2018 STU Discussion
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 154
From: Why do they always call the Evo the Dark Side?
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/mo...ml#post9895368
tl;dr: almost no difference.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,733
Likes: 154
From: Why do they always call the Evo the Dark Side?
Technically not an SCCA member at the moment, but definitely want to put together a letter about the Mini S not being a good fit for STU... helloooo course dependency.
so the latest fasttrack is looking at allowing aftermarket intercoolers for just STH - i genuinely don't think the cars need them in autox (track yes) but i do not understand the rationale to allow for STH but not other ST* classes
I also don't think an intercooler would help much for autocross. I'd gladly take the allowance now that I'm also using the car for track days in 100F weather, though.
In STU, I'd still prefer a clutch allowance more than anything else at this point.
I haven't followed the STH intercooler proposal. Is it intended for a specific STH-classed car that has intercooler problems? Seems strange to pick a single ST* class for a targeted mod like that.
I also don't think an intercooler would help much for autocross. I'd gladly take the allowance now that I'm also using the car for track days in 100F weather, though.
In STU, I'd still prefer a clutch allowance more than anything else at this point.
I also don't think an intercooler would help much for autocross. I'd gladly take the allowance now that I'm also using the car for track days in 100F weather, though.
In STU, I'd still prefer a clutch allowance more than anything else at this point.
At STU mod levels, I wouldnt take the weight hit of putting anything beefier in an Evo so seems irrelevant to me. Alternate boost control methods definitely seems like it needs to be open if they are to give SC open pulleys though.
the SC open pulleys is for SP, correct me if i'm wrong.









