Supra TT & Mustang GT - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

This is a discussion on Supra TT & Mustang GT within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally posted by znith You are missing the point. The supra had 450 hp. The wrx had 227 hp. You ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by znith
    You are missing the point. The supra had 450 hp. The wrx had 227 hp.
    You are missing the point. Don't quote HP numbers. The RSX has 200HP. The WRX has 227. Not that much of a difference considering the fact that the RSX is a tiny bit lighter. And yet the WRX doesn't just edge out the RSX. It doesn't just beat the RSX. It absolutely and totally annihilates it. 3 second difference in 1/4 ETs and yet only a 27HP difference so something doesn't add up. The mistake you are making is looking at HP which is a completely useless stat. In fact, sometimes I have to wonder how car companies come up with HP numbers. Maybe they draw them from a hat?

    I suspect that the Supra is not making very much torque which is why the stock WRX, with all 217lb-ft of torque, should be able to crush one.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User Quantum-Racing.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    387
    Um, well, having owned a BPU Supra, you can't deny that they have a mile wide powerband. They get peaky when you start eeking towards 600+ HP and 550+ FtLb with obnoxiously sized singles.
    The WRX is great for rally, etc.
    The Supra is great for highway speeds, etc.

    A WRX (in mildly stock form) is great 0~60 and the Supra is great 60~140.
    If it was close, then it was a serious driver problem. Supras in BPU form have a wider 'band than WRX's. If he didn't have the DP, then he lost a MAJOR part of his power. Boost and a DP is what makes most of the BPU power upgrade.
    www.Quantum-Racing.com
    Home of the Dynapack AWD Dyno
    Sales Email, Tech Email
    937.642.5400

  4. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by WizardBlackWRX
    Um, well, having owned a BPU Supra, you can't deny that they have a mile wide powerband. They get peaky when you start eeking towards 600+ HP and 550+ FtLb with obnoxiously sized singles.
    The WRX is great for rally, etc.
    The Supra is great for highway speeds, etc.

    A WRX (in mildly stock form) is great 0~60 and the Supra is great 60~140.
    If it was close, then it was a serious driver problem. Supras in BPU form have a wider 'band than WRX's. If he didn't have the DP, then he lost a MAJOR part of his power. Boost and a DP is what makes most of the BPU power upgrade.
    I'm sure that once the WRX gets up to the 550+ft-lb of torque (remember, HP is meaningless), then it will have a very wide powerband. Aren't most of you guys up near 500ft-lb already? Only a little further to go!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  5. #19
    Registered User Quantum-Racing.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    387
    I already have my Turbonetics on and it's dyno'ing at 500 ftlb at the crank. Yep, just that 50 shot and I'm there.


    Note to everyone else: this is merely an RSXSucks counterflame.


    Go away.
    www.Quantum-Racing.com
    Home of the Dynapack AWD Dyno
    Sales Email, Tech Email
    937.642.5400

  6. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by WizardBlackWRX
    I already have my Turbonetics on and it's dyno'ing at 500 ftlb at the crank. Yep, just that 50 shot and I'm there.

    Awesome! I knew it could be done. Throw that nitrous in there, I want to see 7s!!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  7. #21
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    I'm sure that once the WRX gets up to the 550+ft-lb of torque (remember, HP is meaningless), then it will have a very wide powerband. Aren't most of you guys up near 500ft-lb already? Only a little further to go!
    RSXSucks, look up the definition/formula for HP. You're talking out your a$$ again.

    To everyone, I can't seem to keep myself from replying to this brainiac. Sorry....
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  8. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by WRXless


    RSXSucks, look up the definition/formula for HP. You're talking out your a$$ again.

    To everyone, I can't seem to keep myself from replying to this brainiac. Sorry....
    Everyone here has convinced me that only torque is meaningful. Haven't you ever heard "HP sells cars, torque wins races"? Torque is a force. Force is what propels a car. What is HP? It is nothing! It certainly isn't a force and force is what accelerates cars.

    I know the formula. HP is a measure of torque at a certain RPM. But everyone here has convinced me that torque at lower RPM is better than torque at a higher RPM. And really, that makes sense. Since torque is what accelerates your car, and the more torque you have, the more your car will accelerate, does it really matter where that torque occurs in the RPM range? A 150lb-ft@3000rpm is just as strong as a 150lb-ft@9000rpm because both cars are still only producing 150lb-ft and therefore can only accelerate based on that force. And yet the first car has 85HP and the second car has 260HP. Now do you see why HP is completely meaningless?

    So in summary, it is better to make torque lower in the RPM range because then you don't have to wring the crap out of the engine to make any power.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  9. #23
    Registered User Quantum-Racing.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    387
    Go buy a truck then and leave us alone.
    www.Quantum-Racing.com
    Home of the Dynapack AWD Dyno
    Sales Email, Tech Email
    937.642.5400

  10. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by WizardBlackWRX
    Go buy a truck then and leave us alone.
    Is that your proof that I am wrong?
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  11. #25
    Registered User Quantum-Racing.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    387
    I was going to bother replying buy you're a useless waste of my time.
    www.Quantum-Racing.com
    Home of the Dynapack AWD Dyno
    Sales Email, Tech Email
    937.642.5400

  12. #26
    Registered User wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    606
    Originally posted by WizardBlackWRX
    I already have my Turbonetics on and it's dyno'ing at 500 ftlb at the crank. Yep, just that 50 shot and I'm there.


    Note to everyone else: this is merely an RSXSucks counterflame.


    Go away.
    AMEN!!!

  13. #27
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Everyone here has convinced me that only torque is meaningful. Haven't you ever heard "HP sells cars, torque wins races"? Torque is a force. Force is what propels a car. What is HP? It is nothing! It certainly isn't a force and force is what accelerates cars.

    I know the formula. HP is a measure of torque at a certain RPM. But everyone here has convinced me that torque at lower RPM is better than torque at a higher RPM. And really, that makes sense. Since torque is what accelerates your car, and the more torque you have, the more your car will accelerate, does it really matter where that torque occurs in the RPM range? A 150lb-ft@3000rpm is just as strong as a 150lb-ft@9000rpm because both cars are still only producing 150lb-ft and therefore can only accelerate based on that force. And yet the first car has 85HP and the second car has 260HP. Now do you see why HP is completely meaningless?

    So in summary, it is better to make torque lower in the RPM range because then you don't have to wring the crap out of the engine to make any power.
    Right - torque is a force that tends to rotate something. But HP is used to measure rate of movement. Think about this, as an example, a tractor makes 500 lb/ft. of torque, but only has 100 HP. Why? Because tractors aren't concerned with speed - they are concerned with the ability to rotate their tires. You don't see tractors winning very many drag races. On the other end of the spectrum, the worlds fastest car has 48,000 HP, and no torque - it's rocket propelled.

    By your definition, diesel pickups would be whopping on almost every car on the planet. You've got some studying to do.

    How's that for proof? See http://www.howstuffworks.com/fpte.htm for more info.
    Last edited by WRXless; 08-06-2002 at 10:04 AM.
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  14. #28
    Registered User wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    606
    Originally posted by RSXSucks


    Everyone here has convinced me that only torque is meaningful. Haven't you ever heard "HP sells cars, torque wins races"? Torque is a force. Force is what propels a car. What is HP? It is nothing! It certainly isn't a force and force is what accelerates cars.

    I know the formula. HP is a measure of torque at a certain RPM. But everyone here has convinced me that torque at lower RPM is better than torque at a higher RPM. And really, that makes sense. Since torque is what accelerates your car, and the more torque you have, the more your car will accelerate, does it really matter where that torque occurs in the RPM range? A 150lb-ft@3000rpm is just as strong as a 150lb-ft@9000rpm because both cars are still only producing 150lb-ft and therefore can only accelerate based on that force. And yet the first car has 85HP and the second car has 260HP. Now do you see why HP is completely meaningless?

    So in summary, it is better to make torque lower in the RPM range because then you don't have to wring the crap out of the engine to make any power.

    That's it i can't help it!!!
    you are a fool... "torque is a force" you are truely a dip $hit
    torque measurement (Newton Meters) by definition Newtons are the measurement of force (idiot) hence torque is the aplication of force over a distance. end of story. F u C k W i TT

  15. #29
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Originally posted by wombat



    That's it i can't help it!!!
    you are a fool... "torque is a force" you are truely a dip $hit
    torque measurement (Newton Meters) by definition Newtons are the measurement of force (idiot) hence torque is the aplication of force over a distance. end of story. F u C k W i TT
    I feel your pain, man.

    Torque has a couple of meanings, though. One is that it is a force that tends to rotate something, and another is as you mentioned. I hate to say it, but I can see where RSXSucks is coming from, even though he's completely wrong.
    Last edited by WRXless; 08-07-2002 at 08:06 AM.
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  16. #30
    Registered User cnoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    357
    And yet another thread obliterated by the philosophical mind of RSXSucks.
    2002 Platinum Silver Rex

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •