STS Contour Project - CEG Archives

camber plates are okay, but I'm still a little short. I mostly meant the dynamic curve is bad when you drop the front way down - typical MacStrut problem.

I'm going to give a write-up of my car's progress, along with projections as to what is possible given unlimited time/money. In this segment, I'll outline my beginnings, along with general starting principles for a Solo II car.

I began autocrossing with what I had already. This is how many people start, and it's not a bad idea - there's no harm is going out and having fun in your daily driver. However, if you're going to mod your car, you might want to think carefully about long-term plans before diving in. I now have a super-stiff daily driver, soon to have no A/C. It's not really competitve, and doesn't have good resale. This isn't a problem for me, but I'm stuck with the car now.

You can run anything, and that's part of the appeal of Solo II - you can do well in ANYTHING if you're a good driver. The car isn't important at all for getting to mid-pack locally. But if you want a car that will hold resale modded, have lots of parts, have a good resale on parts, and be fun to drive, things get narrower. Good choices for an Auto-X/DD car are an Integra Type R, any Miata or MR2, or a (non-minivan) Civic Si.They may not always be a front-runner in any class, but they're usually close to the top in several, and you can smoothly move them up through stock->ST*->SP->etc. and always do well. They're cheap, have a huge aftermarket, and are fun to drive in any level of prep. There are a hundred other approaches to building a fast, fun car, but if you want a daily driver (or not, even) that will be a great Solo II car, something like what I listed is alwyas a good choice.

So a Contour isn't a great choice. It's underclassed severely in GS, STS, and DSP. It's probably second or third tier everywhere. But, it's a platform I really like, I already have one, and I plan to keep it until it dies.

I started with the biggest modification you can make as far as lap times are concerned: wheels and tires. 16x7 Motegis are heavy, at 19 lbs per wheel, and Fuzion ZRi tires are not the best, but they made a world of difference. Real rubber and wheels put me in STS, along with my Knauberized sides.

This writeup is all about STS. GS is not a bad place to be, but a stock Contour, even an SVT, is just soft and lacking camber in stock. DSP or STS is someplace where you can fix the deficiencies of the MacPherson suspension so that it handles high-g cornering on sticky tires better. It's not that the Contour doesn't handle well stock - it's great on the street - it's just that slow-speed corners on sticky rubber bring out understeer, and on a suspension like this, it gets messy - and not fun.

So I got plunked in STS to start, but it's not a bad place to be. My car had a lot of understeer, was very soft, and was lacking camber, but was still fun. However, I soon got restless, and began thinking about mods...

The first thing I did was get an Aussie bar. An Aussie bar on stock suspension is not the way to go for optimum at the limit handling. Lifting the rear tire this much is just bad:

For a car that needs to be comfortable on the street, and yet fun in STS, I'd go with - and did plan on going with - the BAT or Koni kit, Aussie bar, camber plates, and some good rubber. That's not much money, is very comfortable on the street, helps resale instead of killing it, and will fix the major problems with the car's suspension for this kind of driving. You're under $1000 if you buy used or just shop around, and it'll handle amazingly well.

But, I found a set of Konis and GC coilovers used. I got them for the same price as a new Koni kit, and was suddenly getting into the seriously modded department. The high spring rates keep camber under control, and make transitions faster. The adjustable struts allow some tuning, and are up to the task of the big springs. The stock GC springs - 525lb/in front and 280lb/in rear - are too front-biased. I'm trying stiffer springs now, details will be in the next intallment.

I lifted my tire that much with stock (SVT) suspension

You mentioned possibly getting new bumper covers. I think that would throw you straight into SM. Mumm's site had some good info on weight reduction... I'm not sure how much (if any) items are STS legal though. Like swiss cheesing the front bumper.... or gutting the doors. Removing the headliner (if legal) should help a bit with the sloloms.

Good write up!

Reading the rules bumper covers are fine.

14.2.F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, body kits, rear wings and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds. Body kits are limited to bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and fender flares. Standard parts may not be removed except for the substitution of spoilers, rear wings, bumper covers and valances. Rear wings must attach only aft of the rear wheel centerline. Total surface area of all spoilers, splitters and rear wing may not exceed 8 square feet as seen from above (see 12.9). Substitution of rear spoilers or wings must retain any original third brake light functionality unless otherwise equipped. No underbody panels may be added or substituted. The drilling of holes for the purpose of mounting these pieces is permitted.

So, what to do if you're like me and care more about a tenth off your lap time than comfot on the road? I'll now explain some approaches I feel will result in a quick STS Contour, with emphasis on my own work.

"Coil-overs", or adjustable-perch struts, are the way to go on a car like this. They offer a great range of spring rates, you can try these rates out, freely mixing and matching, and in our car are the only way to get high enough rates. They also allow corner-balancing, which is critical to getting the car set up properly.

There may or may not be other choices, but the Koni strut with Ground Control sleeve is a very good setup, and used on many other cars to win nationals. The problem is that Ground Control packages with setup with 525lb/in front and 280lb/in rear springs. This is more front-biased than stock! I'm about to try 425lb/in rear springs, and I'll report on how they work. The plan is to get the car close to neutral in the corners, maybe oversteering slighly, and then fine-tune with the front swaybar. I'll drill holes in the arm of the FSB, and by moving the endlink down I will effectively raise the rate of the front bar. I probably won't need to do that with the 425s, but if they aren't enough and I go stiffer, it might be needed to tweak it.

If choosing springs where ride quality is absolutely unimportant, I'd look at 600-700 all around as a staring point. It's really trial and error, and dependant on the surface. For a very serious setup, getting shortened shock bodies and having them revalved stiffer would be a significant benifit - but would run $150-200 per shock, or more.

Now that we have coilover, we need to adjust them. I'm still working on the settings, so I'll just say that last year I ran the fronts dropped so that the control arms were parallel to the ground, and then dropped the rear the same amount, and it worked well.

There is one major group of settings I said was important last time, but ignored. That's your alignment. I ran 1/16" front toe-out, and zero rear toe, with -3* front camber and (a non-adjustable) 1.5* rear camber. I ran 1.5* front camber on the street, and turned it up to the max for events, simply marking the loaction of the plates with a sharpie so I could put it back. Toe can be tweaked to dramatically effect a car's handling, and I'll be messing with it this year. My numbers are great for tire wear on the street, but very conservative for autocross.

Originally posted by moxnix:
Reading the rules bumper covers are fine.

14.2.F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, body kits, rear wings and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds. Body kits are limited to bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and fender flares. Standard parts may not be removed except for the substitution of spoilers, rear wings, bumper covers and valances. Rear wings must attach only aft of the rear wheel centerline. Total surface area of all spoilers, splitters and rear wing may not exceed 8 square feet as seen from above (see 12.9). Substitution of rear spoilers or wings must retain any original third brake light functionality unless otherwise equipped. No underbody panels may be added or substituted. The drilling of holes for the purpose of mounting these pieces is permitted.

So, is the carbon fiber SVT front end for the pre-98s any lighter than the standard poly? Or is there such an animal any more?

One hint that I forgot to mention: Lower the rear seatbacks. It only slightly lowers your CG, but every bit helps.

I'd debated that. Putting the passenger seat all the way back and reclining it makes good sense, but I'd wondered about dropping the seats, since it shifts weight forward as well as down.

I'll cover weight reduction/relocation next, I think.

I used to open my sunroof all the way (until it broke) to eliminate turbulance and move the panel weight further back. I also lay the front passenger seat all the way back. I haven't thought of folding the back seats down, though I wonder how that would affect f/r balance (since it folds forward).

I was questioning the bumper covers because I know a new hood or trunk lid isn't legal in STS, but it's cool that STS allows them.

You also might find this list useful. Some local guy made a list of legal mods per class and put them in a table.

http://www.azsolo2.com/classes/ModificationsSpreadSheet.htm

Originally posted by morbid:
You also might find this list useful. Some local guy made a list of legal mods per class and put them in a table.

http://www.azsolo2.com/classes/ModificationsSpreadSheet.htm

His listing is a little out of date I hope he updates it before people start using it for this coming season.

ah right. I think they're based off the 2005 rules. I thought I saw a thread on that site about them needing to be updated to the 2006 rules.

The suspension is an obvious place to start, and it dramatically changes the way the car handles. However, as far as lap time reduction goes, weight reduction may be the best modification. I'll cover what I've done, and then list what's possible.

I began with removing the spare and jack before each event. This is free and easy, and drops about 40 lbs, even if it is off the end that's not hurting so badly. Running with less gas is another big step that's easy and free.

Some contend that weight should be left on the rear of the car, such as the jack/spare and fuel. Yes, the front end is over-loaded, but think about it this way: the front end has a given amount of work to do, based on the amout of force the car's weight puts on it in a corner. Reducing weight from the rear end will make the f/r split worse, but it will in no way make the car slower: the front end has the same amount of work to do, the rear has less, and you can accelerate and brake better with less mass! It is ALWAYS better to lose unneeded weight! The car might feel more balanced with more rear weight, but it will not be faster.

I neglected weight when dicussing suspension setups. I lost about 15lbs going to coilovers. A stock-replacement kit like the Koni or BAT kit will weight very close to the same as stock. 15 lbs isn't much, but some of it is unsprung, which helps the suspension work more effectively.

When chosing tires and wheels, weight is important! I run heavy (19lb) wheels and tires (21lb). 40 lb per corner isn't
really all that bad, but it's not that good either. Rotational mass kills your acceleration and braking by much more than non-rotational mass, so light wheels are great. Plus, since there's 4 wheels and tires, total weight loss can add up more quickly than you might think. I imagine you could get some 12lb wheels, and combined with 20 lb tires that's 32 lbs total weight loss - and it's all rotational! That's pretty serious. I'll cover wheels and tires later, after I finish some testing, and hit on some other aspects to the choice.

Next I pulled the battery out of the engine bay and put it in the trunk. Again, there are many differing viewpoints on this.

1) Get a small battery and leave it under the hood. Relocation cabling, distribution boxes, and hardware adds weight, so relocating is bad. Besides, putting it way back over the rear bumper hurts transitions, since you increase the polar moment of the car.
2) Put a heavy battery in the trunk. You need the weight back there.
3) Put a lightweight battery in the trunk. A gain of a couple lbs is worth getting 15 lbs (an average lightweight battery) moved back.

There is truth in 1 and 3. Obviously 2 isn't right, as I mentioned above. Depending on the car and application, either way might be better. I put the heavy battery in the trunk as a stepping stone to 3. I think for this platform it's not a bad idea. I added minimal weight by using 4 ga wire (it works fine, but make VERY good connections), and ripping out the heavy stock battery box. I'll take a 2-3 lb penalty to get 15 lbs moved back.

I chose this battery:

It's a Hawker Odyssey PC680, 16 amp-hours, 15 lbs. It may or may not work well in the winter - I'll see soon - but it will start just about anything well in anything but very cold weather. It was a Valentine's Day gift (yes, she's that great), and I'll put it in soon.

I also replaced the stock airbox with a K&N and custom box. This should be good for more power (engine installment coming sometime in the future to discuss this), but it also lost a lb or so. No biggie, but it's something.

So besides lightening things I needed, I began getting rid of things I didn't need. T/C is on it's way out, which is worth a few lbs right off the front. A/C is coming out too. A/C is not only heavy, but right up front, and should be a big help.

That's what I've done: what else is there?

You can put in any front seats as long as they are 15lbs. Read the rules for exact details.

Exhaust is VERY heavy. Going to a lighter setup can be very benificial, and possibly give power too. I know an S2000 driver with a 5 lb Ti exhaust!

You can also pull off exterior trim (knauberizing/debadging) and a few other things with small weight benifits.

I have a heavy car. I have a LOT of options. Looking at my (1995) sales brochure, here's what you could skip:

Power mirrors ("remote control" are standard - not power, I assumme)
Spoiler
Fog lamps
ABS
Traction Control
Keyless entry
A/C (STS has a rule always allowing A/C removal in part or in whole)
Bigger center console
Seat valance storage bins
driver's seat lumbar adjustment
Leather
light group
power windows
power locks
moonroof (this is BAD! it's a lot of weight, and it's very high.)
cruise control
rear window defroster
floor mats (you can, and should, remove these anyway when you run)
power driver's seat
Folding rear seats
casette player/premium sound

Obviously, some of these are negligible or things you might want despite a slight weight penalty. Also, if you remove any options, you have to be left with a car exactly as it could have been ordered: that is, since the SE and LX came with the folding rear seats, you can't put non-folding seats into one of them. The trouble, of course, is finding a GL V-6 so you can build this option-less car. But, the option is there...

There is one last area for weight reduction: the bodykit allowance. Bumper covers are heavy, and by building a carbon fiber or aluminum kit, you could not only get a LOT of weight off both ends, but you could possibly get some downforce on the front. I don't know of anyone that has done this to an ST* car yet, but I think it's coming. Civics might (I don't really know) have light bumper covers, but some other cars don't, and there is weight to be lost!

My car, with the weight loss I listed, should be 2800 lbs or a little under this year without gas or driver. That's a LOT of weight gone! But, guestimating what a perfectly built car could be, I cam up with 2600 lbs. The more I think about it, the more I think it's quite possible. Mid 2500's might be feasible, in fact, if you replace every legal part with a lighter variant. That is a really, really big deal.

Of course, the same amount of work on a Civic gets it down to around 1900 lbs. Oh well.

Quote:

Reducing weight from the rear end will make the f/r split worse, but it will in no way make the car slower: the front end has the same amount of work to do, the rear has less, and you can accelerate and brake better with less mass! It is ALWAYS better to lose unneeded weight! The car might feel more balanced with more rear weight, but it will not be faster.

I salute you for all the work you're putting into the Auto-x forum, all the suggestions and what not; but "absolutes" like the one above are at best misleading and at worst completely wrong. This platform is quite responsive to varying levels of rear weight and it can be used very effectively depending on the course.

Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
Obviously, some of these are negligible or things you might want despite a slight weight penalty. Also, if you remove any options, you have to be left with a car exactly as it could have been ordered: that is, since the SE and LX came with the folding rear seats, you can't put non-folding seats into one of them. The trouble, of course, is finding a GL V-6 so you can build this option-less car. But, the option is there...

Depending on the exact differences you might be able to use a SE/LX and "convert" to a GL using stock class rules with ST allowances.

Lets say the difference between the two is(this is a made up example)

GL
Manual Locks
Crank Windows
Non-Folding back seat
Non-Sport Suspension
GL Badging

SE/LX
Power Locks
Power Windows
Folding back seat
Sport Suspension
SE/LX Badging

IMHO to convert you would only need to change the back seat and remove the badging. As long as the power windows/locks are not lighter then the manual ones those would fall under the stock rules for comfort and convenience. Since the badging can be removed I doubt you would have any problems if you left the wrong badging on or you could just remove it and save the 4oz. The suspension falls under the ST rules of letting you change it.

If I knew the exact differences I could give you a better idea of where I stand for sure.

Changes in rear weight can certainly change how the car handles, which may mean the driver is able to turn in a faster time. Also, significant changes in weight distribution must be attended by suspension tuning to keep the car balanced. I have certainly been able to go faster some times because of the extra weight of the battery getting the car to rotate when I made a mistake and had to try to rotate harder than my line would have allowed. But, in hard and fast terms, lighter is always faster.

But not really. To paraphrase Carrol Smith, the car exists only as a tool for the racing driver. I did neglect that when writing, and I'm glad you brought it up. The car may be theroetically faster with less weight in the rear, but if the car is undriveable - think of the extreme case of almost zero weight on the rear axle, where it would be impossible to tune the car - it's worthless.

I'll add a disclaimer, which is very important:

Everything I write here is my opinion, and what works for me. There are some technical absolutes, but in autocross, where drivers have incredibly different skill levels, driving techniques, and previous experience, there is only one way to figure out what is the fastest: get in and drive, and let the stopwatch decide. You have to be careful to realize what is a problem in your driving style instead of the car, and optimize the combination of human and machine, but humans are so different that there can be no absolutes in things that greatly affect transient handling, where driver input plays such a huge role.

That said, I'd like to think that if you follow my advice, which is gained from large amounts of time reading, designing, building, and testing, you'll do well. But there are disagreements on major issues among the top eschelon of autocross drivers, so what I do may not always be the best. Listen to others - BigMoneyRacing and DemonSVT like a more even weight distribution, for instance - and make your own decisions, based on our data and thoughts, and your tests.

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:

Quote:

Reducing weight from the rear end will make the f/r split worse, but it will in no way make the car slower: the front end has the same amount of work to do, the rear has less, and you can accelerate and brake better with less mass! It is ALWAYS better to lose unneeded weight! The car might feel more balanced with more rear weight, but it will not be faster.

I salute you for all the work you're putting into the Auto-x forum, all the suggestions and what not; but "absolutes" like the one above are at best misleading and at worst completely wrong. This platform is quite responsive to varying levels of rear weight and it can be used very effectively depending on the course.

I tend to side with Colin Chapman. Always add lightness when you can. More mass means that the suspension will take more time to set and hurt you in transitions. Always.

Then maybe you can get Mr. Chapman's company to get the curb weight on a Contour down to Elise levels!

Meanwhile back in the real world, racing with cars whose list of shortcomings for auto-x is as long as your arm, utilizing various weight distributions remains an effective (not to mention incredibly cost effective) way to optimize time around many courses. Have you guys honestly never witnessed someone leave in the middle of an auto-x to get more fuel to change the weight distribution?

Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
Have you guys honestly never witnessed someone leave in the middle of an auto-x to get more fuel to change the weight distribution?

I never have. I have seen people refilling from their gas can because they run on as little gas as they can but I have not seen people run out to get more gas to change the weight distribution.

I've never seen anyone leave to get gas at autox.

And I also agree that less weight is always better.

If you're serious about it, and a good enough driver that a change in weight is going to make a difference, then you'll also be serious enough to have the right springs and ride heights (coilovers). Adding weight would just be a temporary fix for a car that isn't setup correctly. Besides that, changing tire pressures can probably negate any positive effects additional weight would result in.

I've had fuel starvation before. I crossed my fingers when I went to the station and bought a single gallon of gas to finish up my runs.

I have seen two types of people make any changes to their car during an event:

1) Very fast drivers with fully prepped cars that are still getting sorted out, or turned out to be set up very wrong for the course. Usually this is all done beforehand, but I've seen someone fast mess with their car a few times.

2) Relative newbies (or even old-timers) who are not fast - at all - and are blaming the car.

You have to be quite good to be able to make a small weight distribution, tire pressure, or even alignment change for the better. My worst days were where I got frustrated and worked on the car instead of me. At the event, the only thing you need to to is relax, and drive better. That's where all the time will come from - not the car.

Adjusting tires to keep wear even under changing temperatures is an exception, by the way: you're usually actually keeping the pressure the same to keep the car constant, not changing it.

I guess I must fall into #2

I make changes to tire pressures/shock settings after a run or two on a new surface and it seems to help (but it could just be me driving better after doing it).

Originally posted by SVTfrog:
If you're serious about it, and a good enough driver that a change in weight is going to make a difference, then you'll also be serious enough to have the right springs and ride heights (coilovers).

The "right springs and ride height" (and I would add sway bar), in an optimum sense, depends on the course. Assuming you don't want to be changing springs, et.al. after walking the course then your suspension setup will be a compromise; period. Adding rear ballast changes the pivot point and is far quicker and easier to do than changing to the "right spring" for the course.

Originally posted by SVTfrog:
Besides that, changing tire pressures can probably negate any positive effects additional weight would result in.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by moxnix:
I guess I must fall into #2

I make changes to tire pressures/shock settings after a run or two on a new surface and it seems to help (but it could just be me driving better after doing it).

You're fast. From what I've seen your driving is usually on a very good line - still time out there, but not seconds. You also have well-setup cars, usually. You're also setting tire pressures and shocks, which are extremely course dependant, and doing it on a momentum car. So, I stand (slightly) corrected. There are, of course, gray areas. You're not winning nationals, and you don't have a super-tweaked machine, but I'd hang you off the bottom of the 1) category instead of on the top of 2).

auto-x,

You gonna come out to MI this year to run a Open track with us?

Maybe. I'll be looking for opportunities, but I have a lot going on (new house, marraige, etc.)

I was debating the whole shifting weight thing the other day. Even with an aussie bar I still think the car is nowhere as neutral as it should be.

I believe that without tuned spring rates sending weight backwards will not help the car. Making the most of the tire's contact pack is the best way to be quick, period. By moving weight backward you are just hurting the understeer problem, essentially making the front end act more stiff in the car's over all balance, and the rear less stiff.

My point is, moving weight backward is a waste of time. We really should be trying to remove weight, and try to balance spring rates, although I really feel trying to remove weight is a waste of time on a DD. I'm a bit short on money, so i've been toying with the idea of running eibachs front with H&Rs in the rear. I'm curious how well that would balance the car.

The statement about running much higher spring rates in the rear is a good idea. We have some room for a larger bar in front, so even if that is too aggressive it could probably be tuned out easily.

After installing a rear strut tower brace, my understeer has disappeared and I now have mild oversteer. I'm trying to reduce the oversteer by playing with my rear tire pressure.

So... I used to run 51psi in the front and 28 psi in the rear to have pretty much neutral control with mild (controllable) oversteer. I've run only 2 events since installing the RSTB. 1st event I was drifting all over the place. The 2nd event (last month) I upped the rear to 32psi and it was pretty much neutral until I pushed a little harder, then I was drifting again. I'm going to try more pressure in the rear (~35) next month and see what happens. I also haven't been removing my spare+jack for several events... and I run with about 1/2 tank. I once ran with about 1/3 tank, and I fried my pump

My suspension is SVT stock except for front and rear urethane swaybar bushings, boxed rear swaybar mounts, and tubular rear control arms.

I would suspect binding in your suspension. I can't see how stock springs/swaybars could possibly produce a car that steady-state oversteers. What do your endlinks, bushings, and control arms look like? It could be pretty easy for the swaybar bushings to be pinching the bar and jacking the rear roll rate way up, or the endlinks to bind. What shape are your struts in? A blown rear strut could cause that as well.

heh... it's all possible. In my garage I have bradness rear HD endlinks and koni struts... ordering H&R springs and camber kits tomorrow. So that'll eliminate the possibility of those failing components. Going to see how it handles with that then consider an ADCO rear sway bar. My rear swaybar bushings are only 6 months old (might need to be re-greased), the rear control arms are bradness tubulars, and the front control arms are in good condition. The only change that I did before I started experiencing oversteer was the strut tower brace.

I autocrossed it the month prior and had 28psi in the rear tires to get slight oversteer. I've had the front/rear pressure at these levels for the last two seasons (with Azenis RT-215's). Before then... if I had more than 28psi it would plow like a minivan

sidenote: I had Kumho MX's prior to the Azenis's and they seemed to favor over-inflation on the rear, as opposed to under-inflation. Before the MX's, I had RT-215's and ran 32psi in the rear (untouched -- same as on the street). The car would oversteer.

What are your toe measurements in the rear? I have yet to experience oversteer, despite the lemmings here that state otherwise. The only time that I felt NASCAR loose is when I drove like ass. Steady state, I never had to catch the car. Ever.

Is your proported "oversteer" occurring in exit ramps too? I'm not saying that it can't happen, I'm just trying to figure out how you had that much front grip.

Grip is pretty much neutral for the long left hand sweepers onto and off the freeway. On the street I run 38psi in the front and 34psi in the rear. I don't quite have enough power to get fast enough to get too crazy entering/exiting the freeways though, not fast enough to scrub the sidewalls at those presure levels. Most of my driving is in traffic though... I don't get as many opportunities to test the grip on the street as I'd like.

I last had my alignment done about 6 months ago... I'll look for the sheet. I know I have toe out in the front... don't remember what the rear was set to.

Since I got the car, I always understeered at the autocrosses. The RT-215's helped, but still understeered. That was with about 47psi-front 38psi-rear. One of the trainers recommended under or over inflating my rears to get it to rotate a little better. Since the rear tires were ice cold after 3 runs, he recommended under inflating. At the following events I continued to drop the pressure until the tires became warm, and the rear came out if I went into a turn too fast. I also increased the front to 51psi... any less and I began to scrub the sidewalls. I hadn't understeered since then, unless I hit a dirty section of pavement, or I was in A-group (street sweepers).

Are you sure that you're not going "oh crap, I'm entering too fast so I need to lift off of the throttle"?

It's always possible. What I did and what I can recall may be different things. Difficult to be 100% sure what I was doing when I was trying to keep the car in line. Next event is a month away... I'll see what happens then, unless I have an opportunity to do some tests before then.

I guess the basic point I know is that I'm now more worried about my rear coming around... where I used to worry about my steering angle vs speed so I wouldn't plow.

If you're not having to catch the car all the time, you're probably suffering from lift-throttle oversteer. I doubt that you're having "drifting" issues in features like slaloms.

I guess I won't really be able to say for sure until the next event. In trying to playback the last events slaloms, I'm thinking that I was either neutral or rear light.

Next time I have my car on a lift, I'll reset the rear f/r control arms... incase they're stuck or not properly loaded.

My guess is you have a bit of toe out.

I've had mx's but was pretty disappointed during street driving. I found they were awesome on turn in, but I really wasn't impressed with the steady state grip. Would you more or less agree? I never had the chance to monkey with tire pressures though, I ran 38 front 34-32 rear to keep wear in control.

I would agree. I went from Azenis RT-215 205/55-16 to MX 225/50-16. I know the MX's didn't have as soft of rubber but was supposed to be close... so I was hoping the wider tire would help more. I had a pretty consistent 30 pax loss with them. Once they wore out, I went back to the RT-215's and instantly had about 30 pax more each event.

During autocross I had the MX's at about 47f/42r. On the street I ran the same pressure you stated.

Only 2 things I can say the MX's were better at. 1) Better water dispertion, 2) Didn't get as greasy when they were hot.

STS allows some real power modifications. Basic bolt-ons like an intake (can't touch the TB or manifolds/heads), exhaust, and a chip will make a significant difference. Pulleys and wires/plugs are free too.

Unfortunetally, catalytic converters must remain stock! This means that if you want to do headers you'd have to leave stock cats in the stock locations, and the same with the y-pipe. While you could do a completely custom exhaust built around those cats, it would not be cheap, easy, or that beneficial. Most of the power that's available can come from a cat-back, optimized Y-pipe, intake and chip. With a well-tuned chip, Magnecor wires, and underdriven/lightened pulleys, a non-SVT should get over 160 hp at the wheels. An SVT would be a good bit higher, but I'm not going to guess.

This is one of the areas where going to STX makes sense. The Contour would benifit a LOT from an LSD, significantly from 245 width tires, slightly from more power, and maybe a little from bigger brakes. The power comes via the allowance to use MSDS headers and replace all three cats with one high-flow cat. That should be worth about 10hp!

You'll notice that I don't have many solid numbers like I do for suspension work and weight reduction. Well, I'm going one step at a time. I have the intake nailed, and I'm going to try to optimize the Y-pipe two weeks from now. I'll probably be going to a very light, very short exhaust as well- maybe a side exit. I'm hoping to fabricate the second exhaust system from the cat back when I do the Y-pipe, and then dyno test it against stock within a week. I found a place locally that does 5 pulls for $65, which is pretty reasonable. Hopefully even with stock cats I can get some power across the rev band with removal of much of the exhaust. But, until I have dyno numbers it's anyones guess!

Right now I'm hoping for mid-high 150s. Since I JUST cleaned the UIM/LIM and everything is running like new, and I'll be dynoing before the weather gets too warm, 160 hp is my hope. However, the dyno I'm using reads lower than a DynoJet (It's a Land and Sea), so anything over 150hp will be a sign that the car is doing well. The real trick is what the exhaust does for me - or doesn't do.

Although the contour would benefit from the modifications allowed in STX, if trying to be competetive than I think it's a bad move. Not that a contour can be a national winner in STS, but in STX you're up against wrx's,etc., making it even harder. If you're going to stay class legal, wouldn't it make sense to stay legal for the class you'd be most competetive in?

I used to completely agree that STS is the place for a Contour to be. But the STX pax is only .006 higher than STS. That's less than two-tenths on a 60 second course. Don't you think you could get two-tenths from fatter tires, ten more hp, and an LSD? Maybe you can't, but it seems very nearly like a sure thing. Now, the WRX has significant power and traction advantages, but it shouldn't be any lighter, and it has a lot of drivetrain loss. The suspension is good, but not a whole different setup like the Civics.

Toppling either the Civics or WRXs isn't possible, but locally you have just as good a shot at beating a WRX as a Civic (if prepped for STX/STS) , IMHO.

Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
I used to completely agree that STS is the place for a Contour to be. But the STX pax is only .006 higher than STS. That's less than two-tenths on a 60 second course. Don't you think you could get two-tenths from fatter tires, ten more hp, and an LSD? Maybe you can't, but it seems very nearly like a sure thing. Now, the WRX has significant power and traction advantages, but it shouldn't be any lighter, and it has a lot of drivetrain loss. The suspension is good, but not a whole different setup like the Civics.

Toppling either the Civics or WRXs isn't possible, but locally you have just as good a shot at beating a WRX as a Civic (if prepped for STX/STS) , IMHO.

Phil,

You should read the April GRM article on that yellow Integra Type R. Guy prepped it to the limit of STX, and shaved a lot of weight. Spent a lot of money, too, even replacing the stock Torsen Diff with an aftermarket unit with a different ratio. I think he had it down to around 2300# and over 180hp at the wheels. Might have been 2nd at Nats? Still, he says he gets beat in the wet all the time by the WRXs. In the dry, it's a more even match, but then again, it took a lot more effort/money for him to get there.

Anyway, not a downer, just a good example of an "extreme" STX prep on an already capable car.

The WRX is not even the best STX car IMO. They are great in the wet but in the dry I think the BMW's are much better. While the contour gains from the extra allowances in STX I think most other cars gain about the same from them and you would be in the same place as you started from in relation to the other cars you were against in STS if they did the same mods and still a little behind some of the true STX cars.

Yeah, I read the GRM article. Good points, guys. I'm mostly concerned about PAX, since most of my events are either weak in STS, and I mop up, or strong, and I'm fighting for fastest non-Civic. STX is tiny at all events I've done except Philly, and it's mostly Preludes. I do find it surprising that I haven't found any WRXs up here in the snow belt.

So I don't know that much about STX, and hadn't considered running it until today when I saw how close the PAX was. In STS we're one of the most powerful cars that has a decent chassis, but just way too fat to run on 225s. My theoretical 2600lb or less car on would, I think, be a very good match for all the other non-Civics. The ACR and 2.5RS don't have anything major on us that I can see. But, in STX, we get just about as much tire as we can fit, all the power there is to have, and a way to put it down. I'd bet there's nearly a second to be gained in STX trim. I think that while the STS Civics might PAX as well, they won't PAX better in STX. They can't use the tire, the cats won't help very much, and wheelspin isn't nearly as big of an issue for them.

So, IMO, STX is almost certainly the way to PAX highest in the Contour. Cost, class size, local fields, and other factors may make STS appealing, however, and that's why I'm there.

Take a look at the details on the protested STS car after nationals. Being able to run a long tube header is very helpful to a civic. According to Andy Hollis they can gain 5-8 over a header that has the cats in the stock location (this is without going to a high flow cat just moving the standard cat further back.

The civic may not gain much from the wheel/tire allowances.

The LSD it will gain a bit but I agree that wheelspin is not that much of an issue there.

Since the PAX changes every year I don't think I would build a car to try to win PAX. PAX was closer on STS/STX last year but I think it will be moving away from STS more next year.