My STI vs. Stealth TT ? - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

This is a discussion on My STI vs. Stealth TT ? within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by 04wrx4keeps I have heard soooo many different things about these cars, but what I know is that ...

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by 04wrx4keeps
    I have heard soooo many different things about these cars, but what I know is that the last few times I have been to the track theres 2 of them that always come with a couple of different LT1 f-body's. I havent had a chance to talk to any of them but I've watched them all run a few times and both of the 3000's struggle to break into the 13's, and they both appear at least reletively modded (loud exhaust, bov on one, guages in one as well.).

    I do know that they are very heavy, Twin Turbo V-6's can deffinatly make serious power, but I cant see 120+whp gain from a couple of lbs of extra boost, and that would be what it would take to run that much weight into the 12's, especially since I've heard from many people they dont launch well.

    The whole thing about the stock 3000GT running with an STi, or anywhere far into the 13's just seems rediculous. A brand new VR4 wouldnt have had more than 270whp or so, and 20whp extra isnt going to make up for the 500+ lbs of extra weight. With a perfect driver I could imagine maybe 14.0 or 13.9 with perfect conditions for the VR4.

    The whole thing about the VR4 making more tq for longer makes no sense either, most of both cars time while accelerating down the strip will be spent in their torque curve, especially with both being awd cars. The STi is at little to no disadvantage here anyway, it makes pleanty of torque for most of its power band especially with its closer gearing. Even with the little bit of extra torque in the 3000 it will seem like less because the tq/weight ratio will be worse than the STi; I havent checked yet, but I would bet even if you took multiple points on a dynograph, the STi makes close to 250wtq for a good deal of the rpm range, and not whole lot less than that anywhere.
    Exactly. Besides, the power to weight ratio is much better with the STi.

    I personally think the VR4 is an awesome looking car (Dodge Stealth R/T is ok....) and would love to have one for a tourer, but as far as an all-out performance machine, I just don't see it happening anytime soon due to its excessive weight. I think the VR4 is one of the best looking cars on the road from the 90s, and I'd be glad to own one. But like I said, I just don't see them as being a good all-round performance car due to the excessive weight.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    At this point, longtime members wil recognize my response to the "too heavy" comment. Yes, this is a text file I keep on my computer:

    -----
    They're too heavy to handle well. Wait a minute, it pulls more lateral g's than a NSX, Supra, and C5. - http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p16.jpg

    It only beats the C5 in a slalom - and we all know how poorly C5's handle - http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p17.jpg

    With that kind of weight, it must stop poorly too. Wat a minute, what's that? It beats the NSX and Viper in braking? It ties the C5 and is only 1 foot behind a Supra? Only 2 feet behind the Ferrari? Impossible! http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p21.jpg

    Yep, those cars were too heavy to do anything well. It came in last in all the acceleration tests. Too bad it's so hard to make more power out of that engine. I mean, my peashooter 9b stock turbos managed 109 traps with a race weight of 4070 lbs - throw those numbers into a hp calculator and see what it makes.
    -----

    The site w/ those links (and the one I posted earlier) blocks direct links so after you get the error message, hit refresh / reload (or copy and paste the link) and you'll get the page.

    I'm sorry you don't believe the words I put on the page. I've only been modding DSMs for 15 years. I've only had three 1g GSXs, a Galant VR4, a Mirage turbo, a Spyder GST, and two Stealth twin turbos. If I say a car will run something, you can bet the mortgage payment that it'll do it. I mean really - why would I make it up? I've DONE it. I'm not saying I saw a guy do it or I heard that some guy did it; I said my 280lb ass actually got into the car and drove it to those timeslips.

    Do you not believe my 12 sec runs either? There's a video of me vs. a Supra in my sig. Here's a couple more:

    http://resources.gmc.cc.ga.us/johnm/...12.52-108.mpeg

    I get waxed in this one but I made him earn it!
    http://resources.gmc.cc.ga.us/johnm/...ack-Supra.mpeg
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  4. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    At this point, longtime members wil recognize my response to the "too heavy" comment. Yes, this is a text file I keep on my computer:

    -----
    They're too heavy to handle well. Wait a minute, it pulls more lateral g's than a NSX, Supra, and C5. - http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p16.jpg

    It only beats the C5 in a slalom - and we all know how poorly C5's handle - http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p17.jpg

    With that kind of weight, it must stop poorly too. Wat a minute, what's that? It beats the NSX and Viper in braking? It ties the C5 and is only 1 foot behind a Supra? Only 2 feet behind the Ferrari? Impossible! http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p21.jpg

    Yep, those cars were too heavy to do anything well. It came in last in all the acceleration tests. Too bad it's so hard to make more power out of that engine. I mean, my peashooter 9b stock turbos managed 109 traps with a race weight of 4070 lbs - throw those numbers into a hp calculator and see what it makes.
    -----

    The site w/ those links (and the one I posted earlier) blocks direct links so after you get the error message, hit refresh / reload (or copy and paste the link) and you'll get the page.

    I'm sorry you don't believe the words I put on the page. I've only been modding DSMs for 15 years. I've only had three 1g GSXs, a Galant VR4, a Mirage turbo, a Spyder GST, and two Stealth twin turbos. If I say a car will run something, you can bet the mortgage payment that it'll do it. I mean really - why would I make it up? I've DONE it. I'm not saying I saw a guy do it or I heard that some guy did it; I said my 280lb ass actually got into the car and drove it to those timeslips.

    Do you not believe my 12 sec runs either? There's a video of me vs. a Supra in my sig. Here's a couple more:

    http://resources.gmc.cc.ga.us/johnm/...12.52-108.mpeg

    I get waxed in this one but I made him earn it!
    http://resources.gmc.cc.ga.us/johnm/...ack-Supra.mpeg
    In your first link, the 3000 GT finished MID PACK.

    In your second link, the 3000 GT finished NEXT TO LAST. It's funny that you claim that the 3000 GT handles better than the Supra when the Supra was 1.4mph faster through the slalom, despite the difference in the 3000 GT's 0.95g and the Supra's 0.94g on the skidpad, right? You should retract your previous statement that the 3000 GT handles better than a Supra.

    In your third link, the 3000 GT finished MID PACK.

    What makes the 3000 GT so great? According to those tests, it isn't great, and it isn't poor. It's a mid pack car! And as for braking, nobody bothered to mention how many times they braked those cars in a row. If they put on the brakes no more than once, a Ford Focus could've braked within those short distances. Over a course of continuous stops, the outcomes could surely be different. I'm sorry, but 2 tons of cars is a lot to stop, and most stock braking systems aren't going to do it effectively on repeated attempts.

    And you mentioned the potential for horsepower. If the 3000 GT is so great, how come the fastest one IN THE WORLD is only running in the 9s or 10s? There are STREET CARS that run faster times! And those street cars are FASTER than the FASTEST 3000 GT IN THE WORLD!

    How come 3000 GTs aren't used in numerous import drag racing series if they've got so much potential to be fast? Where were they in TransAm racing? How about the 24 Hour LeMans? Sebring?

    How come there aren't any successful 3000 GTs in the SCCA series?

    How come the 3000 GT isn't produced any longer if it was such a great car?

    How come you came to a Subaru enthusiast board and actually expected people to kiss your ass over your long-gone 3000 GT?

    I'm not being a smartass, dude. I'm simply trying to debate in the conversation as everyone else is, and you're getting all upset and butt-hurt over it. Excuse me for not bowing down to the great 3000 GT.

  5. #34
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    Bwa ha ha ha - the newb is calling me a newb.

    I never said it was the greatest car, or anything like it. I never said it was meant for any form of racing. You were quick to point out that it finished mid-pack - against FERRARI, PORSCHE 911, and VIPER GTS competitors. That's a good showing in my book.

    I was never "upset" abou it at all. You said because of its weight it couldn't be a good all-round car and I posted info to the contrary. You also said there's no way it could run 13.20s with only 2-3 extra psi, which I have done myself years ago. You were posting assumptions about the car and I was posting facts.

    It isn't a platform for ultimate drag racing. If the fastest one "only" runs in the 9s, that doesn't make it any less of a car for real people who drive them on real roads. Something tells me I've been modding turbo cars longer than you've been old enough to drive. One day you'll realize that there's a difference between experience and what you read in Super Street.
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  6. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Subaru
    Mister2, but what I do know is that VR4s make around 300ftlbs tq, correct? Again, an STi weighs nearly 500lbs less than a VR4 or Stealth, and is still only 20hp short. How is a car with 3.91 gears, 3300lbs, 300hp/300tq, AWD (STi) run the same #s as a 3800lb car that has close to the same power output going to run the same times?


    again.... i said its not only about peak power numbers,its the area under the curve. Given the displacement of the 3s the torque curve is MUCH more useful then that of an STI. And also, Ivery likely that it makes more power then its rated for. Early japanese supercars are VERY underated because of strict goverment regulations in japan. Well regardless they do run those times. Ive sean it, MANY others have, and any reputable magazine will say the same

  7. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    Bwa ha ha ha - the newb is calling me a newb.

    I never said it was the greatest car, or anything like it. I never said it was meant for any form of racing. You were quick to point out that it finished mid-pack - against FERRARI, PORSCHE 911, and VIPER GTS competitors. That's a good showing in my book.

    I was never "upset" abou it at all. You said because of its weight it couldn't be a good all-round car and I posted info to the contrary. You also said there's no way it could run 13.20s with only 2-3 extra psi, which I have done myself years ago. You were posting assumptions about the car and I was posting facts.

    It isn't a platform for ultimate drag racing. If the fastest one "only" runs in the 9s, that doesn't make it any less of a car for real people who drive them on real roads. Something tells me I've been modding turbo cars longer than you've been old enough to drive. One day you'll realize that there's a difference between experience and what you read in Super Street.
    Error #1. I've been a member of this forum for quite some time. In fact, I just happened to decide to change my screen name, and unfortunately that's not possible without starting a new account.

    Error #2. I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about your 3000 GT running 13.20s with an extra 2-3psi of boost. Get your facts straight before you start running off at your fingertips.

    Error #3. I would NEVER "bank my mortgage" on the information that you provide. You're merely a bench racer. How convenient of you to leave out the acceleration figures from your little bench racer magazine article!

    Quit making excuses for the 3000 GT. It's just plain fact that the 3000 GT gets lit by stock STis. Deal with it. You claim how great this 9G motor is, and now you piss backwards on yourself when I mention the FACT that the fastest one IN THE WORLD doesn't run any faster than high 9s. Go read your Stupid Street and Sport Crapact Car magazines, and then come back with reliable figures and information.

    As for your "experience," it seems the only thing you have "experience" in is throwing out magazine numbers.

    And for the record, you do come across as a pretty educated guy. It's clear that you have a BS degree in .


  8. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister 2
    again.... i said its not only about peak power numbers,its the area under the curve. Given the displacement of the 3s the torque curve is MUCH more useful then that of an STI. And also, Ivery likely that it makes more power then its rated for. Early japanese supercars are VERY underated because of strict goverment regulations in japan. Well regardless they do run those times. Ive sean it, MANY others have, and any reputable magazine will say the same
    Since WHEN is a 3000 GT a "supercar?"

  9. #38
    Registered User John M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Milledgeville, GA
    Posts
    749
    No matter how much you like to toss out the phrase "bench racing", my numbers come from actual racing - you know, the VIDEOS I posted, and the kind you aren't doing. I brought in the magazine article for unbiased input. My pasted "rant" post includes the fact that it came in last in acceleration but you forgot that. I've already posted at least once that the STi is faster in stock form too. Did you skip that part too?

    In case you have any other reading deficiencies, did you also skip the fact that I own a damn Legacy GT, with the SAME 2.5 liter the STi has? But nooooo, I don't know what an STi is packing. (and don't start crap about how it's not 300hp; I think I know that already)

    If you don't believe just a MBC will put a 3S to 13.20s, that's fine by me. Your ignorance won't change the FACT that it's already been done by myself and countless others. You just go right ahead and believe that the car is a huge slow whale. Keep thinking that when one leaves you standing there wondering what happened. You'll be in denial then too I guess.

    Then again, you haven't posted what you drive or what it runs. If you're such an accomplished racer with far more experience than I have, put up some numbers. Show us all your knowledge and prove that I'm wrong. Just stamping your foot and saying "it won't, it won't, it won't" doesn't make it so, but it is quite amusing.

    I'm finished with this thread. I put the facts out there for those who are interested. Happy reading!
    John M
    2000 Lincoln Continental - slow DD with the DOHC 4.6 and a Superchips tune
    1992 Lexus SC400 - slow resto project
    2005 Legacy GT Limited - SOLD Feb 2011 - Forged internals, FP HTA Green @ 22 psi.

  10. #39
    VR4
    VR4 is offline
    Registered User VR4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    279
    Only looking at peak HP numbers and weight can be quite decieving. For instance, my last vr4, a 91, bone stock traps ballpark 100. It also puts about 235 to the wheels. It weighed in at 3781 pounds. My stage 2 wrx just put down 230awhp, and what do stage 2 wrx's trap?... around 100. wait a sec?!?!?! a 235awhp/3781b vr4 and a 230awhp/3080lb wrx trap nearly the same, but thats a 700lb difference!!!!! It's quite strange really, but those little 9b's make beast torque b4 2k rpms and really get that boat moving.
    Helix UP/TBE, ECUTEK
    230whp / 225 wtq

    2005 Yamaha R1 Raven Black

  11. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    No matter how much you like to toss out the phrase "bench racing", my numbers come from actual racing - you know, the VIDEOS I posted, and the kind you aren't doing. I brought in the magazine article for unbiased input. My pasted "rant" post includes the fact that it came in last in acceleration but you forgot that. I've already posted at least once that the STi is faster in stock form too. Did you skip that part too?

    In case you have any other reading deficiencies, did you also skip the fact that I own a damn Legacy GT, with the SAME 2.5 liter the STi has? But nooooo, I don't know what an STi is packing. (and don't start crap about how it's not 300hp; I think I know that already)

    If you don't believe just a MBC will put a 3S to 13.20s, that's fine by me. Your ignorance won't change the FACT that it's already been done by myself and countless others. You just go right ahead and believe that the car is a huge slow whale. Keep thinking that when one leaves you standing there wondering what happened. You'll be in denial then too I guess.

    Then again, you haven't posted what you drive or what it runs. If you're such an accomplished racer with far more experience than I have, put up some numbers. Show us all your knowledge and prove that I'm wrong. Just stamping your foot and saying "it won't, it won't, it won't" doesn't make it so, but it is quite amusing.

    I'm finished with this thread. I put the facts out there for those who are interested. Happy reading!
    First off, I never commented a word about an MBC, so it seems YOU are the one with the reading deficiencies. And then you say you "own a damn Legacy." Considering you seem to think that everyone else has the deficiency, you would use "damned," NOT "damn."

    Your ignorance clearly shows through. If you can find a post where I mentioned ANYTHING about an MBC, I'll hand you the title to my car. Comprehension problems, chief? It seems you have a "definciency!"

    And congratulations on a 13.20 1/4 mile with your little MBC, but an STi will dump 13.20s in STOCK trim!

    While speaking of accomplished racers, amuse us with all of your racing experience, and all of your "accomplishments." Just to have you know, I've "accomplished" just a bit faster than 12.50s @ 109mph in the 1/4. At the ripe old age of 19, I owned a big block El Camino that would turn the 1/4 in the high 11s, averaging trap speeds of about 118mph. I'd say that's just a little bit faster than your high and mighty 3000 GT.

    Currently, I own a 2005 STi and a 1994 Camaro. Both of which are faster than a stock 3000 GT in stock trim. I guess I really didn't need to accomplish anything but driving off a dealer lot to beat the "almighty" 3000 GT.

    This meeting's adjourned. Enjoy your stay.

  12. #41
    VR4
    VR4 is offline
    Registered User VR4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Subaru
    This meeting's adjourned. Enjoy your stay.
    Helix UP/TBE, ECUTEK
    230whp / 225 wtq

    2005 Yamaha R1 Raven Black

  13. #42
    Registered User Fox05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Valdosta G.a.
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    I own a damn Legacy GT, with the SAME 2.5 liter the STi has? But nooooo, I don't know what an STi is packing. (and don't start crap about how it's not 300hp; I think I know that already!
    What about the 6 speed manual, And the DCCD, Your car has VDT or Continious AWD or am i wrong well thought i would just kinda check some things out
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| ||_____
    |.........Beer................| ||.....'|";\,___.
    |_...__...______...__..._|_||_|__|__..._|
    ..(@).(@)........(@) (@)................(@)............

  14. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Subaru
    Since WHEN is a 3000 GT a "supercar?"

    whoa whoa whoa... i would never consider the 3s a real supercar, you are taking what i said and twisting it. But It is considered a 90s JAPANESE super car. The JAP "supercars" of the 90s were considered to be the 3s, supra,rx-7,fairlady, skyline.

    *i am not a 3s fan boy, im just not as ignorant as some are here and know that peak numbers and power to weight are not the only factors. I dont even like AWD cars that much lol.

  15. #44
    Registered User Fox05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Valdosta G.a.
    Posts
    977
    Hay mister i see that you have a MR2 under your vehicals and i always wonderd how fast they are like top speed and quarter? How tall are you and is there alota room in there for you?
    Thanks
    Fox
    |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| ||_____
    |.........Beer................| ||.....'|";\,___.
    |_...__...______...__..._|_||_|__|__..._|
    ..(@).(@)........(@) (@)................(@)............

  16. #45
    Registered User 04wrx4keeps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Central NY/ Western PA (for school)
    Posts
    520
    I want to know why everyone on here thats defending the 3000GT seems to think that the STi has some sort of deficiency on torque?????? The whole thing about the Torque across the whole powerband....why not actually look at an STi powerband....its not like its a peaky honda motor that makes all its power above 5000rpms....

    I dont have my own stock Sti dyno, but the one on cobb's website looks like an average (i've seen higher and lower stock #'s), here look:



    Anyone have a Stock 3000GT dynograph????maybe you should compaire the tq curves, and remember, its not all about peak numbers, and the sti makes more than enough low end torque to get its lighter body moving, and once the tq curve falls theres more than enough high end hp to keep the car moving just fine too...
    Cobb Stage 2.5 VF-34 + uppipe
    Best ET so far - 13.1@103 with a 1.81 60'

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •