CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 ^^^^ Why so hard to believe? There's a print out right there! They may be under-rating it quite obviously because they want the crown jewel STi to have the highest published numbers. Car makers do this all the time. Yup. This isn't the first 5th gen to put down those kind of #s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadal4Hand Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2011-legacy-gt-stage-1-calibration-efi-logics-161341.html EFI has maintained that there are huge gains to be made with a catback on both the 2010 and 2011, and that with a tune with just a catback, even more gains. Do you have a catback? Also: Someone does mention that there seems to be some wide variation in the 2010 even running bone stock though... as much as a 20-30WHP difference, so maybe that's all there is to it. Wish I had a 2010/2011 now. Stock everything. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckseleven Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 ^^^^ Why so hard to believe? There's a print out right there! They may be under-rating it quite obviously because they want the crown jewel STi to have the highest published numbers. Car makers do this all the time. Do you realize it would take a 310+ hp car to produce these numbers at the wheels? Do you really think Subaru is under-rating these cars by 45-50 horse? 5-10 hp is possible, but not 50. As TheOneDoubleN said, these cars do not drive like an STi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Do you realize it would take a 310+ hp car to produce these numbers at the wheels? Do you really think Subaru is under-rating these cars by 45-50 horse? 5-10 hp is possible, but not 50. As TheOneDoubleN said, these cars do not drive like an STi. So car and driver tested both the LGT and STi sedan in 2011....how do you explain the LGT being 1.9 seconds quicker to 130 mph? They have pretty standardized testing procedures, and they aren't gentle on cars--broke both half-shafts on the LGT. I'm not saying the STi is slower, but something isn't adding up here. Regardless of what the numbers are, its the gains over stock/OTS maps that are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckseleven Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So car and driver tested both the LGT and STi sedan in 2011....how do you explain the LGT being 1.9 seconds quicker to 130 mph? I'm not saying the STi is slower, but something isn't adding up here. My guess is different gearing. The 2011 WRX for example posts similar 0-60 times as the STi with 40 less hp. STi drivetrain is significantly different from the WRX and LGT (also the most parasitic with regard to power loss from flywheel to wheels). Regardless of what the numbers are, its the gains over stock/OTS maps that are important. Agreed. It just would be nice to confidently say "my car puts down XXX at the wheels". I admit it would be pretty cool if these numbers were actual wheel hp but it just seems very unlikely especially when some 5th gen dyno numbers are the more believable 210-220. It's not like every Nth LGT that Subaru pumps out of the factory they're like "hey, let's secretly bump this one up to 300hp!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 My guess is different gearing. The 2011 WRX for example posts similar 0-60 times as the STi with 40 less hp. STi drivetrain is significantly different from the WRX and LGT (also the most parasitic with regard to power loss from flywheel to wheels). That's easy, the STi doesn't hit 60 until 3rd gear, so its the extra shift. 0-130 should minimize any gearing differences. And 2 seconds is a big delta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckseleven Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 That's easy, the STi doesn't hit 60 until 3rd gear, so its the extra shift. 0-130 should minimize any gearing differences. You're right. But my point is that we aren't comparing apples to apples anymore when we start looking at the STi. I haven't compared the gear ratios between the two, but I do imagine there is big difference. Since the bodies and ride height are different too, I'd imagine drag could play a role in this as well, especially at those speeds. Does all this add up to a 1.9 second difference? I don't know. Just throwing ideas out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Agreed. My point was that just because the butt dyno says the STi is faster, doesn't mean it really is. This isn't the first LGT to put down those kind of numbers, and I don't think they can be totally discounted. Like I said, something doesn't add up. Is the GT under-rated? Probably. Is the STi overrated? Maybe. Would Subaru purposely de-tune the GT so as not to encroach on the STi? Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So car and driver tested both the LGT and STi sedan in 2011....how do you explain the LGT being 1.9 seconds quicker to 130 mph? They have pretty standardized testing procedures, and they aren't gentle on cars--broke both half-shafts on the LGT. I'm not saying the STi is slower, but something isn't adding up here. Regardless of what the numbers are, its the gains over stock/OTS maps that are important. Because they beat the crap out of the LGT in their tests, snapping half shafts over, and over, and they obviously screwed up their STI test if the 0-60 is listed as 5.3 when Subaru themselves claim it's 4.9. I think what isn't adding up is Car and Driver's numbers, not Subaru's . I don't trust any car magazine's data as gospel.... I take it your sources are here: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-subaru-legacy-25gt-limited-first-drive-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/subaru-impreza-wrx-review-2011-subaru-wrx-sti-sedan-test 0-60 in 5.3 for the STI claimed by C&D (slow) Same exact car, reviewed (not tested) by motor trend: http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows/new_york/2010/1003_2011_subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_sedan/viewall.html#13305355878191&188,shopper 0-60 in 4.8 My point is, magazine numbers are not necesarily accurate or indicative of how fast a car really is, and a lot are crappy reviews/tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So car magazines aren't indicative of how fast a car is. You don't have faith in a dyno. But the seat of your pants is more accurate? Edit: that 4.8 is motor trend's estimate, not Subaru's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Would Subaru purposely de-tune the GT so as not to encroach on the STi? Sure. Do you really think they'd waste money on making an engine more powerful, and then dial it back, and claim it's also less powerful than it really is (um....bad marketing department....)? Subaru is all about cost cutting, I don't buy this for a second as a possibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 You don't have faith in a dyno. But the seat of your pants is more accurate? I don't have faith in COBB'S DYNO RESULTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I have dyno tuned lots of bikes and cars, I definitely trust dyno's more than my ass cheeks; I trust ACCURATE dyno's. These are calibrated instruments people! They can be tuned to read 5,000hp if you want them to, it's just mathematical adjustments to the torque coming into the dyno. No dyno has a 0 correction factor either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Do you really think they'd waste money on making an engine more powerful, and then dial it back, and claim it's also less powerful than it really is (um....bad marketing department....)? Subaru is all about cost cutting, I don't buy this for a second as a possibility! If they wouldn't dial an engine back, then why do we have boost restrictions in 1st and 2nd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So the car is refined and smooth to drive, not so it can be raced like their STI is meant to be. By the way, the car and driver test also says their 1/4mi test of the STI was 0.2s slower than the WRX. Explain please..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Oh, C&D also claims the WRX is faster overall than the STI, as well as the LGT being faster than the STI from the test above. So according to C&D, the STI is slower than both the WRX and LGT. You can choose to believe that, I sure don't, based on both personal experience, and COMMON SENSE. Yes we'd all love to believe that our cars are faster than the STI, but they aren't, stock vs. stock. Believe what you will.....this is obviously going to become an unending squabble at this rate, so that's my $0.02 and nothing more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because the STi isn't the end all be all. Inside Line piloted a LGT to almost identical times as an STi as well. I just don't understand why people are so quick to discount those dyno #s? Are they on the high side? Sure. But others have put down similar power. And looking at published acceleration times the cars are right on top of each other, despite the STi power advantage. 0-130 should be all about the STi, and the gearing disadvantage down low should equalize out as speed goes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ok, point made. Now let's get back to the OP's freakishly powerful LGT . He should probably call Motor Trend, they'll write an article on his car . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I don't have faith in COBB'S DYNO RESULTS. With regard to this issue, I'll say one thing (and hopefully Travis is reading this). COBB TUNING: Either your claimed hp/tq increases on your AccessPort spec sheet (the pdf) for the 5th gen LGT is wrong, or your dyno is wrong. They both directly conflict each other, and they're both your "published and verified" results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL21376 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I don't thing standing start acceleration was ever supposed to be the STi's strong point. It can easily out handle a WRX or LGT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNVAR Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 This isn't quite the thread to ask this in but let me give it a shot: On sites, I see for the STI a different "final drive" ratio listed for the front and rear. Why is it different? Shouldn't it be the same? http://www.cars101.com/subaru/impreza/wrxsti2011.html front: 3.9 rear: 3.545 How does that even work out? The tires are the same size all around so....? Also, the articles and figures from C&D mentioned by someone: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-subaru-legacy-25gt-limited-first-drive-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/subaru-impreza-wrx-review-2011-subaru-wrx-sti-sedan-test Really makes me wonder WTF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 This isn't quite the thread to ask this in but let me give it a shot: On sites, I see for the STI a different "final drive" ratio listed for the front and rear. Why is it different? Shouldn't it be the same? http://www.cars101.com/subaru/impreza/wrxsti2011.html front: 3.9 rear: 3.545 How does that even work out? The tires are the same size all around so....? Also, the articles and figures from C&D mentioned by someone: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-subaru-legacy-25gt-limited-first-drive-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/subaru-impreza-wrx-review-2011-subaru-wrx-sti-sedan-test Really makes me wonder WTF... I'm guessing, and this is purely a guess, that it's because of the default power split which is something like 41% front, 59% rear. http://www.ehow.com/list_7362108_subaru-wrx-sti-specifications-horsepower.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBB Tuning Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 COBB TUNING: Either your claimed hp/tq increases on your AccessPort spec sheet (the pdf) for the 5th gen LGT is wrong, or your dyno is wrong. They both directly conflict each other, and they're both your "published and verified" results. Both our website and the map notes for our Stage 1 93 octane mapping claim a 14%HP / 30%TQ as measured on our dyno at the Surgeline location. It's very important to note that even the same brand dyno will read differently in different locations, therefore peak power numbers at our SoCal location can not be compared with our Surgeline location. But, the percentage gains will roughly hold true. The 93 octane maps will also make more power than the 91ACN maps as California typically gets a lower quality 91 octane fuel. The OP's peak power gains are probably related to this, but the torque improvement is pretty awesome! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneDoubleN Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 So would you say the OP's numbers at the crank or wheels Ian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBB Tuning Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The OP's numbers are measured at the wheels on COBB SoCal's dyno. None of our dynos use a correction factor intended to simulate crank horsepower readings. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.