_raven2510_

yea you got that right, most of them suck at driving .....they just think there fast b/c they have a fast car

BigBoosting

Wow, lot of misconceptions about STi's in this thread.

1) My stock 04 STi ran 12.9
2) STi's do not have weak trannies or clutches. The 700whp Big Valley STi uses the stock tranny. They are unbreakable. My 507whp STi uses the stock tranny. Clutches are good to about 400whp.
3) 04 and 05 STi's are exactly the same other than body, interior, and one suspension difference. Motor is the same. The 05 is neither slower nor faster than the 04. Not sure about the 06, but I believe it's the exact same as well.
4) STi > RX-7...I've owned both, I can say that

My STi goes 0-60mph in 3.3 seconds. AWD is teh winnar!

clean85owner

Just because the drivers are slow doesn't mean the cars are slow.

There are no power or weight differences between the '04s and '06s; so why are the '06s magically slower?

I would like you to come up with some actual proof of this. Not "we raced some guy who may or may not have been a decent driver the other day."

eriksseven

iTrader: (6)

I dispute point #4!

Rx7 > STI LOL!

Nah, I like STI's, but I also really like arguing over the internet.

d1rx7

2006 Subaru Impreza WRX STi: Reviews & Specs acceleration (0-60 mph): 5.4 sec. Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 114.51 ft.
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters
Base Engine Type: Horizontally Opposed Horsepower: 300 hp
Max Horsepower: 6000 rpm Torque: 300 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4000 rpm Maximum Towing Capacity: 2000 lbs.
Drive Type: AWD Turning Circle: 35.4 ft.
thats from subaru.com and they say 2004 is 4.6sec (60mph) & 2005 is 4.9, thats the same as my 96 rx7 (when it was stock)

particleeffect

same tires, same power, same gearing. each year of US spec STi has the same potential for times.

_raven2510_

you got that right
0-60 in 3.4 on my friends Sti
AWD>RWD....Come on guys, you know its true?

GnubberLang

the sti is alright but for the price range i'd take an evo. it'd be 100 times better if they'd get rid of that screwy flat engine BS, it's like there eternally cursed to lack top end. The AMS evo on the other hand....

sccagt3

WHAT!!!!!

I quess Porsche got it wrong too--- Screwy flat engine and all----

importsown

Uhhh yea gunna have to agree with the sarcasm here. Dont even start with Flat engines not having obvious benefits (center of gravity can be lower, less room above motor needed, better cooling, etc). The new 911 Turbos (wait till i get to the point before u start jumping to 6-digit price tag flames) with VTG (variable turbine geometry) are insanely efficient. Go look at the specs. 480hp/460lb-ft torque (505lb-ft w/ overboost) all while maintaining 20/33 mpg city/hwy. I know a mechanic that has built an '03 i believe, new turbos/manifold/exhaust pretty much everything else u can throw at a 911 turbo on PUMP GAS, and hes getting 700whp. Now this takes AWD in to consideration. He has also built a twin turbo C5 with 800whp, and he says he would take the porsche over the C5 in a split second. The porsche he estimates a 0-60 in probably 3.0 maybe 3.1 seconds. No joke. Hes got the craziest tires money can buy on his porsche. Coming from this guy, he says that in LESS THAN A YEAR, with the VTG technology porsche has developed, we will be seeing streetable 911 Turbos in the 1500whp range. I believe the guy. Such an ingenious design yet took someone forever to think of it.

Now sorry for rambling on about porsches and whatnot, just thought i would like to back up porsches' useage of flat engines, and point out how useful this VTG really is. I also get really offended when people poke fun at porsches lol.

gregariousgreg

0-100 0.8 seconds.


RWD wins.

Unless it's snowing.

KeloidJonesJr.

iTrader: (8)

AWD is superior to putting power to the ground while RWD has the best weight balance.

gregariousgreg

Actually, AWD is inferior for putting power to the ground unless you have bad traction. AWD systems have more drivetrain loss because there is more rotating mass and friction to rob power. Weight balance for an AWD and a RWD car are fairly similar, that has more to do with where the heaviest parts of the car, like the engine, are placed relative to the wheels.

You are right if you're talking about most street cars though, particularly on street tires. AWD will give you a power to the ground advantage in relatively low horsepower applications where the car isn't going to launch as hard and all the weight isn't going to as drastically transfer rearward. However, for all out drag racing it's just not true.

For example, if you have two 1000whp cars, one is AWD, one is RWD all other variables held equal: The rear wheel drive will get all 1000hp to the ground, because traction will be lost on the frontwheels and transfered to the rear on the launch. The AWD car, even with say, a 70% rear bias system, will lose 30% of the horsepower pointlessly spinning the front wheels which will probably be airborn only putting 700hp to the ground.

Or to put it neatly in one sentence:

RWD is superior at putting power to the ground in high horsepower drag racing applications because of weight transfer, extra weight and drivetrain loss.

_raven2510_

WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT DRAGSTERS HERE...SO SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
unless you have like 1000 hp than AWD is the best choice
more power to all the wheels...you dont just set there and spin at the start
watch this video...Fastforward to 3:04 min and watch this Twin turbo Rx-7 get beat by an STi AWD>RWD....unless you have over 1000Hp than it changes. but i doubt you have that!!!
its the Street Racing 4/14/06 one...

http://www.1320video.com/videos.php

ArmenMAxx

iTrader: (21)

not to be biased or anything, but FWD and RWD cars are much easier to get 9;s and 8's on 1/4 miles. Ive seen a lot more shitty civics get 9's then Skylines. but still def would take a skyline over it anyday.

gregariousgreg

Almost this entire thread is about drag racing. It started with a post about drag racing.

But go ahead and tell me to shut up since you can't actually argue against my points.

By the way, you missed the point. It's not like 1000hp is a magic number. It's just the point at which there is enough power for the front wheels to no longer have significant traction. That horsepower number is going to be different for every car based on weight and traction.

As for your point about traction and the little anecdotal evidence video, I said AWD drive is better when traction is an issue in lower horsepower cars. Plus, you're talking about street racing, when this thread was originally about racing at a 1/4 mile track, so what I've been saying is actually more relevant. I wont tell you to shut up though.

21K95RX7

maybe the reason is civics outnumber skylines like 10000 to 1 in this country....and did it seem like that red FD was missing some shifts?

d1rx7

in new zealand we have a gtr that does 7.81, two more in the low 8s and about 8 skylines gtr, gts, and so on in the 9s and 10s, we have one civic in the 10s, just, as, they are poo, but they do better than the sti as we dont have one in the 10s yet, but we have a few fast rx7(8.48) rx3, and a evo that does 8.23, and a few other really quick ones. so im just saying that the wrx doesnt do very well over here. it is a fast car but takes to much work to make it a really fast car.

_raven2510_

first, skylines are too expensive to import
next, not talkin about top fuel gragsters
and no he didnt miss any shifts, b/c my friend was driving, we caught up with him further down but still lost

gregariousgreg

I wasn't even talking about Top Fuel cars any more. They have between ~6,000-8,000 horsepower. I was just using that as the extreme example of what the absolute best drag setup is. The picture and the 0-100 in .8 seconds thing was just for giggles (though it is factual).

For most cars, RWD would be more effecient than AWD at well under 1,000hp.

Yes, there are lots of very fast AWD cars, but saying AWD>RWD is ignorant.

Mechanic

look at it this way, if the no one was cheap on tires, then awd is definitly not anywhere near superior in racing compared to a rwd (i dunno why on earth do all them real race cars, not your fantasy home made car, use a rwd platform, i am SURE money isnt an object in their profession) thats all i had to say about rwd to awd, they both are good for their abilities, it all comes down to driver and how ******* cheap he can get on the tires/suspension.

_raven2510_

AMSperformance.com EVO IX
World Record Holder Quickest Evolution in the 1/4 mile-9.13 @162 mph
Dyno tested and proven at 988 AWHP
not well under 1000 hp...over 1000hp in the engine

gregariousgreg

Way to miss the point yet again.

Nowhere did I say a 1000hp AWD could not be fast or could not run "X" time with said horsepower, I said it's less efficient, and by no means the best set up. That example only serves to further prove my point. That is the fastest evo IX in the world and it only runs 9s. Not to mention, I would be willing to bet they have the AWD set up to be very rear wheel biased.

Jager

iTrader: (10)

You pwn!

13bpower

AWD is for trucks and turbo'ed 4 door econoboxes that belong in the dirt.

No need to argue anything here, Greg has already spread the ownage around.