Gtech results M5 vs WRX
Results 1 to 9 of 9

This is a discussion on Gtech results M5 vs WRX within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; These are the best of 3 runs for each. The M5 was difficult to launch. I couldn't floor it in ...

  1. #1
    Registered User madmmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    104

    Gtech results M5 vs WRX

    These are the best of 3 runs for each.

    The M5 was difficult to launch. I couldn't floor it in 1st and beginning of 2nd.
    Range 13.4-13.9

    The WRX easier to launch but I couldn't shift it as fast. And was more consistent.
    Range 14.2-14.5

    If we stop the race at 60 the wrx wins

    What do you guys think?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails m5vswrx1.jpg  
    Last edited by madmmt; 04-07-2004 at 07:36 AM.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    that doesnt seem to accurate.
    1st: the m5 had the better 0-60 so that should win.
    2nd: wrx has almost a 97mph trap, but only a 14.2 e.t.
    3rd: both of those 60ft are horrible for the car. wrx should be around 1.8 and m5 should be around 2.0-2.2

    considering the trap and 60ft of the wrx, the e.t. should have been in the 13.6-13.9 range assuming you had a good 60ft with that type of trap speed.

    either way, those things will never be completely accurate. good runs. do you own the M5 if so.. you are
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  4. #3
    Registered User Dan00Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    759
    DTR: A few things about trap speeds on Gtech vs the ET and mph at the dragstrip:

    The dragstrip measures your average speed over the last 60 feet or so (I don't remember the exact distance) by tracking the elapsed time between those last two set points. The Gtech lists your calculated speed exactly as you cross the 1/4 mile mark. So the Gtech will always be a few mph faster than what is shown at the dragstrip. I found that my original Gtech was accurate within .1 second when I compared it to timeslips on the same run, but was 3-4 mph faster than the timeslips on the same run.


    2007 VW GTI 6 spd. No times yet
    2000 Firehawk convertible 6spd- 12.52 @ 114.7 mph. 2.09 60'

    Sold: 2004 Mini Cooper S. 14.95 @ 93.8 mph.
    Sold: 2004 GTO 6 spd. 13.4 @ 104.5 mph
    Sold: 2002 WRX 5spd. 13.39 @100.7 mph. 1.81 60'

  5. #4
    Registered User Dan00Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    759
    Also, despite the fact that the M5 is faster 0-60 mph, it is still behind the WRX at that point, although gaining.

    WRX hits the 330' mark at 5.876 seconds, yet is still not yet at 60 mph (requires 5.978 seconds to hit 60 mph). The M5 hits the 330' mark at 6.053 seconds, but is well above 60 mph (already hit 60 mph at 5.695 seconds). So the WRX is still 2/10's of a second ahead distance wise. Kinda fun how the numbers work out sometimes, and really demonstrates how important it is to nail a good launch.

  6. #5
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Originally posted by Dan00Hawk
    DTR: A few things about trap speeds on Gtech vs the ET and mph at the dragstrip:

    The dragstrip measures your average speed over the last 60 feet or so (I don't remember the exact distance) by tracking the elapsed time between those last two set points. The Gtech lists your calculated speed exactly as you cross the 1/4 mile mark. So the Gtech will always be a few mph faster than what is shown at the dragstrip. I found that my original Gtech was accurate within .1 second when I compared it to timeslips on the same run, but was 3-4 mph faster than the timeslips on the same run.
    i didnt know that, thanks.
    but how do you explain the 60ft though? both are pretty high, yet net the same e.t. it should with 60ft's that are .2 sec less??
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  7. #6
    Registered User madmmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    104
    Dan00Hawk,

    Thanks for the inputs. You obviously know the science of drag racing very well. I had to compare the distance charts to understand the figures. I am not sure if this makes a difference, these were done on a concrete road. Do you know if the concrete roads are stickier than others?

  8. #7
    Registered User Dan00Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    759
    I've been at dragstrips that were prepped so well with VHT that it's difficult to walk on them because your shoes literally stick to the surface. Blew out the rear spider gears on my Firehawk's stock 10 bolt that way once... Doh! And I've also been to dragstrips that were so poorly prepped that even launching at idle resulted in massive wheelspin on the Hawk, and even had that happen with the WRX a few times. Cars can track water up to the starting line, too, resulting in frustration as you struggle for traction.

    Concrete can be okay, depending on it's condition. Common sense says that a clean surface with some abrasive properties will be better for traction than your cement garage floor, for example. But lay some oil or antifreeze or dirt or other stuff that collects on the roads and of course it can change the amount of available grip.

    DTR was right on about what one would expect to see for 60 foot times at the track from both vehicles if well driven (1.8 for WRX, 2.0 for M5). As we are all likely aware, a slicker surface favors the AWD vehicle. A sticky surface (or sticky tires) decreases that AWD advantage. So I'll stick with a noncomittal answer of "It depends!".

    It's still fun to see the charts like that knowing that they were done under similar weather/altitude conditions on the same road surface Edit, just realized they were done about two months apart... More accurate results would be attained by doing the tests at the same time.... Helps eliminate some of the variables, and helps us understand how some of these types of races will turn out, and where one car will pass another, for example.
    Last edited by Dan00Hawk; 04-15-2004 at 02:16 PM.

  9. #8
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Originally posted by Dan00Hawk
    I've been at dragstrips that were prepped so well with VHT that it's difficult to walk on them because your shoes literally stick to the surface. Blew out the rear spider gears on my Firehawk's stock 10 bolt that way once... Doh! And I've also been to dragstrips that were so poorly prepped that even launching at idle resulted in massive wheelspin on the Hawk, and even had that happen with the WRX a few times. Cars can track water up to the starting line, too, resulting in frustration as you struggle for traction.

    Concrete can be okay, depending on it's condition. Common sense says that a clean surface with some abrasive properties will be better for traction than your cement garage floor, for example. But lay some oil or antifreeze or dirt or other stuff that collects on the roads and of course it can change the amount of available grip.

    DTR was right on about what one would expect to see for 60 foot times at the track from both vehicles if well driven (1.8 for WRX, 2.0 for M5). As we are all likely aware, a slicker surface favors the AWD vehicle. A sticky surface (or sticky tires) decreases that AWD advantage. So I'll stick with a noncomittal answer of "It depends!".

    It's still fun to see the charts like that knowing that they were done under similar weather/altitude conditions on the same road surface Edit, just realized they were done about two months apart... More accurate results would be attained by doing the tests at the same time.... Helps eliminate some of the variables, and helps us understand how some of these types of races will turn out, and where one car will pass another, for example.
    well said
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  10. #9
    Registered User madmmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    104
    Again, thanks for your insights.

    I feel that I can probably gain the .2 in the WRX if I revved higher to over 4500rpm and were more agressive at the launch. But the other .2 in the M5, I personally don't think I can get that. They were launched just off idle to around 1200 rpm and were spinning and fighting for traction everytime I ease into the throttle to around 3/4 in 1st. gear.

    So, here is my conclusion.

    On this stretch of street, given the same lousy driver, WRX > M5 to the legal speed limit.

Posting Permissions

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