SCCA Solo C Street Discussion

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by NJ10

I guess everyone's pricing out stx builds right now.

But wait, are we safe there either?

Safer. Good STX builds take more time and money to properly develop. There is more lead time between a competitive threat getting added to the class, and said threat actually showing up and taking your ball away.

There's a threat the twins get sent to STR, but only if we're actually competitive there.

Anyways I drove a "lightly" prepped STX twin and was instantly sold on no torque dip, real suspension, and real grip. I've driven a number of fast/high HP cars in recent months but that is the only car that has ever left my hands shaking after a run.

If you like your wallet as it is don't ever drive an STX car.

[AlanLGuy]

Originally Posted by DaWorstPlaya

But doesn't that also mean acceleration would be slower, which would negate the power advantage?

Yes, unless 5 horsepower would offset that(it won't) and as long as you don't have to shift to 3rd

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by DaWorstPlaya

But doesn't that also mean acceleration would be slower, which would negate the power advantage?

Short answer, probably not. There's lots of benefits to not having to shift, so much so that it's demonstrably faster for us STX guys to just raise our rev limit even though we don't make power up there.

Ultimately there is a way to answer this empirically, using thrust charts. You'll need actual gear ratios released though.

[Jawnathin]

Originally Posted by renfield90

CS arms race. 2nd gear will be taller than the current gen which will lead to better 0-60 times for the magazines, and less shifting for autocrossers.

Did you read it is taller or just making a guess? When I read the press release I was thinking they'd go shorter similar to what Mazda did with the ND. Mags can still drop the 0-60 time with a shorter gear since it'll accelerate better and the current car needs to shift anyway. Your theory does make sense though.

IMO the current car is just about right and too short or too tall would be bad. Anything minor is NBD since you can get there with a taller or shorter tire.

[DaWorstPlaya]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

Did you read it is taller or just making a guess? When I read the press release I was thinking they'd go shorter similar to what Mazda did with the ND. Mags can still drop the 0-60 time with a shorter gear since it'll accelerate better and the current car needs to shift anyway. Your theory does make sense though.

IMO the current car is just about right and too short or too tall would be bad. Anything minor is NBD since you can get there with a taller or shorter tire.

"On the manual version of the car, additional performance comes from a gear ratio change"

I agree, if anything that to me that says the gear ratios will be shorter. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by Jawnathin

Did you read it is taller or just making a guess? When I read the press release I was thinking they'd go shorter similar to what Mazda did with the ND. Mags can still drop the 0-60 time with a shorter gear since it'll accelerate better and the current car needs to shift anyway. Your theory does make sense though.

IMO the current car is just about right and too short or too tall would be bad. Anything minor is NBD since you can get there with a taller or shorter tire.

I read it as a cynical long time Toyota owner. Sure, the shorter ratios would also get it to 60 faster, but there's also CAFE to consider.

[strat61caster]

"On the manual version of the car, additional (fuel economy) performance comes from a gear ratio change"

ftfy

Eliminating that 2-3 shift in the 0-60 run up would drop a tenth or three off the magazine times. If they accomplish it by changing individual gear ratios AND the rear end it could either be a big win for autox guys or a big loss. Odds are bang on in the middle given the power gain, I'm guessing they go a bit longer through the gears to try and match the MX-5 in the magazine tests and pick up an extra mpg or two. On course it'd be a wash, they might get an extra bit of speed coming into the corner while the old cars hit the rev-limiter earlier but the early cars should be able to pull out of every corner harder.

You guys are funny, 5hp/ft-lbs and the car should end up in a different class. Gimme a break, I bet if you dyno'd the CS field from nationals last year you'd easily have a 5 hp difference from the best to the worst FA20, we're talking about a <3% variance across a complex mass produced product. And who knows, maybe they gimped the power curve to get it and it's not as useful as the early cars.

Edit: Unless you guys are way better at internet sarcasm than me, I've never seen anyone pull off a chain that long from multiple posters, sorry to break it and be the wet blanket.

[AlanLGuy]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

"On the manual version of the car, additional (fuel economy) performance comes from a gear ratio change"

ftfy

Eliminating that 2-3 shift in the 0-60 run up would drop a tenth or three off the magazine times. If they accomplish it by changing individual gear ratios AND the rear end it could either be a big win for autox guys or a big loss. Odds are bang on in the middle given the power gain, I'm guessing they go a bit longer through the gears to try and match the MX-5 in the magazine tests and pick up an extra mpg or two.

You guys are funny, 5hp and the car should end up in a different class. Gimme a break, I bet if you dyno'd the CS field from nationals last year you'd easily have a 5 hp difference from the best to the worst FA20, we're talking about a <3% variance across a complex mass produced product.

My reply on writing letter to BS was a joke. Clearly it will be in C-Street. There's no difference in classes between the F20 and F-22 S2000 and there's a lot more than 5HP difference in those two engines

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by AlanLGuy

My reply on writing letter to BS was a joke. Clearly it will be in C-Street. There's no difference in classes between the F20 and F-22 S2000 and there's a lot more than 5HP difference in those two engines

You have beaten me at the internet today. I'm impressed you guys carried the joke that long, this forum is pretty thickheaded most of the time, but then again this is the 'I actually compete' side, should give you guys more credit.

[SeanRTR]

I'm glad it's only 5HP and 5TQ. Some quick math means if the 2017 car weighs just 70lbs more than my 2013 model, the increased power is meaningless. If the car weighs over 100lbs more than my 2013, the +5 torque is now useless. Seeing as I assume the car will be 50-100lbs heavier, and now the final drive is rumored to be taller as well, I'm glad the changes are so minor because now I know I can confidently keep my 2013.

[ka-t_240]

Does anyone have actual info on the changes for the 2017, like the true details.

[simpleisbest]

I wonder if all the new features Toyota is looking to add for the 2017 model will be spread across different trims. Scion's business model was to only have 1 trim package (with accessories to add on).

I will be interested to see if there is a base model and it's weight

[jbailey8748]

Hopefully we get the ra

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[AlanLGuy]

April Fasttrack recommends reclassifying the BRZ and non TRD FRS to DS....

The springs go on, the springs come off.... Le sigh