I think that everyone assumed that the FF3 suspension was identical between all the cars. I had driven a Z0K before I bought my GXP and thought that the Z0K had slightly harder springs but put it off that the GXP was heavier (and they weren't back to back drives so I couldn't really be sure).
Well, a few weeks ago, I heard a rumor. And then it was verified through a second independant source (this time with supporting documentation). There is going to be a Z0K GXP available early this year. It's going to be a base GXP whose only options are spoiler and color. It's going to have the Z0K rear springs and a new front spring developed for the Z0K GXP.
In order to meet eligibility requirements for SCCA racing, the package needs to be for sale through regular outlets by March first.
If they do this, they will have quite a few very annoyed (i.e. pissed off) customers who specifically purchased the GXP specifically for racing. While it's certainly possible that they would do this, it doesn't seem to make sense not have announced this package a bit earlier for the customer's waiting to get the car.
I will eagerily await this annoucnement.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, be a terrible warning!
---------------------------------------------------
Current Stable:
1998 Toyota FJ62 "Bruce"
2006 VW Mk5 GTI DSG "Ingraine"
2007 Mean GXP, Team Zissou!
If they do this it'll be an easy conversion if you have an unoptioned GXP. The only difference is a set of springs. But if you have any options (leather, upgraded stereo, automatic transmission) you'll have to remove those for a complete conversion.
Well that is the trouble; i bought mine with a minimum of equipment, but it still has AC and the upgraded stereo (although would that fall under the comfort and convience rule?)
Yeah i could always strip the AC or trade mine and get a GXP Clubsport...
__________________
If you can't be a good example, be a terrible warning!
---------------------------------------------------
Current Stable:
1998 Toyota FJ62 "Bruce"
2006 VW Mk5 GTI DSG "Ingraine"
2007 Mean GXP, Team Zissou!
In talking with the GM Performance guys last year at the Peru National tour they said that to do a full AC to non-AC conversion you'll have to pull apart the entire interior and change the entire underdash. The non-AC cars have different plumbing for the vents. If it were me, I'd trade the GXP I have and get the Z0K. That is assuming that they make it in time.
Well that is the trouble; i bought mine with a minimum of equipment, but it still has AC and the upgraded stereo (although would that fall under the comfort and convience rule?)
Yeah i could always strip the AC or trade mine and get a GXP Clubsport...
Both the A/C and upgraded radio fall under the C&C rule.
Well i would assume, like the ZOK NAs it would be legal; however I'd have to say i'd be pissed if Pontiac did do this, since they did not announce it at the beginning of the GXP cycle. (Especially since I would have bought that instead of my lightly optioned GXP)
However, unless there is something drastically different between the cars, i doubt that spring rates would make that big of a difference - then again if the top cars at nationals this year are all ZOK GXPs then I'll be looking to replace mine.
I'm hoping that it isn't released until next year...
__________________
If you can't be a good example, be a terrible warning!
---------------------------------------------------
Current Stable:
1998 Toyota FJ62 "Bruce"
2006 VW Mk5 GTI DSG "Ingraine"
2007 Mean GXP, Team Zissou!
However, unless there is something drastically different between the cars, i doubt that spring rates would make that big of a difference - then again if the top cars at nationals this year are all ZOK GXPs then I'll be looking to replace mine.
I'm hoping that it isn't released until next year...
I'm not happy I didn't know about the Z0K GXP when I got mine but there isn't anything we can do about it except adapt. I'll be talking to my dealer about trading my car and/or down classing to a Z0K NA car. I'll lose money but in the grand scheme of things - only 1 or 2 sets of tires.
Alan Dahl will be thrilled. He is next in line for an allocation and can change his to this "Clubsport" GXP.
Yup, so far my GXP isn't even a glint in Pontiac's eye. Up until this point that's been frustrating but if it works out so I can order a Z0K GXP that's great. If not the car I ordered is base except for the radio so I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to get the right parts and upgrade it. In fact I may do that anyway if the Z0K package turns out to be just springs since I would give up nearly $1100 of price protection if I switched models.
As soon as anyone hears anything official please let me know and I'll get on the phone with my dealer to change my order.
If they do this it'll be an easy conversion if you have an unoptioned GXP. The only difference is a set of springs. But if you have any options (leather, upgraded stereo, automatic transmission) you'll have to remove those for a complete conversion.
Depends, if the option is C&C (like the radio) or specifically allowed (like A/C) then you are fine. Where it gets fuzzy are things like different steering wheels or power vs crank windows and that pretty much has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Depends, if the option is C&C (like the radio) or specifically allowed (like A/C) then you are fine. Where it gets fuzzy are things like different steering wheels or power vs crank windows and that pretty much has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
What I have says:
"All standard equipment on the base GXP will be maintained in the GXP&Z0K. "
The standard equipment includes the convienence package (DIC, fogs, cruise) and the prefered package (power windows, locks, and mirrors) that are standard on the GXP. What we would need to ditch is the premium package (leather seats and steering wheel accessory controls). But it might be argued that the accessory controls are part of the accessory and/or fall under the C&C allowance. The steering wheel is otherwise identical to the non-premium package model. Which only leaves the leather seats that would have to swapped out.
well if that's the case, then a car like mine, with only AC and an upgraded radio could be made to match the ZOK GXP pretty easily. Well that makes things at least a bit more palitable.
On a side note, i wonder how many GXPs they've produced so far? If a remember they are only supposed to produce about 5000 GXPs this year - and if they are close to that number might the ZOK GXP not appear this year?
Something to think about...
__________________
If you can't be a good example, be a terrible warning!
---------------------------------------------------
Current Stable:
1998 Toyota FJ62 "Bruce"
2006 VW Mk5 GTI DSG "Ingraine"
2007 Mean GXP, Team Zissou!
If a remember they are only supposed to produce about 5000 GXPs this year - and if they are close to that number might the ZOK GXP not appear this year?
Like I said above. I heard the rumor through two different sources and one came with dates attached. We just have to wait and see.
With my background in vehicle dynamics, my experience is this is not unorthodox at all. Many cars have a higher wheelrate in the rear than the front. The S2000 is only slightly biased to the rear, and the MX-5 is just plain too weak in the rear (you can feel this just by driving it), and in my experience are prolly more the exception than the rule. But I know of MANY cars that are set up with ratios of ride stiffnesses that are biased to the rear.
This does some things for handling -
1) it reduces the need to augment the rear with a very large stabilizer bar, the natural roll distribution from springs is already helping you to achieve turn in and create a stable "pivot" for the vehicle. Remember, in autox stock classes, you're not allowed to play with the rear bar.
2) it creates a more natural pitch feel for weight tranfer, especially in corners. The result is better transient stability when utilizing braking and acceleration while turning
there are other benefits of which I won't continue to bore you with... a simple explanation is the stiffer the rear, the better the "anchor" or "pivot" that the vehicle relies on. Understanding the 'anatomy of a turn' is key here. The front initiates everything, and tho it sounds weird, the rear actually "stops" everything. You need stiffness in the rear for it to "stop" everything that the front is initiating.
Many of the people who think 'drag racing' tend to have lower rear wheelrates - supposedly for 'bite' or a myriad of other reasons. But you're not turning if you're drag racing, and drag racing is never done on chop, transitional tracks that are pavement between concrete reinforcement in corners, or low-lying water seeping areas where the pavement is 'chattery'.
The proof is when you click the stopwatch.
I would love if you could bore me with additional details! I also sent you a PM although my allowance is only 1 message total (??) so I wanted to post here as well.
I sure am glad that this thread has popped back up again. Now that autocross season is in full furry there must be some knowledge being acquired that can be shared. So .....
Earlier in this thread the issues of sway bars came up. Someone mentioned going to a softer configuration on the front through either stiffening the FE2 bar or softening the FE3 bar. Well, in a separate thread I mentioned that I thought that a softer bar might help, caught flack about it, and bought a used FE2 bar for $50 with hardware to try it out. If nothing else, I learned a few things, not the least of which that some rearrangement of bar rates would help but since we can not do anything with the rear bar in Solo2 stock classes it seems to maybe be a stalemate. Why? I feel that the back needs to be stiffened somewhat to keep the car squared up somewhat. I have seen a lot of pictures of my car in action with both the FE3 and FE2 front bars. With the FE2 bar the front showed retention of negative camber (outside wheel) in turns but the car was now leaning so much that the rear wheel appeared to have lost ALL negative camber (and may have been rolled over past 0 to positive). With the 3 bar the car was flatter and cornering forces we controlled to the point where the rear outside wheel appeared to be square to the ground under load. The 2 bar caused the car to become completely tail happy, and adjusting pressures and style to control it cost me a great deal of time on course. But it certainly did accelerate my learning curve on this car. So when the 3 bar went back on I picked up the lost time and THEN SOME!!! Single digit PAX times are there to prove it. So, in the absence of choices, I have drilled another hole inboard of the stock hole on the FE3 bar and after this past weekends two day Salina Divisional I will try the new holes at Heartland Park this coming Sunday. If this causes more push (and I suspect it may) tire pressure and driving adjustment may cover that. A slightly firmer REAR bar could be the ticket for flattening the car even more, but ........... we can't do that YET. Here is the letter I sent SCCA last week (and I was to
