STS question.... Really.
Thread Starter
Autocross Junky
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,211
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Rep Power: 380 
STS question.... Really.
Ok, Most of you know I currently autocross a little 89 Si in STS. But I would also like to improve my 01 EX in STS because I may not have access to that Si in the years to come (the owner only plans on running sts this year.. 
)
So, that being said. I have a question for you all.... Suspensions I understand, engine.... well I know enough to keep it running and what not to do, but as far as squeasing the last HP out of the thing in STS trim.. I havent a clue.
heres the question.
regarding rule 17.10. ENGINE section D that states
The engine management system parameters and operations may be modified only by the methods listed below. Any and all modifications must meet or exceed the applicable US DOT emissions standards for the year, make, and model of the car. These allowances also apply to forced induction cars, except that no changes to standard boost levels, intercoolers, or boost controls are permitted.
1. Reprogrammed ECU may be used in the standard housing. Traction control parameters may not be altered.
2. Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system. Example: fuel controllers that modify the signal coming from an airflow sensor.
3. Fuel pressure regulators may be replaced in lieu of electronic alterations to the fuel system. It is not permitted to electronically modify the fuel system AND replace a fuel presure regulator.
4. Ignition timing may be set at any point on factory adjustable distributor ignition systems.
5. VTEC controllers and other devices may be used which alter the timing of factory standard electronic variable valve timing systems.
6.The mass airflow sensor must remain in its approximate original location.
what would give the best gains, the V-tec controler, getting the ECU chiped or getting a fuel pressure regulator... Theres a little confusion on what I can do here as the rules basically say that It is not permitted to electronically modify the fuel system AND replace a fuel presure regulator. So does the chiped ECU modify the fuel delivery and does a V-tec controler do the same?
)So, that being said. I have a question for you all.... Suspensions I understand, engine.... well I know enough to keep it running and what not to do, but as far as squeasing the last HP out of the thing in STS trim.. I havent a clue.
heres the question.
regarding rule 17.10. ENGINE section D that states
The engine management system parameters and operations may be modified only by the methods listed below. Any and all modifications must meet or exceed the applicable US DOT emissions standards for the year, make, and model of the car. These allowances also apply to forced induction cars, except that no changes to standard boost levels, intercoolers, or boost controls are permitted.
1. Reprogrammed ECU may be used in the standard housing. Traction control parameters may not be altered.
2. Electronic components may be installed inline between an engine's sensors and ECU. These components may alter the signal coming from the sensor in order to affect the ECU's operation of the engine management system. Example: fuel controllers that modify the signal coming from an airflow sensor.
3. Fuel pressure regulators may be replaced in lieu of electronic alterations to the fuel system. It is not permitted to electronically modify the fuel system AND replace a fuel presure regulator.
4. Ignition timing may be set at any point on factory adjustable distributor ignition systems.
5. VTEC controllers and other devices may be used which alter the timing of factory standard electronic variable valve timing systems.
6.The mass airflow sensor must remain in its approximate original location.
what would give the best gains, the V-tec controler, getting the ECU chiped or getting a fuel pressure regulator... Theres a little confusion on what I can do here as the rules basically say that It is not permitted to electronically modify the fuel system AND replace a fuel presure regulator. So does the chiped ECU modify the fuel delivery and does a V-tec controler do the same?
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,857
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
Rep Power: 412 It depends on what type of chip. It has to be within the parameters of the rules. From my understanding the chip can change how much fuel your car delivers, but the biggest limitation is gonna be the injectors and the pump. A vtec controller can change your air/fuel ratios also. You can modify your vtec point and change the air-fuel mixture. It will take A LOT of tuning to get that just right.
From reading up on the JET chip, you can't do as much tuning with that. It tricks the car into thinking it needs more gas, so it sends it. My advice is to save up for VAFC.
I am talking to Prod now and he says the same thing. VAFC allows more adjustability. Let me put it your terms. Changing the fuel pressure regulator or chipping it is like putting non adjustable shocks on your car with springs whereas vafc is like true coilovers with at least 15 way adjustability. Plus VAFC is easily reversable.
BTW prod says he has one for sale.
From reading up on the JET chip, you can't do as much tuning with that. It tricks the car into thinking it needs more gas, so it sends it. My advice is to save up for VAFC.
I am talking to Prod now and he says the same thing. VAFC allows more adjustability. Let me put it your terms. Changing the fuel pressure regulator or chipping it is like putting non adjustable shocks on your car with springs whereas vafc is like true coilovers with at least 15 way adjustability. Plus VAFC is easily reversable.
BTW prod says he has one for sale.
Last edited by robbclark1; May 21, 2004 at 07:42 PM.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,857
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
Rep Power: 412 a chip is practically the same price, if not more expensive. Plus VAFC is more easily added and removed, easily tuned, and can be cahnged during the dyno. The chip is preprogrammed I beleive. You can use VAFC with any mod or no mods. It is just more beneficial with FI or high output N/A because of the changes made to the engine.
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 0
From: Jersey Shore
Rep Power: 292 So then is the VAFC the better way to go no matter what just because of the flexibility? I wanted to get a chip but it sounds like that's a bad idea after reading this thread.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,857
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
Rep Power: 412 I dont think any of them will yeild great results, but he asked what one would yeild the best out of the three. I think VAFC.
Registered!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
From: Luling, Louisiana
Rep Power: 0 VAFC would be the best bet for your options. Of course you will need to have it dyno tuned to receive the best results. Some of the people have seen up to 10 hp gain from VAFC from tuning. Its the control of the unit that beats all the other options.
btw, what chip would you use? The only chip I can think of is Jet, but I dont think that works with our cars. (I could be wrong)
btw, what chip would you use? The only chip I can think of is Jet, but I dont think that works with our cars. (I could be wrong)
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: monkton,md
Rep Power: 0 Just read 17.10 again. Section A states "Engine and transmission must remain unmodified, including emissions equipment, except as noted below:". The catalytic converter is an emissions device and it is not listed as permitted. A high flow cat may not be permissable in sts.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,151
Likes: 3
From: Washington DC
Rep Power: 424 High flow cats are not, lightened flywheels are not, upgraded clutch discs are also not legal. They all need to be OE or OE equivelant.
My take on this is pretty simple. We already know the car's chassis is stiff, and it can be made stiffer. So thats simple... bars and stuff. The suspension can be handled. Its a pain in the *** because nothing is like anything else, but the road racers in japan seem to be making it work... namely on the account of 2000 lb rear springs and huge sway bars. Now, I'm in no way implying to go that stiff... 560 in the back of my JICs is damn stiff, I can't imagine 2000. If I had it my way, and I could drag the car around, I'd consider 700 or 800 lb springs in the back of the car. Unfortunately, I don't have a truck, a trailer or another car to drive around in, so I make do with this.
As far as the motor... I think we're kinda hosed. Considering that you can bolt on and computer fool a K20A2 up to about 200WHP in STS trim, in a car with that has the same basic chassis, bigger brakes and potentially room for bigger tires, an RSX-S would theoretically be the best shot. What it doesn't have in nimbleness, it would eat the older Civics on a larger power-type course. But lets go back to the ol' D17. 2 things really could help it.... 1 of them is a way to give it a fuel map conducive to wasting a little gas. Unfortunately the computer doesn't like that. It seems to re-correct everything. If someone like Hondata did come up with even a basic reflash that just let you run a more race worthy fuel map, we'd be better off. The other thing I think is necessary is a decient long tube stepped header. Intake options are out there, theres plenty of fart cans available (although I think a 2" custom exhaust would probably be best), but theres shortys and full replacements including the cat. I wish Stafford Fab would get on this... I'd seriously buy it if they put some fat power in the middle of the power band. By fat power, if they put 5-8 HP more through the car at 4500 RPM and some gain the rest of the way, I'd easily buy this thing. I think it can be done... something is corking the car up. It may not necessarily be the header itself, but the manifold/downpipe is a piece of it. Just a nice smoothly bent long tube 4-1 that had a flange that would park right in front of the catalytic converter, and it'd be set.
But first, we all need to get our suspensions sorted out... It doesn't really seem like any of us have gotten it perfect yet.
My take on this is pretty simple. We already know the car's chassis is stiff, and it can be made stiffer. So thats simple... bars and stuff. The suspension can be handled. Its a pain in the *** because nothing is like anything else, but the road racers in japan seem to be making it work... namely on the account of 2000 lb rear springs and huge sway bars. Now, I'm in no way implying to go that stiff... 560 in the back of my JICs is damn stiff, I can't imagine 2000. If I had it my way, and I could drag the car around, I'd consider 700 or 800 lb springs in the back of the car. Unfortunately, I don't have a truck, a trailer or another car to drive around in, so I make do with this.
As far as the motor... I think we're kinda hosed. Considering that you can bolt on and computer fool a K20A2 up to about 200WHP in STS trim, in a car with that has the same basic chassis, bigger brakes and potentially room for bigger tires, an RSX-S would theoretically be the best shot. What it doesn't have in nimbleness, it would eat the older Civics on a larger power-type course. But lets go back to the ol' D17. 2 things really could help it.... 1 of them is a way to give it a fuel map conducive to wasting a little gas. Unfortunately the computer doesn't like that. It seems to re-correct everything. If someone like Hondata did come up with even a basic reflash that just let you run a more race worthy fuel map, we'd be better off. The other thing I think is necessary is a decient long tube stepped header. Intake options are out there, theres plenty of fart cans available (although I think a 2" custom exhaust would probably be best), but theres shortys and full replacements including the cat. I wish Stafford Fab would get on this... I'd seriously buy it if they put some fat power in the middle of the power band. By fat power, if they put 5-8 HP more through the car at 4500 RPM and some gain the rest of the way, I'd easily buy this thing. I think it can be done... something is corking the car up. It may not necessarily be the header itself, but the manifold/downpipe is a piece of it. Just a nice smoothly bent long tube 4-1 that had a flange that would park right in front of the catalytic converter, and it'd be set.
But first, we all need to get our suspensions sorted out... It doesn't really seem like any of us have gotten it perfect yet.
Thread Starter
Autocross Junky
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,211
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Rep Power: 380 Street tire compounds dont like Really High spring rates..... 
Thats coming from my co-driver who use to run a CSP preped CRX with 1,000 LB/in springs in the front and 900 LB/in springs in the back.... of course he was running Hoosiers at the time.
Thats coming from my co-driver who use to run a CSP preped CRX with 1,000 LB/in springs in the front and 900 LB/in springs in the back.... of course he was running Hoosiers at the time. 
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Rep Power: 0 I'm doing that and I'm still gonna go STS, I don't have a cat either, maybe now I will have a chanc in that cat. in my sedan----lol, BTW way saw your vid from a while back, nice---hope to get faster with seat time too----laters ~Stevo
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
Zzyzx
Wheels, Tires & Brakes Modifications
7
Dec 31, 2003 11:40 AM
Zzyzx
Honda Civic Racing: Drift/Drag/AutoX/Time Attack
6
Jul 15, 2003 02:26 PM
