S4gasm (LoTR)

Re: 2.6urs4....Jaw hits floor =O

Toxcheap

You believe what you read or were taught and I believe what I was told. I guess it depends who's source is more detailed and accurate. I just giving my 2 cents from the (original) Audi Sport tech's from the Groupe B days.

shortyq

2.1 x 1.4 = 2.9l Capt audi is right on, there is no other reason for the 2.1l motor, it has nothing to do with who you spoke to. This is well documented. In fact, if you run piston speeds audisport used over the years, if it weren't for equivelency, they would have run a 2.4l I5. More trivia, if it weren't for equivelency, audi would have used the 3.6 or the 4.2v8 in WRC urq's.

This isn't worth further discussion Toxcheap, do some homework, or just do an archive search on audifans, I put a history of the I5 displacement post there 6months ago. There couldn't be more historical documentation available if you care to read it. Try getting Jeremy Walton first.

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ Performance Tuning

Toxcheap

So are you trying to tell me that the trans Am 200 and IMSA 90 had to be within 3.0L??

cuatrokoop

GTO Grand Touring, Over xx displacement (I think 2.5L?)

cuatrokoop

BTW, the Cougars were running V6's and V8's......

audifreakjim

That should do it.

shortyq

Toxcheap:
Let this thread die. This is mudding up the I5 development forum. The homogolation of the I5 into competition is not only crystal clear, it's well documented. Do some homework instead of gettting into the "who I spoke to"'s. That's a major copout without a single supporting quote or direction.

FYI II the trans am car actually had a smaller (2110) displacement than the WRC "B" cars.

Toxcheap, to get a perspective on the I5 turbo engine roots and development, you need to look at the racing rules, not necessarily Audisports wants. The rules on the I5 turbo engines, and Audisports history of following them, have very little to do with any single engine builder. It's not 'who' built it, it's what rules the engine had to satisfy.

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ Performance Tuning

Toxcheap

I let this this post go on and on. I post whatever the fVck I want, I'll tell people audi's were built by Yugo. There was more to the story than just the class, sorry all you know is what you read, I read that same story in VW/Porsche back in the 80's about having to make the 3.0L class in group B.
The fact is if they thought it would of held up, they would have gone bigger in Trans Am and Imsa (where they were at such a HP disadvantage) instead the went smaller hmmmm.
FIA had no part in the decisions of what configuration of stroke and bore Audi used as long as it made it's 3.0L class after the turbo conversion.

shortyq

Toxcheap:
Get books. Both Trans Am and GTO were extensions of the Group 4 and Group 5 rules of FIA. As such, both these series had some basic rules of engagement wrt production car/engine basis. Certainly the GTO was most liberal in the rules here (bodywork), but by definition, it had to compete in the over 2.5>3.0liter equivelency class. Trans Am was more restrictive on bodywork, but it also put the 2.1liter motor in with the over 3 liter class based on equivelency. Equivelency goes back to FIA group 4, B and Group 5 racing in europe.

Both GTO and Trans Am were competitive series seasons (unlike Group 4 and B WRC seasons)for Audi, IOW, both series would impose restrictions (or creatively enforcing rules) during the season if the cars were 'too' competitive. Thankfully for Mercury, it just didn't rain all the time.

I don't at all mind entering this thread, but it sure could have been with more educated posts. Toxcheap, I'd be more interested in details of "who" you spoke to that may shed light on contradictions to a well documented racing history of the I5.

Or, let it drop Toxcheap.

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ Performance Tuning