Me and the WRX
kidrocket
03-14-2002, 05:44 PM
actually youre the dumbass. if you look at my post, i said its NOT uncommon for a type r to run 14s. at least i can read. get your shit straight. dont jump down my throat
dont mean to sound like an ass, but dont attack me unless your sure about what i said
dont mean to sound like an ass, but dont attack me unless your sure about what i said
LjasonL
03-14-2002, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by '00TypeR
LOL you guys are funny. anyways, who said it's uncommon for a type R to hit 14's? whoever said that bring your ass to the strip and i'll run 14's all day. dumbass that said that. and yes i have much respects for the wrx, it is pretty fast i must say. my best friend has a silver one and we drag all the time. i'll tell you this right now, it comes down to the driver. i;ve driven his car many of times and he's drove mine. we've dragged back and forth. the cars are pretty much even just depends on the start. but i'll tell you this, when we go autoX and to the track, i destroy his ass. the wrx isn't that great of a track car, it just needs to stick to rally.
you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.
LOL you guys are funny. anyways, who said it's uncommon for a type R to hit 14's? whoever said that bring your ass to the strip and i'll run 14's all day. dumbass that said that. and yes i have much respects for the wrx, it is pretty fast i must say. my best friend has a silver one and we drag all the time. i'll tell you this right now, it comes down to the driver. i;ve driven his car many of times and he's drove mine. we've dragged back and forth. the cars are pretty much even just depends on the start. but i'll tell you this, when we go autoX and to the track, i destroy his ass. the wrx isn't that great of a track car, it just needs to stick to rally.
you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.
carrrnuttt
03-14-2002, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.
I agree and disagree with you.
1st, I'd like to know what mods you have in the '00 R, to keep up with, and occassionally beat a WRX, When WRX's are capable of hitting 13.8's stock. In the mags, they're running as low as 14.1, when the Mustang Cobra is listed at 14.1 itself and the Mustang GT at 14.5.
2nd, I agree with his TypeR killing the WRX on an autocross track. In straight line, or a wet/gravel track, the WRX has the advantage. The TypeR's tossability on a curving/flat track is legendary. Case in point, the recent comparo between the TypeR and a Mustang GT, where the GT pretty much beat the TypeR in all the acceleration tests, but the TypeR trounced the MGT on the road course. Also, in a recent 4door econobox comparo by Car&Driver, they have the Protege MP3 beating a 4door Impreza. They said that the AWD grip actually HAMPERED it at the track.
you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.
I agree and disagree with you.
1st, I'd like to know what mods you have in the '00 R, to keep up with, and occassionally beat a WRX, When WRX's are capable of hitting 13.8's stock. In the mags, they're running as low as 14.1, when the Mustang Cobra is listed at 14.1 itself and the Mustang GT at 14.5.
2nd, I agree with his TypeR killing the WRX on an autocross track. In straight line, or a wet/gravel track, the WRX has the advantage. The TypeR's tossability on a curving/flat track is legendary. Case in point, the recent comparo between the TypeR and a Mustang GT, where the GT pretty much beat the TypeR in all the acceleration tests, but the TypeR trounced the MGT on the road course. Also, in a recent 4door econobox comparo by Car&Driver, they have the Protege MP3 beating a 4door Impreza. They said that the AWD grip actually HAMPERED it at the track.
LjasonL
03-14-2002, 10:57 PM
okay well i assumed he was talking about a stock or near stock type r
and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.
and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.
carrrnuttt
03-15-2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
okay well i assumed he was talking about a stock or near stock type r
and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.
You're right. But to clarify, '00TypeR is talking about an autocross track. VERY tight. A Mazda Miata beat a TypeR in this setting, because of the Miata's superior sliding prowess and tossability.
okay well i assumed he was talking about a stock or near stock type r
and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.
You're right. But to clarify, '00TypeR is talking about an autocross track. VERY tight. A Mazda Miata beat a TypeR in this setting, because of the Miata's superior sliding prowess and tossability.
'00TypeR
03-15-2002, 03:23 AM
first of all kidrocket, it was a mistake calm the fuck down. second, i respect suby's hands down. they nice cars quick and handle extremely well. NOW on an autoX track and a real GT track i KNOW i can take my friends WRX. put some gravel or water on the track, he'll stomp all over me don't get me wrong. but strictly race wise i can take him. i did with my car stock, now i'm running TEIN HA's with full upper pillow ball mounts and some KUMHO victoracer's. i'm not trashing on wrx or subey's, just telling you my opinion and how it is. btw, why the wagon?
'00TypeR
03-15-2002, 03:25 AM
oh and another thing, i get my ass handed to me by miata's, mr2 spider's, and even a tercel, autoX has nothing to do with your street mods, it's all driver. nuff said.
kidrocket
03-15-2002, 10:09 AM
no harm done i just didnt like being called a dumbass for no reason. nice car by the way
xjohnx
03-15-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
now that i have about 300 runs under my belt im getting on average 12.9 which means bye bye gsr :D .
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4.
now that i have about 300 runs under my belt im getting on average 12.9 which means bye bye gsr :D .
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-15-2002, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by xjohnx
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, durned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4. ??????????????????????????????????????????
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, durned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4. ??????????????????????????????????????????
xjohnx
03-15-2002, 01:03 PM
??????????????????????????????????????????
what's the question?
what's the question?
LjasonL
03-15-2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by xjohnx
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4.
well then u have an abnormally fast type r.
no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, [email protected] in the 1/4.
well then u have an abnormally fast type r.
LjasonL
03-15-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by '00TypeR
btw, why the wagon?
didnt u read my sig??? all the cool kids drive wagons! :p but seriously i think it looks fuller, more complete, and it kinda distinguishes me from "wrx-mania" where everyone is buying a sedan. plus better platform for sound system, and handles better in my opinion cuz the extra weight over its ass end makes it understeer less. and since they cost nearly the same, with the wagon u get that extra little bit over the rear end so its more car for the money! :silly2:
btw, why the wagon?
didnt u read my sig??? all the cool kids drive wagons! :p but seriously i think it looks fuller, more complete, and it kinda distinguishes me from "wrx-mania" where everyone is buying a sedan. plus better platform for sound system, and handles better in my opinion cuz the extra weight over its ass end makes it understeer less. and since they cost nearly the same, with the wagon u get that extra little bit over the rear end so its more car for the money! :silly2:
newt2
03-15-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
well then u have an abnormally fast type r.
No he doesn't. You're just really confused as to what Type R's run. Mid to low 14's are very typical for those of us that know how to drive our cars. Don't beleive me? I cordially invite you to come to the largest gathering of Type R owners on the net (literally a couple hundred of us)and ask them what they run. Most will be gald to post bone stock timeslips for you. We're all located at www.honda-tech.com. There's a forum specifically for ITRs on the front page.
My first time at the track I ran a altitude corrected 14.6 (I run at 5800 feet above sea level).
Also there's no way your car will turn a 14.9 with just those mods. Maybe a 15.3. I know I know, you plugged it into your calculator and it said that's what you run. A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000. Think about it, there's no way your going to accelerate another 16mph in a scant 320 feet while in third gear. It's just not going to happen.
The facts are that if you haven't actually ran a full 1/4 mile then you don't know what it runs in the 1/4. There's no way you can, you haven't actually done it.
Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?
well then u have an abnormally fast type r.
No he doesn't. You're just really confused as to what Type R's run. Mid to low 14's are very typical for those of us that know how to drive our cars. Don't beleive me? I cordially invite you to come to the largest gathering of Type R owners on the net (literally a couple hundred of us)and ask them what they run. Most will be gald to post bone stock timeslips for you. We're all located at www.honda-tech.com. There's a forum specifically for ITRs on the front page.
My first time at the track I ran a altitude corrected 14.6 (I run at 5800 feet above sea level).
Also there's no way your car will turn a 14.9 with just those mods. Maybe a 15.3. I know I know, you plugged it into your calculator and it said that's what you run. A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000. Think about it, there's no way your going to accelerate another 16mph in a scant 320 feet while in third gear. It's just not going to happen.
The facts are that if you haven't actually ran a full 1/4 mile then you don't know what it runs in the 1/4. There's no way you can, you haven't actually done it.
Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?
cybercrx00
03-15-2002, 04:34 PM
just out of curiosity what is your real time, not altitude corrected?? Altitude correction can be just as bad as trying to guess 1320 from a 1000 ft time??
newt2
03-15-2002, 04:39 PM
15.8@88mph
Altitude correction factor for Bandimere speedway in Denver CO is .91.
I know it's not perfect, but it's all we have to go by, not to mention that the corrected time coincides with what just about every other ITR in the country runs.
OTOH, there has never been anyone anywhere on the net claiming to have run in the 14's with a 2.5 RS or TS wagon with nothing but a cat back and air filter, especially without a timeslip to back it up.
Altitude correction factor for Bandimere speedway in Denver CO is .91.
I know it's not perfect, but it's all we have to go by, not to mention that the corrected time coincides with what just about every other ITR in the country runs.
OTOH, there has never been anyone anywhere on the net claiming to have run in the 14's with a 2.5 RS or TS wagon with nothing but a cat back and air filter, especially without a timeslip to back it up.
EricGST
03-15-2002, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1
since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.
13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner
NOW do u believe me???
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG
Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info
R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53
With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1
since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.
13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner
NOW do u believe me???
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG
Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info
R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53
With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.
LjasonL
03-16-2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by newt2
A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000.
hey guy i get 96-97 in the 1/4 mile. we have a 1/4 track marked off on a back road, no timing lights of course but the distance is accurate. and considering im still on stock tires i doubt my speedometer is that off. i NEVER read below 95 through the 1/4.
like i said that wasnt my best timeslip, that was the one i have on the computer desk.
and other guy, no shit a honda could have the same speed as i do but a slower time. i get off the line WAAAY faster than any comparable honda ever dreamed of. so maybe we have about the same trap speed at the end, but that time i was doing 40 mph while hes still doing 20 mph will give me a considerably better e/t. i dont know if u realize this, but e/t and trap speed ARE NOT locked together, they can vary.
A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000.
hey guy i get 96-97 in the 1/4 mile. we have a 1/4 track marked off on a back road, no timing lights of course but the distance is accurate. and considering im still on stock tires i doubt my speedometer is that off. i NEVER read below 95 through the 1/4.
like i said that wasnt my best timeslip, that was the one i have on the computer desk.
and other guy, no shit a honda could have the same speed as i do but a slower time. i get off the line WAAAY faster than any comparable honda ever dreamed of. so maybe we have about the same trap speed at the end, but that time i was doing 40 mph while hes still doing 20 mph will give me a considerably better e/t. i dont know if u realize this, but e/t and trap speed ARE NOT locked together, they can vary.
Self
03-16-2002, 01:26 AM
Well, since you've never ran the quarter, you can't really say what you'd run or what you'd trap at. Personally, I have a hard time believing that a car that runs a 12.9 second 1000 meters, can clock in at anything less than about a 15.4 or so. I don't really know of course, but anything less than that, I'd have to see it to believe it.
LjasonL
03-16-2002, 01:49 AM
from the very beginning i have said that i dont know exactly what it would run in the 1/4 mile, i said if u do the conversion math its about 14.9, so i slacked off of that by saying 14.9-15.2 judging myself slower than what the conversion math said... the fact that i was judging myself slower shows that i dont really trust the math myself, but thats what the conversion says.
LjasonL
03-16-2002, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by newt2
Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?
a pearly white color. like i said i dont know the guy personally maybe he was a shitty driver, BUT on the other hand maybe he wasnt, IF the conversion math is right i see no reason i couldnt beat an itr through a short track.
which brings us to IS the math right? like u said i dont know, i havent ever been on a full 1/4 mile. by saying that 93 mph equates to about 14.9 thats makes me think MAYBE it is right cuz i get slightly faster than that, but i dont know for sure. ive always been a bit wary of that, ive always guessed my car a bit slower in the 15.2 range, BUT the math is the only thing i have to go by and the math says 14.9, just like your "altitude corrected" math says 14.6, but all youve actually ran was a 15.8...
if u can go around telling people u ran a "altitude corrected" 14.6, then why cant i tell people i ran a "distance corrected" 14.9? dont be so damn hypocritical.
Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?
a pearly white color. like i said i dont know the guy personally maybe he was a shitty driver, BUT on the other hand maybe he wasnt, IF the conversion math is right i see no reason i couldnt beat an itr through a short track.
which brings us to IS the math right? like u said i dont know, i havent ever been on a full 1/4 mile. by saying that 93 mph equates to about 14.9 thats makes me think MAYBE it is right cuz i get slightly faster than that, but i dont know for sure. ive always been a bit wary of that, ive always guessed my car a bit slower in the 15.2 range, BUT the math is the only thing i have to go by and the math says 14.9, just like your "altitude corrected" math says 14.6, but all youve actually ran was a 15.8...
if u can go around telling people u ran a "altitude corrected" 14.6, then why cant i tell people i ran a "distance corrected" 14.9? dont be so damn hypocritical.
'00TypeR
03-16-2002, 04:15 AM
i'll own you all at the track! :D
jOYRiDe
03-16-2002, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by '00TypeR
i'll own you all at the track! :D beating a wrx would be a sight to see :coolguy:
stock against stock, the better driver would win
i'll own you all at the track! :D beating a wrx would be a sight to see :coolguy:
stock against stock, the better driver would win
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-16-2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:
the ITR engine is supposed to be a piece of shit its been engineered to death
HONDA engineering even says its shit so don't give me any BS cuz thats the way it is ! check the new super street if ya don't believe me
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:
the ITR engine is supposed to be a piece of shit its been engineered to death
HONDA engineering even says its shit so don't give me any BS cuz thats the way it is ! check the new super street if ya don't believe me
'00TypeR
03-16-2002, 02:00 PM
so?! piece of shit? so wut you believe everything you read? wtf you drive? an nsx? your motor is piece of shit too. fuck with the money you pay for an nsx i'd just grab me a gtr and smoke the shit outta you. let's admit it, honda uses high compression small engines to pull out the most hp on a small motor and for it to be econimacally reliable. so if you say an ITR motor is shit, than anybody that owns a honda motor out there sucks. THERE IS NO HONDA MOTOR THAT IS A TORQUE SPEWING MONSTER. from the nsx motor to the 3.2 TL, they are not torque happy. ignorant bastard. SuperStreet says so....god can you be anymore of a fuckin n00b?
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-16-2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by '00TypeR
so?! piece of shit? so wut you believe everything you read? wtf you drive? an nsx? your motor is piece of shit too. fuck with the money you pay for an nsx i'd just grab me a gtr and smoke the shit outta you. let's admit it, honda uses high compression small engines to pull out the most hp on a small motor and for it to be econimacally reliable. so if you say an ITR motor is shit, than anybody that owns a honda motor out there sucks. THERE IS NO HONDA MOTOR THAT IS A TORQUE SPEWING MONSTER. from the nsx motor to the 3.2 TL, they are not torque happy. ignorant bastard. SuperStreet says so....god can you be anymore of a fuckin n00b?
i just read that again u're a prick aren't you the better engine is the B16 according to HONDA MOTOR CORP and yes its official you are a bent bastard get you nuts checked Type R engine is shit honda says so
haha u tard i don't have an NSX hahahaha
HONDA Engineering where they teach the mechanics of the future said so! So don't get pissy with me i'll scan it in !
so?! piece of shit? so wut you believe everything you read? wtf you drive? an nsx? your motor is piece of shit too. fuck with the money you pay for an nsx i'd just grab me a gtr and smoke the shit outta you. let's admit it, honda uses high compression small engines to pull out the most hp on a small motor and for it to be econimacally reliable. so if you say an ITR motor is shit, than anybody that owns a honda motor out there sucks. THERE IS NO HONDA MOTOR THAT IS A TORQUE SPEWING MONSTER. from the nsx motor to the 3.2 TL, they are not torque happy. ignorant bastard. SuperStreet says so....god can you be anymore of a fuckin n00b?
i just read that again u're a prick aren't you the better engine is the B16 according to HONDA MOTOR CORP and yes its official you are a bent bastard get you nuts checked Type R engine is shit honda says so
haha u tard i don't have an NSX hahahaha
HONDA Engineering where they teach the mechanics of the future said so! So don't get pissy with me i'll scan it in !
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-16-2002, 02:21 PM
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/308410mag5.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/579864mag4.jpg
excuse the poor quality i couldn't get AF to accept it otherwise
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/579864mag4.jpg
excuse the poor quality i couldn't get AF to accept it otherwise
carrrnuttt
03-16-2002, 07:18 PM
This is why the best b18c5s in the country are running b16 heads, as far as stock heads go.
At the bottom end, the b18c5 is superior...titanium rods anyone? This is why the best b16s in the country run TypeR pistons/cranks as far as stock parts go.
At the bottom end, the b18c5 is superior...titanium rods anyone? This is why the best b16s in the country run TypeR pistons/cranks as far as stock parts go.
inferno
03-18-2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by EricGST
Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info
R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53
With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.
ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip. Projected 1/4 mile times are just that...unless you have a time slip with a full 1/4 mile, don't make claims. That is the end of the discussion. Projected and corrected 1/4 mile times hold no merit.
Oh and NSX, the text that you put down can be interpretted in a few ways. How I interpret it is that they are easily available and cheap....also, you forget that in Japan, there is no number designation for the Integra Si motor(US spec GSR) or the Integra Type R...both are B18C.
Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info
R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53
With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.
ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip. Projected 1/4 mile times are just that...unless you have a time slip with a full 1/4 mile, don't make claims. That is the end of the discussion. Projected and corrected 1/4 mile times hold no merit.
Oh and NSX, the text that you put down can be interpretted in a few ways. How I interpret it is that they are easily available and cheap....also, you forget that in Japan, there is no number designation for the Integra Si motor(US spec GSR) or the Integra Type R...both are B18C.
LjasonL
03-18-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by inferno
ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip.
haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.
ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip.
haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.
LjasonL
03-18-2002, 03:36 PM
man that hondas supposed "timeslip" he listed only gained from 71mph to 88mph from the 1/8th mile to the 1/4 mile, youre telling me he gained 71 mph through the 1st half of the race and only 16mph through the 2nd half, c'mon give me something believable. sure a car will gain more in the 1st half, but not 443.75% more. thats rediculous. did he not have a 4th gear AT ALL? if that IS a real timeslip that guy missed a shift big time, or his car basically DIED OUT in the top end of that race and he didnt have any more power. man i get over 95mph through the 1/4 mile.
a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4
how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.
a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4
how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.
kidrocket
03-18-2002, 04:38 PM
15.5-15.6 i think. Nissan overrated that engine from what i read
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.
Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.
I wanna see how you explain this away.
haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.
Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.
I wanna see how you explain this away.
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-19-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.
I wanna see how you explain this away.
ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???
Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.
I wanna see how you explain this away.
ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???
94tegRS
03-19-2002, 12:23 AM
well actually I heard something one time about how the WRX and the ITR had the same 0-60 but the ITR had a higher top end because the WRX was geared so low, maybe that is why he has to shift into 4th, my car is an RS wiht I/H/E and anyways I have to shift at about 95, now I know the IHE didnt affect that, But I just had to say that I marked off a 1/4 mile once, not the most acurate but I was only at 92 when i cropssed the line and im a good driver, is a non turbo impreza wagon reallly faster than my car??? even with him having intake and a universal muffler or whateve, I still am embarassed if that white waqgon is faster than my car.
oh god i hope not
oh god i hope not
94tegRS
03-19-2002, 12:25 AM
dangit someone got the gearing thing in there before i had the chanxce to hit submit
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
man that hondas supposed "timeslip" he listed only gained from 71mph to 88mph from the 1/8th mile to the 1/4 mile, youre telling me he gained 71 mph through the 1st half of the race and only 16mph through the 2nd half, c'mon give me something believable. sure a car will gain more in the 1st half, but not 443.75% more. thats rediculous. did he not have a 4th gear AT ALL? if that IS a real timeslip that guy missed a shift big time, or his car basically DIED OUT in the top end of that race and he didnt have any more power. man i get over 95mph through the 1/4 mile.
a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4
how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.
Actually, 71MPH is the Civic's 1000FT speed. It took him 2.6 seconds from 71MPH to 88MPH. You claim this is too slow. It takes a 385HP 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2.96 seconds to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You don't believe me? I got this from page 56 of the April 2001 issue of Motor Trend, where the mag is racing the Z06 against an FR200 Focus. Incidentally, the 304HP Focus took 3.65 secs to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio. Although the power-to-weight of both cars are within 1LB of each other, the Corvette has a better drag coefficient.
Bottomline, if you are claiming that your car is faster than this, I want some of what you are smoking.
man that hondas supposed "timeslip" he listed only gained from 71mph to 88mph from the 1/8th mile to the 1/4 mile, youre telling me he gained 71 mph through the 1st half of the race and only 16mph through the 2nd half, c'mon give me something believable. sure a car will gain more in the 1st half, but not 443.75% more. thats rediculous. did he not have a 4th gear AT ALL? if that IS a real timeslip that guy missed a shift big time, or his car basically DIED OUT in the top end of that race and he didnt have any more power. man i get over 95mph through the 1/4 mile.
a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4
how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.
Actually, 71MPH is the Civic's 1000FT speed. It took him 2.6 seconds from 71MPH to 88MPH. You claim this is too slow. It takes a 385HP 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2.96 seconds to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You don't believe me? I got this from page 56 of the April 2001 issue of Motor Trend, where the mag is racing the Z06 against an FR200 Focus. Incidentally, the 304HP Focus took 3.65 secs to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio. Although the power-to-weight of both cars are within 1LB of each other, the Corvette has a better drag coefficient.
Bottomline, if you are claiming that your car is faster than this, I want some of what you are smoking.
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???
I stand corrected. I researched and found this:
I 3.55 4.9 32 mph (6500 rpm)
II 2.11 8.3 54 mph (6500 rpm)
III 1.45 12.0 78 mph (6500 rpm)
IV 1.09 16.0 104 mph (6500 rpm)
V 0.78 22.4 124 mph (5550 rpm)
From this article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1997/September/199709_roadtest_subaru_impreza25rs.xml?&Manufacturer=Subaru&Name=Impreza%20Sedan&class=43&page=4
This is the gearing and top-speed per-gear for the Subaru 2.5RS. Now, this was done in '97 to a '98 Impreza, which by the way is lighter than delaysion's car, but I'm sure the engine and gearing specs are the same.
By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.
ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???
I stand corrected. I researched and found this:
I 3.55 4.9 32 mph (6500 rpm)
II 2.11 8.3 54 mph (6500 rpm)
III 1.45 12.0 78 mph (6500 rpm)
IV 1.09 16.0 104 mph (6500 rpm)
V 0.78 22.4 124 mph (5550 rpm)
From this article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1997/September/199709_roadtest_subaru_impreza25rs.xml?&Manufacturer=Subaru&Name=Impreza%20Sedan&class=43&page=4
This is the gearing and top-speed per-gear for the Subaru 2.5RS. Now, this was done in '97 to a '98 Impreza, which by the way is lighter than delaysion's car, but I'm sure the engine and gearing specs are the same.
By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1
since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.
13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner
NOW do u believe me???
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG
If you look up at these marks, it is VERY similar to the marks for the 2.5RS they tested in the link I presented. Take a look:
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.9
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.3
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.9
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.5
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18.7
100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.3
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38.0
Lessee:
His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH
2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH
His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH
2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH
The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?
....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph
He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1
since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.
13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner
NOW do u believe me???
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG
If you look up at these marks, it is VERY similar to the marks for the 2.5RS they tested in the link I presented. Take a look:
C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5
40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2
50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.9
60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.3
70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.9
80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.5
90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18.7
100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.3
110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38.0
Lessee:
His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH
2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH
His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH
2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH
The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?
....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph
He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.
HondaAdict
03-19-2002, 07:37 AM
If you want a kick ass AWD Subaru is where to go!!!!
G_racer
03-19-2002, 11:08 AM
I like all of the post guys THANX. But i still *Greatly Dislike* the WRX, no matter how fast you guys can prove this little chuck wagon can go, ill never change my mind. Ther will always be a bigger and better car out there that will romp the WRX to pieces.:D
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.
yeah having closer gearing than the other guy does hurt your acceleration :rolleyes: what can u not come up with any more "facts" so youre making up stuff like this now?
and guy with the integra, no offense but im absolutely sure my car is faster than an rs with i/h/e, unles your just that much of an amazing driver over the 10-15 integras with i/h/e i have raced before.
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio.
oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...
By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.
yeah having closer gearing than the other guy does hurt your acceleration :rolleyes: what can u not come up with any more "facts" so youre making up stuff like this now?
and guy with the integra, no offense but im absolutely sure my car is faster than an rs with i/h/e, unles your just that much of an amazing driver over the 10-15 integras with i/h/e i have raced before.
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio.
oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH
2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH
His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH
2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH
The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?
....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph
He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.
its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?
lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1
thanks for the help.
His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH
2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH
His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH
2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH
The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?
....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph
He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.
its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?
lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1
thanks for the help.
cybercrx00
03-19-2002, 03:09 PM
I think there is no way for you to win this argument, I ran into this similar situation a year ago, because I posted some kills on some ls1's in my 300zx tt which dynoed 367hp and 393 tq, and people started calling BS that there is no way a 300zx can beat ls1's.....mostly I think it was the good ol' boys thinking nothing can beat a v8 no matter what kinda power it puts out. Some people just don't have anything better to do than argue
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by cybercrx00
I think there is no way for you to win this argument, I ran into this similar situation a year ago, because I posted some kills on some ls1's in my 300zx tt which dynoed 367hp and 393 tq, and people started calling BS that there is no way a 300zx can beat ls1's.....mostly I think it was the good ol' boys thinking nothing can beat a v8 no matter what kinda power it puts out. Some people just don't have anything better to do than argue
hehe yeah i think your right, these guys have their minds set on thinking they know everything about a car probably none of them have ever set foot in and no amount of evidence i supply will change their mind.
I think there is no way for you to win this argument, I ran into this similar situation a year ago, because I posted some kills on some ls1's in my 300zx tt which dynoed 367hp and 393 tq, and people started calling BS that there is no way a 300zx can beat ls1's.....mostly I think it was the good ol' boys thinking nothing can beat a v8 no matter what kinda power it puts out. Some people just don't have anything better to do than argue
hehe yeah i think your right, these guys have their minds set on thinking they know everything about a car probably none of them have ever set foot in and no amount of evidence i supply will change their mind.
PFCfutrell
03-19-2002, 03:33 PM
I raced a new WRX last Saturday at the track, I beat him off the line but he took me by about 3 or 4 carlengths in the end. I hadn't seen him before so i'm guessing that he didn't know the car terribly well and didn't launch very well. I beat an '89 Civic hatch with a B16+all the bolt-ons and beat him by two tenths. I think that a lot of people just suck at driving, i'm not a great driver or anything but it's kind of weird when my mostly stock car embarasses a turbo AWD or a RWD with slicks just becaus they can't launch to save their lives. I'm going to the track Thursday (hopefully) to try and improve my 60' times, i'm not happy with occasional 2.2's, I want them every time with 2.1's scattered in their.
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?
lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1
thanks for the help.
Actually, you're not ahead by .7 seconds at all. The speed where you have this advantage is at 68.99, which is behind the RS by 1.1MPH, which based on my earlier post, is not that easy to get at these speeds. It is completely conceivable that it'll take you the full .679 seconds to attain that. That is just over half a second. Same with the 2.1MPH the RS has with you having to catch up to that in 1.385 secs. We've already established that this is not as easy as it appears, because drag gets in the way at these speeds. Don't say that you actually cross the line at 95MPH because YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You are assuming this from this rudimentary track you have run on. Run it on a real track, THEN I'll apologize to you.
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...
The Impreza still has better coefficient than your Wagon. Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?
lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1
thanks for the help.
Actually, you're not ahead by .7 seconds at all. The speed where you have this advantage is at 68.99, which is behind the RS by 1.1MPH, which based on my earlier post, is not that easy to get at these speeds. It is completely conceivable that it'll take you the full .679 seconds to attain that. That is just over half a second. Same with the 2.1MPH the RS has with you having to catch up to that in 1.385 secs. We've already established that this is not as easy as it appears, because drag gets in the way at these speeds. Don't say that you actually cross the line at 95MPH because YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You are assuming this from this rudimentary track you have run on. Run it on a real track, THEN I'll apologize to you.
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...
The Impreza still has better coefficient than your Wagon. Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.
Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.
94tegRS
03-19-2002, 07:04 PM
Im not sure, but this is what im think about the RSX 5 vs. 6 speed
RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed
RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.
ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.
Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.
hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.
ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.
LjasonL
03-19-2002, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by 94tegRS
Im not sure, but this is what im think about the RSX 5 vs. 6 speed
RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed
i apologize i thought they had the same hp numbers just different transmissions.
sooo, well just look at a 5 speed new celica vs a 6 speed new celica
Im not sure, but this is what im think about the RSX 5 vs. 6 speed
RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed
i apologize i thought they had the same hp numbers just different transmissions.
sooo, well just look at a 5 speed new celica vs a 6 speed new celica
94tegRS
03-19-2002, 07:19 PM
yeah, well I wasnt sure, but I just researched it and found this out-
Powertrain 2.0-liter, DOHC i-VTEC, 16-valve
Horsepower RSX - 160 hp @ 6500 rpm
RSX Type S - 200 hp @ 7400 rpm
Torque, SAE Net RSX - 141 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm
RSX Type S - 142 lb.-ft. @ 6000 rpm
Redline RSX - 6800 rpm
RSX Type S - 7900 rpm
Bore & Stroke 3.38 in. x 3.38 in.
Compression Ratio RSX - 9.8:1
RSX Type S - 11.0:1
5-speed manual transmission* Ratios (:1)
1st 3.266
2nd 1.880
3rd 1.212
4th 0.921
5th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388
6-speed manual transmission** Ratios (:1)
1st 3.266
2nd 2.130
3rd 1.517
4th 1.147
5th 0.921
6th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388
oif you want to look at the fullm specs for both check out this link, http://www.acura.com/model_RSX/rsx_spec_results.asp
Powertrain 2.0-liter, DOHC i-VTEC, 16-valve
Horsepower RSX - 160 hp @ 6500 rpm
RSX Type S - 200 hp @ 7400 rpm
Torque, SAE Net RSX - 141 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm
RSX Type S - 142 lb.-ft. @ 6000 rpm
Redline RSX - 6800 rpm
RSX Type S - 7900 rpm
Bore & Stroke 3.38 in. x 3.38 in.
Compression Ratio RSX - 9.8:1
RSX Type S - 11.0:1
5-speed manual transmission* Ratios (:1)
1st 3.266
2nd 1.880
3rd 1.212
4th 0.921
5th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388
6-speed manual transmission** Ratios (:1)
1st 3.266
2nd 2.130
3rd 1.517
4th 1.147
5th 0.921
6th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388
oif you want to look at the fullm specs for both check out this link, http://www.acura.com/model_RSX/rsx_spec_results.asp
carrrnuttt
03-19-2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.
Uhm again...NO. Have you ever seen an actual acceleration graph? Do you even know what that is? Even on a very good sequential gear, there is ALWAYS a dip in acceleration where there are shift points...the sequentials just have a lesser one than the regular manuals/autos. The AWD Subarus have the closer gearing because they have to overcome more drag on their engines. That is what having all four wheels drag on the engine can do.
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.
ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.
Look...you are doing a lot of speculating, and frankly, so am I. You're speculations include the fact that I'm a "magazine racer". That is a cute statement from such a cute(read: tiny) mind, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are trying to flame(so was I, above, just to pre-empt you pointing it out to me later). I have been driving stick regularly for 11 years now, and learned how to drive stick over 20 years ago. I just like to cover my statements from documented facts, not by assumptions like: "based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".
We could end all this and answer a lot of questions if you'd just go and run on an ACTUAL quarter-mile track, or even borrowing a G-Tech from somebody. At this point, my speculations end, and hopefully, so does yours.
having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.
Uhm again...NO. Have you ever seen an actual acceleration graph? Do you even know what that is? Even on a very good sequential gear, there is ALWAYS a dip in acceleration where there are shift points...the sequentials just have a lesser one than the regular manuals/autos. The AWD Subarus have the closer gearing because they have to overcome more drag on their engines. That is what having all four wheels drag on the engine can do.
Originally posted by ldelaysionl
hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.
ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.
Look...you are doing a lot of speculating, and frankly, so am I. You're speculations include the fact that I'm a "magazine racer". That is a cute statement from such a cute(read: tiny) mind, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are trying to flame(so was I, above, just to pre-empt you pointing it out to me later). I have been driving stick regularly for 11 years now, and learned how to drive stick over 20 years ago. I just like to cover my statements from documented facts, not by assumptions like: "based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".
We could end all this and answer a lot of questions if you'd just go and run on an ACTUAL quarter-mile track, or even borrowing a G-Tech from somebody. At this point, my speculations end, and hopefully, so does yours.
LjasonL
03-20-2002, 01:21 AM
god will this thread ever die?
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
"based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".
actually, my assumption was based on a mathematical formula widely used and accepted to convert 1000ft e/t and mph to 1/4 mile e/t and mph. it so happened that this assumption was within 0.1 seconds of the numbers i calculated based upon the 2.5rs timeslip u posted. IF we were to add my "homemade track" calculations into this, that would make 3 different means of calculating that have all come up with roughly the same time.
and are u actually arguing that shorter gearing on a car will create faster acceleration? if u are then u must not know anything about gearing.
sorry i dont know anyone with a gtech and the 1/4 mile track is a long ways away, so what i have told u is all i have to go by. i have no solid evidence that i CAN run a low 15, but u have no solid evidence that i CANT run a low 15. and solid evidence aside, i DO have mathematical evidence that i can. u even posted some of it yourself. why dont u just stop trying to argue with me at every turn and think about it for a moment.
does anyone here argue a 99 civic si running a 15.7? cuz that is the stock 1/4 mile time for one. heres the stats for one:
hp-160
tq (not sure so correct me if im wrong)-111
weight-2600lbs
drive-fwd
my car, assuming 5hp for each mod.
hp-170
tq-175
weight-3000
drive-awd
advantage goes to the civic for weight; i get advantage in hp, tq, drive, and closer gearing. so what is so hard to believe that i can beat the civic? if i can beat the civic, then i obviously run faster than 15.7, and i know for a fact i wouldnt have ANY problems beating a stock si. somebody tell me how to post videos, and this weekend i will try to get this dude to race me without spraying his si. then u can see me beat an si with i/h/e ignition and fuel pump/injectors.
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
"based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".
actually, my assumption was based on a mathematical formula widely used and accepted to convert 1000ft e/t and mph to 1/4 mile e/t and mph. it so happened that this assumption was within 0.1 seconds of the numbers i calculated based upon the 2.5rs timeslip u posted. IF we were to add my "homemade track" calculations into this, that would make 3 different means of calculating that have all come up with roughly the same time.
and are u actually arguing that shorter gearing on a car will create faster acceleration? if u are then u must not know anything about gearing.
sorry i dont know anyone with a gtech and the 1/4 mile track is a long ways away, so what i have told u is all i have to go by. i have no solid evidence that i CAN run a low 15, but u have no solid evidence that i CANT run a low 15. and solid evidence aside, i DO have mathematical evidence that i can. u even posted some of it yourself. why dont u just stop trying to argue with me at every turn and think about it for a moment.
does anyone here argue a 99 civic si running a 15.7? cuz that is the stock 1/4 mile time for one. heres the stats for one:
hp-160
tq (not sure so correct me if im wrong)-111
weight-2600lbs
drive-fwd
my car, assuming 5hp for each mod.
hp-170
tq-175
weight-3000
drive-awd
advantage goes to the civic for weight; i get advantage in hp, tq, drive, and closer gearing. so what is so hard to believe that i can beat the civic? if i can beat the civic, then i obviously run faster than 15.7, and i know for a fact i wouldnt have ANY problems beating a stock si. somebody tell me how to post videos, and this weekend i will try to get this dude to race me without spraying his si. then u can see me beat an si with i/h/e ignition and fuel pump/injectors.
94tegRS
03-20-2002, 01:28 AM
well he shifts 1 time less than you, plus doesnt AWD ruin top end?
adn if you were faster than my old RS wait til I buy the next one in a couple of days, 95 RS, gredy turbo, greddy exhaust. it has lots of others but not on engine mods, it does have a shrt shifter which wil help a TINY bit, but i also got the weight of a big loud system and big spooler and 18's but still, it will be fast, come to WA and ill show you a teg thatbeats your wagon, lol
I think this should be over, I think both of you bring up some good points and whenever you run the full 1/4 come back and post, otherwise you 2 should stop arguing
adn if you were faster than my old RS wait til I buy the next one in a couple of days, 95 RS, gredy turbo, greddy exhaust. it has lots of others but not on engine mods, it does have a shrt shifter which wil help a TINY bit, but i also got the weight of a big loud system and big spooler and 18's but still, it will be fast, come to WA and ill show you a teg thatbeats your wagon, lol
I think this should be over, I think both of you bring up some good points and whenever you run the full 1/4 come back and post, otherwise you 2 should stop arguing
LjasonL
03-20-2002, 02:20 AM
sounds like youre gonna have one hell of a nice car! i got a dvd screen going in mine probably this weekend i just relocated the cd player to the glovebox today to make room for it, and i think im gonna do the "headlight mod" (if youre not a dubaru guy u have no idea what im talking about there) tomorrow, but no turbo yet :( post some pics when u get yours!
and yeah we should end this. i have no way of PROVING him wrong, and he has no way of PROVING me wrong, so lets just stop trying, agreed?
and yeah we should end this. i have no way of PROVING him wrong, and he has no way of PROVING me wrong, so lets just stop trying, agreed?
Imprezed
03-20-2002, 04:24 AM
Alright. Time to set some things straight here.
Kid with the wagon: You are smoking crack. :smoker2: <- see? thats you and your ghetto crack pipe.
I have read every single one of your arguments; no need to start reposting them to me.
I drive an 01 2.5RS Impreza "GC8" bodystyle. 240 lbs lighter than an 02 RS Sedan. Or the "GDA" bodystyle. your car tacks on an additional 80 lbs over that.
If you really think that you can run high 14's in your car.. you are straight up WRONG! In my lighter car, with more mods, I can run a 14.9.
I ran it ONCE!
Right now its like this:
Apex'i N1 Catback
AEM Shortram Intake
Lightened Pulley Set
Kartboy Short Shifter
Whiteline Superlows
Opened hood scoop and both vents. One sits directly over the air intake.
Anyways, when I only had an intake, I was running 15.4. In a lighter car. I know this car. I know how it behaves, and I know how fast it is and isn't. Granted, an air intake DOES do wonders for our top end - this car is not a 14 second "powerhouse" :rolleyes: with only a muffler and an intake.
Magazines usually test a car over and over again to find their best time. 16.4 is a FAR CRY from a high 14, don't you think? That is on a phase 2 DOHC engine though. Dyno test have found that engine to be much weaker than the later SOHC 2.5's.
I drive a car with the same engine you do, more mods, and less weight, and I have BARELY cracked 14s. You need to take your car to a real q/m strip and test it there. Even with your "m4d launching sk1llZ" you're not gonna be even close to 14 with those mods. Maybe high 15s. Probably 16s.
You need to grasp on to what your car was really designed for. Commuters, and passengers. Your model doesn't even come with an LSD. Your car really isn't all you think it is - and although its a sick car, its not what you claim. I love the 02 wagons but they aren't fast. Neither is my car, its just significantly quicker than yours. Plus, with the close gear ratios, the 3rd gear shift adds a TON of time into a q/m or 0-60 run because that is like someone said eariler, a dip in the powerband.
carrrrrrnnuuuuttttttttt - SWEET fucking 'teg! :rolleyes:
Basically, coming from another RS owner, I think everyone here should know that this kid can't run 14s and that this thread should have been locked a long time ago.
Kid with wagon - check out www.i-club.com. Some real impreza drivers there.. and very few running 14s. I don't think there are any running 14s in a wagon w/ just intake/muffler. I know one guy has a Cobb Tuning CAI and an Apex'i N1 catback and he has run 15.1
http://www.imprezed.com/photos/front_corner1.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/photos/side_corner.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/blurry.jpg
(sorry, had to pimp out my car a little. those are pre-suspension mods)
Kid with the wagon: You are smoking crack. :smoker2: <- see? thats you and your ghetto crack pipe.
I have read every single one of your arguments; no need to start reposting them to me.
I drive an 01 2.5RS Impreza "GC8" bodystyle. 240 lbs lighter than an 02 RS Sedan. Or the "GDA" bodystyle. your car tacks on an additional 80 lbs over that.
If you really think that you can run high 14's in your car.. you are straight up WRONG! In my lighter car, with more mods, I can run a 14.9.
I ran it ONCE!
Right now its like this:
Apex'i N1 Catback
AEM Shortram Intake
Lightened Pulley Set
Kartboy Short Shifter
Whiteline Superlows
Opened hood scoop and both vents. One sits directly over the air intake.
Anyways, when I only had an intake, I was running 15.4. In a lighter car. I know this car. I know how it behaves, and I know how fast it is and isn't. Granted, an air intake DOES do wonders for our top end - this car is not a 14 second "powerhouse" :rolleyes: with only a muffler and an intake.
Magazines usually test a car over and over again to find their best time. 16.4 is a FAR CRY from a high 14, don't you think? That is on a phase 2 DOHC engine though. Dyno test have found that engine to be much weaker than the later SOHC 2.5's.
I drive a car with the same engine you do, more mods, and less weight, and I have BARELY cracked 14s. You need to take your car to a real q/m strip and test it there. Even with your "m4d launching sk1llZ" you're not gonna be even close to 14 with those mods. Maybe high 15s. Probably 16s.
You need to grasp on to what your car was really designed for. Commuters, and passengers. Your model doesn't even come with an LSD. Your car really isn't all you think it is - and although its a sick car, its not what you claim. I love the 02 wagons but they aren't fast. Neither is my car, its just significantly quicker than yours. Plus, with the close gear ratios, the 3rd gear shift adds a TON of time into a q/m or 0-60 run because that is like someone said eariler, a dip in the powerband.
carrrrrrnnuuuuttttttttt - SWEET fucking 'teg! :rolleyes:
Basically, coming from another RS owner, I think everyone here should know that this kid can't run 14s and that this thread should have been locked a long time ago.
Kid with wagon - check out www.i-club.com. Some real impreza drivers there.. and very few running 14s. I don't think there are any running 14s in a wagon w/ just intake/muffler. I know one guy has a Cobb Tuning CAI and an Apex'i N1 catback and he has run 15.1
http://www.imprezed.com/photos/front_corner1.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/photos/side_corner.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/blurry.jpg
(sorry, had to pimp out my car a little. those are pre-suspension mods)
cybercrx00
03-20-2002, 09:07 AM
the only big difference you have to your engine is pulley's and a 240lb wieght difference. short shifter and superwhite h/l's don't make you any faster. you said you ran it once, so it may be very possible to shave a couple seconds off your time. So you are telling him that with the same egnine in a slightly heavier car minus some lighter pullieys he's gonna run a second or more slower than you. That's funny! What are these magical pullies you have?? Maybe if I put some on my truck I can take a second of of it's time?
LjasonL
03-20-2002, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by cybercrx00
the only big difference you have to your engine is pulley's and a 240lb wieght difference. short shifter and superwhite h/l's don't make you any faster. you said you ran it once, so it may be very possible to shave a couple seconds off your time. So you are telling him that with the same egnine in a slightly heavier car minus some lighter pullieys he's gonna run a second or more slower than you. That's funny! What are these magical pullies you have?? Maybe if I put some on my truck I can take a second of of it's time?
just what i was thinking... oh and i dont have an lsd? i nave not one, not 2, but 3 lsd's... front, center, and rear viscous coupling.
the only big difference you have to your engine is pulley's and a 240lb wieght difference. short shifter and superwhite h/l's don't make you any faster. you said you ran it once, so it may be very possible to shave a couple seconds off your time. So you are telling him that with the same egnine in a slightly heavier car minus some lighter pullieys he's gonna run a second or more slower than you. That's funny! What are these magical pullies you have?? Maybe if I put some on my truck I can take a second of of it's time?
just what i was thinking... oh and i dont have an lsd? i nave not one, not 2, but 3 lsd's... front, center, and rear viscous coupling.
94tegRS
03-20-2002, 09:41 AM
the guy has more than the pullies, he has lgihter car, lightened pullies, FULL exhaust, intake, and I knoe qa short shifter doesnt give you more power but it could help you shift faster.
MOD - close it
and yeah this car I want is sweet. if it goes thru illl post some pics
MOD - close it
and yeah this car I want is sweet. if it goes thru illl post some pics
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026