12sec evo vs. stock TA
04-30-2008, 11:52 PM
#82
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LaGrange, KY
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0c9qSQaI3o
Here's a crappy 110 idle but you can still hear it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haqtV...eature=related
How can you not hear that???
Last edited by miamifan3413; 04-30-2008 at 11:59 PM.
05-01-2008, 09:12 AM
#83
TECH Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i had a 232/230 cam on a 110lsa, it loped, but not real hard... i was very disspointed in its sound at idle....
my 224/224 115 lopes harder than it did....
my 224/224 115 lopes harder than it did....
05-01-2008, 04:26 PM
#86
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually its not. The new SS Turbo traps at 102MPH, which is exactly where the Evo and STI trap stock. Obviously the Evo and STI are going to be faster in the 1/4 because they are AWD though. But out on the highway, the SS Turbo would pull both of them on the top end. The SS Turbo also has much more low end power, the Evo and STi could only dream of having peak torque at 2,000RPM. At that RPM they are barely making enough grunt to move their own weight.
05-01-2008, 04:30 PM
#87
Lol my legacy has the same engine and almost the same turbo as the STI, with my tune im fully spooled at 2800rpms and at 2k with my foot to the floor i can feel the trq. Im not saying the new SS isnt nice, far better than the supercharger setup i think
Last edited by 2000T/A Guru; 05-01-2008 at 04:40 PM.
05-01-2008, 04:46 PM
#88
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually its not. The new SS Turbo traps at 102MPH, which is exactly where the Evo and STI trap stock. Obviously the Evo and STI are going to be faster in the 1/4 because they are AWD though. But out on the highway, the SS Turbo would pull both of them on the top end. The SS Turbo also has much more low end power, the Evo and STi could only dream of having peak torque at 2,000RPM. At that RPM they are barely making enough grunt to move their own weight.
05-01-2008, 04:47 PM
#89
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You always have to compare everything to your gay *** Legacy, give it a rest already.
05-01-2008, 04:49 PM
#90
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the faster you go, the more parasitic loss you have with AWD, not to mention the Evo and STi are about as aerodynamic as rounded off bricks and their motors suck for top end power. So in the triple digits the SS Turbo would definitely pull both of them.
05-01-2008, 04:51 PM
#91
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHP=WHP. Parasitic loss only becomes a factor on the dyno and for bench racers. Yes, the AWD will use up more power but, still traps the same at the strip so how again does a turbo SS pull on an STi/Evo?
05-01-2008, 05:07 PM
#92
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the only way to do it would be to out them side by side and see who pulls who up top, because we aren't going to get an answer sitting here arguring about it.
05-01-2008, 05:10 PM
#93
The faster you go lol, i compared it to my legacy because the sti and the legacy are close in parts. What trq is there to feel, my car makes 280trq to the wheels thats about 330 at the crank out of a 4cylinder with 100 dollars in parts in the car. I have seen ls1s that have trouble putting down 280trq to the wheels through a auto tranny
05-01-2008, 05:22 PM
#94
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The faster you go lol, i compared it to my legacy because the sti and the legacy are close in parts. What trq is there to feel, my car makes 280trq to the wheels thats about 330 at the crank out of a 4cylinder with 100 dollars in parts in the car. I have seen ls1s that have trouble putting down 280trq to the wheels through a auto tranny
You're comparing unusable torque of your turbo 4 cylinder to that of a V8, which would turn your pile of **** motor backwards. You have to compare torque curves, not peak numbers, there is more to driveability than just what an engine can produce at its peak RPM. Which is why a V8 can throw you back in the seat at low RPM's and power up hills in high gears, and your 4 cylinder is a complete dog down low and requires multiple downshifts in order to build boost and climb hills.
05-01-2008, 05:24 PM
#95
Ok i hit peak trq around 3200rpms and hold a steady curve until 7200 hows that for a powerband? You act like i didnt love My T/A and its abilitys, all im saying is your wrong about the power and powerband of my little 4cylinder, and if its such a dog down low how do you explain a 0-60time of 4.9 seconds? And dont say its AWD you launch at redline, cause mines and auto i launch at 2800rpms
05-01-2008, 05:34 PM
#96
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok i hit peak trq around 3200rpms and hold a steady curve until 7200 hows that for a powerband? You act like i didnt love My T/A and its abilitys, all im saying is your wrong about the power and powerband of my little 4cylinder, and if its such a dog down low how do you explain a 0-60time of 4.9 seconds? And dont say its AWD you launch at redline, cause mines and auto i launch at 2800rpms
I'd be curious to see your HP and TQ numbers below where the turbo spools, that would be too embarassing for you though I suppose.
05-01-2008, 11:12 PM
#97
And I belive you hit 4.9 seconds like I believe your 4 cylinder Legacy is a torque monster. Save it for someone who will believe your bullshit.
I'd be curious to see your HP and TQ numbers below where the turbo spools, that would be too embarassing for you though I suppose.
I'd be curious to see your HP and TQ numbers below where the turbo spools, that would be too embarassing for you though I suppose.
When speaking of who's faster, I was talking quarter miles times. A 13.8 1/4 was never faster than a 13.2 1/4 in my book. On top end, of course the new Cobalt will win, but who races all the way up to 130? The quarter miles times speak the speeds when you're out street racing, not "Oh, you whooped my *** from that dig for the sixth time now, but I guaran-damn-tee ya I'll slaughter you on top end!"
05-02-2008, 01:34 AM
#98
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ohio
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ignoring any theoretical coefficient of friction and aerodynamics....
obviously if 2 cars have the same trap speed the one with the quicker e.t. will lose on a roll or topend race. it is quicker.... but the other car is.... faster??? (if faster was a measure to a much greater distance)
obviously if 2 cars have the same trap speed the one with the quicker e.t. will lose on a roll or topend race. it is quicker.... but the other car is.... faster??? (if faster was a measure to a much greater distance)
05-02-2008, 09:09 AM
#99
He keeps telling me noone wants to hear about my legacy, but when you talk about the power and powerband of a STI which is damn near the same thing. Both have the same AWD, both weigh 3300lbs, both have the 2.5boxer engine which is why BTW STIs and legacys make good trq for 4cylinders because of the boxer design, when they put the legacy against the Mazda speed 6 AWD all the artical kept saying is the legacy beat it in almost every field because of the trq it made. So if you are comparing the two cars and i have something to say due to the fact that i own a AWD turbo car, but of course i dont know what im talking about or what kind of trq or power range the car has, hell i only own one.
05-02-2008, 11:38 AM
#100
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how come I hear this same said
coming out of import fanboyz' pieholes ALL of the f'ing time??!!I guess it is A OK then?