rottenspam Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 BTW double post I know :-) Another point to show that motortrends numbers are not directly comparable to C&D... C&D pulled 6.1 seconds in the saab 9-2x which is a wagon, 5spd REX with 164 more lbs then 2002 WRX sedan. Anyway they pulled a 0-60 of 6.1 seconds with the 9-2x. The same numbers motor trend managed with a 05 WRX sedan.... Hmm, and motor trend also got 5.6 seconds for a mustang GT, vs C&D's 5.2 seconds. I wouldn't say comparing Motortrends numbers against C&D a good choice.... But C&D's 5.8 second WRX time, and 5.7LGT times say close! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Listen, if you read my previous post you will see I claimed that the post-02 WRXs were 0-60 in 6 or close to and the 02s were 5.8 to 60. I was referring to the WRX that you will get in the dealership today, it is SLOWER than the LGT thats why i didnt buy it..... And I believe if you convert those dyno numbers, (there are other dynos around as well) youll see that the engine in the LGT produces power similar to what I mentioned 265/285 and is underrated by subaru... Sure the 02s were closer to the LGT, but the LGT still gets better numbers as you have quoted yourself. My main argument was for the LGT 05 vs the WRX 05. Which you will see is .5 sec slower to 60 and in the 1/4. I dont have to provide you "EVIDENCE" its in the magazines, I dont have time to go through all of them and find page numbers for you. do your own research, I have...You'll find beanboys numbers in there. Which I believe showed for C&D, a 5.9 for the WRX and a 5.6-7 (?) for the LGT. Thus which one is faster? And dont try and tell me I dont know the structure of an argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agctr Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Deimos, that could be very true. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Listen, if you read my previous post you will see I claimed that the post-02 WRXs were 0-60 in 6 or close to and the 02s were 5.8 to 60. I was referring to the WRX that you will get in the dealership today, it is SLOWER than the LGT thats why i didnt buy it..... And I believe if you convert those dyno numbers, (there are other dynos around as well) youll see that the engine in the LGT produces power similar to what I mentioned 265/285 and is underrated by subaru... Sure the 02s were closer to the LGT, but the LGT still gets better numbers as you have quoted yourself. My main argument was for the LGT 05 vs the WRX 05. Which you will see is .5 sec slower to 60 and in the 1/4. I dont have to provide you "EVIDENCE" its in the magazines, I dont have time to go through all of them and find page numbers for you. do your own research, I have...You'll find beanboys numbers in there. Which I believe showed a 5.9 for the WRX and a 5.6-7 (?) for the LGT. Thus which one is faster? And dont try and tell me I dont know the structure of an argument... Even if C&D said 5.9 for an 05 which it hasn't reviewd for a WRX (5.4-5.8 was their published range), and it measured 5.7 seconds for an LGT thats still only .2 second difference within the .3 second difference range for a significant difference. So thats why you claim 265/285 for the LGT and didn't support it becasue you know the structure of an argument? Believe? Just becasue you believe if you convert the numbers dosen't make it fact! Belief is only an opinion its not a fact. Show me convert the numbers prove it! I already agreed they have different WHP so what? That dosen't prove they have different performance. But that dosen't prove your crank claims. Right I know what your saying that an '02 will get a 0-60 time of ~5.8 seconds, and an 05 is ~6.0 seconds. One problem, you didn't quote from the same source two reviews that show this. You don't show a motortrend review from 02 and 05, nor any other publication. Second, I've shown in at least two instances that different publications are not directly comparable. The Mustang, and Saab 9-2 reviews as my examples. So you haven't demonstrated a link between the 02's and 05's performing differently, you arent comparing the same sources. 3rd your still claiming that Motortrends or automobilies 05 WRX review is comparable to R&T's or C&D's LGT review. However neither Automobile nor motor trend have reviewed the LGT and posted numbers. I've already demonstrated that comparing the publications performance specs isn't possible, they get different numbers. Its like comparing WHP from a dynojet vs a mustang dyno. They aren't directly comparable. What are you quoting a 5.9 second and 5.6 second from? Once again no evidence. I showed C&D sayz WRX 0-60 of 5.4 October 2001, 5.8 April 2001, and a 9-2X 6.1 seconds July 2004, which would say an 05 9-2x of 6.1 seconds probably translates to a 5.9-5.8 seconds on the sedan of an 05 if C&D would do a review of an 05 which they haven't that I've seen. VS 5.7 seconds for the LGT still within that .3 second 0-60 margin. but I could say that a LGT is probably faster than a 9-2x according to C&D! But I couldn''t say C&D's published numbers of 5.8 for WRX and 5.7 LGT show that they are much different in performance or one was faster then the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 2002 WRX 5MT sedan in Car and Driver long-term test. Got 5.9 new, and 5.9 at 40K miles. Makes me think the early cars they tested were ringers, and they mention how this one was the slowest: Zero to 60 mph 5.9 sec 5.9 sec Zero to 100 mph 17.5 sec 17.3 sec Street start, 5-60 mph 7.4 sec 7.5 sec Standing 1/4-mile 14.6 sec @ 93 mph 14.5 sec @ 93 mph Link to source: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2588&page_number=3 These magazine comparisions bore me. Not enough LGT tests yet. But, it looks like the LGT may be consistently faster (a few tenths and a few mph in the 1/4) in the mags, especially compared to later WRX and/or non-ringer models. I also feel the LGT is more forgivng to less skilled drivers, giving them a slight edge in street situations along with being slightly faster. Perhaps a mag will do a turbo Soobie comparision someday, giving numbers for the WRX, STI, FXT, and LGT tested all on the same day and same track. End this debate once and for all, hehe. -B -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 2002 WRX 5MT sedan in Car and Driver long-term test. Got 5.9 new, and 5.9 at 40K miles. Makes me think the early cars they tested were ringers, and they mention how this one was the slowest: Zero to 60 mph 5.9 sec 5.9 sec Zero to 100 mph 17.5 sec 17.3 sec Street start, 5-60 mph 7.4 sec 7.5 sec Standing 1/4-mile 14.6 sec @ 93 mph 14.5 sec @ 93 mph Link to source: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2588&page_number=3 These magazine comparisions bore me. Not enough LGT tests yet. But, it looks like the LGT may be consistently faster (a few tenths and a few mph in the 1/4) in the mags, especially compared to later WRX and/or non-ringer models. I also feel the LGT is more forgivng to less skilled drivers, giving them a slight edge in street situations along with being slightly faster. Perhaps a mag will do a turbo Soobie comparision someday, giving numbers for the WRX, STI, FXT, and LGT tested all on the same day and same track. End this debate once and for all, hehe. -BBased on that review I'd agree the LGT is a few tenths faster give or take. 5.7 vs 5.8 or 5.9 close. Could well be the first several REX's were ringers, seems most of the reviews I read put the WRX at about 5.7-5.9 second range expect for that one C&D at 5.4. BTW I don't doubt too that the 05's WRX's are a bit slower if they have sun roofs which add weight, and the other minor upgrades added some pounds. Just wanted to have evidence to suport it not opinion. Hopefully the first few LGT's aren't ringers like the REX's........ Yeah I agree that the LGT is easier to drive fast especially with is superior low rpm torque. Which to many drivers feels faster. You have to really drive a rex to get it to fly, I had mine for 3 years and got pretty good at it. The biggest diff in feel is the LGT feels superior when you punch it in 5th at 65... The Rex isn't in its element in 5th till about 80-85. Really need to downshift a gear in the REX to move out, ran it alot in 4th on the freeways. I liked the handling of my rex better then the LGT, but overall the LGT is a better car. The 2.5 is a better engine too and well matched to the car. Hopefully the mazdaspeed 6, and the new G35 with 298hp won't be smoking my baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 The trap speeds in the 1/4 are the most telling. Consistent 3 mph faster for the LGT over the WRX. If the WRX wagon had the 2.5L turbo, I would have probably bought it. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderkind Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 do i smell a family feud in the subaru family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Island Legacy Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 bump old thread up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 no thanks, please don't bump old threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.