Srt4 Vs Wrx

[SkylineUSA]

240hp, do you have the dyno sheet?

[Layla's Keeper]

Wish I did. It was in amongst my dad's files which are still at the old house.

For the record, that's not brake. And the dyno pulls were made at the RaceRace America team shop, which was part of USIC, a tool and die shop owned by my dad's late friend Ken Boldman.

Mr. Boldman was at one point an off-shore powerboat racer and was the owner of the RaceRace America Supermodified team, which fielded two 1996 Bodnar chassis Supers (two chassis commissioned by Mr. Boldman) with, in their last season, Kevin Enders engines. The crew consisted of Jim Bodnar himself as chief, DJ Shullick as shop b*tch, and Dick Lavati as tire man. The driver was Dave Shullick, Ohio's winningest Supermodified driver, who retired two seasons after Mr. Boldman's death.

I will admit, it's a high number for a 2.0L engine, and I will also admit to never having personally seen the dyno sheet (this was, after all, my dad's car) but for the mods done (no doubt with some milling for compression and airflow) it sounds reasonable.

Guess I'll have to dig it out of my dad's files next time I go back to the old place for more of my stuff.

And yes, I know that this sounds like a cop out. But I really have no good reason to make this up. Hell, the car doesn't even exist anymore. All that we have now is a front clip, mostly because the car's unibody got thrashed after Dad spun into a pole last winter.

We actually thought long and hard about how to get the Neon engine into Layla.

[fatninja19]

Originally Posted by RACER D12

The other reason why I would take a WRX over the SRT is I would plan on modding the cars. Seeing as this is the streat racing forum I think most people here would too. Now I would go for numbers in the 300+hp range. I just cant see the SRT putting down that kind of power that easily with out compromising the handling.

The SRT4 already puts down more horse power than the WRX in stock form...

Whats average numbers for a stock 04 srt4? 230ish? And for a WRX? isn't it like around 170ish? See, the SRT4 is already at an advantage. And ontop of that, the WRX's gear box will grenade once you hit the 300hp mark... and thats 300hp at the crank

Here's a thread with a graph(near the bottom of page 2) showing 330hp on 100 octane. It makes 297 on 93 Octane. The mods are shown on the first post of the thread. http://www.srtforums.com/forums/show...r&pagenumber=2




How does putting down a lot of power compromise handling anyways?

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by fatninja19

The SRT4 already puts down more horse power than the WRX in stock form...

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4

the WRX's gear box will grenade once you hit the 300hp mark...

Au contraire, many people make more power than that on the stock trans with no problems... I've be one of them soon

How does putting down a lot of power compromise handling anyways?

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

[Steiner]

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4



Au contraire, many people make more power than that on the stock trans with no problems... I've be one of them soon



Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

Stock SRT-4's have been regularly clocked as low as 13.8 seconds in the 1/4 mile. I've never heard of stock WRX's even going under 14 when I was researching which of the 2 cars to buy. Most 1/4 mile times I saw for the WRX were around 14.3-14.4.

As far as breaking the tires loose out of turns...that was a problem on the 2003 SRT-4's so they added a Qualfe LSD for '04.

[Neutrino]

plus don't forget how high the trap speeds are for those srts'

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by RACER D12

And the Daytona really was not fast at all unless you were lucky enough to have a turbo model and even that was only a 15sec car no?

The N/A Daytonas were faster than the Hondas of their day. If you did get a Turbo model then depending on which one you got you could be running low 14s to high 15s in the 1/4. My personal best in the LeBaron, which is the same car just a little heavier, was 14.6 @ 98 MPH.

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

And yet it's not any faster... at least not through the 1/4

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

1. A stock WRX can't keep up with the SRT-4 down the 1/4. The STi, now that’s a different story.

2. I fully agree that front wheel drive is one of the worst drive-trains for performance. On the drag strip when you accelerate the weight of the car shifts to the rear and the front of the car begins to lift. This takes traction from the front wheels. This is why rear wheel drive is the ultimate drive-train for drag racing. Another problem is wheel hop. This isn't only a problem for front wheel drive vehicles either. Any car with half-shafts can be hurt by wheel hop and any form of drive-train can produce it. The problem is that half-shafts aren't even close to as strong as a solid rear axle and wheel hop can snap CV joints and even tear the end right off the axle and in some cases even damage the gearbox. This can be circumvented with using slicks, however. On the other hand a solid rear axle is horrible when it comes to handling. Now, if you have a front wheel drive or all wheel drive vehicle then you have half shafts which is one of a few reasons that all wheel drive and front wheel drive is not meant for the drag strip. However; there are a lot of rear wheel drive cars that don't have solid rear axles. There also is the problem of torque steer. This is a problem on the strip and on the track. This can be circumvented by using an LSD which the 2004 SRT-4 already has from the factory, and it is a Quafi at that.

[fatninja19]

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

Because it's FWD, if you have a lot of power in a FWD, when you try to accelerate out of the corner it can overpower the wheels and understeer off the corner. If you have a really steep power curve (like most turbo 4 cylinders) it makes it that much harder to get power down without breaking the tires loose.

I do agree that FWD is the worst out of the three drivetrains. But I don't think a srt4 with about 300hp would have that steep of a power curve for it to be a big problem anyways. The engine is pretty big for a 4 cylinder(2.4L), and the turbo just needs an upgraded compressor to make 300+hp. No huge turbo needed here, so combined with the displacement, I would assume that the turbo should spool quickly have have a pretty steady power curve. Just my assumption though.

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by Steiner

Stock SRT-4's have been regularly clocked as low as 13.8 seconds in the 1/4 mile. I've never heard of stock WRX's even going under 14 when I was researching which of the 2 cars to buy. Most 1/4 mile times I saw for the WRX were around 14.3-14.4.

There are many people who get 14.0-14.2 in stock WRX's. There are even a few that have gotten into 13's and one I remember that did a 13.89 stock. The average person probably won't get quicker than a 14.3, but what's the average person get in an SRT4? I know I've only seen 3 SRT4's at the track here, one is modded and the stock 2 are more competition for lightly modded Civic SI's than a WRX

Regardless, 2 cars with times within 2-3 tenths of each other are equal for all practical purposes. Too many other factors come into play, including the skill of the drivers in the real world, for 3 tenths to be considered a significant amount.

As far as breaking the tires loose out of turns...that was a problem on the 2003 SRT-4's so they added a Qualfe LSD for '04.

You don't understand...

[LjasonL]

P.S. I think you guys might think I'm bashing SRT4's... If you'll look back on page 1 of this thread you'll see I was the 2nd person to step in and defend them, oh, 9 months and 2 days ago was it? Plus there were other threads, both on AF and on other forums, before this, plus a few PM's with the starter of this thread where I've also defended them. My feelings haven't changed since then.

Great little cars, I'll buy one when hell freezes over

[2of9]

i seriously think the 03 WRX would win 1/4... on the highway, the SRT-4. the Evo 8 will win both...jus bcuz i like the Evo 8!

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

There are many people who get 14.0-14.2 in stock WRX's. There are even a few that have gotten into 13's and one I remember that did a 13.89 stock.

Please document this for me, as I browse various car-forums most of the time including Subaru ones, and MOST are running MID-14's stock, while SRT-4 are MOSTLY running LOW-14's and high-13's. No drive-train-pounding launch or high-skill-dependent precision clutch-slip launches either.

Here's a 13.7 @ 100mph run from a stock 2003: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/show...=fastest+stock

We all know that the 2004's have bit more power, and better ability to hook with the LSD's.

Those times are more common for SRT-4's than for WRXs. Here's an almost-stock one with a bad '60: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/show...threadid=20849

I don't know why you can't accept what even the WRX guys themselves have accepted: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showth...threadid=46765

Here's a discussion about average WRX times: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showth...ighlight=stock

Let's not even get into trap-speeds, as the SRT averages between 7-10mph FASTER than the WRX at the end of the track.

I'm not biased towards either car, and I'd be hard-pressed to choose if I ever had to between the two (if it was free, I'd pick the WRX because it's more expensive, and sell it for an STi), but c'mon...you just GOTTA accept when the other car is faster, plain-and-simple.

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

No drive-train-pounding launch or high-skill-dependent precision clutch-slip launches either.

Well hell, if I can't quote times from skilled WRX drivers, then why can you quote times from skilled SRT4 drivers? Cuz I've seen what the "average" new SRT4 owner is capable of at my local strip, and lemme tell ya, I'm not afraid, and neither am I afraid of the average new WRX owner.

"my stock WRX ran a 14.2 at 92 (or something) MPH on a hot day" - from the last link you posted. Now was that guy the best driver in the world, or is it reasonable to assume people are quicker than him? Especially since he mentioned he ran in heat. IIRC even Car and Driver got 14.1

Anyways, I don't doubt that the quickest time a stock SRT4 has ever ran is quicker than the quickest time a stock WRX has ever ran, the point is they're so close they're even in all practical purposes.

I also just saw a guy that went 12.8 in a stock STi but I still say STis and EVOs are even.

And about the trap speeds, I said this 9 months, 2 days, 9 hours, and 3 minutes ago, and I'll say it again:

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

the srt4 has a 100mph trap speed stock, much faster than any stock wrx. any idiot who knows how to shift should be able to waste a stock wrx in a stock srt4 anywhere above 30mph.

[SkylineUSA]

So when did a total car's worth come down to what it can do in the 1/4mile?

Both cars are very quick, and modable. If I had to chose, I would want the EVO, but I could very easly see why someone would want the SRT-4, or the STi.

[RACER D12]

The way I see it is the SRT4 is a good car if you want to keep it stock. Any thing over 300hp and I just don't see the SRT putting it down effectively at all. It would need something like slicks and who wants to drive a car around like that? The SRT4 may have more HP potential but the WRX will always be fast in the long. The SRT is still a great car though and yes I agree it is faster than a WRX stock for stock, but hey like ldelaysionl said their so close its a drivers race.