C5 vs. WRX... not pretty - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18

This is a discussion on C5 vs. WRX... not pretty within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally posted by 13secwrx A stock c5 from a roll will eat that setup. But from a dig, you'll stay ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    293
    Originally posted by 13secwrx
    A stock c5 from a roll will eat that setup. But from a dig, you'll stay ahead up to like ....90 maybe...then he will pull and continue to romp.
    But realize we are at 5800ft here in the suburbs of Denver and NA cars take a much bigger hit when it comes to high altitude. What is the correction factor something like 1/2 sec for SC/Turbo cars and 1 full second for NA cars.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User scottigee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern Cali
    Posts
    267
    Originally posted by AwdTurboWrx
    yes your right...z06 is the faster vette....c5 is 2 z06 as wrx is 2 sti.....get it now???
    c5:z06::wrx:STi
    got it - thanks

    so when apodWRX said

    I ran a C5 once. Wasn't pretty either. I think I will take that advice and go looking for a Z06 and see how I stack up.
    he really meant that he had gotten beaten by a Z06 and should go looking for a non-z06 C5 because he would have a better chance...right?
    Pushin' a Honda but scoping the Scoobies.

  4. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Huntington *****
    Posts
    303
    yeah i heard in colorado z06's usually run high 12's to low 13's cause of the elevation.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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