Why is Wrx faster then a Gsx?

[flylwsi]

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...

[iroibeirt]

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,

[flylwsi]

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.

[aliki1027]

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

Its cause the GSX sucks, and the WRX rules.

So there.

[C32Bperformance]

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.

[LjasonL]

and the wrx is still faster :hehehe:

[EJ20]

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.

[flylwsi]

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?

[C32Bperformance]

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

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

Power is power.

[flylwsi]

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?

[flylwsi]

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...

[C32Bperformance]

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.

[flylwsi]

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?

[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.

[flylwsi]

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.