March 2011 Fastrack

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John
 
Rabbit05 said:
Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John
Click to expand...

John,

You are missing that they used 120hp for the stock number.

That is one of the gotcha's with this car.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.
Click to expand...

Exactly why additional documentation is needed. I know jack about these cars, but using google, the consistent HP is given as 110. Another.

110 * 1.25 * 17 * .98 = 2290

Not saying the 120 is wrong, but the source of that 120HP suddenly becomes a big "?".
 
JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.
 
StephenB said:
This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys :(
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.
Click to expand...

In June '09, the ITAC recommended that the earlier Coupe be processed at 110hp (so under the then-current protocol, 2290#) based on what we unearthed at that time. That's consistent with my recollection that the LATER Coupe was listed at 120hp - so deserved the heavier race weight.

I *think* we may have reached a point - whether on purpose or not - where the two versions of car have essentially been merged into one functional spec line. Stephen is talking about "all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels," which I infer is about updating to the newer model. Of course, that's not legal unless the entire result is identical to a '84-86.

What's LOST in this muddle is the fact that the later car has a higher compression ratio. I have a suspicion that equally lost, by some over the years, is that cars on the "old model" spec line would have to run the low-CR engine and NOTHING that was unique to the later one - came, induction/injection, etc.

If in fact documentation showed that some versions of the earlier car did indeed have 120hp, that's that. I worry though that we might have plunked them all together by accident or as a de facto consolidation influenced by what people saw on track or understood racers to be already doing...

K
 
Jeff,
Sooo...you are basing on track performance from 1 race ..what 5-6 years ago ? And under-developed..?? I'll let the Blethens chime in on that one. And if you are basing performance on race results, why havent a whole lot of weight been dumped on Honda/Acuras ,which for a while now, have dominated most IT fields ?? Just curious..:D


And actually the early Coupes came with a 100 hp motor.(done on a quick search.) And I am pretty sure I can dig up my owners manual saying that the 85-87 motors are 110 hp. I believe you guys might have been looking at the Audi 4000 motors..which may be the reason for your higher HP numbers.(having to lug the Quattro system around).

Although I would like to see where I might obtain the same info you guys got on the Audi Hp motors.

Hey if I am wrong..I am wrong... and I'll be the first to admit that.


-John
 
Last edited:
No, we (or I at least) are not using on track performance to make a weight change.

I am very leary of on track performance being used at all. However, here, like with the E36 and the MR2 and the CRX, I think it was done appropriately - use on track as a trigger to investigate further if the numbers we were using are right.

Here, a lot of digging by others on the committee turned up information from Audi that the motor stock is 120 hp. I agree with you that should be properly documented, but that is what happened.

I was convinced that what was presented was accurate and voted for the change.
 
STU
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1. #3654 (Ben Phillips) Class 2000-04 Boxster S in STU
In 9.1.4.2.G, add to table: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Porsche Boxster S (2000-05) [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]at [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3179cc, 3300 lbs[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]., Notes: "[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5 point increase in compression. Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]" [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Well hot diggity!!! I'm thrilled to see this car listed. If I didn't like my 968 so much I'd be shopping eBay right now. Figure I might be looking for an S engine for my '98 Boxster, plus all the other goodies STU allows. This will make it things a little more fun in the class :-)
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
I am not trying to be a dick but the SCCA has already screwed around and tried to claim it had nothing to do with on track performance. Suck it up and admit it... you are either listening to others that based their opinion based on "on track performace" or you don't know much about the subject and events. Re-read post #24 and you can clearly see that on track performance from 1 day in 1 session at 1 event triggered the ITAC to consider a higher weight for this car. like it or not the car has a higher weight based on "on track performance". That on track performance which is 2+ seconds slower than the track record, 1 second slower than the track record that year set by a honda. Oh and did I mention it was from dong bump drafting with my brother and the ONLY session we went that fast was for 3 laps in 1 session on 1 day at a high profile event 6 years ago? At that time NO new golfs had been built yet other than Chris Albin who hadn't done any real development. (He didn't even have a working ECU that day) Also the same time when the ITAC set a standard for weights that was LOWER than the "then current" ITB cars that were classified. Read the backroom thread where the ITAC admits that the weights were done incorrectly because of false information based on Volvos.

Now onto my concern that I have always had with this process. Using this example of the coupe vs. coupe GT. The original IT committee back in the 80's I think actually looked at cars and made informed decisions based on the attributes that the cars had when comparing them. NoOt on a rigid formula. The 81-84 coupe (NOT GT) has smaller brakes compared to the 84-87 coupe GT which was the reason for the 50lb difference. Possibly better aero according to Audi but that is up for debate as far as performance gains that I can't speak to. If the ITAC said we are changing the weight to be the same because we do not think the bigger brakes provide an advantage then so be it. I would be Ok with that since they are the ones setting the rules. The fact is they had no clue and just changed the weight based on a rigid process. (the should also just combine the spec line so that the other coupes that exist can update legally to the better brakes)

On another note that has now been posted and concerns me is the reason the weight was asigned has NOTHING to do with what the CRB said just a year ago. The OFFICIAL response to my brother and I had nothing to do with 120 stock HP and had to do with amount of torque these cars had. If the current ITAC used the 120 stock HP number then they are just making up HP numbers to get to an end weight that they like. I think that someone brought this concern up in another thread but I am not going to go digging.

I will openly admit that The 100HP and 110HP ratings I do not think is fair to use since essentially the motors are all the same and should in my mind be rated at the 115HP stock since headers and downpipes are free anyway.


MY ORIGINAL (negative, disrespectfull, and rude) POST from earlier is more about inconsistany in policy, poor follow-up, terrible communication, and non existant documentation on decisions that are made. this club will forever be in a mess if we can't get this right. Document the reasons and stick to them. You have not heard 1 peep out of my brother and I in over a year. the CRB finally came out and said the torque numbers are to high and you deserve the weight penalty. WE sucked it up, shut up and dealt with it. I will say not all members will accept the decision of the CRB (that is influenced by the ITAC) but in reality I think the CRB is trying to make an effort to do the best for the club. Going forward PLEASE start documenting things so that you can have consisant results through consistant policy, with accurate follow-up, and then for gods sake just communicate it to the members!

Sorry If I sound out of line but your only giving excuses if you never have the same answer,
Stephen Blethen
Under developed Audi Coupe driver that kicked but agains the ITAC members and CRB members in '05




*********************************************************************************
The following is off of memory which was submitted back about 2 years ago that you could probably find posted somewhere here on the site from me but I don't feel like digging. Read on but be carefull to take this data as supporting evidence for anything since it is off of memory and I am not looking it all up again... I have moved on and accepted the torque reponse from the CRB.

As far as HP... ALL AUDI 4000 models including quattro, coupe, and coupe GT between 1983 and 1987 had the same specs INSIDE the engines. you can do all the digging you want and you wont find anything...

The EARLY coupe 1980-1982 DID have a different injection system and mechanicaal lifters, however this is NOT the same coupe or coupe GT in question. (This is the one that had 100HP)

The other coupe 1981-1984 had hydrolic lifters, cable clutch, and CIS injection. rated at 110HP You can identify this coupe over the original coupe because it has a wing not a lip.

The Coupe GT offered from 1984-1987.5 had the same internals as the 1981-1984 coupe but had bigger brakes, different bumpers, different bolt pattern with bigger hubs and bearings, and it had a hydroloc clutch.

Then in 1987.5-1988 they offered a 130HP coupe GT that is classed in ITA.

To add to this mix they had the 4000 quattro that had 115HP only difference in the HP rating is from the better factory header and downpipe

The difference in HP ratings between the coupe, coupe GT, and quattro is the header and downpipe. ALL THREE cars have the same internals.

***********************************************************************************
 
JeffYoung said:
Here, a lot of digging by others on the committee turned up information from Audi that the motor stock is 120 hp. I agree with you that should be properly documented, but that is what happened.

I was convinced that what was presented was accurate and voted for the change.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

Don't trust those people. Ask them exactly where they got that information. In short they lied directly to your face. If I am wrong and they have REAL documentation feel free to call me out on it and post it in public or PM me if your more comfortable with that.

Stephen
 
Been busy Ben? We've been missing you :p

Cool to see it classified! I like those cars, but its far out of my budget...

What's with the notes?



benspeed said:
STU
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1. #3654 (Ben Phillips) Class 2000-04 Boxster S in STU
In 9.1.4.2.G, add to table: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Porsche Boxster S (2000-05) [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]at [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3179cc, 3300 lbs[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]., Notes: "[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5 point increase in compression. Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]" [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Well hot diggity!!! I'm thrilled to see this car listed. If I didn't like my 968 so much I'd be shopping eBay right now. Figure I might be looking for an S engine for my '98 Boxster, plus all the other goodies STU allows. This will make it things a little more fun in the class :-)
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
No, we (or I at least) are not using on track performance to make a weight change.

I am very leary of on track performance being used at all. However, here, like with the E36 and the MR2 and the CRX, I think it was done appropriately - use on track as a trigger to investigate further if the numbers we were using are right.
Click to expand...



I have no issue with this philosiphy or policy but say it as it is. ON TRACK PERFORMACE AFFECTED THE PROCESS WEIGHT. If no-one ever raced it what would the weight be? Why hide behind this? It is OK to say that on track performance affected the weight if it is justified by the "digging in" and further research. (I don't agree that the coupes on track performance is justified but that is just a difference in opinion that I have accepted)

Stephen

PS: not trying to throw stones... just saying it as it really is.

Stephen
 
1030091006.jpg



I dug for a few minutes

......From my Owners Manual-1985 Audi Coupe GT...possibly a factory Hp resource ?

-John
 
You're wrong. On track performance did not affect process weight it. It played no part - zero -- in the calculation.

It did cause us to do more research on the stock hp nuumber.

That's a key point, it's true, and if you don't "get" that then you'll never be happy with what we have done and we'll just have to leave it at that.

Thanks.

Jeff

StephenB said:
I have no issue with this philosiphy or policy but say it as it is. ON TRACK PERFORMACE AFFECTED THE PROCESS WEIGHT. If no-one ever raced it what would the weight be? Why hide behind this? It is OK to say that on track performance affected the weight if it is justified by the "digging in" and further research. (I don't agree that the coupes on track performance is justified but that is just a difference in opinion that I have accepted)

Stephen

PS: not trying to throw stones... just saying it as it really is.

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
fair enough. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. we are adults and I refuse to instigate and be inconsiderate of different well founded opinions that I disagree with. In reality we are just disagreeing on words... I think you would prefer to use the word "trigger" rather than change.

maybe we can agree on both words :)
On track performance "Triggers" a possible change...



On another note can you honestly see if you can find out the 120HP rating documentation? I am not likely racing my Audi again but I am curious since I have done so much research in my past on this and I just don't know what I missed. Again the CRB noted torque not HP as the reason for additional lbs.

Thanks
stephen
 
Last edited:
Jeff,

1.)If I dig up the correct HP rating, would/could the Audi CGT be rerun through the process ?
2.) Or am i just doing this --->:dead_horse:

-John
 
A fair post, I agree with you some of this is semantics, and a fair request.

One last comment though -- it wasn't just that one performance at the ARRC that triggered the more in depth look. Some of it was the "unknown" with this engine -- a 5 cylinder and on the large side for B. That all caused us to look harder.

You are entitled to know where we got the 120 hp figure and I'll get that for you.

Some quick searching on Wiki shows a 118 DIN hp (that's close to 120 SAE I think) "KX" designation 2.2 being installed in the car from 85 to 87. That may be it.
 
JeffYoung said:
Some quick searching on Wiki...
Click to expand...
Which source takes precedence: Wikipedia or the factory shop manual? If the former, then as a tech inspector can I overlook technical information printed in the FSM, superseding it with that "written" on Wikipedia...?

Just askin'...

GA, who bristles anytime someone uses Wikipedia as a source...for anything. Except maybe info on Britney Spears. Or Pink. Or maybe Constitutional Law...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top