LG John

Yeah, you're right. I retract all my previous statements. I just assumed that putting the power at the top end made a quick car but F1 cars really prove that wrong with their low down grunt. I must have had a personal tail wind all those times I hit vtec in the S2000 and passed scoobies?



All of your situations describe the M3 catching up with an Impreza that has been launched. Tell me what you think would happen rolling at 30mph in an PPP STI vs an M3 situation? Who'd be ahead at 60mph, 80, 100, 120 and 140?

STI PPP vs 911!! Do you have any idea what a 911 will do to a 300bhp 1400kg STI from anything other than a dig??!

LG John

Yeah, I draw the line here too - an M3 is quick.........but not that quick

94impreza

Who do you reckon would win
Sti Vs Superman ?
Depending on the driver i reckon the STI is quicker!.

asbo-on-wheels

Who said Superbike?

jubhi

Listen mate, I've had a VTEC engined car, I had a CTR for 3 years and loved it and I also know from a rolling start and me being in that crucial VTEC zone, not many cars would be able to pull away.

So the answer to your question with the 911 on a rolling start is that of course the 911 would win. But then there is a significant difference between a 911 and an M3. I feel M3's are overrated.

My next door neighbour has a 2003 996 Carrera 4S, he went for a ride with me only the weeknd gone in MY05 STI PPP, he was shocked and agreed that up to around 80 mph there would be nothing in it. They are also 4WD and so also would suffer from transmission losses. But still obvioulsy overall the Porker has a much higher top end with bigger engine and so on higher speeds will pull away.

But I was taking about 0-60s mate

The scoobies have the potential to shock/upset the bigger and better cars in many normal driving situations and I guess that is why most drivers of these big cars hate scoobies!!

Put it this way, a 911 driver with his misses sitting next to him would think twice about racing a half decent scooby or evo off the lights with the chance of being embarrased. Of course if it was the 911 Turbo then......

I think you get what I'm trying to say here.

94impreza

I said potato!

jubhi

Yep STI would deffo have Superman in the twisties, provided he was flying at a low height, i.e on an good B-Road superman would end up in the trees as he has no road contact!!

94impreza

Ah but he could either freeze the tree's and smash them up or he could use his laser-eyes to burn the forest down. Maybe if Emporer Zod was driving the scoob it'd be a different story.

RB5_245

Why all the hatred toward imprezas on this site

We all know the impreza isn't the fastest thing on the planet, but lets face it. The M3 is pretty dire in real life. I remember there not being much in it when raced against a mates S6 (2.3 version). Given the audi was supposed to be about 100bhp down and must've been at least the same weight it doesn't say much for the BM.

94impreza

I think most people hate BM's rather than scoobs. Years ago owning a bm was sort of a status symbol, these days a lot of idiots buy them because "It's a BM". Take a look at the amount of toff mum's who drive 4x4's to pick up their kids from school, which 4x4 do you think they are more likely to own?
Half the time you see someone doing something stupid on the road its a BM driver, although some people think its a myth its actually true BM drivers are by far the worst drivers on the road.
My mother in law got a 3-series as a company car a few months ago and she recently admitted she indicates far less than she used to in her Laguna. Me, my brother in law and another person have commented lately on how her driving is now appalling since owning a BM.
It actually says in the BMW handbook
1.Put key in the ignition
2.Turn key
3.Drive like a **** .
4.Upgrade your 3-series with an M badge from ebay.

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

Brakes on the M3 are **** when you drive the thing properly, they can not cope hauling all that weight down from high speeds in quick sucession. For "normal" road driving, they are good but far from Awesome.

My M3 can hit the speed retard, 155mph, in approx the same distance my Classic scoob could hit 155mph when it had 350bhp (same tarmac and same driver). The scoob would have a higher speed reading early on, but the M3 certainly has the legs on the scoob above 100.

To get an M3 to do 5 seconds to 60 is far harder to do than in a scoob, unless the conditions are perfect. If i plant the throttle in the M3 now, through 1st, 2nd and 3rd I presently spend half my time watching the TC light flash at me, and the **** end of the car waving like some rap stars female dancer.

Quite interestingly, pressing the SPORT button on the M3 makes a hell of a difference to rolling in gear acceleration.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Mi NoVA PwNs aLL U LoZErs


*ahem*

rpw

people keep mentioning the fact that the m3 is putting all this power onto 2 wheels but in the sti you can change the diff to the rear maybe not full rear wheel drive but surely this cannot make alot of difference? also the 2006 sti has a 2.5l engine and 280 bhp and more torque than previous sti's and looking on net the m3 cab does 0-60 in 5.5secs where as the sti does it in 5secs, only reason i added this thread is because a friend of mine is looking to buy one and is winding me up saying hes gonna buy a scooby eater but its a hair dressers car and theres not much info on the net saying which is quicker, dont get me wrong i think they are nice cars and with what the sti cost i could have bought one but there seems to be this desire for people to always compare there car to a scoob and want to beat it and it gets on my nerves!

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Lesson 42:

Transmission Losses.

Right. The more wheels a car powers = more transmission bits = more transmission bits for engine to turn = less power gets to wheels.

Putting as much power to the rear wheels makes diddly squat difference - the engine is still trying to turn a 4wd system when the BMW can concentrate on two.

A 4wd transmission will always lose more power than a 2wd - regardless of power split.

This means the REAL power difference between the cars is greater than the paper power difference as the Bhp figures given are 99% of the time flywheel figures.

(all in simple terms before anyone jumps on me.. )

94impreza

Its a compliment really, most scoob owners get people trying it on all the time but just think "Whats the point?" half the time, it sounds like he's got something to prove rather than vice-versa.

94impreza

Power loss is one thing, putting the power down is another. Power/Weight is another even on drag starts.

andythejock01wrx

Kenneth, sorry to hear you are in pain ! Time to create some more

How can you argue with a 0-100 time on the basis that one car 4wd and the other has not ? Surely by definition the "0-100" takes this into account, other wise it would be called "30-100".

Andy

911

Boring.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

0-100mph does not account for amount of ground covered.

flat4_ire

simple as this, we may calm down on the figures, my heads fried.. E46 M3 is an all round better car than a standard 220bhp wrx and the 911 turbo is better than both again so and basically if i owned a 70k car i would in my bolox even waste my time racing some weiner in a wrx!

shustir

I have had plenty of time with an E46 M3. Sometimes it was quite flattering how quick it was, but in just as many instances it was quite underwhelming.

SPEN555

PMSL! Put the Veyron through and look at the 0-60mph time.

The Chief

i have been in a situation when i diced with an M3 Convertable - and we was both rolling from about 30mph coming onto a bypass - i was suprised but my lighly modded classic kept right with it no problem and yes he was trying, i know him and he drives like he stole it.


The thing is this the Scoob is lighter has better traction and great acceleration where as the M3 and especially the convertable is a lot lot heavier plus you really have to thrash them - however as the speeds rise things like gearing, aerodynamics and outright power come in to play and power to weight is not as important.

i'm man enough to admit had our dice continued into silly speeds (it didn't) i suspect the boot would have been on the other foot and i would have had my *** kicked.

mikepaul

well all down to the driver, 4WD works at all speeds mate giving superior traction.

up to about 70 from trafic lights i was level with an M3 (343), but then i eased back and he passed me (distance to a roundabout was looming, so i chickened out)

I was very suprised i thought it was a 330i, we pulled into a petrol station later on and he admited he was really going for it.

A WRX 225 is still a mighty fast car in the right hands.

RB5_245

I raced a veyron against a clio cup. The clio broke down at the line and the bugatti did a 6second 1/4 at 250mph. I'm not sure, but to do that it must have had a dump valve

The Chief

I noticed that

DeltaBravo 9

i have just binned an sti for an m3 and there is no way a standard wrx would get near the m3 in a straight line !!
track times off top gear shows it's not far an sti ppp either;
49
Subaru Impreza STI
1.30.1
50
Volkswagen Golf R32
1.30.4
51
Aston Martin DB7 GT
1.30.4
52
Audi S4
1.30.9
53
Porsche 911 turbo
1.31.0
54
Vauxhall VX220 turbo
1.31.3
55
Honda NSX Type-R
1.31.6
56
BMW 535d
1.31.8
57
Mazda RX8
1.31.8
58
Nissan 350Z
1.31.8
59
BMW M3
1.31.8

flat4_ire

eh no, 4wd is an advantage for launch, after that its saps power! rwd is better

hades

Put it other terms, look at standing start 1/4s. Say a standard JDM or PPP'd UK STI scoob might do a standing start 1/4 in 12.8 seconds at 100mph. The M3 might do it in 13.2 seconds at 110mph. The M3 has done 0-100 a fair bit quicker but lost enough ground at the start that it is still behind at the quarter mile marker (figures are made up, but you get the point). Extend that race past 1/4 mile, the M3 would likely catch and pass the STi fairly quickly.

As for the 911 debate, it also depends on which 911. My WRX is running mid 280s bhp and 270 torque in say 1370kg with 4wd (and is almost inseparable in a straight line drag from an STi PPP). IIRC, a 993 Carrera 4 runs about 280bhp/270lbft in just under 1400kgs. Therefore until aerodynamics come into play and the 911 romps away at 100+, there is unsurprisingly nothing in it. A newer 911 with perhaps 360bhp will rather comfortably romp away. An old 911 with more like 200bhp will lose. 911 Turbos - particularly recent ones - tend to have a lot more poke and not that much more weight, the results are therefore pretty predictable.

LG John

Bonus Hades typed word for word what I was going to type and 1/4er mile time vs trap speeds are always the best way of demonstrating this principal. Impreza's are good at getting physically further down the road than their times would suggest but make no bones about it the times don't lie an M3 will gub a PPP STI if you remove the off-the-line advantage.

jubhi I get what you are saying but you seem to be obsession with traffic light grand prix and IME very few races start like that. When they do the cars usually roll to 10mph before someone goes for it. To take advantage of its 4WD system most impreza's need the clutch pinged from around 4-500rpm - how many scooby drivers honestly see an M3 pull up next to them and actually sit holding those revs just so they can get their launch?!