Stage II vs. STi & EVO
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

This is a discussion on Stage II vs. STi & EVO within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; So I was on the Turbo XS website, and their estimated crank hp is 309 for their stage II. Does ...

  1. #1
    Registered User WRXin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    8,634

    Stage II vs. STi & EVO

    So I was on the Turbo XS website, and their estimated crank hp is 309 for their stage II. Does this mean that a stage II is faster than the 300 hp STi or the 271 hp EVO?
    Fahd

    Floats like a butterfly and stings like when I pee!

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User Shard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    4,554

    Re: Stage II vs. STi & EVO

    Originally posted by WRXin'
    So I was on the Turbo XS website, and their estimated crank hp is 309 for their stage II. Does this mean that a stage II is faster than the 300 hp STi or the 271 hp EVO?
    Not necessarily.

    Higher drivetrain loss. Depends on tires, etc.

  4. #3
    Registered User AjIsDope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,759
    They are also tuned differently and have different engines. Torque and hp come in a different levels and have different curves.

    For example:

    WRX:
    2.0L turbo
    Utec Stage 2

    Torque------------------------------Horsepower


    STi:
    2.5L turbo
    TurboXS turboback

    Torque------------------------------Horesepower

    These STi dynos happen to come from the TurboXS runs but you get an idea.
    Last edited by AjIsDope; 08-03-2003 at 03:47 PM.
    03 Cobra
    566whp/515wtq

    Pics
    & Dyno
    Pics

  5. #4
    Registered User AjIsDope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    7,759
    What I don't understand is how the WRX can lose 25% of their power through the dt and the STi only loses 12%.

  6. #5
    Registered User aheineken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Akron, OH
    Posts
    1,004
    It could be that the STi and Evo are underrated.
    "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to prosper." Ben Franklin

  7. #6
    Registered User drelord's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    73
    crappy diffs and tranny?
    <--02' odometer, lights off, no flash, no special light, no photoshop pic at exactly 666 mileage... freaky

  8. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    30
    Originally posted by AjIsDope
    What I don't understand is how the WRX can lose 25% of their power through the dt and the STi only loses 12%.
    Just as aheinken says the STi and EVO are simply underrated. They do not have ultra efficient drivetrains nor do WRX's have unusally inefficient ones. The WRX is rated pretty accurately because the net and rwhp figures are inline with each other.
    Last edited by Torqued; 08-03-2003 at 05:47 PM.
    02 WRX - auto, Blaze Yellow

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    231
    the wrx is also 200+ lbs lighter than the two so it shoudl give it an edge over the evo and possibly the sti

  10. #9
    Registered User RLsChMiDt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    3,891
    Originally posted by AjIsDope
    What I don't understand is how the WRX can lose 25% of their power through the dt and the STi only loses 12%.
    The STi has a newly designed differential... I THINK that's the reason ...

    kinda sucks
    -Ryan |Dub-Yuh Our Ex Ess Tee Eye| My Car

  11. #10
    Registered User WRXin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    8,634
    These are some interesting points and theories everyone is contributing...keep 'em coming
    Fahd

    Floats like a butterfly and stings like when I pee!

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    29
    im guessing its either the different diffs or the tranny. but i can be wrong. anyway i recently saw an issue of sport compact car i think it was that could be wrong again but anyway on the front cover it had an STI vs. upgraded WRXs i think one of them was a Vishnu tuned WRX putting about 300 horses down and it took the STI out in quarter time and zero to 60 times. anyone else take a look at this issue? so i think its possible that that stg 2 can take the sti. but heck how about we truly find out with a real race?!?!

  13. #12
    Registered User QuickSilver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,294
    Originally posted by swipe112
    Once again, the issue of powertrain loss on the WRX is a major question for me. I started a thread about this topic a while ago that basically ended w/ no conclusion.

    Basically the WRX seems to have a huge powertrain loss when compared to the STi and EVO.

    EVO: 276 - 238 = 38 hp loss
    38/276 = 13.7%

    STi: 300 - 264 = 36 hp loss
    36/300 = 12%

    WRX: 227 - 168 = 59 hp loss
    59/227 = 25.9%

    Keep in the mind that those numbers were all from the same dyno, so the "different dynos produce different hp" argument isn't a factor here. The only somewhat logical conclusion I could come up with that our cars are simply over rated at the crank. Just like how SRT engines were under-rated, I feel that Subaru may have slightly over-rated ours...

    Does anybody know the drivetrain losses on other AWD vehicles? I tried searching for dyno charts for Eclipses and VR4s but found nothing.
    I'd say dynos can vary significantly. About the top reference, was it the same dyno that gave the crank numbers? I doubt it cuz they also happen to be the quoted performance numbers as advertised. SO to make this a more accurate comparison, you need to use the same dyno for all 6 values, crank for each and wheels...(I don't know if there is a dyno that can do both crank and at the wheels, I guess just one dyno for each would still result in a better comparison. Right now, those percentages are not accurate or precise.

    I believe the generally accpeptable drivetrain loss for AWD is 20-25%. I've seen these figures before and also did some striaght up comparisons to AWD 911 (I just happen to have the poster in my office). SO I would guess the numbers for the Sti and Evo are off for various marketing and "Japanese Gentlemen's Agreement (JMA)" issues.

    JMA (my term) is basically an unwritten agreement between japanese auto manufacturers to not claim HP numbers above a certain amount even if they exceed it by a lot (may be an urban car myth, but I read it referenced in major car mags). May not make sense in light of Suby and Mitsu pissing contest, but hey, it's a theory.

    Hg.
    '02 Plat. Wagon, Manual

  14. #13
    Registered User Griswold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Salem, MA
    Posts
    269
    [i]Does anybody know the drivetrain losses on other AWD vehicles? I tried searching for dyno charts for Eclipses and VR4s but found nothing. [/B]
    Audi's lose about 23%

  15. #14
    Registered User Silver04Sti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    509

    stage 2 vs sti

    All I can say is that as a previous TXS Stage 2 owner, my sti feels alot stronger throughout the powerband in comparision. The power comes on earlier and stronger than in my old car. I don't think a stage 2 car could beat an sti (given the same driver doing the testing in both). That's my 2 cents
    Volvo S60 R (as of July 05)

    Formerly ka: BlackWrx
    SOLD 7/05----04 Silver STI
    SOLD: 02 black sedan, Lots of mods

  16. #15
    Registered User Simp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Orlando/Atlanta
    Posts
    81
    It has to be that both the Evo and the STi are underrated from the factory. Most FWD and RWD cars lose about 15% of their power from the crank to the wheels, I think it would take hell of an engineer to make an AWD car lose similar, much less LESS power from the crank to all 4 wheels. It just doesn't make sense. I mean 12%? C'mon, no way. Not even RWD.
    2000 LS1 Camaro M6

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •