Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

MY05 WRX STI PPP vs MY06 WRX STI PPP

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 07:55 PM
  #1  
jubhi's Avatar
jubhi
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Default 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.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 08:03 PM
  #2  
Martin2005's Avatar
Martin2005
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
From: Type 25. Build No.34
Default

Originally Posted by jubhi
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
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 08:07 PM
  #3  
ScoobyWeb's Avatar
ScoobyWeb
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
From: Near Sheffield
Default

The 06 cars are 5.2 0-62mph, 0-60 is the same at 5 secs.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 08:10 PM
  #4  
darren...'s Avatar
darren...
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
From: Here and there but mainly here...
Default

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...
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 08:11 PM
  #5  
Chelspeed's Avatar
Chelspeed
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Default

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.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 10:09 PM
  #6  
jubhi's Avatar
jubhi
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Default

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........?
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 10:15 PM
  #7  
marmski's Avatar
marmski
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Default

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?

Last edited by marmski; Feb 1, 2007 at 10:16 PM. Reason: tell me what u want.. what u really really want.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2007 | 10:21 PM
  #8  
Tone Loc's Avatar
Tone Loc
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,166
Likes: 1
From: UK
Default

Originally Posted by marmski

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.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 09:19 AM
  #9  
MikeWood's Avatar
MikeWood
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
From: Solihull
Default

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
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 10:44 AM
  #10  
jubhi's Avatar
jubhi
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by MikeWood
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.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 10:45 AM
  #11  
jubhi's Avatar
jubhi
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by MikeWood
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.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 02:40 PM
  #12  
jayltee1's Avatar
jayltee1
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: Reading
Default

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!
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 02:55 PM
  #13  
Tone Loc's Avatar
Tone Loc
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,166
Likes: 1
From: UK
Default

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.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2007 | 03:05 PM
  #14  
jayltee1's Avatar
jayltee1
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: Reading
Default

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)
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
34
Nov 7, 2024 04:10 PM
infomotive
ScoobyNet General
22
Nov 19, 2015 01:24 PM
Dan-
Drivetrain
0
Sep 14, 2015 10:13 AM
scottydouk
General Technical
2
Sep 10, 2015 11:10 PM




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 AM.