Me thinks there is a developing thread here.
Looks like a look of thinking going on.
Judy {:>}
At 02:20 PM 9/16/99 -0500, Brad Cox wrote:
>I think this STU discussion is part of what's neat about the class. It
>really will be a very open situation. Some people are worried, but I think
>it will need to be this way because of the radical import setups that are
>getting more radical (and common) every day.
>
>Just for fun, my .0002 cents. While the cars that have been discussed have
>the potential to be some of the fastest things to ever mash a cone, we can
>all aggree that development is about 90% of the equation. Therefore, my
>proposed car will be based on a platform that's already seen quite a bit of
>development.
>
>My idea of the perfect STU class killer begins with a WELL developed CSP car
>(like Mcmillen's civic). First, make it street legal with a high flow cat.
>Then, yank the engine and drop in a 1.8L supercharged integra motor (no lag
>and ~240hp) that weighs only a little more than the 1.6 that's in there now.
>I'm not sure whether a SC would be better for this application than a turbo
>or not. That's the beauty of this class! Now maybe we'll find out. 250hp
>with no lag vs 300hp+ with lag.
>
>You could probably go with bigger/fatter tires/wheels since you have good
>gearing and MUCH more torque. Install the biggest slotted rotors that will
>fit on all 4 corners. A Quaife LSD and a Type R tranny will help too.
>
>The cool part is, there are a LOT of cars like this that have been developed
>to a great extent. The engine/LSD/tranny side has been taken to a very high
>level at the strip. The suspension/wheel/tire setup for civics has been
>highly developed at the autocross. Put 'em together right, and it will be
>hard to find anything with a dashboard that even comes close.
>
>Parts are available everywhere, and they're also seeing an extremely high
>rate of develpment. Also, I think this is the type of combination
>envisioned by the people involved in developing STU as a class. Wait a
>minute, isn't that what WE'RE doing???
>
>-brad
>
>
>
>
>
>
|