Tell me why this isnt a good idea...

[mleach]

So Ive been autoxing an s2000 for the last year, did well locally, enough to put me in the trophies at events and for the season.

Now, there are several things I like about the idea of an STS 2002. Please explain to me why this really would be more trouble than say an FSP or XP/EP route.

I think the hardest thing will be proving that certain things missing from the car would be legal. As it is such an old car, there is bound to be some things missing, and swapped, that would make it illegal for sts. Provided these things are available, would it not be a good idea?

current STS weiner = 89 civic si ~2050lbs with 110 hp and 100 torque. great camber curves

2002 in sts trim ~ 2000 to 2100 lbs. front bumpers can come off/get modified due to the "body kit" provision. 110 hp 115 torque.

A 240sx won this years nationals, so it goes to show that a nonlsd rwd car can win. why not a 2002.

Discuss....

[garya]

-Emissions controls have to be present in STS. This can range from a simple early setup to a very complex and cumbersome later setup. This may even include the dreaded thermal reactor!

-Stock carb. Do they allow a Weber 32/36 or do you have to stick with a Solex?

-Steering Wheel. Can you swap out the bus wheel?

-Stock seats aren't great for autocross. Not a huge deal, but can make a difference.

-An LSD makes a huge difference for autoxing a 2002.

Hope that gives you some things to consider. I think most 2002ers go for race tires and FSP.

Gary

[mleach]

The only thing on that list that scares me is the emissions and the solex.

the seats, wheel, etc are all doable within the sts rule book. Im fully aware of the SP or Prepared route, I am currently building an EP 2002 as well. I have another that I was wondering if it would be a good STS contender.

The LSD can be over come with chassis tuning, and speed maintenance. I know what an LSD adds, and I know how to overcome the shortcomings of not having one.

Does anyone have any good weight information on these cars? I think that would be the real kink in the plan. If I cant get it down to 2100 lbs, its all in vain.

[Paul7002]

2073lbs is the weight listed in two different manuals I have. Then you can subtract the bumper

[_z_]

so it has to be exactly stock as the car was sold?

To bad you couldn't slip in a dual solex ti setup on an older car w/no emissions crapola (most of that came on later cars like 74 and up right?)

[TobyB]

Actually, the single has some grunt...

but what can you do to suspension? Without LS and with stock suspension,

you won't be able to put power down.

t

[steve k.]

gearing with the current tire availability. you will have to go to a 15" wheel to get the best tire and that won't work well with 3.64 diff

Edit. But i believe you still have to run stock intake. So depending on the ear it will either be singe barell or dual barel soles. There is no update/backdate rule in STS. I am not exactly sure if you can actually remove the bumpers. You can remove trim, but bumpers might be questinable.

You can use different breaks, but have to keep stock clutch anf flywheel. The block, head, pistons, all have to be from the actual year of your car. So no e12 head on a 1970 car.

The oiginal design of ST classes was to have a stepping stone from stock to sp, but they are now things that are allowed in ST and not SP that that killed that idea.

good luck,

steve k.

[Guest Anonymous]

THe sts rules are actually a little friendlier to the 2002 than the SP rules. I can add camber correction through slotted or mechanical members, rather than using eccentric bushings.

Really the power issue isnt that big of a deal. LSD is moot, the idea is speed maintenance, and control.

I was hoping that Steve K would have some insight, seeing as how hes been running FSP for some time now.

[steve k.]

posted a minute before you