And yet, at the same time, you get 1000s of people posting their clapped-out, open down-pipe, MBC, no tuning, hammer pounded fenders, stock rims with 15mm spaces w/ no extended lugs, sticker bombed interior, WRXs asking "hey guys, what do you think of my awesome ride!?". Then they get all butthurt when people tell them their car is a shit box.

In other words... most cars that are "different" are shitty because in a "scene" with so many people, everyone tends to gravitate to doing things the "right" way, aka the way that doesn't look busted and doesn't blow up.

I just built a build post, included in the first. Let me know if it's too long. I'll edit or something. Move to another page, idk.

My head's been hurting all day so tolerance for moving shit around and whatnot is pretty minimal.

The white one looks kinda cool, but how the hell do you drive over a speed bump with a car that low? Retarded. :rolleyes:

Production cars have ground clearance for a reason. Race cars have an actual valid reason to be that low, but they don't have to drive over any bumps higher than a couple inches.

Ugh.. I'll stop ranting.

(also, the 'STEEZY' plate cracks me up)

Having had cars that low, and considerably lower, I wouldn't ever want to be that low again. I've been told my current height is too low for the KWs, which is why I thought of selling or trading them off for a set of more dump-friendly BCs. But, truth is, I am already too low. It's a neusence, and makes no sense as a daily.

My all-for-show rat VW roadster a few years back was static set at suspension bottom- the only suspension on the car was the air in the tires. It looked hard as hell, but I got fully stopped from about 10mph when the fully shaved front beam hit a crack in some parking lots asphalt. Also had about -12* camber, but who's counting.


Anyway, I am hoping to stay under 14" center to fender front and rear, currently at 13/13.25".

What's up with the bike laying down?

Most of the guys who are really low are not daily driing these cars... Also these slammed cars you see on nasioc with the real high quality pictures look that way because the guy jacked his car up and dropped the coils before the shoot. I am rolled and pulled and could easily put 10" wide wheel and slam it for a photo shoot while raising it up and putting 9" wide for driving around daily. Remember your car only has to look crazy for the pictures.

It put a dent in the budget and schedule for the STi build.

Some bastard tried to steal it. The forks were locked so they couldn't go straight. Moved it forward a few feet then dumped it once he/they got the front tire dug into the grass. Broken peg, bent bars, bent clutch lever, dented frame, etc. Money that was to go to camber plates and other bits went to buying bike parts. Since I was taking it apart, I went overboard and prepped for a mild cafe style build.

Ding!

Looking at Federal SS-585 in 255/35 for the 18s, they run wide, should end up close to most 265. Found them for ~$450 shipped for the set. But, going to see if I can find a wide 245/35 - make fitting the 9.5 +30 a little easier. I'm digging every car i see on 255 on a 9.5 wheels, so probably just going to make it work. For some reason I like slight stretch on 18s. Not much, but 245 and 255 on 9.5 just work for me.

Will also be picking up 255/40 RS3s for the 17" set of RPFs, can't beat them at $125 each. Is that a regular price? Are they just incredibly well priced in that size?


Also finished suspension on the jeep today. Now on 4.5" lift, all custom control arms, and 33" BFG muds. Tough as nails look. And way more solid than the previous spring setup. Difference between 25% 31s and 75% 33s is substantial.

285/30/18 is the matching tire size for the STI and the holly grail of track/autocross tires for the car, but making them fit, especially on an '04 is near impossible. '05+ can be done.

Good tire choices. I have the Federals on the FXT, and for cheap, black, round tires that hold up the car, they're great. Don't get caught in snow or slush on them though. You've got that covered with the Jeep obviously...

I want some for the wagon... but 45 pounds per corner is an awful lot for a 2100 pound car with no torque.

If it's possible on an 05 should be even easier on 04. Since they don't have the rear fender trim it's much easier to pull

It is even worse in the front on an '04 due to suspension! Agree the rear is easier later, but the front on the '04 is the killer.

I've been torn between getting something like the Federal RSR, Star Specs, NT05, etc for the 18s. But considering how much 18" tires are, and how quickly I'll burn them commuting, it's not worth it, I figure it'll be cheaper in the long run to keep my 17x8 RPFs and mount some sticky 140-180 treadwear tres on them, and some decent but not great, mid-range treadwear tires on the 18" RPFs. That also means narrower for lower weight, and to ease fitment.


Down he road I'd like to pick up another daily and turnthe 04 into a track whore, and stuff some 285s under a full set of flares :)

How does the suspension differ on the 04 STi from GD WRX, and even 05+ STi aside from knuckle related differences? From my understanding all are the same geometry aside from the JDM caster adding (Spec C?) front control arms, no?

GD=04 except for wider track on the STI AFIK.

I'll be honest, I can't speak to the details, but the '05 knuckle change changed the strut attachment and as I understand created more clearance. I would assume that changed something about the geometry in some way, but can't tell you what.

Scott did the conversion, maybe he can say.

The only difference I noticed was the larger spindle/hub. The upright mounting wing on the knuckle is wider than the 5x100 knuckle. Bolt pattern might be a little different, but I never measured it. I know the bolt pattern is different between the STi and SVX knuckles, but they're the same width... go figure.

Maybe there's a bit on a difference on the angle or offset of the strut mounting holes that creates more clearance on the stock '05+ struts that the guys running stock-class autocross make use of, but since I had coilovers before and after, I never had any clearance issues up front. The fact that the STi went to 8" wide wheels when they switched to the larger spindle would support that guess.

For me, it was the rear that's always been an issue... but also not strut related. I rub the rear tires on the body and the fender in the rear, but have no issues rubbing the strut back there.

When I was still on 5x100 Hubs I test fitted these 18x10+30 285 tire that came of gus gus 08 sti. I had stock struts and tein springs but they did fit with no issues on the inside of wheel. I opted out of using these.
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/i...I/91fde5bd.jpg

From my understanding, the control arms are the same an the upper strut mount is the same, indicating that the only differences lie in the knuckle and hub, and therefore strut/coilover lower mounting point and brake rotor. I believe '05-06 control arms can be swapped in using 5x100 knuckles, hubs, brakes.

Nonetheless, I'm planning on using rear camber plates and lateral links to set camber allowing for more tire clearance as when I test fit 18x9.5 +35 grids on 245/40/18 I needed a 5pm spacer to clear thereat strut (thanks Sam!). The rear will be at 18x9.5 +33 final as I'll still use the 5pm spacer to closer match the front which will be at +30 for brake clearance.

Inboard clearances should be fine considering the final offsets after spacers.

so i was reading about top scoob 026 and it is stanced/stretched/hellaflush

you are going to need to order up some 225 tires for you 10 inch rims lol

Didn't they essentially just do that for 023?

To bad yours has been out for a bit. 026 is Race cars only!

I'd have a shot if it were 2003 or 2004... but 7 years later, there are way more crazy racecars than mine. Hell, I'm still street legal, registered, & insured!