Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Last night I met up with a guy who recently got himself a 2002 model WRX (ie. bugeye). It's a manual and he's had it for about 5 months now so we went for some runs to see how it fares against the Zed. His car is pretty much stock ... I don't even think he had a custom exhaust. Anyway, this is how things went:

- run #1: 40 - 130kph, both starting in 1st gear:
First we tried a rolling start in 1st gear. We started from about 40kph as I thought that would make certain that the WRX was on boost. Though it turns out that the 1st gear in the WRX is really short and that he needs to shift to 2nd straight after we get on it. Still, my 350Z was always quicker. As soon as we started I'd be pulling away and by the time I'm in 2nd gear (ie. ~60kph) I'd have almost a car-length on him. The in 2nd gear I'd pull away another 1.5 or so car-lengths. Before we shut down at 130kph I pulled away even more and had good 3 - 3.5 car-lengths on him. He was consistantly falling back.

- run #2: 20 - 130kph, both starting in 1st gear:
On the 2nd rolling-start run we decided to start from 20kph as that seemed to leave the WRX still plenty of revs and should have already been on boost. I could watch the 1st gear difference a lot better here as from 20kph to ~60kph I was in 1st gear. This took only about 3 sec or so and during this time I pulled out good 1.5 car-lengths. So the advantage at these speeds was very noticably in the 350Zs favour. In 2nd gear the 350Z just pulled away more and by the top of 2nd (ie. ~100kph) I had good 3 car-lengths on him. By the time we shut down at 130kph I he was a fair way back ... it looked like 4 - 4.5 car-lengths to me. So pretty dignificant difference.

- run #3: 0 - 130kph, standing start:
We also tried a couple standing start runs. He tried a couple different launch techniques, but neither got the best out of the WRXs. In the 1st launch he dropped the clutch from ~4000rpm and that produced a quick chirp and then bogged down. Here I pulled away good 2 - 3 car-lengths by the end of 1st gear and just kept on pulling away strongly. By 130kph he was pretty far back ... I'd say good 6 or 7 car lengths.

On the 2nd run he eased the clutch out from around 4000rpm and that saw the WRX get a reasonabe launch. At least it didn't bog down. I still out-launched it and was about 1/2 a car-length ahead by the time my rear tyres hooked up (ie. ~30kph). After that I was pulling away at all times. It seemed pretty consistant and as the time/distance increased, so did the gap. I'd say I had him by good 4 car-lengths by 130kph.

I'm sure the WRX can out-launch a 350Z when you know what you're doing with the car. If it jumped ahead of me then I'd have to chase it down, but I don't think it would take long for the 350Z to catch it and pass it. I'd say that it would have to out-launch the 350Z by at least 2 car-lengths to make it reasonably close by the end of 400m. Not sure if it could do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
Considering the WRX is supposed to do 0-60 (MPH) in 4.9 secs (according to Subaru) and the 350Z is supposed to do it in 5.6 secs (I think), it would sound like your friend is not very good at launching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
I read that I the latest Speed mag also Murray.

DavidM - that's about what I expected from a standard WRX. My mate took delivery of his MY05 WRX just before Xmas, so I will run him soon to compare as we are both stock.

BTW, as we all know a couple of grand worth of mods on the WRX's makes them very quick - ie, their gear boxed will cruble with just 10 hard launches!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
Originally posted by mchapman@Jan 9 2005, 11:29 PM
I saw an article the other day which mentioned that WRX gearboxs can only handle around 15 launches before the internals turn to mush.

Which I believe after the seeing the number of gearboxes a mate of mine has gone through with only a mildly modified EJ20T.

if you mean a stock wrx, i'm not sure if thats true. I had an '02 WRX and it ran fine...until I tried to take out a large steel street light post.

Oh, and I didn't take it very easy on that car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
A stock WRX is slow...and i mean slow!

The STi is pretty much on par with the 350z once moving.

I've driven my brother's 2002 Sti enough to be grateful I have a 350z. The car is fast(ish)...nothing amazing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Originally posted by Lo Fi Ched@Jan 9 2005, 08:48 PM
Considering the WRX is supposed to do 0-60 (MPH) in 4.9 secs (according to Subaru) and the 350Z is supposed to do it in 5.6 secs (I think), it would sound like your friend is not very good at launching.

Plus the fact that David has an APS TT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Plus the fact that David has an APS TT

That's a different David ... I know there's just too many of us ;-) DavidC (aka Ztrack) has the TT, I just have the hi-tech exhauust and K&N filter.

0-60 (MPH) in 4.9 secs (according to Subaru)

WRXs are pretty quick ... in particular off the line, but not 4.9sec kind of quick. I don't know if there is a US mag that has managed better than 5.5sec to 60mph, but even if it did manage that, not many of them can repeat that time. The older shape WRX look definatelly quicker ... I'd say that the auto '99 WRX that I run a few times was at least this quick if not quicker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
Oops, my bad. I was looking at the STi when I saw that 4.9 sec figure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,304 Posts
Originally posted by mickyboy@Jan 10 2005, 03:46 PM
Shite, don't start a wrx is slow thread. We will end up like some of the US threads & get inundated with subie people here!

They may be fast, but it's still ugly in my opinion. There's nothing sexxy about it whatsoever. It's not a sportscar, so let's stop talking about it. :headshake:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Hey, I love the zed, and stock for stock a zed will beat a wrx.
But the STI is a different story. The average most Aust mags got for a zed was 6.3 sec 0-100 kph. The average for the STI was just on 6.0 & some sub six seconds.

Very much a drivers race, but the STI is quicker. Half a second 0-100 kph is much faster!
They are ugly but faster!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,304 Posts
Yes, it's about the drivers. For numbers that close, I'd rather go for looks. Besides, I could care less about how quick it is from 0 to 60 (100kph) or the 1/4 mile. I'd rather drive the twisties with a Z anyday and enjoy the hum of a 3.5L over the Subies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,304 Posts
I think it's asinine how long the name of that Subie is: Subaru WRX Impreza Sti or something like that. I was at a local club meet and stood behind one to see what the big deal was: Nothing except a bunch of badges. I guess they need all that for something...

I asked the owner about it, and he didn't have an answer. I think he just shrugged his shoulders. I wasn't being disrespectful, only curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Very much a drivers race, but the STI is quicker. Half a second 0-100 kph is much faster! They are ugly but faster!

Well that depends on what scenario we're talking about. If you're talking about agressive standing-start runs then yes, the STi is quicker. Though, if you're not willing to do a 7000rpm clutch-drop (or something like that) in the STi then the 350Z will be quicker.

On the other hand if you go from a roll then there's nothing between them. That is the newer shape WRXs, and not the older (ie. pre 2000 models). Then older models are quicker even from a roll.

I've had some runs with an '02 STi so you can see what the difference is:
http://350z-tech.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=79&t=3599
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
I believe all car manufacturers test cars from a dead start, only way to determine how fast a car is.
On paper, the sti & zed are almost identical in weight & power, but the sti launches better becuase of it's all wheel drive set-up.

Still gotta love the zed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I believe all car manufacturers test cars from a dead start, only way to determine how fast a car is.

I would not say that is "the only way" to test it. I'm sure everyone knows thay rolling starts are also a very coomon way to test how quick the car is. In US they also like doing a 5-60mph runs in some mags. Those times are more representative of how quick the car is off the line when you take off 'normally' (ie. without a clutch drop or heavy clutch riding).

So I'd say that standing start is 'one way' of testing how quick a car is, not the only way. I like standing start figures just as much as the next person, but it only tells you how quick the car when you (for example) drop the clutch from 7000rpm. So unless you're willing to do that of every lights, then it's very possible that there are a lot of cars on the road that are quicker despite them posting a slower 0-100kph (or 400m) time.

Personaly, what I see in the 0-100kph times is actrually how well a car can launch, not necesarily how quick it is. For example a WRX can post a quicker 0-60kph time than an e46 M3, but that does not make the WRX the quicker car ... not even close. I prefer to look at the 40 to XXXkph times as the only thing that you see from that increment is how quick the car accelerates.

On paper, the sti & zed are almost identical in weight & power, but the sti launches better becuase of it's all wheel drive set-up.

Yes, absolutely. Though, as I mentioned before, you don't see many people launch they cars (and STIs) as is required to achieve those published 0-XXXkph times. I've been in an STi doing 7000rpm clutch-drops and it did feel awesome, but even this guy does not do this too often.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top