anyone race a 2010 MS3

[2004NeonSRT4]

Though counterintuitive, this is actually not true. From a roll (or street-start as most magazines call it), 5-60 sprints tend to take longer than 0-60 sprints for well-anchored cars like the WRX. This is actually due to the way that the torque is delivered to the ground. Take, for example, my 2003 WRX. 0-60 was billed between 5.6-5.8 seconds for a stock car. However, a street-start 5-60 sprint took around 6.2-6.5 seconds. Keep in mind (when drag racing) that no one launches from 750 RPM; there's a reason for this.

you right. in order to achieve a good 0-60 your launching the car hard and in boost. not stuck waiting on lag in 1st at 5mph.

[RayfieldsWRX]

4 wheels transmitting power to the ground versus 2. Essentially, you're comparing two different designs of vehicle. The AWD will deliver a significant advantage at the very start of a race from the stop (less power wasted spinning wheels)...and then will be a disadvantage for the rest of the run, due to drivetrain losses, which are somewhat higher than in its 2WD counterpart.

Simple physics.

[zax]

Simple physics.

Ray,
From my experience, I have found these two words mutually exclusive.

[metaldahlberg]

Though counterintuitive, this is actually not true. From a roll (or street-start as most magazines call it), 5-60 sprints tend to take longer than 0-60 sprints for well-anchored cars like the WRX. This is actually due to the way that the torque is delivered to the ground. Take, for example, my 2003 WRX. 0-60 was billed between 5.6-5.8 seconds for a stock car. However, a street-start 5-60 sprint took around 6.2-6.5 seconds. Keep in mind (when drag racing) that no one launches from 750 RPM; there's a reason for this.

I have seen different numbers comparing a roll to a launch for a WRX. I was basing my argument on that. I can't remember where it was though.

[metaldahlberg]

you right. in order to achieve a good 0-60 your launching the car hard and in boost. not stuck waiting on lag in 1st at 5mph.

Of course, as I said, there are more than one speed to roll from. I guess my statement was incorrect. 5mph is pretty low to roll from. Lag is an issue at that point.

[metaldahlberg]

4 wheels transmitting power to the ground versus 2. Essentially, you're comparing two different designs of vehicle. The AWD will deliver a significant advantage at the very start of a race from the stop (less power wasted spinning wheels)...and then will be a disadvantage for the rest of the run, due to drivetrain losses, which are somewhat higher than in its 2WD counterpart.

Simple physics.

My disclaimer, as I said, is that I haven't done much racing, from a roll or otherwise. But addressing the points that some people have made I would say that I could still have a valid point, though maybe not applicable to all situations.

There is a huge amount of weight transfer that occurs when a car is launched. This could be significant enough to outweigh any losses due to lag or drivetrain losses that occur from a roll.

[RayfieldsWRX]

That big fiery orb in the sky could be a flashlight held by a giant that looks like Johnny Cash...but the theoretical and empirical evidence seems to indicate something else.

[metaldahlberg]

That big fiery orb in the sky could be a flashlight held by a giant that looks like Johnny Cash...but the theoretical and empirical evidence seems to indicate something else.

Fair enough

[RayfieldsWRX]

Fair enough

Thanks for being a good sport. I had an unexpected wiseacre attack.

[rockman]

Sorry zac,
Cannot agree with you. I stated alot has to with the driver. motor trend use's aguy name of Randy Pobst. I know i am not going to get the same times out of my car as he would. i think they did a pretty fair assement of the two car's. Each to there own. The new rex is going to be faster in the quarter then the ms3. The speed 3 is great little car but I would also shy away from the turque steer that it has. Each to there own.

[metaldahlberg]

Thanks for being a good sport. I had an unexpected wiseacre attack.

I am man enough to admit when I am incorrect. What people think of me or say after that is their choice.

[zax]

Sorry zac,
Cannot agree with you. I stated alot has to with the driver. motor trend use's aguy name of Randy Pobst. I know i am not going to get the same times out of my car as he would. i think they did a pretty fair assement of the two car's. Each to there own. The new rex is going to be faster in the quarter then the ms3. The speed 3 is great little car but I would also shy away from the turque steer that it has. Each to there own.

It's all good I'm not gonna rail on ya for having a different opinion. I like to look at www.dragtimes.com for empirical evidence when it comes to quarter mile times. The 2009+ rex tends to put down times around 13.8 @ 101 MPH while it seems that the MS3 seems to post times around 14.0 @ 100 MPH. In this case, it seems that the magazines had justifiable claims.

[Les Bill]

The new Mazda front end is so fugly! I always want to ask someone why they would buy a car that is that ugly. To each their own though; people think that the WRX is ugly. Even the guys on Top Gear stated that it was hideous when they compared it to the EVO. But man, that Mazda just looks so ugly.

[metaldahlberg]

The new Mazda front end is so fugly! I always want to ask someone why they would buy a car that is that ugly. To each their own though; people think that the WRX is ugly. Even the guys on Top Gear stated that it was hideous when they compared it to the EVO. But man, that Mazda just looks so ugly.

I saw that episode of Top Gear. I don't really see how it is ugly. But it is opinion mostly. I don't think the Mazda is horrible though.

[rockman]

It is all relative anyway to who the driver is to some extent.
A guy like Randy Pobst tests car's year-around and can get the most out of the car. This is off the original subject but I also like the fact that when comparing car's they look at a lot more then just how fast a car is.