When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
well done! that car looks like it makes a lot of power.. I get complaints about how "fast" my 300hp evo is for STU lol (locally, just launch harder than most others) is the ACD tune legal in STU?
300ish is ballpark for a full tilt STU build on a mustang dyno. The one I drove last year made 287whp (MD) on 100 octane. It was on a stock exhaust manifold and could have had a better O2/downpipe setup. ACD tune isn't legal until SM because it's technically considered a traction control system.
Congrats on the win Doug! It's no small feat beating Mr. GT Academy, but it is concerning that even with the Prosolo launch advantage for the Evo the times were so close at the end. As others have said, either the Evo needs more tire or they should reduce the tire size for the RWD cars.
It should go the AWD cars get more tire route, reducing tire size would be a slippery slope, as STX already gets to have 265s.
300ish is ballpark for a full tilt STU build on a mustang dyno. The one I drove last year made 287whp (MD) on 100 octane. It was on a stock exhaust manifold and could have had a better O2/downpipe setup.
ACD tune isn't legal until SM because it's technically considered a traction control system.
When you look at the short times between Mikko and Brian, it is clear that EVO was having an average 0.3 sec advantage per side. They still ended up pretty even at the end, which clearly shows that Zs have great advantage over EVOs. Finally, PRO is not suppose to use for Solo2 classing decisions, so with the latest data all translated to the regular Nationals type setup, Brian would win with over a second advantage over Mikko!
We agree 100% and Tasha detailed that exact same type of argument in her letters she sent last year to the STAC/SEB.
...While I don't have data from a national tour course to demonstrate this point, I do have results from the 2015 Crow's Landing ProSolo- Jon Lugod (C5 Corvette) took a 0.020 win over Doug Mikko (EVO IX). Each sideof the course had one sweeper/turn-around and all the cars were on Bridgestone RE-71Rs. When looking at the totaltimes for the weekend we can extrapolate some useful comparisons to a National Tour style course. In order to remove the launch factor I subtracted each driver's best combined 60ft times from their total time - on a course with two sweeping turns, a couple of offsets and multiple slaloms, Lugod's 0.020 advantage increases to a 0.654 advantage and moves Jeff Stewart into 2nd. Had this been a National Tour result, the total deficit for the EVO over two days/courses would be 1.308, which is an ***-whooping.
This, albeit theoretical result, was on a course with ONLY two sweeping turns that exited into very fast sections - most Nationals courses have far more than two sweeping turns, which indicates that the AWD car with less usable power and less traction would only fall further behind the RWD car with more usable traction and more power. In STU the AWD cars need more traction to be competitive with RWD sports cars on Nationals style courses.
300ish is ballpark for a full tilt STU build on a mustang dyno. The one I drove last year made 287whp (MD) on 100 octane. It was on a stick exhaust manifold and could have had a better O2/downpipe setup.
ACD tune isn't legal until SM because it's technically considered a traction control system.
Do I dare show a STU 330ish mustang dyno tune on 100oct? granted that was on 245/40s... gearing may make that look more like 310-315 on the bigger diameter tires this year.
Do I dare show a STU 330ish mustang dyno tune on 100oct? granted that was on 245/40s... gearing may make that look more like 310-315 on the bigger diameter tires this year.
Wow... I know of an old STU car that made 315 mustang and I thought that was incredible. 325-330 is generally reserved for cars with increased boost (on 91 octane) where I'm from. Maybe the dyno just reads really low? (Stock 9 is ~220 on this dyno)
Wow... I know of an old STU car that made 315 mustang and I thought that was incredible. 325-330 is generally reserved for cars with increased boost (on 91 octane) where I'm from. Maybe the dyno just reads really low? (Stock 9 is ~220 on this dyno)
changing boost is totally legal in STU as long as you don't touch the boost control system (electrical or mechanical). The rule book says this "Boost changes indirectly resulting from allowed modifications are permissible". hello boost creep.
Also, there's been some informal chattering on the interwebs about that topic\rule, if you've run\are running\or plan on running bolt-ons that introduce boost creep, it'd be wonderful to hear about it.
changing boost is totally legal in STU as long as you don't touch the boost control system (electrical or mechanical). The rule book says this "Boost changes indirectly resulting from allowed modifications are permissible". hello boost creep.
Yes...but I was referring to cars where the boost tables were tuned to target 24-25 psi, not those that crept there due to o2 housing/downpipe tricks. I guess it's one and the same when you're talking power numbers though.
Doug - check the other STU thread for discussion on aforementioned modification, though I'm not sure anyone in there is actually going to do it.
So, from reading this it looks like O2 housing along with down pipe can be changed to fulfill the needs of the creep. Or is it just DP that is allowed, but could have a separate passage for the waste-gate opening which would also increase the boost levels...indirectly of course!!
Also, where does EVO X stands regarding the power potential for the STU duty?
regarding boost, honestly to me it makes more sense to allow boost controllers, that fix the boost at a stock psi level - I don't see boost creep as loophole to shoot for.
when I said 300hp, I was talking VD/dynojet - probably way, way less on a mustang.
So, from reading this it looks like O2 housing along with down pipe can be changed to fulfill the needs of the creep. Or is it just DP that is allowed, but could have a separate passage for the waste-gate opening which would also increase the boost levels...indirectly of course!!
Also, where does EVO X stands regarding the power potential for the STU duty?
O2 housing is allowed as well .... I thought the Evo X had more power potential.
Had my car down to 2940lbs, and did math that could have put it at 2880lbs had I done 'everything' that could be reasonably done to it... add to that 332whp, it was a blast to drive. Sold it, thanks to STAC.
And yes, a fully designed and adjustable throttle body, inside of a divorced wastegate side of an integrated o2/downpipe meant fully tunable/adjustable boost creep. When all said and done, IDC were almost maxed out... so that remains the 'limiting' factor for the power. Enjoy.
Had my car down to 2940lbs, and did math that could have put it at 2880lbs had I done 'everything' that could be reasonably done to it...
Whoa. Now I'm really intrigued. Most of the SM/SP Evos that are fully prepped are in the high 2800/low 2900 range. I have a feasible plan to get mine down close to 2800, but much lower than that seems like it'd be almost unobtainable within the SM rules.
