170bhp audi GT

[MGaz]

hi guys and gals.. need some opinions on the performance of a car i'm 'thinking' of buying.

Its a FWD 1987 audi coupe GT 2.226cc KV engine that 'allegedly' (but not dyno confirmed), has 170bhp on tap.

supposedly its had a shirck camshaft and a big valve ported and polished head. It also has K&N filter and Stainless steel exhaust. (also SPAX adjustable suspension)

The car was 'track prepped' with a stripped interior and a bolt in roll cage. Drilled grooved discs, uprated pads all round

Alloy top mounts (QRS ones) Alloy subframe bushes, a strut brace, Uprated panhard rod at rear beam & Polybushed suspension & Uprated steering arm ends ?

I was wondering what the 0-60 and top speed of such a car would be? Has any one experience or at least an idea of how much faster it would be over stock?

If i'm correct, the fwd 5 Cylinder GT only weighs 1060kg?

Will the performance be significant to justify me keeping my CQ on the road AND a GT?

Obviously it will be faster than a standard GT, and easily faster that a standard CQ.. but how will it stack up to my 170bhp 2.5 stroker CQ? (only 170 as it still is running a standard cam)



Opinions anyone? Someone on here must of owned a car like this at some pointy?

according to the previous owner, apparently it was pretty quick round oulton park compared to the UR quattros and the like. :mischeif:

[Ian Simmonds]

The CQ has a lower ratio gearbox, but is heavier, the 170bhp is, in reality, probably closer to 155bhp, and, with the Schrick cam profile, delivered at about the same point an Opera Singer breaks the Patio Doors... Sooooo... the lower ratio CQ box would, in essence, be better for the 'screamer' engine.

The best option is to sling all the Shlte out of the CQ so it goes quicker….

[gavs20v]

another option is to buy my engine with the same spec and put the head and cam in your cq....grin

[bluequattro]

you re welcome come drive the car up n down the road to test it for yourself matey, only saying 170 bhp as thats what i ve been told
does feel faster than the 20 valve quattro i ve for sale, but that is heavier

[MGaz]

The CQ has a lower ratio gearbox, but is heavier, the 170bhp is, in reality, probably closer to 155bhp, and, with the Schrick cam profile, delivered at about the same point an Opera Singer breaks the Patio Doors... Sooooo... the lower ratio CQ box would, in essence, be better for the 'screamer' engine.

The best option is to sling all the Shlte out of the CQ so it goes quicker….

155bhp? I thought the a 2.2 KV with a 272 high lift cam, a port and polish, & big valve head produced 170bhp?

I have an 10 year or so old audi magazine, featuring a silver FWD GT with such an engine and says it has 170 ponys?

I'm saddened & confused.

[MGaz]

another option is to buy my engine with the same spec and put the head and cam in your cq....grin

you mean mount the AAN head and turbo to my 2.5 KV stroker? (has forged internals BTW)

Is that even possible?

[bluequattro]

this gt will handle better than any coupe quattro , power isnt the only way of making a car a quick one

[Ian Simmonds]

155bhp? I thought the a 2.2 KV with a 272 high lift cam, a port and polish, & big valve head produced 170bhp?

I have an 10 year or so old audi magazine, featuring a silver FWD GT with such an engine and says it has 170 ponys?

I'm saddened & confused.

I think you'll be shocked as to how little extra overall power a cam change gives to a N/A engine, when tested on a Rolling Road... The delivery of the power may well be different, and the 'feeling' of performance gain will be there, with the high revving motor, but the 'real', on road performance advantage will, in reality, be at best, marginal.

There are several professional engine builders on here that will, I am sure, be far better qualified at stating an opinion on the N/A 10v 5pot... I'd like to think they will post up their thoughts and prove me wrong.

[Ian Simmonds]

, power isnt the only way of making a car a quick one

Absolutely...

Driver Skill
Brakes
Chassis
Power

in that order....

[MGaz]

I think you'll be shocked as to how little extra overall power a cam change gives to a N/A engine, when tested on a Rolling Road... The delivery of the power may well be different, and the 'feeling' of performance gain will be there, with the high revving motor, but the 'real', on road performance advantage will, in reality, be at best, marginal.

There are several professional engine builders on here that will, I am sure, be far better qualified at stating an opinion on the N/A 10v 5pot... I'd like to think they will post up their thoughts and prove me wrong.

totally agree with the 'feeling' of extra performance being more than the real power.. but i'm just wondering tho, is the 155bhp an indication of the power from your cq/rally rep? As i didn't think you had the bigger valved head, you just had the cam?

Not that I know how much power a TSR pack C head would make, as i'm not an engine tuner/builder. But 170bhp was just a figure that I've seen quoted several times in reference to a TSR pack C big valve head and cam.

Is the figure wrong?

[Puglife]

Quoted figures are sadly advertising tools to make people buy a product or use a tuning company. Yes they are a good reference point but every engine is different and theres more to an engine than it making said power all the time everytime....

170bhp from a KV would require alot of fettling, Ian knows this better that I, but it wouldnt be cheap to obtain said power figure. I'd say concentrate on the Quattro, not saying the GT isnt worth it but it would be better investing the money into making the CQ quicker GT may be quick but Quattro is usable all year round

[Ian Simmonds]

totally agree with the 'feeling' of extra performance being more than the real power.. but i'm just wondering tho, is the 155bhp an indication of the power from your cq/rally rep? As i didn't think you had the bigger valved head, you just had the cam?

Not that I know how much power a TSR pack C head would make, as i'm not an engine tuner/builder. But 170bhp was just a figure that I've seen quoted several times in reference to a TSR pack C big valve head and cam.

Is the figure wrong?

Years ago, my old white Audi GT ran a slightly overbored 2168cc block, lightened Mahle Racing Pistons, balanced crank and rods, TSR big valve head with Schrick 272 cam, modified induction side with K&N, 3 branch downpipe, big exhaust etc....

168bhp all day long on the rolling road...

In a 1100kg car, that's not bad, and could certainly keep up with standard Ur's, but ultimately, the N/A 10v 5pot is a pig to extricate more power from.

Have a look at fitting stand alone fuel injection (basically dump the K-Jet), that'd make a difference.

[gavs20v]

you mean mount the AAN head and turbo to my 2.5 KV stroker? (has forged internals BTW)

Is that even possible?

No! ive got a type 85 90q with a stage 3 tsr head and shrick (272deg) cam. Im selling the engine out of it soon

Gav

[sam80quattro]

i had exact setup in my gt but it was running efi, 178bhp on the rollers, a friend has the same on a kv with kjet and its perfectly matched with another friends uk impreza turbo and thats in a 90q

[Rusty]

270 cam is perhaps a little tame for the 86/81, from experience with Golfs, the 270 suits the 2.0s well (I had one for years) but the 285s are better on the 1.8s as they rev better ( a mate's mk.1 was very, very silly just with a head and cam, stock valve sizes, 40/33). Depends on the flow characteristics of the I5 inlets and valve sizes but I'd expect it to be a lot of fun either way, toque and reasoable power and that lovely 2v/cylinder growl