Brian Peters has been very generous with his setup and build info over at my350z.com in this thread: http://my350z.com/forum/autocross-ro...-str-350z.html

He posted a dyno plot here: http://my350z.com/forum/10321104-post66.html

On 100 Octane, he's almost putting down as much power and torque as Butt Dyno's latest STU tune ( https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/9895368-post144.html ), but of course without any of the turbo lag that we have. I haven't looked into how the 350Z gearing compares at all, though. Either way, it's nothing like that crazy graph that surfaced last year showing the Evo out-accelerating everything by a huge margin.

I don't know, I think the 350Z and the C5 could fit some seriously large tires if they wanted to.

But I agree that the unbalanced tire limits on the AWD cars are becoming a big impediment to STU participation. Especially with the 2008+ Evo and STI.

 

Amusing read in parts. Not going to re-read the entire thing but 99% sure someone got 285-30-18s on there. We definitely had a local guy running 275-40-17s back in the day on his E46 M3.
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...E46-Contingent

Yeah, I played with the thrust spreadsheet for a while. The only way I matched those numbers was if I gave the Evo 310 wtq. Not whp mind you but wtq. 310 whp? Maybe, but the Evo plots I've seen have never had as much torque as horsepower. Here's a 302-280 graph for instance
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/4448360-post543.html

And then there's the one I posted which was 290-267.

I would look skeptically on an STU Evo w/ 310 wtq.

 

I think the AWD cars should get 265s at least in STU

I think E46M can compete in STU, just no fast driver/build had been done yet. You can fit 285s all around.

Below is info found on bimmerforums:

Chassis: E46 M3
Wheel Model: APEX EC-7
Diameter/ width/ offset: 18x10" ET33
Tires: 285/30/18 Hoosier R6
Suspension: Ground Control S/A
Alignment (Camber/ Toe): -3.5 front, -2.0 rear, 0 toe
Fenders Rolled or Cut: N/A
Other Body modifications: N/A
Advice: This is an easier fitment for the front of the E46 M3, as it is not nearly as aggressive as the 18x10" ET25, though it still needs approximately -2.5 degrees of camber. Squared setup so that you can rotate your wheels! Though the spacer is not required, it pushes out the rear wheels towards the fender to help aesthetically.

18x10" ET33 fronts, 18x10" ET25 rears

 

And too expensive.

 

- That thrust graph was way off, Marshall and Cory said they don't get close to those g#s in their ASP Evos.

- E46 on 285s has been tried by good STU STi drivers Robert I. and John P. They compared data to my car, determined that the M3 wasn't competitive in STU. A Texas driver did ok under the right conditions. Easy to fit 285 on 10" wheels. I had that set-up on our stock E46 M3. E36>E46 M3, hence the E36 is in BS?, and the e46 is in FS for now.

 

Oh I did not know, it's been tried. When was it when they ran it?

 

2012 I believe.

 

2009
http://www.utahscca.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6284

I think the most successful E46 driver was Ken O. in a Vorshlag sponsored white M3. Could probably find info on their website. Also in 2009 Vorshlag ran an Evo X in STU. They found its weight overwhelmed 245s, and the X only started working on much larger tires. But IIRC the power delivery, MR sequential transmission, and AYC were superior to the earlier Evos.

 

Those spring rates make me wonder how an STU Evo would fare with similarly high rates (mostly referring to the 1000 and 1200). Maybe some already are running rates like that, but I believe common sentiment around here is that going that high would overwhelm street tires.

 

spring rates aren't comparable between a 350z and an evo. the motion ratios are different.

 

Don't forget the 350z has relatively low motion ratios. A 1000lb/in setup is still only at 2.4hz as referenced here (since I couldn't find motion ratio numbers myself):

http://www.the370z.com/track-autocro...ing-rates.html

My car at its current 700/700 and given my weight is 2.8hz front / 2.9hz rear. Personally, I've had bad luck on our bumpy lots at over 3hz. Steady state grip is higher, but the loss of grip after a bump is massive.

 

http://my350z.com/forum/autocross-ro...-str-350z.html

Looks like a lot of nice STU Z builds on that thread! Maybe the STAC was right about the move, to entice more 350Zs to come out and join ST? Now the STAC needs to remove the tire restriction for AWD to keep the current cars in the class, then STU will have a net increase in participation.

I like how the Z drivers also think the Z is now the car to have in STU, and the C5 is the car to be concerned about - fyi:
" I still think a C5 is "the" car for STU..."
"Based on how the car felt at my first event on street tires, I'd say the C5 stands a chance in STU..."
"Really looking forward to getting stomped in this car by all the C5s that magically appear at Nationals"

 

you mean like at the flying finish at Packwood's NT last year? that was gnarly bad

 

I could be persuaded to run some big tires at Crow's in June with my STU setup, Peters will be there, looks like maybe with Irish as well, and Geoff, Sean, Rick(?). I think I'd have enough adjustability to handle the extra grip. Might need to borrow some wheels and maybe a little help on covering the cost of the tires. Food for thought anyways.

Doug

 

Seriously, too much spring and some weird combination of power/bump/brake can make for a scary situation.