Why is Wrx faster then a Gsx?

I was just thinking about this today. Why can a wrx run a 1/4 mile in 14.3 while a mitsu gsx with same all wheel drive and turbo run only at 14.5 or 14.6? Isn't the wrx heavier? I believe the wrx has 217 hp and the gsx has 210.

No, WRX sedan-wise is lighter.

I looked in the GSX curb weight which was 3157 lbs, assuming a manual tranny. The WRX sedan curb weigt is 3085 lbs, which is also a MT. However, its wagon counterpart is 3165 lbs.

-paK

Wow thats suprising because the wrx just looks heavy while the eclipse doesn't. Now are there any reason why the wrx is faster then the gsx. bigger turbo better cooling what?

The WRX also puts a bigger portion of its power to the ground then the Mitsu. The Mitsu dynos stock around 175, and the WRX dynos about 190.

Those arent exact numbers, but its another general reason.

WRX has 217 of torque, and 227 of horses!!:smoker2:

Im talking about the dyno, we all know that 227 is at the crank, not on the ground.

Neither of those cars run those times. A GSX tested stock is clicking off low 15.1's-15.2's, what does a Subie test at? 14.9-15.0? I've ran many a Subie's & only found one that keep up on a decent launch.

Rob

i have seen numerous WRX's running 14.1's-14.3's or lower bone stock and the GSX's running 14.7's-15.2's anyways you are comparing apples and oranges.....GSX is a different class car

wrx has more power and is lighter. end of story. and turbo wagon you should try pulling some thing else out of your ass, besides wrong numbers!! wrx with good driver runs 14.2 ALL DAY!! its been tested over and over again and agian by most magazines.... GSX suck...

You have to remember the WRX is a new car than the GSX, and so benifits from a more advanced engine design. The 4g63 in the Eclipse is not nearly as advanced as the newer versions in the latest EVO's which are even faster than the WRX.

The WRX also has notorisouly short gear ratios.
The 22b for example is limited by gear ratios to a top speed of only 180kph. (about 110-120mph)
I have no idea how Mitis set the GSX up for the US, but I assume it has tallish ratios to enable to cruise long distances.
Its possible the US spec WRX is set up defferntly to the rest of the world, but unlikely, and at the most I suspect it would only have a taller 5th gear.

SO basicly the WRX will have a more flexiable engine with more mid range Torque, and a G/box with a shorter set of ratios, all of which allow it to be that little bit faster down the 1/4.

better power curve? better gearing? just guesses, but those are common reasons why numbers dont ususally tell the whole story.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
better power curve? better gearing? just guesses, but those are common reasons why numbers dont ususally tell the whole story.

I'd say the rally gearing is more then half of it. The Gsx has much much taller gears.

Any one know the A/R on the Gsx turbo?

The wrx tops out at 140 ish as tested. Its not the gearing its the 17HP and lighter body. Plus i can bet that the AWD drive system is better. The wrx has a good stock differential in rear. I mean think about it, weight is everything, the WRX being lighter is like having 20 more horsepower. I'm sure a GSX with 37 more horsepower would do the 1/4 in 14.2. if not than thats pretty sad.

also the GSX could have a more restrictive motor than the wrx. could have a crappy intake system, worse exhaust, heavier wheels, bad suspention making the body mtion acward off the line.... Its like that other guy said the wrx is more advanced the GSX is old school.

i dunno man, my car has freakin short gears. im redlining 4th at 100mph. plus ive got a 3.9 final drive instead of the wrx's 4.11. its just got really close 1st-4th, then a long spaced out 5th for overdrive.

the note on the wrx being a newer car? what?

to us...

that motor has been around for a while, and from what i remember, the wrx is different mainly in body, not suspension or motor.

also..

who said the wrx puts 190 down?
wrong.
147 to the wheels. that's noted in a few different mags, and especially in scc mag where they tested the stocker against some modded wrx's.

i couldn't tell you why it's faster, but they don't have the same awd system, as noted in the first post. they don't run the same turbo.

they aren't very similar at all really...
boxer vs. inline four. not at all the same...

another reason that the WRX is faster STOCK than the GSX is not only the curb weight, but the WRX runs 14 + or - a few psi boost stock as opposed to the GSX/GST running 11 + or - a few psi of boost stock,

um, yeah? it still makes more power (by 17)
and it has a better awd setup, it's lighter...

the amount of boost it runs is irrelevant...

if they were both set at x psi, then run on the track yeah...

but it's stock for stock.

I know exactly why the GSX is slower than the WRX.

Its cause the GSX sucks, and the WRX rules.

So there.

The WRX only puts 147hp to the ground? Thats weak. I gave it more credit than it deserved. My Si with CTR cams puts down more than that.

and the wrx is still faster :hehehe:

4g63 has more turbos out in the market that can destroy most of the bolts on for WRX.
TD05-20G + 4g63= 11's in 1/4 mile
while WRX needs some spice to get to 11's mark.
largets bolt on right now for WRX is APS SR50 turbo, which has no report to be in the 11's yet.

I personally think that 4g63 is better engine for the turbo, ( closer to the manifold , higher heat, higher flow of exhaust ) while EJ20 engine has too many tubings to get the exhaust to the turbo. however, I have heard too many scary stories about 4g63 engine's reliability. IMO EJ20 is more reliable engine.

like there aren't alot of turbos for the wrx?

there's a huge market that the US doesn't even know about for aftermarket parts for that car.

the wrx puts 147 to the wheels b/c it's awd.

think before you reply to that, b/c it'll still beat the civic.

it's not hard to get a massive turbo on a wrx, anymore than it is to do a gsx.

they're pretty even, but the wrx is faster stock.

any other questions?

Yeah, stock the subie is faster, but I haven't raced one recently.

That sure does make sense though :rolleyes:, less power and more weight is faster. Are we racing on the dirt?

Power is power.

the sube makes 227hp at the crank. more than the gsx.

what does the gsx make to the wheels.

it's not the same as fwd .

did you read my post?

you have to put the same power through 4 wheels not 2.

does that make sense?

so... a gst eclipse would put more power to the wheels than a gsx...
theoretically of course...

is this not making sense?

hp lost through the drivetrain:

fwd is usually about 18%
rwd is 15-20%
awd is about 25%

keep that in mind.

25% of 227 is about 147 give or take.

18% of your 160 is about the same. in an 00 si.

and it's widely noted that the si had more hp than advertised...

This is all true what you are saying.

Put the power through 4 wheels instead of two. Its harder to do. I understand this.

My point is that power is power, no matter how you look at it.

Put that power or thrust however you like to think of it, against a weight, and a certain accelaration is going to come out of the setup.

I don't understand what you don't understand. I'm sorry.

the wrx has 227hp. your car should have about 170hp or so (both at the crank)...

do your power to weight ratio now...

it also has to do with gearing and traction.

if the sube has super short rally gears, it'll kill you...

and...

if you launch a sube hard, it bites, it doesn't spin the tires.

you'll spin em.

traction?

Ok, i didnt want this conversation to get technical, all I'm sayin is that thrust to weight. Crank power doesnt mean anything but that its having a tougher time turning its own guts.

You are RIGHT, WRX is faster than a 00 Si Civic.

You are RIGHT, the WRX has better traction when accelerating.

All I was saying is that I have a 00 Si.

It has CTR cams, CAI, Cat-back exhaust (GReddy Evo), ACT Street-Strip Clutch, and 8.5lb lightweight flywheel. I state that it places more power to the ground than the WRX.

Now do a power to weight ratio, and dont patronize me.

I think between my MODDED Si, and STOCK subie, it would be a good race if I didn't win.

I was making a simple point and now I can see its getting to be heated. This is my last reply, if you still think Im wrong, then you will have to live with it.

i didn't say you were wrong, however, you did knock on the fact that wrx only has 147whp...

which is awd whp, not fwd or rwd.

that was my point.

the thrust of the sube would still be at least close to what you've got, even with mods.

i own a honda so i know how the weight and fwd thing works out.

i'm well aware of what a civic si can do.

nowhere did i say you couldn't beat one.

keep in mind that your car weighs about 2800, the wrx weighs about 3100... not that much difference. but the subaru has awd and more hp which would make up for the weight difference.

and hp doesn't equal thrust.

the thrust comes from your tq.

you've got 111 stock.
wrx has 227 or so stock.

do the math.

twice the tq, and about 300 more lbs.

and short gearing that takes advantage of that 227 ft/lbs of tq.

anything else?

my reason for posting in response to you was simply b/c you said that the sube's 147hp was not that respectable.

i've more than explained why it is what it is, and also on the idea of your "thrust"
where the subaru has a distinct advantage.

Originally posted by C32Bperformance
Ok, i didnt want this conversation to get technical, all I'm sayin is that thrust to weight. Crank power doesnt mean anything but that its having a tougher time turning its own guts.

You are RIGHT, WRX is faster than a 00 Si Civic.

You are RIGHT, the WRX has better traction when accelerating.

All I was saying is that I have a 00 Si.

It has CTR cams, CAI, Cat-back exhaust (GReddy Evo), ACT Street-Strip Clutch, and 8.5lb lightweight flywheel. I state that it places more power to the ground than the WRX.

Now do a power to weight ratio, and dont patronize me.

I think between my MODDED Si, and STOCK subie, it would be a good race if I didn't win.

I was making a simple point and now I can see its getting to be heated. This is my last reply, if you still think Im wrong, then you will have to live with it.

dude, i'm not trying to be an ass, but you'd get romped on by a stock wrx with a good driver. power and weight is not everything. there is torque, gearing, traction, usable powerband, among a number of other factors. about the only thing you've got on a wrx is the weight and MAYBE whp. your car sounds like its pretty nice, but still...

Oh well, honestly I don't look down on the Subie at all, I just do it in defense.

I get sick of people trashin Hondas, especially when I prove on the streets time and time again that they deserve more credit.

Really i think nothin bad of 147 whp, I mean shit, my civic had less (stock and stock), so what does that say.

I just figure, if I get the other guys defending their own shit, theyll back off of mine.

I know that AWD is a serious advantage, largest help off the line.

I also know that people trash the shit out of hondas, and truthfully you guys have been lightest on the bashing (which isnt saying a whole lot really)

Im just gettin to the point that I throw out insults w/o restraint. :apoke:

I think Im late to this thinking also, honda drivers are trashed for being stuck up sometimes, but they are driven to that point.

All that stuff you said, useable powerband, gearing, torque, etc, I am including when I say thrust. At any given time, the thrust vs the weight is what makes the car move. This can come from more than just hp, but hp is the main one (being controlled by the powerband) And gearing really doesnt make a car much faster. I've tested that shit, get close gears and shave maybe two tenths in the quarter.

Im not saying its peak power vs peak power. Everyone knows that, otherwise wed have a bunch of Celicas stompin tail.

And as far as my modded Si vs stock subie, I say I would win, you say it would win. Seems pointless.

Thrust arguement: I dont know where I learned this (Im like a book) but I know it.

Torque is a moment of force.

Thrust is force over time.

HP is force over time.

Torque is measured in lb-ft.

Thrust is measured in lb-ft/sec.]

Thrust and hp are measured differently, but the same by technical definition.

Am I wrong? Possibly. I don't remember where I learn things, just make notes in my brain and refer often. lol

So that bout wraps it up.

sube has more hp and tq... and awd...

the tq is what matters b/c that's what gets it off the line (so the extra weight doesn't mean as much b/c it has twice the tq of your car)

the awd launch and more hp in general will kill the si...
even a modded one...

it takes quite a bit to get an si under 15 compared to the sube stock under 15 secs in the 1/4.

147 awd whp is very different than fwd whp.

that's the point.

the double tq number means alot though.

Well before the cams and with a bad primary O2 sensor I ran a 15'4" in the quarter (Factory open-loop fuel timing sucks w/o the sensor so talk about torque holes and shit). So I guess you can say that I'm expecting 14s now with the sensor fixed and the new cams. But again, I could be wrong. Won't know till I run her again. ;)

Oh and, this is just physics. Im not sure if you mean this when you say torque, but torque doesn't do anything but make horsepower at an RPM. Off the line is hp to weight all the same. You just have more hp at a lower rpm. But what if you could rev it up higher? Get a clutch that will bite higher rpms, and get the same jump off the line. This doesn't mean better mid range, mind you, just that (if the tires hold, and AWD definitely helps this) you can acheive the same jump off the line with any car really (excluding AWD vs FWD, a distinct advantage there).

i'm not putting you down at all, please realize that...

what kind of power are the cams worth? if they're type r cams, there's not a 1/2 second in them... not even with a new o2 sensor...

i'm not doubting, just casting my projections for now...
i wouldn't mind being proved wrong...

Well your right, the cams are worth about 15 ponies, not a half second. But combined with a stronger torque curve (new O2), you never know.

It was just runnin real inconsistent and shitty.

on tq vs hp...

tq gets you off the line. more tq equals better launch...

tq is a twisting force... so if you've got more, you've got more tq...

hp is what keeps you going fast and more so at high speeds...

which is why if you were to line up with say, a truck... he'd kill you off the line, but you'd walk him like a dog as you speed up...

(rwd vs. fwd, yes, but it still works)...

i know that hp and tq are directly related, but they are still two different entities...

that's why my lude, when stock, would kill new si's off the line... same weight and a tq advantage...

also, you know a good driver can run 14.2's all day long in a wrx right?

Well, I've never seen a stock WRX run a 14'2, but if thats the case then I definitely aint gonna take one. lol

find an inexperienced driver and you might have a shot. they tend to run more in the high 14 even low 15 range. they're a lot harder to launch than you think. most cars have problems with too much wheelspin, they have not enough wheelspin. no matter how high you rev it, if you simply drop the clutch or do something similar it will bog down and get off the line slowly. its just something that takes practice, slipping it exactly right to keep the rpm's up.

i've heard of 14.0's stock :eek:
the automotive press generally publishes the impreza 2.5rs at like a 16.5, but a good driver in one of those can hit mid 15's. just takes practice, something automotive journalists don't get when they only have the car for a few days or weeks to test.

lol, like Car and Driver, oh wait, theyre worse.

You know what they said the new RX-8 runs the quarter in? 15.0 flat. They rated the RSX-S faster by a couple tenths. I couldnt believe it.

I mean, 250hp? the car aint THAT heavy. oh well.:rolleyes:

Hey, does the WRX have anykind of traction system that monitors and shifts traction like the skyline?

What i mean is, does it move all the power to the back wheels after you get off the line?

the current wrx doesnt, it jsut a basic vicous coupling center and rear differential, and open front. the STi thats coming soon will have the active differentioals though... that car is going to be fast.

Yeah, I've seen it. Well, pictures and videos of it's debut at I can't remember which show. 300hp they said.

yeah, and 300 ft/lbs of torque from 4000 rpm up

question is ,,,, where is the EJ25 from?

the ej25 in the new sti? i dunno, it's not the same engine as the "regular" ej25.

I've heard everything from it's a redisigned bottom end with the regular WRX top... to completely redesigned motor just for the STi. Subaru sure ain't talking, yet.

actually even if a truck made 500 ft-lbs of torque but was only producing 150 hp (figures are not correct just examples) ... at 2000 rpm... lined up with a GSR dumping at 5000 rpm making 160 hp... the GSR with less torque but making more horsepower,(traction permitting) would take the 500 ft-lb truck torque monster off the line... torque is not important.... what is important is to look at the power.. which is delivery of torque over time... what i'm saying is that even if an engine makes more torque.. it doesn't mean it's going to be faster...if your analogy was correct than an F1 engine that makes 80 ft-lbs would be slow off the line correct? don't mean to flame.. just pointing out specifics....

power is the delivery or work over time... with work being a function of torque

man after reading thru these 4 pages, i come to realize you guys really can debate. i'm one of those honda guys too that is tired of being bashed, but i'm hanging it up and getting my STi sometime this year. i hold my own with my DC2 'Teg tho: 1Xturbo PS13 180sx, 2Xmodded Miata (Eunos), 2Xturbo R32 Skyline GTS-t, 1Xturbo FC RX-7, 1XDC5 'Teg Type R... but i have also had my fair share of spankings, believe me. i'm ready to move on and "mature" to something force-fed and uses all legs. STi here i come!