IS38 1.8T Info/Discussion

Try posting them on Audizine. I hear Sol is interested.

Ironshade said:

So much gayness over car weights and i’m here posting race videos and getting crickets. What kind of scrap fourm page is this?

Click to expand...

Armchair Racer said:

Are you really this thick headed? Or do you really not understand? I used the passenger example to help explain it easier. You can also use fuel:

The R has a full tank and the Sportwagen has an empty tank. The two cars race. Now the R dumps the full tank of fuel, 90lbs worth, into the Sportwagen. What is the difference in weight between race #1 and race #2? It's NOT 90lbs! It's 180lbs. The Golf R got 90lbs lighter on the second race but the Sportwagen also got 90lbs HEAVIER. The net difference is therefore 180lbs. Now if the R would've removed the full tank of fuel for the second race, then yes, it would've been a 90lb difference. But if you move the 90lbs of fuel from one car to the other, the net difference is 180lbs. Can you really not see this? Or are you just too thick headed to admit when you're wrong?

Click to expand...

I'm gonna try to simplify this as much as possible in the hope that you can follow along.

CAR A=3000lb without fuel, CAR B=3000lb without fuel

If you add 90lbs of fuel to CAR A it is now 3090lb while CAR B is still at 3000lb. Which makes a difference of 90lbs.

If you then remove that 90lb from CAR A it returns to 3000lb and add it to CAR B, which then becomes 3090lb you have a difference of what, class? 90 pounds

I don't know if you're honestly too dumb to understand this very simple concept or if you're trying to troll me. But either way, I'm done with this absurd argument. Good luck with your potential A3 project.

Ironshade said:

So much gayness over car weights and i’m here posting race videos and getting crickets. What kind of scrap fourm page is this?

Click to expand...

I watched the videos. I'm just not really into roll racing so I didn't have much to say.

You really can't be this stupid can you?

In your two examples below, the net difference is 180lbs. It's +90lbs vs -90lbs. Car A went from +90 to -90lbs compared to Car B. That's a 180lb net difference. You're making the mistake of counting the 90lbs only once and not looking at the net difference after removing the weight from one car and adding it to another. 90 + 90 = 180.

At this point nobody can be this dumb so I'm assuming you're just arguing for the sake of arguing knowing full well that you're wrong and just refuse to admit it.

H2OVWRacr said:

I'm gonna try to simplify this as much as possible in the hope that you can follow along.

CAR A=3000lb without fuel, CAR B=3000lb without fuel

If you add 90lbs of fuel to CAR A it is now 3090lb while CAR B is still at 3000lb. Which makes a difference of 90lbs.

If you then remove that 90lb from CAR A it returns to 3000lb and add it to CAR B, which then becomes 3090lb you have a difference of what, class? 90 pounds

I don't know if you're honestly too dumb to understand this very simple concept or if you're trying to troll me. But either way, I'm done with this absurd argument. Good luck with your potential A3 project.

Click to expand...

Armchair Racer said:

You really can't be this stupid can you?

In your two examples below, the net difference is 180lbs. It's +90lbs vs -90lbs. Car A went from +90 to -90lbs compared to Car B. That's a 180lb net difference. You're making the mistake of counting the 90lbs only once and not looking at the net difference after removing the weight from one car and adding it to another. 90 + 90 = 180.

At this point nobody can be this dumb so I'm assuming you're just arguing for the sake of arguing knowing full well that you're wrong and just refuse to admit it.

Click to expand...

This is a lot better than the jb4 thread. -=popcorn=-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Armchair Racer said:

You really can't be this stupid can you?



In your two examples below, the net difference is 180lbs. It's +90lbs vs -90lbs. Car A went from +90 to -90lbs compared to Car B. That's a 180lb net difference. You're making the mistake of counting the 90lbs only once and not looking at the net difference after removing the weight from one car and adding it to another. 90 + 90 = 180.



At this point nobody can be this dumb so I'm assuming you're just arguing for the sake of arguing knowing full well that you're wrong and just refuse to admit it.

Click to expand...

Hahaha this is ridiculous...

Your math only works if you start with the assumption that the actual weight of the cars is different by 90 lbs. for example if car A weighs 3000 with a full tank, and car B weighs 3000 with an empty tank then, and only then, could you put the two cars on the scale at some point in time and potentially see a weight difference of 180lbs, if car A got weighed with an empty take at 2910, and car B filled up and now weighs 3090.

But if you are saying that H20VWRacr’s math example above is wrong then you need to go back to 3rd grade. You must be doing too much of that common core math lol..

His math is correct individually but he's failing to realize that the net difference or swing is 180lbs. Here's what he wrote:

"If you add 90lbs of fuel to CAR A it is now 3090lb while CAR B is still at 3000lb. Which makes a difference of 90lbs.

If you then remove that 90lb from CAR A it returns to 3000lb and add it to CAR B, which then becomes 3090lb you have a difference of what, class? 90 pounds"

The first paragraph results in CAR A being +90lbs.

The second paragraph now results in CAR A being -90lbs.

The NET DIFFERENCE between the two is NOT 90lbs. It WOULD HAVE been a net difference of 90lbs IF and ONLY IF you only removed that 90lbs from CAR A. But you didn't... You removed it AND added it to CAR B. CAR A is going from being +90lbs heavier to -90lbs lighter. That is a 180lb swing.

It does not matter how much the cars weigh. You can use ANY weight for them. If one car is weighed with 90lbs more fuel than the other and then that weight is not JUST REMOVED from the car but REMOVED ***AND ADDED*** to the other one it is a net difference of 180lbs between example 1 and example 2. It would be a net difference of 90lbs IF AND ONLY IF you simply removed the 90lbs from the car (-90lbs) but once you add it to the other car (+90lbs) you're at a 180lb net difference.

Basically one car is going from being 90lbs lighter than the other to being 90lbs HEAVIER. That is a 180lb net difference or swing. To go from -90 to +90 is 180. 180lb swing. That was my point with how C&D articles can be misleading, because one car can be weighed empty (or nearly empty) whereas the other could be weighed with a full tank.

boomvw said:

Hahaha this is ridiculous...

Your math only works if you start with the assumption that the actual weight of the cars is different by 90 lbs. for example if car A weighs 3000 with a full tank, and car B weighs 3000 with an empty tank then, and only then, could you put the two cars on the scale at some point in time and potentially see a weight difference of 180lbs, if car A got weighed with an empty take at 2910, and car B filled up and now weighs 3090.

But if you are saying that H20VWRacr’s math example above is wrong then you need to go back to 3rd grade. You must be doing too much of that common core math lol..

Click to expand...

This is so fucking stupid. Why are we comparing hypothetical fuel tank levels?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

George Smooth said:

Our of interest did you ever weigh your R when tracking it?

Click to expand...

In the interest of steering this away from remedial math lessons and towards useful information, do you have any updates on 2.0 HPFP or bottom end parts compatibility? Being able to swap these along with a little more ECM and fueling support could be a huge jump for these cars. Much less work than swapping an entire 2.0l and trying to get all the modules happy.

Just put in my two cents.

I was at the track for Sams pass (A3) and went 123.2mph myself with seats out and full exhaust in my is38 manual gti.
Track/car setup is a huge component and a variable that cannot be dismissed.

A good benchmark is full weight is38 sportwagen doing 11.99@112-114mph. That would be on par with a Stage 1/2 Golf R. I think it is possible.

P.S. I tuned the golf r that ran without exhaust last week on E40. He did 11.47@122.3mph and I would say that is mostly from gearing advantages over the DSG sportwagen. The discrepancy in power doesn't seem to be huge, but the resilience to failure is definitely lower.
I also tuned the is20gti that did 11.59@118 gutted with slicks. I don't see a Golf on 1.8t hitting those numbers on an IS20.

Was Sam's run with seats in or out? Full exhaust or open downpipe?

If you check the gear ratios for the R and Sportwagen DSG, you'll see that the wagon actually has a shorter 1st and 2nd than the R. The R has a shorter 3rd and 4th but overall the gearing is pretty similar between the two cars. Do you know what kind of weight reduction the R had? Which track? What was the DA?

The R is going to be at a disadvantage compared to the 1.8T and 2.0T in the A3/GTI due to its lower compression ratio. That can easily be worth 15-20 HP with the IS38 assuming you have high enough octane for MBT and sky high boost levels.

That 11.59@118 with the IS20 is super impressive. How gutted was it?

Thanks for sharing the information.

wy2sl0 said:

Just put in my two cents.

I was at the track for Sams pass (A3) and went 123.2mph myself with seats out and full exhaust in my is38 manual gti.
Track/car setup is a huge component and a variable that cannot be dismissed.

A good benchmark is full weight is38 sportwagen doing 11.99@112-114mph. That would be on par with a Stage 1/2 Golf R. I think it is possible.

P.S. I tuned the golf r that ran without exhaust last week on E40. He did 11.47@122.3mph and I would say that is mostly from gearing advantages over the DSG sportwagen. The discrepancy in power doesn't seem to be huge, but the resilience to failure is definitely lower.
I also tuned the is20gti that did 11.59@118 gutted with slicks. I don't see a Golf on 1.8t hitting those numbers on an IS20.

Click to expand...

I do not. Just seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. With 2015 A3 2.0T Quattros floating around the net for $11K to $12K these days, one would be hard pressed to not just use that as a project car. It has much better hardware than the 1.8T. It's too bad because I prefer the wagon due to its sleeper looks. But it would cost way too much money. The A3 is hands down the best bang for your buck, especially when you consider they're going for less than MK7 GTIs. That's pretty mind blowing considering one is all wheel drive and an Audi and the other is front wheel drive and a Volkswagen.

H2OVWRacr said:

In the interest of steering this away from remedial math lessons and towards useful information, do you have any updates on 2.0 HPFP or bottom end parts compatibility? Being able to swap these along with a little more ECM and fueling support could be a huge jump for these cars. Much less work than swapping an entire 2.0l and trying to get all the modules happy.

Click to expand...

Armchair Racer said:

I do not. Just seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. With 2015 A3 2.0T Quattros floating around the net for $11K to $12K these days, one would be hard pressed to not just use that as a project car. It has much better hardware than the 1.8T. It's too bad because I prefer the wagon due to its sleeper looks. But it would cost way too much money. The A3 is hands down the best bang for your buck, especially when you consider they're going for less than MK7 GTIs. That's pretty mind blowing considering one is all wheel drive and an Audi and the other is front wheel drive and a Volkswagen.

Click to expand...

I was actually asking George as they’re currently researching it right now. That’s why I quoted his question to me again.

That’s ridiculous pricing for a3s. I wish we had that around here. Cheapest I’ve seen around was 14k and that was salvage title. I got my gsw 4motion new for 19,300. The practicality and usefulness of the wagon are beneficial to me and I was able to sell the wife on the idea by agreeing to a couple years of practical use before I really start playing with it. And I love the sleeper wagon concept.

Nice, I got my wagon for $17K and change. They have some serious fire sales on them in the southeast at the end of each model year. It sure is a bargain when you consider just how much you get for your money, such as the utility of a wagon coupled with a turbocharged engine, all wheel drive and dual clutch trans. I think it's a bargain and the R is extremely overpriced. There's just too much overlap between the two cars. There's no way the R has enough differences to justify another $20,000 on top of the wagon. That's insane.

H2OVWRacr said:

I was actually asking George as they’re currently researching it right now. That’s why I quoted his question to me again.

That’s ridiculous pricing for a3s. I wish we had that around here. Cheapest I’ve seen around was 14k and that was salvage title. I got my gsw 4motion new for 19,300. The practicality and usefulness of the wagon are beneficial to me and I was able to sell the wife on the idea by agreeing to a couple years of practical use before I really start playing with it. And I love the sleeper wagon concept.

Click to expand...