Yeah i raced a WRX with my 94 integra LS(intake and exaust)and beat the shit out of it. HAHAHAHAHA:p I wish. No but i really did race a brand new stock WRX and i got spanked so hard, :cry: im suprised i'm living to tell about it. WRX's are nice cars, but why do they have to be so damn FAST. Oh well sooner or later Honda will come out with a turbo charged ricer burner we all can afford. MABYE!!!

Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:

Because I have no money:cry:

Originally posted by G_racer
Because I have no money:cry: Thats why im rollin a 95 CIVIC:hehehe:

the wrx is still the better car :D

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX

where the hell did u hear that??? the non turbo impreza is as fast as an itr (yes i have raced one, no make that 2) dont go by the published times for imprezas theyre way faster.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


where the hell did u hear that??? the non turbo impreza is as fast as an itr (yes i have raced one, no make that 2) dont go by the published times for imprezas theyre way faster. \
Sport Compact Car didi a head to head shoot out between the US market ITR and the US market WRX sedan, the 0-60, ITR actually edged the WRX by 0.1 in their testsI know that a few cheap mods, like unglogging the plumbing on the wrx will allow it to smoke an ITR no contest though

ive said this many times before on here, but the wrx and 2.5 liter imprezas are faster than what the magazines get on their testing. it takes practice to launch one without bogging the engine, simply dropping the clutch at redline, which is what most magazines do, still bogs the engine down. i raced an itr with intake header exhaust at the dragstrip and beat him by .1 second through the 1000ft. now he was gaining on me so im sure he would have just barely edged me out through the full 1/4 mile, but mine is a 2.5liter, a wrx would hand me my ass with a skilled driver. and like i said that type r had i/h/e it wasnt stock.

plus mine is a wagon, which is 80 lbs heavier than the sedan :)

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


the non turbo impreza is as fast as an itr (yes i have raced one, no make that 2) dont go by the published times for imprezas theyre way faster.

What? The non turbo impreza is not as fast as the ITR! Last time i saw one running at the drags was in Joliet, he was getting eaten by GSRs and SIs!

Why would the Impreza be slower in magazines? Even if the times for the cars are slow, wouldn't the itr times be slow? I mean its SCC, they did multiple runs head to head, i dont see why they wouldnt be able to drive the WRX, id think it would be easier to launch and get a good time out of than the ITR. Ive never driven a Impreza though, i have driven an ITR however i know if driven properly its faster than the 2.5rs

sport compact car is a crappy mag Super street is better


my opinion tho :rolleyes:

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
The non turbo impreza is not as fast as the ITR! Last time i saw one running at the drags was in Joliet, he was getting eaten by GSRs and SIs!

wow he musta not had much practice driving that thing. im telling u it takes a LOT of time to get it down right. i could put 4 lengths on a gsr with intake header exhaust no problem. and if u read my above post it details ONE of my type r beatings.

in fact theres a guy here with an si with i/h/e and a 75 shot of zex nitrous and he can barely pull ahead of me...

think about it, usdm itr and 2.5 liter impreza have CLOSE to the same hp, but the impreza has a buttload more torque, closer gearing, awd launches and a more usable powerband. the itr's weight can only make up for so much of that.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
think about it, usdm itr and 2.5 liter impreza have CLOSE to the same hp, but the impreza has a buttload more torque, closer gearing, awd launches and a more usable powerband. the itr's weight can only make up for so much of that. I believe you but if you beat type r's whith your 2.5 , why are the times for the WRX so close to the ITR's? What mods do you have?

Is a 2.5TS the same as a 2.5RS? Thats what was getting beaten

a ts is an rs wagon. my only mods performance wise are an air intake and a universal muffler. all im sayin is that the published times u read everywhere for imprezas, they can be much faster once youve had a good deal of practice in them. when i 1st took my car to the dragstrip, our local strip is only 1000ft long, i used the same launch method all the magazines do, put it to redline and drop the clutch. i was getting 14.1's on average, hardly a match for even an integra gsr. now that i have about 300 runs under my belt im getting on average 12.9 which means bye bye gsr :D . the difference is that i no longer just drop the clutch at redline cuz the engine bogs down when u do that, i drop the clutch, immediately press it back down and drop it a 2nd time, then press it about 1/2 way down and hold it for a split second before dropping it a final time, keeping my rpms up the entire time but still getting the advantage of that instant power transfer as opposed to slipping the clutch to keep rpms up. it takes exact timing that comes with, like i said, about 300 runs worth of practice and one stripped 1st, 2nd, and 5th gear (thank god for warranty!) my guess is all the magazines use the old drop the clutch once and go method cuz they havent spent enough time with it to perfect it, and ive got timeslips to prove my method is almost 1.5 seconds faster, at least in the 2.5 i havent had the chance to get a wrx on a track yet but if i do ill see how fast they really are too.

Great conversation guyz, i learned a lot, kinda. n e ways i have a simple question WHY DID YOU BUY THE WAGON??? :rolleyes: and why did subaru make the WRX so ugly?(of course thats my opinion, but lots seem to agree with me)?? it seems like they spent all of their time on performance(which is okay) but c'mon at least make it look good so when get beat your all "that car's so f****** PHAT." instead of "ya its fast".

Originally posted by G_racer
Great conversation guyz, i learned a lot, kinda. n e ways i have a simple question WHY DID YOU BUY THE WAGON??? :rolleyes: and why did subaru make the WRX so ugly?(of course thats my opinion, but lots seem to agree with me)?? it seems like they spent all of their time on performance(which is okay) but c'mon at least make it look good so when get beat your all "that car's so f****** PHAT." instead of "ya its fast".

yeah well i thought it was ugly too when i bought it, but hell im only gonna see it from the inside so what do i care? i like the phrase "u dont like the way my headlights look? thats fine, cuz youre only gonna see my taillights..." however after having it for a week or so the look really grows on ya, and i like it now it makes a lot of the other cars on the road look dated. i have gotten a hell of a lot of compliments from random people at gas stations, stores, etc... so i guess a lot of people do like the way it looks. and ive found a lot of girls really like the looks a lot, ive had a few at the street races say "wow that car turns me on".

as for why did i buy the wagon, why would anyone buy the sedan? i mean u pay the same price but u dont get that extra little bit of car, talk about getting ripped :D

no seriously i wanted to be different, ive always liked the looks of hatchbacks, especially wagons cuz i think they look a lot fuller than sedans. and can u say SOUND SYSTEM? a wagon is PERFECT for it! and i like my sound systems! and performance wise, after having driven both sedan and wagon, i find the wagon to be a bit faster on the road, the extra 80 lbs over the rear helping to rotate the rear end a little when the sedan just understeers.

btw it seems cooler if u forget the word wagon and think of it as a lowered SUV ;)

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
, why are the times for the WRX so close to the ITR's? What mods do you have?
Probably cause the WRX is a hella heavy car. Compare it
WRX= +/-3200 lb and the ITR is about 2600-2700

The stock WRX(turbo) Makes 14.6sec bone stock in the 1/4(slow huh? for a 227hp 200+lb/ft car). Also AWD cars launches are hella slow compared to front or rear wheel drive cars.
I know someone with an ITR hatch pushing 205whp and he beats the crap out of modded wrx's. He pushes a 13.4 sec on the 1/4 all motor full interior and street tires.:D

btw it seems cooler if u forget the word wagon and think of it as a lowered SUV

thats a good way of putting it:rolleyes: no really, n e ways it seems that your extremely satisfied with you decision, and i think im gonna give the WRX another chance MABYE, i dont know if my baby teg would like that:p j/k

Originally posted by fjt

Probably cause the WRX is a hella heavy car. Compare it
WRX= +/-3200 lb and the ITR is about 2600-2700

The stock WRX(turbo) Makes 14.6sec bone stock in the 1/4(slow huh? for a 227hp 200+lb/ft car). Also AWD cars launches are hella slow compared to front or rear wheel drive cars.


man have u read any of my posts in this thread? i swear i could hit a 13 in a STOCK wrx. hell i could prob hit a 14.6 in my impreza and its not a wrx. ive already hit 14.9s in it and that was whit a passenger. plus that was a long time ago, im faster now. and yes its prettly much stock i dont see an intake and a universal muffler helping my times very much.

and how are awd cars slow compared to fwd? i dont see many civics or integras smoking porsche turbos, skylines, or lamborghini diablos do u?

i though the fastest fwd in the world was running 8s. sorry guy but there are STREET LEGAL awds running that.

oh and a new impreza only weighs 3000 lbs, at least thats what mine weighs and its a wagon, the sedan is 80 lbs lighter.

Originally posted by fjt

Probably cause the WRX is a hella heavy car. Compare it
WRX= +/-3200 lb and the ITR is about 2600-2700

The stock WRX(turbo) Makes 14.6sec bone stock in the 1/4(slow huh? for a 227hp 200+lb/ft car). Also AWD cars launches are hella slow compared to front or rear wheel drive cars.
I know someone with an ITR hatch pushing 205whp and he beats the crap out of modded wrx's. He pushes a 13.4 sec on the 1/4 all motor full interior and street tires.:D

i wasn't asking why the itr is so close to the wrx, i know why, i was trying to make a point by saying "how can a n/a inpreza beat a itr if a wrx and itr are so even"

Originally posted by fjt
Also AWD cars launches are hella slow compared to front or rear wheel drive cars.

if there was ever a statement that was the complete opposite of any common sense...

okay if an awd and a 2wd car both have the same tires. and the 2wd car can put 100 hp to the ground from a standstill without breaking loose the tires, then the awd car can put 200hp down without breaking loose. if the 2wd can put 400hp down without breaking loose, the awd can put 800hp... with the same tires on both the awd will have double the amount of rubber putting power to the ground as a 2wd.

dude just think for a moment before u post next time...

Ya that statement about awd launcing slow is bull. I've seen a Porsce at the strip and when it launches it actually looked like it was "Jumping" or flying off the line , no shit. It was crazy

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Ya that statement about awd launcing slow is bull. I've seen a Porsce at the strip and when it launches it actually looked like it was "Jumping" or flying off the line , no shit. It was crazy

yeah man, my car "jumps" and it doesnt even really have much power at all. i can imagine a porsche...

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:

sorry to rain on your parade but the ITR would get smoked by a WRX. Worse yet this summer the WRX Sti version should be hitting US soil and even a turbo ITR wouldnt have a chance against that beast.

lowered SUV? SUVs are the scum of the earth.

id rather have a wagon

Originally posted by hobbesboarder


sorry to rain on your parade but the ITR would get smoked by a WRX. Worse yet this summer the WRX Sti version should be hitting US soil and even a turbo ITR wouldnt have a chance against that beast.
OK youre correct, I checked out some other sources, the WRX shows better times in most other tests than in Sport Comapct Car's. The WRX is the faster car. I guess ldelaysionl is right, they must not have known how to effectively launch it. The times vary a lot, like SCC says itr 6.1, wrx 6.2.
C&D got 5.4 out of the WRX, nearly a second quicker, while mustering 6.6 in the itr, .5 slower. hum
I guess it really does depend on the driver, especially in the WRX

:confused:

Originally posted by kidrocket
lowered SUV? SUVs are the scum of the earth.

id rather have a wagon

well yeah i dont like suv's, but i came up with the lowered suv thing to tell these guys who actually drove a lowered suv around and asked me why i bought something as uncool as a wagon, i was like wtf???

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:

What is an ITR?

Integra Type R, anyways, why do people think that the way to launch is rev to redline and drop the clutch? I thouight the idea was to NOT spin the tires.

Id rather have my tires pulling me forward than spinning and making smokie, especially on a RWD and FWD cars, but since imprezas are AWD, they might not spin as easy, but then there is the problem that guy says about bogging the egine, lets se, if the tires arenyt spinning but the clutch is out and the car isnt moving, the engine will be slowed down alot, whivch makes a difference, but I just dont think that is how the guys at the magazines drive, Id fire em if that is how they drove the cars and got the numbers for me to publish

I agree with everything you guys are saying about the WRX and the whole Subaru line, all you have to do is drive one. I have drivin everything that Subaru has to over and they are pretty damn quick, even the OUTBACK. Once you have gone for a boot in a WRX anyone that thinks they aren't quick would quickly change their mind. The hook up is amazing, just think all the wheels getting power it is bound to make you go, and when that turbo kicks in it places you back in your seat. They arent exactly the prettiest things in the world but they are built to be functional, the AWD system is superb and they are one of the funnest cars I have ever driven. However it is completely different then any other car out there and it does have to be driven a little different to be effective, once you figure it out though you can roast alotta cars out there.:frog:

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


if there was ever a statement that was the complete opposite of any common sense...

okay if an awd and a 2wd car both have the same tires. and the 2wd car can put 100 hp to the ground from a standstill without breaking loose the tires, then the awd car can put 200hp down without breaking loose. if the 2wd can put 400hp down without breaking loose, the awd can put 800hp... with the same tires on both the awd will have double the amount of rubber putting power to the ground as a 2wd.

dude just think for a moment before u post next time...

i know im a little late in this argument but last time i checked when scc started making 250-300 whp they were stripping gears left and right like crazy so yeah you can have a 2wd with 200 whp versus a awd with 400 whp but when the clutches are let out how do we know that the tranny of the awd car is gonna hold up

to further back my statement up there are 400 plus whp honda's running around with stock trannies in fact the only weak link in the honda driveline are your axles which now-adays is cheaply remedied with aftermarket axles

furthurmore the itr you raced and beat must have been a horrible driver to allow a 2.5ts wagon to beat and by the way last time i checked the itr made 195 hp and the 2.5 motor made 160 but then again this is a lot of "crap" i read out of scc so i could be wrong besides super street im pretty sure does everything in thier means to have such a detailed and fair magezine:)

Originally posted by ReyKe


i know im a little late in this argument but last time i checked when scc started making 250-300 whp they were stripping gears left and right like crazy so yeah you can have a 2wd with 200 whp versus a awd with 400 whp but when the clutches are let out how do we know that the tranny of the awd car is gonna hold up

to further back my statement up there are 400 plus whp honda's running around with stock trannies in fact the only weak link in the honda driveline are your axles which now-adays is cheaply remedied with aftermarket axles

furthurmore the itr you raced and beat must have been a horrible driver to allow a 2.5ts wagon to beat and by the way last time i checked the itr made 195 hp and the 2.5 motor made 160 but then again this is a lot of "crap" i read out of scc so i could be wrong besides super street im pretty sure does everything in thier means to have such a detailed and fair magezine:)

i think u missed my point, i was saying if a 2wd and an awd have the same tires, the awd can puy down twice the hp as the 2wd. so if the 2wd could put down 200 hp without spinning the tires, the awd could put 400 down, even though they might both have 400 hp, the 2wd can only put 200 of it down without spinning but the awd can put all 400 down.

and its the japanese-spec itr that has 195 hp, not usdm. i think ours has 180? and lets compare torque, the impreza may "only" have 160 hp but its got 165 lb/ft torque. oh and how bout the much smoother power curve of the impreza... and the awd's ability to put twice the power to the ground without spinning... theres a lot more to winning races than peak hp numbers.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


i think u missed my point, i was saying if a 2wd and an awd have the same tires, the awd can puy down twice the hp as the 2wd. so if the 2wd could put down 200 hp without spinning the tires, the awd could put 400 down, even though they might both have 400 hp, the 2wd can only put 200 of it down without spinning but the awd can put all 400 down.

and its the japanese-spec itr that has 195 hp, not usdm. i think ours has 180? and lets compare torque, the impreza may "only" have 160 hp but its got 165 lb/ft torque. oh and how bout the much smoother power curve of the impreza... and the awd's ability to put twice the power to the ground without spinning... theres a lot more to winning races than peak hp numbers.

first of all i think you missed my point yeah with the same tires where it would take 200 hp to break the wheels loose it would take 400 hp to break the wheels loose in an awd car but there's just one prob and thats subaru's drivetrain isn't strong enough to take such figures without turning the transmission to a box of oil and metal shavings

and also if you ever get the chance to talk to a regular subscriber to scc ask to see thier december 200 issue and look on page 135 scroll down through the integras and you'll find the jdm integra makes 197 hp and the usdm makes 195, this is becuase usdm has 10.6:1 c/r and the jdm has 11:1 c/r

yeah yeah smoother power curve, yeah yeah awd's supposedly reliable ability to put twice the power to the ground, but you're right about it takes more than hp numbers to win a race, but what you forget is that it really comes down to driver ability and that's my reason for saying the itr you raced did a bad job handling his car every honda enthusiast knows especially the smaller displacement crowd 1800cc's and below, where torque figures aren't exactly a strong point, know it's all in the launch and obviously mr itr hadn't mastered this or he would have showed you a nice set of tail's, and you know what i have nothing else to add to this i have said my piece live in ignorance if you want

Originally posted by ReyKe


first of all i think you missed my point yeah with the same tires where it would take 200 hp to break the wheels loose it would take 400 hp to break the wheels loose in an awd car but there's just one prob and thats subaru's drivetrain isn't strong enough to take such figures without turning the transmission to a box of oil and metal shavings

and also if you ever get the chance to talk to a regular subscriber to scc ask to see thier december 200 issue and look on page 135 scroll down through the integras and you'll find the jdm integra makes 197 hp and the usdm makes 195, this is becuase usdm has 10.6:1 c/r and the jdm has 11:1 c/r

yeah yeah smoother power curve, yeah yeah awd's supposedly reliable ability to put twice the power to the ground, but you're right about it takes more than hp numbers to win a race, but what you forget is that it really comes down to driver ability and that's my reason for saying the itr you raced did a bad job handling his car every honda enthusiast knows especially the smaller displacement crowd 1800cc's and below, where torque figures aren't exactly a strong point, know it's all in the launch and obviously mr itr hadn't mastered this or he would have showed you a nice set of tail's, and you know what i have nothing else to add to this i have said my piece live in ignorance if you want

live in ignorance??? easy there buddy this isnt a flame war yet and i dont think ive said anything warranting a flame so calm down.

well i just looked at my dec 2000 scc and i apologize it lists hp for the usdm itr at 195.

but like i said it takes more than peak hp to win. lets look at 1/4 mile times. all the times ive seen for a stock itr range from 15.1-15.6. now ive never had my car on a full 1/4 mile track but ive had it plenty on a 1000ft track, and my best time to date is a 12.9. if u do the conversion math, that works out to a 14.9-15.0-15.1 through the full 1/4. now sure thats not a precise measurement, but its a pretty damn close guess. its also FASTER than any published time ive seen for an itr. if u go by the slower estimates for the itr then its AT LEAST 1/2 second faster. also the itr would be pulling on me harder through the higher speeds, but a 1000ft track is shorter, giving me a slight advantage by letting me use my takeoff power but now giving him much time to use his high speed pulling power to catch up to me. maybe he was just a bad driver, but all the evidence ive seen seems to imply he was an average driver but my car is just faster than an itr through the 1000ft and possibly even the 1/4 mile.

actually its not uncommon for a type r to get into the 14s in the quarter

i can't believe this yet again let us refer to SCC again to get some "real" numbers if you'll look in the april 2000 issue and scroll through the stats for the type r you'll notice that the standing 1/4 mile is 14.7@95.2 now flip a few pages over to 79 and what oh my is this true is it really true 15.7@85.7 and let me get this straight you are driving a wagon doesn't that make your car heavier so in conclusion if the itr you raced had a good driver he would have spanked the living mess out of you the only time and place you'll beat an itr is in the rain and or up to 2nd gear so therefore for your car i don't care how much traction you have it won't do you any good after 2nd dude

Originally posted by ReyKe
i can't believe this yet again let us refer to SCC again to get some "real" numbers if you'll look in the april 2000 issue and scroll through the stats for the type r you'll notice that the standing 1/4 mile is 14.7@95.2 now flip a few pages over to 79 and what oh my is this true is it really true 15.7@85.7 and let me get this straight you are driving a wagon doesn't that make your car heavier so in conclusion if the itr you raced had a good driver he would have spanked the living mess out of you the only time and place you'll beat an itr is in the rain and or up to 2nd gear so therefore for your car i don't care how much traction you have it won't do you any good after 2nd dude

did u not just read my post above??? i just said my car gets 14s in the 1/4 mile so why are u telling me i get 15.7? i would get a 15.5 if i missed a shift, i couldnt get so slow as to hit a 15.7 if i tried.

and did u not also read the part where is said it is a 1000FT TRACK!!! a 1/4 mile is 1320ft so just in case u didnt know a 1000ft is shorter than 1320ft. do i need to do the math for u? just in case u cant figure it out on your own i will tell u its 320 ft shorter. observe:

1320-1000=320
that means:
1320ft-1000ft=320ft

so if an itr is only 2 tenths quicker than me through THE FULL QUARTER MILE, and thats on a near-perfect run for it, WHY CANT U UNDERSTAND I CAN TAKE IT THROUGH A SHORTER TRACK???

why dont u quit quoting everything youve read about and GO OUT AND ACTUALLY TRY SOME OF THIS SHIT! i am telling u what happened in the REAL WORLD, not in some fantasyland where cars ALWAYS run their best possible times.

wow someone here sure does get his feathers easily ruffled yes sure you do mid 14 but add another 320 feet and you'd be doing mid 15's your right the 1000 feet is shorter but in the real world the itr does the quarter a full second faster than you so like i said your slow and that driver wasn't a competent individual

to be honest with you my modified 3rd gen could put your subaru to shame, you may have gotten the best of an itr but one thing's for sure you would never get the best of my lude, especially in its current state

you know what why dont you sell your honda since you obviously have a tendency to bash them and select another forum on AF where they talk about nothing but bs subaru stories or hey go to streetkiaz.com they love to hate hondas, well im through with you, you just proved my point but please keep talking i want to feel good abot myself when i go to work for educating you

Originally posted by ReyKe
wow someone here sure does get his feathers easily ruffled yes sure you do mid 14 but add another 320 feet and you'd be doing mid 15's your right the 1000 feet is shorter but in the real world the itr does the quarter a full second faster than you so like i said your slow and that driver wasn't a competent individual

to be honest with you my modified 3rd gen could put your subaru to shame, you may have gotten the best of an itr but one thing's for sure you would never get the best of my lude, especially in its current state

you know what why dont you sell your honda since you obviously have a tendency to bash them and select another forum on AF where they talk about nothing but bs subaru stories or hey go to streetkiaz.com they love to hate hondas, well im through with you, you just proved my point but please keep talking i want to feel good abot myself when i go to work for educating you

i get my feathers ruffled when people tell me im an idiot and act like they know everything and dont listen to what im saying. i dont run the 1000ft in 14's i run it in TWELVES. add another 320 ft and NOW im hitting 14's. so dont tell me an itr is a second faster than me in the full 1/4, MAYBE hes a tenth or so faster, but no way will a stock itr EVER get more than 1/2 second in front of me through the 1/4. and considering he was hitting 12's also that puts him in the 14's for the 1/4 mile so by your own numbers u posted that makes him a competent driver. why dont u try to pay attention to what im saying this time like u havent any other time.

what does your prelude have in it? i raced a 88 prelude with a 94 prelude motor, intake, headers, open exhaust, cam gears, underdrive pulleys, and i STILL beat it. so unless u have even more mods than that youre not gonna beat me, and if u do, i hope your happy u had to put that many mods on your car to beat my STOCK station wagon.

i dont sell my honda cuz i LIKE hondas. thats why im in the honda forum and why i bought a classic honda.

i dont understand why new people to this forum immediately start talking shit and act like they know it all. it happens all the time, and by the rate youre going, it looks like youre just another drop in the bucket.

yes you're right you're absolutely right a station wagon with the 160 hp engine a stock friggin 2.5ts does the standing quarter in the 14's range you must have a magical 2.5ts it must have an invisible turbo and oh yeah by the way yeah all i have are overbored type r pistons, rebuilt engine, fuel pressure regulator, cam gears along with basic i/h/e and to add to this i doubt i highly doubt your wonderful 2.5TS could keep up with me especially since i have this car's interior fully gutted so pretty much bring it what the itr couldn't do to a mystically fast impreza I will

oh yeah i forgot to mention i do all my own work so next time you think your talking to someone who has never picked up a wrench to do his own oil changes please spare me becuase your assumptions will only make you look the fool

Originally posted by ReyKe
yes you're right you're absolutely right a station wagon with the 160 hp engine a stock friggin 2.5ts does the standing quarter in the 14's range you must have a magical 2.5ts it must have an invisible turbo and oh yeah by the way yeah all i have are overbored type r pistons, rebuilt engine, fuel pressure regulator, cam gears along with basic i/h/e and to add to this i doubt i highly doubt your wonderful 2.5TS could keep up with me especially since i have this car's interior fully gutted so pretty much bring it what the itr couldn't do to a mystically fast impreza I will

well i know my car does 14's and i really dont care if u do or not so im done with this discussion. u wont listen to any reason so theres no point in even trying.

oh and about all your mods that MIGHT be enough to take me, like i said, i hope youre happy u needed all those mods to beat a stock station wagon.

Dude, if you read any of my other posts, I usually keep an open mind about everything and always find a way to defend the underdog.

I just see NO WAY whatsoever you can run 14's in your Impreza Wagon. Your car can actually outjump even a Corvette off the line if you REALLY dump the clutch, but after the first 50 feet, the weight of four wheels dragging on your engine with 160 horses will have a Civic DX passing you. Also, you say that you've NEVER seen an ITR run faster than 15's...SportCompactCar has run one in 14.5, and this is a magazine, usually people driving personal cars do better. As a matter of fact, I've seen a GS-R with just i/h/e run a 14.8 quarter. You either are waaaay ahead of the driving learning curve in your town, or you need to change your screenname to IdelusionI.

My suggestion, invest in a scanner or a few bucks at Kinko's to get your timeslips scanned...

going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1

since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.

13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner

NOW do u believe me???

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG

how bout this one? award on top, close up of plaque on bottom.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/107524DCP_0187gg.JPG

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/374202DCP_0188ff.JPG

or this?

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/274693h.JPG

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/220659DCP_0190gg.JPG

im not the kind of person who makes up shit when i come in here. everything ive said about my car is stuff thats really happened. when i say i won an award, i won that award. when i say i ran a time, i ran that time.

I dont th8ink your ca is all stock, loks like you got exhaust on that, and on that plaque, they say modified car, do they mean like engine mods or just the visual stuff, If they are going by actually what car looks the best like a show car, then I dont se a subaru wagon winning any tiume soon.

anyways, that could be your best time, also, how do I know that it is even your slip, I have friends whos I could borow to scan also.


one more thing, I dont see those rims and thr system helping you. one more question, did the guy in the ITR race you woith 3 passengers? and with like a hella expensive show system or something?

Originally posted by 94tegRS
I dont th8ink your ca is all stock, loks like you got exhaust on that, and on that plaque, they say modified car, do they mean like engine mods or just the visual stuff, If they are going by actually what car looks the best like a show car, then I dont se a subaru wagon winning any tiume soon.

anyways, that could be your best time, also, how do I know that it is even your slip, I have friends whos I could borow to scan also.


one more thing, I dont see those rims and thr system helping you. one more question, did the guy in the ITR race you woith 3 passengers? and with like a hella expensive show system or something?

my car has a universal muffler and an intake. thats it for engine mods. as for u thinking a subaru wagon doesnt look like a show car, well looks are an opinion and i guess the judges thought it did. of course the timeslips and the trophy i had displayed helped. plus the fact that i was the only car there that wasnt a honda acura or mitsubishi probably got me points too, a car show is about being origional, and when there are 10 types of one car there, and only one of the other, that one car definately gets more points. not to mention running a 2002 car in what at the time was 2001 helps with the impressive factor too.

i dont guess i can prove that slip is mine. next time i go to the track ill have someone take a damn video of my run if youre all that bent on not believing. actually if the guy still has it on camera, i have a 13.1 second run on video already in mpg format, ill try to find him tomorrow.

the rims are stock size, and lighter than the stock wheels, so i doubt they hurt me any. but i had stock wheels at the time i raced the itr anyway so it dont matter. i didnt have the system at the time either. the itr had intake, header, exhaust, i know this cuz i specifically asked him and looked at it all myself after we raced. and no he didnt have a passenger in his car, and that was one of the few times i didnt have a passenger either cuz i anticipated a close race. if i had carried a passenger like i usually do he woulda took me, we were within .05 seconds. i dont know if he had a system, but he was rolling on 18's and that aint helping none in a motor without much low end or torque like that. hence the reason i have 15's. he would prob take me now with the system. although i dunno, i anticipate hitting 12.7's next time at the track considering how bad i smoked this v8 truck yesterday who runs 12.9s and i beat him 3 times in a row. i guess well see.

remember, this is a car that a civic ex with i/h/e and a 75 shot of nitrous cant even touch. i dont know where u people are seeing your slow subarus but they need to learn to control their cars and extract the most potential from them. theres a lot more to it than going to redline and dropping the clutch.

well, yah, it is my oppinion, also, good job on thr trophy and about the rims, I was told by les schwab that the revos only came in white and black on a 17" rim and anything else wa plain silver

.... but looking closer shows they arent revos at all! :bloated: :eek: :apuke: :crying: :silly:

yeah theyre motegi racing mr7's. theres like a 4 week waiting list to get those in silver or white but theyre in stock in black, i guess im the only one who likes black wheels? if u see them in person they look bigger than 15's i had a guy ask me the other day if they were 17s :hehe:

Uhm...I wanna see under your hood. That looks an awful lot like the turbo Wagons...as far as I know, the non-turbo Subarus (i.e., Imprezas, Outbacks, etc...) get the rectangular lights, and only the turbos get the "Dodge Neon" fascia.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/719973back.JPG

Also, anybody else notice the small marking on the bottom-left of the back his car that look awfully like a "W" and an "R" and an "X"?

its pretty obvious its a WRX i guessed that ages ago

the front bumper is the thing to look at

I though WRX's had scoops on the hood for the intercoolers

cybercrx00 is correct wrx's have hood scoops. here is my motor. notoe the air intake straight to the throtte body. NO turbo, NO intercooler.
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/459600mo.JPG

if u think they look like wrx emblems look here
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/223651DCP_0191y.JPG
http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/487352DCP_0192d.JPG

hahaha it fooled me :D

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
hahaha it fooled me :D

haha, believe me youre not the 1st. ive had a lot of people tell me "hey nice wrx" :)

Fooled me too:mad:. Oh well...you must abuse the hell out of your car to get the times your getting...

LOL you guys are funny. anyways, who said it's uncommon for a type R to hit 14's? whoever said that bring your ass to the strip and i'll run 14's all day. dumbass that said that. and yes i have much respects for the wrx, it is pretty fast i must say. my best friend has a silver one and we drag all the time. i'll tell you this right now, it comes down to the driver. i;ve driven his car many of times and he's drove mine. we've dragged back and forth. the cars are pretty much even just depends on the start. but i'll tell you this, when we go autoX and to the track, i destroy his ass. the wrx isn't that great of a track car, it just needs to stick to rally.

actually youre the dumbass. if you look at my post, i said its NOT uncommon for a type r to run 14s. at least i can read. get your shit straight. dont jump down my throat

dont mean to sound like an ass, but dont attack me unless your sure about what i said

Originally posted by '00TypeR
LOL you guys are funny. anyways, who said it's uncommon for a type R to hit 14's? whoever said that bring your ass to the strip and i'll run 14's all day. dumbass that said that. and yes i have much respects for the wrx, it is pretty fast i must say. my best friend has a silver one and we drag all the time. i'll tell you this right now, it comes down to the driver. i;ve driven his car many of times and he's drove mine. we've dragged back and forth. the cars are pretty much even just depends on the start. but i'll tell you this, when we go autoX and to the track, i destroy his ass. the wrx isn't that great of a track car, it just needs to stick to rally.

you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


you or your friend cant drive a wrx for beans. i could almost guarantee hitting 13s in one. and on the track... i dunno about smoking the type r, but the type r sure as hell wouldnt destroy it. itd be pretty close.

I agree and disagree with you.

1st, I'd like to know what mods you have in the '00 R, to keep up with, and occassionally beat a WRX, When WRX's are capable of hitting 13.8's stock. In the mags, they're running as low as 14.1, when the Mustang Cobra is listed at 14.1 itself and the Mustang GT at 14.5.

2nd, I agree with his TypeR killing the WRX on an autocross track. In straight line, or a wet/gravel track, the WRX has the advantage. The TypeR's tossability on a curving/flat track is legendary. Case in point, the recent comparo between the TypeR and a Mustang GT, where the GT pretty much beat the TypeR in all the acceleration tests, but the TypeR trounced the MGT on the road course. Also, in a recent 4door econobox comparo by Car&Driver, they have the Protege MP3 beating a 4door Impreza. They said that the AWD grip actually HAMPERED it at the track.

okay well i assumed he was talking about a stock or near stock type r

and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
okay well i assumed he was talking about a stock or near stock type r

and as for the autocross track, it really depends on the layout of the track. i read a comparison between type r and wrx which stated on a really nice smooth racetrack with even sweeping corners the type r would beat the wrx. but when it started to get choppy, have tight switchbacks, or get really technical, the wrx came out on top. what they basically said was the type r would probably win on a good race track, but the wrx would take it in real world street and mountain road driving.

You're right. But to clarify, '00TypeR is talking about an autocross track. VERY tight. A Mazda Miata beat a TypeR in this setting, because of the Miata's superior sliding prowess and tossability.

first of all kidrocket, it was a mistake calm the fuck down. second, i respect suby's hands down. they nice cars quick and handle extremely well. NOW on an autoX track and a real GT track i KNOW i can take my friends WRX. put some gravel or water on the track, he'll stomp all over me don't get me wrong. but strictly race wise i can take him. i did with my car stock, now i'm running TEIN HA's with full upper pillow ball mounts and some KUMHO victoracer's. i'm not trashing on wrx or subey's, just telling you my opinion and how it is. btw, why the wagon?

oh and another thing, i get my ass handed to me by miata's, mr2 spider's, and even a tercel, autoX has nothing to do with your street mods, it's all driver. nuff said.

no harm done i just didnt like being called a dumbass for no reason. nice car by the way

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
now that i have about 300 runs under my belt im getting on average 12.9 which means bye bye gsr :D .

no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, 14.361@96.53 in the 1/4.

Originally posted by xjohnx


no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, durned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, 14.361@96.53 in the 1/4. ??????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????????????????

what's the question?

Originally posted by xjohnx


no way you beat an ITR. my bone stock ITR (just aem), on balding stock tires, i turned 12.035 at the 1000 ft mark, 14.361@96.53 in the 1/4.

well then u have an abnormally fast type r.

Originally posted by '00TypeR
btw, why the wagon?

didnt u read my sig??? all the cool kids drive wagons! :p but seriously i think it looks fuller, more complete, and it kinda distinguishes me from "wrx-mania" where everyone is buying a sedan. plus better platform for sound system, and handles better in my opinion cuz the extra weight over its ass end makes it understeer less. and since they cost nearly the same, with the wagon u get that extra little bit over the rear end so its more car for the money! :silly2:

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


well then u have an abnormally fast type r.

No he doesn't. You're just really confused as to what Type R's run. Mid to low 14's are very typical for those of us that know how to drive our cars. Don't beleive me? I cordially invite you to come to the largest gathering of Type R owners on the net (literally a couple hundred of us)and ask them what they run. Most will be gald to post bone stock timeslips for you. We're all located at www.honda-tech.com. There's a forum specifically for ITRs on the front page.

My first time at the track I ran a altitude corrected 14.6 (I run at 5800 feet above sea level).

Also there's no way your car will turn a 14.9 with just those mods. Maybe a 15.3. I know I know, you plugged it into your calculator and it said that's what you run. A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000. Think about it, there's no way your going to accelerate another 16mph in a scant 320 feet while in third gear. It's just not going to happen.

The facts are that if you haven't actually ran a full 1/4 mile then you don't know what it runs in the 1/4. There's no way you can, you haven't actually done it.

Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?

just out of curiosity what is your real time, not altitude corrected?? Altitude correction can be just as bad as trying to guess 1320 from a 1000 ft time??

15.8@88mph

Altitude correction factor for Bandimere speedway in Denver CO is .91.

I know it's not perfect, but it's all we have to go by, not to mention that the corrected time coincides with what just about every other ITR in the country runs.

OTOH, there has never been anyone anywhere on the net claiming to have run in the 14's with a 2.5 RS or TS wagon with nothing but a cat back and air filter, especially without a timeslip to back it up.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1

since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.

13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner

NOW do u believe me???

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG

Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info


R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53


With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.

Originally posted by newt2
A 14.9 equates to about 93mph in the 1/4, your timeslip said 77mph in the 1000.

hey guy i get 96-97 in the 1/4 mile. we have a 1/4 track marked off on a back road, no timing lights of course but the distance is accurate. and considering im still on stock tires i doubt my speedometer is that off. i NEVER read below 95 through the 1/4.

like i said that wasnt my best timeslip, that was the one i have on the computer desk.

and other guy, no shit a honda could have the same speed as i do but a slower time. i get off the line WAAAY faster than any comparable honda ever dreamed of. so maybe we have about the same trap speed at the end, but that time i was doing 40 mph while hes still doing 20 mph will give me a considerably better e/t. i dont know if u realize this, but e/t and trap speed ARE NOT locked together, they can vary.

Well, since you've never ran the quarter, you can't really say what you'd run or what you'd trap at. Personally, I have a hard time believing that a car that runs a 12.9 second 1000 meters, can clock in at anything less than about a 15.4 or so. I don't really know of course, but anything less than that, I'd have to see it to believe it.

from the very beginning i have said that i dont know exactly what it would run in the 1/4 mile, i said if u do the conversion math its about 14.9, so i slacked off of that by saying 14.9-15.2 judging myself slower than what the conversion math said... the fact that i was judging myself slower shows that i dont really trust the math myself, but thats what the conversion says.

Originally posted by newt2
Let me ask you this. What color was this ITR that you raced?

a pearly white color. like i said i dont know the guy personally maybe he was a shitty driver, BUT on the other hand maybe he wasnt, IF the conversion math is right i see no reason i couldnt beat an itr through a short track.

which brings us to IS the math right? like u said i dont know, i havent ever been on a full 1/4 mile. by saying that 93 mph equates to about 14.9 thats makes me think MAYBE it is right cuz i get slightly faster than that, but i dont know for sure. ive always been a bit wary of that, ive always guessed my car a bit slower in the 15.2 range, BUT the math is the only thing i have to go by and the math says 14.9, just like your "altitude corrected" math says 14.6, but all youve actually ran was a 15.8...

if u can go around telling people u ran a "altitude corrected" 14.6, then why cant i tell people i ran a "distance corrected" 14.9? dont be so damn hypocritical.

i'll own you all at the track! :D

Originally posted by '00TypeR
i'll own you all at the track! :D beating a wrx would be a sight to see :coolguy:
stock against stock, the better driver would win

Originally posted by slowANDfurious
Why? The ITR is as fast as the WRX and the same price
Why don't you just get a real Honda:hehe:


the ITR engine is supposed to be a piece of shit its been engineered to death

HONDA engineering even says its shit so don't give me any BS cuz thats the way it is ! check the new super street if ya don't believe me

so?! piece of shit? so wut you believe everything you read? wtf you drive? an nsx? your motor is piece of shit too. fuck with the money you pay for an nsx i'd just grab me a gtr and smoke the shit outta you. let's admit it, honda uses high compression small engines to pull out the most hp on a small motor and for it to be econimacally reliable. so if you say an ITR motor is shit, than anybody that owns a honda motor out there sucks. THERE IS NO HONDA MOTOR THAT IS A TORQUE SPEWING MONSTER. from the nsx motor to the 3.2 TL, they are not torque happy. ignorant bastard. SuperStreet says so....god can you be anymore of a fuckin n00b?

Originally posted by '00TypeR
so?! piece of shit? so wut you believe everything you read? wtf you drive? an nsx? your motor is piece of shit too. fuck with the money you pay for an nsx i'd just grab me a gtr and smoke the shit outta you. let's admit it, honda uses high compression small engines to pull out the most hp on a small motor and for it to be econimacally reliable. so if you say an ITR motor is shit, than anybody that owns a honda motor out there sucks. THERE IS NO HONDA MOTOR THAT IS A TORQUE SPEWING MONSTER. from the nsx motor to the 3.2 TL, they are not torque happy. ignorant bastard. SuperStreet says so....god can you be anymore of a fuckin n00b?

i just read that again u're a prick aren't you the better engine is the B16 according to HONDA MOTOR CORP and yes its official you are a bent bastard get you nuts checked Type R engine is shit honda says so

haha u tard i don't have an NSX hahahaha

HONDA Engineering where they teach the mechanics of the future said so! So don't get pissy with me i'll scan it in !

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/308410mag5.jpg


http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/579864mag4.jpg

excuse the poor quality i couldn't get AF to accept it otherwise

This is why the best b18c5s in the country are running b16 heads, as far as stock heads go.

At the bottom end, the b18c5 is superior...titanium rods anyone? This is why the best b16s in the country run TypeR pistons/cranks as far as stock parts go.

Originally posted by EricGST


Are you kidding me, I have a slip right next to me from some honda a raced along time ago. he had almost the same times as you but higher speeds and ran a 15.7. Here is his info


R/T - .749
60' - 2.433
330 - 6.760
1/8 - 10.195
MPH - 71.65
1000 - 13.186
1/4 - 15.730
MPH - 88.53


With that info I would say your 13.1 would get you a 15.8 in the 1/4, that is way off from a 14.X. Even a 12.9 1000' would only get you a 15.4 at best.

ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip. Projected 1/4 mile times are just that...unless you have a time slip with a full 1/4 mile, don't make claims. That is the end of the discussion. Projected and corrected 1/4 mile times hold no merit.


Oh and NSX, the text that you put down can be interpretted in a few ways. How I interpret it is that they are easily available and cheap....also, you forget that in Japan, there is no number designation for the Integra Si motor(US spec GSR) or the Integra Type R...both are B18C.

Originally posted by inferno


ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip.

haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.

man that hondas supposed "timeslip" he listed only gained from 71mph to 88mph from the 1/8th mile to the 1/4 mile, youre telling me he gained 71 mph through the 1st half of the race and only 16mph through the 2nd half, c'mon give me something believable. sure a car will gain more in the 1st half, but not 443.75% more. thats rediculous. did he not have a 4th gear AT ALL? if that IS a real timeslip that guy missed a shift big time, or his car basically DIED OUT in the top end of that race and he didnt have any more power. man i get over 95mph through the 1/4 mile.

a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4

how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.

15.5-15.6 i think. Nissan overrated that engine from what i read

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


haha i would be pulling away from a civic that slow even with my lack of top end power. and whos to say this civic had a crappy 3-4 shift, or he even missed a shift? 2.6 seconds a LOOOONG damn time to travel 320 ft.

Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.

I wanna see how you explain this away.

Originally posted by carrrnuttt


Okay...this where I raise the B.S. flag. In the above statement, you sound like you're saying that you actually shift to 4th when drag racing. Anybody who knows what they're doing knows that most modern engines can hit up to/close to 100MPH in 3rd gear. My '96 Corolla went up to 95 at least, my current Civic with a non-VTEC SOHC can get up to about 101MPH before I hit the rev-limiter...heck my '92 Protege' with about 88HP got up to about 90 till I had to upshift. I know this because I do a lot of freeway racing and I know my only advantage with my tiny engine is to stay at as low a gear as possible until right before I hit the rev limiter. I am positive your car is at least capable of something close to this. The Civic used as an example above did NOT need to shift to third with his trap speed. Even at a trap speed of 95MPH which you claim to get with this rudimentary quarter-mile you and your friends marked-off, you shouldn't need to upshift to 4th or at least be just barely doing so as you reach the quarter mark.

I wanna see how you explain this away.

ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???

well actually I heard something one time about how the WRX and the ITR had the same 0-60 but the ITR had a higher top end because the WRX was geared so low, maybe that is why he has to shift into 4th, my car is an RS wiht I/H/E and anyways I have to shift at about 95, now I know the IHE didnt affect that, But I just had to say that I marked off a 1/4 mile once, not the most acurate but I was only at 92 when i cropssed the line and im a good driver, is a non turbo impreza wagon reallly faster than my car??? even with him having intake and a universal muffler or whateve, I still am embarassed if that white waqgon is faster than my car.

oh god i hope not

dangit someone got the gearing thing in there before i had the chanxce to hit submit

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
man that hondas supposed "timeslip" he listed only gained from 71mph to 88mph from the 1/8th mile to the 1/4 mile, youre telling me he gained 71 mph through the 1st half of the race and only 16mph through the 2nd half, c'mon give me something believable. sure a car will gain more in the 1st half, but not 443.75% more. thats rediculous. did he not have a 4th gear AT ALL? if that IS a real timeslip that guy missed a shift big time, or his car basically DIED OUT in the top end of that race and he didnt have any more power. man i get over 95mph through the 1/4 mile.

a 99 civic si's stock 1/4 mile time is 15.7@88mph, i have raced stock civic si's and civic si's with i/h/e and put more then 3 lengths on almost all of them. if a civic si runs 15.7 stock theres NO WAY i get less than 15.4

how fast is a new nissan sentra se-r v-spec? i put 2 lengths on one saturday night through the 1/4.

Actually, 71MPH is the Civic's 1000FT speed. It took him 2.6 seconds from 71MPH to 88MPH. You claim this is too slow. It takes a 385HP 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2.96 seconds to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You don't believe me? I got this from page 56 of the April 2001 issue of Motor Trend, where the mag is racing the Z06 against an FR200 Focus. Incidentally, the 304HP Focus took 3.65 secs to get from 70MPH to 90MPH. You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio. Although the power-to-weight of both cars are within 1LB of each other, the Corvette has a better drag coefficient.

Bottomline, if you are claiming that your car is faster than this, I want some of what you are smoking.

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


ya know subaru's have short gearing :D well the sti does
and the evo RS450 with 450 hp does a grand total of 125 mph ???

I stand corrected. I researched and found this:

I 3.55 4.9 32 mph (6500 rpm)

II 2.11 8.3 54 mph (6500 rpm)

III 1.45 12.0 78 mph (6500 rpm)

IV 1.09 16.0 104 mph (6500 rpm)

V 0.78 22.4 124 mph (5550 rpm)

From this article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1997/September/199709_roadtest_subaru_impreza25rs.xml?&Manufacturer=Subaru&Name=Impreza%20Sedan&class=43&page=4


This is the gearing and top-speed per-gear for the Subaru 2.5RS. Now, this was done in '97 to a '98 Impreza, which by the way is lighter than delaysion's car, but I'm sure the engine and gearing specs are the same.

By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
going to kinkos will not be necessary i have a digital camera and a timeslip right here beside me. now this is not my best time or anything this is more like average, a 13.1, which i dont know the exact conversion for the full 1/4 mile off the top of my head but its about 2 more seconds so around 15.1

since the picture is blurry i will post the numbers here and u can compare to the paper it should be clear enough u can tell that im typing the right numbers and not exagerrating.

13.00------------Dial In
.598-------------Reaction
2.287------------60 Foot (slow)
6.615------------330 ft
10.221-----------1/8 e/t
68.99------------1/8 mph
13.115-----------1000 ft e/t
77.90-------------1000 ft mph (slow)
.097---------------Finish Margin
Winner

NOW do u believe me???

http://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/586197timeslip.JPG

If you look up at these marks, it is VERY similar to the marks for the 2.5RS they tested in the link I presented. Take a look:

C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION Seconds

Zero to 30 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.5

40 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2

50 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.9

60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.3

70 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.9

80 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.5

90 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18.7

100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.3

110 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38.0

Lessee:

His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH

2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH

His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH

2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH

The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?

....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph

He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.

If you want a kick ass AWD Subaru is where to go!!!!

I like all of the post guys THANX. But i still *Greatly Dislike* the WRX, no matter how fast you guys can prove this little chuck wagon can go, ill never change my mind. Ther will always be a bigger and better car out there that will romp the WRX to pieces.:D

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
By the way, having to shift an extra gear in the quarter hurts, not betters your E.T.

yeah having closer gearing than the other guy does hurt your acceleration :rolleyes: what can u not come up with any more "facts" so youre making up stuff like this now?

and guy with the integra, no offense but im absolutely sure my car is faster than an rs with i/h/e, unles your just that much of an amazing driver over the 10-15 integras with i/h/e i have raced before.

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
You must realize, at any speed over 50, AERODYNAMICS come into play, wher you have to start measuring HP/TQ to drag coefficient ratio.

oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
His car=10.221 seconds to get to 68.99MPH

2.5RS=10.9 seconds to get to 70MPH

His car=13.115 seconds to get to 77.90MPH

2.5RS=14.5 seconds to get to 80MPH

The 2.5RS' quarter-mile time?

....Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.4 sec @ 84 mph

He might have a slight advantage at the top-end, but it's DEFINITELY not gonna give him a full second or more.

its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?

lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1

thanks for the help.

I think there is no way for you to win this argument, I ran into this similar situation a year ago, because I posted some kills on some ls1's in my 300zx tt which dynoed 367hp and 393 tq, and people started calling BS that there is no way a 300zx can beat ls1's.....mostly I think it was the good ol' boys thinking nothing can beat a v8 no matter what kinda power it puts out. Some people just don't have anything better to do than argue

Originally posted by cybercrx00
I think there is no way for you to win this argument, I ran into this similar situation a year ago, because I posted some kills on some ls1's in my 300zx tt which dynoed 367hp and 393 tq, and people started calling BS that there is no way a 300zx can beat ls1's.....mostly I think it was the good ol' boys thinking nothing can beat a v8 no matter what kinda power it puts out. Some people just don't have anything better to do than argue

hehe yeah i think your right, these guys have their minds set on thinking they know everything about a car probably none of them have ever set foot in and no amount of evidence i supply will change their mind.

I raced a new WRX last Saturday at the track, I beat him off the line but he took me by about 3 or 4 carlengths in the end. I hadn't seen him before so i'm guessing that he didn't know the car terribly well and didn't launch very well. I beat an '89 Civic hatch with a B16+all the bolt-ons and beat him by two tenths. I think that a lot of people just suck at driving, i'm not a great driver or anything but it's kind of weird when my mostly stock car embarasses a turbo AWD or a RWD with slicks just becaus they can't launch to save their lives. I'm going to the track Thursday (hopefully) to try and improve my 60' times, i'm not happy with occasional 2.2's, I want them every time with 2.1's scattered in their.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


its NOT gonna give me a second or more huh? if u look at the numbers you yourself just posted, ive already got 0.7 seconds ahead of the 2.5rs timeslip u posted BY 70MPH! by YOUR OWN NUMBERS i'm 1.3 seconds faster to 80MPH. thats BEFORE the rs has got through the 1/4, cuz by YOUR OWN NUMBERS the rs gets the 1/4 at 84mph, but at 80mph i was already 1.3 seconds faster. jeez do u not know when to give up?

lets see now. IF i crossed the 1/4 mile line at 84mph just like the rs, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS that would put me at a 15.1 im not even gonna say anything about how i actually cross the line at over 95mph, im just gonna let u look at YOUR OWN NUMBERS that just proved me at a 15.1

thanks for the help.

Actually, you're not ahead by .7 seconds at all. The speed where you have this advantage is at 68.99, which is behind the RS by 1.1MPH, which based on my earlier post, is not that easy to get at these speeds. It is completely conceivable that it'll take you the full .679 seconds to attain that. That is just over half a second. Same with the 2.1MPH the RS has with you having to catch up to that in 1.385 secs. We've already established that this is not as easy as it appears, because drag gets in the way at these speeds. Don't say that you actually cross the line at 95MPH because YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You are assuming this from this rudimentary track you have run on. Run it on a real track, THEN I'll apologize to you.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


oh so now your admitting that IF that timeslip was real theres still the possibility (probability) that my 2002-designed car could have better c/d than one designed in 96? so NOW youre admitting that even IF that timeslip was real and that car was a few mph faster than me i could have gained that speed back and continued to pull on him? i guess my closer gearing would help out in that matter huh? no wait closer gearing HURTS acceleration right? thats what u said earlier...

The Impreza still has better coefficient than your Wagon. Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Also, why don't we ask pro-drag racers why they use 2SPEED Powerglides on their pro-drag cars. Everytime you shift, you go down on the powerband a little, even when speed-shifting, because the time shifting is not time spent accelerating. The only way you'd have a perfect shift is if you have a sequential, like the aforementioned Powerglide. Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.

having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.

Im not sure, but this is what im think about the RSX 5 vs. 6 speed

RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Ever notice that when you race, then shift, the car you're racing , regardless of whether you're winning or not, gains on you? Unless he's shifting himself.


hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.

ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.

Originally posted by 94tegRS
Im not sure, but this is what im think about the RSX 5 vs. 6 speed

RSX 160 HP, 5 speed
RSX type S 200 HP, 6 speed

i apologize i thought they had the same hp numbers just different transmissions.

sooo, well just look at a 5 speed new celica vs a 6 speed new celica

yeah, well I wasnt sure, but I just researched it and found this out-

Powertrain 2.0-liter, DOHC i-VTEC, 16-valve

Horsepower RSX - 160 hp @ 6500 rpm
RSX Type S - 200 hp @ 7400 rpm
Torque, SAE Net RSX - 141 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm
RSX Type S - 142 lb.-ft. @ 6000 rpm
Redline RSX - 6800 rpm
RSX Type S - 7900 rpm
Bore & Stroke 3.38 in. x 3.38 in.
Compression Ratio RSX - 9.8:1
RSX Type S - 11.0:1

5-speed manual transmission* Ratios (:1)

1st 3.266
2nd 1.880
3rd 1.212
4th 0.921
5th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388


6-speed manual transmission** Ratios (:1)

1st 3.266
2nd 2.130
3rd 1.517
4th 1.147
5th 0.921
6th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388



oif you want to look at the fullm specs for both check out this link, http://www.acura.com/model_RSX/rsx_spec_results.asp

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


having to shift into 4th means closer gearing. closer gearing means faster acceleration. pro drag racers can get away with 2-speeds because they have a large amout of hp, if u put a 2 speed in your car it would be SLOWER than before. is it a coincidence that the rsx 6 speed is faster than the 5 speed? no because the 6 speed has closer gearing, which makes up for any time lost in extra shifts.

Uhm again...NO. Have you ever seen an actual acceleration graph? Do you even know what that is? Even on a very good sequential gear, there is ALWAYS a dip in acceleration where there are shift points...the sequentials just have a lesser one than the regular manuals/autos. The AWD Subarus have the closer gearing because they have to overcome more drag on their engines. That is what having all four wheels drag on the engine can do.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl



hmm so THIS means than, by your numbers, my car redlines 5th gear at 78mph, and on my timeslip i was at 77.9mph, which as we all know (at least those of us who arent magazine racers :rolleyes: ) is taken as an average over the last segment of the track, and is NOT the actual speed i was travelling when i crossed the finish line. knowing this, its pretty obvious i was travelling OVER 78mph when i crossed the line, meaning i had just completed my 3-4 shift, which would explain why the civic would have a faster mph than me, because he was accelerating during that moment which was the exact split second i shifted. after the shift was completed it would then be possible to continue pulling away from the civic.

ALSO it shows that i was travelling FASTER than 78mph when i crossed the line in 13.1 seconds. now are u seriously trying to tell me that my car is gonna accelerate 78mph in 13.1 seconds then take a full 3.4 more seconds to gain 2 more mph? dont be stupid.

Look...you are doing a lot of speculating, and frankly, so am I. You're speculations include the fact that I'm a "magazine racer". That is a cute statement from such a cute(read: tiny) mind, but it doesn't cover the fact that you are trying to flame(so was I, above, just to pre-empt you pointing it out to me later). I have been driving stick regularly for 11 years now, and learned how to drive stick over 20 years ago. I just like to cover my statements from documented facts, not by assumptions like: "based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".

We could end all this and answer a lot of questions if you'd just go and run on an ACTUAL quarter-mile track, or even borrowing a G-Tech from somebody. At this point, my speculations end, and hopefully, so does yours.

god will this thread ever die?

Originally posted by carrrnuttt
"based on my self-assessed speed on this homemade track, I assume that I could go this fast in the quarter-mile".

actually, my assumption was based on a mathematical formula widely used and accepted to convert 1000ft e/t and mph to 1/4 mile e/t and mph. it so happened that this assumption was within 0.1 seconds of the numbers i calculated based upon the 2.5rs timeslip u posted. IF we were to add my "homemade track" calculations into this, that would make 3 different means of calculating that have all come up with roughly the same time.

and are u actually arguing that shorter gearing on a car will create faster acceleration? if u are then u must not know anything about gearing.

sorry i dont know anyone with a gtech and the 1/4 mile track is a long ways away, so what i have told u is all i have to go by. i have no solid evidence that i CAN run a low 15, but u have no solid evidence that i CANT run a low 15. and solid evidence aside, i DO have mathematical evidence that i can. u even posted some of it yourself. why dont u just stop trying to argue with me at every turn and think about it for a moment.

does anyone here argue a 99 civic si running a 15.7? cuz that is the stock 1/4 mile time for one. heres the stats for one:

hp-160
tq (not sure so correct me if im wrong)-111
weight-2600lbs
drive-fwd

my car, assuming 5hp for each mod.

hp-170
tq-175
weight-3000
drive-awd

advantage goes to the civic for weight; i get advantage in hp, tq, drive, and closer gearing. so what is so hard to believe that i can beat the civic? if i can beat the civic, then i obviously run faster than 15.7, and i know for a fact i wouldnt have ANY problems beating a stock si. somebody tell me how to post videos, and this weekend i will try to get this dude to race me without spraying his si. then u can see me beat an si with i/h/e ignition and fuel pump/injectors.

well he shifts 1 time less than you, plus doesnt AWD ruin top end?


adn if you were faster than my old RS wait til I buy the next one in a couple of days, 95 RS, gredy turbo, greddy exhaust. it has lots of others but not on engine mods, it does have a shrt shifter which wil help a TINY bit, but i also got the weight of a big loud system and big spooler and 18's but still, it will be fast, come to WA and ill show you a teg thatbeats your wagon, lol

I think this should be over, I think both of you bring up some good points and whenever you run the full 1/4 come back and post, otherwise you 2 should stop arguing

sounds like youre gonna have one hell of a nice car! i got a dvd screen going in mine probably this weekend i just relocated the cd player to the glovebox today to make room for it, and i think im gonna do the "headlight mod" (if youre not a dubaru guy u have no idea what im talking about there) tomorrow, but no turbo yet :( post some pics when u get yours!

and yeah we should end this. i have no way of PROVING him wrong, and he has no way of PROVING me wrong, so lets just stop trying, agreed?

Alright. Time to set some things straight here.

Kid with the wagon: You are smoking crack. :smoker2: <- see? thats you and your ghetto crack pipe.

I have read every single one of your arguments; no need to start reposting them to me.

I drive an 01 2.5RS Impreza "GC8" bodystyle. 240 lbs lighter than an 02 RS Sedan. Or the "GDA" bodystyle. your car tacks on an additional 80 lbs over that.

If you really think that you can run high 14's in your car.. you are straight up WRONG! In my lighter car, with more mods, I can run a 14.9.
I ran it ONCE!

Right now its like this:
Apex'i N1 Catback
AEM Shortram Intake
Lightened Pulley Set
Kartboy Short Shifter
Whiteline Superlows
Opened hood scoop and both vents. One sits directly over the air intake.

Anyways, when I only had an intake, I was running 15.4. In a lighter car. I know this car. I know how it behaves, and I know how fast it is and isn't. Granted, an air intake DOES do wonders for our top end - this car is not a 14 second "powerhouse" :rolleyes: with only a muffler and an intake.

Magazines usually test a car over and over again to find their best time. 16.4 is a FAR CRY from a high 14, don't you think? That is on a phase 2 DOHC engine though. Dyno test have found that engine to be much weaker than the later SOHC 2.5's.

I drive a car with the same engine you do, more mods, and less weight, and I have BARELY cracked 14s. You need to take your car to a real q/m strip and test it there. Even with your "m4d launching sk1llZ" you're not gonna be even close to 14 with those mods. Maybe high 15s. Probably 16s.

You need to grasp on to what your car was really designed for. Commuters, and passengers. Your model doesn't even come with an LSD. Your car really isn't all you think it is - and although its a sick car, its not what you claim. I love the 02 wagons but they aren't fast. Neither is my car, its just significantly quicker than yours. Plus, with the close gear ratios, the 3rd gear shift adds a TON of time into a q/m or 0-60 run because that is like someone said eariler, a dip in the powerband.

carrrrrrnnuuuuttttttttt - SWEET fucking 'teg! :rolleyes:

Basically, coming from another RS owner, I think everyone here should know that this kid can't run 14s and that this thread should have been locked a long time ago.

Kid with wagon - check out www.i-club.com. Some real impreza drivers there.. and very few running 14s. I don't think there are any running 14s in a wagon w/ just intake/muffler. I know one guy has a Cobb Tuning CAI and an Apex'i N1 catback and he has run 15.1

http://www.imprezed.com/photos/front_corner1.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/photos/side_corner.JPG
http://www.imprezed.com/blurry.jpg

(sorry, had to pimp out my car a little. those are pre-suspension mods)

the only big difference you have to your engine is pulley's and a 240lb wieght difference. short shifter and superwhite h/l's don't make you any faster. you said you ran it once, so it may be very possible to shave a couple seconds off your time. So you are telling him that with the same egnine in a slightly heavier car minus some lighter pullieys he's gonna run a second or more slower than you. That's funny! What are these magical pullies you have?? Maybe if I put some on my truck I can take a second of of it's time?

Originally posted by cybercrx00
the only big difference you have to your engine is pulley's and a 240lb wieght difference. short shifter and superwhite h/l's don't make you any faster. you said you ran it once, so it may be very possible to shave a couple seconds off your time. So you are telling him that with the same egnine in a slightly heavier car minus some lighter pullieys he's gonna run a second or more slower than you. That's funny! What are these magical pullies you have?? Maybe if I put some on my truck I can take a second of of it's time?

just what i was thinking... oh and i dont have an lsd? i nave not one, not 2, but 3 lsd's... front, center, and rear viscous coupling.

the guy has more than the pullies, he has lgihter car, lightened pullies, FULL exhaust, intake, and I knoe qa short shifter doesnt give you more power but it could help you shift faster.

MOD - close it

and yeah this car I want is sweet. if it goes thru illl post some pics

Keep an eye on this:

http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161623

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking out of my ass, since I really don't know too much about Subaru's...just driving and general car facts. So, I solicited the help of some rabid Sube owners. If at some point, somebody proves that I am talking out of my patootie, I will apologize.

heres what i posted on i-club:

"actually, i wasnt claiming i can beat type r's on a regular basis. i was claiming that, on a short track (1000ft) i HAVE beaten a type r before. skill of the type r driver is unknown.

and my claim to a 14 second quarter is based on the conversion formula for 1000ft to 1/4 mile times. i have suspicion on the accuracy of this conversion, cuz my impreza lacks top end power making it slower through the last 320 ft than the type of cars (hot rods) this formula was originally designed for. BUT i seriously doubt i would get less than a 15.5, due to my ability to smoke stock civic si's and sentra se-r v-spec's without any problem, and both of those cars have published times of 15.7"

I have a 300+ lb weight difference over him.

And no, your car doesn't have a rear lsd. It has a center lsd like all subarus do. The 00-01 RS had a rear LSD and now the 02 WRX does. Your wagon does not. If you don't believe me, go to www.subaru.com and find tech specs on your car vs. a WRX. It will list the WRX as having a rear LSD, and it won't say yours has one. MAYBE THEY HIDE 'TEH MAD S3CR3TS!!!!' from us. :rolleyes:

Also, to the homeboy who was saying that I dont have that much of a difference over him..

MUFFLER vs full catback system (one of the best, might i add)
WEAPON R (aka shucks brand) intake :D with no vents or scoops vs AEM with a K&N filter and hood scoop and vents opened. This has been proven to lower AMBIENT temperatures inside the engine bay by ~8 degrees celsius.

Pulleys now weigh 1 lb 11 oz. vs stock 5 3/4 lb.

According to Grassroots Magazine, each pound of mass taken off the crankshaft is worth approximately 2.7hp at the flywheel. Not added HP, just freed up HP.

Anyways, what we have here is another victim of insecurity, probably because he drives a wagon. :p

so with all these improvements, you got a whole what 10 hp and 10tq on the wagon, and 300lbs, meaning maybe .3-.4 in the 1/4 on him. You ran a 14.9 on your first and only run, which I doubt anyone gets their best run on the first run, and you are telling him he is low 16's. Repeat after me "I am sofa king we Todd did!"


Ohh yeah, I don't call 10 hp much of a differenc unless you car weighs 1000lbs. or something.

I didn't say on my first run.. what the hell are you talking about?

I have run NUMEROUS 15.1's and .2's with same mods on test 'n tune days at the track.

You are a 'tard. Learn to read.

AND lets see. what 2.7x4=10.8

+

FULL CATBACK EXHAUST VS. MUFFLER
SIGNIFICANT GAIN DIFFERENCES
You get MAYBE 1 HP if you strap a muffler on your car. The RS Muffler is a well flowing muffler to begin with. Somehow I doubt this muffler is making 20 HP to account for 300+ lbs.

His intake is JUNK. Weapon-R makes crap.
This is disputable, but in my opinion Weapon-R is like APC.

I have a much superior intake, hood scoop and vents, lighter car, catback exhaust, and pullies. He has a junk intake that sucks in ONLY hot air from the engine compartment, and is essentially a noisemaker. Also he has what looks to be an 80 dollar muffler with a shitty weld job.

This is a total waste of my time. These forums are.. gH3Y!!

Sorry...I misunderstood your "I ran it ONCE!" I see what you were saying now, but I still think it is retarded that you think your muffler exhaust or whatever you wanna call it on your car gives you any signifigant power gains considering it it an N/A four cylinder. I could imagine if it was turboed and giving you some hp, but not on your car. His muffler and your "cat-back" exhaust probably aren't to far off from eachother, because basically they don't get very far as it is, and as for your performance intake, I hope the extra $100 or so dollars you spent was worth the 1 hp at the flywheel. Honestly, I see no major modification difference between his and your car, so his #'s should be relatively close. BTW with all the "far superior" equipment you have on your car, why didn't you just buy a turbo and make a real difference. On my old Z, every 3lbs of boost made 50hp at the wheels. that is more hp than all the N/A bolt ons you can buy for that car will make

your intake, essentially a big hollow tube, is that much better than my intake, essentially a big hollow tube? and no my intake doesnt suck air from the engine compartment, well it does for everyday driving, but at the track i open my passenger side foglight cover, which leads to a pvc tube going through the fenderwell to the end of the filter, i have on occasion taken the filter off completely (at the track mind u not on the dusty streets) and let the ram air feed directly into the intake tube.

and do u really think your hood vents make a difference? man i can drive for an hour and open my hood and the manifold isnt hot enough to evaporate water. our engines dont run hot enough to make a significant difference with hood scoops or not. BUT just to be on the safe side at the track i "pop" my hood but dont unlatch it, making my entire hood a hood scoop, much bigger than any scoop u have.

Originally posted by ImprezedAgain
300+ lbs

u realize WHY my car is so much heavier dont u? the new gen impreza's chassis is over 250% stiffer than the old. a stiffer chassis makes for a more solid, direct launch.

Originally posted by ImprezedAgain
80 dollar muffler

youre right it is, i wasnt gonna waste my money on a full catback when i could buy a cheapass muffler and have catback piping redone to custom size specification for another $20, how much did u pay?

Originally posted by ImprezedAgain
This is a total waste of my time. These forums are.. gH3Y!!

im glad u feel that way.. that means u can stop posting and let this damn thread finally die

Man.

This is a quote from the link I posted above to the Sube forums, its from somebody named horatio102:

Looking at the Subaru 1/4 mile registry, it shows that there is 1 normally aspirated 2.5 RS under the 15 second barrier. And that's an RS with a close-ratio gearbox and a couple hundred pounds lighter.

As always, YMMV, but I think you're probably looking at mid-to-high 15 second 1/4 mile.

I think that a Subaru would have an advantage on shorter tracks because you'll be in the meat of the power band on a short track whereas a longer track you might find yourself wound out. Plus the AWD launch helps.

I could be totally wrong though.

and another one, from Josico:

what horatio102 is correct... the track differences will play a big part in how ours car perform... we have power right away just like you stated and as the track gets longer our power band is limited... also from what i have heard... we avg @ 15.x s near the 16s....

Dude. Your fellow Sube owners are checking you. You definitely want this thread to close with what you posted above, because you want it to end with your word, making you look like you're right.

GET OVER IT. YOUR CAR IS NOT AS FAST AS YOU ASSUME/WISH IT IS.

If you really feel that confident about your speed, travel the extra miles and go to a real track. That's the only way you'll EVER shut you're doubters up.

cybercrx00: I understand where you are coming from. You were flamed greatly in the old PH for that post where you listed your kills, which included some LS1s. Understand that most of the flames in that post were from some stupid domestic owners that are no longer here.

Both of you think about this: The TegR and the GS-R are separated (power-to-weight wise) by only 25HP and 200lbs, but are almost a second apart in performance.

That last post, ldelaysionl, about your frame giving you better launches was a last grasp at justifying what you've been posting(assuming) this whole time, now that I've brought people over that know what they're talking about.

dude u have already shown me to be RIGHT. way back when u posted the 2.5rs timeslip. when i was 1.4 seconds faster than him when i was doing 77.9 (which is an average speed like stated before, actual speed would have been definately over 78mph, probably around 78.5-78.6) and he was doing 80mph (an ACTUAL 80 mph not averaged like my speed, as they were testing his 0-80 acceleration NOT his e/t like mine.) if u think im gonna lose 1.4 seconds trying to gain that extra 1.5 mph u are stupid, plain and simple. AT THE MOST ill lose the .4, putting me down to only 1 second faster than the rs, making my timeslip a 15.4. i really dont have to give any more evidence, as u yourself have shot yourself in the foot with that one.

THEN in the quote u JUST posted, not one but TWO sources BACKED WHAT I AM SAYING UP, not "checked me". one said AVERAGE 15.x, nearing 16. like he said AVERAGE. meaning some slower, some faster. and the other PROBABLY mid to high 15's. wouldnt that correlate well with the 15.4? since he is saying PROBABLY which means he isnt sure exactly, could be slower, could be faster.

what are u talking about acting like youve got me in check with all of this stuff? youre posting evidence thats contradicts yourself and backs up what i have been saying without even realizing it.

the reason i want this post to end is because it has become very pointless. it is obvious that u are gonna stand by your guns no matter what, even when all the evidence in the world has been pulled against u. i am tired of trying to get u to open up your mind and understand that it is possible that u can be wrong for once.

it all comes down to, like i said before, u CANT prove me wrong, and i CANT prove u wrong. if u think i am trying to get the last word in, then go ahead and get the last word yourself, but after u are done doing that then just let this thread die.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
even when all the evidence in the world has been pulled against u.

This is just back-asswards. The only evidence you've pulled is out of...well, you get the picture.

Now you are claiming 15.4? Which one is it? 14's or 15's?

Check this...I never showed you right...your high hopes did.

This is quoted from you from the first page:

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


where the hell did u hear that??? the non turbo impreza is as fast as an itr (yes i have raced one, no make that 2) dont go by the published times for imprezas theyre way faster.

Page 2:
Originally posted by ldelaysionl


man have u read any of my posts in this thread? i swear i could hit a 13 in a STOCK wrx. hell i could prob hit a 14.6 in my impreza and its not a wrx. ive already hit 14.9s in it and that was whit a passenger. plus that was a long time ago, im faster now. and yes its prettly much stock i dont see an intake and a universal muffler helping my times very much.

and how are awd cars slow compared to fwd? i dont see many civics or integras smoking porsche turbos, skylines, or lamborghini diablos do u?

i though the fastest fwd in the world was running 8s. sorry guy but there are STREET LEGAL awds running that.

oh and a new impreza only weighs 3000 lbs, at least thats what mine weighs and its a wagon, the sedan is 80 lbs lighter.

/\ Again, which one is it? 14's or 15's? Are you still assuming that you could probably run mid 14's?

Page 3:
Originally posted by ldelaysionl


did u not just read my post above??? i just said my car gets 14s in the 1/4 mile so why are u telling me i get 15.7? i would get a 15.5 if i missed a shift, i couldnt get so slow as to hit a 15.7 if i tried.

and did u not also read the part where is said it is a 1000FT TRACK!!! a 1/4 mile is 1320ft so just in case u didnt know a 1000ft is shorter than 1320ft. do i need to do the math for u? just in case u cant figure it out on your own i will tell u its 320 ft shorter. observe:

1320-1000=320
that means:
1320ft-1000ft=320ft

so if an itr is only 2 tenths quicker than me through THE FULL QUARTER MILE, and thats on a near-perfect run for it, WHY CANT U UNDERSTAND I CAN TAKE IT THROUGH A SHORTER TRACK???

why dont u quit quoting everything youve read about and GO OUT AND ACTUALLY TRY SOME OF THIS SHIT! i am telling u what happened in the REAL WORLD, not in some fantasyland where cars ALWAYS run their best possible times.

/\ There you go with the 14's again. Why don't you post those "mathematical conversions" at that link I gave you at the Sube site? I'm sure they'll support you WHOLEHEARTEDLY:rolleyes:.

I can post more examples of your raving if you need/force me to.

Ok, i'm sorry. I really didn't want to post here again, but wagonboy's stupidity is really pissing me off.

Weapon-R FILTERS are shit. I'm sorry. "Filter on a stick" - Yes, all shortram intakes are styled the same. A filter on a pipe. Your filter sucks. K&N products are faaaaar superior.

I am well aware of the increase of rigidity in the new chassis. However, 250% more stiffness is not making your not-a-hotrod wagon beat ITRs.
I have suspension mods, as well as what I listed I also have Whiteline strut tower bar and adjustable sway bar. I think that does a pretty decent job in increasing rigidity.

I hope you know your exhaust fabricators - most use crush bends in creating exhaust piping, as opposed to mandrel bends that most nice exhausts use. I bet that mine looks and sounds a hell of a lot better than yours. I like how yours looks like its dangling out from under the car.... :rolleyes:

REALLY SMART to pop your hood when doing Q/M runs. God, what a retard. It must give you alot less drag coeffecient to do that too, huh, i'm sure I'd want the entire area of my hood causing more drag. And theres the added bonus of when the hood flys up and you lose control because you can't see! Or better yet, it flies up and crashes through your windshield.

You need to grow up, and EDUCATE yourself. Your car weighs more, has less power, and losses through the driveline than an ITR. You cannot SMOKE, BEAT, or HANG with an ITR. Simple as that. Not matter how good your launch is. hahahahah.

Stop being so insecure. I know you drive a wagon, but just because you doesn't mean you need to claim you smoke ITRs and GSRs and other faster cars all day long.

Originally posted by ImprezedOnceMore
Ok, i'm sorry. I really didn't want to post here again, but wagonboy's stupidity is really pissing me off.

Weapon-R FILTERS are shit. I'm sorry. "Filter on a stick" - Yes, all shortram intakes are styled the same. A filter on a pipe. Your filter sucks. K&N products are faaaaar superior.

I am well aware of the increase of rigidity in the new chassis. However, 250% more stiffness is not making your not-a-hotrod wagon beat ITRs.
I have suspension mods, as well as what I listed I also have Whiteline strut tower bar and adjustable sway bar. I think that does a pretty decent job in increasing rigidity.

I hope you know your exhaust fabricators - most use crush bends in creating exhaust piping, as opposed to mandrel bends that most nice exhausts use. I bet that mine looks and sounds a hell of a lot better than yours. I like how yours looks like its dangling out from under the car.... :rolleyes:

REALLY SMART to pop your hood when doing Q/M runs. God, what a retard. It must give you alot less drag coeffecient to do that too, huh, i'm sure I'd want the entire area of my hood causing more drag. And theres the added bonus of when the hood flys up and you lose control because you can't see! Or better yet, it flies up and crashes through your windshield.

You need to grow up, and EDUCATE yourself. Your car weighs more, has less power, and losses through the driveline than an ITR. You cannot SMOKE, BEAT, or HANG with an ITR. Simple as that. Not matter how good your launch is. hahahahah.

Stop being so insecure. I know you drive a wagon, but just because you doesn't mean you need to claim you smoke ITRs and GSRs and other faster cars all day long.

Actually, I would think that the exhaust doesn't make much of a difference either way. On NA I4s, I'm guessing that the difference between stock exhaust and a catback is at most 6 hp. The difference between a short-ram and a CAI, is at most 2.5 hp. Not much at all. Granted, your exhaust may sound a lot better and look a lot better, but gains are probably quite similar.

they don't listen to me cuz i only have 1 star, so maybe your word is better cuz you got six. pretty soon he's gonna say.....well I have 95 octane so that's 10 hp

carrrnuttt: if u have been reading my posts for a while now i have been saying that, while the formula says i run 14's, i guess 15's. its even on this very page. yes my car IS as fast as an itr, i know this for a fact. not through the full 1/4 mile, no way, but it IS as fast as an itr through the 1000ft. my other claims to 14's were based on conversion formula. once this dicussion started getting more into depth, my replies also started getting more into depth, thats why u are only getting "i run 14's" on the FIRST and SECOND page, then once it gets more into depth u get "the conversion formula says i run 14's, but i think its more along low-mid 15's" at the beginning i didnt think this was gonna turn out into the long and retarded ordeal that it has, so i kept my replies short and simple. i NEVER said that i have actually run a 14 in my car on a 1/4 mile track.

"imprezed" guy:yes my filter does suck... which is why i just got done saying that sometimes i remove it at the dragstrip. no matter how wonderful your k&n filter is, it is still MORE restrictive than no filter at all. when it comes down to it we both have these dumb little tubes in our motors, but mine has LESS restriction when i get serious at the strip, and i also paid LESS. get over it. not to mention how much of an amazing technological breakthrough k&n must have discovered for their filter to make a noticable difference to a 160hp n/a 2.5 liter after being whittled down through all 4 wheels. your filter might give u 2 hp to the wheels advantage over mine. that is WHEN i have my filter on the tube. and i am also aware that my chassis rigidity is got giving me any noticable advantage. but neither is your damn superwhite light bulbs (ahemriceahem) that u keep listing. yes i specifically asked the muffler shop to mandrel bend my pipes. and u were bragging about your "functional vents" well woohoo dont u thinnk that increases your drag coefficient? in my opinion on a track as short and slow as a 1000ft track drag comes into such little play that it is worth it to have the extra fresh airflow over my intake.

I hate to say it, Idelaysionl, but carrrnut might be right. He kills with that "Quote" button.
Dude, I don't know. Because you can be an idiot and still pull low 15 time slips in an Integra Type R, but with a N/A, all wheel drive car, it's kind of hard to pull low 15 slips.
I dont know though. Bottom line, you're going to have to scan some time slips to prove to everyone here that you can actually take an Integra Type R.... Because Type R doesn't cost 25,000$ for nothing.

have u guys checked his thread in i-club recently?
http://www.i-club.com/forums/showth...threadid=161623

Originally posted in i-club by STEALTHBMBR
I ran a 15.88@86mph with only an intake.

Originally posted in i-club by Blindeye_03
The track was pretty dirty from the "real race cars" tread marks up and down the lanes, but as of now I have a 2.25" crush bent midpipe with apexi glasspack, an underdrive pulley and a ganzflow intake. I ran a best time of 15.5 @ 86mph and a 60' of 2.05. I still dont know how to launch it that great...I think I might have gotten some bad gas, cuz my car felt REALLY slow that day at the track.

Originally posted in i-club by SureGrip
I ran a 15.61 (best of the day) with a 2.09 60 ft time. I have a Ganzflow intake and a Stromung muffler. I launched at about 4000 rpm and let the clutch out "quick".

I don't know how much better my times would get, but I'm sure I could pull a better launch

Originally posted in i-club by JC
I firmly believe an RS with an intake and exhaust can run low 15s with a good driver. IIRC, the best time for a stock RS was a 15.1.

I guess the facts speak for themselves.

i believe ldelaysionl. come to australia, u'll get to see the whole subaru line up...they may not pull into the 15s constantly but its no wonder thieves love to steal any subaru vehicle they can get their dirty hands on.

Originally posted by inferno


ldelaysionl, if you look at this posted time, you will notice that this vehicle had a slower 60' time, slower 330, yet had a higher speed at the 1/8 mile mark. Anyone who has driven a 2.5 RS Impreza can testify to its lack of top end power and since you are burdened by that extra 80lbs, you would have a slightly worse problem. With that in mind, your car would run a SLOWER time than the Civic with the above time slip. Projected 1/4 mile times are just that...unless you have a time slip with a full 1/4 mile, don't make claims. That is the end of the discussion. Projected and corrected 1/4 mile times hold no merit.


Oh and NSX, the text that you put down can be interpretted in a few ways. How I interpret it is that they are easily available and cheap....also, you forget that in Japan, there is no number designation for the Integra Si motor(US spec GSR) or the Integra Type R...both are B18C.

o fine whatever i just thought i'd post the opinion of honda

incidently there's a really nice black one parked outside which belongs to a next door neighbour and i don't think the engine is the master piece its the car in its entirety its nimble and quick and handles well so up yours

Originally posted by S2Corolla
I guess the facts speak for themselves.

I suggest that you actually go to the link in the above post and read EVERYTHING, not just the ones he decided to quote.

For example, here is the whole quote(he quoted part of this)from JC:

I firmly believe an RS with an intake and exhaust can run low 15s with a good driver. IIRC, the best time for a stock RS was a 15.1. Anyway, I would think he could get mid 15s. Not easily, not without a lot of abuse to the car, and maybe not consistantly, but ya.

JC

here's the reply from HndaTch627:

15.1 stock???? i like to think of myself as a fairly decent driver and there is NO WAY IN HELL i could shave 9 tenths of a second off a 1320 time just by driving ability. 2 or 3 tenths sure...but not 9!!

Here's JC in return:

Bah, a 15.22, sorry.

JC

I was already ignoring this thread...somebody put it up top again so...

yea me sorry its what inferno said it bothered me totally unrelated to what you lot are talking about

I drive a 2000 ITR and I've beat a WRX. They post fast 1/4 mile times because of their AWD but if you look at their times they do it at around 92-94mph. So while the WRX gets off the line better I take it down the line. As for the STI's, well what can you do, they're just damn fast.

This thread is 2 years old :rolleyes:

I can't believe you guys are arguing over 15 second cars, they are all slow !!! I beat a stock turbo WRX with my sentra with only I/h/e. the ITR are faster than the WRX and they should be running 14.7 the least.

I can't believe you guys are arguing over 15 second cars, they are all slow !!! I beat a stock turbo WRX with my sentra with only I/h/e. the ITR are faster than the WRX and they should be running 14.7 the least.

The WRX is a low 14 second car stock. Neither a stock ITR or a Sentra with IHE is that fast.

the ITR is a mid 14s car and a 2.0 se-r with I/H/E is low 15 to high 14s car ...i have time slips to prove it

come see me runs 12s with this...!
http://www.teamserious.com/forums/index.php?&act=Garage&CODE=14&type=garage&id=15

the ITR is a mid 14s car and a 2.0 se-r with I/H/E is low 15 to high 14s car ...i have time slips to prove it

"mid 14s" and "low 15 to high 14s" are both slower than a WRX.

come see me runs 12s with this...!
http://www.teamserious.com/forums/index.php?&act=Garage&CODE=14&type=garage&id=15

What's your point? That has nothing to do with anything!

And no, I don't think it's possible to "come see you run 12's" with that car... considering that isn't your car...

|delaysion|: I think we've had this argument before, in one of the SRT-4 vs WRX threads.

Just because a car is capable of low 14's, doesn't mean it will do it everytime. If you said what you said in general, then fine...but if it was to say that either the ITR, a bolt-on SE-R, or any other low-15/high-14-second car can't beat a WRX period...that's just not true.

Let's not even mention WRX auto wagons, which are low-15-second cars most of the time...they're WRXs too, you know.

Anyhow, I have to lock this thread anyways, as threads more than three without a reply is not allowed in here.