is a mk2 16v competitive?

GTIspirit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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...
 
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...
 
mgyip said:
Stock HP in a 1.8L 16v VW is 123hp (advertised) and 127hp for the 2.0L 16v.
Click to expand...

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.
 
evanwebb said:
I imagine he would admit that his car could get better with some effort & money injection...
Click to expand...

Money injection ALWAYS helps (which is why I don't race in a GT class where cubic dollars always beats talent). A better driver certainly wouldn't hurt the GTi, that's fer sure.

Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

Perhaps I should run the car all season, put it in the top 10 (again) and then ask silly money for the car b/c the VW fanbois will pay big bucks for stuff like that. Then I'll take my ill-gotten earnings and learn how to read Japanese whilst deciphering an Integra...:shrug:
 
mgyip said:
Maybe I'll have to figure out the steps to request a review - the only issue is that aside from moving the car to ITB (which really isn't a goal for me but rather a penalty), there isn't much to help the car in ITA within the current constraints of the IT rules.

..:shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, you write a letter to the CRB asking us to run it through the process. If it's been run recently, the number will be the same. If it hasn't been run, there could be a change. Up, or down.

Now, if it's down, I think you said you're getting close to minimum, so that could be a gift that just doesn't give, ...

The 1st gen RX-7 got a review that resulted in a weight that the RX-7 guys cried at, "It can NOT be done". Well, I can name tow or three versions from different years that are at minimum weight. But it requires scrupulous work, hollow sway bars, titanium mufflers, and so on. Nobody said it would be easy. Some cars don't cooperate.

If the process weight turns out to be way lower, then it gets a good discussion about dropping it a class, but, A to B is a big hurdle, and the ITAC is loath to do it.

So, you have the data. You now know what YOU make for power, and what the process expects you to make. And you know your weight, and how low you can go. So, you've got options.
 
Matt,

So w/ the VIN rule having gone by the boards, why not drop a 2.0 in it and convert to digi-fizz? That'll get you the ECU benefit and get you some more power. Not to mention that you probably won't have to worry about that extra chili dog. :eek::D:p

I agree though, w/ the VIN rule gone, doesn't make sense to built a 1.8 16v Golf for ITA anymore.

And a minor correction, IIRC, the published hp for the 2.0 16v cars was 135.


Jake,

Your revisionist history is simply amazing. Or is it just the Alzheimer's setting in?
 
I'd considered switching to a 2.0L 16v BUT I have 5 1.8 16vs reposing quietly in my garage. Beyond that, the VW fanbois worship the 2.0L 16v so finding one (or more) is a pricey proposition. I'll try my best to prove Stu Brummer (BSI) correct that I'm a moron for racing a 1.8l 16v in ITA. 11 years thusfar so if nothing else, I'm persistent...
 
GTIspirit said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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:
Kirk,

My comment was related to post #54. Going as far back as the 2000 ITCS, FI cars were adjust the fuel mixture by changing the resistance values going from the sensors to the computer. Based on the way things are in that ITCS, looks like the alternate needles / jets for the carbs was new for 2000.
 
jmracer17 said:
I have a 2.0 that I am going to build but, is it worth the 200lbs for the little power added? :shrug:
Click to expand...

In theory, the 2.0l 16v used CIS-E Moronic which should be more tunable than CIS-E. My car is roughly at the 2.0L 16v weight (well, it used to be) and it didn't seem to make the car significantly faster or slower with that add'l weight.
 
Ok. Well. Put in for a review of the car to the crb so hope they can make something of it. I love the car and love to drive (which Is why we all are out here for, right?). Hope they can do something to make it a little more competitive in the class, or how ever they do. I just want to race against people with "equal cars". I know that will never happen but we can all dream right?
 
Knestis said:
Alternate needs/jets were allowed starting with the very first national IT rules in 1985.

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

K
Click to expand...

Kirk,

I based my comment off the way the text in the 2000 ITCS was formatted. There were vertical bars on both sides of the paragraph, and the following text was in quotes:

"Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized."

The convention then, was to identify a paragraph that had changed since the prior year, w/ the vertical bars. The new / altered text was in italics. Maybe that stuff was already there, but they just diddled the language a bit. Sorry if I had it wrong, but that's the oldest GCR I could find in my bookcase.
 
Just starting my build up of an EP/ITA gti, planning on running the 2L with cis-M. My region doesn't seem to be nearly as hardcore so hopefully i'll be able to run mid pack. Just looking for some track time for a while haha
 
I will just reiterate that IMO the 1.8 CIS-E car is the more competitive choice. That is a lot of weight on little front brakes, and the CIS-E is much easier to tune right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top