JDM 2.0 STI or UK 2.5 STI
27 November 2014, 09:18 AM
#123
Scooby Regular
Matt you do us WRX owners a dis-service, the WRX does have it's good points, like the smaller faster spooling TD04 and the longer Ratio's, which suit my driving style of 2nd and 3rd gear hooning on country roads, and the odd traffic light GP.
But, standard brakes are woeful as is the standard handling and suspension when under hard braking and cornering. Good thing though is the handling is easily fixed, for circa £500 without the need for coilovers, it's never going to be a full on track weapon but it can be made to sit a lot flatter in the turns.
Your car is no longer a WRX
it has gone through a weight saving program as well as suspension and turbo upgrades, the only thing that makes it a WRX is the badge on the back (if it still has one).
Now I get that you want to stand up for the humble WRX against the WRX haters, but I think there would be a lot less dis-respect for the WRX if you just accepted that it is what it is, which is a de-tuned daily drive friendly Impreza turbo that happens to preform it's purpose exceptionally well, a mildly tuned one will give an STI a run for it's money off the lights but it would be found seriously wanting when thrown down a country road at speed and probably end in tears way before the STI even broke a sweat.
We all have our reasons for choosing the cars we chose and it's not always about the cost, some of us humble WRX owners can afford a Spec C but just have different priorities and requirements.
Your constant belligerent banging on about WRX superiority only leads me to believe you have some sort of inferiority complex about the car you drive, thus feeling the need to constantly prove your WRX is somehow better than an STI.
I feel the need to inform you that neither is "better" than the other as they are different cars which ultimately serve different purposes that have a slight overlap somewhere in the middle, to attempt to compare or turn one into the other is an exercise in futility and you just make yourself seem a bit of an idiot and drag a good car down with you. So please wind your neck in a bit and stop being a Silly Billy Sex Crime.
Never the twain shall meet.
But, standard brakes are woeful as is the standard handling and suspension when under hard braking and cornering. Good thing though is the handling is easily fixed, for circa £500 without the need for coilovers, it's never going to be a full on track weapon but it can be made to sit a lot flatter in the turns.
Your car is no longer a WRX
it has gone through a weight saving program as well as suspension and turbo upgrades, the only thing that makes it a WRX is the badge on the back (if it still has one).Now I get that you want to stand up for the humble WRX against the WRX haters, but I think there would be a lot less dis-respect for the WRX if you just accepted that it is what it is, which is a de-tuned daily drive friendly Impreza turbo that happens to preform it's purpose exceptionally well, a mildly tuned one will give an STI a run for it's money off the lights but it would be found seriously wanting when thrown down a country road at speed and probably end in tears way before the STI even broke a sweat.
We all have our reasons for choosing the cars we chose and it's not always about the cost, some of us humble WRX owners can afford a Spec C but just have different priorities and requirements.
Your constant belligerent banging on about WRX superiority only leads me to believe you have some sort of inferiority complex about the car you drive, thus feeling the need to constantly prove your WRX is somehow better than an STI.
I feel the need to inform you that neither is "better" than the other as they are different cars which ultimately serve different purposes that have a slight overlap somewhere in the middle, to attempt to compare or turn one into the other is an exercise in futility and you just make yourself seem a bit of an idiot and drag a good car down with you. So please wind your neck in a bit and stop being a Silly Billy Sex Crime.
Never the twain shall meet.
People are always keen to tell me I have the poverty spec version, or crap gearbox in every thread going or that I should have got an STI, to do a 12.6 in an STI I would have needed a fully forged STI by now and a macker Turbo to boot, STI owners just don't like the fact the WRX has something over their car. Is there a rule on here that only the WRX can be belittled lol?
For me 333/307, 36mpg and a 1/4 mile of 12.6 is better than a 430bhp STI that manages 18-25mpg and a 1/4 of 12.8. Yes my car is lightened 200lbs, but that's no more than a 20bhp advantage. ...and yes most WRX owners on here report 28-36 mpg, I thought my car was different but it isn't, in theory the MPG should be better.
Take into account the WRX parts are cheaper to maintain/replace - clutch, diff, gearbox, all things brake related and you have 1 master of death.
That all said I'd still like to know what the transmission losses are on the STI 6 speed box compared to the 5 as the speed and MPG between the 2 variants is substantial.
27 November 2014, 09:21 AM
#124
Scooby Regular
And I beat it's time in my poverty spec Fat Newage
Is the classic 5 speed a lot shorter than the classic 5 speed?
27 November 2014, 09:22 AM
#125
Lol I know how it is, out of the box the STI is better equipped for the track has stronger, more durable parts and can go fast for longer. When tuning both, the WRX, surprisingly, has been proven to be by far the faster accelerating car and to me this is the key factor. Going too fast on (potholed) public roads is illegal and track/strip isn't every day so the Subaru for me is a 4x4 take-off machine to the speed limits.
People are always keen to tell me I have the poverty spec version, or crap gearbox in every thread going or that I should have got an STI, to do a 12.6 in an STI I would have needed a fully forged STI by now and a macker Turbo to boot, STI owners just don't like the fact the WRX has something over their car. Is there a rule on here that only the WRX can be belittled lol?
For me 333/307, 36mpg and a 1/4 mile of 12.6 is better than a 430bhp STI that manages 18-25mpg and a 1/4 of 12.8. Yes my car is lightened 200lbs, but that's no more than a 20bhp advantage. ...and yes most WRX owners on here report 28-36 mpg, I thought my car was different but it isn't, in theory the MPG should be better.
Take into account the WRX parts are cheaper to maintain/replace - clutch, diff, gearbox, all things brake related and you have 1 master of death.
That all said I'd still like to know what the transmission losses are on the STI 6 speed box compared to the 5 as the speed and MPG between the 2 variants is substantial.
People are always keen to tell me I have the poverty spec version, or crap gearbox in every thread going or that I should have got an STI, to do a 12.6 in an STI I would have needed a fully forged STI by now and a macker Turbo to boot, STI owners just don't like the fact the WRX has something over their car. Is there a rule on here that only the WRX can be belittled lol?
For me 333/307, 36mpg and a 1/4 mile of 12.6 is better than a 430bhp STI that manages 18-25mpg and a 1/4 of 12.8. Yes my car is lightened 200lbs, but that's no more than a 20bhp advantage. ...and yes most WRX owners on here report 28-36 mpg, I thought my car was different but it isn't, in theory the MPG should be better.
Take into account the WRX parts are cheaper to maintain/replace - clutch, diff, gearbox, all things brake related and you have 1 master of death.
That all said I'd still like to know what the transmission losses are on the STI 6 speed box compared to the 5 as the speed and MPG between the 2 variants is substantial.
27 November 2014, 09:25 AM
#127
Scooby Regular
27 November 2014, 10:26 AM
#132
Scooby Regular
Evo Magazine test.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
27 November 2014, 10:30 AM
#133
Evo Magazine test.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
27 November 2014, 10:54 AM
#136
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo Magazine test.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
437/390 RCM Bug 12.5
400/360 Gforce 3 12.7
350/356 2005 Type 25 12.8
355/335 Gforce 2 12.8
335/280 2004 Spec C 13.0
330/330 TSL 333 13.6
305/298 MY04 STI PPP 13.7s - Subaru claim 13.4 lol.
316/310 WR1 13.7s
TBH at 12.6 ET levels the difference in power needed will be only about 30-50bhp.
I have seen and done enough to know that in isolation those numbers mean nothing, nothing more than bar-top racing.
They tell you nothing about the car.
They tell you nothing about the track.
They tell you nothing about the driver.
They tell you nothing about prevailing weather conditions.
So it's safe to assume that the numbers quoted are accurate and the cars were in tip top condition, the track was well prepared, the driver was a competent rocket jockey, and it was early morning with cool air and strong sunshine to warm said track, and that the launch ( = 60ft times) were commensurate with a good run. In other words that was the very best they could acheive.
And for the record my car ran 12.1/114 with a 1.65 60ft on a stock bottom end (note NOT forged) with a well used second hand SC46.
All the guys commenting on your thread secretly know that in reality you're not wrong Matt, they're just baiting you.
You da man
27 November 2014, 12:16 PM
#140
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice 6 hour drive back!!!
27 November 2014, 12:25 PM
#141
Scooby Regular
27 November 2014, 12:33 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how does Matt get 12.6, are there people achieving the same times with similar power and a 6 speed or is there something he's not telling us?
27 November 2014, 12:48 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
If banny turned up at york with 2 classics one with 370bhp and 5 speed and the other 470bhp with a 6 speed and he told me to drive the 5 speed, I hand on heart believe Id match his time within 0.2secs. I will conceded now that he's probably the better driver too.
I honestly believe after all the 1000's of times I've seen [and posted on other threads] that the 6 speed is a real crutch when raising power levels past 320bhp.
This is taken from my progress thread where I documented lots of revealing times:
I honestly believe after all the 1000's of times I've seen [and posted on other threads] that the 6 speed is a real crutch when raising power levels past 320bhp.
This is taken from my progress thread where I documented lots of revealing times:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Subaru-Impr...lip-14064.html
400bhp Blobeye STI 12.74
Thats 70 bhp more than mine and a slightly slower ET so another 30bhp should see him just about pass my time.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Subaru-Impr...lip-13104.html
Bug 340 bhp WRX matching my time of 12.6
I constantly see the same pattern from going to the drag races, watching them on youtube and viewing timeslips online!!!
It's incontrovertible. Depending on power levels the 6 speed is like a 50-100bhp burden to the STI.
400bhp Blobeye STI 12.74
Thats 70 bhp more than mine and a slightly slower ET so another 30bhp should see him just about pass my time.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Subaru-Impr...lip-13104.html
Bug 340 bhp WRX matching my time of 12.6
I constantly see the same pattern from going to the drag races, watching them on youtube and viewing timeslips online!!!
It's incontrovertible. Depending on power levels the 6 speed is like a 50-100bhp burden to the STI.
27 November 2014, 12:49 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
And again...
http://www.dragtimes.com/Subaru-Impr...lip-12453.html
Another 425bhp STI Blobeye running a 12.6!
90bhp more than mine with an extra 140lbs of torque!!!
Same ****ing time as my Blob WRX!!! And I should have run even faster than his if I hadn't parked in a bog before my all or nothing run.
Another 425bhp STI Blobeye running a 12.6!
90bhp more than mine with an extra 140lbs of torque!!!
Same ****ing time as my Blob WRX!!! And I should have run even faster than his if I hadn't parked in a bog before my all or nothing run.
27 November 2014, 12:54 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
http://www.dragtimes.com/Subaru-Impr...lip-22476.html
Big fat 2009 WRX running at 12.6 with just 350bhp.
Big fat 2009 WRX running at 12.6 with just 350bhp.
Honest to God I don't think I've found a tuned Newage STI go quicker than a tuned Newage WRX yet that have the same power.
I know I like to big up the underdog but it really took me back when viewing drag times on all the Scoob forums, youtube and drag time websites.
27 November 2014, 12:57 PM
#149
Scooby Regular
Tommy why do you let me humiliate you time and time again?