Wr1 test in EVO mag
08 April 2004, 01:57 PM
#212
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 21,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick
"Ian took his std P1 down there and got 319bhp"
Standard P1, or standard P1 WR?
Standard P1, or standard P1 WR?
08 April 2004, 02:14 PM
#214
Scooby Senior
Originally Posted by CraigH
Think it was a WR, not that that makes any difference to the power, does it?
08 April 2004, 02:27 PM
#217
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cambs
Posts: 3,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edcase the track was dry mate and no ATD 
I find the old flick method spot on
Dave i have been so busy mate.
No shooting at all!!!!
As soon as i`m going next I`ll give you a call.
Come over to Brampton its only just up the road from me but its well worth a visit.Send me your number cos I`ve got a new phone and lost nearly all the numbers when I changed onto O2???
I find the old flick method spot on
Dave i have been so busy mate.
No shooting at all!!!!
As soon as i`m going next I`ll give you a call.
Come over to Brampton its only just up the road from me but its well worth a visit.Send me your number cos I`ve got a new phone and lost nearly all the numbers when I changed onto O2???
08 April 2004, 02:34 PM
#218
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WR-one
Re the windy winders, Iain/Power Station will fit them in the front if you ask nicely.
I asked
Cant remember the cost (small) but lost it in the overall joy of having a Spec C!!
Re the windy winders, Iain/Power Station will fit them in the front if you ask nicely.
I asked
Cant remember the cost (small) but lost it in the overall joy of having a Spec C!!
08 April 2004, 02:48 PM
#219
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edcase the track was dry mate and no ATD
My missus certainly finds the flick method works.....
08 April 2004, 02:54 PM
#220
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes, the WR had a different exhaust system - could be good for another 10-15bhp I suppose?
WR has a different back back at best.
08 April 2004, 03:16 PM
#221
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MikeWood
It was WET
If anybody does not believe the figures I recorded I am quite happy to e-mail them the files from our Micro Sat test (GPS Datron equipment)
Also remember that the WR1 has beeen developed as a nice ROAD car and does not have road legal race tyres fitted so it's got loads of grip on a flat race circuit.
Mike
If anybody does not believe the figures I recorded I am quite happy to e-mail them the files from our Micro Sat test (GPS Datron equipment)
Also remember that the WR1 has beeen developed as a nice ROAD car and does not have road legal race tyres fitted so it's got loads of grip on a flat race circuit.
Mike
I've an STI PPP and niether I nor AutoCar testers nor any other test I seen has got anywhare near the prodrive figures for the 0-100 time quoted of 12.2 ... not sure about the 0-60 time though! but think this is the case too!
Autocar 0-100-0 recorded 13.17 for the STI-PPP and they don't come any more respected than the autocar test. this was the case for each one of the 0-100 tests done on a couple of cars... I was interested in the figures having just bought a new one!
i can't quite understand whats going on with the loss of time as the FQ300 monsters the PPP to 100 in every accuratly tested times i've read@ 11.99 with only 10 BHP per tonne advantage...
something to do with the running gear perhaps...
Don't take this the wrong way, i'm not complaining... In isolation the PPP is very quick and feels plenty quick, but i feel certain 12.2 seconds isn't achievable from a STI-ppp and this appears to be the case when figured on several occations... by numerous mags and time trials...
08 April 2004, 03:55 PM
#224
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autocar tests
Originally Posted by Dazza's-STi
I dont disbelieve the figures, just that any other STi-PPP sold doesn't seem to be anywhere near...
I've an STI PPP and niether I nor AutoCar testers nor any other test I seen has got anywhare near the prodrive figures for the 0-100 time quoted of 12.2 ... not sure about the 0-60 time though! but think this is the case too!
Autocar 0-100-0 recorded 13.17 for the STI-PPP and they don't come any more respected than the autocar test. this was the case for each one of the 0-100 tests done on a couple of cars... I was interested in the figures having just bought a new one!
i can't quite understand whats going on with the loss of time as the FQ300 monsters the PPP to 100 in every accuratly tested times i've read@ 11.99 with only 10 BHP per tonne advantage...
something to do with the running gear perhaps...
Don't take this the wrong way, i'm not complaining... In isolation the PPP is very quick and feels plenty quick, but i feel certain 12.2 seconds isn't achievable from a STI-ppp and this appears to be the case when figured on several occations... by numerous mags and time trials...
I've an STI PPP and niether I nor AutoCar testers nor any other test I seen has got anywhare near the prodrive figures for the 0-100 time quoted of 12.2 ... not sure about the 0-60 time though! but think this is the case too!
Autocar 0-100-0 recorded 13.17 for the STI-PPP and they don't come any more respected than the autocar test. this was the case for each one of the 0-100 tests done on a couple of cars... I was interested in the figures having just bought a new one!
i can't quite understand whats going on with the loss of time as the FQ300 monsters the PPP to 100 in every accuratly tested times i've read@ 11.99 with only 10 BHP per tonne advantage...
something to do with the running gear perhaps...
Don't take this the wrong way, i'm not complaining... In isolation the PPP is very quick and feels plenty quick, but i feel certain 12.2 seconds isn't achievable from a STI-ppp and this appears to be the case when figured on several occations... by numerous mags and time trials...
Mark
08 April 2004, 04:11 PM
#226
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MikeWood
Iain
Just a little frustration of mine that the next two issues of EVO will contain big articles about various Impreza models being compared to our cars and guess who's the only company not present for the testing?? Unfortunately I won't be at Bedford on Friday as my wife needs me at home...
In the name of science we went out and tested our brand new WR1 demo car this morning and below are the figures we got on the first run. Bear in mind that this car has done only 2000 miles, has new tyres which weren't even warm and weighs 1649kg as tested I don't think that the figures are too far off into a headwind. Even had a full size spare but I do have to admit that it was pre sausage sandwich As you can see the rev limiter in 4th only gives you 104.72 mph and I couldn't be bothered to change into 5th!
************* Acceleration Test ****************
Vehicle WR1
Time 09:12
Date 05/04/2004
Vmax 104.72 mph
Dist Vmax 423.404 m
Time Vmax 13.65 s
Speed Time Distance AccelG
00010 0.48 1.091 0.96
00020 0.94 4.157 0.98
00030 1.53 10.839 0.90
00040 2.40 24.528 0.76
00050 3.31 42.860 0.69
00060 4.55 73.436 0.60
00070 5.92 113.233 0.54
00080 7.69 173.076 0.47
00090 9.61 246.230 0.43
00100 11.99 347.150 0.38
Distance Time (s)
100m 5.50
200m 8.45
300m 10.95
400m 13.15
500m 15.35
1/4 Mile 13.20
Other runs had slightly different figs, in some the launch was better but although I caught the limiter in second the later increments were faster
The figures from our original test are below but these were done on the development car which has a lot more miles on it. Weights were similar though with all the testing equipment fitted. Track temperature was a little higher as well.
Vehicle 04STi PPP
Time 15:28
Date 19/02/2004
Vmax 104.67 mph
Dist Vmax 365.464 m
Time Vmax 12.00 s
Speed Time Distance AccelG
00010 0.44 1.042 1.04
00020 0.93 4.364 0.98
00030 1.41 9.636 0.97
00040 2.29 23.754 0.80
00050 3.08 39.691 0.74
00060 4.25 68.596 0.64
00070 5.43 103.040 0.59
00080 7.01 156.225 0.52
00090 8.65 218.613 0.47
00100 10.67 304.350 0.43
Distance Time (s)
100m 5.35
200m 8.20
300m 10.60
400m 12.75
1/4 Mile 12.80
Mike
Just a little frustration of mine that the next two issues of EVO will contain big articles about various Impreza models being compared to our cars and guess who's the only company not present for the testing?? Unfortunately I won't be at Bedford on Friday as my wife needs me at home...
In the name of science we went out and tested our brand new WR1 demo car this morning and below are the figures we got on the first run. Bear in mind that this car has done only 2000 miles, has new tyres which weren't even warm and weighs 1649kg as tested I don't think that the figures are too far off into a headwind. Even had a full size spare but I do have to admit that it was pre sausage sandwich
As you can see the rev limiter in 4th only gives you 104.72 mph and I couldn't be bothered to change into 5th!************* Acceleration Test ****************
Vehicle WR1
Time 09:12
Date 05/04/2004
Vmax 104.72 mph
Dist Vmax 423.404 m
Time Vmax 13.65 s
Speed Time Distance AccelG
00010 0.48 1.091 0.96
00020 0.94 4.157 0.98
00030 1.53 10.839 0.90
00040 2.40 24.528 0.76
00050 3.31 42.860 0.69
00060 4.55 73.436 0.60
00070 5.92 113.233 0.54
00080 7.69 173.076 0.47
00090 9.61 246.230 0.43
00100 11.99 347.150 0.38
Distance Time (s)
100m 5.50
200m 8.45
300m 10.95
400m 13.15
500m 15.35
1/4 Mile 13.20
Other runs had slightly different figs, in some the launch was better but although I caught the limiter in second the later increments were faster
The figures from our original test are below but these were done on the development car which has a lot more miles on it. Weights were similar though with all the testing equipment fitted. Track temperature was a little higher as well.
Vehicle 04STi PPP
Time 15:28
Date 19/02/2004
Vmax 104.67 mph
Dist Vmax 365.464 m
Time Vmax 12.00 s
Speed Time Distance AccelG
00010 0.44 1.042 1.04
00020 0.93 4.364 0.98
00030 1.41 9.636 0.97
00040 2.29 23.754 0.80
00050 3.08 39.691 0.74
00060 4.25 68.596 0.64
00070 5.43 103.040 0.59
00080 7.01 156.225 0.52
00090 8.65 218.613 0.47
00100 10.67 304.350 0.43
Distance Time (s)
100m 5.35
200m 8.20
300m 10.60
400m 12.75
1/4 Mile 12.80
Mike
Can't argue with the figures... and nice one for posting them..
Would like to see the STI-PPP figures...
And to be fair i've not accuratly figured my car... STI-PPP...
Still those figures for the WR1 with that weight are shockingly quick...
in fact @ 191 BHP per tonne they are icredibly quick...
considering my STI-ppp has 204 per tonne and does 100 in 13.00 seconds...
Whats the WR1's specific power output again...?
08 April 2004, 04:15 PM
#227
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought my p1 brand new as well, dont see me bitching about 'what a big mistake' it was. Will be keeping it as well. Not exactly a virgin to top spec imprezas either.
What'll be interesting is if Prodrive/IM produce a 2.5 car next year. I would think that they'll be tempted seeing the positive response to the private 2.5 car, and it won't in relative terms be a massive expense as the bones of any possible uk car have been put together already.
If the 2.5 arrives officially, I wonder how many "i bought a wr1 last year and its only worth £19000 this year" posts we'll see
What'll be interesting is if Prodrive/IM produce a 2.5 car next year. I would think that they'll be tempted seeing the positive response to the private 2.5 car, and it won't in relative terms be a massive expense as the bones of any possible uk car have been put together already.
If the 2.5 arrives officially, I wonder how many "i bought a wr1 last year and its only worth £19000 this year" posts we'll see
08 April 2004, 04:17 PM
#228
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 21,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick
So improving the exahsust system on a turbocharged car does not give more power then?
08 April 2004, 04:23 PM
#229
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CraigH
Well it's not is it Arron?
The P1 was almost as fast everywhere, yet it'll cost you £16k nowadays.
I'm not sure what you term "value for money" but £14k for .2 quicker 0-100 and .6 faster round a track, is not VFM in my opinion
You are right of course (new cars anyway).
Ian took his std P1 down there and got 319bhp. Did he get a good one or are PE's rollers a little optimistic. Gee, I just don't know
The P1 was almost as fast everywhere, yet it'll cost you £16k nowadays.
I'm not sure what you term "value for money" but £14k for .2 quicker 0-100 and .6 faster round a track, is not VFM in my opinion
You are right of course (new cars anyway).
Ian took his std P1 down there and got 319bhp. Did he get a good one or are PE's rollers a little optimistic. Gee, I just don't know
The WR1 is possibly VFM, as at the end of the day its a UK STI with PPP some wheels and springs, DCCD and other trinkets and in all honest thats roughly what I spent on my MY03 STI PPP with wheels and gear ****...!
And thats what people are buying... the performance is the same as the STI-ppp and to say its lots faster is senseless... its got 316bhp I defy anyone to actually percieve 16bhp worth of increase.. I could barly tell when i had the PPP kit fitted! FFS... as for performance it has 214 bhp per tonne thats 10 BHP per tonne more than the PPP... and thats what the figures at the test track show!
08 April 2004, 04:48 PM
#230
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points
And as for john felsteads view on comparing geometry set ups, I am sorry but that is just nonsense. The cars were supplied to the test with the knowledge of what they were intended for. The settings are the preferred settings of the car as they are intended to be sold. Everyone has their own settings which they prefer, but most buyers will leave it as the manufacturer intended.
But then we all know that anyway And to think that Autocar's test techniques are the be all and end all of road testing techniques is to be as naieve as Adam.
Its been proven that sidestepping the clutch at max revs in a turbo car is not the best technique for a fast time
D
08 April 2004, 05:31 PM
#232
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Throwing myself down a mountain at every opportunity...
Posts: 6,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the WR1's specific power output again...?
Do you have to have the stickers on the side though?
shocked at how many people have asked this! Of course not, its a marketing tool.
08 April 2004, 06:35 PM
#233
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Butkus
I've just looked on the Litchfield website at the T25 and it looks awesome. Do you have to have the stickers on the side though? 
No. They were promotional only.
But if you do want stickers etc. I'm sure Iain will oblige. In fact, IIRC, Type 25 #002 went out with the Subaru swishes up the sides.
Cheers
Ian
09 April 2004, 04:16 PM
#234
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wr1
Originally Posted by Nick
Hi Mike
Is there any way you can scan the info on the WR1 please? I'm hoping to be able to get one. I checked the EVo web site, but they still have last month's mag listed. I buy Evo, but get mine delivered from the newsagents.
Is there any way you can scan the info on the WR1 please? I'm hoping to be able to get one. I checked the EVo web site, but they still have last month's mag listed. I buy Evo, but get mine delivered from the newsagents.
oh yer you never told me
09 April 2004, 04:32 PM
#235
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: where the wild roses grow
Posts: 5,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dazza's-STi
And thats what people are buying... the performance is the same as the STI-ppp and to say its lots faster is senseless... its got 316bhp I defy anyone to actually percieve 16bhp worth of increase..
If Prodrive have made worthwhile gains in this area, it is highly likely that the car will feel noticeably "quicker" than an MY03/04 STi PPP, despite there only being a 15ps difference in the "headline" power figure.
09 April 2004, 07:25 PM
#237
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Wales
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
If the 2.5 arrives officially, I wonder how many "i bought a wr1 last year and its only worth £19000 this year" posts we'll see
09 April 2004, 07:35 PM
#238
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Some say he has frost on his helmet...
Posts: 2,970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by greasemonkey
It remains to be seen whether differences in the output can be perceived by the driver or not. You are concentrating far too much on the headline power output figure, whereas, in reality, the breadth of the torque plateau has far more bearing on how fast the thing will feel in real life.
If Prodrive have made worthwhile gains in this area, it is highly likely that the car will feel noticeably "quicker" than an MY03/04 STi PPP, despite there only being a 15ps difference in the "headline" power figure.
If Prodrive have made worthwhile gains in this area, it is highly likely that the car will feel noticeably "quicker" than an MY03/04 STi PPP, despite there only being a 15ps difference in the "headline" power figure.
Mike figured a car that had a weight of 1649kg that, if the figures are true is 192bhp per tonne and equates to almost the same ratio for the torque figure... the 300/300 figures are roughly the same as the STI-PPP... within 10bhp and Nm...
Now looking at every test I ever read... I've NEVER seen a car post anywhere near a 4. anything figure with that power to weight...
I agree with you GM the headline power figures dont tell the whole story, but the PWR can be run through a calculation for any car and give within a .3 of a second an accurate 0-60 time... And trust me it aint 4.2 seconds!
Anyhow it did... so the WR1 is as fast to 100 as a 350\350 bhp Type 25 @248 bhp per tonne with more weight less power and less torque... Amazing... it has to be the performance bargain of the century!
Last edited by Dazza's-STi; 09 April 2004 at 09:30 PM.
09 April 2004, 07:36 PM
#239
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subaruwr1
None. Just because a car with superior bhp and engine size comes out it doesnt mean that in a second every car with less bhp or less cc will drop 5k in value..you have a P1 but it still holds its value even when cars with more bhp are appearing very quickly.
Plenty of P1s about for 18K to buy now and were 31K new in 2000.