subaru forester 2.5 xt runs 13.8 @97...bone stock
07-12-2003, 09:14 AM
#41
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stoneham MA
Age: 47
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, and Autoweek claims 0-60 in 8.5 !!!! A bit worse than 5.3 that C&D got
07-12-2003, 10:50 AM
#42
IT YOU DON'T LAUNCH THE CAR YOU'RE GONNA GET SHITTY TIMES..... AUTOWEEK DOESN"T LAUNCH CARS FOR THEIR TESTING...... THAT PROGRAM CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR A LAUNCH EITHER, ALL ITS GOING BY IS NUMBERS. YOU GUYS HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER LAUNCHED AN AWD VEHICLE AT THE DRAGSTRIP OR ON THE STREET.
TRUST ME - IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET A 13 OUT OF THAT CAR. C&D PROBABLY JUST WANTED TO SEE HOW FAST THEY COULD GO, SO THEY PROLLY LAUNCHED IT REAL HARD.
CLOVIS
TRUST ME - IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET A 13 OUT OF THAT CAR. C&D PROBABLY JUST WANTED TO SEE HOW FAST THEY COULD GO, SO THEY PROLLY LAUNCHED IT REAL HARD.
CLOVIS
07-12-2003, 11:20 AM
#43
Happy CL-S Pilot
I run my trusty Drag Racing Analyzer:
Here is the timeslip:
July 12 03 12:14 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 1.98
330 ft 5.85
1/8 ET 9.13
1/8 MPH 75.4
1000 ft 12.05
1/4 ET 14.49
1/4 MPH 92.18
0-60: 6.0 sec,
All shifting at redline, at 6500 rpms. Launch rpm is 3000 rpms.
Car weight: 3489 lbs (200 lb driver + fuel).
I used a CD of 0.32
So, it is extreemly unlikely to get 13.7s with this wagon.
If I let the simulator pick best shiting point (computed at 6350 rpm):
Here is a new timeslip (better times!)
Sat Jul 12 03 12:25 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 2.01
330 ft 5.87
1/8 ET 9.14
1/8 MPH 75.3
1000 ft 11.98
1/4 ET 14.37
1/4 MPH 93.83
0-60 MPHH : 5.85s!
So basically, this wagon would beat any stock CLS Auto or 6-speed in 1/4 miles... at higher speed the CLS would pull from behind.
Nat bad for a grandma wagan.
Now, droping the clutch from 6000 rpms launch!!!
Here is the timeslip, it is traction limited (you need better tires here)
at Jul 12 03 12:42 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 1.89
330 ft 5.75
1/8 ET 9.01
1/8 MPH 75.4
1000 ft 11.84
1/4 ET 14.24
1/4 MPH 93.87
0-60 MPH: 5.70s
It is getting funnier here.. how about some drag slicks
Here is the timeslip:
July 12 03 12:14 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 1.98
330 ft 5.85
1/8 ET 9.13
1/8 MPH 75.4
1000 ft 12.05
1/4 ET 14.49
1/4 MPH 92.18
0-60: 6.0 sec,
All shifting at redline, at 6500 rpms. Launch rpm is 3000 rpms.
Car weight: 3489 lbs (200 lb driver + fuel).
I used a CD of 0.32
So, it is extreemly unlikely to get 13.7s with this wagon.
If I let the simulator pick best shiting point (computed at 6350 rpm):
Here is a new timeslip (better times!)
Sat Jul 12 03 12:25 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 2.01
330 ft 5.87
1/8 ET 9.14
1/8 MPH 75.3
1000 ft 11.98
1/4 ET 14.37
1/4 MPH 93.83
0-60 MPHH : 5.85s!
So basically, this wagon would beat any stock CLS Auto or 6-speed in 1/4 miles... at higher speed the CLS would pull from behind.
Nat bad for a grandma wagan.
Now, droping the clutch from 6000 rpms launch!!!
Here is the timeslip, it is traction limited (you need better tires here)
at Jul 12 03 12:42 pm
Time Slip For:
2003 Subaru Forester 2.5XT
RT .500
60 ft 1.89
330 ft 5.75
1/8 ET 9.01
1/8 MPH 75.4
1000 ft 11.84
1/4 ET 14.24
1/4 MPH 93.87
0-60 MPH: 5.70s
It is getting funnier here.. how about some drag slicks
07-12-2003, 11:36 AM
#44
Unregistered Member
Drag racing analyzer?
Gimme a break! You believe a program over actual real world testing done by the largest car magazine in the USA?
Get serious......... Like others have already said-- launch an AWD car real hard, and you'll get much better numbers. I can gaurantee you that the Forester was launched very hard to get that 13 second time, especially considering the trap speed.
Gimme a break! You believe a program over actual real world testing done by the largest car magazine in the USA?
Get serious......... Like others have already said-- launch an AWD car real hard, and you'll get much better numbers. I can gaurantee you that the Forester was launched very hard to get that 13 second time, especially considering the trap speed.
07-12-2003, 11:37 AM
#45
launch at 3000 rpms?!?!? looks like youve never launched an AWD car either. C&D probably launched it at redline!!!! sure clutch wont last too long if you keep doin that, but once in a while its nice to smoke an S2000 from a light!
CLovis
CLovis
07-12-2003, 11:40 AM
#46
Originally posted by Tom2
Drag racing analyzer?
Gimme a break! You believe a program over actual real world testing done by the largest car magazine in the USA?
Get serious......... Like others have already said-- launch an AWD car real hard, and you'll get much better numbers. I can gaurantee you that the Forester was launched very hard to get that 13 second time, especially considering the trap speed.
Drag racing analyzer?
Gimme a break! You believe a program over actual real world testing done by the largest car magazine in the USA?
Get serious......... Like others have already said-- launch an AWD car real hard, and you'll get much better numbers. I can gaurantee you that the Forester was launched very hard to get that 13 second time, especially considering the trap speed.
CLovis
07-12-2003, 11:51 AM
#47
Happy CL-S Pilot
Just to let you know this calculator is very accurate. It mimicks what my CLS do on the strip!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
07-12-2003, 11:57 AM
#48
Unregistered Member
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
Just to let you know this calculator is very accurate. It mimicks what my CLS do on the strip!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
Just to let you know this calculator is very accurate. It mimicks what my CLS do on the strip!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
Why are so many people thinking that Car and Driver made the times up? I don't get it
07-12-2003, 12:09 PM
#49
Happy CL-S Pilot
Originally posted by Tom2
But does that drag calculator compensate for the launching possibility of an AWD car?
...
But does that drag calculator compensate for the launching possibility of an AWD car?
...
It can do Computer controlled - no spin launch from given rpm.
It can do maintain no less than certain rpm at launch.
Or you can specify, % throthle position, clutch %, and duration of launch from a given rpm.
07-12-2003, 12:12 PM
#50
Unregistered Member
Okay then.... dial in a 6000 rpm launch with no wheelspin and see what times come up.
Or if you can't do that, then just tell the program that the car has full-glue drag racing slicks and is RWD. That should be closer to the "real world" times than using street tires (in the program)
Or if you can't do that, then just tell the program that the car has full-glue drag racing slicks and is RWD. That should be closer to the "real world" times than using street tires (in the program)
07-12-2003, 12:40 PM
#51
Happy CL-S Pilot
Originally posted by Tom2
[B]Okay then.... dial in a 6000 rpm launch with no wheelspin and see what times come up.
[B]Okay then.... dial in a 6000 rpm launch with no wheelspin and see what times come up.
Originally posted by Tom2
Or if you can't do that, then just tell the program that the car has full-glue drag racing slicks and is RWD. That should be closer to the "real world" times than using street tires (in the program)
Or if you can't do that, then just tell the program that the car has full-glue drag racing slicks and is RWD. That should be closer to the "real world" times than using street tires (in the program)
Nahsua.
07-12-2003, 02:55 PM
#52
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
Just to let you know this calculator is very accurate. It mimicks what my CLS do on the strip!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
Just to let you know this calculator is very accurate. It mimicks what my CLS do on the strip!
It is true, I did not use a Dyno graph for the forrestor 2.5 XT, but I did form my CLS!
Clovis
07-12-2003, 03:27 PM
#54
SHIFT_over.so.I.can.see
C&D don't bullshit... I don't see what the issue is here to believing their #s. WHy are we even comparing real world numbers to computer crunched ones? Baffling...
07-12-2003, 03:44 PM
#55
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
It is not faster with drag slicks as the computer run with no-spin optimization, and I used a factor 95% traction.
It is not faster with drag slicks as the computer run with no-spin optimization, and I used a factor 95% traction.
CLovis
07-13-2003, 08:50 AM
#59
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stoneham MA
Age: 47
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLEARLY you guys, it's a typo and they mean 14.8.
They should put this engine in the new Legacy.
07-13-2003, 09:13 AM
#60
Originally posted by Ray Khan
problem is the trap speed agrees with the time
problem is the trap speed agrees with the time
07-13-2003, 10:40 AM
#61
Unregistered Member
Originally posted by JRock
97mph agrees with 14.8, because many people here run CLSes at the track and pull mid-14s with high 90mphs.
97mph agrees with 14.8, because many people here run CLSes at the track and pull mid-14s with high 90mphs.
Some of you guys gotta get your asses out to a drag strip and start learning the basics
07-13-2003, 11:24 AM
#62
Car and Driver, huh? I find those numbers highly doubtful. These are the same people who got a 15.7 1/4-mile run out of a 2003 TL-S (somewhere around there). They can't drive worth shit, and they can't write if their lives depended on it. That's why I cancelled my subscription.
I prefer Motor Trend waaaay more than C&D.
I prefer Motor Trend waaaay more than C&D.
07-13-2003, 03:23 PM
#64
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by civic4982
C&D don't bullshit... I don't see what the issue is here to believing their #s. WHy are we even comparing real world numbers to computer crunched ones? Baffling...
C&D don't bullshit... I don't see what the issue is here to believing their #s. WHy are we even comparing real world numbers to computer crunched ones? Baffling...
Acura TL-S 1/4 mi ET 16.0 @ 88 mph (as mentioned by Pure Adrenaline) - which is similar to the 1/4 numbers of the 2k3 Accord 4 cylinder w/5speed.
Infiniti G35 (sedan) 1/4 mile ET 15.6 @ 92 mph (after they tested the exact same car four month prior running a 14.8 sec ET)
2002/3 Nissan Maxima SE 6MT running 14.7 second ETs when my automatic SE ran that same ET, STOCK!!
As for Cartest's accuracy, they come astonishingly close to(if not right on) real world numbers. For the record, you can control lauch (i.e.: start RPM and clutch engagement type) on Cartest.
Peace
07-13-2003, 04:02 PM
#65
SHIFT_over.so.I.can.see
Originally posted by F23A4
The issue is that C/D does tend to publish erroneous info like:
Acura TL-S 1/4 mi ET 16.0 @ 88 mph (as mentioned by Pure Adrenaline) - which is similar to the 1/4 numbers of the 2k3 Accord 4 cylinder w/5speed.
Infiniti G35 (sedan) 1/4 mile ET 15.6 @ 92 mph (after they tested the exact same car four month prior running a 14.8 sec ET)
2002/3 Nissan Maxima SE 6MT running 14.7 second ETs when my automatic SE ran that same ET, STOCK!!
As for Cartest's accuracy, they come astonishingly close to(if not right on) real world numbers. For the record, you can control lauch (i.e.: start RPM and clutch engagement type) on Cartest.
Peace
The issue is that C/D does tend to publish erroneous info like:
Acura TL-S 1/4 mi ET 16.0 @ 88 mph (as mentioned by Pure Adrenaline) - which is similar to the 1/4 numbers of the 2k3 Accord 4 cylinder w/5speed.
Infiniti G35 (sedan) 1/4 mile ET 15.6 @ 92 mph (after they tested the exact same car four month prior running a 14.8 sec ET)
2002/3 Nissan Maxima SE 6MT running 14.7 second ETs when my automatic SE ran that same ET, STOCK!!
As for Cartest's accuracy, they come astonishingly close to(if not right on) real world numbers. For the record, you can control lauch (i.e.: start RPM and clutch engagement type) on Cartest.
Peace
07-13-2003, 05:09 PM
#67
Safety Car
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Age: 48
Posts: 3,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk
Ah, Imagine a new owner taking his new station wagon to the strip and doing a best of 15.0 @ 92 MPH... he would pissed at the loss of 1.2s to 1/4 mile.
Ah, Imagine a new owner taking his new station wagon to the strip and doing a best of 15.0 @ 92 MPH... he would pissed at the loss of 1.2s to 1/4 mile.
07-13-2003, 05:54 PM
#68
Hahahahaha "C&D don't lie". Right, they also don't know how to drive a quarter-mile run.
If THEY pulled a 13.8 in that car, the thing is clearly a 12-second monster. Fuck all y'all.
If THEY pulled a 13.8 in that car, the thing is clearly a 12-second monster. Fuck all y'all.
07-13-2003, 08:49 PM
#69
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Stoneham MA
Age: 47
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
97mph agrees with 14.8, because many people here run CLSes at the track and pull mid-14s with high 90mphs.
07-14-2003, 12:23 PM
#70
Unregistered Member
Hahahaha... If Car and Driver posted a 13.7 second 1/4 mile time for a CL-S, you guys would be all over that shit.....
But instead, you pick and choose which numbers are legit and which are BS.
As for the numbers being different on different road tests--
Did you ever stop to think that there are a ton of variables that can produce far different numbers? Different cars (even if they are the same exact model), different drivers, different road surfaces, different weather conditions, different wind speeds etc.... Sorry, but nobody is gonna get the same exact time every time they test a car.
But instead, you pick and choose which numbers are legit and which are BS.
As for the numbers being different on different road tests--
Did you ever stop to think that there are a ton of variables that can produce far different numbers? Different cars (even if they are the same exact model), different drivers, different road surfaces, different weather conditions, different wind speeds etc.... Sorry, but nobody is gonna get the same exact time every time they test a car.
07-14-2003, 03:48 PM
#74
MP Video Extraordinaire
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by endless
60 ft time doesn't affect the 1/4 time you dumb ass
60 ft time doesn't affect the 1/4 time you dumb ass
07-14-2003, 05:40 PM
#75
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by civic4982
I don't think they publish erroneous info or doctored info for any reason. If that's the best they ran for the day then they post it up in their magazine. The issue may be that they've got shitty drivers but I don't think they'd start dropping their times down to impossible numbers. Perhaps they just had a very good driver that day, or graet conditions.
I don't think they publish erroneous info or doctored info for any reason. If that's the best they ran for the day then they post it up in their magazine. The issue may be that they've got shitty drivers but I don't think they'd start dropping their times down to impossible numbers. Perhaps they just had a very good driver that day, or graet conditions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1fatcrxnem1
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
22
06-01-2018 01:23 AM
Joseph Stansbury
3G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
34
12-04-2015 01:57 PM
JarrettLauderdale
2G CL Dynograph Gallery
5
09-21-2015 07:51 PM
