Scott..

Please do not judge the Impreza community from what you read in Sports & Compact Car.

That car is NOT a WRX or anything resembling it. I know because my American Impreza with the same turbo kit added gives the local C4 owners here in Seattle a MAJOR surprise. But it ain't anywhere near the performance of a real WRX. Oh and before you get into that whole straight line racing "thang"..

Uhm no.. I'm definitely not into that.

But these cars are not in the same league as the real Japanese spec WRX. Oh and your Australian "Mate" doesn't know what he's talking about either as they don't get the real WRX down under either only the baby turbo car badged as a WRX..

Richard

 

That comparison I made with the 911 vs GT's. OK, maybe the 911 isn't a true GT in the formal sense of the word, but you have to admit that it was still a fair comparison. Those are the sort of cars that Porsche is competing with for the lime-light, so that is what they should be compared to.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Beef:
<B>That comparison I made with the 911 vs GT's. OK, maybe the 911 isn't a true GT in the formal sense of the word, but you have to admit that it was still a fair comparison. Those are the sort of cars that Porsche is competing with for the lime-light, so that is what they should be compared to.[/quote]

Compared to, yes, classified, no.

The 911 is just an ***-engined **** slot car

 

My take on the SportCompactCar article was not to bash the Imprezza, actually the opposite. If Subaru can make a stock bottom end 4 cyl that will handle 300hp, it is obviously sound and well engineered.
I also do not mean to say that the Imprezza is slow, or wouldn't be close.. to be sure, it could be a dogfight.

Also, one may think weight in the rump is "*** heavy", but it pays big dividends in braking bias and car control. If it didn't, all F1 cars would be front engined. (I know they are mid, but it's closer, and mid is obviously ideal)

Now, if your racing in the rain, or on dirt. regardless of Porsche's rally history.. I'd bet on the Imprezza.

When this post is done, we could all go to a Honda or BMW board and bash them!! haha just kidding.

 

Arrgghh!!

The Porkers are invading!

 

Just to back up what pnebbs said: This is an Impreza enthusiasts board. When fools like MPH come on here and make statements as he has, we will stand up for our choice of car. Please sod off back to your misbegotten board and leave us be.

Stu

 

I love this. MPH starts a tirade as a result of his insulting and manipulative post (which I am obviously far to dim to understand the reasoning behind), and then drags some mates into a related post where he once again repeats his assertion, because he is feeling out numbered.
Can anyone explain to me what this is achieving? Is it just to kill time, as due to the Australian winter it is too wet to be larking around in a rear engined car?
KF.

 

MPH is best ignored. He's nowt but an old windbag.

Skip this thread, look for a more intelligent debate.... Pass my coat.

Ken

Oops, forgot, anyone watch the ARC on Wednesday night? Scoobies stomped over everything in sight down under


[This message has been edited by KenG (edited 15-06-2000).]

 

Whoah there big fellas!

I am yet another blow-in from the Porsche Board, and just want to try and get some harmony and maybe even a little friendship here. (Brings a tear to my eye)

Look, we should focus on our common ground here. Boxer engines, turbo if necessary. Hitting the gas pedal and being pushed back into your seat. Enjoying driving!

Fact is, we each chose our cars based on what made us happy. For me, I turned down the WRX for a 911. It was based on:

GOOD
911 - looks better (TO ME!!!, not everyone)
911 - cool history
911 - won't depreciate
911 - durability (25yo car feels solid)
WRX - newness of car for $$$
WRX - AWD, turbo!
WRX - cheapish to run

BAD
911 - mortgage soul to service
911 - no room for luggage, more than one adult
911 - ah, crap, its got some rust, where's my chequebook?
911 - gas milage
WRX - too many around in New Zealand, hence bad image as the cheaper ones are edging into boy-racer territory
WRX - new car (I'm a sucker for classics, show me the chrome!)

So one car suited me better (just). I bet there is someone on this board who has both (lucky *******).

Enough of a ramble. Lets be kinda friends, or at least just a little frosty, but not hostile!!

Cam

 

Why I'm even contributing to this thread is beyond me, but I have to say this. "Compare the prices"!!!
My Scoob costs at least a quarter that of a Porsche (Supposedly exclusive sports car) and the fact that this thread even started, leads me to believe that EXPENSIVE car drivers might be a bit upset that a "cheap" car can hang with and even outperform their beasts in some areas.
I dont care who's got what or what goes faster etc...I am over the moon with my car as is every member of this bbs methinks.

SO...."My cars better than yours and I got it for a song.....nya nya nya"

Gotta go...boss is looking.......

 

Couple of observations... Some of which I won't post on the "p" board.

1) I sense a tone of elitism from some of the members "over there", I do not feel this way. I am speaking of calling Subaru Irresponsible for making a affordable fast car, and that this will put speed into the hands of those that can't handle it.. Money does not equal talent in my book. Bring on the fast, cheap cars.

2) I see some folks on this board comparing the RU to an "expensive 911" that costs 3x as much.. and then I see comparisons to driving an early 80's 911. Here's the scoop.
I have an 87. goes 0-60 in 5.6, 1/4 mile in the upper 13's and I paid $14000 US for it last year and it's worth 20K now.

3) If we got the WRX over here (usa), nobody would hop up Honda's anymore. Mugen, etc would all go bankrupt. 1000's would be out of work, the economy would crash. Do you Subaru fans want that on your conscience???

4) You guys think that either the WRX or the 911 could beat a new C5 corvette?? That'd be a tough one.. and the vette is only about 35K American..

 

will the 'vet go round corners?

 

It will, but it requires five miles 'coast' notice as per the Amoco Cadiz, (but boatier).

 

To reply to Scott Matre's comment on Rear mounted engines:

"Also, one may think weight in the rump is "*** heavy", but it pays big dividends in braking bias and car control. If it didn't, all F1 cars would be front engined. (I know they are mid, but it's closer, and mid is obviously ideal)"

The Porsche's engine sitting rearward of the back axle gives it the worst possible polar moment of inertia that it could achieve. This DOES NOT aid car control! It is also nothing like mid mounting an engine which in fact is the best location to achieve the optimum PMoI. Furthermore, front engine cars are usually second best option as they inherantly have a large weight accumlation at the rear (due to running gear and bodywork layout) which helps achieve balanced weight distribution.
Porsche has had to work hard over the years to reduce this undesired effect (including wider rear track, huge wheel/tyre combinations and traction control/ESP).
The words "silk purse and sows ear" spring to mind for some reason.
And I wont even go into the effects of braking in a bend (which I know is undesirable) with the back end of the car weighing more than the front.

Neil. (near 50-50 distribution low c.o.g STi4)

[This message has been edited by Neil F (edited 19-06-2000).]

 

I'm not going to get into a diatribe regarding weight bias, but removing the engine from the front axle definately does help braking. As far as handling, when is the last time you saw a 911 "overheat" it's tires during a race?? I can agree with the "polar moment" argument, but that also makes them fun!!!!

Yes, the vette will handle, quite well in-fact. Something like .92-.95 g's (on street rubber). Road and Track pitted a C4 vette (older model) against a 911 sport in 88. the 911 beat it to 60 and the 1/4, but the vette was 3 secs faster on the road course. (285/xx/17 meat, among other things) The new one is better my a long shot in all the road tests I read. and something like upper 300's in Lb/Ft for torque..

What does a WRX weigh anyway, I have no idea other than guessing 2600-2700 lbs. Sounds like a fun rocket.

 

Hi All,

Scott is correct to say that the rear weight bias of the 911 allows the rear brakes to work a lot harder than they would in a front-engined car. You can see this by the size of the disks fitted at the rear of modern 911s.

It helps a lot with traction too.

Cheers,

Alex

P.S. See - we can all get along


[This message has been edited by AlexM (edited 19-06-2000).]

 

Scott, I was wondering if you knew where the North American habit of doing lateral G tests comes from, as we hardly ever, if at all, see it here?
As I see it the ability to pull high lateral G does not translate to a car that handles well, take the original Lotus Elan, skinny tyres, I imagine a very low lateral G capability but handled beutifully. Or an AC Cobra with huge rubber that would no doubt pull a very respectable lateral G but handles like a pig. In my book good handling = predictabilty, and being able to get close to the limit with plenty of feedback on the way.

 

while driving down through France last year i did see two newish Porsches wrapped in the barriers...on a completely straight autoroute.
It was wet, well streaming down and that was the only connection I could see as they were on opposite sides of the barrier and three miles apart. And I have always wanted a Porsche and prefer the way they look too.
Funny but my thought at the time was that they had both aquaplaned and due to the engine position had spun....

 

I don't entirely disagree with the engine mounted at the rear helping braking bias, I do a bit of mountain biking and best braking effect is achieved by standing off the back of the bike and applying the front brake. But this has to be offset against the effect of applying some steering:
When you brake in a rear engined car the back will try to run through the front. It wont be able to as the front wheels braking effect will stop it, so the back of the car will try to lift up but it can't because the engine is too heavy. The result is efficient braking a s you say. That is fine in a straight line, but apply some steering and suddenly the back of the car will try to "escape down the side" resulting in a spin.
Liken it to a bar of soap on a sheet of ice: put a lead ingot at the back of the soap bar and push it along. Just try and stop it from changing ends! Now I know that we are talking extremes here but it's an analagy to explain a principle.
I mean a Porsche is more like a bar of soap on a sheet of wet glass......
You might also want to read the latest edition of Evo mag where Robert Nearn took a GT3 roung the Nurburgring. he commnted on how hard he had to work to get the Porsche through quick succession directional changes as the weight bias prevented an easy transfer; all part of the polar moment problem. Imagine grabbing a dumbell in the middle and rotating your wrist; hard to get going but equally hard to stop. Now do the same but remove the weights from one end; thats a Porsche!

Neil.

 

You might also add that Richard Burns has a Porsche 996 GT3 as his road car. Does he know something we don't!

 

I couldn't tell you where the habit of 'G' testing came from. Seems quite irrelevant to me also. I feel that much more indicative is slalom speed or a comparative lap time. But since the magazines here usually include only G's and Slalom, that's all we have to go on. (other than subjective ratings).

One final note on weight bias. I do not disagree with Physics (above comments). Guess it just depends on if you would feel better with oversteer or understeer. I for one, am less intimidated about a "loose" car as (I feel) one can better adjust attitude with throttle. Of course, this is only to a given extent, and any car that severely under or oversteers is a good candidate for recycling. I have not found any condiditons in which the Carerra "bites" yet and rather enjoy that there is an element left to the driver.

On the otherhand, Front biased cars can require a lot of suspension tweeking to make them neutral. Either way, it is compensation for the weight being off-center.

One final gotcha... (I gotta throw this in...) The 911 GT3R's are kicking the dog poo out of the BMW M3's here...

 

sorry, can't resist any longer

Bring on your Porche's boys.

My car will kick it's *** big stylee

I have driven rear engined rally cars in my time and they are not for the inexperienced, they will bite your *** big style if you back off mid corner, sommat most drivers do as a natural reaction to overcooking it!!

The average guy will be much faster in a proper WRX on the road and from what i have seen to date on track aswell.

A well driven 911 is another story, but i have never seen a 911 driven well on track yet! What does that tell ya about the 911 owners?

so bring it on porche guy's, i wanna eat some more GT3's, i am hungry at the moment.

 

Its funny how you guys like to compare Porsche's that are over 10 years old to your "Scoobs" that are basicly brand new. Is it just me or is that funny. Well of course you guys don't think its funny, but I'm sure the Porsche guys that are fallowing this do.

Tim Strayer

..........
'83 944 By the way, my car is the most solid car I have ever rode in. Very quiet with exceptional handling.

 

Sorry. I thought we were comparing them to new Porsches???
The WRX has existed relatively unchanged since 1994 (good basic design you see) so it isn't that unfair a comparison.
Personally I quite like the (Audi design) 944 that Tim mentions. Chunkier looking and better balanced drivetrain although the convertiblae looked a bit odd and the 928 was still quite tail happy under power (so I hear?).
As for 911's mashing M3's, well BMWs are another issue altogether!

Neil (suffering a hangover and depression after England's Euro2000 defeat )

 

I was commenting on the 911 bashing in the very begining. Where some of the scoob owners claim to have riden in '88 911 Targa's and such.

 

yeah!

 

I remeber this old thread and thought you might enjoy a guy having a "bad day at the track".. I'm told the car is a Subaru Legacy GT..

 

I just sold my 911 3.2 carrera coupe made in 1988 and got a new STI V5 type R.

From the street driving point of view the STI is much more civilised. Less noisy, faster, excellent air conditioning, easy to drive fast, light steering, has a rear trunk and best value (1/4 of the price than a new 911).

The 911 on the other hand demands more driver's input and effort to go fast, noisy, heavier clutch, brake and steering but gives better road feel with solid build quality.

There is no doubt that I can drive the STI very fast at ease (so do most of the people) and comfort, this classic 911 remains to me a thoroughbred sports car that gives a lot of driver's satisfaction.

It isn't really that I regretted selling my 911 but I do miss the sense of accomplishment after giving the 911 a fast drive and sweating a bit.

To me being faster is not the only factor. It is the driving experience that I enjoy most.

 

I have to concur with Johnnie boy here.
At all the track days I've ever been to and all the Porsches that have ever been present only one has overtaken my little UK Scoob, and that was a full race-spec 911.
Even Carrera 4's and GT3's just moved over.
Now you could argue that they were perhaps driving conservatively due to the cost of their cars, but isn't the point of track days to take your car over a limit allowed on public roads? Perhaps they all drive faster at the Porsche exclusive days that are often held? Who knows? Who cares?
I can only speak from personal experience, and going by that, the Scoob kicks Porsche butt!!!

Stef.

 

Well, that's made an interesting, if long read !

I speak as someone who sold his 3.6c2 in Feb of this year, and has now bought an STI Type RA (new).

Ignoring techincalities, the Scooby is by far the superior car (speaking as an owner of both). I bought the Porsche as I has always said I would have a 911 by the age of 30, so I did.......and ok, I loved it, BUT, I do love my Scooby more.

Similar to an earlier post in this thread by Stupot, when I get home in the Scooby, I've got a massive smile plastered across my face, and really don't want to turn the engine off....I always want more. So, whilst a subjective statement, I for one would NEVER swop my Scoob back for a porker...and by the way, a lot of the arguements on this thread have been comparing a £23kish car with a £75k ish car ! If you want like/4/like, you're looking at a c12ish year old 911, and there is no way they can deliver as many safe smiles per mile as a Scooby.

I will resist adding anymore than my 2p's worth !!

Glenn