some fabrication is required. Now the only bottleneck in the system is the catalytic converter which I'm willing to live with for the time being.
I left the image above a little large so you could see the differences in the shift mechanisms. The shifter in my car was disappointingly sloppy, and other CGT's I had tried were much better. The nice aluminum unit on the left is what my car came with, and I figured I'd just replace the bushings to remove the wear. WRONG!! This style of shifter does not come apart, and must be replaced as a unit. Price one at the dealer and you'll fall over, they are very costly. Since I have the microfiche for the CGT (and now the ETKA parts cd), it's easy for me to check out other possibilities. What I found was the shifter on the right, which is common to the earlier 2.1 litre cars and some 2.2's. It is a somewhat complicated multi-piece design with seperate bushings that you can actually replace. I got mine from the junkyard for $5. It is similiar in design to those used on 4000s and Quantums as well as old Dashers and stuff. Only problem was, there are no part numbers on the fiche for the bushings...for any of these models! They show the part, but list no numbers. Not to be out-foxed by the nitwits at Audi, I carefully read the part numbers molded into each of the bushings. Yup, you guessed it, the part numbers are good and can be ordered by the dealer, and are inexpensive. Problem solved!
However...after putting the car back together, I had a terrible time keeping reverse gear engaged. It would intermittently work, but more often than not, reverse would bang out into neutral. Since I replaced the transmission at the same time, I thought the gearbox was the issue. I mean, there is no physical visible reason the back-dated shifter should cause this (and yes, I did adjust things several times). Right before I decided to yank the gearbox, I tried my old shifter, and it solved the problem. So much for that brilliant idea.
I do still want to try modifying the shift linkage somehow to improve it, but it will require fabrication.
Most all VW and Audi parts have their part number molded into them somewhere.
In November of 2000 I took the Audi along when Scott went to a Miata club dyno day at Extreme Motorsports. I wanted to see if all this money and time spent made more difference than just to my seat of the pants feel (aka, butt dyno). Since I had the oddball car, I went first. I'd never run a car on the dyno before, and did two back-to-back runs. The first went fine, but the second I bogged it and got some serious detonation, which was completely my fault. I was running 93 octane and it had never pinged like that before. Before the run, the shop guys had to calibrate my tach with the one on their computer. I didn't think to say anything about the car being a five cylinder, and assumed this calibration took care of the odd cylinder. Apparently, I was wrong.
Not to 'dis' the guys running the dyno, as I doubt they had ever done a 5 cyl car before, but I don't think they knew what they were doing with it. Either that, or the Dynojet software couldn't figure out what to do with the car either. The best of the two runs gave 104.2hp and 108.2 ft-lbs of torque. To say I was deflated would be an understatement. I spent the rest of the day doing photographer duties and didn't really get to think about this until the way home, but it just didn't sit right with me.
There is no way that could be right. The 2.3 engine stock has 135hp at the flywheel, a factory manual spec they wouldn't have any reason to lie about. With all the lightening, balancing, exhaust, bigger valves, etc there is no way I could have gone backwards even considering the 15-20% parasitic power loss of the drivetrain. Also, the graph line was really jittery, not a smooth line as it should be. The shop guy even asked me if I was running bad fuel as he thought it had a miss (a miss or an odd firing cylinder?). Driving home I did some mental calculations, and think I came up with the answer.
4 cylinders = 100% = 25% per cylinder
Add 25% for the extra cylinder to the 4 cyl results (what I think I got)
104hp dyno reading + 25% for extra cyl = 130hp at the wheels
130hp + 15% parasitic loss (trans, axles, etc) = 149.5hp at the crank
Which makes perfect sense!
Am I right? I don't know, but next time I put it on the dyno I'll be sure to ask a few more questions first. The above math theory works in other ways,you will see later.
My goal was 165hp, so 150 isn't bad. Not what I had hoped, but then, given what I had to work with it's probably what I should have expected.
That same month I also did another NASA driving school at Summit Point Raceway. This time we used the big course, and I got to test out all the things I said I needed after my first driving school on the Jefferson Circuit:
1) Bigger tires
2) Better brakes
3) More power
The wheels and tires (Yokohama Parada) pictured above solved the excessive tire wear and squirrely feelings in the turns. If not for some trackside photos, I couldn't have told you I still had too much body roll. The brakes I simply upgraded to Hawk Blue pads with stock rotors. This was money well spent! No fade all day, super stopping power and manageable brake dust. I'm very pleased and not at all sorry I spent $100 on brake pads. As for the power, the car now pulls to 5500 rpm before it runs out of breath, which is about 1000 rpm better than before. Mid range is much stronger and I still have adequate torque at 2000 revs. The engine will go to the 6000 rpm redline but just gets noisier without making any further effort.
Click here to continue to page 3 for more recent news.
9/19/00 Hallelujah, it's finally done!
Well, it certainly doesn't look sexy in this picture, but the new engine is finally in. Going in was actually easier than coming out, but I can't remember a project that had more broken bolts and stripped threads than this one.
While doing the engine upgrade I also changed a few other parts around, and these are addressed on this page.
Here's a not-very-good photo of the car with the Team Dynamics wheels