supra_aero Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Anyway , back to the post, when i said 'poor mans' I meant it AT THE TIME not in monetary terms and in BHP terms. fair enough - I stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 ok ok ok i know the N/A is the most desirable model, so i tell you what! give me your TT and 2k and we have a deal:eyebrows: Don't tempt me sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraGirlie Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Last week I beat a WRX turbo . I don't believe that, it must have been a look-a-like, ALOT of them about, and they are just 1.6 imprezas with the kit and badges I used to drive my ex bf's wrx quite a bit, and it was a hell of alot faster than my N/A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SILKYSMOOTH Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Two of my cousins have WRX turbo's and they are quite fast, my bimma eats them for lunch. This one may have been a dudd one, if so, the guy in the scooby lied to me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bailey Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 As a lot of people have said....a cars 0-60 isnt a very a good representation of how good the car is.... Im saying that coming from a 300+ bhp 200sx S14....try getting a decent 0-60 out of them..... Still a great car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 A WRX has about the same power as an n/a but less torque, but then again it is lighter and 4wd for getting off the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraGirlie Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 The WRX I used to drive pulled alot better... and now that I think about it, it was tuned to 350bhp oops lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 As a lot of people have said....a cars 0-60 isnt a very a good representation of how good the car is.... I agree but since you can't get to 180mph+ on an ordinary road, I often find (and believe) that a good 0-60 is more impressive/useful nowadays than a top speed higher than 100mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 The WRX I used to drive pulled alot better... and now that I think about it, it was tuned to 350bhp oops lol Thats over 100bhp more than standard. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I agree but since you can't get to 180mph+ on an ordinary road, I often find (and believe) that a good 0-60 is more impressive/useful nowadays than a top speed higher than 100mph. Something like 30 -70 is more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie72 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Or 70 - 150 mph OPPPS:innocent: WRX are not that quick in the 70's plus range as the new one i murdered was just a 226nhp 2.5 model. So i guess after 60 a NA could give it a run for it's money. Best way to beat it would be to rock back and forth - see previous race thread under spirited driving. Bloke in a Volvo i think beat a Single Turbo, by rocking back and forth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSheffield Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Some folks on here smoke some severe drugs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Some folks on here smoke some severe drugs..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie72 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Nah i don't reckon smoked, taken anal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECK Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Some folks on here smoke some severe drugs..... Nah i don't reckon smoked, taken anal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I still so no evidence to back up these quick NA claims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 My n/a does 0-60 in 5.2 I have proof but i lost it and i cant get another copy ............................. kinda like when i tell people i meet that yes indeed its a Twin Turbo........and no they cant see the engine............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 a quote from earlier this is as good a claim to a quick NA as can be made with real evidence IMO..... 1/8et 9.5579 1/8 mph 73.39 mph 1/4et 14.8849 @ 93.13 mph so 14secs to 90mph seems more reasonable. A stock TT's figures are below... 1/8et 9.0492 1/8 mph 81.26 mph 13.8811 @ 105.87 mph so even they take a fair bit longer than 9 secs to get to 90mph...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Here's something for ya, 0-60 in my old evo 1 stats are 2.0 litre turbo 260bhp & 250lbstq and around 1250kg road was on a decline (in the vid I'm going up it at first, the inside vid is going down it) so a no launch due to going down the hill 0-60 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OaVN-qTlAQ seems around 7 secs to me? apparently from factory they are meant to be 5 secs dead, but i'd never believe that as you need 3 gears to hit 60! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie72 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 So an NA would do it in about 9 seconds then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Here's something for ya, 0-60 in my old evo 1 stats are 2.0 litre turbo 260bhp & 250lbstq and around 1250kg road was on a decline (in the vid I'm going up it at first, the inside vid is going down it) so a no launch due to going down the hill 0-60 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OaVN-qTlAQ seems around 7 secs to me? apparently from factory they are meant to be 5 secs dead, but i'd never believe that as you need 3 gears to hit 60! How old was the car and how much power had it lost? I'm pretty sure all the quoted figures on Jap imports are on 100 ron fuel. My evo V did a 5.2 0-60 and even though it had the boost turned up a little and a few breathing mods it was still only 285bhp. Should have been around 300, and probably would have with 100 ron. Std quotes are 278bhp and 0-60 of 4.9. I am not a professional driver either so if the BHP was correct and the driver was better i think 4.9 would be possible. Scott =op Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bailey Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I agree but since you can't get to 180mph+ on an ordinary road, I often find (and believe) that a good 0-60 is more impressive/useful nowadays than a top speed higher than 100mph. True....but 0-60 is more pub talk than anything.... IMO anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 How old was the car and how much power had it lost? I'm pretty sure all the quoted figures on Jap imports are on 100 ron fuel. My evo V did a 5.2 0-60 and even though it had the boost turned up a little and a few breathing mods it was still only 285bhp. Should have been around 300, and probably would have with 100 ron. Std quotes are 278bhp and 0-60 of 4.9. I am not a professional driver either so if the BHP was correct and the driver was better i think 4.9 would be possible. Scott =op 15 years old so I would expect the power to be down a little, I think the best I could probably get out of it would be somewhere low to mid 6's I would say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Looking at my last timing slip, I managed 0-70.77mph in 10.6688 seconds if that's any help. That was on 95ron and full Tesco's trim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SILKYSMOOTH Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 a quote from earlier this is as good a claim to a quick NA as can be made with real evidence IMO..... I agree with this time, I think I could just beat it though. I ran the Evo 1 video above simultaneously with my vid and mine was quicker, and thats was on a poor road surface, slightly bald rear tyres, and a poorish start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.