RX-7 FD vs. 300ZX TT vs. 3kGT VR4 vs. WRX

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by Tekone


You ran a 13.08 in a bone stock VR4? Not calling BS on you, but that is the best time I have ever heard of in a newer 3000GT. Most 3000GT's I have ever seen run high 13's to low 14's and trap around 100-103 mph. Maybe you have a freak.

Lets look at the stats. VR4's weigh in at around 3,750 lbs. They have 320 hp., 315 lb/ft. of torque and AWD. They trap a little above a Mustang GT (100-103 seems to be average). Because of the AWD, the parasitic loss is going to be greater. VR4's put around 240-250 hp. to the pavement because of the AWD drivetrain loss.

Lets compare the VR4 to a LS1 f-body of course. Weighs in around 3,450 lbs. Has in reality 350 hp. and 335-340 lb/ft. of torque and RWD. Puts around 300-310 hp. to the ground.

Your saying your VR4 runs the same time as an LS1 f-body in the quarter mile while weighing ~300 lbs. more, having ~50 less hp. and ~30 less lb/ft. of torque completly stock? Yes, out of the hole, your car will rape just about anything, and I am willing to bet that you cut 1.6-1.7 short times consistently, but after 30 mph. or so, your AWD becomes a disadvantage due to it's weight. Your 60' times help your trap speed and E.T., but I have a hard time seeing how a car trapping ~102 mph. stock is running low 13's. LS1 f-bodies run low 13's stock trapping around 105-106 consistantly. That's around ~4 mph faster. In the 1/4th, that is alot.

Inquiring minds want to know how modded you car really is.

As I said in my post - it wasn't my car, its one that I've seen and you can probably track down the thread about it on www.3si.org to see for yourself.

The AWD will not become a disadvantage till well after the 60ft mark. The times between the LS1 and VR4 in the quarter are virtually the same. The guys pulling high 13s and into the 14s don't know how to run the car to its best. They are a solid mid 13 second car and the one I saw was abnormal as I mentioned. One of a kind. Just like the rare LS1 that will crack the high 12s out of the box.

When these cars run the 1/4 its all down to the driver.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Tekone]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


As I said in my post - it wasn't my car, its one that I've seen and you can probably track down the thread about it on www.3si.org to see for yourself.

The AWD will not become a disadvantage till well after the 60ft mark. The times between the LS1 and VR4 in the quarter are virtually the same. The guys pulling high 13s and into the 14s don't know how to run the car to its best. They are a solid mid 13 second car and the one I saw was abnormal as I mentioned. One of a kind. Just like the rare LS1 that will crack the high 12s out of the box.

When these cars run the 1/4 its all down to the driver.

So you didn't actually drive it? Who did? Evan Smith? I doubt even he could run a 13.0~ with a stock 3000GT VR4. I took a look at 3si and found that most of them run what I expected stock; high to rare mid 13's at about 100-102 stock. Nothing below a mid 13 stock. If you are saying they don't know how to drive, then there are an awful lot of VR4 drivers who can not drive then. I think that is not the case though. I think you saw a slightly modded, bolt on VR4 run that time. They can be made fast rather easily. I just think he had more than you are mentioning.

Like I said, the trap speed is not there. Anyways, for the purpose of this discussion, we are taking the averages of what these cars run, which is a low 14 to high 13 second run. That puts VR4's just slightly head of the others.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by Tekone


So you didn't actually drive it? Who did? Evan Smith? I doubt even he could run a 13.0~ with a stock 3000GT VR4. I took a look at 3si and found that most of them run what I expected stock; high to rare mid 13's at about 100-102 stock. Nothing below a mid 13 stock. If you are saying they don't know how to drive, then there are an awful lot of VR4 drivers who can not drive then. I think that is not the case though. I think you saw a slightly modded, bolt on VR4 run that time. They can be made fast rather easily. I just think he had more than you are mentioning.

Like I said, the trap speed is not there. Anyways, for the purpose of this discussion, we are taking the averages of what these cars run, which is a low 14 to high 13 second run. That puts VR4's just slightly head of the others.

Do you drive every run for the times you're talking about. I think not. I said I've seen the run. I've seen the car. I've seen the slip. The guys car is not modded.

http://www.stevenericgetz.com/vipers...0JULY%2099.htm

VR4 1/4 mile: 13.44 sec. @ 101.79 mph
Camaro SS 1/4 mile: 13.42 sec. @ 106.15 mph
WS6 1/4 mile: 13.15 sec. @ 108.27 mph

Looks within that few tents I was talking about. I don't know where you went on 3si to see those times. That or your confusing the NAs with the VR4s. But there are mid 13s all over the place with stock cars.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Tekone]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Do you drive every run for the times you're talking about. I think not. I said I've seen the run. I've seen the car. I've seen the slip. The guys car is not modded.

http://www.stevenericgetz.com/vipers...0JULY%2099.htm

VR4 1/4 mile: 13.44 sec. @ 101.79 mph
Camaro SS 1/4 mile: 13.42 sec. @ 106.15 mph
WS6 1/4 mile: 13.15 sec. @ 108.27 mph

Looks within that few tents I was talking about. I don't know where you went on 3si to see those times. That or your confusing the NAs with the VR4s. But there are mid 13s all over the place with stock cars.

Are you going to magazine race now? For the third time, look at the trap speed of the VR4 vs. the LS1 f-bodies. The LS1 f-bodies are trapping really about 4-5 mph faster than a VR4. And they run CONSISTANT low 13 second times with a good driver. The VR4 weighs ~350 lbs. more, has 50-60 less rwhp, and 30-35 less rwtq. That is why it traps ~4 mph. less. That is also why it runs slower. More weight and less h.p.= slower E.T. and milage than a car with less weight and more power. Simple enough. With a car trapping at 100-102, a mid 13 second E.T. is just about as good as your going to get. With a car trapping 105-106, a low 13 second E.T. is more than possible with a good driver. It's all in the trap speed.

BTW I have never heard of an LS1 f-body trapping at 108 stock. They usually trap around 105.

[YogsVR4]

You keep blabbing on about the weight difference and making claims that aren't substantiated. I know there is a weight difference. There is also a traction difference. There are 0-60 times difference. There are different trape times. I know all that. Doesn't change the facts. A single run by a stock car made the time. Factory freak. Call it what you will. Nobody said everyone can run it. I've published what I've seen and and some sites to back it up. Sorry that you can't except reality. Audios.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Tekone]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You keep blabbing on about the weight difference and making claims that aren't substantiated. I know there is a weight difference. There is also a traction difference. There are 0-60 times difference. There are different trape times. I know all that. Doesn't change the facts. A single run by a stock car made the time. Factory freak. Call it what you will. Nobody said everyone can run it. I've published what I've seen and and some sites to back it up. Sorry that you can't except reality. Audios.

Claims that aren't substantiated? Which ones are you referring to? LS1 f-bodies run low 13's stock (13.1-13.5 avg.) with a good driver. Fact. Plenty of evidence to provide if you do not believe that. VR4's run mid/high 13's (13.7-13.9 avg.) stock with a good driver. Fact. Getting a VR4 to run a mid 13 is like getting a LS1 f-body to run a high 12 sec. quarter mile. It can be done, it has been done, but it is difficult. Good short times only make up for so much in the 1/4th. The car also has to have to power to back it up as well. AWD causes substantial drivetrain loss to go along with it's advantage of good 60' times. It also weighs more.

For this comparison we are talking averages for these cars. Not what a freak bolt on VR4 can run.

Simple way of seeing who is fastest:

Supra traps at 101-102 in the 1/4th.
VR4 traps at 100-102 in the 1/4th.
RX7 TT traps at 99-101 in the 1/4th

All three cars are close in the 1/4th. The VR4 has a slight advantage over the other two with it's AWD and slightly more hp. Go past a quarter mile, and the opposite happens. Supra's have good topend, while VR4's do not. The Rx7 is of course, in there somewhere between the VR4 and the Supra.

[intox]

RX-7, but in real life, it would be hard to say, depends on drivers and their driving style. All of these are great cars. With pro drivers I would probably have to say RX-7, but then again, doesn't mean the other guys don't have a chance.

[YukiHime]

Originally Posted by Gonthrax

FD-3S, its 1993 and onward 7s. The 2nd gen ones are FCs

So my 95 is FD-3S too?
Then I would pick it, because I haven't been driven a faster car yet...

[youngvr4]

your getting confused, 91-93 vr4's run high 13's low 14's 95 and up run mid 13's usually 13.5, which i have seen with my own two. just had rto say something though i assume this thread is very old

[OoNismoO]

yea i usually see the newer vr4s running mid 13s on average.

[crayzayjay]

Guys & gals please don't vote on old polls as it bumps dead threads back to the top of the forum.

Read this please:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=162405