wr1 0-100 time
02 August 2013, 05:14 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 10.60 has to be correct as they wouldn't be able to publish this information due data protection. The STI is probably a lot slower as its not got a much horse power which would mean that with less power its not going to go as fast which would mean that the more power a car has that it would be a faster car and 10.6 is faster than 12 so the WR1 win's and is a much better car in every possible way.
02 August 2013, 05:22 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In my garage
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 10.60 has to be correct as they wouldn't be able to publish this information due data protection. The STI is probably a lot slower as its not got a much horse power which would mean that with less power its not going to go as fast which would mean that the more power a car has that it would be a faster car and 10.6 is faster than 12 so the WR1 win's and is a much better car in every possible way.
02 August 2013, 05:30 PM
#33
I think 10.60 has to be correct as they wouldn't be able to publish this information due data protection. The STI is probably a lot slower as its not got a much horse power which would mean that with less power its not going to go as fast which would mean that the more power a car has that it would be a faster car and 10.6 is faster than 12 so the WR1 win's and is a much better car in every possible way.
02 August 2013, 09:03 PM
#37
As people have said the general consensus is that the book figures are a little optimistic to say the least...but i know of someone that claimed to get their 2003 STi PPP from 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds...close to the 4.6 quoted
A Redline launch and then smashed the car into 2nd without the clutch and bounced it off the Redline in 2nd...apparently a UK 6 speed will do 60MPH in 2nd when hard on the limiter...
...just shows how hard you have to try to get near the book figure and i certainly would never treat my car like that...in fact i have never treated a hire car that bad
For me...If Prodrive say the car will do a 0 to 60 launch in 4.6 seconds who am i to try and prove them wrong...I'm very found of my engine, gearbox, diffs, tyres etc
A Redline launch and then smashed the car into 2nd without the clutch and bounced it off the Redline in 2nd...apparently a UK 6 speed will do 60MPH in 2nd when hard on the limiter...
...just shows how hard you have to try to get near the book figure and i certainly would never treat my car like that...in fact i have never treated a hire car that bad
For me...If Prodrive say the car will do a 0 to 60 launch in 4.6 seconds who am i to try and prove them wrong...I'm very found of my engine, gearbox, diffs, tyres etc
03 August 2013, 09:00 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Leeds
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well who am I to argue
They are marginly better on the road to a normal sti of the same era although the wr1 has the dccd which i dont think was on the sti of the same generation. So more fun in the snow
Agreed, in reality you will put a lot of wear and tear on the car if you try to get book launch figures out of the car. Get a normal 2003/2004 sti on a track vs a wr1, not convinced there will be all that much noticeable difference.
Must admit on track the wr1 in my opinion is more fun than the rb320 as the rb320 is a lot torquier so you use less revs, keep in a higher gear making track days easier and less of an effort which reduces the fun. In the WR1 you are revving it high to keep in the power band, in a lower gear normally to compared to the rb320 and are constantly working the gears. WR1 has more feel through the wheel and feels more nimble. The rb320 with its wider sticky semi slick corsair tyres has more grip but is a completely different feel to drive.
In my opinion of course as I know plenty will probably disagree as the RB320 has the rep of being the best car subaru did before they spoilt them.
They are marginly better on the road to a normal sti of the same era although the wr1 has the dccd which i dont think was on the sti of the same generation. So more fun in the snow
As people have said the general consensus is that the book figures are a little optimistic to say the least...but i know of someone that claimed to get their 2003 STi PPP from 0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds...close to the 4.6 quoted
A Redline launch and then smashed the car into 2nd without the clutch and bounced it off the Redline in 2nd...apparently a UK 6 speed will do 60MPH in 2nd when hard on the limiter...
...just shows how hard you have to try to get near the book figure and i certainly would never treat my car like that...in fact i have never treated a hire car that bad
For me...If Prodrive say the car will do a 0 to 60 launch in 4.6 seconds who am i to try and prove them wrong...I'm very found of my engine, gearbox, diffs, tyres etc
A Redline launch and then smashed the car into 2nd without the clutch and bounced it off the Redline in 2nd...apparently a UK 6 speed will do 60MPH in 2nd when hard on the limiter...
...just shows how hard you have to try to get near the book figure and i certainly would never treat my car like that...in fact i have never treated a hire car that bad
For me...If Prodrive say the car will do a 0 to 60 launch in 4.6 seconds who am i to try and prove them wrong...I'm very found of my engine, gearbox, diffs, tyres etc
Must admit on track the wr1 in my opinion is more fun than the rb320 as the rb320 is a lot torquier so you use less revs, keep in a higher gear making track days easier and less of an effort which reduces the fun. In the WR1 you are revving it high to keep in the power band, in a lower gear normally to compared to the rb320 and are constantly working the gears. WR1 has more feel through the wheel and feels more nimble. The rb320 with its wider sticky semi slick corsair tyres has more grip but is a completely different feel to drive.
In my opinion of course as I know plenty will probably disagree as the RB320 has the rep of being the best car subaru did before they spoilt them.
03 August 2013, 11:17 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a WR1 weight is 1470 kg it would need around 375 bhp to get near 0-100 in 10.6 secs. I think a standard WR1 was 316 bhp which would do 0-100 in around 12.8 secs.
I don't think this calculator is too far off the mark.
http://www.torquestats.com/modified/...bmit=Calculate
I don't think this calculator is too far off the mark.
http://www.torquestats.com/modified/...bmit=Calculate
03 August 2013, 11:21 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well who am I to argue
They are marginly better on the road to a normal sti of the same era although the wr1 has the dccd which i dont think was on the sti of the same generation. So more fun in the snow
Agreed, in reality you will put a lot of wear and tear on the car if you try to get book launch figures out of the car. Get a normal 2003/2004 sti on a track vs a wr1, not convinced there will be all that much noticeable difference.
Must admit on track the wr1 in my opinion is more fun than the rb320 as the rb320 is a lot torquier so you use less revs, keep in a higher gear making track days easier and less of an effort which reduces the fun. In the WR1 you are revving it high to keep in the power band, in a lower gear normally to compared to the rb320 and are constantly working the gears. WR1 has more feel through the wheel and feels more nimble. The rb320 with its wider sticky semi slick corsair tyres has more grip but is a completely different feel to drive.
In my opinion of course as I know plenty will probably disagree as the RB320 has the rep of being the best car subaru did before they spoilt them.
They are marginly better on the road to a normal sti of the same era although the wr1 has the dccd which i dont think was on the sti of the same generation. So more fun in the snow
Agreed, in reality you will put a lot of wear and tear on the car if you try to get book launch figures out of the car. Get a normal 2003/2004 sti on a track vs a wr1, not convinced there will be all that much noticeable difference.
Must admit on track the wr1 in my opinion is more fun than the rb320 as the rb320 is a lot torquier so you use less revs, keep in a higher gear making track days easier and less of an effort which reduces the fun. In the WR1 you are revving it high to keep in the power band, in a lower gear normally to compared to the rb320 and are constantly working the gears. WR1 has more feel through the wheel and feels more nimble. The rb320 with its wider sticky semi slick corsair tyres has more grip but is a completely different feel to drive.
In my opinion of course as I know plenty will probably disagree as the RB320 has the rep of being the best car subaru did before they spoilt them.
05 August 2013, 11:54 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the RB 320, which looks like a fab car also. However the extra width of the tyres means that there is more drag which means that it needs more energy to over come mechanical contact grip patches. Doing some rough calculations (and I have timed this in my head by counting seconds, one thousand, two thousand, three thousand etc) the WR1 can get to 100 in eleven seconds (I counted eleven thousand, glanced my speedcounter - 100). In terms of top speed they are identical (take 10 mph off of the highest top speed from speedcounter). At the end of the day they are both great, so we should not be arguing - the WR1 just happens to be a little better / faster.
05 August 2013, 01:32 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bagshot
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the RB 320, which looks like a fab car also. However the extra width of the tyres means that there is more drag which means that it needs more energy to over come mechanical contact grip patches. Doing some rough calculations (and I have timed this in my head by counting seconds, one thousand, two thousand, three thousand etc) the WR1 can get to 100 in eleven seconds (I counted eleven thousand, glanced my speedcounter - 100). In terms of top speed they are identical (take 10 mph off of the highest top speed from speedcounter). At the end of the day they are both great, so we should not be arguing - the WR1 just happens to be a little better / faster.
05 August 2013, 01:34 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Are you seriously suggesting that the WR1 is a superior car to the RB320?
Edited, with apology.
But anyone who can claim that the WR1 is a better car than an RB320 is seriously lacking in knowledge.
Edited, with apology.
But anyone who can claim that the WR1 is a better car than an RB320 is seriously lacking in knowledge.
Last edited by thenewgalaxy; 05 August 2013 at 07:11 PM.
05 August 2013, 02:29 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: location, location, location
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the RB 320, which looks like a fab car also. However the extra width of the tyres means that there is more drag which means that it needs more energy to over come mechanical contact grip patches. Doing some rough calculations (and I have timed this in my head by counting seconds, one thousand, two thousand, three thousand etc) the WR1 can get to 100 in eleven seconds (I counted eleven thousand, glanced my speedcounter - 100). In terms of top speed they are identical (take 10 mph off of the highest top speed from speedcounter). At the end of the day they are both great, so we should not be arguing - the WR1 just happens to be a little better / faster.
Absolutely love the way you have described how to count, ******* priceless
05 August 2013, 02:35 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
05 August 2013, 03:04 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the RB 320, which looks like a fab car also. However the extra width of the tyres means that there is more drag which means that it needs more energy to over come mechanical contact grip patches. Doing some rough calculations (and I have timed this in my head by counting seconds, one thousand, two thousand, three thousand etc) the WR1 can get to 100 in eleven seconds (I counted eleven thousand, glanced my speedcounter - 100). In terms of top speed they are identical (take 10 mph off of the highest top speed from speedcounter). At the end of the day they are both great, so we should not be arguing - the WR1 just happens to be a little better / faster.
I've been having a real crap day today and this post had me rolling with laughter. Cheers Oh and for the record, i tried your timing method and my RB did 0-100 in 5 seconds. I'm happy with this result so think i will stick to your method in future.
05 August 2013, 03:20 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its funny how he calculated the extra C/O loss difference in the wider tyre but i wonder whether he included the difference between the WR1 17" wheels and the RB320 18" wheels ? I must admit, the maths needed to work all that out is way beyond me. Mabe WE could help me out here and post up the mathematical formula he used ?
05 August 2013, 03:30 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This is a pretty unbias test between a few subaru's including the WR1 by a well respected Magazine 
http://www.litimports.co.uk/images/p...e/evopage8.jpg
http://www.litimports.co.uk/images/p...e/evopage8.jpg
05 August 2013, 03:49 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
05 August 2013, 04:03 PM
#55
I think WE needs to change his location to "Way out there" as opposed to Earth because he's definitely from another Planet.
Mental pictures of 1 one thousand 2 one thousand have got me in stitches as i type this.
thank you very much that has to be one of the best ever posts on Snet.
Mental pictures of 1 one thousand 2 one thousand have got me in stitches as i type this.
thank you very much that has to be one of the best ever posts on Snet.
05 August 2013, 04:14 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 August 2013, 04:19 PM
#57
I think 10.60 has to be correct as they wouldn't be able to publish this information due data protection. The STI is probably a lot slower as its not got a much horse power which would mean that with less power its not going to go as fast which would mean that the more power a car has that it would be a faster car and 10.6 is faster than 12 so the WR1 win's and is a much better car in every possible way.
05 August 2013, 04:45 PM
#58
Blobeye Spec-C 320bhp and 1370KG=11.1 to 100mph
WR1 320bhp and 1470kg=10.6 to 100mph????? Er....No!!
Same with the 0-60 times, Spec-C booked at 4.3 and WR1 at 4.25
Edited to add its the same as any other version 8 blobeye with the addition of dccd which was already available on the JDM cars,sportscat and a remap.
WR1 320bhp and 1470kg=10.6 to 100mph????? Er....No!!
Same with the 0-60 times, Spec-C booked at 4.3 and WR1 at 4.25
Edited to add its the same as any other version 8 blobeye with the addition of dccd which was already available on the JDM cars,sportscat and a remap.
Last edited by The Pink Ninja; 05 August 2013 at 04:50 PM.
05 August 2013, 06:43 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the mixed bag of emotions. I’m sorry if I have upset a few of you, but please don’t shot the messenger. In additional to attaining a GCSE in CDT I further studied astrology, hence know a thing or two about aerodynamics. So just a quick lesson – of course a Ferrari is going to be faster. Contact patch is irrelevant if a) your co-drag efficient is sub .33 and b) you got potso cash in an off shore account. Much there is on the iterweb (URLs) about the handling characteristics of the WR1 v RB320. The issue is that the RB320 will typically not under steer due to the rev limiter (right foot) of the RB driver. Most have leather seat upgrade so that they can wipe the seats clean if any of their shopping bags fall over on the way back from Asda. Also – RB's should check this, the Michelin Corsar tyre has a directional tread pattern which was side specific – nearly 78.64% of them were fitted on the wrong side. Whilst outer nub textuals may say (left or right) it’s a yellow square on the inside wall which should have the acronym “PEN15". You can either take the wheels off and check or run your hand around the inside wall as the lettering sits proud of the tyre. If you struggle to feel "PEN15" then I'd take to a main Subaru dealership and have them look for your "PEN15". Quite a few RB's are finding they don't have one.
Please have patients with me as I'm new to Subaru's and have a lot to learn.
I would just like to thank "thenewgalaxy" for the retard comment - my legal team will be working with you on a twitter-esque slander "settle on the steps" package - I'm hoping this will pay for a full decat system and one of those magic tree 'new car scent' smellys (mum always comments on how clean the car is with a fresh one opened). For this I thank you.
If you need any more tecnica (see what I did there) help feel free to PM me.
Best WE!
Please have patients with me as I'm new to Subaru's and have a lot to learn.
I would just like to thank "thenewgalaxy" for the retard comment - my legal team will be working with you on a twitter-esque slander "settle on the steps" package - I'm hoping this will pay for a full decat system and one of those magic tree 'new car scent' smellys (mum always comments on how clean the car is with a fresh one opened). For this I thank you.
If you need any more tecnica (see what I did there) help feel free to PM me.
Best WE!