06 WRX vs. 06 Civic Si - Page 11
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 178

This is a discussion on 06 WRX vs. 06 Civic Si within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Why Taste Falafel? Ray, your avatar is confusing me. Looks like Japanamation meets a diseased cow heart....

  1. #151
    Moderator Integra96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    16,989
    I Support ClubWRX
    Why Taste Falafel?

    Ray, your avatar is confusing me. Looks like Japanamation meets a diseased cow heart.
    "Did you sleep well?"
    "No, I made a couple of mistakes."
    -- Steven Wright

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #152
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    47,044
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    Why Taste Falafel?

    Ray, your avatar is confusing me. Looks like Japanamation meets a diseased cow heart.
    Mission accomplished. It is my goal to induce confusion.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  4. #153
    schoolloans
    [QUOTE=YBNormal07]
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolloans

    I'd be interested in seeing where you arrive at that figure. Do you have stock dyno's of the Si? The impreza platform does not loose 10-15% MORE hp to the wheels than a FWD platform. As someone who has spent some serious time on a dyno with multiple platforms, I know for a fact that statement is incorrect. Depending on conditions (temp., humidity, barometric pressure, tire choice, etc.) our AWDs loose about 19-22%. You cant seriously be saying the honda only loses 9 to 12% to the wheels, or using the 15%, 4 to 7%. Lets get real here.

    If your point is that the AWD loosed more to the wheels, then of course, that is a given. Lets say that we give the honda a 15% loss and the WRX and 21% loss. It would put the P/W ratio differential at about 0.4 in favor of the Honda. However, the torque differential is still a whopping 24 lbs for the Honda to lug around per HP vs the 17 of the WRX. Your statement about a 2wd walking an AWD of equal HP is incorrect also. This is true if the weight factor is not taken into account. If the AWD weighs less, that statement goes out the window.

    All that being said, I never thought I'd have to challenge an Si against a WRX on paper, but that day is here. The Si is a pretty good package. Like I said though...it's FWD. For that, I give it a
    18-22%???? WRX's typically dyno at about 165 -170 whp. Much more than an 18% loss. I'm stand by my 10% difference between and AWD car and a FWD car. STi's, call it 225-235 whp depending on the dyno, again, 22% on the low side, more likely 25% I'd say 22% is on the low side.

    Go look up the drivetrain loss for a fwd car... They loose about 15%. RSX-s, early years...200 hp, 170whp...15%. 10% difference is right on I think. I'll edit a little and say 22-25% for AWD (and countless dyno's to show it) and 12-15% for FWD cars. Again, this is all based on different dynos, but certainly there is significant;y more drivetrain loss with AWD and there's the added weight too.

    And of course I was talking about cars that have equal weights, obviously you'd have to assume that.

    Last thing, how much do you think torque is helping you on a roll after you're in the power???? Hardly at all. Once rolling and in the rpms, torque doesn't mean much of anything. Its nice for around town, or off a slow corner, but on a roll, its really not an advantage.

  5. #154
    Moderator YBNormal07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,245
    I Support ClubWRX
    [quote=schoolloans]
    Quote Originally Posted by YBNormal07

    18-22%???? WRX's typically dyno at about 165 -170 whp. Much more than an 18% loss. I'm stand by my 10% difference between and AWD car and a FWD car. STi's, call it 225-235 whp depending on the dyno, again, 22% on the low side, more likely 25% I'd say 22% is on the low side.

    Go look up the drivetrain loss for a fwd car... They loose about 15%. RSX-s, early years...200 hp, 170whp...15%. 10% difference is right on I think. I'll edit a little and say 22-25% for AWD (and countless dyno's to show it) and 12-15% for FWD cars. Again, this is all based on different dynos, but certainly there is significant;y more drivetrain loss with AWD and there's the added weight too.

    And of course I was talking about cars that have equal weights, obviously you'd have to assume that.

    Last thing, how much do you think torque is helping you on a roll after you're in the power???? Hardly at all. Once rolling and in the rpms, torque doesn't mean much of anything. Its nice for around town, or off a slow corner, but on a roll, its really not an advantage.
    You are choosing the most optimistic numbers for the FWD platform vs the most pessimistic numbers for the AWD platform. This is an extremely old argument and has been proven incorrect on this board a number of times. Choose to believe as you will. As an owner of a WRX, an STi, and a Legacy, all modified at various stages, I speak from experience, with dyno's graphs (somewhere) I can post to back it up. Can you say the same? Granted, this is all bench racing, and only heads up matchups would determine where things really are, but then I don't pick a car based on it's supposed numbers, nor to I jump into a discussion like this without actual experience. It is obvious you are choosing your numbers to suit your position. Thats fine. Just please be clear in what you are trying to say in the first place, as I note you did not say anything about the change in numbers you originally posted of 10-15%, now saying that 10% is right on. What happened to the 15%? By your logic, the actual span is now 5-15% yes? Since your are allowing for 5% to the negative, why not 5% to the positive? I'll even give you some support. My stock STi dynoed at 255. That equals a 15% drivetrain loss. Do I believe that number. No I don't. However, even at a stock figure of 240 HP, you are still looking at only a 20% loss, which, BTW, refutes the 22% to 25% loss you are referring to. We could go on and on to debate this, but it won't make a difference as you and I obviously do not see eye to eye on this. Feel free to provide me with link to the STi's that posted a 225 stock dyno though. I'm well aware that there are a few out there, but the vast majority are much higher than this. It has been demostrated since the STi first hit the steet that it averages around 240 or so the wheels in stock form. After all, a stock 12.9 1/4 mile time does not support a dyno of 225 now does it? I also wouldn't call 104 through the traps exactly sluggish either. Same goes for a stock WRX time of 14.0. The physics are with me. You simply can't get a 3200 lb car to run a 12.9 with only 225 to the wheels. The math will never work. So I guess my car was one of those "factory flukes" (in this day and age of robotic assembly lines right).

    I personally could care less what helps me from a roll. Sure, seeing what your car will do against another is a blast, and I can say I've participated a number of times. Who doesn't. Those who do concern themselves with that aspect, well, more power to 'em. Performance racing is much more than putting your foot to the floor from a roll and seeing who comes out on top and some undetermined distance. IMHO, it's prevaliance comes from inexperience or inability to launch a vehcicle from a dead stop. The only sport that requires racing from a roll with no turns is top speed events such as out at the salt flats. I admire the commitment it takes to partake in those events, but it really isn't something that translates to driving on the road. The torque matters significantly when you are powering out of a corner, which very few cars to better then our platforms. It's just the nature of the beast that since you have 4 tires to push/pull you while turning at the same time, it will be faster at this point. A car that only dominates in a rolling run is great for fame on a public street, but will likely get trashed at a true race venue such as the 1/4 mile or road course where skill is needed to actually apply the power in a useful manner.

    I guarantee that you will get a bigger smile on your face launching a WRX from a stop over a rolling race with a civic any day of the week.
    tEh PriUs=teH faSTah!@@!
    08 Audi S5 Black Diamond edition
    SOLD: 05 SWP Legacy GT Limited 5MT, 13.3ish@105 (stage 2) crappy stock clutch
    SOLD: 04 MPS/SW WRX Sti. 12.971 @ 103.97 (stock)
    278 AWHP/283 AWT, Catback exhaust
    306 AWHP/341 AWT, Stage 2
    (Scott) Moderator-STi, Drag Racing, Car Purchasing, and Tutorial Forums

  6. #155
    Registered User TheReaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vista, CA
    Posts
    511
    [QUOTE=YBNormal07]
    Quote Originally Posted by schoolloans

    You are choosing the most optimistic numbers for the FWD platform vs the most pessimistic numbers for the AWD platform. This is an extremely old argument and has been proven incorrect on this board a number of times. Choose to believe as you will. As an owner of a WRX, an STi, and a Legacy, all modified at various stages, I speak from experience, with dyno's graphs (somewhere) I can post to back it up. Can you say the same? Granted, this is all bench racing, and only heads up matchups would determine where things really are, but then I don't pick a car based on it's supposed numbers, nor to I jump into a discussion like this without actual experience. It is obvious you are choosing your numbers to suit your position. Thats fine. Just please be clear in what you are trying to say in the first place, as I note you did not say anything about the change in numbers you originally posted of 10-15%, now saying that 10% is right on. What happened to the 15%? By your logic, the actual span is now 5-15% yes? Since your are allowing for 5% to the negative, why not 5% to the positive? I'll even give you some support. My stock STi dynoed at 255. That equals a 15% drivetrain loss. Do I believe that number. No I don't. However, even at a stock figure of 240 HP, you are still looking at only a 20% loss, which, BTW, refutes the 22% to 25% loss you are referring to. We could go on and on to debate this, but it won't make a difference as you and I obviously do not see eye to eye on this. Feel free to provide me with link to the STi's that posted a 225 stock dyno though. I'm well aware that there are a few out there, but the vast majority are much higher than this. It has been demostrated since the STi first hit the steet that it averages around 240 or so the wheels in stock form. After all, a stock 12.9 1/4 mile time does not support a dyno of 225 now does it? I also wouldn't call 104 through the traps exactly sluggish either. Same goes for a stock WRX time of 14.0. The physics are with me. You simply can't get a 3200 lb car to run a 12.9 with only 225 to the wheels. The math will never work. So I guess my car was one of those "factory flukes" (in this day and age of robotic assembly lines right).

    I personally could care less what helps me from a roll. Sure, seeing what your car will do against another is a blast, and I can say I've participated a number of times. Who doesn't. Those who do concern themselves with that aspect, well, more power to 'em. Performance racing is much more than putting your foot to the floor from a roll and seeing who comes out on top and some undetermined distance. IMHO, it's prevaliance comes from inexperience or inability to launch a vehcicle from a dead stop. The only sport that requires racing from a roll with no turns is top speed events such as out at the salt flats. I admire the commitment it takes to partake in those events, but it really isn't something that translates to driving on the road. The torque matters significantly when you are powering out of a corner, which very few cars to better then our platforms. It's just the nature of the beast that since you have 4 tires to push/pull you while turning at the same time, it will be faster at this point. A car that only dominates in a rolling run is great for fame on a public street, but will likely get trashed at a true race venue such as the 1/4 mile or road course where skill is needed to actually apply the power in a useful manner.

    I guarantee that you will get a bigger smile on your face launching a WRX from a stop over a rolling race with a civic any day of the week.
    word. That is so what I think but I probably couldnt have said it as well as you did.
    You might be a king or a little street sweeper but sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper.

  7. #156
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Integra96
    My opinion is opinionated and biased? I think you're on to something.
    i know. way to cop out of a fanboy post.
    Last edited by AngelBoy; 12-19-2005 at 06:34 AM.
    embattled, we prevail...only victory exhaled.

  8. #157
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    47,044
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by AngelBoy
    i know. way to cop out of a fanboy post.
    Fanboy? Dave?
    That's fresh. Dave's about as realistic and scientifically objective a person as you're going to find on here, IMO...
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  9. #158
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,087
    i'm not a big fan of dismissing drivetrain layouts altogether. it's engineering that matters a lot more than what's on paper.

    Porsche puts their engines over the rear axle in the 911 and makes it work; i think FWD has come a long way with the Mini Cooper, Acura TSX, Mazda 3, and yes, the Si.

    sorry to call anyone a fanboy, it's just that how else can you describe a group of people that dismiss cars automatically because of its drivetrain layout? a Neon ACR will spank most WRX's on a road coarse, and feels right at home doing it.
    Last edited by AngelBoy; 12-19-2005 at 08:30 AM.
    embattled, we prevail...only victory exhaled.

  10. #159
    Boba Fett BrianH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Way up high.
    Posts
    17,938
    Quote Originally Posted by AngelBoy
    sorry to call anyone a fanboy, it's just that how else can you describe a group of people that dismiss cars automatically because of its drivetrain layout? a Neon ACR will spank most WRX's on a road coarse, and feels right at home doing it.
    Describe a group of people that dismiss FWD entirely. . hmmm, Experienced?

    Have you ever driven FWD? Now have you tried to put power to the ground with FWD?
    How about coming out of a corner, or coming out of the hole? Torque steer & spin. . .not everyone can drive around all the time with traction bars on the back to keep load on the fronts.

    And yes, I've driven plenty of FWD cars both stock and very heavily modded from 60hp honda's to 400+fwhp gst's and srt4's.

  11. #160
    Moderator Integra96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    16,989
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by AngelBoy
    i know. way to cop out of a fanboy post.


    I think you missed the point of that post.
    "Did you sleep well?"
    "No, I made a couple of mistakes."
    -- Steven Wright

  12. #161
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    47,044
    I Support ClubWRX
    My experience comes from my ownership of a Maxima, and from renting/driving many different cars. Can a FWD car do well on a road course? Sure, I don't think anyone's said anything to the contrary.

    The point is that after driving AWD and nicer RWD cars, I now loathe performance cars with FWD. You can quote numbers all day from Autocross or magazines, and you won't change the fact that I don't like the way they put their power to the ground, well-engineered or not. It's just a preference. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

    I've recently driven a late-model 911; your attempt to create some kind of kinship between that layout and a FWD car is kinda strange. From the point of view of handling dynamics, the 911 felt completely different from any FWD car I've been in.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  13. #162
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,087
    well you make good points but there is a strong kinship b/w a 911 and a good handling FWD car; they both have less-than-optimal layouts to begin with. in a FWD car, most of the weight is up front, and so are the drive wheels. in the 911, most of the weight is in back, and so are the drive wheels. to make either car handle well takes some good engineering.

    and yes, Subaru's AWD is excellent, but its 5-speed's are absolute junk and you know it. i honestly wouldn't mind trading in 2 drive wheels for a slick shifting six speed these days. my point is that a FWD car shouldn't be dismissed because it's FWD, you have to look at the total package.
    embattled, we prevail...only victory exhaled.

  14. #163
    Administrator Trainrex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    26,593
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by AngelBoy
    well you make good points but there is a strong kinship b/w a 911 and a good handling FWD car; they both have less-than-optimal layouts to begin with. in a FWD car, most of the weight is up front, and so are the drive wheels. in the 911, most of the weight is in back, and so are the drive wheels. to make either car handle well takes some good engineering.
    I would subscribe to that argument if the powered wheels on a fwd weren't the ones steering it.

  15. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH
    Describe a group of people that dismiss FWD entirely. . hmmm, Experienced?

    Have you ever driven FWD? Now have you tried to put power to the ground with FWD?
    How about coming out of a corner, or coming out of the hole? Torque steer & spin. . .not everyone can drive around all the time with traction bars on the back to keep load on the fronts.

    And yes, I've driven plenty of FWD cars both stock and very heavily modded from 60hp honda's to 400+fwhp gst's and srt4's.
    i think everyone's driven FWD. yes, i've tried to put power down with FWD, it's pretty easy considering most FWD cars are nose heavy and underpowered.

    the only difference in handling, that i feel, between my Mazda 3 s (sport package) and WRX was the bump steer. when turning in a corner, the WRX's independent suspension kept the wheels independent, whereas midcorner bumps would upset my 3's chassis. but on a smooth road course, an amateur like myself would be hard pressed to tell the difference. my 3 is delightfully neutral around New Jersey's jughandles, and i'm coming from a modified WRX. it's 160hp isn't gonna spin the inside tire anytime soon.

    and a Neon ACR will rape a WRX on a road course and you know it. i think all in all, if you don't give those wheels too much power, a well setup FWD car can give the same smiles per mile.
    embattled, we prevail...only victory exhaled.

  16. #165
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Trainrex
    I would subscribe to that argument if the powered wheels on a fwd weren't the ones steering it.
    although you're absolutely right, this would only affect steering feel (which is actually important, but we're talking handling).
    embattled, we prevail...only victory exhaled.

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

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