Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Andy ,

I have provide TWO piece of "magic paper"....The factory Maunal which everyone in the planet uses since the car was built . And at one point I had the Original Owners manual for said car .

Some of the powers that be CHOOSE to believe one parts list . In this , am I do deduce that the powers that be deem that all Factory information supplied with cars is in inaccurate ?? Soooo should I toss the book for my wife's 2009 Jetta Sportwagen ?? And I should reference the ETKA or what ever microchife instead ?? Do you see how I percieve this whole situation...I know different people see things in different ways..but when evidence is 2-1 n favor of 110 hp ?

And why would they choose to believe dyno information ? There would be endless discussion , as already proven on here, of the "Build" Quality and the variances of that .

So to summerize .... it's 2-1 in favor of 110 HP .....


Here is a third ...or unless a whole website of Audi fans is incorrect as well...

http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml
 
Last edited:
Can't trust dyno numbers cuz it's not a 100% build.
Can't trust dyno numbers cuz they might be sandbagging.
Can't trust dyno numbers cuz they might be cheating.

Why do dyno numbers...they make no one happy. The "other side" is always going to point at the dyno number and cry "foul".

It is impossible to make every car in the list cross the finish line at the same time, lots of smart people have been trying for a few years now, still hasn't happened...and won't. All they've accomplished is making themselves frustrated and making the rest of us pissed off.

Publish the list of approved cars, publish the list of approved modifications (the same for everyone), publish the weights (based on manufacturer listed delivered curb weight). Go racing. If if Roddy Hotshoe can't win in his rear engine front wheel drive Galaxy Supreme, it's either his fault or he picked the wrong car. It is NOT the fault of the rest of us or even them (CRB or ITAC).
 
Last edited:
jjjanos said:
We "know" the multiplier for the car is 1.25 because the imposed stock HP is 120. The powers-that-be have declared that this car can make 149HP in ITB trim. Dyno any IT-prep car and any result less than 149 will be deemed "not 100% prepared" by those powers. Anything over 149 will result in the multiplier increased. If someone admits the car makes 120 stock and gets a dyno pull of 144 (implying a 1.20 multiplier), the result will be deemed not applicable as the car is not 100% built.
Click to expand...

Not true. You don't just get to submit a sheet. You get to submit the details of the allowances you have taken advantage of. The ITAC then looks at the whole picture. Having said that, we all understand that it is much harder to prove a negative but hopefully the MR2 has paved the way to some more enlightened thinking.

And one dyno sheet does not a weight change make.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Not true. You don't just get to submit a sheet. You get to submit the details of the allowances you have taken advantage of. The ITAC then looks at the whole picture.
Click to expand...

You get to submit the details of the allowances you of which you say you have taken advantage. That's the problem with this car. Someone has determined that the car makes 120 stock HP and ain't nobody going to believe this car is going to have a crappy multiplier.

The MR2 was a different situation. Too many builds. Too many experts saying the car responds poorly to IT build. I don't see that in the Audi.

I also think it is a waste of time to deal with the Audi. There are 3 (?) of them around, correct? Bigger fish to fry with the rest of the VW crowd.
 
So get or become "audi experts" to DO what the MR2 crowd did. the audi has a history of success in ITB the MR2 never had, so it should be a lesser disincentive to those trying to get there.

flow the heads and manifolds to identify the restrictions, tell me about the valve overlap, get pipemax / burns type numbers and verify the headers are at least close to that. play with exhaust lengths. try looser bottom ends, tune the fuel and spark on a dyno. try hotter coils and different heat plugs. head work. setup the intake to take advantages of the rules allowing positioning in the engine room vs. intake temp. smooth things out. underdrive the accessories.

once the car is classed correctly, this stuff is defacto required to be competetive in any championship that is contested seriously. if you don't think its necessary, then what you are really saying is that you're OK not being competitive.

that's a separate issue form the car being misclassed, and both have to be addressed, but if we have to fall back on dyno numbers, all we can get is a warm fuzzy about the stock number unless you've at least given it a college try.

FWIW, the stock hp number is not a smoke and mirrors "we know best" answer. it's one we very seriously discussed in my time, and obviously was done so before then as it predates me. you can disagree with it. I do. but I ask you to respect the process that lead to it's use. no one is trying to screw anyone.
 
Last edited:
If the Blethen's car makes less than 120 whp, then we know the 120 stock crank number is wrong.
Click to expand...

Really? With my Prelude's first engine build our goal was to get the stock crank number on the dyno. We've since gotten more than that, but it took a LOT more work and another all out build.

John, the Audi has been at this weight for a while. Why did you build this car knowing that and how the weight has been discussed in great lengths already? Not saying you shouldn't be moving forward with the hp factor, but...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
140hp FWD hatch? ITA.
Click to expand...

Yep, considering that you've got cars like the A2 Golf/Jetta and Scirocco II 1.8 16v cars that are listed at 123hp and are FWD, and are ITA cars.

And all this talk about microfiche, etc. is silly. Most people will figure that if you have multiple sources of information, and they all agree except one, that the one that is different is most likely not correct. Especially if the sources involved have similar levels of veracity.

And once again, no one has been able to produce any hard, published data that supports why the VW's get the weight that they do. And even the hearsay about the A1 GTI (and now the Scirocco II 1.8 8v) doesn't support the weight that those cars are at. The A1 GTI was part of the initial adjustment (i.e. The Great Realignment). That was a time when there really was no formal process. The comments that I heard, after the fact, were essentially that no car was going to lose more than 100#. Coincidentally, that's exactly how much the A1 GTI lost (and I think the A2 GTI as well).

We've heard that members of the ITAC 'know nothing' about these cars. And no one can seem to be able to put their hands on any documentation that supports a higher weight. So why not treat it like a new classification? Run them through the process and call it a day.

And maybe try using the process the way it is written. As Josh said, use 25% and adjust w/ a PCA if needed.
 
Bill Miller said:
We've heard that members of the ITAC 'know nothing' about these cars. And no one can seem to be able to put their hands on any documentation that supports a higher weight. So why not treat it like a new classification? Run them through the process and call it a day.

And maybe try using the process the way it is written. As Josh said, use 25% and adjust w/ a PCA if needed.
Click to expand...

Because the stock HP is in question.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Because the stock HP is in question.
Click to expand...

That's the first I can recall hearing that. 90hp for a stock 1.8 8v solid lifter JH motor has been around for years. I have copies of the factory sales brochures that list that, it's listed in ETKA, as well as the factory service manual. I can honestly say that I've never seen it disputed until now.

So Andy, why exactly is it in question, and who is questioning it? Is there some microfiche somewhere, similar to the Audi, that states a different value? What I have heard, over the years, is that many people feel that the JH motor responds well to a proper build, due to the very restrictive stock exhaust manifold. And I agree, that manifold is horrible. Heck, even switching to a stock, dual-port, earlier Rabbit manifold helped. In fact, all of the old VW tuning info from back in the day said to not bother spending a dime on performance mods like different cams, bigger throttle bodies, etc., until you got rid of the stock exhaust manifold.

But once that was done, you needed to start changing the cam and throttle body, and doing some significant port work to really get power out of those motors. None of which is legal in IT. The current weight for those cars translates back to 125hp at the crank (or 106hp whp, assuming 15% driveline loss). That's just not possible w/ an IT-legal JH motor.
 
This isn't about a 90hp variation. If that weight is wrong, it's because nobody has cared enough about that car to ask for a correction - not unlike probably 50 other cars listed in ITB.

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120. Since this is the very FIRST number that is put through the process, it's a non-starter until you can weight the car based on dyno data (insert bitching about full build etc...sorry, it's the way it has to be).

I am not sure how the ITAC can get hammered on a car that has vague stock HP data and ZERO legit dyno data. Not fair to the class to move this car off it's current number (which BTW is correct IF the 120hp number is correct).
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
T

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120.
Click to expand...

Why don't you guys just call or write the Audi museum in Ingolstadt and ask them how much horsepower the motor made? I suspect they would respond to the request and it seems like to me they'd be the last authority on the matter.

I'm sure there are probably some folks here versed in German. But if not I can struggle through a draft and have many contacts in Germany that can finish the job.

R
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
This isn't about a 90hp variation. If that weight is wrong, it's because nobody has cared enough about that car to ask for a correction - not unlike probably 50 other cars listed in ITB.

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120. Since this is the very FIRST number that is put through the process, it's a non-starter until you can weight the car based on dyno data (insert bitching about full build etc...sorry, it's the way it has to be).

I am not sure how the ITAC can get hammered on a car that has vague stock HP data and ZERO legit dyno data. Not fair to the class to move this car off it's current number (which BTW is correct IF the 120hp number is correct).
Click to expand...

Andy,

Ed was correct, I thought you were referring to the VW. But yeah, someone did ask for a correction on the JH-powered VW. A guy asked to have the Scirocco II 1.8 8v car corrected. He provided all the numbers, even running it through the process. What did he get? The ignored the data and slapped the same, unsupported weight of the GTI on it and said "Thanks for playing".

As far as the Audi goes, it's my understanding that it's not just two pieces of documentation that differ. I'm a VW guy, but not an Audi guy, but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.
 
Bill Miller said:
but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.
Click to expand...

I'd go with the factory service manual. If it says it is 110hp, it is 110hp. Case closed. Next!

This is a perfect example of where a benevolent dictator >>> a committee.
 
The Audi is about 5/4 of the JH engine. Both have the same pistons( 79bore or 81 bore ) @ 8.5- 9/ to one.
The early Audi had less cam, and smaller valves. The early 5cyl was solid lifter, the later was hydro. All very small valve lifts, Re to the VW.
125% of 90 is about 112.
If the Audi had the the HT, 10/1 pistons and more cam, than the 120 would be possible.
I think that the JT was the 5cyl version of the HT engine. I had two, one each engine version. Solid and hydro.
I will look again at the manuals. I am pretty sure that there were two versions. Pretty sure that I still have the factory manual.
 
Bill Miller said:
As far as the Audi goes, it's my understanding that it's not just two pieces of documentation that differ. I'm a VW guy, but not an Audi guy, but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.
Click to expand...

That has no importance to me. Most sources get their data from the same place. All of those internet sites with car stats? Same source. Aftermarket owner's manuals? Same source. What happened is that at some point, one part of Audi published 120hp and another part published 110hp. The 110hp got repeated in many places and the 120hp didn't. Doesn't make either one any more or less "true."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top