rs vs si/sir

[MixeD_MenacE]

now most of us have done it before..thats right..participate in the isr! (illegal street races) hehe well anywho i happened to participate (heheh) one day and decided to like up with a civic sir (si in the states) to my amazement i actually beat the damn thing all the way down the road. aren't those things supposed to be faster than an rs..with 300 lbs less weight but with the same horsepower? ..this guy had an intake on it too! (off the record we both g-teched our cars and i ran a 15.9 +/- .3 and he ran 16.3 +/- .3)

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[MikeYOX]

Good kill. That guy sounds like an idiot. He should be slightly faster than you, but apparently he wasn't.

[Swivel1000]

They have around 160hp 110lb/ft of torque..

so you should have gotten him

matt

nice kill tho

[Snoopy]

I drove one of those Si's last week and they "feel" faster than my Impreza. So we(my acquaintance - not really a friend) raced the quarter mile(from our guestimate) and yet I won! We even switched cars and he won in my Impreza as well - BUT by more than the margin when I beat him in MY own car(for shame!).

Yet, I can't help but say the Si "felt" faster. Must be the soft suspension in the Impreza. Both our cars are stock, btw.

Anyway, I think drag racing boring, IMO. The only skill is timing your shifts. The rest depends too much on mods and not so much in driver's skill. Gimme autocrossing baby! That's where it's at!

[Civic]

thats because the AWD is moron proof and it take more effort to get a FWD car to start well. I have claimed a coulple Impreza's with my civic. 1990 with ZC motor and ZC trans with a Si final drive. Its just all in the way you drive.

[Syms]

I am sure the Si/SIR is probably just a tad faster....if the drivers were of equal skill...the Si/SiR would prob win by very little...
my 2 cents

[EuGeNiLe GTS]

good kill.. sounds about right though
si 0-60 is 7.9 and impreza at 7.7 according to SCC.. and u got AWD.. major plus in the launch.. but nowadays u hardly see any STOCK si's .. at the illegals.. im amazed that guy just had intake.. heh

EuGeNiLe
2000 Toyota Celica GTS 6 Speed Absolutely Red
*?¿Got VVTL-i?¿*

[cakagan]

Tell me how the SI can be faster that the RS? Si's 1.6L makes 160hp@7600rpms/111lb-ft@7000rpms, and weighs 2612. The RS' 2.5L makes 165hp@5600/166lb-ft@4000 and weighs 2795lbs.

Even though our car weighs 183lbs more than the Si, our numbers are better. So why do Si's think they can smoke us? I'm talking bone stock here, people. What gives? The Si would have to be driven near redline in order to access the torque and hp that would push the car. I can let out my clutch pretty low in the rev range (3500rpms) and have gobs of torque and hp till redline. Anyone care to help me understand this please?

-Kagan

[Gambit]

Not sure where you get the weight info from... but an RS weights well into the 2800lbs.
Be aware than an AWD car such as an Impreza has alot of drivetrain loss. Also gearing comes to mind. The civic can pull longer while your RS will run out of steam after 5000. These are the simple things to consider. I'm sure there's others. But they are close tho.

[boxerman]

I have yet to see real data posted about AWD drivetrain losses. I have seen an Audi study that states the opposite. I am curious as to why everyone assumes an AWD drivetrain has substantially greater loss than FWD.

Shivs dyno #s at UPRD don't indicate huge drivetrain losses but rather the quirks of using a Clayton dyno. Please point me to the numbers.

Tim

[cakagan]

Gambit- I got the weight info from a Yahoo site on new cars. Had specs for every new car in the American market. Also, my car pulls strong to redline (6500 in my '98 RS), unlike others who have reported they experience a power drop-off between 5-6.5K. Guess I'm lucky in that respect.

-K

[Pinochle]

I was under the impression that the SiR is called an EX in the US. And the US Si is an even higher tuned model.

[JGard]

AWD drivetrain will lose more hp than any 2WD car, no questions asked. Think about it, there are 4 axles and 2 driveshafts, along with 3 diffs. Every one of those things will torque a bit, and lose some of that power that is going to them.

[Faraz]

Pinochle ...sorry my man you are wrong
the SiR is the canadian version of the Si

[Chuck]

I completely ate up a 2000 Si in my '98RS. I was behind him, saw that he was trying to take off and I just went around him. My car had a butt-load more torque and was altogether faster. He had an intake and exhaust, I have an intake, exhaust w/ headers. When we came to our destination, I said "What happened... I thought those things were supposed to be fast." He simply said "...Girlfriend's in the car..." at which point she said "Ha! I was telling you that his car was beating your brand new one."

Hee hee! Too bad for him. I hurt his pride... isn't that how it's supposed to be?

[boxerman]

I realize that, but I would like to see it quantified. If a typical FWD drivetrain loss is 12-15% are we talking an additional 10% or 2%. These #s are material. Also the Audi Study claims that the net losses of 4 wheels driven is less than that of 2 wheels driven and two wheels pushed (or pulled). This would not show on a dyno but would definately be evident in the real world.

The 2.5L boxer has nearly 50% more torque (at rated peak)than the 1.6L Si motor. ((166-111)/111) The additional drivetrain losses would have to be huge to negate the torque advantage.

I would also think that there is a differrence in drivetrain losses between a longitudily mounted (front to rear, normal RWD cars and Subaru AWD) and a latitudily mounted drivetrain (sideways motor typical FWD) with the advantage (less losses) going to the longitudal (front to rear) mounting. This is not an apples to apples comparison.

Not to mention that every drivetrain has its own loss characteristics. It is not a constant, you can't say that FWD will give you X losses, while RWD will give you Y losses, and AWD will give you Z losses.

I am speculating here but I don't think that AWD is as big a disadvantage as some would have us believe.

Tim

[Swivel1000]

btw we dont run out of steam at 5000rpms..
thats not even to peak HP yet.

matt

[Gambit]

But torque drops off after 5000 in a purtty fast way.

[Swivel1000]

Ok since we are talking about torque here...

Our prime torque range is what...3500-4500rpms or so...well when we hit peak torque at 4000rpms we are about about 165-170lb/ft torque depending upon what little mods are done here and there..
Even when we get out of the prime torque range we are in the area of 120-140lb/ft of torque..

The si's PEAK torque is 110lb/ft...so we are still ahead of it.

matt

[This message has been edited by Swivel1000 (edited September 26, 2000).]

[SubyRacer]

from the dyno reports that i have seem the awd system is they impreza's lose a lot of power- net out put to the wheels ranging from 95hp to 110hp. where as the dyno reports on the si's that i hav seen peak around 140hp to the wheels.

and yes that is with all stock motors.

that inticates to me bad hp lose in the impreza's drivetrain.

[Swivel1000]

Umm you are comparing a 4wd dyno to a 2wd i presume...and at that probably not a static dyno..you are confused on what you have read.

matt

[boxerman]

That 95-110BHP result was on the Clayton Dyno at UPRD conducted by Shiv in SCC. A clayton dyno is steady state which means a certain RPM is held against resistance and HP is calculated for a specific RPM. This data is meaningless in comparison with the results on a Dynojet or a similar dyno.

I think Trey was getting 125BHP @ the wheels on a Dynojet?. Unfortunately he has set the car up as RWD so his #s don't help us.

Until I see an apples to apples comparison or Subaru internal numbers on drivetrain losses, I am not convinced that driveline losses are significantly greater than an Si's.

I suppose a g-tech of both cars would be a good comparison if testing parameters were established because a g-tech doesn't care if you're FWD, RWD, AWD or a tiger tank running on steel tracks.

Any volunteers?

Tim

[yebokmj]

Some one told me yesterday that Honda is not going to make the Si for 2001 is this true?
Joshua
MY98 RS
Subaru Salesman

[SubyRacer]

yea its true but its comin back for 2002

swivel, some of those results came right off this board and i wasnt miss reading, but i do know what boxerman is talkin about, i think scc dynoed the stock RS at in the high 90's but it wasnt at peak rpm - same kind of stuff.
so who knows, but boxerman seems pretty sure of himself

[markus]

What a lot of people fail to realise with the AWD vs FWD dyno results is this. An AWD car powers all the wheels, right? (DUH!), while a FWD car powers two wheels only, right(DUH)? But a FWD car still has two more wheels on the road that are a parasitic loss on the front two wheels. Two wheel dynos only show you the power coming through the driven wheels and not the car as a whole when it's on the road.

Therefore, if you want the complete picture of what a FWD car is putting on the road, you would have to take the dyno info at any given speed and subtract it from the parasitic loss you get from the non-driven wheels at the same speed. This is a non-issue with AWD cars since all the wheels get power.

Make sense?