March 2011 Fastrack

Ah its ok Greg ...you meant well.:D

I figure that perhaps a owners manual would be a solid reference point as well ? I cant imagine that it can be dismissed as mis-information..? :shrug:

-John
 
It can be used as a reference point, but the factory shop manual is the end-all, be-all, final word on specifications.

You state above you have the Bentley...what does it indicate is the rated SAE output of the KX engine...?

- GA
 
I do own a Bentley .. but it's at my engine builders place right now. I am going to trudge through the snow today and get it .

-John
 
Greg Amy said:
It can be used as a reference point, but the factory shop manual is the end-all, be-all, final word on specifications.

You state above you have the Bentley...what does it indicate is the rated SAE output of the KX engine...?

- GA
Click to expand...

info from the bently...

WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM The WE was only available on the Coupe never the CoupeGT and the biggest difference was the Electronic CIS and I think the hydrolic Vs Mechanical lifters to the new KX mentioned below.

KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM. The KX was availale in the later 1984 Coupes AND offered in the Coupe GT 85-87 (Coupe GT has different bumpers, headlights, grill, sideskirts, brakes, and was in the GCR for 50lbs more than the Coupe.

ALL 3 combinations of cars above are legal in ITB. (Coupe with a WE, Coupe with a KX, or CoupeGT with a KX) I happen to have an 84 Coupe with a KX engine. Smaller brakes, older bumpers.

The JT variation which was available from January of 1983 through 1987 on the 4000S Quattro. This was a 2.22L CIS-E(136cu.in.) with 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM. This is the EXACT SAME ENGINE as the KX except for a better flow downpipe that also dropped down differently next to the driveshaft.

The NG didn't exist before 1988 which had 130HP at 5600RPM this was offered in the 1987 Coupe GT and was the engine that was offered in the Audi 90 that replaced the coupe in 1988 through 1991ish. This is a 2.3L engine with pistons that are 82.5MM in size vs the 81mm that is in the 2.2L and 2.22L. It also had the KE-III Jetronic injection. By the way this is the 1987 2.3L ITA car classified in the GCR!

FYI The JN was offered through October of 1983 with 88BHP at 5500RPM and MG offered through October of 1984 with 102BHP at 5500RPM. Both these engines have the same bore stroke ect so don't think there is any swapping of parts here.

Hope this clarifies everything for everyone. swap around parts and you get nothing. my car (the KX with the JT downpipe and header) is the best combo and basically a JT with a KX tranny hooked up to it. This yeilds a factory 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM which I admitadly said would be the multiplier that I would use. Eventhough it never came in the car it is the highest factory HP rating for that engine in that era from Audi.

Stephen

PS: Raymond don't bother posting if your not going to help clarify things. Stirring the pot is useless. They are doing the best they can.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
On edit: I'll give you one "F**K Bentley!": I can't get paper for my '00 S4 or my '10 Jetta; it's all electronic. What a major PITA! Ever try using your laptop while trying to install a water pump/timing belt? Maybe I'm becoming a "Get off my lawn!" but give me paper and post-it notes for marking and working on a car.
Click to expand...

you got a printer?

Call me a tree killer, but I like having both a .pdf and a print version. sometimes the print version is much easier to flip through than to open a .pdf, but I prefer to reference the PDF since I can print a single page and take it with me to a machine shop or out to the garage.
I've printed the most-used pages from my manuals and keep them in the garage in a folder. I pull those out when I need them and leave the print manual on the shelf and the laptop in the house.
If they get greasy (that never happens), then I trash it and print another couple pages off the .pdf and the full manual stays clean and shiny.

It's great when I'm assembling a tranny or engine because I can just tape all 10 relevant pages together in a banner and then tack it above me on the wall so its out of the way and I can see all the steps at once.
you can't do that in a print manual or read that ish off a laptop without covering everything in gear oil or assembly lube.

I've also come to like the .pdfs. If they're done right, I can also search them for a random resistance spec of an idle control valve instead of flipping through a 1200pg phone book looking trhough the electrical, engine mechanical, and emissions sections trying to figure out just which one has the number I need.
 
Last edited:
StephenB said:
info from the bently...
Click to expand...
Interesting, in a couple of aspects (assuming this data is correct):

- The older, non-GT Coupe with the 100 hp WE engine is likely overweight. A lot. And it's not an "updateable" engine where it can co-exist with the other engines.

- The 110 hp engine KX car is also overweight, given it is being based on the 120 figure.

- The JT engine, even if functionally the same long block (of which I'm cynical, given my knowledge of VWoA engines) is not legal for use in the Audi Coupe/GT.

Here's where a really interesting conversation comes in: since the 115hp JT engine was never available in the Coupe or Coupe GT (only the 4000) and since the Coupe/GT is a separate line from the 4000, despite the fact that the 115hp number came from an IT-allowed modification (exhaust), can that higher 115hp number be used to classify the car (a la 1.8L Miatae)?

I don't think so...it can be used as a point of reference for future "what we know" should the engine ultimately be found to produce more than 125%, but I don't think that, to the "process", it can legitimately be used to classify the car with a 115hp baseline... Like I said, "interesting"...Stephen, can you photo/scan those pages?

It would be my suggestion that the ITAC specify the engine code and fuel injection in the "notes" section to ensure there's no confusion; e.g., for the 1981-1984 Coupe add "WE engine, CIS fuel injection" in the notes, then make the other line "Coupe/GT (84-87)" and "KX engine, CIS-E injection" in the notes. Given that I'm reading there's no weight breaks for brakes, then put all KX engined cars on the same spec line and let the competitors update/backdate to the best brakes (sorry, Stephen, I know you won't like that, but them's the breaks...har-de-har).

Matt93SE said:
you got a printer?
Click to expand...
I'm a book-as-a-workshop-manual kinda guy. I don't like to have to seek out and print the pages I *think* I want, only to almost always find out I was wrong (remove "that" part. The procedure for which is in a totally different section.) Plus, it's a real PITA while I'm working over an engine to have to lay a laptop on the engine covers, or on the fender cover, or on the roof of the car, or across the floor and not worry about it sliding off, or turning away from me while my hands are dirty, or whatever.

Finally, I've been known to successfully troubleshoot electrical probs while "busy" in the porcelain room.

Gimme a book, every time.
 
Also interesting that all ETKA values for Golf/Jetta engines is identical to what was used to process them and what is accepted fact.
 
FWIW the ETKA power numbers, both kW and the hp (DIN) both convert to SAE at ~118 (KX) and ~113 (WE). I don't know if those numbers are gross or net, but I thought I'd do the math as an impartial party.
 
Dave-first, thanks for publishing the ETKA page.
and I guess I should take the prev statement back-I'm at home/etkas @work and although I have a photographic memory, nothing develops. When I was active w/my ITB A2, the numbers in ETKA matched the prevailing wisdom, i.e: 1.8 A2 GTIs & Digifant cars 105 and 108hp by exhaust system.
The A3s seemed to check out also, but to state it w/ certainty I'd have to revisit the question with facts before me.
 
How different is the 5 cylinder from the 4 cylinder 8v VAG motor? I was always under the impression that they were essentially the same, other than obvious factors such as intake manifold, and one more hole.
 
Since we're playing with Audis and ETKA: can anyone confirm/deny for me whether the gear ratios for the 016 transmission that went into the 4000 quattro are listed?
 
Greg Amy said:
I'm a book-as-a-workshop-manual kinda guy. I don't like to have to seek out and print the pages I *think* I want, only to almost always find out I was wrong (remove "that" part. The procedure for which is in a totally different section.) Plus, it's a real PITA while I'm working over an engine to have to lay a laptop on the engine covers, or on the fender cover, or on the roof of the car, or across the floor and not worry about it sliding off, or turning away from me while my hands are dirty, or whatever.

Finally, I've been known to successfully troubleshoot electrical probs while "busy" in the porcelain room.

Gimme a book, every time.
Click to expand...

I hear ya there. I definitely like having the print versions for that kind of stuff.
The other side of that is that *most* of the work I do on the car doesn't require a manual, or I know it already. I don't need directions on how to remove an alternator or power steering pump. I just want clearance information and torque specs for the most part. I'll print that off the .pdf and take it to the workbench, then throw it away when I'm done or file it if I think it'll be useful later.
If I'm rebuilding a tranny, I need the 1st two and last two pages of the section to tell me which order to remove the shift rods and which shaft to pull where. once that's done, the guts are easy enough to figure out, and the table of shim thicknesses and torque specs is in the back of the section. I'll print 4-6 pages out and that's what sits on the bench and gets greasy. the full manual stays clean and dry on the shelf.

If it's a street car and I'm trying to hunt down an electrical problem and have a 15pg foldout wiring diagram I have to chase, different story. paper manual every day. sooo much easier to read.
 
DavidM said:
Does that screen shot show the KX motor at 120hp? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
DaveZ posted up a screen capture from the "ETKA", the dealership parts software, indicating the KX engine's output is 120hp. Stephen wrote above that the Bentley indicates 110hp.

I'm curious to see what Jeff's Bentley shows when it arrives. That's the end-all, be-all final authority on engine (and vehicle) specs...

GA
 
Chip42 said:
FWIW the ETKA power numbers, both kW and the hp (DIN) both convert to SAE at ~118 (KX) and ~113 (WE). I don't know if those numbers are gross or net, but I thought I'd do the math as an impartial party.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that DIN is the German equivalent to US SAE Net, in that the accessories are mounted and operational as the engine will be used in the car.

Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?
 
I'm struck by the many differences in what Stephen is reporting from the Bentley manual vs the ETKA data, to wit:

WE engine

- Bentley says 2.2 ltr, 100 SAE hp
- ETKA says 2.1 ltr, 79kw 107 DIN hp (106 SAE)*
*based on conversion from kw

KX engine

- Bentley says 2.22 ltr, 89.4 kw 110 SAE hp**
- ETKA says 2.23 ltr, 88 kw 120 DIN hp (118 SAE)
** note - 89.4 kw converts to 120 SAE hp, not 110

JT engine

- Bentley says 2.22 ltr, 115 SAE hp
- ETKA says 2.20 ltr, 89kw 121 DIN hp (119 SAE)

It seems that one (or both) of these documents may be seriously flawed.
 
The obvious question is going to be which source is correct (if they disagree). I can certainly see how you would expect the number from a manufacturer database to be accurate.
 
lateapex911 said:
Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?
Click to expand...
Drop the ETKA from your brain; it is a parts manual, not an official vehicle specs manual. Further it, like the Bentley, are produced by outside orgs (i.e., the ETKA isn't more "official" than the Bentley). And the Bentley quotes SAE, no conversion necessary.

For comparison, the whole supporting basis for the (higher-lift) G-grind Rabbit GTi cam was that the ETKA - the official parts source for VW - showed it as the official replacement part. That logic was soundly rejected by this community, as I recall...

Bentley = good for specs, ETKA = good for part numbers (and, I might add, the ETKA cannot be legally purchased by anyone except a dealership...all the copies that we all have on our PCs are, as I understand it, Russian pirated copies...) - GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top