WRX wagon vs Volvo S40 T5 FWD
Results 1 to 11 of 11

This is a discussion on WRX wagon vs Volvo S40 T5 FWD within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; right click and save target as.. http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/alexi/t5.mov I never thought that the Volvo can be THAT fast, it beats the ...

  1. #1
    Registered User BIGWZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4

    Unhappy WRX wagon vs Volvo S40 T5 FWD

    right click and save target as..
    http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/alexi/t5.mov

    I never thought that the Volvo can be THAT fast, it beats the WRX
    any thoughts?

    the WRX took off at first, thnx to its AWD, meaning no problems with traction while the S40 struggled a bit at the beginning with wheel spin but once it gripped it started pulling away slowly..
    ...speed signs are only suggestions...

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    I am not going to DL the vid, but I can tell you that if the S40 beat the wrx it was either because the WRX driver was not a good driver or the S40 was not stock. The S40 is only a low 15sec car, but much like the A4 and GTi 1.8T this car responds well to basic exhaust mods and a chip.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  4. #3
    Registered User BIGWZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4
    the S40 is stock, I think, it only beat the WRX by 0.3 seconds
    ...speed signs are only suggestions...

  5. #4
    Registered User BlueCamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Smithfield,RI
    Posts
    414
    wow thats crazy !

  6. #5
    Boba Fett BrianH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Way up high.
    Posts
    17,903
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGWZ
    the S40 is stock, I think, it only beat the WRX by 0.3 seconds

    15.47 is what the subaru ran.Good for the volvo driver, but a horrible time from the suby.

  7. #6
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH
    15.47 is what the subaru ran.Good for the volvo driver, but a horrible time from the suby.
    yeah, thats a good run by the Volvo driver, but in MT form that subbie is capable of a full second better. It could have been a poorly driven auto as well.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  8. #7
    Registered User Kevlar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    420
    How can you drive an auto poorly?

  9. #8
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevlar
    How can you drive an auto poorly?
    the launch.

    just hitting the gas on a launch, or break torquing it can make a pretty big difference. I experimented with my auto Maxima at the track and the difference between not launching and just hitting the gas, as opposed to break torquing @ 2k RPM was good for about .2 to .3 in the 1/4.

    more than likely though, it was a 5MT and the guy could not drive for crap. Wouldn't be the first time
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  10. #9
    Registered User archiebrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by DTR rex
    the launch.

    more than likely though, it was a 5MT and the guy could not drive for crap. Wouldn't be the first time
    W3rd.

    Looks like a 5MT to me. I saw the rexie bob as it changed gear.
    15.47 is embarrassing in anyones language.

    Geez.
    Silver Wagon Club

  11. #10
    Registered User Kevlar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    420
    Even with a bad "launch", 15.47 seems like a pretty bad time for an auto. Anyway, off the line it puts a car length or two on the S40, which would be pretty hard to do with an auto.

  12. #11
    Registered User BIGWZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevlar
    Even with a bad "launch", 15.47 seems like a pretty bad time for an auto. Anyway, off the line it puts a car length or two on the S40, which would be pretty hard to do with an auto.
    you can notice that the volvo really struggles at the begining with traction, but it caught up once the wheels gripped the ground, I can tell you the S40 wouldnt've stood a chance if it where to be an AWD, the AWD is 0.2 seconds slower than the FWD..
    ...speed signs are only suggestions...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •