06 WRX vs. Camaro Z28 - Page 5
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 103

This is a discussion on 06 WRX vs. Camaro Z28 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by MagikMan I don't remember saying anything about 500hp supras... I know I talked about the 700hp ones.... ...

  1. #61
    Registered User garrettjj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by MagikMan
    I don't remember saying anything about 500hp supras... I know I talked about the 700hp ones.... but never the 500hp I was making the point that it's not about peak hp.... it's about what's under the curve... a 700hp supra doesn't have much under the curve. I wasn't making a ponit that supras suck.. just ones in the 700hp range :-P
    Been in many 700+hp Supras have you? I think not. If you had I don't think you'd be making hasty generalizations about them. Even then you should know that a car's raw performance is indicated by more of it's trap speed rather than driver dependant ETs.

    Today's turbo technology has evolved greatly with many high HP kits offering full boost near 3500rpm...That leaves a lot to play with.
    95 Supra TT --BPU+ 420whp.
    05 Subaru STI --Cobb AP Stage 2 Protuned
    94 Integra GS-R --HIE/VTEC Controller.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #62
    Registered User Black XT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by tx77015ls1
    i guess I am a troll

    http://www.gmhightechperformance.com..._zo/index.html


    story on thw 11sec Z06



    fixed.

  4. #63
    Registered User MagikMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by garrettjj
    Even then you should know that a car's raw performance is indicated by more of it's trap speed rather than driver dependant ETs.
    I've never seen a race where the winner wasn't the one crossing the line first... it was the one going the fastest at the end... makes no sense... like if I ran a 11.4 at 122 and a supra ran a 12.0 at 129.... i'm still faster.... especially because in the .6 i'll probably be doing 129. Raw performance is about ETs....

    At the end of a road race they don't say to the guy coming in last that "your car reached the highest speed in the straight away, so you really won"
    1999 Corvette; vararam cold air intake; ls6 intake manifold; cartek stage 2x heads; cartek stage 2x cam; ported ls6 oil pump; hardened pushrods; 1 7/8" headers with full 3" exhaust back; hardened output shaft; 3.90rear gears.... 420rwhp

    2001 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro; heated seats

  5. #64
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    Quarter mile racing involves two distinct measurements: speed over distance, and speed over time. A car that accelerates to a higher speed in a given distance will outrun a car that covers the distance in a quicker time but at a slower speed. Obviously it'll take more than a 1/4 mile to do so from a standing stop, but it will happen. That's why the track doesn't give ETs alone. I"m sorry if you don't believe it, but anybody that's been racing any amount of time will tell you that a higher trapping car is accelerating faster.

    Look at the second Supra video (the one where I lose) on my Stealth's site (see sig). I took an early lead, was even around the 1/8th, and then he ended up winning by a full second on the top end. I promise you a 129 mph car was accelerating a LOT faster than my 107 mph run was, and it was a much bigger difference than the .9 second ET would have you believe had you not seen the video.

    If racing was all about the ET, why do people always have a coronary when they race an AWD car? I can knock off most cars that trap 10 or more mph faster than me simply due to traction. Does it mean my car is faster? Nope - I just put the power down better in the short term. My Legacy beat a Mach 1 by 3-4 tenths in the 1/8th mile but his car is obviously quicker and I know it.

    And FWIW, you can build a high hp Supra without it being peaky. It's those building strickly for HP bragging rights that can end up with no usable power but a high peak figure.
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  6. #65
    Registered User garrettjj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by MagikMan
    I've never seen a race where the winner wasn't the one crossing the line first... it was the one going the fastest at the end... makes no sense... like if I ran a 11.4 at 122 and a supra ran a 12.0 at 129.... i'm still faster.... especially because in the .6 i'll probably be doing 129. Raw performance is about ETs....

    At the end of a road race they don't say to the guy coming in last that "your car reached the highest speed in the straight away, so you really won"
    You're quicker, not faster using your analogy. The 129mph trap is clearly faster than the 122 . I understand your point though.

    My analogy would be an STI vs a C5 LS1 Vette. An STI could pull better ETs than the Vette(Lets just say 13.2 vs 13.3), but will usually always trap lower. Does this mean the STI is faster? I don't think it is. It's only quicker to the 1/4 mile(In this case). The Vette is ultimately faster through the traps with a substantially higher top speed.
    95 Supra TT --BPU+ 420whp.
    05 Subaru STI --Cobb AP Stage 2 Protuned
    94 Integra GS-R --HIE/VTEC Controller.

  7. #66
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    Quarter mile racing involves two distinct measurements: speed over distance, and speed over time. A car that accelerates to a higher speed in a given distance will outrun a car that covers the distance in a quicker time but at a slower speed. Obviously it'll take more than a 1/4 mile to do so from a standing stop, but it will happen. That's why the track doesn't give ETs alone. I"m sorry if you don't believe it, but anybody that's been racing any amount of time will tell you that a higher trapping car is accelerating faster.

    Look at the second Supra video (the one where I lose) on my Stealth's site (see sig). I took an early lead, was even around the 1/8th, and then he ended up winning by a full second on the top end. I promise you a 129 mph car was accelerating a LOT faster than my 107 mph run was, and it was a much bigger difference than the .9 second ET would have you believe had you not seen the video.

    If racing was all about the ET, why do people always have a coronary when they race an AWD car? I can knock off most cars that trap 10 or more mph faster than me simply due to traction. Does it mean my car is faster? Nope - I just put the power down better in the short term. My Legacy beat a Mach 1 by 3-4 tenths in the 1/8th mile but his car is obviously quicker and I know it.

    And FWIW, you can build a high hp Supra without it being peaky. It's those building strickly for HP bragging rights that can end up with no usable power but a high peak figure.

    Very good post.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  8. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    Quarter mile racing involves two distinct measurements: speed over distance, and speed over time. A car that accelerates to a higher speed in a given distance will outrun a car that covers the distance in a quicker time but at a slower speed. Obviously it'll take more than a 1/4 mile to do so from a standing stop, but it will happen. That's why the track doesn't give ETs alone. I"m sorry if you don't believe it, but anybody that's been racing any amount of time will tell you that a higher trapping car is accelerating faster.

    Look at the second Supra video (the one where I lose) on my Stealth's site (see sig). I took an early lead, was even around the 1/8th, and then he ended up winning by a full second on the top end. I promise you a 129 mph car was accelerating a LOT faster than my 107 mph run was, and it was a much bigger difference than the .9 second ET would have you believe had you not seen the video.

    If racing was all about the ET, why do people always have a coronary when they race an AWD car? I can knock off most cars that trap 10 or more mph faster than me simply due to traction. Does it mean my car is faster? Nope - I just put the power down better in the short term. My Legacy beat a Mach 1 by 3-4 tenths in the 1/8th mile but his car is obviously quicker and I know it.

    And FWIW, you can build a high hp Supra without it being peaky. It's those building strickly for HP bragging rights that can end up with no usable power but a high peak figure.
    Very good post, but I have always had a question.

    People generally say that a car that runs say, a 14.0 @105 MPH will beat from a roll and is faster than say a car that runs a 13.0 at 100 mph. They claim that because of the higher mph of the 14 second car, it is a faster car.

    However, I was thinking that doesn't this also say that the car that ran a 13.0 got to 100 mph in 13 seconds meaning that there is no way to know how fast the thirteen second car would be going if it was accelerating another second. Which is true? Thanks
    04 Silver STi M6

  9. #68
    Registered User MagikMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by garrettjj
    You're quicker, not faster using your analogy. The 129mph trap is clearly faster than the 122 . I understand your point though.
    I don't think you do... because it took the supra 12.2 seconds to get up to 129.... in 12.2 seconds I'd be going 130+ (i've seen me do it) so... it's not how fast you are going at the end of a distance... it's how long it takes you to get up to a certain speed.
    Last edited by MagikMan; 06-01-2006 at 12:12 PM.
    1999 Corvette; vararam cold air intake; ls6 intake manifold; cartek stage 2x heads; cartek stage 2x cam; ported ls6 oil pump; hardened pushrods; 1 7/8" headers with full 3" exhaust back; hardened output shaft; 3.90rear gears.... 420rwhp

    2001 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro; heated seats

  10. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Posts
    202
    Didn't read the whole thread, but I don't believe it was an LS1 that you ran, more than likely it was an LT1.
    2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX
    Works Drop in Filter, TTP Engineering 3" Downpipe, 3" Ultimate Racing Test Pipe, GReddy Evo2 exhaust, Walbro 255lph Fuel Pump, Forge UNOS MBC @ 22-23lbs, Fighters Garage LICP, Custom Dynoflash, S2000 Antenna, Stewart Warner Boost Gauge

  11. #70
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Quote Originally Posted by MagikMan
    I don't think you do... because it took the supra 12.2 seconds to get up to 129.... in 12.2 seconds I'd be going 130+ (i've seen me do it)
    So you are claiming your vette can run a 12.2 @ 130mph+

    I would LOVE to see that.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  12. #71
    Registered User ScstealthVR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Currently CO (CA orig.)
    Posts
    935
    dont make the mafia mad. shoes made out of aluminum cylinder heads on the way.
    Last edited by ScstealthVR6; 06-02-2006 at 01:23 AM.

  13. #72
    Registered User SCWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    186
    just to clarify the difference between quick and fast: last i heard, if i don't have this backwards, We (USA) have the fastest STI (highest trap speed), but AU has the quickest (e.t) quick=e.t. fast=trap speed. Comparing ...oh say SRT-4 vs. 06 WRX in the 1/4 the the WRX may run 13.8 @ 97 mph and the SRT-4 13.9 @ 100 mph. The WRX made up enough time in the 60 ft to hold off the faster SRT-4 in the 1/4 mile.

    The hypothetical WRX was quicker, but the SRT-4 was faster and pulling on the WRX towards the end. but not enough to make up for his slower launch. This is what i was taught. maybe i'm wrong, but it is always fun to compare time slips and share ideas. hearing different points of view is good for everyone. there are many many factors that could yeild many different answers. e.g. gearing, tires, if nitrous oxide was used in upper gears only, slow shifts, flux capasitors and on and on.

  14. #73
    Registered User MagikMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    229
    here is a perfect example:

    I raced a '03 supercharged cobra with a ported blower; intake; chip; exhaust; and pulley who dynoed 530rwhp.

    When we raced... we would be pretty close, then he'd start to pull ahead a little bit... but my gears pull for longer... enough for me to get 1/2 a car per gear... however, his gears pulled harder... so he would make up half of that distance in each gear... so... if at the end of the quarter mile... he was in that stage of "closing the gap" he would be going faster than me... but behind me... So gearing and powerband have a lot to do with it...
    1999 Corvette; vararam cold air intake; ls6 intake manifold; cartek stage 2x heads; cartek stage 2x cam; ported ls6 oil pump; hardened pushrods; 1 7/8" headers with full 3" exhaust back; hardened output shaft; 3.90rear gears.... 420rwhp

    2001 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro; heated seats

  15. #74
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    vids of your vette doing 130mph+ traps please.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  16. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Gloveperson
    Very good post, but I have always had a question.

    People generally say that a car that runs say, a 14.0 @105 MPH will beat from a roll and is faster than say a car that runs a 13.0 at 100 mph. They claim that because of the higher mph of the 14 second car, it is a faster car.

    However, I was thinking that doesn't this also say that the car that ran a 13.0 got to 100 mph in 13 seconds meaning that there is no way to know how fast the thirteen second car would be going if it was accelerating another second. Which is true? Thanks
    The 14s car is faster in the sense that it reached 105 MPH within a quarter mile distance. Sure, if the 13s car ran for one more second, it will be going faster than 100mph. However, this means that it needed more distance to reach that speed.

    So in a rolling race, where all of the launching variables (wheelspin, bogging, etc.) are removed from the equation, the 14s car will gain speed over a shorter distance than the 13s car. That is, the 14s car will be faster.
    -09 Impreza 2.5GT 13.72/ 99.4/1.926
    -99 Mustang 10.64/136.41.57
    -08 R32 (bone stock)

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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