Street Racing a VR4 - Page 3
Closed Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 156

This is a discussion on Street Racing a VR4 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Just for comparison, my car pulls similar G-Forces with dug-e-fresh's car. With 130rwkw before (170rwhp) I was pulling 0.79, 0.56g ...

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212

    Just for comparison, my car pulls similar G-Forces with dug-e-fresh's car.
    With 130rwkw before (170rwhp) I was pulling 0.79, 0.56g in 1st and 2nd. That's pod filter, 3" dump pipe, hi-flow cat and 2.25" cat back.
    Now I've upgraded my pulley, Unichip and boost conservatively mapped due to standard cooler, and its running 150rwkw (201rwhp), I haven't tried my G-Tech yet...

    Just wanted to know what power I need to nail in the AWD launched WRXs to get low 13's, that's all.

    What is stage 0 on the WRX guys?
    What power level are we looking at?


    Cheers
    I am glad someone other than me uses the Gtech for the one thing thats its most accurate at doing... measureing G forces!! So you pulled those Gtech numbers with only 170 to the wheels.... hmmm... I know mine is making a good chunk over 200hp to all 4 wheels... your car must have really good gearing or be light.

    One thing to note is that quoting peak Gs is kinda like quoting peak HP... it only tells a small part of the entire story. I mean the engine driving dynamics of a 240hp S2000 vs a 240 hp E36 M3 and a 240 hp GTP would be VERY different... its the area under the curve that people forget about and your not factoring in weight and gearing... but I feel max Gs are better than Max HP....

    Whats different about quoting G forces... and better IMO than quoting HP... is that EVERYTHING is calculated in... your getting RAW data on how hard your car accelerates all summed up... I wish everyone had a Gtech in their car and did this... it would be really cool. Even some magazines are starting to quote max Gs in regards to acceleration, deceleration (braking) and cornering.

    def
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,613
    Originally posted by Vendetta
    Also, who walks away with the hotter girl and better looking car? Tell me if this was the car you saw.
    Forget the car. Post pics of the girl!
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  4. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    120
    i think a vr-4 would pull higher g's than a wrx regardless of both awd. and your traps suck just as bad as a vr-4's hehe no offense. damn ****ty stock turbos...
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  5. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212
    Why?...

    X amount of HP

    +

    X amount of torque

    +

    X lbs (weight of car as driven)

    +

    Aggressive launch

    +

    AWD

    +

    Traction

    +

    Good driver

    = X amount of speed achieved in X amount of time =

    X amount of acceleration off the line... if I jump off the line ahead of a 3000GT or any AWD vehicle, I am pulling harder G forces at that moment in time.... as gears are changed and speeds increase thats where the 3000GT may win out... but in the beginning.... notta.

    A 3000GT may have more HP, but its ALOT heavier...

    What other MAJOR factors are there in acceleration?

    And yeah, the stock turbo does suck for top end... but what makes things MUCH worse is 4th gear. It is a very long ratio...0.972, which is overdriven.... taking you from 96 mph (5000rpm) to 135 mph!!! (7000rpm).

    I would like to swap in a 2.5RS 4th gear ratio.... its a 1.088, and would still start at 96 mph but now at 5600 rpm and go to 120mph (7000rpm)... all in all I would expect to see the trap speed jump up a couple MPH... coupled with a bigger turbo and the supporting fuel.... now were talking some trap speeds!!!

    def
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  6. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    120
    our cars arent that heavy. dont yours weigh like 3200 or so? and ours are more luxurious. thats part of your weight right there. i just dont think that a stage 0 upgrade can beat a vr-4. i would have to see it to believe it. i think the driver sucked on that one...
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  7. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    82
    AmethystGTO - VR4s are not that fast. I have raced a few of them in Atl and always take them. Thats when I only had mbc and full exhaust. Do you know Brandon with license plate RUINER? We raced from a roll and he pulled maybe 1/2 car length on me from 30-90 and now I know I would kill him with my new turbo.

    Point is that VR4s aren't all that fast and a WRX can take em. Trust me, I know.
    '03 STi killer
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  8. #37
    Registered User ViciousVolpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Uniontown, PA
    Posts
    482
    i like the "sportscar" look of the 3000gt's but i love the sleep look wrx's have..especially wagons.
    3000gt's are very and i mean VERY heavy. i dont think they have very good top end speed either.
    "I put two and two together and decided - you're pissin' me off."
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  9. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212
    A brand new WRX weighs in at what is considered hefty, that being 3080lbs.... around 300lbs heavier than the previous model WRX, the GC8.

    That is with all fluids topped off, the spare, jack, ya know everything.

    Mine on the other hand with a quarter tank of gas has weighed in at 3020 without the spare, jack and spare cover. With me soaking wet in the car it weighs in at 3240lbs.

    Now a '99 3000GT VR-4 curb weight is 3737... if I were driving it, it would hit 3957!!! I am sorry, but thats HEAVY!! And actually from what I noticed before, the older they are, generally, the heavier they are. There are a few years where it tipped over 3800lbs!!

    Either way, the WRX vs 3000GT comparo here had a near 700lbs weight difference!! More luxurious or not... I dont care, I have in my car whats important to me. Sure you have a sunroof and leather. wow. Still dont make up 700lbs!!

    BTW- whats wrong with this car... 433 hp/ 450 tq and only pulling a 13.2? Point made...

    One more thing.... I know everyone hates magazine testing, especially when they start being quoted... BUT... most 3000GT VR-4s that I have read about tested stock in the quarter from high 13s to low 14s. The WRX has tested STOCK in the low 14s range as well.

    def
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  10. #39
    Registered User Vendetta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    15
    Originally posted by dug-e-fresh

    BTW- whats wrong with this car... 433 hp/ 450 tq and only pulling a 13.2? Point made...

    One more thing.... I know everyone hates magazine testing, especially when they start being quoted... BUT... most 3000GT VR-4s that I have read about tested stock in the quarter from high 13s to low 14s.
    def
    Those were definetly tested with the worlds ****ing worst driver. You don't know what you're talking about man, ****.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  11. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212
    How do you figure I dont know what I am talking about? Why is it took 600-700 hp for a 3000GT to run 11.2 when a similiarly powered Supra would run mid 10s? Because its HEAVY.

    A crappy driver can screw up a launch but for the most part, a strong car will have a good trap speed... 108 is OK, better than me, but for 433 hp??!! Nah.... my friends Supras WERE putting down around 400-450 hp on the stock twins and they both were running mid 11s (11.4-11.6)!! On RWD with regular drag radials!! They trapped out in the 120s (122-124)!! The 3000GT owner not only must have been a crappy driver, but his engine must have blown too... me thinks....

    OK... to put that into perspective, there are a few WRX making in the neighborhood of 375 hp to the wheels... more than 50 shy of that 3000GT.... and they can run high 11s and LOW 12s (12.01 actually).... and trap somewhere in the neighborhood of 115-118mph... even with a crappy driver a 400+ car should have trapped MUCH higher.

    Anyway... based on Altereds own website to get a built motor to produce 800hp for a 3000gt, installed it would cost $6860...

    where as a Supra engine on their site requires only $4395 to make the SAME power!! And then where they stop at 800 with the 3000gt they keep going up with the Supra engine to 900+ hp...

    Whats the fastest 3000GT down to now? 10.88 I think... @ 129 and it took him well over 700hp to do it... again to put things into perspective, a Supra making 680whp with slicks has and does run 10.60s @ 136.....

    You seem to know so much... prove me otherwise, not that I really know what you are trying to prove and all... thus my conglomerate of info above....show me some facts....

    OK, just in case the point I am trying to make hasn't gotten across... HP to HP, a 3000GT needs ALOT more hp to run good times than just about anything else out there.... period. Why? Because its a heavy, "luxurious" sports-touring car. I am glad you like it.

    def
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  12. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    14
    Dude, why are you comparing Supras Vs VR-4's? that's not the topic here.
    But just for referece, I don't know anyone with a 600HP supra
    ( not RWHP) running 10's. However, the Stealth TT that ran 10.8 has about 700 HP( not even the owner knows how much HP he has, but he estimates 650-700 HP) -25% DT Loss= 525 WHP.
    Second, VR-4's are 300 lbs heavier than Supras or 300ZX's at most.
    Yea that's heavier but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

    Personally i like WRX Imprezas, not the WRX we get here.
    As far as outlaunching the VR-4, stock for stock, i don't think it's going to happen,
    stock VR-4's with capable drivers can cut 1.8 60's all day. What do WRX's do?

    As far as traps, healthy BPU's on 93-94 octane will trap in the 106-110 range depending on many things. that should be good for a mid 12 with BPU mods. That's with less than 1500 in mods.
    what does it take for a WRX to run a mid 12? $$ wise.

    Last edited by AWDTWNTURBO; 06-26-2002 at 10:42 AM.
    http://www.imagestation.com/picture/...8/fdf3286e.jpg
    94 pearl yellow VR-4
    Intake~ HKS SSBOV~ Stage II clutch
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  13. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by dug-e-fresh

    Now the better looking car thing.... I dont know... I am pretty sure if I wanted a 3000GT I would have got one... I mean all said and done I paid $27,000 for my WRX... could have gotten alot of REAL nice cars for that price... a Supra, an RX-7, 3000GT or a 300ZX.... and I would have got them in that order.... IF I didn't get my WRX.
    Man I usually dont talk **** but you got worked up.
    You know what im thinking, im thing the Bank paid $27,000 and You are paying a couple hundred a month. I think the bank wouldn't give you a loan on a used car. Honestly, if I could have a car from the aforementioned list or a WRX, I think the choice is clear what I would choose (and it damn sure wouldn't be a Supra). There you have it, now please stop bickering over which of the 2 cars in this race was faster, its ridiculous. You obviously had more mods to make you faster than the VR-4, therefore you won. Stock for stock the VR-4 would win, it is a high performance sports car that was putting out twice as much horsepower as a stock WRX about 6 years ago. End of story. Oh and btw, the VR-4 is a proven mid to lower 13's car, FYI.
    95 VR4
    Nitto NT555's
    MBC
    Autometer Boost Gauge
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  14. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    988
    Originally posted by JagVR4


    Man I usually dont talk **** but you got worked up.
    You know what im thinking, im thing the Bank paid $27,000 and You are paying a couple hundred a month. I think the bank wouldn't give you a loan on a used car. Honestly, if I could have a car from the aforementioned list or a WRX, I think the choice is clear what I would choose (and it damn sure wouldn't be a Supra). There you have it, now please stop bickering over which of the 2 cars in this race was faster, its ridiculous. You obviously had more mods to make you faster than the VR-4, therefore you won. Stock for stock the VR-4 would win, it is a high performance sports car that was putting out twice as much horsepower as a stock WRX about 6 years ago. End of story. Oh and btw, the VR-4 is a proven mid to lower 13's car, FYI.
    A VR-4 should be quicker in the quarter than a WRX stock for stock. It puts out almost 100 ponies more than a WRX for crying out loud.
    Last edited by junaitari; 06-26-2002 at 12:36 PM.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  15. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by junaitari


    A VR-4 should be quicker in the quarter than a WRX stock for stock. It puts out almost 100 ponies more than a WRX for crying out loud.
    Thats what I said at the end of my last post.
    95 VR4
    Nitto NT555's
    MBC
    Autometer Boost Gauge
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

  16. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    988
    the point I'm trying to make is that it's not that much quicker. I think that's what doug-e-fresh is trying to say too. Lots of hp, not that impressive of times.

    I'm not bashing your car. Love the VR-4. Just cost too much for a used car. Those things hold their value pretty well around here. Got my REX cause I wanted something new and I've had bad experiences with Mitsu's.
    Last edited by junaitari; 06-26-2002 at 01:11 PM.
    Quick reply to this message Reply  

Closed 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
  •