rgsuby Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Didn't subaru revise the clutch to where you could not launch it? Starting in 03? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yeah I heard there were some clutch changes...so 02 WRXs were pulling high 5 sec to 60, like 5.8, and the 03-05's are more like 6.0...On the above post I was referring to the LGT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgsuby Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yeah I heard there were some clutch changes...so 02 WRXs were pulling high 5 sec to 60, like 5.8, and the 03-05's are more like 6.0...On the above post I was referring to the LGT I assumed it also applied to the LGT. Obviously i haven't tried launching my car yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I assumed it also applied to the LGT. Obviously i haven't tried launching my car yet. Oh no she'll launch (clutch might stink a bit but its worth it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Oh no she'll launch (clutch might stink a bit but its worth it) Edit: Hey you copied my avatar ya bastard , I think I misplaced the scoop but ahh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgsuby Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Haha nice avatar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I've owned both a WRX, and now currently a LGT. I had an 02 WRX did the GTP thing and got an 05 LGT. AS to which one is faster, neither one is really faster. If you look at the published 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times they are equal, actually within the margin of error. But they feel very different. The 2.0L WRX dosen't make real power till you hit 3500rpm's or so. The LGT has a lot more bottom end. Having that extra bottom end can make the LGT seem more powerful but in terms of all out acceleration they are equal, but need to be driven differently to acheive maximum accleration. Revs are the WRX's friend. I will point out the better areodynamics of the LGT make a difference in the 120mph+ range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I dunno man...I drove the WRX too, didnt feel as fast, and the published numbers are consistently different (manual at least), LGT 0-60 5.6-5.8, 1/4 13.9-14.2, The WRX (at least the 03-05s) 0-60 in 6, quarted in 14.5...So yes close, but I wouldnt say within the margin of error as long as your talking equal drivers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I think the reason your WRX felt like it was faster is that the suspension and short wheelbase tend to feel harsher- while this car just cushions you as you put the pedal down. +1 I had a CRX with a modded suspension and it sure felt like you were hauling ass until you looked at the speedo. The LGT is sneaky fast. It's speed sneaks up on you with little drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 butt dyno always accuarate! Really the are equally as fast neither one from 0-120ish is really faster then the other. It would all be driver and luck of the draw as which one is faster. I've owned both, but I will say the WRX is harder to drive fast, you have to keep the revs up, it just dosen't have the bottem end, it may feel slower but its not. A mustang may feel faster but it isn't. C&D says the WRX will do 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and the quater mile in 14.1 seconds at 96mph, and this was a strong example. http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=3615&page_number=3, road and track said 5.8 seconds.... LGT from road and track 0-60 in 5.6, and I think car and driver said 5.7 for an LGT to me its the same 5.4 vs 5.6 and 5.7 vs 5.8 its the same, its all driver and weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yeah I was referring to the 03-05 model WRXs which seem to be closer to 6 secs to 60 in a number of reviews, but yeah driver/conditions dependant im sure its anyones race.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Harada Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Where I really feel the difference is top end acceleration. Going from 45 to 75 in 5th is very quick in the Legacy. I always had to downshift to 4th in my WRX to fight the lag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REX2LGT Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Where I really feel the difference is top end acceleration. Going from 45 to 75 in 5th is very quick in the Legacy. I always had to downshift to 4th in my WRX to fight the lag. That was the very first thing I noticed in the LGT... not having to downshift to 4th to get around someone on the highway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Or bogging or stalling it in 1st if you didn't rev to 3K to get going from a stop light. I started in 2nd by accident yesterday and it pulled away cleanly (but slow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 That was the very first thing I noticed in the LGT... not having to downshift to 4th to get around someone on the highway.... I dunno if Im missing something, granted I havent gotten a chance to drive mt LGT on the highway much, but the other day I tried the 45 to 70 in 5th thing and man it wasnt quick at all...If you can go to just under 60 in 2nd, I dunno why youd be looking for good acceleration in 5th at 45 (unless you really wanna save gas...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Harada Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I dunno if Im missing something, granted I havent gotten a chance to drive mt LGT on the highway much, but the other day I tried the 45 to 70 in 5th thing and man it wasnt quick at all...If you can go to just under 60 in 2nd, I dunno why youd be looking for good acceleration in 5th at 45 (unless you really wanna save gas...)I should have qualified my initial comment. If you're at a steady cruise at 45 in 5th you're probably doing about 1800 RPM. In that case it will lag a bit until you get to about 2000RPM. My comment was based more on getting onto the freeway from the on-ramp. If you're moderately accelerating on the ramp and shift to 5th while doing about 45, see an opening then floor it, you can get to freeway speed pretty darn quick. When I had my WRX I pretty much needed to stay in 4th until I was fully up to speed. Obviously, I'm talking about doing this on the long on-ramps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agctr Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 There may only be 23HP but a bit of a weight difference, Power to Weight, the REX still has the wood on us. STOCK TO STOCK that is. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 There may only be 23HP but a bit of a weight difference, Power to Weight, the REX still has the wood on us. STOCK TO STOCK that is. Adam. You guys might get a different WRX in Oz, the one we get here is 227 hp (?), 217 ft lbs of torque and weighs only a bit less (100-200 lbs?) from LGT which has actual hp of 265 and 285 torque so I think the power to weight favors the LGT. Now when we get the 250 hp WRX thatll be the shiznit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 You guys might get a different WRX in Oz, the one we get here is 227 hp (?), 217 ft lbs of torque and weighs only a bit less (100-200 lbs?) from LGT which has actual hp of 265 and 285 torque so I think the power to weight favors the LGT. Now when we get the 250 hp WRX thatll be the shiznit Okay Demios in your OZ I suppose they do have different performance, but in the world of the rest of us, the stock rex, and stock LGT are performance equals execpt maybe over 120mph or so. Bottom line the measured numbers are the same. Provide some evidence to support your case! C&D in October 2001 issue measured a WRX 0-60 in 5.4 seconds and 14.1 quarter mile I showed the link before. Road and Track October 2004 issue page 123 sayz LGT 0-60 5.6 seconds 14.3 @ 96.2 quarter mile. Simply the facts man, they are equal. Incase your wondering the LGT in that issue weighed in at 3415. Real world measured weight. It would be a toss up in a drag race, as to who was the better driver and who would win. BTW Oct 2001 issue of C&D page 86 says 0-100 on REX 15.5 seconds OCT 2004 issue R&T says 15.5 for the LGT too. REX weighs in at 3092lbs measured. There is about a 300lb difference between the two. And measured at the wheels depending on who you talk to there is about a 30Whp difference. about 168ish for the rex and a 198 for the LGT. Power to weight ratios 13.6lbs/HP for the REX 13.6bs/HP for the LGT. Seems the REX has an equal power to weight ratio. The LGT has a different power curve and gearing then the rex, and while it may seem like the LGT should be faster it isn't. According to published sources they turn out to be equals. find me an articale that shows a REX slower then a LGT by .5 seconds to 60 and I'll belive you. Understand? Just cause you believe something dosen't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 All of the newer WRXs tested seem to be close to or above 6 second range to sixty... Road and Track: WRX Acceleration, 0–60 mph 6.2 sec 1/4 mile 14.8 sec @ 91.6 mph Car and Driver WRX Zero to 60 mph 5.9 sec Standing 1/4-mile 14.6 sec @ 93 mph Automobile: WRX 0-60 6.0 seconds -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Rottenspam, Wow your a bit testy huh? Think I pulled the numbers out of my ass? Motor Trend Magazine Jan/04 (look at the road tests results section of any MT), 2004 Subaru Impreza 5M 6.1 0-60, 1/4 14.5 @ 93 Automobile Magazine "Mustang Vs. WRX" article, 0-60 6 secs http://automobilemag.com/reviews/coupes/0501_mustang_v_wrx/index2.html Theres two...seems the 04s are a bit slower, kinda like .5 second slower than the LGT Edit: Thanks for that Beanboy...Gee seems like ALL of the magazines agree, crazy huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 All of the newer WRXs tested seem to be close to or above 6 second range to sixty... Road and Track: WRX Acceleration, 0–60 mph 6.2 sec 1/4 mile 14.8 sec @ 91.6 mph Car and Driver WRX Zero to 60 mph 5.9 sec Standing 1/4-mile 14.6 sec @ 93 mph Automobile: WRX 0-60 6.0 seconds Sorry you don't quote issues/pages and doing on online search dosen't confirm your results. I have a subscription to both and haven't seen those numbers published. May 2001 was the review I see in R&T p 83 0-60 in 5.7 quater 14.4 seconds. C&D's worst was 5.8 seconds April 2001 P.57, and they reviewed the LGT at 5.7 seconds. Both for the WRX Quote your source and I'll believe it ;-) Month/year and page number. Trust me I have em all I'll look it up in the library aka the bathroom demios I didn't say you made your numbers up I just prove it, and you didn't support you claim of 265hp and 285lb-ft I assume at the crank. but it was good that you provided evidence to support that at least one magazine got a 6.0 second 0-60 time on a WRX. However both Automobile and Motortrend are known for slower 0-60 times and they are different sources then C&D and R&T additionaly though they do not review a LGT so its not possible to directly compare them. But a 0-60 time of 5.7 according to R&T for a LGT and a 0-60 time of 6.0 seconds from automoble on a WRX still prove the fact they there is hardly any performance difference between the two. I'll bet the LGT times will be slower at MT and Automobile too along with the WRX. Historically C&D ussally has the lowest 0-60 times and R&T nearly the same as C&D edmunds, motor trend, etc typically are a little less agressive. Case in point C&D got 0-60 of 5.2 seconds for the 05 mustang GT in the same artical you quote demios in Automobile they got a 5.6 second 0-60...... Bottom Line C&D worst 0-60 for WRX 5.8 seconds LGT was 5.7 for their only review R&T worst 0-60 for WRX 5.7 seonds and LGT was 5.6 See a trend here no real differencer "Acceleration numbers are obtained by drop clutch starts and lift throttle shifts. Significant difference: 0-60 .3 seconds and 1/4 mile .5 seconds" from R&T Road test summary page..... Given that there is variation between cars, and testers its best to quote from the same magazine. But bottom line if you look ad C&D and R&T the measured performace differences are not significant and within the margin of error. Meaning they are equals, and this matches my expereince from owning both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Find me an articale that shows a REX slower then a LGT by .5 seconds to 60 and I'll belive you. Understand? Both beanboy and I did, eat it... I have subscriptions to all of those magazines and I have seen those articles thats *why* i claimed the *newer* WRXs are 6 sec to 60, because they are according to all standard and verifiable tests. You wanted magazine quotes you got them, "their not verifiable online" what online is verifiable?? Much more BS online then in print. "you provided evidence to support that at least one magazine got a 6.0 second 0-60 time on a WRX", no I provided two... The first C&D test were the WRX got 5.3 to 60 was bullshiite, just like the 04 Forester XT test this year... never replicated again, a later MT longterm test (verifiable online!) of the 02 WRX gave it 5.8 to 60. The 04 & 05s are slower to 60 and in the quarter than the LGT by about .5 of a second. The fact the the WRXs are consistently slower in all standardized test performed by professionals by .2-.5 sec than the LGT means that they are close, but not "equals", the LGT is indeed faster.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 and you didn't support you claim of 265hp and 285lb-ft Yes at the crank, look at the dynos, do a search, LGT is underrated at 250/250 so that WRX owners wouldnt get pissed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Both beanboy and I did eat it... I have subscriptions to all of those magazines and I have seen those articles thats *why* i claimed the *newer* WRXs are 6 sec to 60, because they are according to all standard and verifiable tests. You wanted magazine quotes you got them, "their not verifiable online" what online is verifiable?? Much more BS online then in print. "you provided evidence to support that at least one magazine got a 6.0 second 0-60 time on a WRX", no I provided two... The first C&D test were the WRX got 5.3 to 60 was bullshiite, just like the 04 Forester XT test this year... never replicated again, a later MT longterm test (verifiable online!) of the 02 WRX gave it 5.8 to 60. The 04 & 05s are slower to 60 and in the quarter than the LGT by about .5 of a second. The fact the the WRXs are consistently slower in all standardized test performed by professionals by .2-.5 sec than the LGT means that they are close, but not "equals", the LGT is indeed faster.... Demios C&D said 5.4 BTW, and second I quoted again C&D's other WRX number 5.8. VS 5.7 seconds for the LGT, neither motortrend nor Automobile provide LGT numbers to compare against the WRX. You say they are slower but still provide no evidence to prove it. Show me a mag that did an 02 review and an 05 review and quote the numbers to prove the 05 and 02 are different. Provide EVIDENCE. I've shown several times when looking at the same source LGT and WRX are close. Even motortrend and automobile are close enough with their WRX numbers compared to R&T and C&D LGT numbers the are almost insignificant. Look at the biggest gaps 0-60 of the WRX of 6.1 from motor trned, and 5.6 seconds for the LGT in C&D you get .5 seconds so the legacy is marginallly faster. But then again look at C&D's best of 5.4 and the LGT at 5.7 .3 seconds? But I already showed that Automobile provides slower numbers then C&D with the mustang GT. So to say you can directly compare Automobiles REX numbers with C&D LGT number is a little stretch. C&D says 5.7 seconds LGT, and Auto sayz 6.0 seconds for WRX, .3 second difference, within in the margin of error. -------------- 2nd you don't support your premise that the LGT has 265hp/285lb-ft btw this is not really provable one way or the other........ Lets look at cobbtuning.... LGT dyno http://cobbtuning.com/legacy/images/ap-lgt-stage1.gif 196.3hp and 219.0lbft 250hp/250lb-ft claimed at the crank WRX http://cobbtuning.com/wrx/images/ae-stage1-dyno.jpg 169.9hp and 174.3lb-ft 227hp/217lb-ft claimed at the crank LGT vs WRX 26.4WHP 44.7WLB/FT LGT VS WRX 23hp and 33lbft at the crank numbers.... Now as there is variation from car to car there is some variation, one could be a strong or weak example. However based on those numbers from Cobb when could reasonably say the following statements, supported by the evidence.... The LGT has a more powerful engine. The LGT may have under rated crank numbers, or the WRX may have over rated crank numbers. Or the LGT has a more efficent drive train, and the WRX has a less efficent drive trane. But neither one would say that the LGT really makes 265/285 at the crank. Its not possible to prove that statement. Its only possible to say that the LGT lays more power to the ground. Which is what really matters anyway? But does this translate to a performance advantage? From the numbers I've provided from the same source, the answer to that is not a significant difference in performance, according to C&D and R&T. However if you compare different sources say C&D and Motor trend then that .5 second gap is significanly different between those cars. I will retell this observation, I did race an 05 WRX against my new LGT, and it was a dead even heat till about 60mph and the my LGT slightly pulled on the WRX. But that is one comparision, still dosen't prove the LGT and WRX's are that different in performance. Another WRX might have wasted me..... Heck if I was fatter and he was thinner it might have change the race, or my gas was better then his. ------- arguments 1. Premise - make a statment that can be proven true/false 2. Inference - provide evidence to support your claim 3. concluison - show a logical argument that connects your assumptions to prove your claim. BTW I like these kinds of debates it the kind of thing us car geeks and e-experts thrive on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.