DuggE4

I owned an Impreza WRX 2000 - 2002 model and it sure didn't feel as fast as the Civic above 60 mph. If your WRX is the same year (i.e not the classic 280 bhp one) and you can get to 100 in 12 secs well you must have a very dodgy stopwatch or you were the first Britain on the Moon too.......

I have seen all the test runs from all the major car mags and not once have I seen the Impreza WRX 2000 - 2002 model go below 16 secs to 100.

deadduck

Ali-T,

Nope.

DD

lpitt

TonyBurns: Sometimes you do talk utter pants (of the very grey and worn 'Y' Front variety)!

The definition of a performance car is simply a car that performs well in it's defined environment. Different engines have different ways of performing, after all the NSX is basically a grown-up CTR and it still uses the 'scream the nuts' method for performing. Tell me that that isn't a proper performance car!

It sounds to me like you've grown out of hot-hatches and into diesels these days. From my recollection they have loads of torque and allow you to drive in 5th all day!

As a comment. When I was a Scooby owner, frequently it was necessary to shift down to 3rd/4th on the motorway to get decent acceleration.

I timed the 65-105 yesterday whilst driving up to Liverpool (very early in the morning). It's defintely under 10 seconds although I wouldn't like to be any more accurate as I was only using a hand stopwatch. As for the 60-100 in 6th, this was 17-18 seconds although I still don't count this as a performance counter.

** Good thread. I'm stuck in a hotel in Liverpool for the next three weeks. It's things like this that keep me going

Laurence

MooseRacer

Just to add to Laurence's comments:

Tony, have you never got caught off boost in a Scooby? Did you change gear to get decent acceleration?

If the ability to go fast without changing gear is so important, why aren't all performance cars automatics, cut it out altogether?


You seem to have some pathelogical dislike of the vtec system, but the CTR, more than any before it, does not suffer from a lack of torque. Plain fact I'm afraid

chrisp

Dugg it is indeed a 2000 Model WRX but a version 6 one of the last of the classics, a JDM 280PS, short ratio gearbox and 1240kgs, race altered version . Like I keep saying people keep banding WRX around like it was invented in 2001, it wasnt .

lpitt

chrisp: We really ought to refer to the UK WRX differently to the JDM one, they are totally different beasts after all.

What about JDMWRX and UKWRK?

IMO The MY00 WRX was a beast

Laurence

BigJim

Yes, scooby faster than CTR. At £6k more, should be. But worse on fuel, hideous cheap interior, higher insurance, more likely to get nicked/ vandalised, new ones ugly, slower and only driven by the middle aged, old ones getting into max power teritory, lots of them about, used to be good in rallies but now whipped by the Focus. 0.whatever seconds quicker though, so worth it. NOT.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Laurence,
I feel that you cannot compare an NSX to much as its nearly 4 times the value of most hot hatches but its in gear performance will put to shame quite a few cars me thinks
As for the "Hot Hatch Brigade" i know for a fact that ive out grown them, they all need revving hard, no matter which one you have, to get the best out of them, but as ive already stated, performace cars are not just about though the gear performance, and even 10+years ago when i first purchased my first hot hatch it was dog slow in gear
Now even you must admit that your car is slow ingear as the bottom of the range for performance cars has always been the hot hatch, never really known for its performance in gear but just a "rev the nuts off it" type of car which once was fun but having now the ability to get that sort of performance without revving the nuts off my car means i can just pull out and go when overtaking rather than knocking it down 1,2 or even 3 gears.
Having driven a CTR i do think they are a nice car, well built but the driving was tiring due to having to keep the engine on form (suppose thats what you get going from a car with torque to one with somewhat less ) and as for the old oil burners i feel that you would have to work very hard in a CTR to pass one of the "new generation" ones now due to the amazing ammounts of torque these cars push out!
Moose, to answer your question about being off boost and accelerating, my 60-100 time in gear was off boost going on boost (60 is around 22-2300rpm and according to my defi gauges i wasnt pushing much in the way of boost around then )
Big Jim,
I think that you mean the Peugeot as they seem to be beating everyone at rallying just now and as for thefts, any performance car is at risk, not just impreza's but there are also stories of CTR's being stolen so as for security..... (get a decent alarm fitted )

Tony

MooseRacer

eh? must have missed that one

chrisp

Wait till you can buy a CTR for under 7K, with current pricing it wont be long .

I will stick to my quick car with a bad reputation and bad interior thanks .

lpitt

Tony, your comment earlier was:

Now a Honda NSX puts out 210lbs torque at around 7300rpm. By your definition in that case a Honda NSX is not a true performance car. Does anyone else here agree with this statement, e-mails to the profile by Tony's name

Laurence

chrisp

Torque makes it easier to drive, mine had 210lb/ft at 3,500 rpm. So which do you think is more flexible and easier to drive ?

CraigH

Does that mean a Westfield Megabusa/XTR2 with 100lb ft or a Caterham R500 with 140lb ft are not performance cars as well?

lpitt

Apparently not, in fact with that kind of power available they might as well be relegated to 'city cars'

Laurence

Ali-T

"Yes, scooby faster than CTR."


Hmmm. Not in standard trim its not. The current WRX is significantly slower. I nearly bought one until I drove one and wondered what the fuss was all about. No fun at all and asthmatic at revs where the CTR flys. As for the 'classic' Turbo-my friend has a '99 Wagon and on the few occasions we've run back to back, the CTR has always pulled out a slight lead, especially from 90 upwards.

Yes, you can tune Scoobys more, yes their are STi and JDM WRX versions but, frankly, they don't cost £16k brand new. If I had £27k for an STi, I wouldn't because the old second hand supercar arguement starts at that price and RX-7 Bathursts and NSXs are far more appealing.

Lets just agree that both cars are fast, enjoyable and couldn't be more different if they tried.

Back to the original topic, Tried the 60-100 again and still getting mid 8s without any wind. Worked out, however, that a TRUE 60-100 in a CTR is actually 63-105. As for 60-100 in top, got 17 secs. But then again, try it in 5th and it drops significantly to around 12. As I remember, standard Scoobs are 5 speed only so draw your own conclusions.

LG John

I know my car isn't entirely standard but it isn't that much quicker than a stock classic UK and I had to back off a fair bit when I was behind a CTR from 40-90mph. Whatsmore, I felt as the speed got higher he was stuggling more than me.

We've had a number of peeps in this thread saying that the CTR is really slow above 100mph and now we're being told they will hump a classic UK above 90mph...make yer frickin minds up

PPPMAT

Can someone please clear something up here. As far as I am aware, torque is the pulling power of the engine whilst BHP is simply torque x engine speed. Therefore it must be that torque is primarily what you need in a sports car.

I have owned both a type r and a uk scoob MY02 and in standard form theres very little in it. The difference between the two is that civic is skittish on B roads and to keep up with a scoob you would need to be well committed.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Laurence,
As ive stated, a true performance car will have alot of torque, look at the M5 for instance, i doubt that many cars would keep up with that going though the gears to what it can pull in its highest gear but hot hatches were designed to be a car thats quick but affordable, unfortunately you loose out a little in the torque department but im not bothered as i wouldnt want to take a step back (ie been there, seen it and done it )
Craig
You know that those cars you stated have a very good torque to weight ratio as they weigh less than a box of chocolates so they do have an advantage

Tony

PS,im at work and cannot access my emails from here (as i havnt got a new email account yet )

juan

come on then SB, what mods have you made?

This matches the 60-100 time for a 22B so your car is a good bit quicker than both these, therefore a heck of a lot quicker than a standard UK

and the answer to your 'question':
may be

I still think you're gonna struggle against a decent standard Fiat. its just hitting its stride approaching the ton wheras you're self admittedly struggling.




[Edited by juan - 1/22/2003 5:21:28 PM]

LG John

At no point did I say that I though my car was anything special above 90mph! Compared to its performance below 100mph the stuff above 100mph is pretty pathetic but still very reasonable compared to the run of the mill cars on the road. A supra, etc is the type of car that passes through 100mph like it wasn't there and I would love that. You can't have everything though and I'm happy with a car that gives its best under the legal limit

I may be wrong cause I never drove a CTR much over 80mph but I got the impression from what is being said that they are dire above 90/100mph which is why I couldn't understand it then being said that they leave scoobys above 90.

My car has a full-decat and TEK2.5 with an STIV intercooler (dawes for boost control). It might be as fast as a P1 now but frankly I doubt it. I've played with Sipie's car a lot as he's a mate and the difference is mininal. At the time all he had was a swana bb and an ITG filter so pretty standard.

What you have to bear in mind is for tests like 30-70 and 50-70 is that my car is now very driveable as it breaths well and with the dawes and other modifications can get useful boost as low as 2500rpm and pull hard to the redline. This means that in some tests it might be quicker than say a p1 but not in others.

Fugu

SB - did you think that this thread would last this long?

If anything, it confirms that some Imprezza owners refuse
to acknowledge that the CTR can evenly match the
point-to-point performance of a basic turbo model - it
just does it in a different way.

MooseRacer

9 pages and hardly any answers to SB's original request.

So, CTR owners are a stroppy bunch who'll argue all day about nothing?

lpitt

Part of the reason I keep on coming back to Scoobynet is to stick up for my CTR

If it wasn't for threads like this I would be bored at work wouldn't I!

BTW: The CTR isn't dire above 90mph, it's well on steam in 4th and 5th and shifting to 6th just keeps it on going. I have raced (privately ) an ITR up to an indicated 135mph and eventually backed off 'cos it was faster than I really wanted to go. (This was BEFORE I started modding it)

Laurence

** Heeyyy, I'm not a stoppy git and I answered the original question as well

[Edited by lpitt - 1/22/2003 6:38:15 PM]

Ali-T

Not that I'd EVER consider it but...the CTR is really rather rapid above 100 and only starts to struggle once slotted into 6th at 125+. 4th takes you to 105 and that falls neatly into VTEC in 5th which, as stated takes you rapidly to 125. Having said all that, 140 is still reasonably easily acheivable but i can imagine the last stretch to 150-155 (speedo as proven by one Lpitt by photographic evidence ) is VERY slooooooooooooow.

As for a CTR struggling against a modded Saxo from 40-90, add the JDM shorter gearing to the CTR and you might be rather more stunned!

MooseRacer

My teg goes well upto around 130, then struggles over the last 10mph or so (I've had an indicated 155 but i'm sure thats not right)

So, I'd imagine the CTR was the same, if not better.

chrisp

A P1 will be about 8 seconds 60-100 but as its 0-60 is 4.6 giving a 0-100 of about 12.5 seconds sounds about right to me. A CTR loses 2 seconds to 60 and a further 2 from 60-100 also sounds about to me as well about 4-4.5 seconds slower to 100 than a P1.

The other thing to note when comparing a P1 to a UK car is that the P1 runs a different turbo an STI 5 VF28.

chrisp

A new Euro STI 8 you can get for 23K OTR. I dont see the argument, if "I had 16K I would by a brand new CTR but if I had 27k I would buy a second hand NSX". Why not buy a second hand 16K supercar ? 16K would get a seriously quick Type R or RA scoob or EVO 5/6 for that sort of money.

You could turn round and say if I had 12K I would have a clio cup but if I had 16K I would have an STI 6 Type R, same argument.

Must admit I am looking at a 993/996 but dont intend paying list for it . If you want VFM dont buy new.

DuggE4

This thread is amusing me somewhat now. It looks like everyone isn't gonna change their own opinions and we could all go round and round on this like we're all on the London Eye!

I know the VTEC engine is always getting criticised for its 'lack of torque' and how you've got to work the box to make it go, but GO it certainly does. Personally I love them, I really do. In fact so much that I am going to become a Honda man in about 5 weeks time. OK so may be you have to work a bit with them but in a way thats the entertaining bit, thrash the nuts of them, here that engine howl! OH YEAH BABY!! YEAH hehehehe

Its like doing Britney and Shakira together :O)

well ok its NEARLY as good as the above.........

BigJim

Yup, Scooby faster than CTR. Maybe not bug eye WRX on paper, but used to drive a classic, now a CTR, classic scooby definatly faster and only needs half the revs to do it. Traction better by miles, but find the CTR grippier in corners. As for my comment about rallies, of course meant 206 not focus (ahem!). Very different cars to drive, scooby superior machine, but dont underestimate CTR - its fast and a whole load of fun and considering the extra dosh in my pocket with a CTR, its my choice for the 'real world'.