Wrx Looks Have Killed (taste)

[maximase86]

My 960 can pull STi's by 500 car lengths from a dig or on the highway... no seriously... I can... :huh:

[Plan_B]

WTF is "sti's"

[maximase86]

B)-->

QUOTE(Plan B @ Feb 21 2006, 06:58 AM) ←

WTF is "sti's"

You got me...I dunno. :(

[maximase86]

Ummm...do you not know that different engines make different HP at different PSI? My friend has a 300ZX TT which is 11 PSI stock and is 300HP. My car at 11 is 240, and the 2.0 WRX at stock PSI (I forget I think It ranged from 12-14 year to year) is 227HP. And I said I ESTIMATED 10HP for every PSI in my car. What could it be then-285 or something?? Big whoop. And how do you know it does not slow him down? Did he ever disconnect the rear axle and run the highway. There is no opinion-only fact or fiction. If you do not believe me, tell me I am LYING.

Yeah and my friends and I have run withe STi's in Connecticut who thought they could shut us up.

I will get that formula and more evidence to back up this AWD thing that I thought everyone knew about. Until I do, I will not post and you can talk behind my back all you want.

First, saying engines make different hp at different PSI is a known. I don't see why that matters when you are trying to prove that your car is faster than an STI. I've taken a VQ30DE in a maxima and have it pushing 339hp at the wheel at 12-13 psi...big friggen whoop.

If you are doing 285hp in your car...and weighs in without driver at 3200 lbs, and the STI does 300hp weighing without driver at around 3260lbs...all drivers equal and similar power curves there is no way you can pull him by 10 car lengths. You'd keep close with him ahead...but certainly would not pull him. The guy in the STI has to absolutely suck for you to beat him by that much. It's a drivers race plain and simple. Quite honestly to pull him that much you need to be making over 325-350 to pull on him like that. I'd sayour car....I'd say that get a dyno chart and a quarter mile slip of your car to back up what your saying. Right now you're just making very vague claims without anything to back it up.

[Plan_B]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Plan B @ Feb 21 2006, 06:58 AM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

WTF is "sti's"

You got me...I dunno.

It's a Subaru B)

[maximase86]

B)-->

QUOTE(Plan B @ Feb 21 2006, 07:35 AM) ←

It's a Subaru

Really? They all look like Saab's to me.

S

[RAzOR]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Plan B @ Feb 19 2006, 10:31 AM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

Your screen name makes me think of Lexus

lextildeath: For some reason I see "lentils"

[SkyWriter]

sorry to stir up the fuss, but it's binned as off-topic wth anyway

the original observation wasn't about performance, it was looks. now i'm color-blind (that means we don't see color the way you all folks do, i'm red/green and this is a blue car, so i got some sense of the colors) but a med blue car with brass wheels (or whatever you call them) looks ugly; just my color-challenged opinion and the tail just makes it worse. honestly if it was jet black... i wouldn't have a problem with it... i think, that is if it really was fast, and i'm not that convinced the tails doing anything for him.

i think i know the guy, and i respect his skills. but the car; it's off the record ugly.

anyway i think i'll talk to to him next time we park close enough; might learn something.

[lextildeath]

I still did not go to my friends house and get the book with the formula cuz it is late now but this is what I have so far:

http://www.altaminiperformance.com/product...rankpulley.html

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forum...ead.php?t=38185

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17418

http://www.klio.net/creasy/probe/hatt/edi-06.htm (6th paragraph down)

http://www.motocarrera.com/rims.htm

To clear up, I did not mean you were talking behind my back. I was just saying people go ahead, as I will not be back until I find something good. It is just wanting to prove something I believe in. This is all friendly argument in my opinion.

And a 300 ZX TT is 0.7 liters bigger than my engine and makes 64 more horsepower at the same 11 PSI. The turbo is doing more work than you think on your car. A 1998 NA is 162HP with 10.5 compression. The 1998 LPT is 199 HP (@8 PSI I believe) with the same 10.5 compression. They did not lower compression, because it is light pressure turbo. So, 37 HP/8 PSI = 4.625 HP per PSI. BUT, the exhaust manifold is waaaay more restrictive than NA headers and the NA has better cams. So you are not starting out with 162 and having the turbo only add 37 HP. You will probably see 150 crank horsepower on a LPT if you hold your wastegate wide open (meaning having the engine run with no turbo pressure at all), So you would be making roughly 6.125 HP per PSI in this case. (ESTIMATE)

My car is 2.3 liters -yeah only a bit smaller, but has a compression ratio of only 8.5. With my waste gate open, I am lucky to get 135 crank HP, making 9.18 HP per PSI. So, my estimate of ROUGHLY 10 HP per PSI on MY CAR can not be extremely off, can it? If I am right, at 17 PSI a LPT would have 254 HP and a HPT would have 291 HP.

[turbor850]

My car is 2.3 liters -yeah only a bit smaller, but has a compression ratio of only 8.5. With my waste gate open, I am lucky to get 135 crank HP, making 9.18 HP per PSI. So, my estimate of ROUGHLY 10 HP per PSI on MY CAR can not be extremely off, can it? If I am right, at 17 PSI a LPT would have 254 HP and a HPT would have 291 HP.

but you don't take in the fact that more boost = more heat

more heat = less power

[550]

there is alot of things he doesnt take account for. All the forumlas in the world wont make me believe he put 10 cars on a real STI nefore 75 mph.

I dont even believe you put one car on an STi before 75 mph.

[Texas850Turbo]

Yeah, sorry lextildeath but there's no way that a C70 with a MBC could have pulled on an STi, much less kept up with it. You can bench race all day, but you have to admit that a car that has more hp, weighs less, and has a WRC- proven driveline is going to trounce 95% of the people on here. It's pretty common to see WRXs that have cosmetic mods to look like a STi.

[Boosted5cyl]

wow how things escalate ! I actually like the new grills but the whole WRC theme can't last forever right ? and for the record the subby's have BOXER style engines, not Porsche BOXSTER motors ok, check the website, and see the OT thread of mine please ! STI's are quick though along with SRT 4's no matter how painful it is to admit !

[550]

Unfortuntely more painful for some than ohters to admit. ANd yeah they are boxer engines... doesn't everyone know that?

[EricF]

I still did not go to my friends house and get the book with the formula cuz it is late now but this is what I have so far:

http://www.altaminiperformance.com/product...rankpulley.html

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forum...ead.php?t=38185

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17418

http://www.klio.net/creasy/probe/hatt/edi-06.htm (6th paragraph down)

http://www.motocarrera.com/rims.htm

To clear up, I did not mean you were talking behind my back. I was just saying people go ahead, as I will not be back until I find something good. It is just wanting to prove something I believe in. This is all friendly argument in my opinion.

And a 300 ZX TT is 0.7 liters bigger than my engine and makes 64 more horsepower at the same 11 PSI. The turbo is doing more work than you think on your car. A 1998 NA is 162HP with 10.5 compression. The 1998 LPT is 199 HP (@8 PSI I believe) with the same 10.5 compression. They did not lower compression, because it is light pressure turbo. So, 37 HP/8 PSI = 4.625 HP per PSI. BUT, the exhaust manifold is waaaay more restrictive than NA headers and the NA has better cams. So you are not starting out with 162 and having the turbo only add 37 HP. You will probably see 150 crank horsepower on a LPT if you hold your wastegate wide open (meaning having the engine run with no turbo pressure at all), So you would be making roughly 6.125 HP per PSI in this case. (ESTIMATE)

My car is 2.3 liters -yeah only a bit smaller, but has a compression ratio of only 8.5. With my waste gate open, I am lucky to get 135 crank HP, making 9.18 HP per PSI. So, my estimate of ROUGHLY 10 HP per PSI on MY CAR can not be extremely off, can it? If I am right, at 17 PSI a LPT would have 254 HP and a HPT would have 291 HP.

Glad to see you're putting some thought into it, but you have a ways to go yet.

For one... The first two or three pounds of extra boost over stock may give you 8-10 hp, but after that you get rapidly diminishing returns. The difference between 15 and 20 psi in an HPT Volvo with a 15G or 16T is negligible.

For two... Are you really pushing 17 psi at 5000+ RPM where you're making peak power? Or have the boost levels faded by then?

For three... The best indication of how well a car pulls on the highway is its quarter mile trap speed. No two ways about it. Your car *possibly* traps 97-99 (that's a generous estimate given your modifications), while STI's trap what, 103-105? They would put busses on you...

Not saying your experiences are made up, but there are lots of pretenders out there. 325i's with M3 body kits, rims, and exhaust, S70 T5's with S70R badges ( ), people who think because they have a boost controller they can call their WRX an STI. Honestly that's where I'd put my money in this case. A WRX traps 95 or so I think. You'd pull pretty well on one...

Even if you *did* beat an STI once, or even twice, that doesn't mean that your car is faster than STI's. There are a lot of cars out there not running properly, or being driven piss poorly...

P.S. The compression ratio on a low pressure turbo is 9.0:1. Its NA horsepower is probably around 140-145.