Holy crap! WRX faster that S4
09-02-2001, 10:54 PM
#41
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Type S, E40 M3s do run 14 flat. 1998-2000 models specificaly. Tom will tell you that they run high 13s as well but...
As for the 330Xi, I have actually seen several 5.8s for the 0-60 in other magazines including UK magazines. The AWD helps eliminate wheelspin.
WRX's numbers are unbelievably good. I do believe them though. I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
All 3 cars did so well though so I have to assume that conditions must have been ideal.
Finally, in general modded S4s will make more power and be faster than modded WRXs mainly due to the 700 more cubic centimiters of displacement. Also, a ONE turbo application is better for ray power. 2 Turbos are used to minimize lag. So the WRX has an advantage for an "all-out" situation but I am sure one could modify the S4 to receive one HUGE turbo, etc.
As for the 330Xi, I have actually seen several 5.8s for the 0-60 in other magazines including UK magazines. The AWD helps eliminate wheelspin.
WRX's numbers are unbelievably good. I do believe them though. I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
All 3 cars did so well though so I have to assume that conditions must have been ideal.
Finally, in general modded S4s will make more power and be faster than modded WRXs mainly due to the 700 more cubic centimiters of displacement. Also, a ONE turbo application is better for ray power. 2 Turbos are used to minimize lag. So the WRX has an advantage for an "all-out" situation but I am sure one could modify the S4 to receive one HUGE turbo, etc.
09-03-2001, 01:32 AM
#42
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by gavriil:
<STRONG>Type S, E40 M3s do run 14 flat. 1998-2000 models specificaly. Tom will tell you that they run high 13s as well but...
As for the 330Xi, I have actually seen several 5.8s for the 0-60 in other magazines including UK magazines. The AWD helps eliminate wheelspin.
WRX's numbers are unbelievably good. I do believe them though. I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
All 3 cars did so well though so I have to assume that conditions must have been ideal.
Finally, in general modded S4s will make more power and be faster than modded WRXs mainly due to the 700 more cubic centimiters of displacement. Also, a ONE turbo application is better for ray power. 2 Turbos are used to minimize lag. So the WRX has an advantage for an "all-out" situation but I am sure one could modify the S4 to receive one HUGE turbo, etc.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Type S, E40 M3s do run 14 flat. 1998-2000 models specificaly. Tom will tell you that they run high 13s as well but...
As for the 330Xi, I have actually seen several 5.8s for the 0-60 in other magazines including UK magazines. The AWD helps eliminate wheelspin.
WRX's numbers are unbelievably good. I do believe them though. I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
All 3 cars did so well though so I have to assume that conditions must have been ideal.
Finally, in general modded S4s will make more power and be faster than modded WRXs mainly due to the 700 more cubic centimiters of displacement. Also, a ONE turbo application is better for ray power. 2 Turbos are used to minimize lag. So the WRX has an advantage for an "all-out" situation but I am sure one could modify the S4 to receive one HUGE turbo, etc.</STRONG>
One of the bunch (with drag slicks and $$$) was "reported" to have gotten into the 11.9 second 1/4 mile range.
IMO -- If anyone is interested in the WRX, it is a worthy addition to "current" reading.
BTW -- The performance is amazing for the actual wheel HP -- and if you ever wondered about dynoing a AWD car (and other issues) they talk about the "Dynopack dyno system" vs. the Dynojet. The Dynopack can be fit one unit to a wheel, unlike a dynojet, but they do compare the two types of dynos. They also talk about the difference on Dynojets using different gears for the "pulls"... So, if you're interested, check out page 16 in the latest October 2001 Sport Compact Car Magazine... (I don't know if the online version is available just yet...)
09-03-2001, 02:01 AM
#43
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 gavriil:
<STRONG> I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
</STRONG>
<STRONG> I am certain that that motor in there makes more than 217HP.
</STRONG>
It's rated a 227hp - 217 lb/ft.The S4 does outperform the WRX on the road course. The WRX posted a 1:22.34 @ 74.3mph lap time vs. the S4's 1:20.77 @ 75.8 mph on C&D's 1.7 mile road course. The WRX is has sparked my interest.
09-03-2001, 02:27 AM
#44
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very strange. The WRX they tested was faster than the S4 and supposedly handles better due to weight, yet it still loses on the track. They must've had really good launches with the WRX since the S4 handily beats it to 120 mph.
09-03-2001, 03:22 AM
#45
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the WRX they tested was on 16" rims, it would lose to pretty much any car on any track because the stock RE92's are horrible!!!
The WRX is about 300 lbs lighter than the S4 but has less power, which explains why it takes the S4 a while to catch up.
The WRX is about 300 lbs lighter than the S4 but has less power, which explains why it takes the S4 a while to catch up.
09-03-2001, 03:49 AM
#46
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RidinLow:
<STRONG>If the WRX they tested was on 16" rims, it would lose to pretty much any car on any track because the stock RE92's are horrible!!!
The WRX is about 300 lbs lighter than the S4 but has less power, which explains why it takes the S4 a while to catch up.</STRONG>
<STRONG>If the WRX they tested was on 16" rims, it would lose to pretty much any car on any track because the stock RE92's are horrible!!!
The WRX is about 300 lbs lighter than the S4 but has less power, which explains why it takes the S4 a while to catch up.
</STRONG>
09-03-2001, 01:09 PM
#49
foolio at heart
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally believe the accomplishments that the wrx is producing is much more impressive. Especially considering what the car is priced at. I was considering both the s4 wagon and the wrx wagon. The bang for the buck factor totally won me over. There is tremendous potential with the wrx. The car has only been out here in the U.S. for less than six months, and people are already pulling 12's. They are doing this with only exhaust, chip and a couple of other minor mods. To me, that is very impressive.
09-03-2001, 07:23 PM
#51
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They test the car differently. If you read the article, they dropped clutch at 3k - 4k rpms. With that in mind...of course the car is going to do as well as the S4. If I remembered correctly, they tested the S4 differently. So in reality, it all depends on the driver. You can really compare which car is faster unless the same driver tested both the cars together. Thats what i think.
09-03-2001, 07:28 PM
#52
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 lenjiay:
<STRONG>You can really compare which car is faster unless the same driver tested both the cars together. Thats what i think.</STRONG>
<STRONG>You can really compare which car is faster unless the same driver tested both the cars together. Thats what i think.
</STRONG>
09-03-2001, 09:27 PM
#53
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>
Perhaps, but the best was achieved from all vehichles. They put the WRX up against two $40k AWD cars. Do you think do an article like that unless they could match or better of the $40k cars? It's just like the Motor Trend issue last year when the put the Type S up against the BMW 328ci. They wouldn't do that unless they could punk BMW in the article.</STRONG>
<STRONG>
Perhaps, but the best was achieved from all vehichles. They put the WRX up against two $40k AWD cars. Do you think do an article like that unless they could match or better of the $40k cars? It's just like the Motor Trend issue last year when the put the Type S up against the BMW 328ci. They wouldn't do that unless they could punk BMW in the article.</STRONG>
Whatever...S4 wins in my book.
09-03-2001, 10:17 PM
#54
Scooby Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Green Brook, NJ, USA
Posts: 998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC, they only have one driver so that's pretty consistant. And what's wrong with launching different cars differently? If they had a standard procedure of drop clutching all their cars from 4000 rpm, they'd have a lot of fast Integras and a lot of slow Camaros!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mlody
5G TLX (2015-2020)
85
12-04-2019 02:11 PM
rcs86
Car Parts for Sale
3
08-02-2016 06:52 PM
