What car: Prepared FWD Rallycross Edition

Stealthtercel wrote: To Pete Gossett... which Accent is this? Wikipedia only talks about four generations.

Sorry, 3rd gen...that's what I get for typing in the dark this morning.

kylini wrote: There's also the exponential dollar factor. Things like the dirtfish having custom carbon ductwork throughout the hood.

Which gives you 0% advantage...

Got it. Thanks.

I think it's cheaper to be competitive in the mod classes than stock or prepared.

Is PF as undersubscribed at the national level as it is locally? The reduced number of competitors is the only reason I'd run in that class.

I'd think the best "moderate" budget entry into PF would be an 04-05 SRT-4. IIRC, there may still be a few loopholes in the rules that could allow for increased boost, but I doubt you'd need more than stock levels of power. Get the most stock one you can find, work on the suspension, and get some rally tires.

Edit, just saw you are not considering SRT-4s (for a good reason), but I honestly think it's the best car, if you are looking to be nationally competitive.

EvanB wrote: I think it's cheaper to be competitive in the mod classes than stock or prepared.

Too some extent, I think you are right, I think buying the right car to start with is a lot more important in Stock and Prepared classes. Skill is still more important, but since you cannot fix as many weak points in those classes, you have to choose carefully.

Course design becomes an issue, too. An older Civic Si or CRX could dominate tight courses, but will be outclassed if there are any good straights.

eastsidemav wrote:

EvanB wrote: I think it's cheaper to be competitive in the mod classes than stock or prepared.

Too some extent, I think you are right, I think buying the right car to start with is a lot more important in Stock and Prepared classes. Skill is still more important, but since you cannot fix as many weak points in those classes, you have to choose carefully.

Which is why in my internal debate between '09 2.5GT and '09 STI, STI wins. On the one hand, the 2.5GT has an automatic, which I found makes a WRX absolutely awesome in rallycross since 1st gear is so long and a proper torque converter (which is P legal) means you're never off boost. Just get in and drive. And the center diff is "interesting" in a good way.

But... you can't get a front diff for the 4EAT. STI comes with one already. STI also has the fancy automatic center diff. And a faster steering rack (which is otherwise Mod). And 300hp stock before you throw a tuner on it (which is P legal) and uncork the uppipe and downpipe (which is also P legal if you put a cat-like thing within 6 inches of the rearmost OE cat) The brakes prevent mounting rally tires but oh well, changing brakes is P legal.

I figure, $30k and I have a nice PA car... Might even be almost fast enough to beat an Evo IX

Of course if I wanted to do this in Mod, I could play engine and suspension swap hokey pokey to my heart's content and save a crapton of money. Which is why my RX-7 is in Mod even though it has things that apparently you're not supposed to have in Mod like "lights" and "interior" and "heat" and "decent stereo"...

UNfortunately the idiot who built it is power-obsessed and it grinds through drivetrain parts like you would not believe.

EvanB wrote: How cheap are Volvo c30 t5s these days? I want to see someone rallycross one.

Not very. They have developed a bit of a cult following so decent ones (especially ones with manuals) seem to be holding value fairly well as not many were sold here. A friend just totaled hers and went out a bought another one. I could see ground clearance being an issue doing RX. The nose is long and low.

My crazy pick? Mk IV VW with a 1.8T or TDI. No, not the lightest car out there, but can be modded to provide a good bit of power, aftermarket is huge, and in a fluke of German engineering, the handling actually improves a bit when you raise them (believe it or not, there is a 1" lift kit available). Leave the interior alone and it'll be plenty comfortable for the drive to the event. And I think 15" steel wheels will fit over the 1.8t brakes, so running real rally tires can be done. If not, converting to 2.0/TDI front brakes is easy.

Changing the brakes is legal in any class where rally tires are legal. Further, changing the brakes is legal in any class where you are allowed to change wheel size.

A4s do okay but I think the A3 chassis is better-er. It's less fragile, although a lot harder to find good shells. The 2.0 seems to be the best option, it makes a lot of "everywhere power" while not really overloading the tires too much. An ABA engined Golf is a wicked thing to drive.

All of the P classes are pretty light nationaly. Still competitive, still fun. Locally we move all of us to Mod and just have fun.

In reply to Ian F:

A guy I know up here in Ontario is running a MkIV GTi with a 1.8T. I am not sure how competitive he is, but it is his first season.

Plus we don't have all the silly classes you guys have. We just have FWD, RWD, AWD-NA, and AWD-Turbo (or Supercharged) .

EvanB wrote: Mk3 vr6 gti.

Isn't the rear suspension a twist beam? I'm of the opinion this is far from ideal for rallycross. However, I am open to a good argument why I'm a fool to think this.

captdownshift wrote: NX200 with an SR20DET swap or a KLZE swapped Mazda 323 or MX3

Engine swaps are not PF legal.

NGTD wrote: B-15 Nissan Sentra SE-R - Torquey 2.5L, LSD, get an early one to avoid the brembo's. And they are CHEAP!!!

The twist beam rear does turn me off to this option. Additionally, the two that were at Nationals this year did not really impress me much. Thanks for the suggestion though!

petegossett wrote: 3rd-gen Hyundai Accent

On paper, this car does look like a poor choice. The weight to HP ratio is pitiful. Where does the HP end up with bolt ons? Does this engine rev quite high?

Knurled wrote: That's why *that* car isn't really streetable. That doesn't mean all MF cars aren't streetable. The kind of weight reduction that takes away streetability doesn't actually result in better times. Heck, MOST of the things people do in Mod don't result in better times. Warren's been trying to tell us that for years :)

I totally agree with what you are saying. However, if I'm going to be driving the car 4+ hours one way to an event, I'm going to go with one that has a full interior. I know, I should just "man up". :)

Brett_Murphy wrote: I also think the Mazda Protege should be on the list. Remember this? https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/open-classifieds/1994-protege-rally-cross-for-sale-3750/90091/page1/

The Protege is the same thing as the Escort GT of that vintage which is what I race now. I personally believe the BP is underpowered for this duty in a car that does not have its interior stripped.

captdownshift wrote: contour SVT with a 3.0L swap for just above challenge money That's an interesting swap and that motor takes kindly to boost or hot cams, for rallycross a moderately hot cam would probably be the answer, or mild boost with electronic boost control that differs by gear.

I am interested by this option, but again, the engine swap, stripping weight, and adding cams is not PF legal. The stock engine seems to be a decent contender though, depending on how much HP can be added via bolt ons. The Contour is definitely a heavy beast.

FooBag wrote: Isn't the rear suspension a twist beam? I'm of the opinion this is far from ideal for rallycross. However, I am open to a good argument why I'm a fool to think this.

It's generally a non issue. IMO the twist beam is awesome because it generally has the lowest unsprung inertia of any viable rear suspension setup. The majority of the beam's weight is on the pivot axis, and since the shocks are not a stressed member like struts are, they can be built fairly light. As another bonus, it doesn't require a crossmember, so the chassis can be lighter.

NGTD wrote: B-15 Nissan Sentra SE-R - Torquey 2.5L, LSD, get an early one to avoid the brembo's. And they are CHEAP!!!

The twist beam rear does turn me off to this option.

N15 chassis don't have twist beams, they have solid axles/dead axles. Subtle difference. The beam in the Nissan is way out at the axle end, where it is all unsprung weight. It also requires some kind of lateral locating device to function. The advantages to the way Nissan did it is that they could bring the roll center up off of the ground (not necessarily an advantage here) and there is no toe change under load from flex. VW practically invented suspension kinematics (suspension bushings/layout to effect alignment change under side loads) to deal with the odd effects from twist beam flex.

I would NOT suggest any Nissan by virtue of Nissan having some sort of corporate fear of suspension bump travel. At stock ride height, most Sentras of any generation have maybe an inch before they bottom out. Also the front control arm mounting arrangement gives me the heebie-jeebies.

eastsidemav wrote: IIRC, there may still be a few loopholes in the rules that could allow for increased boost, but I doubt you'd need more than stock levels of power. Edit, just saw you are not considering SRT-4s (for a good reason), but I honestly think it's the best car, if you are looking to be nationally competitive.

The rules specifically state that turbocharger boost regulation systems, electronic or mechanical, may be modified in prepared class, so I'm not trying to abuse a loophole. I do agree with you that a SRT4 could definitely be a contender. I just don't want to deal with finding a non-basket case or non-abused one.

Ian F wrote: My crazy pick? Mk IV VW with a 1.8T or TDI. No, not the lightest car out there, but can be modded to provide a good bit of power, aftermarket is huge, and in a fluke of German engineering, the handling actually improves a bit when you raise them (believe it or not, there is a 1" lift kit available). Leave the interior alone and it'll be plenty comfortable for the drive to the event. And I think 15" steel wheels will fit over the 1.8t brakes, so running real rally tires can be done. If not, converting to 2.0/TDI front brakes is easy.

That's interesting to know about the lift kit. I had considered this option, with the 1.8T, but wrote it off due to the twist beam rear.

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion.

Oh, Prepared rules are SO optimized for turbo cars that it isn't funny. Basically you can crank up the boost until you're at the limit of the fuel system or turbo, whichever comes first. If the computer won't let you, computers can be reflashed/rechipped or piggybacked. "Piggyback" is such a nebulous term Some of the more sophisticated piggyback controllers were out-and-out engine computers that merely fooled the stock ECU into thinking that it was relevant...

Yes sir, a turbo car with an automatic trans (keep the turbo on the boil! torque converters are GOOD) is the hot thing to have in Prepared, I do believe, from a drivetrain perspective.

It's ENTIRELY a coincidence that I bought a front wheel drive car with a turbo and an automatic, that the rally tires/wheels from my MR car would fit, and an engine computer that is mapped out to 15psi even though stock it cuts the party at 6, and has a generously huge intercooler. Yup, coincidence...

Knurled wrote: It's generally a non issue. IMO the twist beam is awesome because it generally has the lowest unsprung inertia of any viable rear suspension setup. The majority of the beam's weight is on the pivot axis, and since the shocks are not a stressed member like struts are, they can be built fairly light. As another bonus, it doesn't require a crossmember, so the chassis can be lighter.

Interesting... My twist beam experience has been with GM's Delta chassis. These cars seem to get ridiculously tail happy in any slick conditions. Perhaps this is just specific to the Delta chassis?

rcutclif wrote: In reply to pinchvalve: I think he's talking about this celica... (at least, this is the one I'd recommend)

Ran an autocross Saturday, and then took 2nd in class to a SVT Focus at rallycross this weekend, with very fast times. He would have won had he not had an off-course adventure due to not seeing a rut.

Probably specific to GM chassis tuning. I do note that Cobalts have remarkably sharp steering response. The steering FEEL is the kind of Bic-razor-goostrip muted sensation we've come to expect from GM, but they turn in remarkably well. Maybe this quickness off center is unsettling the rear. I don't know for sure, I've never rallycrossed one (although a 2.4l Cobalt would be high on my list for rallycross cars. Not an SS, the bodywork is too fugly for me to contemplate)

Pedantically the beam used in those is kind of a half breed. It's somewhat in between the extremes that VW and Nissan used.

I forgot to point out in my earlier post, if you do end up considering SRT4s, pay less attention to first year cars. They have smaller fuel injectors. Second year of production got beefier axles (not P legal to swap) and larger injectors (also not P legal to swap). (Thanks GRM article on buying used SRT4s!)

Knurled wrote:

eastsidemav wrote:

EvanB wrote: I think it's cheaper to be competitive in the mod classes than stock or prepared.

Too some extent, I think you are right, I think buying the right car to start with is a lot more important in Stock and Prepared classes. Skill is still more important, but since you cannot fix as many weak points in those classes, you have to choose carefully.

Which is why in my internal debate between '09 2.5GT and '09 STI, STI wins. On the one hand, the 2.5GT has an automatic, which I found makes a WRX absolutely awesome in rallycross since 1st gear is so long and a proper torque converter (which is P legal) means you're never off boost. Just get in and drive. And the center diff is "interesting" in a good way. But... you can't get a front diff for the 4EAT. STI comes with one already. STI also has the fancy automatic center diff. And a faster steering rack (which is otherwise Mod). And 300hp stock before you throw a tuner on it (which is P legal) and uncork the uppipe and downpipe (which is also P legal if you put a cat-like thing within 6 inches of the rearmost OE cat) The brakes prevent mounting rally tires but oh well, changing brakes is P legal. I figure, $30k and I have a nice PA car... Might even be almost fast enough to beat an Evo IX Of course if I wanted to do this in Mod, I could play engine and suspension swap hokey pokey to my heart's content and save a crapton of money. Which is why my RX-7 is in Mod even though it has things that apparently you're not supposed to have in Mod like "lights" and "interior" and "heat" and "decent stereo"... UNfortunately the idiot who built it is power-obsessed and it grinds through drivetrain parts like you would not believe.

Ditto. My car is fully street legal and just won our strong MR class for the season here in DC region (and Pete and Evan can vouch for it being reasonably quick at GLDivs last year). Granted I wouldn't want to drive 10 hours in it, but I do drive it 2-3 hours to local events regularly (in Sparco Evo seats with more or less no other interior other than the dash). But my exhaust isn't very loud, I have lights and windows, and even a stereo. It hasn't hurt me and I dont't think removing more weight would help anything, to be honest. Else I could take out another 200lbs easily and make it not street legal (it's already 2200)

And Pete, all this talk about $30k rallycross cars. Didn't you pay me $100 in quarters for some wheels a few years ago?

Knurled wrote: Probably specific to GM chassis tuning. I do note that Cobalts have remarkably sharp steering response. The steering FEEL is the kind of Bic-razor-goostrip muted sensation we've come to expect from GM, but they turn in remarkably well. Maybe this quickness off center is unsettling the rear. I don't know for sure, I've never rallycrossed one (although a 2.4l Cobalt would be high on my list for rallycross cars. Not an SS, the bodywork is too fugly for me to contemplate) Pedantically the beam used in those is kind of a half breed. It's somewhat in between the extremes that VW and Nissan used. I forgot to point out in my earlier post, if you do end up considering SRT4s, pay less attention to first year cars. They have smaller fuel injectors. Second year of production got beefier axles (not P legal to swap) and larger injectors (also not P legal to swap). (Thanks GRM article on buying used SRT4s!)

Lol, I have a SS Turbo as my autocross car. To each his own, as I think the non-SS's look like they are 4x4's due to how high off the ground the bodywork stops.

You are referencing your S40 in your earlier post, correct?

Just as an aside, any reason you're not considering a RWD class car - or just a general preference for FWD? There are any number of RWD cars within your budget range that can be driven long distances in comfort, have large aftermarket support, and can all be bought extremely cheap and be very competitive at nationals or any other event. Miatas, RX7s, e30s, e36s and the list goes on....

irish44j wrote: Just as an aside, any reason you're not considering a RWD class car - or just a general preference for FWD? There are any number of RWD cars within your budget range that can be driven long distances in comfort, have large aftermarket support, and can all be bought extremely cheap and be very competitive at nationals or any other event. Miatas, RX7s, e30s, e36s and the list goes on....

I've always raced FWD cars and have an affinity for them. I personally believe it is much easier to be consistent in a FWD car than in a RWD. Some of your own descriptions in your momunmental rally cross thread have helped cement this idea.

Additionally, with my height, I cannot fit in a Miata, period. I can barely fit in an E30. I don't really want to deal with a rotary. An E36 could be an option, but again, I fall back to my experience with FWD.

roger that. That said, I autocrossed FWD and then AWD for over 15 years, and I daily drive a WRX. I've never had a RWD daily driver or autocross car (though we also do Chump with an e30). I think most of the inconsistency you read about with me has more to do with the nut behind the wheel than with the car itself, lol. Others who drive my car seem to be more consistent than me in it!

I'll throw out another FWD idea for you, though not sure if it meets your criteria since I don't know much about them: older SVT Focus. We've had a couple run locally on a regular basis and they're both very quick and seem to hold up well. I can't imagine they cost all that much these days.

Were I to do a FWD car, I'd probably strongly consider a B13 Sentra SE-R, which is one of my favorite FWD cars to drive in anger that can be found for pretty cheap these days and still have a strong aftermarket.

Then again, I autocrossed a Maxima in E Prepared for several seasons, so I may just be crazy ;)

I'm 6'I-don't-know-anymore (was 6'5, probably shrank to 6'3 by now... freakin' joints/back) and I fit in a hardtop Miata extremely well. Far better than my Volvo, which is indeed the car I was mentioning earlier.

The only time I completed a rallycross in it, I won by ~10-20 seconds... with two or three bogey times because I broke a radiator hose early in the day and took the rest of the morning off... and boost was stuck at 4psi at that time so it was down on power to where it was running mid-18s at the dragstrip...

This car continually showering me with awesome is going to keep me from buying that winged wonder. Josh, my fortunes have changed a little since back then.

I can totally understand and respect wanting to stay within a drive type. I've owned and rallycrossed a whole plethora of different cars - turbo and nonturbo versions of all three drive types to varying degrees. My favorite keeps going back to my ol' stick axle RX-7. It does exactly what I want it to do when I want it to do it. I never really meshed properly with AWD, and FWD just doesn't sit right with me, even though I know it's faster than the other two options when wielded properly.

Meanwhile, I know people who were ridiculous in AWD, yet deeply shamed in 2wd cars. Or magic with FWD but unable to cut the mustard with AWD. And some people are just fast no matter what they are in.

All this talk about automatic turbo WRXs has me intrugued. I knew the automatic Foresters were better for off-road/beach driving due to the torque converter, but I always thought that the major weakness of the automatic WRX was that the gearing was bad for getting into boost quickly.