Test drove a classic
08 April 2008, 04:31 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Probably polishing it.Lol
Posts: 5,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test drove a classic
I took an Rb5 for a test drive yesterday and I was quite dissapointed.
It didn't even feel as quick as my old bugeye WRX and with the RB5 being lighter I thought it would have been fairly nimble.
The car seemed in fairly good order and totally standard, but totally lacked that turbo kick.
Could it have had a problem, or is it that I am used to 340bhp.( although a lardy newage STI)
It didn't even feel as quick as my old bugeye WRX and with the RB5 being lighter I thought it would have been fairly nimble.
The car seemed in fairly good order and totally standard, but totally lacked that turbo kick.
Could it have had a problem, or is it that I am used to 340bhp.( although a lardy newage STI)
08 April 2008, 04:39 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,347
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
I took an Rb5 for a test drive yesterday and I was quite dissapointed.
It didn't even feel as quick as my old bugeye WRX and with the RB5 being lighter I thought it would have been fairly nimble.
The car seemed in fairly good order and totally standard, but totally lacked that turbo kick.
Could it have had a problem, or is it that I am used to 340bhp.( although a lardy newage STI)
It didn't even feel as quick as my old bugeye WRX and with the RB5 being lighter I thought it would have been fairly nimble.
The car seemed in fairly good order and totally standard, but totally lacked that turbo kick.
Could it have had a problem, or is it that I am used to 340bhp.( although a lardy newage STI)
08 April 2008, 04:41 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think an RB5 was about 230-240 ish so should feel quick, however a 340 brake new age should and would be a lot quicker, also depends on the map etc. it might have come in with a bang and thus felt a lot quicker
Last edited by The Chief; 08 April 2008 at 04:43 PM. Reason: get your numbers right lad :-)
08 April 2008, 05:26 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,347
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
125bhp difference and the way a modded newage sti delivers power, the cars will feel worlds apart. A 340bhp classic will ruin a newage owners day with the same power.
08 April 2008, 05:27 PM
#6
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL, you seem to have forgotten about the joys of a little turbo.
Your looking at your bug with rose tinted specs though. Having driven a std classic and std bug WRX back to back, the classic felt noticeably quicker, due to the lighter weight. The mapping also seemed a bit different; more aggressive in the classic.
Any car with 100bhp and similar torque less will feel considerably slower though. STi power delivery is also very different than a classic WRX, much more of a turbo hit, as you expect with a bigger blower, better intercooling, bigger injectors, more agressive cams etc...
Have a go in my Classic with 340bhp and torque and that should perk you up a bit!
Your looking at your bug with rose tinted specs though. Having driven a std classic and std bug WRX back to back, the classic felt noticeably quicker, due to the lighter weight. The mapping also seemed a bit different; more aggressive in the classic.
Any car with 100bhp and similar torque less will feel considerably slower though. STi power delivery is also very different than a classic WRX, much more of a turbo hit, as you expect with a bigger blower, better intercooling, bigger injectors, more agressive cams etc...
Have a go in my Classic with 340bhp and torque and that should perk you up a bit!
Trending Topics
08 April 2008, 05:36 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Probably polishing it.Lol
Posts: 5,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that this RB5 felt slow....slower than a Bugeye when it should have felt quicker. I think my old 172 Clio would have shown it a clean pair of heels.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
08 April 2008, 05:41 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,347
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
The bottom line is that this RB5 felt slow....slower than a Bugeye when it should have felt quicker. I think my old 172 Clio would have shown it a clean pair of heels.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
Last edited by trails; 08 April 2008 at 05:44 PM.
08 April 2008, 05:52 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bridgend, S Wales
Posts: 2,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently an RB5/Uk turbo with 281 bhp, has the same power/weight ratio as a newage STi with 340bhp.
Obviously its not as simple as that when trying to compare both, as they are vastly different in many areas.
Obviously its not as simple as that when trying to compare both, as they are vastly different in many areas.
08 April 2008, 06:05 PM
#12
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that this RB5 felt slow....slower than a Bugeye when it should have felt quicker. I think my old 172 Clio would have shown it a clean pair of heels.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
I was expecting a bit of a kick after reading so much on hear about the classics being light weight and more raw than a newage but it simply wasn't.
There was noticeable lag and it didn't rev freely.
Tbh I am a little confused now as to wether a UK classic will ever be quick enough (wih subtle mods as I don't want to be changing turbo's etc).
I think a test drive in another classic is in order to sway my thoughts.
As for the Clio, the classic should definately feel quicker; nippy thought they are, there is a 75+ lbs ft shortfall in torque compared to a std impreza, let alone one with PPP and that's what gives you the subjective impression of how quick a car is, or the Omph factor.
Ns04
08 April 2008, 06:29 PM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me first!!!
Or better still he can come for a ride in mine and then he'll appreciate the difference between a 240bhp newage and a 340 classic!
Ns04
Or better still he can come for a ride in mine and then he'll appreciate the difference between a 240bhp newage and a 340 classic!
Ns04
08 April 2008, 06:34 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: gravesend, kent
Posts: 4,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
certainly not if you've still got a memory of what your sti is like.
your subtle mods on the most powerfull classic might get you 300ish bhp? now unless you're talking about nutter type r gearboxes there's no way that will keep up with the pace of your sti.
i know classic owners will bang on about rawness and power to weight, lard **** newages and so on, but i can't see how you can get quicker than a car that's stiffer and has more modern technology to get you round corners
all from personal experience and maybe the newage is better for my style of driving (ie crap
) but i would never keep up with my sti in my old higher powered classic. it just doesn't get the power down in the same way.
08 April 2008, 06:39 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this hard to beleive, can you explain further..
plus a newage (although heavier) should have more torque normally....no?
as an example, my mates JDM 94 classic (supposedly running 260-270) was never able to pull away from my WRX bugeye significantly.
plus a newage (although heavier) should have more torque normally....no?
as an example, my mates JDM 94 classic (supposedly running 260-270) was never able to pull away from my WRX bugeye significantly.
Last edited by JimmyBFC; 08 April 2008 at 06:44 PM.
08 April 2008, 06:55 PM
#17
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a classic it's 279.72
That makes a difference, believe me!
As for the torque, not invariably, no- depends on the set up. I've got 343ft lbs from a VF35 set up on a classic and then its a question of torque to weight which, again, will favour the classic.
Ns04
08 April 2008, 07:01 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Probably polishing it.Lol
Posts: 5,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there was something wrong with the car then. It just felt so lame.
Keep the responses coming though...it's good reading
Keep the responses coming though...it's good reading
08 April 2008, 07:18 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (46)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Probably polishing it.Lol
Posts: 5,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps there are obvious differences in power delivery, handling etc but i'm sure there wouldn't be too much in it.
08 April 2008, 07:35 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power to weight ratio of 340bhp new age STi 233.42
On a classic it's 279.72
That makes a difference, believe me!
As for the torque, not invariably, no- depends on the set up. I've got 343ft lbs from a VF35 set up on a classic and then its a question of torque to weight which, again, will favour the classic.
Ns04
On a classic it's 279.72
That makes a difference, believe me!
As for the torque, not invariably, no- depends on the set up. I've got 343ft lbs from a VF35 set up on a classic and then its a question of torque to weight which, again, will favour the classic.
Ns04
08 April 2008, 07:38 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i got my RB5 last year it had a full engine rebuild and to be honest it was right and sharp comming from my modified cavalier turbo.
When i started to modify it it just got better and better....ive just had it on the rollers and got 305bhp and 301lbft torque with a haltec ecu/headers/full system/fuel pump/boost controller etc etc and it pulls like a train....and its still running the TD04
....so im very happy, and it feels fantastic on the road!!
Im getting my TD0518G, 740c injectors and a remap next week so hoping for 350/360bhp with similar torque so im looking forward to that too!!
What im getting at is that my 300bhp classic feels great and very torquey, far more so than my mates old bugeye sti with 310 which didnt excite me at all to be honest
....but as said its a heavier car and all that!!
I think the RB5 u got the run out in musta had something arong with it, cos to be honest my RB5 never felt boring
Kevin
When i started to modify it it just got better and better....ive just had it on the rollers and got 305bhp and 301lbft torque with a haltec ecu/headers/full system/fuel pump/boost controller etc etc and it pulls like a train....and its still running the TD04
....so im very happy, and it feels fantastic on the road!!Im getting my TD0518G, 740c injectors and a remap next week so hoping for 350/360bhp with similar torque so im looking forward to that too!!
What im getting at is that my 300bhp classic feels great and very torquey, far more so than my mates old bugeye sti with 310 which didnt excite me at all to be honest
....but as said its a heavier car and all that!!I think the RB5 u got the run out in musta had something arong with it, cos to be honest my RB5 never felt boring
Kevin
08 April 2008, 09:19 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i bought my standard UK Classic it did not feel that much slower than my previous circa 300bhp 200sx (and thats not from a standing start, thats from 20-70). When you get up to silly speeds you do notice the shortfall in power. So depending on the conditions of your road test, i would suspect something was up with the car...
08 April 2008, 09:59 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB5 is just a special edition UK classic; Few body tweeks but still the same UK-spec over-long gearing, low output (to run on 95RON) and no lighter than a normal classic. Benefits are the TD04 is alot less laggy, but it doesn't have the same shove as the bigger units when it does spool up. Its stifiled by the gearing and the cats, which doesn't help.
Match a td04'd UK spec engine with WRX-RA gearing and a full decat makes it somewhat more manic - on full boost at 2700rpm and silly short gearing = grins. Even with the basic 215bhp (although the decat brings that up bit - once the compressor surge has been safely dealt with) - as we found when we transplanted a RA box/diff into a standard UK classic.
Match a td04'd UK spec engine with WRX-RA gearing and a full decat makes it somewhat more manic - on full boost at 2700rpm and silly short gearing = grins. Even with the basic 215bhp (although the decat brings that up bit - once the compressor surge has been safely dealt with) - as we found when we transplanted a RA box/diff into a standard UK classic
.
09 April 2008, 09:43 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,347
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
I'll take you out in between NS04 and Banny as I'm only running circa 380 in a classic wagon
09 April 2008, 10:53 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
