Subaru WRX Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
20 mph roll - I am in front of him up to ~100 and I only put 1 or so cars on him. He stayed behind me the whole time. 3rd gear roll - He is in front of me. I had to lift in 3rd and then again in 4th. It surprised me that he was able to stay so close to me the first time though. I'll assume that he had some mods although I never got to ask him (he was running the stock can on the back) I am running a mbc with the boost at 15lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
They can hang from a roll. I smoked one by about 5 cars from a dead stop but they are quick cars. WRX weak spot is from a roll but from a dead stop it is a beast if launched properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
evilwrx said:
20 mph roll - I am in front of him up to ~100 and I only put 1 or so cars on him. He stayed behind me the whole time. 3rd gear roll - He is in front of me. I had to lift in 3rd and then again in 4th. It surprised me that he was able to stay so close to me the first time though. I'll assume that he had some mods although I never got to ask him (he was running the stock can on the back) I am running a mbc with the boost at 15lbs.
with your boost set at 15psi you should not have too many problems with a stock rsx type s....ESPECIALLY in 3rd gear! You need to take a look at your driving....

I walked one by a car lenghth from 75-105 bone stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Hey ElectronBlueSi

I've run a 13.59 in the quarter with this set up.
I don't think my driving is a problem;) I do think that that RSX was quick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Re: Hey ElectronBlueSi

evilwrx said:
I've run a 13.59 in the quarter with this set up.
I don't think my driving is a problem;) I do think that that RSX was quick
They can certainly be quick. It is suprising that the contest was so close considering you can run a mid 13 1/4 and the rxs-s is much slower than that. You didnt happen to have left your ac on by chance? I have been caught by suprise by cars I can usually dispense of in a heartbeat because I left my AC on...this little 2L engine really gets sapped by AC or lugging around extra weight.
Hey, you up in west palm? I am down in delray..let me know when you go to Moroso next time..maybe we can meet up for a few 1/4 runs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
A/C was on, you live in Delray, you know that we don't turn our A/C's off until January. ;) Oh well, I don't know if he was modded or not, but going from a roll is not our cup of tea and definetely plays into his favor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
evilwrx said:
A/C was on, you live in Delray, you know that we don't turn our A/C's off until January. ;) Oh well, I don't know if he was modded or not, but going from a roll is not our cup of tea and definetely plays into his favor.
Guarantee, you turn off that AC and it would have been a whole different ball game. I am so accustomed to the major power drop now with the AC on that if I sense a little acceleration contest coming up I immediately turn it off...it really makes a big difference from a stop or a roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
evilwrx said:
20 mph roll - I am in front of him up to ~100 and I only put 1 or so cars on him. He stayed behind me the whole time. 3rd gear roll - He is in front of me. I had to lift in 3rd and then again in 4th. It surprised me that he was able to stay so close to me the first time though. I'll assume that he had some mods although I never got to ask him (he was running the stock can on the back) I am running a mbc with the boost at 15lbs.
Doesn't surprise me that he was able to "hang" w/ you, especially since you have no idea if he was modded or not. If he had I/H/E then he may have been able to get his 1/4 times down into the mid 14s (maybe even low 14s if it was cool enough, but you said you were in FLA and its never cool there :)...but really, you raced in the only situation where a RSX wouldn't get "walked on" by a WRX...if you race off the line, you would probably put multiple car lengths on it...first gear is not the RSX-S's cup of tea, and w/ AWD and the great amount of torque/hp the WRX has you probably will shoot off and hold that lead through all gears.

I've heard stories of people claiming that into triple digits vs. the WRX, the RSX-S will pull, but ****, since an RSX traps the 1/4 at ~92mph, the race would be long over (not to mention the fact that if you're ~3-4 car lengths ahead by triple digits, how long is it going to take the RSX-S to catch up if it even can pull???). I guess anyone can claim to win a race if they're willing to max out while you're not...stupid claim if you ask me.

Just my .02 cents. I'd like to think I'm being fairly objective on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
2 seconds sounds a little excessive. My 13.59 was run on a perfect 50 degree night, low humidity. I think my car is probably a 14.5 or so right now with the summer heat and a/c on. If it is 2 seconds then at 15.5 I need to find a way to get an intercooler sprayer.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
str said:
They can hang from a roll. I smoked one by about 5 cars from a dead stop but they are quick cars. WRX weak spot is from a roll but from a dead stop it is a beast if launched properly.
I'm not sure how the WRX is weak from a roll. Downshift people. The WRX has a nice amount of torque for a 2.0, it's VERY easy to keep the engine above 3k, just .....d o w n s h i f t
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
madwagon said:


I'm not sure how the WRX is weak from a roll. Downshift people. The WRX has a nice amount of torque for a 2.0, it's VERY easy to keep the engine above 3k, just .....d o w n s h i f t
It's not that the stock WRX is weak at high speeds, it just acts a lot more like a 170WHP vehicle than it does at lower speeds. AWD launches and aggressive 1st and 2nd gear ratios allow the WRX to beat on cars that it simply has no chance against at higher speeds. It has nothing to do with downshifting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Actually, just like any other car out there ( there are a few exceptions) the WRX in stock form has dynoed from 165whp-195whp. I know because there's been a few that've popped up on i-club.com

One imparticular that comes to mind is a car that was at Cobb. I think it was in the mid 190's whp COMPLETLY stock for a baseline run. Yes it was double checked and all was good with the dyno.

If he had an MBC set to 15 psi, he should at least be pushing 190whp. A stock RSX S isn't putting that much power down. Also, if the WRX had it's AC on, it is automatically cutoff at 5k rpm and up. It will would re-engage when he went between shifts but would again turn back off at the 5k rpm mark. That would definatley subtract some HP though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
boosted 4 said:
Actually, just like any other car out there ( there are a few exceptions) the WRX in stock form has dynoed from 165whp-195whp. I know because there's been a few that've popped up on i-club.com

One imparticular that comes to mind is a car that was at Cobb. I think it was in the mid 190's whp COMPLETLY stock for a baseline run. Yes it was double checked and all was good with the dyno.

If he had an MBC set to 15 psi, he should at least be pushing 190whp. A stock RSX S isn't putting that much power down. Also, if the WRX had it's AC on, it is automatically cutoff at 5k rpm and up. It will would re-engage when he went between shifts but would again turn back off at the 5k rpm mark. That would definatley subtract some HP though.
Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then replace 170 with 190 and repeat. My point wasn't that the stock WRX has 170whp, I couldn't care less if one WRX had a 190hp dyno. My point was only to answer why the WRX 'seems' weak at higher speeds. It isn't that it is weak at higher speeds, just that it is exceptionally strong at low speeds. It is able to compete against cars with much better whp/weight ratios at low speeds but not at high speeds. At high speeds, it is only competetive with cars of relatively equal whp/weight. Okay?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
RSXSucks said:


Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then replace 170 with 190 and repeat.
Oops sorry. I thought I had quoted you at first and then realized that I hadn't but was to lazy to go back and redo the post.

Yeah I see what you are saying and that's cool - it makes since. I was only saying that the 170whp was kinda too generalized by some folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
RSXSucks said:


Um, don't know if this was in response to my post but if it is, then replace 170 with 190 and repeat. My point wasn't that the stock WRX has 170whp, I couldn't care less if one WRX had a 190hp dyno. My point was only to answer why the WRX 'seems' weak at higher speeds. It isn't that it is weak at higher speeds, just that it is exceptionally strong at low speeds. It is able to compete against cars with much better whp/weight ratios at low speeds but not at high speeds. At high speeds, it is only competetive with cars of relatively equal whp/weight. Okay?

Well said....

I think that an RSX S driver weakness is torque to a certian degree, also is it harder to drive, since a WRX power curve comes on sooner...If the RSX S is not up there b/t 6-7 K RPMS the wrx will walk on it, even at high speeds...

Wheareas the WRX's power comes on pretty quick after ~3100 RPMS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
RSXSucks said:


It's not that the stock WRX is weak at high speeds, it just acts a lot more like a 170WHP vehicle than it does at lower speeds. AWD launches and aggressive 1st and 2nd gear ratios allow the WRX to beat on cars that it simply has no chance against at higher speeds. It has nothing to do with downshifting.
:) Oops, yes you're right. Stock, the WRX is pretty icky, or rather flat up top, when it's stock and especially if it's not broken in (like 10k+ miles).

Getting an EBC/MBC and keeping stock boost levels up to redline makes a huge difference, rather than the 8-12 psi that it falls off to with the FBC.

Just as a roundabout comparison, on my old 92 SE-R I got 142whp (back in like 94-95) with various bolt ons and I could sort of hang with 325's (various mods) till about 110...then they dropped me. I could tease a stock M3 from 60-100 because of my light weight. In my 94 325is (full supersprint (headers too), no cats, chip, etc) I got 181whp. M3s were dynoing then around 204-210whp. Several times I could beat an M3 anywhere I wanted to, it was close though (so I loved getting them to run). I could pull an M3 on the freeway starting around 110 if we were even...and it would do it ever so slightly. (I so loved the look on some M dorks face when that happened). My reasoning is I was breathing better up top than they were (full exhaust, and probably a better driver), I had a larger area under the curve, but less than their peak HP. I knew how to use my machine. I had an M Roadster which, due to it's less restrictive, stock exhaust put out about 250hp, I also had the chip which mainly improved area under the curve, but not peak. I could beat a stock S4 on the highway from 60+, the Roadster was a very, very quick little car. Recently I raced a stock M Roadster for at least 10-15 miles from 60-140 and I could pull him after a second or two of initial acceleration. I walked away from him while he was behind me from 110-115 on up to 140. It was totally obvious, and related to me by the M driver that my wagon was faster any time we were able to open it up for more than few seconds. To me, my wagon feels as responsive and just as quick up top as my old roadster (which was good to 150+) and was confirmed by that encounter. I might be putting out somewhere around 200whp on the wagon, I know it's close to the M Roadster (both cars weigh about the same, 3100ish lbs). I do feel that I've got more area under the curve, especially after 5k than the M.

I'd say that if an RSX can beat an M Roadster on the highway from 60+, doing it several times, then I'd be very interested in sussing out some Acuras!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
madwagon said:


:) Oops, yes you're right. Stock, the WRX is pretty icky, or rather flat up top, when it's stock and especially if it's not broken in (like 10k+ miles).

Getting an EBC/MBC and keeping stock boost levels up to redline makes a huge difference, rather than the 8-12 psi that it falls off to with the FBC.
Okay, this is a question I have for you guys because I see it one way, but almost everyone seems to see it another. I, of course, think I'm right :D but I want to try and have a level headed discussion about it.

To me, how fast you are at high speeds has nothing to do with how much torque you make near redline. People seem to confuse acceleration "up top" (at high speeds) with keeping torque high "up top" (near redline). IMO, these are two completely different concepts that are almost totally unrelated.

When you add an EBC/MBC, do you increase your HP? Yes, I believe you do. Lets just pick a couple numbers: stock = 170WHP, MBC = 200WHP. Stock, you could hang with 200WHP cars in the 1/4 but only 170WHP cars at 80+mph. With MBC, you can now hang with 230WHP cars in the 1/4 and 200WHP cars at 80+mph. It's true that you've gained power at 80+mph because you can now beat cars at highway speeds that you couldn't before. But I think it is more accurate to say that you've gained power at all speeds. Maybe not REALLY low speeds if all you've done is flattened the curve above 5000rpm, so let's say all speeds above 20mph which, in my books, is still not a really high speed. Could you have accomplished the exact same thing by increasing peak torque without moving it to a higher rpm? Yes, I think so. This is why I don't think there has to be a correlation between high speed acceleration and high rpm torque.

I think this idea came from Honda fanboys who, while losing down low, certainly would catch up at higher speeds. I think this is because Integras/Civics, with FWD and low low-end torque, show the opposite characteristic of the WRX. If the stock RSX-S has 170WHP, we can hang with 150WHP cars in the 1/4 ET, but with MOST 170WHP cars at 20+mph. It has more to do with the fact that we are FWD and therefor can't launch worth SH*T than because we have good high-end torque. Even worse, if we bog our launch, well, I have a saying "Eternity is waiting for my car to go from 2500 to 6000rpm". :D

Are Camaros slouches at high speeds? Corvettes? They have torque curves that drop a lot near redline, doesn't seem to hurt them.

I'll end by asking 1 question (and if you skipped my long diatribe up top, at least read this): Does your ENGINE make less power at 6000rpm in 1st gear than it does in 4th gear? I think the answer is no. The only difference is that AWD and a strong 1st/2nd gear are no longer helping you beat cars that are more powerful.

Anyway, there is my beef for the day. :D I might be wrong and I encourage any non-flaming comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
RSXSucks said:


Okay, this is a question I have for you guys because I see it one way, but almost everyone seems to see it another. I, of course, think I'm right :D but I want to try and have a level headed discussion about it.

To me, how fast you are at high speeds has nothing to do with how much torque you make near redline. People seem to confuse acceleration "up top" (at high speeds) with keeping torque high "up top" (near redline). IMO, these are two completely different concepts that are almost totally unrelated.

When you add an EBC/MBC, do you increase your HP? Yes, I believe you do. Lets just pick a couple numbers: stock = 170WHP, MBC = 200WHP. Stock, you could hang with 200WHP cars in the 1/4 but only 170WHP cars at 80+mph. With MBC, you can now hang with 230WHP cars in the 1/4 and 200WHP cars at 80+mph. It's true that you've gained power at 80+mph because you can now beat cars at highway speeds that you couldn't before. But I think it is more accurate to say that you've gained power at all speeds. Maybe not REALLY low speeds if all you've done is flattened the curve above 5000rpm, so let's say all speeds above 20mph which, in my books, is still not a really high speed. Could you have accomplished the exact same thing by increasing peak torque without moving it to a higher rpm? Yes, I think so. This is why I don't think there has to be a correlation between high speed acceleration and high rpm torque.

I think this idea came from Honda fanboys who, while losing down low, certainly would catch up at higher speeds. I think this is because Integras/Civics, with FWD and low low-end torque, show the opposite characteristic of the WRX. If the stock RSX-S has 170WHP, we can hang with 150WHP cars in the 1/4 ET, but with MOST 170WHP cars at 20+mph. It has more to do with the fact that we are FWD and therefor can't launch worth SH*T than because we have good high-end torque. Even worse, if we bog our launch, well, I have a saying "Eternity is waiting for my car to go from 2500 to 6000rpm". :D

Are Camaros slouches at high speeds? Corvettes? They have torque curves that drop a lot near redline, doesn't seem to hurt them.

I'll end by asking 1 question (and if you skipped my long diatribe up top, at least read this): Does your ENGINE make less power at 6000rpm in 1st gear than it does in 4th gear? I think the answer is no. The only difference is that AWD and a strong 1st/2nd gear are no longer helping you beat cars that are more powerful.

Anyway, there is my beef for the day. :D I might be wrong and I encourage any non-flaming comments.
RSXSucks -

You've got quite a few ideas in this post so I'll try my best to reply.

Let me start with an MBC (manual boost controller): It gives you power everywhere. Yes it's only raising the boost but it also makes the power come on lower.

How you ask? Because the stock boost controller is a bleeder type mechanism, where the average MBC is a ball and spring boost controller with a breaking point. It allows boost to rise much more quickly this way.

The second advantage is that it holds boost at a constant. The stock boost controller raises boost to a certain level and later in the power band it bleeds it back off while adding ignition advance to compensate (which is not as effective).

As far as torque up high and down low, it's relative to the gearing at hand and the engine in question. Torque only gets you going and HP keeps you going. Torque drops off usually around the 5200 rpm mark and HP takes over on any gas engine. There is no arguement to that. It is what it is! The rest is based on geraing and vehicle weight.

Camaros and Vettes: They have excellent torque and they may have only another grand on the tach but they are already moving quite well. They are different animals in the way they deliver power.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top