Why do you hate the wrx?
18 February 2005, 04:10 PM
#241
dont get me wrong but I'm not standing up for the bug and blob eyes. I just think that when people are making comparisons they should use real figures and not made up ones.
I agree that 0-60/0-100/30-70 etc etc are all important. Personally think that 1/4mile times give the best overall picture.
Bob
I agree that 0-60/0-100/30-70 etc etc are all important. Personally think that 1/4mile times give the best overall picture.
Bob
18 February 2005, 04:11 PM
#242
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
Using Geek Boy's logis/arithmetic, we could take 0-60, 60-80 and 80-100 times and add them together to get the 0-100 time. I would use first and second for 0-60, 3rd for 60-80, and 4th for 80-100. Add them together and what do we have? A 0-100 run with only one gear change! 
:niceone:
18 February 2005, 04:52 PM
#243
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
Using Geek Boy's logis/arithmetic, we could take 0-60, 60-80 and 80-100 times and add them together to get the 0-100 time. I would use first and second for 0-60, 3rd for 60-80, and 4th for 80-100. Add them together and what do we have? A 0-100 run with only one gear change!
Someone please explain wtf he is on about.
18 February 2005, 05:08 PM
#245
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dracoro
BOB'5, I understand that you wouldn't test/get the figures by simply subtracting the times, but that depends on whether you are testing driving THROUGH 60 to 100 or just driving at 60 then planting it. However, the figures aren't gonna be that different anyway AND the same 'rule' applies to all cars so it's reasonable to say that the wrx and the civic/clio etc have similar performance despite the 0-60 figures. Further tests would have to be done or the 30-70 which I favour and I wish the mags/media would use these figures more.
How about power to weight ratios, here are some examples.
all are bhp per tonne.
Civic Type R - 166
Clio Cup - 171
Subaru WRX - 161
Subaru WRX STi - 207
Honda S2000 - 191
Porsche Boxster S - 200
My westie
- well over 300
Caterham R500 - err, 500
Porsche 911 turbo - 290
Obviously other factors such as gearing, aerodynamics, tyres/grip etc affect things but it gives a good indication of comparitive performance.
How about power to weight ratios, here are some examples.
all are bhp per tonne.
Civic Type R - 166
Clio Cup - 171
Subaru WRX - 161
Subaru WRX STi - 207
Honda S2000 - 191
Porsche Boxster S - 200
My westie
- well over 300Caterham R500 - err, 500
Porsche 911 turbo - 290
Obviously other factors such as gearing, aerodynamics, tyres/grip etc affect things but it gives a good indication of comparitive performance.
And to show that it isn't necessarily a good indication of comparative performance... Petter Solberg's SWRT car has a ratio of 247BHP/Ton and I dare say would be a match for your Westie? and would be getting 0-100-0 in well under 15 secs?????
Paul
18 February 2005, 05:16 PM
#246
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiggerypokery
The top speeds for the WRX are:
1st: 38MPH
2nd:67
3rd:97
4th:136
5th:140
If I was doing a 0-60 run, I would use all of second gear for the best time. If I was doing the best 60-100 time, I would start at 50 and use 3rd and 4th.
1st: 38MPH
2nd:67
3rd:97
4th:136
5th:140
If I was doing a 0-60 run, I would use all of second gear for the best time. If I was doing the best 60-100 time, I would start at 50 and use 3rd and 4th.
on a 0-100 run there would be 2 gear changes between 60 and 100 as all of 2nd would take you to 67 BUT if you were doing a timed 60-100 then you would start in 3rd and only have 1 change thus saving time which in turn would have quite a dramatic effect on the result... so....... BOB'5 is correct... you can't just look at 0-60 then 0-100 and deduct one from another.
Paul
18 February 2005, 05:19 PM
#247
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.... WRX is nearer 162 bhp/ton. According to the Subaru website tech data the STi UK type is 1475KG kerb weight which is 1.448 tons and produces 261 bhp so that to me equals 180 bhp/ton???? not a great difference then...
And to show that it isn't necessarily a good indication of comparative performance... Petter Solberg's SWRT car has a ratio of 247BHP/Ton and I dare say would be a match for your Westie? and would be getting 0-100-0 in well under 15 secs?????
And to show that it isn't necessarily a good indication of comparative performance... Petter Solberg's SWRT car has a ratio of 247BHP/Ton and I dare say would be a match for your Westie? and would be getting 0-100-0 in well under 15 secs?????
18 February 2005, 05:23 PM
#248
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still my say my Scooby is a fast car.... compared to..... nothing at all..... it is a fast car..... it feels fast when I drive it and gives me that warm tingly feeling in my tummy when I put my foot down that no other car I've owned ever has......
Paul
Paul
18 February 2005, 06:23 PM
#249
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vipa
Petter Solberg's SWRT car has a ratio of 247BHP/Ton and I dare say would be a match for your Westie? and would be getting 0-100-0 in well under 15 secs?????
Paul
Paul
18 February 2005, 06:42 PM
#251
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah - you make a good point.
I would be happy to use 30-70 times, but similar arguments would persue about gear changes etc.
I am happy with my 60-100....you can stick with your 1/4 miles times if you want.
I would be happy to use 30-70 times, but similar arguments would persue about gear changes etc.
I am happy with my 60-100....you can stick with your 1/4 miles times if you want.
18 February 2005, 07:10 PM
#254
Re-post:
Autocar Jan 2002:
Subaru Impreza (classic): 0-60mph = 5.3secs *** 0-100mph = 14.9secs
Subaru Impreza (bug eye WRX): 0-60mph = 5.7secs *** 0-100mph = 16.9secs
Renault Clio Sport V6: 0-60mph = 0-60mph = 6.6secs *** 0-100mph = 17.1secs
So Geek which has the fastest and slowest 30-70mph times?
Autocar Jan 2002:
Subaru Impreza (classic): 0-60mph = 5.3secs *** 0-100mph = 14.9secs
Subaru Impreza (bug eye WRX): 0-60mph = 5.7secs *** 0-100mph = 16.9secs
Renault Clio Sport V6: 0-60mph = 0-60mph = 6.6secs *** 0-100mph = 17.1secs
So Geek which has the fastest and slowest 30-70mph times?
18 February 2005, 07:30 PM
#255
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30-70 is as useless as my 60-100 if 1 car has 6 speed or the other 5 speed, or the gear ratios are different enough that someone has to changes gera.
....as for the question, you tell me.
....as for the question, you tell me.
18 February 2005, 07:34 PM
#257
Originally Posted by Geek Boy
30-70 is as useless as my 60-100 if 1 car has 6 speed or the other 5 speed, or the gear ratios are different enough that someone has to changes gera.
....as for the question, you tell me.
....as for the question, you tell me.
I am not disputing the validity of 60-100mph if measured accurately.
As it is we have a broad range of timings available which give a good overall picture of a car (acceleration, overtaking ability, top speed, braking distances etc).
30-70mph is not 'useless' as it is correctly timed and not made up. It goves a good indication of overtaking abilty.
So which Clio were you banging on about?
18 February 2005, 08:28 PM
#267
Scooby Senior
Amen. I'd have a V6, but they're slow 
Originally Posted by robby1
not trying to wind anybody up,but the clio is a womens car,not a mans car chaps
