My first WR1 thread, 0-100 11.39secs
27 April 2004, 11:32 PM
#32
The JDM MY03 STi's are all coming out std at 280-290 ish bhp and 270-280 ish ft lbs torque. Thats for any of them C spec or otherwise, the 322 bhp figures are all hype. Torque is much improved but they only run 0.9 bar of boost above 6000 rpm. Which is somewhat less than the STi5/6 for example. There have been enough cars run on various rollers for that to be pretty conclusive.
bob
bob
28 April 2004, 12:02 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobycar60
Hi Jonathan! What are you driving this month , not another Scooby!
Unlike IM Mitsibushi dealers in general are not as up tight about de-cats, in fact some dealers fit them for you (although they would not go on as public forum and admit it obviously) and yes they can make quite a differance to peak figures although this is not the whole story I know.
My STI 7 UY Prodrive + PPP only ever gave about 287 bhp max at G-Force, many others less, not significant unless you compare it to Evos FQ300 with the same set up that gave 305-315.
I have seen loads of New age Sti's with PPP blasting the 1/4 mile up at Santa Pod,
STI 7/8 +ppp (std) average around the 14.4 mark Terminal speed about 97-99mph.
In fact mildly tweaked (remap and exhaust) classics were far quicker
Evo 8 FQ300(std) about 13.7-13.9 Terminal speed 99-101
Evo 8 FQ330(std) about 13.4-13.6 Terminal speed 100-103
So until I see evidence that the WR1 is a huge leap forward in performance despite the 15 BHP more quoted I remain a doubting Thomas!
Oh yeah Evo mag quote 0-100 as 13.1 1/4 13.7 terminal speed 102, which is a good effort IMHO
Ross
Unlike IM Mitsibushi dealers in general are not as up tight about de-cats, in fact some dealers fit them for you (although they would not go on as public forum and admit it obviously) and yes they can make quite a differance to peak figures although this is not the whole story I know.
My STI 7 UY Prodrive + PPP only ever gave about 287 bhp max at G-Force, many others less, not significant unless you compare it to Evos FQ300 with the same set up that gave 305-315.
I have seen loads of New age Sti's with PPP blasting the 1/4 mile up at Santa Pod,
STI 7/8 +ppp (std) average around the 14.4 mark Terminal speed about 97-99mph.
In fact mildly tweaked (remap and exhaust) classics were far quicker
Evo 8 FQ300(std) about 13.7-13.9 Terminal speed 99-101
Evo 8 FQ330(std) about 13.4-13.6 Terminal speed 100-103
So until I see evidence that the WR1 is a huge leap forward in performance despite the 15 BHP more quoted I remain a doubting Thomas!
Oh yeah Evo mag quote 0-100 as 13.1 1/4 13.7 terminal speed 102, which is a good effort IMHO
Ross
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
Last edited by Chins; 28 April 2004 at 12:17 AM.
28 April 2004, 12:08 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dazza's-STi
My standard STI PPP MY03
13.04 @99 not that slow then...
Dazza
13.04 @99 not that slow then...
Dazza
These were times at Santa Pod on one day, start line was not treated and quite slippery by all accounts. The times were more interesting as being comparative rather than absolutes.
Your time is amazing though, you must have had a great launch as your terminal velocity is quite low for that sort of E.T.
28 April 2004, 12:50 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chins
Ross
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
I agree the scooby may be slightly better as a day to day car but hey if I was doing big miles and if that was the primary reason for buying a car I would probably buy a diesel golf.
Fuel consumption - I wouldn't say my STI+PPP was exactly economical!,the Evo's now have 6 speed boxes, driven sensibly they are not much worse than a Scooby
Only the anti-yaw oil needs changing at 4500 miles, prudent to do an engine oil change at that time.Not mega bucks!
A lot of sensible scooby owners change their engine oil every 5000 miles if they use the performance at all.
My STI depreciated like a brick falling down a bottomless well, at least the "flawed" Evos seem to hold their value better.
FQ300/320 are better value than the FQ340 but then I have never really bought this type of car purely as value for money, not that much of a diferance between WRI and FQ anyway.
Scooby stereo is junk, replaced within weeks anyway.
You do have a point over Trackstar, however they are often not very imaginatively hidden, if you dont believe me check and see where yours is,
you may be lucky.Also my insurance (being over 30 he! he! doesn't require it)
Last edited by scoobycar60; 28 April 2004 at 12:55 AM.
28 April 2004, 08:22 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you get kenwood stereo in the MRs,there told you there were better!!LOL,at the end of the day they are both great and would have either on my drive,at the moment iv got a FQ300 on mine,but like i said id have both on there if i could!!!
28 April 2004, 02:13 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.autocarmagazine.com/movies.asp
Theres a video of the WR1 and Evo fq330 on track having a bit of a play, must say i think the Wr1 looks a bit wobbly to say the least and if it does do the ton a second quicker you really cant tell on the vid
Theres a video of the WR1 and Evo fq330 on track having a bit of a play, must say i think the Wr1 looks a bit wobbly to say the least and if it does do the ton a second quicker you really cant tell on the vid
28 April 2004, 03:30 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in that video the EVO is all over the WR1,and having got a FQ that driver was backing off in and out of the corners,you could also see how the evo gets the power down quicker,dont think the WR1 would be as close to the EVO if the WR1 was behind.Iv been behind a STi8PPP on track and both of us are have very similiar capabilities as drivers and i was having to back off all the time especially into and out of corners though in a straight line nothing in it,i would gain slightly coming to the end of a straight and was able to brake a bit later,AYC enables the EVO to get the power down so much quicker and that is plain to see in that video.You can also hear and see the WR1 understeering like a good un.
Last edited by nellie; 28 April 2004 at 03:32 PM.
28 April 2004, 03:33 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Nellie, not trying to slate the Wr1 as i think it is a great car just dont really believe any of the hype, hope somebody proves me wrong though.
Saying that, i wouldnt buy an evo as the mlr is mostly full of complete tossers
Saying that, i wouldnt buy an evo as the mlr is mostly full of complete tossers
28 April 2004, 03:58 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chins
Ross
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
In the real world I get 220 miles to my Fq330 tank(not quite near bottom), which is £35 to fill. My scoob did about the same miles but £43 of petrol. Both prices for Optimax, and majority of driving is urban max speed 40mph.
Didn't someone mention on here that the service intervals for the Wr1 are 5000 miles!!!
As far as the Evo is concerned, the AYC service is now skipped at 4500 miles, only carried out at annual 9000 mile service, the 6 month service is just an oil change.
Edited to say - that I had an my03 sti with ppp.
The fq330 has leather and smartnav which I have upgraded to a tracker for £100.
Last edited by MattW; 28 April 2004 at 04:03 PM.
28 April 2004, 04:04 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Blue Planet
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MattW
Didn't someone mention on here that the service intervals for the Wr1 are 5000 miles!!!
As far as the Evo is concerned, the AYC service is now skipped at 4500 miles, only carried out at annual 9000 mile service, the 6 month service is just an oil change.
As far as the Evo is concerned, the AYC service is now skipped at 4500 miles, only carried out at annual 9000 mile service, the 6 month service is just an oil change.
28 April 2004, 09:58 PM
#47
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 scoobycar60
Well done!
These were times at Santa Pod on one day, start line was not treated and quite slippery by all accounts. The times were more interesting as being comparative rather than absolutes.
Your time is amazing though, you must have had a great launch as your terminal velocity is quite low for that sort of E.T.
These were times at Santa Pod on one day, start line was not treated and quite slippery by all accounts. The times were more interesting as being comparative rather than absolutes.
Your time is amazing though, you must have had a great launch as your terminal velocity is quite low for that sort of E.T.
Also with half a tank of regular UL... DOH! was at work Friday and had run steady down the M-way so used UL... Also wasn't going to run it but it looked too good so borrowed a bonce potty and weh-hey
I reckon into the 12's this time as i certainly won't have 1/2 tank of UL and the cars nearly 90kg lighter... 
Dazza1 1Harvey SmithImpreza STi6 Wagon11.74115 2 36Steven DarleyImpreza Turbo Wagon12.16109331Darren TidayImpreza STi7 Type UK12.18110 4 5Tim WhitesideImpreza Turbo12.30- 5 19John TrautyImpreza STi712.41103 6 57Mikee SinghImpreza Turbo 2.212.47106 7 13Andrew WolfeLegacy Turbo12.8810083
8 Darren AtackImpreza Turbo Prodrive 13.0497
Last edited by Dazza's-STi; 28 April 2004 at 10:00 PM.
28 April 2004, 10:14 PM
#48
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 Chins
Ross
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
Not in a Scooby at present, hence my unbiased approach to this thread - driving a Clio 182
Nellie
The bare facts seem to be that the WR1 is a quicker car than the FQ330 - according to Autocars test on the same track on the same day. Is the MR320 quicker than the FQ330 ?
Even with the vastly overprice MR340 - still shod with weeny 17" alloys, the difference in on the road performance isnt worth worrying about. By the time you find out your no quicker than a WR1, you'll of lost your license for years.
Car ownership is about far more than 1 sec quicker to 100 than another car - hence I wouldnt buy the WR1 quicker as it is than an EVO just for that reason. I dont drive cars on track anymore, so even if the EVO is 1 second quicker on a Lap than a WR1 - again highly unlikely then it wouldnt influence my decision.
What does is the fact that the Subaru is a better day to day car in my eyes. Until Mitsubishi sort their crap out and get decent fuel consumption and servicing costs sorted, it is a flawed car. A car made in 1965 might of needed servicing every 4500 miles, but a 30k sports saloon should be able to last a few more miles. Seems keeping Concorde in service would of been cheaper than an EVO
Also seem to miss a Trackstar and even a Stereo in the price of an MR320, plus you really need to add metalic. IM really have them licked with pricing policy.
Jonathan
I agree fully...
Thats the sole reason I went for the scoob... With 30k to spend I looked at both... opted for the STI PPP with wheels as it was the more user freindly... the EVO more track focused... Saying that... the only reason the STI PPP was .9 of a second slower than the EVO around a track including the STIG on TG... is the simple fact the STI suspension is much less stiffer than the EVO... drive both back to back and the difference is ery marked...
As for the Clarkson Video and some tests in rags... then I'm sure the Evo provided had been massaged slightly... in the clarson VID.. the EVO just leaves them standing...to leave any 300+bhp car at that rate once moving takes a considerable amount more BHP per tone... not the 10bhp per tone that is the real world figure... i've had a few runns with Evo's on the road and they are no quicker...
To get that kind of difference you need a tuscan S... like the one that made me look silly down a slip road... it was gone... like id hit the middle peddle
28 April 2004, 11:16 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. I find the Evo much easier to drive, 2nd gear in a scooby is 3rd gear in an Evo, fuel consumption seems better as a result. yes the ride is harsher, but i can live with that.
My wife finds it easier to drive too, must be more of a girls car....lol
My wife finds it easier to drive too, must be more of a girls car....lol
29 April 2004, 08:25 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying that... the only reason the STI PPP was .9 of a second slower than the EVO around a track including the STIG on TG... is the simple fact the STI suspension is much less stiffer than the EVO
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM