is a mk2 16v competitive?
- Thread starter evofool
- Start date
Beran
New member
The love for VW's
Well - yes we have to know the competition... but we should be wise about where our VW's will win. When I came back to club racing 5 years ago I knew I wanted to build and race a VW. I did research and figured out quick where the right place to be is.... ITB with an MK3... this will change.
Back when SRS was saying the 16v was good in ITA was in the mid 90's... then more cars ended up in ITA and it became less competitive. Many of the IMSA Firestone Firehawk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Motor_Sports_Association#IMSA_Showroom_Stock ) cars ended up in SCCA ITA. My first race car was an ex VW Firehawk car which I raced in ITA from 93-96.
There is a VW that is allowed to race in ITB that has not been build yet and that is the MK4. I have no idea if it will be slower, the same, or faster.
Anyone know if anyone is building one?
Well - yes we have to know the competition... but we should be wise about where our VW's will win. When I came back to club racing 5 years ago I knew I wanted to build and race a VW. I did research and figured out quick where the right place to be is.... ITB with an MK3... this will change.
Back when SRS was saying the 16v was good in ITA was in the mid 90's... then more cars ended up in ITA and it became less competitive. Many of the IMSA Firestone Firehawk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Motor_Sports_Association#IMSA_Showroom_Stock ) cars ended up in SCCA ITA. My first race car was an ex VW Firehawk car which I raced in ITA from 93-96.
There is a VW that is allowed to race in ITB that has not been build yet and that is the MK4. I have no idea if it will be slower, the same, or faster.
Anyone know if anyone is building one?
So you think the 16V is uncompetitive in ITA because of the engine, rather than the brakes or handling? I'm curious, how much power/torque would make the 16V a front runner in ITA?
jmracer17
New member
Well how much more power does a "well built" 16v make over a "well built" 8v? I dont know if its possible, but why doesnt it get droped to itb? Woud it just then walk away from the field? Sorry if its a dumb question but really dont know the output/handling/braking diference.
In those terms, both power and handling are weak points for the A2 chassis in general, especially with the current rules of "open ECUs BUT no standalone units". Ironically, the CRB hides behind "Not consistent with the intention of the class" and yet allows open ECUs which are every bit as pricey (if not more expensive) than a standalone unit. Then again, SCCA has to be incredibly cautious about their decisions and they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings - hence the stupidity about not requiring a HNR but that's another argument entirely.
How much power would a front runner make? Dunno - I'm putting about 130 to the flywheel (last year before freshening the bottom end) - I'm figuring the Hondas and Datsuns, er Nissans are 140ish since they benefit from the open ECU allowance.
The VWs with CIS and CIS-E CAN be tuned but that requires going to a dyno, grabbing one's ankles and saying "Thank you, may I have another" when the tuning is done. While the EFI tuning programs are similar, their "tuning" is much more simplified b/c it involves a dyno and a computer rather than a dyno and a myriad of VW-specific tools and gadgets to trick the CIS-E computer. Furthermore, while an EFI system can be tuned across the entire RPM range, CIS-E, because it is dumb system (both figuratively and literally), can only be tuned for a specific RPM range. This isn't bad and that's how Nastycar tunes their cars BUT the caveat is that when the car drops out of that RPM range, all the other cars sail past...
Because it's still too fast for ITB. The Catch-22 in this game (and I'll well aware of it and not complaining as much as stating fact) is that SCCA provides us a place to race but does NOT guarantee a car's competitiveness in any given class. This is part of the racing game - if you want the fastest car in a class, you'll virtually have to purchase a different car every year.
In my case, I'm stubborn (and apparently stupid) because I've been racing the same type of car for 12 years. After 12 years, I'm finally READING the writing on the walls - it's been there for 15 years but I just didn't read it. The question I keep asking myself if "Do I want to continue being DFL? Do I want to switch to a different car and/or class? Do I want to sell this car and take up underwater basketweaving?"
I'm tired of being DFL - I know that. Like most of us who race a certain make/model of car, I have a plethora of spares. Junk to most people but spares to the racers who can appreciate a 130K mile engine that ran when it was removed 8 years ago. Underwater basketweaving sounds like fun but in the Mid-Atlantic, we can only do that about 7 months out of the year before it gets too cold...
Sorry, but I don't understand the difference between an "open" ECU and a "standalone" unit. Could you please elaborate?
A few years ago when I was re-building my PL engine to IT spec I bought the parts from Raffi at Eurosport. I'm pretty sure he said that about 150hp could be had out of the 16V. But I haven't been to the dyno and so have no idea the output of my rebuilt engine, rebuilt with all the allowances.
I can think of a few easy ways to install an aftermarket ECU to control spark and fueling on the KE-Jetronic system, without changing injectors or the distributor. But the limitation is the four-window hall effect camshaft sensor. Without an allowance for a toothed crankshaft wheel and sensor, it would require customized software and the spark timing wouldn't be very accurate. Which is why I had earlier suggested that the SCCA define a common sensor set so that all cars may take equal advantage of the open ECU rule and have a level playing field.
jmracer17
New member
Wow. Ok. I agree it sucks being DFL. Esp. after i took my schools in A sedans. Well Im still on a bone stock motor so I am way down on power but I just cant see dropping 3k in a motor to still be DFL. In CFR, the ITA field is allot of Miatas. Yes, allot of it is driver but the other part is the car. I guess if you want to be up front you have to drop big money and for me, not going to happen. Im just starting college and cant afford it so it sucks. I guess thats why they say "cubic dollars" or "be born rich."
Marcus Miller
New member
Not really; its about choosing your ride.
You can replicate my mid to upper pack (depending on driver) car for ~7K.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I don't mean to sound harsh, but I seriously doubt you're DFL. If you are, you have other issues than the car. There's a lot of talent levels out there, and you have to work to be DFL. I'll assume you're exaggerating for effect.
That aside, I have to call BS on the "new car every year" comment.. that's a HUGE exaggeration. I recently chatted with a CRX owner who complained his car was "junk" now. Yea, he's running tenths off (or under in testing) track records, and he's complaining that other cars have easier time tuning because they are OBDII. Boo hoo, LOL. Hard to not chuckle at that point of view when you look at the process used to class, the reported power levels, and dare I cite it: results. A car like his, a CRX, has won the ARRCs, (*)and the IT-Fest last year, and has been competitive for years. Except when they were beaten by Acuras. Or Nissan 240sx's. Or Nissan NX-2000. Yea, those cars are the same configuration as they've been for years.
If you had to buy a new car every year, that wouldn't be the case.
Regarding the possible move to ITB, here's how it plays out. (And, oh, let's not paint the picture of the Volvos and the 2002s getting all pissed if they were to be challenged, they might be big in the MARRS series, but lok around. Track record in Watkins Glen: Prelude. Atlanta? Golf III, I think. Or Accord. Point is, there are lots of candidates, and the Volvos and 2002s are only two of them.)
So, to move the car, you get to run the car through the process, (Assumed power times ITB factor plus minus any "adders".) That results in a new ITB weight, heavier than the current ITA weight. AND you get to buy a quiver of 6" (lightweight!) wheels and tires, and go testing the new wheel tire setup.
The ITAC looks hard at such class changes, because it's rather upsetting to many who are happy racing their cars as is. Whenever moves like that are made, there ARE people who are negatively affected...it's got to be clear case of the car not being able to make weight or some clear disadvantage.
Sorry to say, (and MAtt, I know you understand this, I'm just restating it...) but we all choose our cars, and we accept the warts, whether they are handling oddities, or difficult to deal with ECU systems, or components that wear excessivley.
* the win was taken in tech due to a cold air intake infraction. Same car is now running a compliant system, and won the IT Fest.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
If you're in college AND racing, you're living pretty large. Patience, grasshopper!
DFL is certainly a relative term - we have cars that are well prepared and driven "gently" by drivers whose talent isn't at "the next level". Having a tiny bit of experience, I feel that I'm wringing out at least 90% (or more) out of my antique POS and yet the car keeps moving backwards in comparison. The "fast" ITA cars are in the 1.26 and 1.27s while the old VW is turning 1:30s on a good day (with a tailwind). Hence the comments that the car is no longer competitive. Heck, I'd be ecstatic to just break into the 1:29s but that probably won't happen in my lifetime or without a JATO.
Let me clarify further that a new car isn't necessary EVERY year but part of this is just the nature of the beast - as newer cars are classified, the older cars fall further down the food chain. At some point, the question must be asked whether it's better to spend $20K to fully prep an ITA CRX or an ITA Pinata.
I'm not so interested in running the car in ITB as I am about making the ECU ruling more fair to cars that don't have EFI. The ruling, as I read and interpret it, allows EFI cars to run anything they'd like on top of the factory system. Unfortunately, the non-EFI cars (in particular CIS and CIS-E cars - BMW, MB, Volvo and VW come to mind), don't have that benefit since their injection system is little more than a glorified electronic carburetor. 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.
Yes, I opted to race a VW product and I've been living with the drawbacks - this holds true for ANY car since we all know (hopefully) that there is no such thing as a perfect car. Honds are fast but twitchy and fragile, 240s are heavy and the engines are tempermental....the list of issues goes on and on...
I'll hang on to my POS a while longer - until someone wants to pay me way too much money for an ITA car so I can either move on to something different or just "retire".
Let me clarify further that a new car isn't necessary EVERY year but part of this is just the nature of the beast - as newer cars are classified, the older cars fall further down the food chain. At some point, the question must be asked whether it's better to spend $20K to fully prep an ITA CRX or an ITA Pinata.
I'm not so interested in running the car in ITB as I am about making the ECU ruling more fair to cars that don't have EFI. The ruling, as I read and interpret it, allows EFI cars to run anything they'd like on top of the factory system. Unfortunately, the non-EFI cars (in particular CIS and CIS-E cars - BMW, MB, Volvo and VW come to mind), don't have that benefit since their injection system is little more than a glorified electronic carburetor. 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.
Yes, I opted to race a VW product and I've been living with the drawbacks - this holds true for ANY car since we all know (hopefully) that there is no such thing as a perfect car. Honds are fast but twitchy and fragile, 240s are heavy and the engines are tempermental....the list of issues goes on and on...
I'll hang on to my POS a while longer - until someone wants to pay me way too much money for an ITA car so I can either move on to something different or just "retire".
lateapex911
Super Moderator
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.
Flyinglizard
New member
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 ,
lateapex911
Super Moderator
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.
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.
Flyinglizard
New member
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
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
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.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Or, if you want to stay in ITA, and are tied to the German thing, build an early 911 
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.