WRX's are fast.. PLEASE EXPLAIN

[0range_240]

I cant take it anymore.. Im flipping through some of these import tuner and scc mags and this is just driving me insane... WHY oh god WHY does everyone think the WRX is like the second coming? So its got AWD... its got a turbocharged engine giving the car mind-blowing-lips-peeling-off-your-face-eyes-sucked-back-into-head acceleration from the 227 ponies of bone-crunching raw power.... BIG DEAL

Why on earth would I fork out 40 grand (CDN) for a car like this? can someone give me a legitimate reason?

Oh yeah, and I forgot... SOMEONE please tell me.. how does 227hp/217ft.lbs of torque and a curb weight of 3085 lbs translate into "0-60 in 5.4" and "1/4 mile in 14.1 @ 95mph" ??!?!?

Me suspects the editors over at car and driver have been suckin back a little too much of grandpas cough medicine, or else have had subaru bend them over the kitchen sink until they promised to publish some fudged numbers...

Before you flame my a$$ for saying all this... consider... these are the performance times on several cars that would be near the WRX's price range when sold

1998 Camaro Z28320hp, 330ft. lbs3400lbs 0-60: 5.5 seconds , 1/4: 14.1 @ 101mph

2003 350z: 3255lbs287hp, 278ft.lbs0-60: 5.4 seconds, 1/4: 14.1 @ 102mph

Those two cars, have major horsepower and torque advantages over the WRX .. and yet are matched by the WRX in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times? how is this possible??!?

Lets look at a car with similar horsepower/weight/drivetrain and see how it fares...

1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse2995lbs210hp, 215ft. lbs 0-60: 6.1 seconds, 1/4: 15.0 @ 92

Considering the facts above, and taking into account the eclipse is 100 lbs LIGHTER.. but lets just assume they are the same weight... how does the extra 17hp in the WRX allow it to do the 1/4 in almost a full second faster, but only have a 3mph higher trap speed?

Im tired of hearing that WRX's are the next best thing since sliced bread, im not an angry person really I just am eternally frustrated with the hype over these cars, and the new STI aswell.. and needed to vent

Can I get an amen

:pface

[s14a]

its all in the awd and transmissionmy friends 2001 prelude has about 230 hp and hits 16.1

[240marcuSX]

Z28s make 320hp??

[240marcuSX]

S14a what do you mean he hits 16.1???

[0range_240]

But the eclipse GSX has an AWD... so your saying that that extra 17 horse and different gearing shaves a second off the WRX's time? If thats the case why dont I just run some cams/headers/intake/JWT ecu/ and an underdrive pulley and maybe a different diff and start trying against some Tegra Type-R's??

Fact of the matter is theres no logical reason it should be that fast... extra power? its beat by the maro, 100hp and 100ft.lb disadvantage? oh maybe its because it weighs 300 lbs less... but... wait... the eclipse weighs 200 lbs less than the WRX and isnt at nearly as much of a horsepower disadvantage yet the WRX supposedly blows its doors off.... it aint a two way street

[0range_240]

and I would question your buddies driving techniques if he cant break into the 14's with 230 horse in that lude... unless ofcourse maybe he has an auto with no fluid...

[0range_240]

yes marcus the 95+ camaros made 320, the 93-95 were rated at 275hp only

wow three posts in a row, go me =P

[dbhittin]

the SS camaro has the much, not the Z28

[0range_240]

blah my bad

[C-Kwik]

I'm not sure about the 2nd Gen, but the 1st Gen Eclipse GSX weight about as much as the WRX. The WRX has 32 more HP and the torque peak is about 1000 RPM higher(WRX is at 4000). While the HP in both cars are at 6000. This tells me the WRX is making more of it's torque at a higher RPM. With the right gear spacing, the WRX has a definite advantage here. The "rea under the curve" in the WRX will be more significant.

And if you compare the trap speeds of the cars you mention in the first post, Notice the Z and the Camaro are 6-7 mph higher. Trap speeds are more indicative of HP. To get the same ET with that much lower trap speed highly indicates a very good launch. I would expect to see a 60 foot that is less than 2 seconds easy. The Camaro and Z are probably both just over 2 seconds through 60 feet.

[240SXedUp]

Listen... the WRX has one of the best reving engines ive ever seen. Its shifting is so quick. You are in 5th gear at 60MPH. its gear ratio is astounding. AWD makes a difference and so does its engine/turbo setup

[PalmerWMD]

And if you compare the trap speeds of the cars you mention in the first post, Notice the Z and the Camaro are 6-7 mph higher. Trap speeds are more indicative of HP. To get the same ET with that much lower trap speed highly indicates a very good launch. I would expect to see a 60 foot that is less than 2 seconds easy. The Camaro and Z are probably both just over 2 seconds through 60 feet.

Exactly.

Fred....

[SeVa-S13]

As far as 0-60 times go...I thought it was common knowledge that the WRX is AWD with 3 LSDs? Oh wait, you did know that...so why the astonishment?

[GEO]

ahh.....

[k6kicker]

hey guys.....peak hp isn't the end all be all...a strong wide powerband makes you ALOT quicker, and having a bad *** awd launch leads to quick 0-60 runs

[GELLIS2586]

Kicker is right. A flat powerband definelty helps speed. Look at the supra. Sure they make alot of power but why do they only hit 11's maybe 10's with 700 hp. Because there low end power is weak, then they jump to a peak power only to drop off again. Supras are dyno kings, but at the track they just dont perform. Most cars with 700hp will do less than 10 second passes. That much power in a 5.0 mustang youll be seeing low 9's maybe 8's with the right setup.

[MarkEmark]

I thought the 350z did 60 in like 5.7 seconds (according to road and track or car and driver, forget which one), and I thought the wrx that you're referring to also did it in like 5.6/5.7, NOT 5.4. Where are you getting these specs?

I'm hoping mine will do 5 seconds flat to 60....It'll have about 50 more hp/torque than the WRX and weighs 350 pounds less--and I'll be able to hit 60 in second, so no third gear shift. My main problem will be traction. Doesnt the WRX require a shift into third before 60 or 62 mph?

[IneedMoney]

As far as 0-60 times go...I thought it was common knowledge that the WRX is AWD with 3 LSDs? Oh wait, you did know that...so why the astonishment?

the sti has 3 lsd's and 300hp! the wrx that is being talked about has one like most awd cars. i took one on a test drive and did not find it all that great at all. the turbo kinda laged to long in that car, but i think the big hype is that it is a cheaper, awd, turbo, and rally car but with all that BS said i dont like it or the hype with the wrx, wrx sti, or lan evo. all nissan.... s13 s14 s15 r32 r33 r34

[240SXer]

1 simple fact, the WRX does not run 14.1. Maybe down hill, or maybe if you made runs all day playing with tire pressure and such it MIGHT hit a single 14.1 run. But it's extremely unlikely. Having gone to the track and seen then Many times. I can tell you that they (at LACR at least), typically run mid 15s in stock trim. That's being launched semi aggressively with like 2.1 60fts. The car does not really have enough power stock to take full advantage of the AWD.

With your average WRX driver the launch won't be all that good. The power/weight isn’t all that good either. With my SR a WRX was able to pull about a hood on me off the line then I just walked away from it pretty bad.

Just like the 99 series Civic Si, 15.7.. What a joke. Best I’ve seen a stock Civic Si run at LACR was 17.0, and I was impressed with that time. I'll grant LACR is 2700ft and has a slick surface, but come on. I ran 16.7 there on my stock KA 240 that's rated at 15.9.

Also, the S2000, believe it or not, I've seen 3 separate S2000s race at LACR, 2 of them ran high 16s, and the other was doing mid 15s. Pathetic. Ask anyone that's been there. LACR is a horrid track but come on..

I can get 2.2 60fts with my 225 Kumo 712s an LSD with my SR.

[Altiman94]

most wrx's i've seen run low 15's/hi 14's bone stock

[240SXer]

Maybe at a good track, but not at LACR. I've only been to LACR so I can't compare what cars run at other tracks, but I know what cars run at LACR. 2700ft.

[Toad[^_^]]

its all in the awd and transmissionmy friends 2001 prelude has about 230 hp and hits 16.1

That ain't right. Tell him to toss the three passengers out of the car next run.

[PROJECTRB240SX]

A BIG FACTOR IN SPEEDS IS GEAR RATIOS, I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH. TWO CARS WITH THE EXACT SAME SPECS BUT ONE HAS A TALLER GEAR RATIO, IT WILL ACCELERATE FASTER BUT THE SPEED WILL TOP OUT SOONER.

[HolyShiznit]

Well, if you guys would like to stop playing paper racer and maybe avoid some paper cuts you could always check out REAL WORLD numbers posted by REAL PEOPLE on http://www.nasioc.com

You can go to the Power Bragging section and look up all sorts of times for stock/slightly modded/and full blown WRX's/2.5rs/STiAs for the WRX running those times, I have personally seen them run 14.2 stock, of course this is with EXTREMELY good 60' and a harsh transmission launch. The reason why most WRX drivers don't "get good times" is because they dont' want to blow their notorious trannies. A bunch of my friends own WRX's and they never hard launched it or hard shifted it and ran high 14's. The one guy that did try to launch hard netted a 14.3 w/ a 1.9 60ft before the transmission blew out a day later(probably because of the launch)

Just my .02

[TurboKA37]

why all the hype? because you get alot for what your paying. good styling, AWD, good handling, world of aftermarket, good interior, a turbocharged engine(even if it isnt a lot of hp stock), and a fun car.

[240SXer]

More Hp than a stock S13 motor. A lot more boost too. I don't think it has much more potential (if any) than a 240 chassis. But 240s are pretty popular these days also. I do like the fact that it's 4 door though. I'd rather have an SRT-4 because of sheer performance, but a WRX is also a nice car. It's not a performance monster though.

[SimpleS14]

I'm too lazy to read all these posts...but IMO the WRX is a nice car because its AWD, 4DR, an Import, and has ALOT of aftermarket support.

[creophus]

I'm not sure about the 2nd Gen, but the 1st Gen Eclipse GSX weight about as much as the WRX. The WRX has 32 more HP and the torque peak is about 1000 RPM higher(WRX is at 4000). While the HP in both cars are at 6000. This tells me the WRX is making more of it's torque at a higher RPM. With the right gear spacing, the WRX has a definite advantage here. The "rea under the curve" in the WRX will be more significant.

And if you compare the trap speeds of the cars you mention in the first post, Notice the Z and the Camaro are 6-7 mph higher. Trap speeds are more indicative of HP. To get the same ET with that much lower trap speed highly indicates a very good launch. I would expect to see a 60 foot that is less than 2 seconds easy. The Camaro and Z are probably both just over 2 seconds through 60 feet.

Don't you mean to say that the WRX is making more of its torque at a lower RPM? How would making its torque at a higher RPM (later in the power curve) give it an advantage. Wouldn't that give it a disadvantage? All things being equal, more power sooner is always better. I think that's what you're saying since you mentioned the area under the curve. That's the real measure of power...other than taking it to the track. Peak numbers don't tell an accurate story. Just like audio equipment. Peak ratings are worthless. RMS is what its all about.

[spec-u-later]

More Hp than a stock S13 motor. A lot more boost too. I don't think it has much more potential (if any) than a 240 chassis. But 240s are pretty popular these days also. I do like the fact that it's 4 door though. I'd rather have an SRT-4 because of sheer performance, but a WRX is also a nice car. It's not a performance monster though.

Not to be a jerk but what's your point. The s13 chassis is 15 years old so they have had time for development. Even still the wrx has plenty of potential with tuners getting well into the 700 hp range. You also have thee awd which IMO gives more potential. As for the srt 4 well... thats your choice. It might be faster but so what. I would take wrx over an srt any day but thats me and again I'm not trying to be prick, just adding my .02.

[raging panda]

If you are taking the times from Car and Driver or one of those mags, I've heard that they use a correction factor to determine the "actual" quarter mile times. So the car may run a 15.3 in the quarter, but they figure with lower track temps and lower air temp that the car may run a 14.7. I could be wrong, but I remember reading that somewhere. So when you guys see 15.5 times from WRX at the track, they would run a 14.7 if you were at sea level early in the morning.