2003 WRX:
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 534
From: Canada
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
A stock STi is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 905
From: Bayside, New York
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: 01SilverGT
Janine, dont think I'm hating on you or anything, but you ran a new Vette with cams, but a WRX STI beat you by 3 feet? That does seem fishy to me, but you never know these days.
Janine, dont think I'm hating on you or anything, but you ran a new Vette with cams, but a WRX STI beat you by 3 feet? That does seem fishy to me, but you never know these days.
Where did you read that? I never said I got beat by 3 feet. I won by that distance. BUT IT WAS NOT A FAIR ONE. He was behind me. I never saw him coming until after he floored it as he drove by me. He got off like a bullet. When I hit it, he was already out there on me. I was at a two second advantage before I hit the throttle -- atleast. I made up ground, but slowly and caught him. At that point, he shut it down and turned off.
Retired MF Moderator
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,891
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: OICW
Just where in the world are you getting your hp numbers from?
A stock STi is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
ORIGINAL: janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
A stock STi is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 905
From: Bayside, New York
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: OICW
Just where in the world are you getting your hp numbers from?
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
ORIGINAL: janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
And, INDEED, yes, it certainly takes 130 HP to go from 13.5 1/4 to 11.07!!!
Retired MF Moderator
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,891
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: janine
You are kidding me right? Do you truly believe that a stock STI gets 300 RWHP? If you do, you are very misinformed. The 300 HP is BHP or Flywheel HP. That translates to about 260 or so to the wheels. Engines lose a percentage of it's power as it travels through the drivetrain. It can be up to 18 percent depending the tranny -- automatic or stick.
And, INDEED, yes, it certainly takes 130 HP to go from 13.5 1/4 to 11.07!!!
ORIGINAL: OICW
Just where in the world are you getting your hp numbers from?
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
ORIGINAL: janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
And, INDEED, yes, it certainly takes 130 HP to go from 13.5 1/4 to 11.07!!!
Thread Starter
5th Gear Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,060
From: Okla.
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: janine
You are kidding me right? Do you truly believe that a stock STI gets 300 RWHP? If you do, you are very misinformed. The 300 HP is BHP or Flywheel HP. That translates to about 260 or so to the wheels. Engines lose a percentage of it's power as it travels through the drivetrain. It can be up to 18 percent depending the tranny -- automatic or stick.
And, INDEED, yes, it certainly takes 130 HP to go from 13.5 1/4 to 11.07!!!
ORIGINAL: OICW
Just where in the world are you getting your hp numbers from?
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
ORIGINAL: janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
3300 lbs is not too much heaver than a Stang. Yet a stock STI will run 0-60 in 5 flat and 1/4 in about 13.5. I believe firmly believe this. I find it amazing that this car can run quick with far less HP than a Mustang. In all honesty, it took my Stang 328 RWHP to hit those speed numbers. I would venture to say that a Stock STI would put out perhaps 258 RWHP? That is a 70 rwhp difference with a close weight factor.
Janine
A stock STI is 300 hp. A stock Mach or 3VGT is roughly 300 hp. ALL run mid 13's (except Mach, which can go a bit lower). Where you getting the "far less hp than a Mustang" from?
0-60 times are quicker with the STi, but that's if you want to change a clutch every weekend!
So it took 328 rwhp for you to run 13.5, but only 130 more hp to run 11.07 @ 134 mph? Something don't add up.
And, INDEED, yes, it certainly takes 130 HP to go from 13.5 1/4 to 11.07!!!
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 905
From: Bayside, New York
RE: 2003 WRX:
Its AWHP on an STI.. and if you take a 300hp rwd car and a 300hp awd car, the rwd car will dyno consierably higher each and every single time with out fail. Drive train loss is a bitch through AWD.
[/quote]
Okay, I learned something today. Then how much power does a 300HP STI make to the AWD?
5th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,248
From: NC
RE: 2003 WRX:
ORIGINAL: janine
Okay, I learned something today. Then how much power does a 300HP STI make to the AWD?
Okay, I learned something today. Then how much power does a 300HP STI make to the AWD?
Generally around 220-230 on the heartbreaker dynos. Highest I want to say is like 240-250 on the generous ones. AWD drivetrain loss, like was said before, is considerably higher than in RWD cars. But, you do get the huge advantage off the line. I really think if the stock STI had gearing set up for the quarter mile, it could pull a low to 13 flat. The problem is that the gearing is set up for rally / road course driving, not the drag strip. Do any of you guys have to shift into 5th in the quarter mile? lol
If you have ever driven an STI on a road course, it along with the EVO are absolutely some of the most all around fun to drive cars. Neither are perfect, but you can literally throw these cars into turns and come out on top. That's where the gearing, suspension, brakes and fast spooling turbos really shine.
