ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum

ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum (https://www.scoobynet.com/)
-   ScoobyNet General (https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-general-1/)
-   -   MY05 WRX STI PPP vs MY06 WRX STI PPP (https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-general-1/579605-my05-wrx-sti-ppp-vs-my06-wrx-sti-ppp.html)

jubhi 01 February 2007 07:55 PM
MY05 WRX STI PPP vs MY06 WRX STI PPP
 
Guys,

I have the former, a MY05 WRX STI PPP. I believe the performance figures are and correct me if I'm wrong:

Bhp: 305
0-60: 4.6secs
Top Speed: 158mph

What are the performance figures of the MY06 WRX STI PPP? I spoke to the dealer where I bought mine from and he said it was 4.8secs on the 06 WRX STI PPP. I know it is only 0.2 secs but I would have thought the new one with the 2.5 lump would have been faster?

Having said that, when I checked the standard figures of the STIs without PPP both 05 and 06, the 05 was 5 secs flat and the 06 was 5.2 secs to 60.

This is surprising, so am I right in saying that the 06 Hawkeye STI is not as fast as the Blobeye STI model? With or without PPP respectively?

Would this be down to the increased weight because of the 2.5lump?

Thanks :)

Jas.

Martin2005 01 February 2007 08:03 PM
Originally Posted by jubhi (Post 6615619)
Guys,

I have the former, a MY05 WRX STI PPP. I believe the performance figures are and correct me if I'm wrong:

Bhp: 305
0-60: 4.6secs
Top Speed: 158mph

What are the performance figures of the MY06 WRX STI PPP? I spoke to the dealer where I bought mine from and he said it was 4.8secs on the 06 WRX STI PPP. I know it is only 0.2 secs but I would have thought the new one with the 2.5 lump would have been faster?

Having said that, when I checked the standard figures of the STIs without PPP both 05 and 06, the 05 was 5 secs flat and the 06 was 5.2 secs to 60.

This is surprising, so am I right in saying that the 06 Hawkeye STI is not as fast as the Blobeye STI model? With or without PPP respectively?

Would this be down to the increased weight because of the 2.5lump?

Thanks :)

Jas.
Why isnt that fast enough

Anyway its the in-gear speeds that matter, (0-60 is fairly meaningless), and on that count the 06 car should be quicker

ScoobyWeb 01 February 2007 08:07 PM
The 06 cars are 5.2 0-62mph, 0-60 is the same at 5 secs.

darren... 01 February 2007 08:10 PM
I've driven the 2.5 Sti PPP - what the figures don't show is the increased flexibility through the rev range. When you think about it how often do you launch your MY05 at it's hardest. My opinion was that on everyday driving, including nice country roads, the MY06 will be quicker... :thumb:

Chelspeed 01 February 2007 08:11 PM
2.5 litre has bigger holes through the engine (for the pistons to go in) so should be lighter not heavier. Maybe.

Also think it's 305ps (equivalent to 301bhp) rather than 305bhp but I'd be surprised if that makes much odds.

To be honest I think all 0-60 figures are fiddled by the manufacturers, if they felt a bit more honest in 06 than in 05 maybe they fiddled it a bit less? How often do the magazines get even close to the figures quoted by the manufacturers.

jubhi 01 February 2007 10:09 PM
Ok but why have some people referred to the 2.5 lump in the past as a lazy engine on this forum?

Also which would be faster in a drag race, going through the gears?

Any experiences/videos/write ups on a direct comparison etc........?

marmski 01 February 2007 10:15 PM
I think the fact that the Japanese have stuck to the 2.0litre in their 'Performance' Models like the Spec C / RA etc.. speaks more volume than any of our opinions.

I believe the reason for the 2.5 in the UK models was due to stricter EU emmission laws.

Dont the rally teams still use the 2.0 aswell?

Tone Loc 01 February 2007 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by marmski (Post 6616213)

Dont the rally teams still use the 2.0 aswell?
Only because the regulations say they must not exceed 2.0 litres.... i think if they had free choice a 2.0 would not be chosen. Much in the same way that all the very high powered imprezas are 2.35 or 2.5 litres. They ain't no replacement for displacement ;)

Tony.

MikeWood 02 February 2007 09:19 AM
The reason the time to 60mph is slower is that the 2.5 has a lower rev limit and doesn't reach 60mph in second gear so you've got an extra gearchange in there.

Mike

jubhi 02 February 2007 10:44 AM
Originally Posted by MikeWood (Post 6617020)
The reason the time to 60mph is slower is that the 2.5 has a lower rev limit and doesn't reach 60mph in second gear so you've got an extra gearchange in there.

Mike
That explains it then. Thanks for that Mike.

jubhi 02 February 2007 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by MikeWood (Post 6617020)
The reason the time to 60mph is slower is that the 2.5 has a lower rev limit and doesn't reach 60mph in second gear so you've got an extra gearchange in there.

Mike
That explains it then. Thanks for that Mike.

jayltee1 02 February 2007 02:40 PM
Quote: Only because the regulations say they must not exceed 2.0 litres.... i think if they had free choice a 2.0 would not be chosen. Much in the same way that all the very high powered imprezas are 2.35 or 2.5 litres. They ain't no replacement for displacement

There is - Turbos and superchargers!

Tone Loc 02 February 2007 02:55 PM
LOL... would you rather have a big turbo on a small engine or big turbo on a large capacity engine. I know what i'd take.

Tony.

jayltee1 02 February 2007 03:05 PM
I'd like an 8litre V12 with 14 turbos just for the hell of it, but I doubt it would go much quicker than a 2.0 turbo due to the weight (based on Evo FQ400 0-60 in 3.2 or something). Actually a Veyron is all I want....best start doing the groundwork with the accountant (Mrs) :)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands