Holy crap! WRX faster that S4
08-30-2001, 08:21 PM
#1
aka davo-tsx
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 55
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy crap! WRX faster that S4
October issue of C&D has a comparo of two $40k AWD (BMW 330xi & Audi S4) vs. the WRX.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.
08-30-2001, 08:35 PM
#4
Suzuka Master
Join Date: May 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 5,773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by davo-cls:
<STRONG>October issue of C&D has a comparo of two $40k AWD (BMW 330xi & Audi S4) vs. the WRX.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.</STRONG>
<STRONG>October issue of C&D has a comparo of two $40k AWD (BMW 330xi & Audi S4) vs. the WRX.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.</STRONG>
08-30-2001, 08:38 PM
#5
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by KCPreki11:
<STRONG>
Yea but unleash the inner beast of the S4 and CYA</STRONG>
<STRONG>
Yea but unleash the inner beast of the S4 and CYA</STRONG>
But NO WAAAAYYYY a modded s4 is going to beat a modded WRX...the WRX will eat the S4 and walk away laughing...
Trending Topics
08-30-2001, 08:47 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk:
<STRONG>CLS has a Trap Speed anywhere from 89 MPH to 97MPH so how does compare to those 96-97MPH and what does it mean...</STRONG>
<STRONG>CLS has a Trap Speed anywhere from 89 MPH to 97MPH so how does compare to those 96-97MPH and what does it mean...</STRONG>
My friend's Galant runs 1.5 60' times....12.5 @105mph....
08-30-2001, 08:49 PM
#9
aka davo-tsx
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Age: 55
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk:
<STRONG>CLS has a Trap Speed anywhere from 89 MPH to 97MPH so how does compare to those 96-97MPH and what does it mean...</STRONG>
<STRONG>CLS has a Trap Speed anywhere from 89 MPH to 97MPH so how does compare to those 96-97MPH and what does it mean...</STRONG>
08-30-2001, 09:50 PM
#10
GOD Of ACURA-CL.COM
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lexington, S.C.
Age: 41
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think those numbers are incorrect i might be wrong . B/c from all the times that SCC and superstreet did i have never seen those times before . The best wrx 1/4 i've seen is 14.7 or 14.8 and 0-60 well the old 0-60 was 6.2 or 6.4 now its 5.8 as suburu states in there ads . I might be wrong but I did look into buying one of these before I got the CLS and those numbers sound too good to be tru
08-30-2001, 09:58 PM
#11
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by moomaster_99:
<STRONG>
Actually...the S4 is nice..I don't think the times are right for the WRX..
But NO WAAAAYYYY a modded s4 is going to beat a modded WRX...the WRX will eat the S4 and walk away laughing...</STRONG>
<STRONG>
Actually...the S4 is nice..I don't think the times are right for the WRX..
But NO WAAAAYYYY a modded s4 is going to beat a modded WRX...the WRX will eat the S4 and walk away laughing...</STRONG>
08-30-2001, 10:02 PM
#12
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also those #s are about .5 sec faster than their own roadtest #s and the S4 top speed is electronically limited. That being said, if I had under 30k to spend I'd buy a WRX for sure.
08-30-2001, 10:19 PM
#13
Cajun Gumbo Man
I'd still rather be in the BMW or the A4 at 147 mph.....Not the WRX... :p
08-30-2001, 10:36 PM
#14
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 1,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fabvsix:
<STRONG>I'd still rather be in the BMW or the A4 at 147 mph.....Not the WRX... :p</STRONG>
<STRONG>I'd still rather be in the BMW or the A4 at 147 mph.....Not the WRX... :p</STRONG>
:p
08-30-2001, 10:43 PM
#15
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 0.82g skidpad rating is very believable. 3200 lbs worth of car riding on narrow 205/55 16 all season Bridgestones doesn't work so well, AWD or not. 
The first thing I did to my WRX was to change the stupid tires.
There are at least 3 WRX's in the US that are running 12's in the 1/4. Check out the latest (I think) SCC WRX shootout.
The first thing I did to my WRX was to change the stupid tires.There are at least 3 WRX's in the US that are running 12's in the 1/4. Check out the latest (I think) SCC WRX shootout.
08-30-2001, 11:13 PM
#16
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ringgold, Georgia, U.S
Age: 62
Posts: 7,281
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
She aint much to look at ... but she can Haul BUTT !
Originally posted by davo-cls:
<STRONG>October issue of C&D has a comparo of two $40k AWD (BMW 330xi & Audi S4) vs. the WRX.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.</STRONG>
<STRONG>October issue of C&D has a comparo of two $40k AWD (BMW 330xi & Audi S4) vs. the WRX.
The following shocked me!
BMW 330xi
0-60 : 5.7 sec.
1/4 : 14.4@96mph
S4
0-60 : 5.5 sec.
1/4 : 14.2@97mph
WRX
0-60 : 5.4 sec.
1/4 : 14.1@96mph
Top speed of the WRX match the S4 at 142mph. Skidpad was only .82 which I would have expected more from an AWD with Potenza's. Not bad for an AWD that cost $16k less than the S4 or 330xi. What kept the WRX from winning was style and features, but it still finished just 1 point behind the S4.</STRONG>
08-30-2001, 11:33 PM
#17
Suzuka Master
Join Date: May 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 5,773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audiace k04 is a single turbo replacement right? I'm sorry moonmaster but I rather cruise in style in an S4...and the aftermarket for it right now it better than the WRX. More than 3/4 of the people in here would take the S4 over the WRX. It's got style, class, luxary and speed.
08-31-2001, 01:13 AM
#18
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by KCPreki11:
<STRONG>Audiace k04 is a single turbo replacement right? I'm sorry moonmaster but I rather cruise in style in an S4...and the aftermarket for it right now it better than the WRX. More than 3/4 of the people in here would take the S4 over the WRX. It's got style, class, luxary and speed.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Audiace k04 is a single turbo replacement right? I'm sorry moonmaster but I rather cruise in style in an S4...and the aftermarket for it right now it better than the WRX. More than 3/4 of the people in here would take the S4 over the WRX. It's got style, class, luxary and speed.</STRONG>
08-31-2001, 01:56 AM
#20
Rock Chalk Jayhawk
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS
Age: 49
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the WRX's looks are either a love it or hate it thing, but why couldn't they have made it look just a little better. They're going to lose a lot of sales because some people won't be able to look past how wierd it looks.
08-31-2001, 03:29 AM
#22
hater
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: frisco, tx
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kuwolde:
<STRONG>I know the WRX's looks are either a love it or hate it thing, but why couldn't they have made it look just a little better. They're going to lose a lot of sales because some people won't be able to look past how wierd it looks.</STRONG>
<STRONG>I know the WRX's looks are either a love it or hate it thing, but why couldn't they have made it look just a little better. They're going to lose a lot of sales because some people won't be able to look past how wierd it looks.</STRONG>
08-31-2001, 03:36 AM
#23
Rock Chalk Jayhawk
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS
Age: 49
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by droideka:
<STRONG>
You're kidding yourself if you think that's true. The ONLY WRXs that don't sell well are the autos because nobody wants them.</STRONG>
<STRONG>
You're kidding yourself if you think that's true. The ONLY WRXs that don't sell well are the autos because nobody wants them.</STRONG>
08-31-2001, 04:17 AM
#24
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 330Xi is running a best of 14.4 @ 96mph, isn't that gunna beat a '9X M3? Don't those typically run anywhere from 14.3-14.6?? Motorweek ran the WRX to the 1/4-mile and they got the following numbers: 5.6/14.3 seconds. However, they didn't have the 17" rims on their test vehicle.
The 330Xi's number continue to baffle me. Has anyone on the BMW boards actually taken their car to the track and posted better numbers on average than a 330Ci?? I would think that the 330Xi would be the car to have over the 330i/330Ci if it's quicker, however I never see one on the road, and my neighborhood is FULL of BMW's and MB's.
At the WRX forum, I've see timeslips from a guy who's posted a best of 14.3 for his stock WRX in the 1/4. He said he dropped clutch at 6000 rpms. I question the longevity of that clutch pulling stunts like that.
The 330Xi's number continue to baffle me. Has anyone on the BMW boards actually taken their car to the track and posted better numbers on average than a 330Ci?? I would think that the 330Xi would be the car to have over the 330i/330Ci if it's quicker, however I never see one on the road, and my neighborhood is FULL of BMW's and MB's.
At the WRX forum, I've see timeslips from a guy who's posted a best of 14.3 for his stock WRX in the 1/4. He said he dropped clutch at 6000 rpms. I question the longevity of that clutch pulling stunts like that.
08-31-2001, 11:25 AM
#26
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is dropping the clutch from 6000 in a WRX really bad for longevity, but it doesn't give you a very good launch either. The engine doesn't have any power when the turbo's not spooled, and a sudden drop from 6000 rpm just instantly sends it back down to idle... and then you have to wait a second or so for the turbo to spool (not til 3000).
I don't know if any of you are interested, but the best way to launch the WRX is to slip the clutch at 4000 rpm or so until the turbo spools (doesn't take long at WOT at 4000) & then let it go. It's not very good for the clutch, but it beats breaking the more expensive bits in the tranny (since you eliminate the driveline shock from drop clutching) as well as slow ET's.
Oh, and I found the SCC results:
The info below is as follows:
(boost, bhp, torque, 1/4 mile, 0-60 acc, 60-0 brake, 700ft slalom)
bhp & torque @ wheels
Stock WRX:
13.8 psi, 147, 141, 14.3@93.5, 5.8 secs, 126ft, 67.9 mph
Bozz Speed WRX:
21 psi, 217, 204, 13.1@102.8, 4.7secs, 113ft, 72.6 mph
M2 WRX:
16 psi, 202, 173, 13.2@102.2, 4.8 secs, 105ft, 73.6 mph
Team Subaru USTCC 2002 WRX:
13 psi, 160, 147, 13.8@97.4, 5.3 secs, 120ft, 73.4 mph
Vishnu Performnce WRX:
16 psi, 218, 198, 12.9@104.6, 4.5 secs, 125ft, 69.7 mph
SPO Stage I WRX:
14 psi, 182, 170, 13.6@99.5, 5.2 secs, 123ft, 70.5 mph
SPO Stage II WRX: (wheels damaged during testing)
70+ bhp over stock, 71.2 mph slalom
SPO Stage III thru Stage V WRX: (not tested)
III - 320 bhp
IV - 340 bhp
V - bhp not mentioned
I don't know if any of you are interested, but the best way to launch the WRX is to slip the clutch at 4000 rpm or so until the turbo spools (doesn't take long at WOT at 4000) & then let it go. It's not very good for the clutch, but it beats breaking the more expensive bits in the tranny (since you eliminate the driveline shock from drop clutching) as well as slow ET's.
Oh, and I found the SCC results:
The info below is as follows:
(boost, bhp, torque, 1/4 mile, 0-60 acc, 60-0 brake, 700ft slalom)
bhp & torque @ wheels
Stock WRX:
13.8 psi, 147, 141, 14.3@93.5, 5.8 secs, 126ft, 67.9 mph
Bozz Speed WRX:
21 psi, 217, 204, 13.1@102.8, 4.7secs, 113ft, 72.6 mph
M2 WRX:
16 psi, 202, 173, 13.2@102.2, 4.8 secs, 105ft, 73.6 mph
Team Subaru USTCC 2002 WRX:
13 psi, 160, 147, 13.8@97.4, 5.3 secs, 120ft, 73.4 mph
Vishnu Performnce WRX:
16 psi, 218, 198, 12.9@104.6, 4.5 secs, 125ft, 69.7 mph
SPO Stage I WRX:
14 psi, 182, 170, 13.6@99.5, 5.2 secs, 123ft, 70.5 mph
SPO Stage II WRX: (wheels damaged during testing)
70+ bhp over stock, 71.2 mph slalom
SPO Stage III thru Stage V WRX: (not tested)
III - 320 bhp
IV - 340 bhp
V - bhp not mentioned
08-31-2001, 03:04 PM
#27
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AudiAce:
<STRONG>
Ummm no. KO4 S4s are deep into the 12s. There are way more 13 sec S4s than WRXs. Ever heard no replacement for displacement?</STRONG>
<STRONG>
Ummm no. KO4 S4s are deep into the 12s. There are way more 13 sec S4s than WRXs. Ever heard no replacement for displacement?</STRONG>
08-31-2001, 03:09 PM
#28
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm...hello!?! The 6000rpm drop is definitely not a good thing for the tranny, but how do you get that it drops back down to 2000rpms or so??? If that thing doesn't drop the clutch that high..it's not making enough boost. If an AWD is not getting at least 1.7 60' times...your better off having a FWD...because the AWD then becomes a detriment after the launch.
08-31-2001, 03:21 PM
#29
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TL_Type_S:
<STRONG>If the 330Xi is running a best of 14.4 @ 96mph, isn't that gunna beat a '9X M3? Don't those typically run anywhere from 14.3-14.6?? Motorweek ran the WRX to the 1/4-mile and they got the following numbers: 5.6/14.3 seconds. However, they didn't have the 17" rims on their test vehicle.
The 330Xi's number continue to baffle me. Has anyone on the BMW boards actually taken their car to the track and posted better numbers on average than a 330Ci?? I would think that the 330Xi would be the car to have over the 330i/330Ci if it's quicker, however I never see one on the road, and my neighborhood is FULL of BMW's and MB's.
At the WRX forum, I've see timeslips from a guy who's posted a best of 14.3 for his stock WRX in the 1/4. He said he dropped clutch at 6000 rpms. I question the longevity of that clutch pulling stunts like that.</STRONG>
<STRONG>If the 330Xi is running a best of 14.4 @ 96mph, isn't that gunna beat a '9X M3? Don't those typically run anywhere from 14.3-14.6?? Motorweek ran the WRX to the 1/4-mile and they got the following numbers: 5.6/14.3 seconds. However, they didn't have the 17" rims on their test vehicle.
The 330Xi's number continue to baffle me. Has anyone on the BMW boards actually taken their car to the track and posted better numbers on average than a 330Ci?? I would think that the 330Xi would be the car to have over the 330i/330Ci if it's quicker, however I never see one on the road, and my neighborhood is FULL of BMW's and MB's.
At the WRX forum, I've see timeslips from a guy who's posted a best of 14.3 for his stock WRX in the 1/4. He said he dropped clutch at 6000 rpms. I question the longevity of that clutch pulling stunts like that.</STRONG>
Actually '95-'99 M3s run 14 flat @ 99MPH. My best on my car was a 14.3 at the Union Grove track a few months ago. Gonna go again soon since its cooler.
08-31-2001, 03:31 PM
#31
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by moomaster_99:
<STRONG>Ummm...hello!?! The 6000rpm drop is definitely not a good thing for the tranny, but how do you get that it drops back down to 2000rpms or so??? If that thing doesn't drop the clutch that high..it's not making enough boost. If an AWD is not getting at least 1.7 60' times...your better off having a FWD...because the AWD then becomes a detriment after the launch.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Ummm...hello!?! The 6000rpm drop is definitely not a good thing for the tranny, but how do you get that it drops back down to 2000rpms or so??? If that thing doesn't drop the clutch that high..it's not making enough boost. If an AWD is not getting at least 1.7 60' times...your better off having a FWD...because the AWD then becomes a detriment after the launch.</STRONG>
If you slip the clutch at around 4000 and keep your foot in it, the turbo spools up right away & off you go.
If you don't, then you have to wait as the low compression engine struggles to move the car off the line without any boost... until it hits 3000 rpm (and that does take a while, especially for those used to NA motors).[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: RidinLow ]
08-31-2001, 03:32 PM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RidinLow:
<STRONG>
The reason why it falls from 6000 back down to nothing is because there's not enough power to spin the wheels. Full boost in the WRX is found at 3000 rpm, but only if it's floored. You can rev it to 6000 and have 0 psi because it's not floored.
If you slip the clutch at around 4000 and keep your foot in it, the turbo spools up right away & off you go. If you don't, then you have to wait for the low compression engine struggles to move the car off the line until it hits 3000 rpm (and that does take a while, especially for those used to NA motors).
[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: RidinLow ]</STRONG>
<STRONG>
The reason why it falls from 6000 back down to nothing is because there's not enough power to spin the wheels. Full boost in the WRX is found at 3000 rpm, but only if it's floored. You can rev it to 6000 and have 0 psi because it's not floored.
If you slip the clutch at around 4000 and keep your foot in it, the turbo spools up right away & off you go.
If you don't, then you have to wait for the low compression engine struggles to move the car off the line until it hits 3000 rpm (and that does take a while, especially for those used to NA motors).[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: RidinLow ]</STRONG>
08-31-2001, 03:40 PM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RidinLow:
<STRONG>Actually, I just edited my post a bit to explain myself a little better if you wanna check it out.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Actually, I just edited my post a bit to explain myself a little better if you wanna check it out.
</STRONG>
The stock turbos are crap...I heard that they are already maxed out at 14psi...
08-31-2001, 03:59 PM
#35
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Damaged:
<STRONG>
Actually '95-'99 M3s run 14 flat @ 99MPH. My best on my car was a 14.3 at the Union Grove track a few months ago. Gonna go again soon since its cooler.</STRONG>
<STRONG>
Actually '95-'99 M3s run 14 flat @ 99MPH. My best on my car was a 14.3 at the Union Grove track a few months ago. Gonna go again soon since its cooler.</STRONG>
Let's see your 14.3 timeslip, or at least post the data from it.
[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: TL_Type_S ]
08-31-2001, 06:05 PM
#36
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, the stock turbo is relatively tiny... it'll put out up to around 18psi at around 4000 rpm but it trails off back to 14 near redline. So running much over 14 with the stock turbo isn't the best idea unless you like superheated intake temps. Of course, that hasn't stopped a lot of us, and the WRX goes super rich as soon as the MAF detects that you've messed with the boost, so there is a safety net.
09-02-2001, 02:47 AM
#37
go like hell
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Anna,OH(home of the honda/acura motors)
Age: 42
Posts: 5,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
i don't know the numbers on the WRX Sti but i'd be half scared to pull up on it in a CL-S. i think that comes out as a 2003 package.
i know if i had my CL-S i would run a WRX on a curvy road but in a 1/4 mile probably i would. I've seen one on a curvy road they go through that like it's nothing.wanna talk about a CAR ON A RAIL!!!
i know if i had my CL-S i would run a WRX on a curvy road but in a 1/4 mile probably i would. I've seen one on a curvy road they go through that like it's nothing.wanna talk about a CAR ON A RAIL!!!
