scca stock class becoming street class!
01-28-2015, 01:36 PM
#423
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL Duval County
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
24 Posts
I would at least like the option. I don't know what I would do to my car for STU other than Gt3 buckets and coil overs. I guess gt3 lower control arms or camber plates.
01-29-2015, 09:43 AM
#428
I deleted my sample letter above.Any insight on what sort of letter tends to be most effective? I'm assuming you should make a point, back it up with some facts, and explain why what you are asking for would benefit the club?
For example, STR is a really strong thriving class right now, a monkey wrench added to the mix is probably not worth the risk.
How was STX participation going when it was spec WRX? I don't remember how the transition went when the rx8 and later FR-S was added, I just remember grumpy WRX owners.
STU (as spec boost buggy) was floundering, but has a new lease on life with the new FR cars added. Would adding the 996 bring more participation or scare off current / potential builds? To answer that, you'd have to build a theoretical cost-no-object to the limit STU 996.
What's the hottest regular 996? The 40th AE? That has the X51 powerkit, right? Was the X51 an option on all cars? Casual research says there's not much power to find in other off-the-shelf bolt ons / flash.
Looks like there are some badass lower control arms out there. Tons of shock / coilover / swaybar options too.
Looks like these would drop 30lb out of the exhaust. I'm sure power seats are tanks - lots of weight to lose there. Are the factory headers cast? Brakes are already pretty trick, any weight to lose there? The 996 is already lighter than the C5 and 350z. And way narrower.
Already talked about front tire limitation. Was there a "widebody" 996 that had a larger front fender? How is the gearing, what does 2nd go to? There are OTS LSD options, install is a bit of a pain.
Typing all that out, especially considering the weight/width/wheelbase advantage, it looks like an all-out 996 might actually be an STU overdog. Something for the oft-mentioned Super Duper Street Touring.
Looks like there are some badass lower control arms out there. Tons of shock / coilover / swaybar options too.
Looks like these would drop 30lb out of the exhaust. I'm sure power seats are tanks - lots of weight to lose there. Are the factory headers cast? Brakes are already pretty trick, any weight to lose there? The 996 is already lighter than the C5 and 350z. And way narrower.
Already talked about front tire limitation. Was there a "widebody" 996 that had a larger front fender? How is the gearing, what does 2nd go to? There are OTS LSD options, install is a bit of a pain.
01-29-2015, 10:27 AM
#429
Here would be my STU build
- something custom from Koni with rates determined by my rocket scientist friends
- custom exhaust (my RX-8 lost 33 lbs, I'm sure I could drop 50+ in a 911)
- GT3 Elephant Ear seats (14 lbs each vs. 60+)
- 8.5/11s with 255/295
- Fancy LCAs / adjustable rods
- Bushings
- Tarrett adjustable rear bar
- floormat removal
With those additions I'm willing to bet the Vettes and EVOs will STILL rape faces in STU because they'll have just as much grip and 100 extra horsepower (I might weigh less), but at least I'll be able to have fun in my car.
- something custom from Koni with rates determined by my rocket scientist friends
- custom exhaust (my RX-8 lost 33 lbs, I'm sure I could drop 50+ in a 911)
- GT3 Elephant Ear seats (14 lbs each vs. 60+)
- 8.5/11s with 255/295
- Fancy LCAs / adjustable rods
- Bushings
- Tarrett adjustable rear bar
- floormat removal
With those additions I'm willing to bet the Vettes and EVOs will STILL rape faces in STU because they'll have just as much grip and 100 extra horsepower (I might weigh less), but at least I'll be able to have fun in my car.
01-29-2015, 11:24 AM
#430
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL Duval County
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
24 Posts
The tire limit in STU is still 285 I think. I don't think wider than 10" rear wheels would do us any good. Honestly the only difference in that build and my AS setup is the seats, springs, and LCA.
To answer the questions above, a 40th comes standard with x51 but it was definitely an option on other 996s. It would be insanely expensive to install. 2nd gear reaches 70mph easy.
To answer the questions above, a 40th comes standard with x51 but it was definitely an option on other 996s. It would be insanely expensive to install. 2nd gear reaches 70mph easy.
01-30-2015, 02:25 AM
#431
Burning Brakes
STU 996 vs C5 (Assuming full-tilt builds)
Tire: C5 will be 285/285. 996 limited to 255 in front, but this should be enough, given good camber and less front-end weight.
Weight: C5 will race at ~2980, I think. What do you guys think for the 996? 3000 lbs? Can it get lower? (Seats must weigh 25 lbs. GT3 seats, even with rails, are too light. Have to ballast-up.)
Power: C5 will be limited to 400 at the crank with intake, exhaust and tune. (Lots of 400WHP kits out there, but they all use methods not legal in STU.) 996 X51 I guess about 380. Non-X51 340-350. No 100 hp advantage as cretinx thinks, but C5 gets more area under the curve while 996 improvement is mostly useless for autocross as it is high RPM from the claims I’ve seen.
Gearing: C5 even with short rear tires gets to 75 mph in 2nd, 79 with stock tires. 996 is only 70 with stock tires, so it has a gearing advantage that partially offsets the torque deficit. It would be interesting to see (and probably necessary to present to the SCCA) what the expected 2nd gear thrust curves would look like, given estimated weights, tires & torque curves.
Width: big advantage to 996. Don’t underestimate this.
Handling: 996 has a higher CG height to track ratio. C5 should outsweep it handily. I don’t have enough experience in 996s to know if, even with the multi-link rear and short wheel-base it can be made to autocross-handle like the C5. Can the Strut front be made to work as good as double a-arms? What about after the 996 is slammed, as it will have to be? Can you get the shocks and chassis tuning needed to control the motor mass? Certainly it will require a very different driving technique… need to hire Leh Keen as instructor!
Overall I’d say the 996 should be competitive in STU against the C5. I can’t see even the X51 as an overdog. In any case, the argument should be for the plentiful and cheap standard 996, banning the X51 option.
Tire: C5 will be 285/285. 996 limited to 255 in front, but this should be enough, given good camber and less front-end weight.
Weight: C5 will race at ~2980, I think. What do you guys think for the 996? 3000 lbs? Can it get lower? (Seats must weigh 25 lbs. GT3 seats, even with rails, are too light. Have to ballast-up.)
Power: C5 will be limited to 400 at the crank with intake, exhaust and tune. (Lots of 400WHP kits out there, but they all use methods not legal in STU.) 996 X51 I guess about 380. Non-X51 340-350. No 100 hp advantage as cretinx thinks, but C5 gets more area under the curve while 996 improvement is mostly useless for autocross as it is high RPM from the claims I’ve seen.
Gearing: C5 even with short rear tires gets to 75 mph in 2nd, 79 with stock tires. 996 is only 70 with stock tires, so it has a gearing advantage that partially offsets the torque deficit. It would be interesting to see (and probably necessary to present to the SCCA) what the expected 2nd gear thrust curves would look like, given estimated weights, tires & torque curves.
Width: big advantage to 996. Don’t underestimate this.
Handling: 996 has a higher CG height to track ratio. C5 should outsweep it handily. I don’t have enough experience in 996s to know if, even with the multi-link rear and short wheel-base it can be made to autocross-handle like the C5. Can the Strut front be made to work as good as double a-arms? What about after the 996 is slammed, as it will have to be? Can you get the shocks and chassis tuning needed to control the motor mass? Certainly it will require a very different driving technique… need to hire Leh Keen as instructor!
Overall I’d say the 996 should be competitive in STU against the C5. I can’t see even the X51 as an overdog. In any case, the argument should be for the plentiful and cheap standard 996, banning the X51 option.
Last edited by edfishjr; 01-30-2015 at 02:44 AM.
01-30-2015, 10:57 AM
#433
STU 996 vs C5 (Assuming full-tilt builds)
Tire: C5 will be 285/285. 996 limited to 255 in front, but this should be enough, given good camber and less front-end weight.
Weight: C5 will race at ~2980, I think. What do you guys think for the 996? 3000 lbs? Can it get lower? (Seats must weigh 25 lbs. GT3 seats, even with rails, are too light. Have to ballast-up.)
Power: C5 will be limited to 400 at the crank with intake, exhaust and tune. (Lots of 400WHP kits out there, but they all use methods not legal in STU.) 996 X51 I guess about 380. Non-X51 340-350. No 100 hp advantage as cretinx thinks, but C5 gets more area under the curve while 996 improvement is mostly useless for autocross as it is high RPM from the claims I’ve seen.
Gearing: C5 even with short rear tires gets to 75 mph in 2nd, 79 with stock tires. 996 is only 70 with stock tires, so it has a gearing advantage that partially offsets the torque deficit. It would be interesting to see (and probably necessary to present to the SCCA) what the expected 2nd gear thrust curves would look like, given estimated weights, tires & torque curves.
Width: big advantage to 996. Don’t underestimate this.
Handling: 996 has a higher CG height to track ratio. C5 should outsweep it handily. I don’t have enough experience in 996s to know if, even with the multi-link rear and short wheel-base it can be made to autocross-handle like the C5. Can the Strut front be made to work as good as double a-arms? What about after the 996 is slammed, as it will have to be? Can you get the shocks and chassis tuning needed to control the motor mass? Certainly it will require a very different driving technique… need to hire Leh Keen as instructor!
Overall I’d say the 996 should be competitive in STU against the C5. I can’t see even the X51 as an overdog. In any case, the argument should be for the plentiful and cheap standard 996, banning the X51 option.
Tire: C5 will be 285/285. 996 limited to 255 in front, but this should be enough, given good camber and less front-end weight.
Weight: C5 will race at ~2980, I think. What do you guys think for the 996? 3000 lbs? Can it get lower? (Seats must weigh 25 lbs. GT3 seats, even with rails, are too light. Have to ballast-up.)
Power: C5 will be limited to 400 at the crank with intake, exhaust and tune. (Lots of 400WHP kits out there, but they all use methods not legal in STU.) 996 X51 I guess about 380. Non-X51 340-350. No 100 hp advantage as cretinx thinks, but C5 gets more area under the curve while 996 improvement is mostly useless for autocross as it is high RPM from the claims I’ve seen.
Gearing: C5 even with short rear tires gets to 75 mph in 2nd, 79 with stock tires. 996 is only 70 with stock tires, so it has a gearing advantage that partially offsets the torque deficit. It would be interesting to see (and probably necessary to present to the SCCA) what the expected 2nd gear thrust curves would look like, given estimated weights, tires & torque curves.
Width: big advantage to 996. Don’t underestimate this.
Handling: 996 has a higher CG height to track ratio. C5 should outsweep it handily. I don’t have enough experience in 996s to know if, even with the multi-link rear and short wheel-base it can be made to autocross-handle like the C5. Can the Strut front be made to work as good as double a-arms? What about after the 996 is slammed, as it will have to be? Can you get the shocks and chassis tuning needed to control the motor mass? Certainly it will require a very different driving technique… need to hire Leh Keen as instructor!
Overall I’d say the 996 should be competitive in STU against the C5. I can’t see even the X51 as an overdog. In any case, the argument should be for the plentiful and cheap standard 996, banning the X51 option.
01-30-2015, 10:58 AM
#434
01-30-2015, 01:43 PM
#435
Burning Brakes