nonpower mods permitted in various forms. They also allow turbos and use restrictors to avoid for instance requiring Evo's to have to carry 3,800# and STi's 4,100#.
I do think as a basis for discussion about how others currently deal with AWD was fair enough.
But the thing is with the REWARDS weight they run that changes thing somewhat because if a mistake is made in classing or if a condition advantage is experienced the specific car carries additional weight into the next race - so the effect is immediate. That is the part that makes a big difference they don't have to get as close to right initially as we all expect the ITAC to (fairly or not).
I do think as a basis for discussion about how others currently deal with AWD was fair enough.
But the thing is with the REWARDS weight they run that changes thing somewhat because if a mistake is made in classing or if a condition advantage is experienced the specific car carries additional weight into the next race - so the effect is immediate. That is the part that makes a big difference they don't have to get as close to right initially as we all expect the ITAC to (fairly or not).
RSTPerformance
New member
My ITB 1984 Audi Coupe (Basically a 4000) will be faster than a 1984 4000 quattro in the dry if they weigh the same amount.
Why because the loss of power to power all 4 wheels! That is the difference that makes up for having the equal weight. There is no way that if they weigh the same that the AWD version will be as fast. with 120HP the extra drive train will definetly make you slower.
As far as the A4's I'm not sure??
I do think the AWD does help when you have poor conditions... downpoor/standing water. other than that the AWD is no advantage.
Stephen Blethen
Why because the loss of power to power all 4 wheels! That is the difference that makes up for having the equal weight. There is no way that if they weigh the same that the AWD version will be as fast. with 120HP the extra drive train will definetly make you slower.
As far as the A4's I'm not sure??
I do think the AWD does help when you have poor conditions... downpoor/standing water. other than that the AWD is no advantage.
Stephen Blethen
Bildon
New member
USTCC allows extensive engine mods for some cars. The Golf for example has extensive changes that I probably shouldn't post here without the owners permission.
USTCC is all about the show. Rules creep and cheating are not as much of a concern with them. You are correct that weight is used a lot to control 'breakaway' cars that become obviously superior.