Every STI driver I've encountered couldn't drive a grocery cart.....Those rides don't scare me at all....just the looks of the car is the only thing scary...The STI crowd where I go race at, do nothing but talk garbage about how fast they are. It's funny because they thought I had a v6 firebird until i opened my cutout, then I asked em if they wanted to line up, this dude said " Naw man, I gotta be somewhere" then I asked the others if they wanted to go just once and all declined...I see em now and then and wave at em....no response....lol Ive smoked a few STI's across the Howard Franklin Bridge pretty easily

 

true...

but i also need tires that don't have me leaving the line sideways.

i've heard that the sti trans are weird. like the shifter doesn't mechanically engage the gears or something?

 

What I ment by AWD car is most of them have generally good power, but that AWD system saps power. So they dont put enough power to the ground to run a car that averages 300whp. You can say its your turbo and the what not but the 3000GT VR4 has nice sized turbos and has the same problem because 320break hp on those cars usually leads to 215-220awhp. That's a lot of power to loose. Bigger turbo = more boost = more power to the ground. As far as top end pulling Im sure the Saleen S7 TT can pull through the top end the same as the Bugatti with it's 700hp.

 

that's doubtful. it's a w16 quad turbo putting out 300 more hp. no contest. awd doesn't even matter.

 

1000hp at crank divide by 25% loss (AWD) => 750hp at the wheels

700hp at crank divide by 13% loss (RWD) => 609hp at the wheels

it probably won't keeps up, but it might be closer then you think.
of course the 13% may be a bit generous... but that 300hp gap has suddenly shrunk by 50%

 

oops, i forgot to say good kill!

 

Turn up teh boost, The Saleen S7 runs 3psi to have 700hp.

 

Veyron makes 15.8 PSI, 9.3:1 compression.

Saleen make 5.5 PSI, 11.0:1 compression.

Different motors, one made for more boost. I wouldn't just "turn up teh boost."

 

The entire fixed% driveline loss is stupid.

If you look at the physics of it its just not the reality in high powered cars.

Trannys sap power in two ways: heat and vibration. No tranny in a road car is going to handle 300HP of heat and vibration. It would simply melt and shake itself to peices. That goes for a Tremec, or just about anything else. We are talking about an incredible amount of power here.

The most realistic way to look at it is that you loose a fixed amount of power in adition to small percentage of total power. There was even a thread about this in advanced tech, it makes for great reading, people should search it.

This whole % thing Im convinced was promoted by dyno queen guys and shops to publish incredible claims.

In anycase, the whole "up top" argument is dumb too. Evos and STis dont pull in the upper gears like an LS1 because they have restrictive plumbing stock and small turbos stock. Both tend to limit high RPM power. And you spend more time in the upper RPMs in your higher gears because your not shifting as often. The STi has crap gearing too. Its so short it hinders the end of the 1320 LOL. Last time I was at the track me and my DSM bud talked to a really cool STi guy. He was talking about how much he is limited by gears, he wanted some longer ones. That combined with less WHP means no soup for them from a roll in stock form. Eliminate some restrictions and it does wonders. The only difference between Evo VIIIs and IXs is that they really freed up things in the turbo and manifold and put in Mivec. Some of you can attest that the IX are much better from a roll, though not making as much WHP as stock LS1s in stock form.

 

Actually the transmission is very strong and so are the synchros. The problem is gearing. Its great for road courses or fun around town, but they are very short and its harder at the drag strip having to redline 5th.

 

Well, the TD04 that powers the 3000GT is hardly large, but 230 peak power is in the mid range it will be poor top end. If it is like an LS1 which makes power up top, or at the extreme, a Honda engine, it will make strong top end power.

WHP to WHP, same power band, same gearing, same car and same weight with the same drivers, it won't matter at all if the car is AWD, RWD or FWD.

As I said before, AWD has nothing to do with those cars poor top end.

 

Yea it does. The AWD drivetrain loss affects the power output to the wheels throughout the whole powerband.

Take the STI and Mustang GT for example, and say they both weighed the same. Run them both from 100MPH and up, and see which car gets shitted on. The Mustang would have many carlengths on the STI by 150MPH, yet they both have the same Horsepower.

Yet you claim AWD doesn't affect top end power??

 

It sure does. But it won't have anymore effect than any other car when taking it off a dyno and putting on the street.

Have you ever looked at a dyno, ever? Do you know anything other than peak power? Seriously. BTW, a 2005+ Mustang GT has more WHP than the Subaru, not the same.

edit: One thing of note though. I did a checking on something, for curiousity's sake. I have no way of confirming this, so I used car and driver's test results. The STi actually will do 100-130 two seconds faster than the Mustang GT will.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...ans-page4.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...-gt-page4.html

Maybe that stupid wing does do something?
This is liking teaching mentally handicapped children geometry.

edit: I cannot think of any other way of making this anymore simple. If you take the EJ25 out of my STi and put it into a RWD Camaro, it's top end power will still suck. It might make five more WHP, but it will still be terrible. Do you know why that is? It's because the engine has poor top end! What a concept!

 

I'm a "ricer"?? Hey dumbass, I'm not the one driving the riced out family sedan with a wing on the back. Get a clue

The Mustang GT and STI are both rated for 300HP. Yet the Mustang is significantly faster than anything other than a dig, due to the STI's AWD drivetrain loss. The Mustang puts down around 280WHP, while the STI puts down a rather pathetic 230WHP. Big difference.

You are lost in your own bullshit. I understand that the drivetrain loss affects the car through the entire powerband. THATS WHY I SAID THAT IN MY LAST POST. Learn to read. The claimed "poor top end" due to turbo restriction or whatever is irrelevent, because the car is still rated at 300HP. Its not like they rated the car at 300 and then added in the restriction. Therefore it should pull at higher speeds just the same as any other car rated at 300HP. But of course it doesn't due to significant drivetrain loss, ect. Either way though, it should still be making around 300HP at the crank.

 

Yea, you are. Typical ricer response. Ricers know nothing about cars. And you have proved that.

Well, see above in my edit. Secondly, the STi has about 245~ while the GT has about 270~. Thirdly, why are you bringing up flywheel numbers? Who cares about power at the flywheel? As I said before, a 230 WHP AWD with the same exact everything besides AWD will not be slower than a 230 WHP RWD with the same. Drive trains have nothing to do with top end power. Is this a difficult concept? Or are the all important and irrelevant flywheel numbers castrating your intellect?

edit: Here is some simple numbers. The STi makes its peak power at 5300 according to cobb's dyno. Guess what? It starts making less power after that point (especially torque). It revs to 7k and by 6500 it is making pretty terrible power. Is that because of the AWD? Nope...

The engine makes its power during the mid-range. You just proved that you know nothing about power bands and power curves. Cars do not always make more power the higher they rev. I am shocked to know that you didn't know this. This stuff is basic car guru stuff, yet you cannot seem to get it.

Why do you keep bringing up crank horsepower? That number is completely meaningless. Wheel horsepower is all that matters. As I said before, which you keep missing, power band is more important that drive wheels.

 

No, ricers drive riced out ugly-*** piece of **** imports and don't know jack **** about cars. Thats you

To prove that the losses can be attributed to drivetrain loss, not "turbo restriction". Both cars make 300HP at the flywheel. Difference is that 85% of the Mustang's gets to the ground, while the STI can only manage to put down about 230WHP.

You just proved that you didn't bother to read what I said. Regardless of whether the engine makes more power in the midrange or top end, its still rated at 300HP. I never said cars "make more power the higher they rev", you are trying to put words in my mouth. Obviously you are having reading comprehension issues.

No its not, riceboy. My point is that although both the Mustang and STI are rated at 300HP, the Mustang is in fact the overall faster vehicle, because it puts a higher percentage of that power to the wheels. The STI's "restrictive turbo" doesn't factor into the equation, because its still rated at 300HP from the factory, same as the Mustang.

 

Aww...

Top end refers to power at the top of the rpm range? Correct. That is the point of contention. Correct. The car is rated at 300HP. Correct. Does it make 300 at 100 RPM? Nope. 300 is the peak number. It is a rather irrelevant number. Power band is much more relevant.

Aww.....

So, this entire debate was about splitting hairs? And, as I showed above, the Mustang is in fact not. And again, flywheel horsepower is irrelevant. For one, it is hard to tell if a car was over or under rated (STi was over-rated, about 292 as the 07 is rated something like that, and the GT is really about 320) and secondly, WHP under the curve is all that matters when comparing power.

300 at peak. Why are you so obsessed with peak numbers? And the engine is why it has bad top end. End of story. Stop replying.

Anywho, this was fun. G'nite. Do search on power bands, power under the curve. This site has a lot of information on why they are important. Like the rules of the internet go, don't post without searching.

 

good kill! **** THEM STIS!





just so no one FLIPS ****..im kidding i dont mind stis...as much...

 

DUDE! What the hell are you smokin? He just posted where the STI was faster in every aspect. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There are many contributing factors to what car is faster, including weight, wheel drive, torque, tires, gears. Just stop man, you are horribly losing this battle. Noone is going to agree with you on this one.

 

Place any car out of its powerband and it's getting smoked by grandma in her '77 Buick.