would like to revisit setup with a little more seriousness. are most of you running 17x9s, or have you moved on to 18xx? 265s or 255s? ideal-ish spring rates? alignment specs?

my setup has always been stu-ish, light (soft springs), not competitive, but would like to see what else I can do. I think I've hit most of the suspension items, though not as aggressively as I could (but would like to avoid that, and not a huge believer in uber stiff suspensions either). I could go 17x9s, but I don't know if there's a huge advantage in running 255s on 17x9 vs 255s on 17x8

when we're comparing purely on paper, how is an stu evo even faster than a BS vette, for example? the vette is lighter, better set up, perhaps softer suspension overall, but way more tire as well. evo gains some from tuning but still even on power with BS vette if not less. what is it about the STU prep that would make it faster?

 

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the 255 RE71R, it's taller than the 245 which is bad, and it's only about 2mm wider in the real world. And yes, definitely a 17x9, or 17x9.5. If you're running Rivals I'd suspect they are wider, so I'd go 9.5"


imho, the "extra" width of the 255 RE71R over the 245 is not worth the extra height.... I'm on the fence still if even the 265 is worth the extra height, we were hosed at Nats, on the west course in particular.

 

right- so i know a BS driver here who runs 255 front 285 rear on his vette, 350hp, decent geometry even stock and 3k lbs. what exactly does an stu evo have over that, especially compared to those running 245s?

 

17x9/9.5 is a big improvement over 17x8, I used to run 245s on the stock BBS wheels until my first set of 17x9 RPF-1s. Very noticeable improvement in response and mid-corner grip.

STU Evo vs. Vette, remember the Vette has very tall gearing. Also, they're fairly wide cars which hurts in transitions and slaloms.

As far as suspension setup goes, I think you'll find that everyone is running something a little different and under various schools of thought.


I'm also not sold on the 265 either, will be testing the 255/40/17 Rival S soon, hope to have a back-to-back next month with my set of 265 RE-71Rs.

I thought it was interesting at Nats how there were several sizes of both brands deep into the trophies (keeping this STi-only, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these):

3rd: Hale (255 BFG)
4th: Zerr (265 RE-71R, can you confirm, Doug?)
5th: Pendergest (255 RE-71R)
6th: Kriz (245 BFG, 18")

 

interesting. I've actually been running 245/45-17 (not competitive, but pretty big $ break for an off size) but was thinking next year to run 255/40-17. if it doesn't make a difference on a 17x8 then I'm not sure. not exactly looking to get new wheels and I love the OEM BBS.

 

245/45R17 is taller than the 255/40R17 and even the 265/35R18 setups. If you choose 245s again, I'd recommend getting the 245/40R17 instead. The shorter tire lowers the CG and increases acceleration at a small cost to top speed, but it was the preferred tire size back in the days of the 245 limits. IIRC those who tested the 245/40 and 245/45 found the 40 series to be faster.

The 245/40R17 RE-71R is also quite a bit wider than the 245/45R17 RE-17R for whatever reason.

According to Tire Rack the 255/40R17 is 0.3" wider than the 245/40R17, so I'd expect it to be faster than the 245s. 17x8" is just barely below the recommended rim width, but I wouldn't expect it to be a dealbreaker by any means. The street class competitors often put even wider tires on similarly narrow wheels.

As for wheels: If you're buying 17" wheels, I'd recommend going straight for 17x9.5" RPF-1s. The 9.5" width makes for snappy response on 245s and 255s. The 17x9.5" +38 RPF-1s are an easy fitment with 20mm spacers up front, appropriate camber, and maybe some light rolling of the lip for some extra margin.

 

For what it's worth, the OS Giken prepared STU C5 landed in my local region this past year. It's a powerful car, but it's also challenging to control. On our local lots the AWD cars often had the upper hand due to less-grippy surfaces and our ability to power out of tight corners. The vette always made up time in steady-state sweepers, which made the balance fairly course dependent.

In my opinion, an extremely talented driver could extract better times from an STU-prepped C5 than an equally prepped Evo, but for local competition it's actually a fun match up.

 

would you recommend running 245/40-17 vs 255/40-17, especially given I'm on 17x8s? I'm exploring wheel options but I'm actually pretty broke as a result of attempting to fix my brakes, so I think i'll stick with oem. aftermarket wheels imo look so tacky, the only one I really like is the volk ce28sl. I'm trying to avoid rolling anything if possible, but would probably have to for 17x9s

 

I would personally choose the 255s, but I think an argument could be made for either tire on a 17x8". You may benefit more from the shorter 245/40R17 if your local courses are slower and tighter. In your case, maybe just grab whichever tire is cheapest and work with that for a season. I don't think there's a wrong choice here.

 

well I've been running 245/45, so 255/40 may be a step up. I've run into the limiter a handful of times on local courses, more so than I'd like even on this taller setup.

 

You can always just pull the right paddle and upshift!!

 

The what?

 

MrAWD has an MR with flappy paddles. Kyoo does not, so I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic...lol

 

Smileys are not worth much these days...apparently!!

 

I was most definitely being sarcastic... I knew exactly what he was referring to