March 2011 Fastrack

I appreciate that and I do apologize about calling you out on the stock hp issue. After looking at it in detail its complicated and not as straightforward as presented to me on the con call.

I'll also mail you the manual when I'm done with it, no charge. On me, for your patience in dealing with this issue.

I may take you up on working through it. I've seen some indication that the later KX motors made more power. We'll see what the manual says.

Thanks.

Jeff

StephenB said:
Mine is not in great shape... been to the racetrack and back for 11 years... most of which I wasn't very carefull with it! However I would send it to you to look at as long as you will send it back. Not sure if that is a conflict of interest but it's all original. I think it is missing a few pages but I am sure they are not in that section.

If you did purchase it feel free to contact me when you get it. I would love to go page by page with you. Heck I would od it on a conferance call format and anyone could listen in.

Stephen

PS: Doing this is a good example of your dedication and character. We will certainly agree to disagree on a lot of things in our future but I respect you and if you stick to what you honestly feel is best and you listen to feedback then none of us can be upset with your decision... Disagree yes but upset no.
Click to expand...
 
You're right. I was too hard on him. I've apologized.

Your turn. You owe Jake an apology and you owe the community an explanation as to where you got the Ops Manual.

Man up.

pfcs said:
"In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate." Jeff Young

That's pretty nasty, and I bet you can't support it with facts. Steven and I may be on opposite sides of some issues, but one personal interchange with him made it clear to me that he is humble, honest and has integrity. I don't guess for a second that he was being deceptive about what he "knew" about stock horsepower numbers and I think he's due a sincere apology. This stuff (finding what's real about complex questions like old [&new] engines/modified) isn't simple and maybe impossible given what this community has to work with. I do appreciate that an effort is made, however. See below:

"We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.)." That's the truth for sure. Unfortunately it's true for many cars, perhaps every car.

PS: Steven-could you possibly take down that face now?
Click to expand...
 
You mentioned the KX engine code but the more I think about this we need to justify the 120HP for the early coupe as well since it was stated that it was correctly processed.

***edit*** I am 90% sure that you will find the difference in the KX engine vs the JT engine is the header and downpipe design. Also used on the quattro. I am really reaching back in memory now since this was a long long time ago!


Also was any consideration given to the larger brakes?
Given the only difference between the early coupe and the coupe GT is brakes and bumpers/headlights/sideskirts can the lines be combined so that the early coupes can upgrade the brakes legally? (HP is obviously the same since they were both processed at 120HP)

Should I send in a letter or am I missing something obvious?

Stephen
 
Last edited:
We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor. Well, to be more specific, I know nothing about the brake differences but it is only extremely rare cases where that would matter.

All the easily available data I see shows the 2.2 KX motor in the "early" cars at 110 hp and the 2.3 NG motor in the very last ones at 130 hp EXCEPT for the Wiki page where the "late" KXs made 120. If that's the case, with the update/backdate rule you'd get the 120 for all cars with the KX on that spec line.

If the cars are on the same line, you can use the later car's brakes on the earlier car.

StephenB said:
You mentioned the KX engine code but the more I think about this we need to justify the 120HP for the early coupe as well since it was stated that it was correctly processed.



Also was any consideration given to the larger brakes?
Given the only difference between the early coupe and the coupe GT is brakes and bumpers/headlights/sideskirts can the lines be combined so that the early coupes can upgrade the brakes legally? (HP is obviously the same since they were both processed at 120HP)

Should I send in a letter or am I missing something obvious?

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
Greg Amy said:
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...
Click to expand...

Greg:

I was thinking of it as a way to back-door into the motor via cam/pistons/intake etc. to figure out if there really was a power change in the later years of the car, but with different displacements too, everything would likely be different in any case. My last ETKA experience was in '07 or '08 trying to determine what differences there were, if any, between USDM and Canadian Audi TT's. IIRC, there were specs posted besides parts lists and graphics, but this was for a late model car.

Despite all the documentation and research over the long term on the Audi Coupes, it's amazing this one has stayed as fuzzy as it appears. Anecdotally, these cars were something I lusted over when in college, so I paid attention to them when they were new back in the day. I thought they did get a horsepower bump around '85 which would correspond to the 110/120 business. But everything is pointing towards that not being the case.
 
preparedcivic said:
I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.
Click to expand...


Just looked it up. ETKA lists the 2.2 (KX) engine at 85Kw and the 2.3(NG) engine at 100Kw. According the the converter I used on americanmachinist.com, 85Kw ~= 114 hp and 100Kw ~= 134hp. That sure seems consistent w/ the published 110 and 130 numbers in the Bentley manual (in terms of the same delta between the two engines). So, if you use 114hp instead of 110hp, you get 114*1.25*17*.98 = 2374.05 (round to 2375). So at 2490, it's still over 100# heavy.
 
The below is from Wiki. It shows a 118 DIN (so about 120 SAE right? or wrong?) KX motor in the 85-87 Coupe.

The problem is that every other listing for the motors that came in that car appears to be wrong.

DIN-rated motive power & torque outputs, ID codes 79 kilowatts (107 PS; 106 bhp) — WU 85 kilowatts (116 PS; 114 bhp) — KZ, WB 88 kilowatts (120 PS; 118 bhp) — KX, PX 89 kilowatts (121 PS; 119 bhp) — JT 96 kilowatts (131 PS; 129 bhp) — KE, KF, KL 98 kilowatts (133 PS; 131 bhp) — KV 100 kilowatts (136 PS; 134 bhp) — HY, KK, PR, WC, WG, WK 101 kilowatts (137 PS; 135 bhp) — HX, KU applications Audi 80 (KK/KL: 08/82-07/84), Audi 90 (KV: 06/84-12/91, HY: 06/84-03/87, KX: 01/85-03/87, JT: 08/85-03/87), Audi Coupé (KE: 08/81-07/84, KL: 08/82-07/84, HY: 08/84-07/88, KV: 08/84-07/91, KX: 01/85-07/88, JT: 08/85-12/87), Audi 100 (WG: 08/76-07/80, WC: 08/76-07/84, WB: 04/78-07/84, KF/WU: 08/82-07/84, KZ: 08/84-09/86, HX: 08/84-12/87, KU: 08/84-12/90, PX: 08/85-07/86, PR: 08/89-12/90), Audi C2 200 (WK: 10/79-09/82, WC: 10/79-07/84, KU: 08/84-07/85), Volkswagen Passat (HY: 08/84-07/88, KV: 01/85-03/88, KX: 08/85-03/88, JT: 08/85-07/88)
 
JeffYoung said:
All the easily available data I see shows the 2.2 KX motor in the "early" cars at 110 hp and the 2.3 NG motor in the very last ones at 130 hp EXCEPT for the Wiki page where the "late" KXs made 120. If that's the case, with the update/backdate rule you'd get the 120 for all cars with the KX on that spec line.

If the cars are on the same line, you can use the later car's brakes on the earlier car.
Click to expand...

Except if the difference in power is attributable to something that is part of IT Prep, like the ECU or exhaust system. See "Bettencourt Miata vs the Process", and the "Ops manual" as examples. ;)
 
JeffYoung said:
We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor. Well, to be more specific, I know nothing about the brake differences but it is only extremely rare cases where that would matter.

All the easily available data I see shows the 2.2 KX motor in the "early" cars at 110 hp and the 2.3 NG motor in the very last ones at 130 hp EXCEPT for the Wiki page where the "late" KXs made 120. If that's the case, with the update/backdate rule you'd get the 120 for all cars with the KX on that spec line.

If the cars are on the same line, you can use the later car's brakes on the earlier car.
Click to expand...

Thats fair enough. Please share with Raymond, John, myself (and any others that race these cars) what we need to do to update to get that 120HP out of the engine :)
 
JeffYoung said:
We were told on the con call that 120 was in the factory shop manual.
Click to expand...
Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick.
 
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

Greg-when you open EKTA, there's a row of icons/acronyms in the upper/right area. I think its the icon that looks like a lined page-click on it and it opens a list. I think engine is the first item. Click on that and there's a list of all engine codes, HP, kW, C/R, torque?, applications, etc. At the bottom is a window to input the engine code which takes you directly to all info for that unit including apps
 
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

I'm the first to admit our document collection and recordation practices need to improve.

We are working on it, we are light years ahead of where we were even a few years ago.

But I can't take much issue with your concern. I'm not saying I'll squeaky clean on this, but when asked to look into an issue I do try to document it as best I can. I did a lot of work on the 2.2 Mopars and wrote up my findings.

The MR2 plots are pretty well documented as well (not my effort).

So it is hit and miss.

Eagle7 said:
Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick.
Click to expand...
 
Man up.

pfcs said:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

Greg-when you open EKTA, there's a row of icons/acronyms in the upper/right area. I think its the icon that looks like a lined page-click on it and it opens a list. I think engine is the first item. Click on that and there's a list of all engine codes, HP, kW, C/R, torque?, applications, etc. At the bottom is a window to input the engine code which takes you directly to all info for that unit including apps
Click to expand...
 
StephenB said:
Again the CRB noted torque not HP as the reason for additional lbs.

Thanks
stephen
Click to expand...

Stephen,

Focus for a second and hear me. When the CRB was giving you the 'reasons' for not reducing the weight 2 years ago, they were all over the board. It was a very tense time in IT-land - a time which resulted in my resignation because or many issues coming from that group. That is the past, this is the present. What the CRB said than is moot.

Help them find the correct stock hp, and if they find documentation showing 120, either accept it or help prove it is wrong.

Just don't mix and match policies and committees. It's innacurate and simply the wrong thing to do. And if you think the committee that originally classed these cars had ANY idea on how to make classifications any other way than by POOMA, you be worng. The Process isn't ridged, it's just using inputs you don't agree with and a result you don't like. If those can be proven wrong, it will adjust.
 
Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick

Yeah-this may be insightful of how loose and political a clubhouse can be. I wonder if I was the one who did "a lot work" on this one.
Jeff-I respect what you all are trying to do and it's well motivated, and I believe you have integrity and appreciate your amends to Steven but this stuff looks pretty weak:
"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.

And, I'm afraid that if I was in your shoes I wouldn't be doing any better. Maybe what's simplest works best.
 
I don't know the first thing about Audi 5 cylinder motors, nor can I become an expert on every car we process. I do know a fair amount about more of the motors in S and A.

So when someone who has done the work on a particular motor makes a presentation, I listen. It may be loose or "political" in your book, but we do the best we can for volunteers with at times an overwhelming amount of work.

What is simplest is a repeatable process. Far simpler than what went on before. We have that now.

And, again, are you going to tell us where you got the Ops Manual? This is getting pretty ridiculous.

pfcs said:
Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick

Yeah-this may be insightful of how loose and political a clubhouse can be. I wonder if I was the one who did "a lot work" on this one.
Jeff-I respect what you all are trying to do and it's well motivated, and I believe you have integrity and appreciate your amends to Steven but this stuff looks pretty weak:
"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.

And, I'm afraid that if I was in your shoes I wouldn't be doing any better. Maybe what's simplest works best.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Stephen,

Focus for a second and hear me. When the CRB was giving you the 'reasons' for not reducing the weight 2 years ago, they were all over the board. It was a very tense time in IT-land - a time which resulted in my resignation because or many issues coming from that group. That is the past, this is the present. What the CRB said than is moot.

Help them find the correct stock hp, and if they find documentation showing 120, either accept it or help prove it is wrong.

Just don't mix and match policies and committees. It's innacurate and simply the wrong thing to do. And if you think the committee that originally classed these cars had ANY idea on how to make classifications any other way than by POOMA, you be worng. The Process isn't ridged, it's just using inputs you don't agree with and a result you don't like. If those can be proven wrong, it will adjust.
Click to expand...

Andy,

I accepted the reason then and I will accept it now.

What I do have a problem with is that I don't think that the Improved Touring Catagory within the SCCA should "mix and match policies" (your words) with different committees over a span of only 2 years. If they were "all over the board" then maybe we just got the wrong excuse. no problem with that now that I know.

I never said I didn't like the inputs.

What I did say is that I think my car is at a distinct disadvantage to the later coupes because I have smaller brakes. I also posted that I didn't think this was taken into consideration. Jeff stated "We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor." so therfor I accepted that response and I will most likely request for the spec lines to be combined since the two cars no longer have a difference.

I think you are wrong about the orignal comittee. They created one of the best catagories in SCCA and amateur racing in the US. If they didn't class the cars in a reasonable way the class never would have succeeded.

Stephen
 
They didn't class the cars in a way that had any -- ANY -- relationship with power to weight or performance. It was all curb weight.

And they weren't subject to the scrutiny that we are now because there was no internet, you didn't get to communicate with them and all you saw was what was in fast track.

Maybe we were better off "blissfully unaware" but if THAT evironment existed NOW -- IT would be dead.

StephenB said:
Andy,

I accepted the reason then and I will accept it now.

What I do have a problem with is that I don't think that the Improved Touring Catagory within the SCCA should "mix and match policies" (your words) with different committees over a span of only 2 years. If they were "all over the board" then maybe we just got the wrong excuse. no problem with that now that I know.

I never said I didn't like the inputs.

What I did say is that I think my car is at a distinct disadvantage to the later coupes because I have smaller brakes. I also posted that I didn't think this was taken into consideration. Jeff stated "We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor." so therfor I accepted that response and I will most likely request for the spec lines to be combined since the two cars no longer have a difference.

I think you are wrong about the orignal comittee. They created one of the best catagories in SCCA and amateur racing in the US. If they didn't class the cars in a reasonable way the class never would have succeeded.

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
agreed. It was "reasonable" and worked at the time with what they had.

This feels like a chat line tonight! Heading to bed! see you all tomorrow... ;)


Stephen
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top