Performance Figures
02 October 2002, 09:22 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just a tiny bit disapointed in the performance figures of my new WRX and wonder if any of you more established subaru owners can shed any light on it.
I am talking about a new UK WRX just had its first service 1500 miles on the clock.
0 - 60 6.24 secs
0 - 100 18.66 secs
Car is standard apart for prodrive back box and itg panel filter.
Timed using Race Technology performance meter (and not on a public road !!)
Will this improve with miles or in reality is that it for a standard car.
I am talking about a new UK WRX just had its first service 1500 miles on the clock.
0 - 60 6.24 secs
0 - 100 18.66 secs
Car is standard apart for prodrive back box and itg panel filter.
Timed using Race Technology performance meter (and not on a public road !!)
Will this improve with miles or in reality is that it for a standard car.
02 October 2002, 09:32 PM
#2
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
Subaru's improve with more miles, at 1500miles the car is very tight, at 8k miles its going to run much better and give livlier performance 
Now apart from the fact that you have an ITG filter (which isnt really recommended on post MY99 cars as a change in filter seems to be the biggest cause of MAF failure and sever MAF failure can lead to engine failure, id replace with said standard paper filter again
) your car is probably giving reasonable performance for the miles its covered
Tony
Now apart from the fact that you have an ITG filter (which isnt really recommended on post MY99 cars as a change in filter seems to be the biggest cause of MAF failure and sever MAF failure can lead to engine failure, id replace with said standard paper filter again
) your car is probably giving reasonable performance for the miles its covered Tony
02 October 2002, 09:51 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree
If the road testers normally get 5.8 or 5.9 to 60 when absolutely caned and the clutch is side-stepped, I'd be very happy with 6.2 on a young car.
Have you thought about the 30-70 or 30-80 times though as they mean more in real life. I know that my gently breathed on 99MY could do 0-60 in anywhere between 5.0 dead and 6.5, but the 30-70 will aways be in the low-mid 5's - compare your figure or that with other cars to see how competitive it is ?
If the road testers normally get 5.8 or 5.9 to 60 when absolutely caned and the clutch is side-stepped, I'd be very happy with 6.2 on a young car.
Have you thought about the 30-70 or 30-80 times though as they mean more in real life. I know that my gently breathed on 99MY could do 0-60 in anywhere between 5.0 dead and 6.5, but the 30-70 will aways be in the low-mid 5's - compare your figure or that with other cars to see how competitive it is ?
02 October 2002, 10:07 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sodding Chipbury
Posts: 2,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know how accurate these Race Technology boxes are?
Like has already been said, the way testers get 0-60 times is not something you'd want to do very often in your own car!
And yes, 30-50 and50-70 etc are much more relevant in the real world.
Like has already been said, the way testers get 0-60 times is not something you'd want to do very often in your own car!
And yes, 30-50 and50-70 etc are much more relevant in the real world.
02 October 2002, 10:14 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback, i did a 30-70 run in 6.4 seconds, i forgot to mention these figures are on standard unleaded.
The race technology boxes are very accurate when configured correctly, even with just vehicle weight they on average only 2% out, a bargain at £120.
The race technology boxes are very accurate when configured correctly, even with just vehicle weight they on average only 2% out, a bargain at £120.
02 October 2002, 10:45 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'n not at all convinced by the Impreza's 30-70 figure. Autocar has it at 5.6 seconds and having nailed it and used (admittedly) crude methods of timing I really don't think my car can get anywhere near 5.5 secondsville. Please bare in mind I've got a partial decat, TEK3 and dawes at 1.2bar and my car is noticeably quicker than the standard car that can supposidly post this time of 5.6!?!
02 October 2002, 11:11 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CTR EP3 & MX5mk2 letstorquebhp.com
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbolag?........going fom 30-70 can reduce lag with different setups.
I prefer looking at "though 60-100" times, ie. 0-100 minus 0-60 times though the gears going through the 60 mark, for the true performance to show up.
going my Evo mag figures:
UK spec impreza 98: 9.2secs
WRX: 12.3 secs
New STi UK: 8.5 (autocar this week)
Evo7: 8.0
(my 1bar GtiR - 7.8)
Lotus Carlton: 5.8 !
Ferrari 360: 4.5.
R500 - 4.3
Zonda - 3.8
Macf1 - 3.1
I prefer looking at "though 60-100" times, ie. 0-100 minus 0-60 times though the gears going through the 60 mark, for the true performance to show up.
going my Evo mag figures:
UK spec impreza 98: 9.2secs
WRX: 12.3 secs
New STi UK: 8.5 (autocar this week)
Evo7: 8.0
(my 1bar GtiR - 7.8)
Lotus Carlton: 5.8 !
Ferrari 360: 4.5.
R500 - 4.3
Zonda - 3.8
Macf1 - 3.1
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
