WRX 0-60 Myth...

[CSteckel]

All,
I was just browsing through the last issue of Road & Track and I came across a WRX ad. The marketing scheme read something like this: "Try the new Subaru WRX and you'll love ... blah blah blah... just give us 5.8 seconds and we'll show you!" HUH...(double, heck triple take) I read it again and it said that the car was tested and has a 5.8 second 0-60 time (as stated by Car and Driver). Did I miss something? Did they change something? Where did the 6.4s 0-60 go (I believe that was the time Road and Track tested the car at while the stock GT-S came in at 6.8).
Can anybody comment / shed some light on this?

[ringthree]

A stock WRX can make a 5.8 0-60 time.

The beauty of All Wheel Driver.

[Razz]

Um, when I test drove t rex, they gave me a flyer that advertised the 0-60 at 5.1 sec. No joke. Still got it.

[nyoneway]

Clutch dump at redline on the WRX will give you very very low 0-60 time. But this is NOT something that you want to do because something WILL break FAST.

Unless you are willing to sacrifice your car to get low 0-60, flooring it from 2000rpm will get your mid high 6sec 0-60.

So the question isn't whether its possible... but is it probable that you do this at every drag race?

[CSteckel]

I'm just curious how 2 different magazines could come up with 2 completely different 0-60 times. Face it, .6 seconds different is a HUGE difference. I understand different drivers, conditions, etc., but .6 sec from (2) professionals. Maybe a Pro vs. a newbie...

[nyoneway]

The answer is the launch method. A 7000rpm clutch dump vs a 4000 rpm clutch slip. 7000rpm gives you better time but you risk something breaking and the magazines don't own the car, so sometimes they have to take it easy.

[jotan82]

i can attest to it...

the WRX can JUMP off the line with a 5k clutch dump... i've done it... it's really amazing... i love AWD

[2000 XYR]

What kind of 60 foot times do they get?

[igotan02=/]

5k dump? wont it just bogg? my friend has tried the clutch dump at 6k and it bogged..

[LEDmod]

Originally posted by igotan02=/
5k dump? wont it just bogg? my friend has tried the clutch dump at 6k and it bogged..

Probably slip/dump....

[ringthree]

Originally posted by nyoneway
Clutch dump at redline on the WRX will give you very very low 0-60 time. But this is NOT something that you want to do because something WILL break FAST.

Unless you are willing to sacrifice your car to get low 0-60, flooring it from 2000rpm will get your mid high 6sec 0-60.

So the question isn't whether its possible... but is it probable that you do this at every drag race?

Even flooring it from 2000 rpm will get you a low 6sec 0-60.

[Kry]

it's fast.. admit it....

[z6joker9]

first, never believe magazine times, and second, 0-60(unless you're talking about feet) doesn't matter for ****

[inline4]

average 60 foot times for WRX's are 1.8-2.0

[CSteckel]

Man,
Cut a guy a break. I was trying to figure out why the 2 diff. mags were that different in times. I think I got it now.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by CSteckel
All,
I was just browsing through the last issue of Road & Track and I came across a WRX ad. The marketing scheme read something like this: "Try the new Subaru WRX and you'll love ... blah blah blah... just give us 5.8 seconds and we'll show you!" HUH...(double, heck triple take) I read it again and it said that the car was tested and has a 5.8 second 0-60 time (as stated by Car and Driver). Did I miss something? Did they change something? Where did the 6.4s 0-60 go (I believe that was the time Road and Track tested the car at while the stock GT-S came in at 6.8).
Can anybody comment / shed some light on this?
First off, you seem like a mag racer. Live in the real world. Second, you can't just look at one time in a magazine and take that as fact. It's just one datapoint. C&D got different results. That happens in many tests. No two tests are going to give the same numbers, typically. Now you have a range for the 0-60 time of the WRX.

[Maestro]

Pfft 0-60 in 5.8 is BS !!! BIG TIME !!!
Thats more in the league of the WRX STi.

I think the magazine editors head need a big fat kick !

[F22-Raptor]

Two questions have you drove a WRX? Second do you know how to drive properly?? WRX is completely able to hit between 5.4 and 5.8 0-60 times seen it done plenty of times Trying not to attempt it myself since I like keeping my clutch a little while longer. With 1k you can drop that time to 4.5-4.6 seconds with 1/4 times of 13.2-13.5. Don't call BS unless you know what you are talking about.

[FriedRice]

WRX is fast..... launching on an AWD car is frowned upon... but its fast.. with or without... 5.6 is a little low tho... i'd think more ike high 5's...... but just the fact that its in that territory is amazing as it is... thats faster than porsches under 90k..... and on a 25k sedan (ITS GOT A BACKSEAT!) its simply amazing... anyway haha *wipes drool off chin*

and wats wrong with looking at mag times for reference? mag times maybe not be 100% accurate, but if one car is faster than another... won't mag times show that? in races where it could be "all driver" skill i'd lay off the mag times..... but if its obvious, why not?

jus twondering aloud... dont mind me...:gap:

[CSteckel]

I just find it intriguing that R&T tested (0-60mph) the GT-S (00) at 6.8 sec., and the WRX at 6.4 sec. I only wanted at little more of a range (either higher or lower) than what the magazine printed just to compare. Also, I was looking at it as if it were the same skill driver testing each model individually. Even if the times are off, the difference between them should be reasonably close assuming the driver has knowledge about driving/testijng each car. Am I wrong to think this?

[Maestro]

Originally posted by F22-Raptor
Two questions have you drove a WRX? Second do you know how to drive properly?? WRX is completely able to hit between 5.4 and 5.8 0-60 times seen it done plenty of times Trying not to attempt it myself since I like keeping my clutch a little while longer. With 1k you can drop that time to 4.5-4.6 seconds with 1/4 times of 13.2-13.5. Don't call BS unless you know what you are talking about.

Bwhahaha....Mate, I know what I'm talking about. First of all I have the previlige of being able to drive most Japanese turbo's...since they arrive in australia in the same form as what there sold in Japan. Second...I know how to drive properly...sure im no racing freak...and i dont plan to be....but launching a WRX is idiot proof...

A claim of mid 5's on a "STOCK" WRX is impossible....im sorry thats just the way it is, u wombat......however, im stating a fact for the Australian WRX....maybe you American's have somehow been blessed with a quicker version of the model...seems unlikely from all the stories ive heard about your hard to get high octane fuel + the WRX has been proven much longer downunder then the states..

I dunno....I highly "doubt" the claims....most of them are comming from WRX owners....Also go do the launch yourself and get a 5.4 before flaming me......wanker !

If your lucky enough to drive the WRX Sti....take it for a spin....one of the best turbo's ive driven...now that is a STOCK 5.4......check it out @ www.subaru.com.au

Also compare the manufaturers claim from the standard model....and dont say sheeit like thier lying....

[nyoneway]

Originally posted by F22-Raptor
Two questions have you drove a WRX? Second do you know how to drive properly?? WRX is completely able to hit between 5.4 and 5.8 0-60 times seen it done plenty of times Trying not to attempt it myself since I like keeping my clutch a little while longer. With 1k you can drop that time to 4.5-4.6 seconds with 1/4 times of 13.2-13.5. Don't call BS unless you know what you are talking about.

How the hell do you see someone do 5.4 - 5.8 0-60 times? And 1k mods, low 13's?

I would like to know, where can I see people do 0-60 and measure it? At a track? G-Tech (lol)? What you have a radar and timing equiment on your car?

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by Maestro
Pfft 0-60 in 5.8 is BS !!! BIG TIME !!!
Thats more in the league of the WRX STi.

I think the magazine editors head need a big fat kick ! It appears you have been corrected by people who actually go to the track and see things for themselves, rather than guess from what magazines report. Please learn from your mistakes...

[ringthree]

Originally posted by Maestro


Bwhahaha....Mate, I know what I'm talking about. First of all I have the previlige of being able to drive most Japanese turbo's...since they arrive in australia in the same form as what there sold in Japan. Second...I know how to drive properly...sure im no racing freak...and i dont plan to be....but launching a WRX is idiot proof...

A claim of mid 5's on a "STOCK" WRX is impossible....im sorry thats just the way it is, u wombat......however, im stating a fact for the Australian WRX....maybe you American's have somehow been blessed with a quicker version of the model...seems unlikely from all the stories ive heard about your hard to get high octane fuel + the WRX has been proven much longer downunder then the states..

I dunno....I highly "doubt" the claims....most of them are comming from WRX owners....Also go do the launch yourself and get a 5.4 before flaming me......wanker !

If your lucky enough to drive the WRX Sti....take it for a spin....one of the best turbo's ive driven...now that is a STOCK 5.4......check it out @ www.subaru.com.au

Also compare the manufaturers claim from the standard model....and dont say sheeit like thier lying....

First of all, Australia does not get ALL the Japanese cars as they appear in Japan (the current ITR for example). Second of all you are just wrong dude. I dont know what else to say. Just because the cars exist down there doesn't mean that you have driven them all, and even if you drove them all would not make you anything close to the expert you are making yourself out to be.

[Oo DaRk StAr oO]

Lets not fight.

[iNteGraz92]

Originally posted by Kry
it's fast.. admit it....
its ugly... admit it...
:D
yes its fast

[racinjason]

Lets keep it calmed down. How old do you have to be to fight over 0-60 times. On vehicles you don't even own.

My take is it's pretty much BS. Don't believe a word a dealer tells you about performance unless you can cross reference it to another source. Take Magizine numbers for what they are. A test, and everyone gets different figures due to the many changing variables when drag racing. Your best bet is to take the average unless you know dam well the test is bogus(poor driver, prototype vehicle, etc).

I'd put down a good average is low 6 0-60 times. mid to low 5's is completely off. And even a 5.8 is pretty unlikely unless you like to destroy your vehicle. But just remember AWD will net some awesome 0-60 times compared to RWD and FWD. But it lags worse after 60.

[Chui]

Grassroots Motorsports tested the car at 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds. And unlike most every other auto magazine these guys RACE cars. The are SCCA competitors and it's the best performance-oriented magazine available in the USA. A couple of US magazines also reported sub-6 sec times as well. I have no reason to disbelieve the capability of the car. They ARE quick.

As far as AU mags are concerned the times are significantly slower due to two people in the car and a full tank of fuel. Whether or not driver skill is or should be considered I do not know.

As far as abusing your car is concerned ANY and ALL cars are abused in 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile sprints. The driveline does not like this type of application. On ANY & ALL drivelines there must be some compliance in the system. Usually, it's the clutch as one cannot afford to market a car that snaps CV Joints, Limited-Slip Differentials, Halfshafts or Transfer Cases. It's normal. However, if one indulges in this type of behavior often enough be prepared to replace the clutch.

[Maestro]

you yanks are soo melodramatic.....

whats the difference in acceleration times from a STOCK WRX and a WRX STi........

find out !

... end of discussion.

[Maestro]

btw when i say u yanks are melodramatic....dont take it harshly....i dont mean it in a racist way.

just want to make sure since theres a lot of negative sentiment here.

[Keyshawn]

The "Pro-Celica, Anti-Every-Other-Car" bias I sometimes see here makes me laugh. I find it ABSOLUTELY hilarious that we can freely bring up a single article in SCC about the Hotchkis Celica to point out the awesome performance potential of the Celica, yet many here call BS when about SEVEN mags (Road and Track, Sport Compact Car, Grassroots Motorsports, AutoWorld Weekly, Car and Driver, Automobile, Motor Trend) get mid to high 5 sec 0-60 and low to mid 14 sec 1/4 mile times on a stock WRX. After driving a WRX and talking to real WRX owners, I've come to the conclusion that (surprise surprise) these mags happen to be right.

Obviously, if you look at ONE magazine 0-60 time for a certain car and believe that to be the absolute number under any conditions and with any driver, you're an idiot. However, magazines are quite useful and reliable when you use the range of numbers from different sources as a reference point for judging a car's performance. Last time I checked, the race tracks and testing equipment that those magazine testers use are more accurate than the street races and butt dynos that 90% of us use to test out our car's performance. Something to think about.;)

[Chui]

No negativity or melodrama. We have higher quality fuel here and drag racing is a passion here as well. I don't care for it, but I'm in the minority here. We've seen times ranging from 5.5 seconds to 5.7 seconds in magazines. We also time the "old" Integra Type R at 6.2 seconds to 60 as well. I don't think an ITR has broken 7 seconds [edit: in an Australian magazine]. Why? From speaking with WHEELS editor [I subscribe to the magazine as well as MOTOR] you test TWO UP with a FULL tank of fuel. That equates to 200 odd pounds more weight. We're also beginning to test with GPS systems which weigh nearly nothing. Not sure if you guys are using Correvit 5th wheels or what. You may wish to check into it if you wish to get to the bottom of it. You could also do as I do - call the magazines and ask for all articles dealing with the particular car in interest and then call them back to speak with one of the testing journalists for his PERSONAL, OFF-THE-RECORD impressions and recollections. For what it's worth, after speaking to CAR, AUTOCAR, PERFORMANCE CAR, EVO, MOTOR, WHEELS, GRASSROOTS MOTORSPORTS and SPORT COMPACT CAR writer/drivers I put my money where my mouth was offered my '99 Honda Civic Si [VTi-R to you in Oz] and purchased a '00 Integra Type R. And I haven't looked back nor been moved by other's arguments against the car.

[David Draper]

I've seen that sort of thing before....

The 6/93 Car and Driver test of the TT Supra showed a 4.6 0-60....

Same year in Road and Track, they got a 4.7 for the Lamborghini Diablo.... :wtf:

Later, most magazines had the Supra at 4.8, 5.1, and 5.3, so it depends on launch technique, and perhaps location of the test.

And of course, every car is different. Not that different, but you get the idea....

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by Keyshawn
[The "Pro-Celica, Anti-Every-Other-Car" bias I sometimes see here makes me laugh. I find it ABSOLUTELY hilarious that we can freely bring up a single article in SCC about the Hotchkis Celica to point out the awesome performance potential of the Celica, yet many here call BS when about SEVEN mags (Road and Track, Sport Compact Car, Grassroots Motorsports, AutoWorld Weekly, Car and Driver, Automobile, Motor Trend) get mid to high 5 sec 0-60 and low to mid 14 sec 1/4 mile times on a stock WRX. After driving a WRX and talking to real WRX owners, I've come to the conclusion that (surprise surprise) these mags happen to be right.

Obviously, if you look at ONE magazine 0-60 time for a certain car and believe that to be the absolute number under any conditions and with any driver, you're an idiot. However, magazines are quite useful and reliable when you use the range of numbers from different sources as a reference point for judging a car's performance. Last time I checked, the race tracks and testing equipment that those magazine testers use are more accurate than the street races and butt dynos that 90% of us use to test out our car's performance. Something to think about.;)
Very well said. The Celica fanboy population on this board has sadly increased. I wish I knew why. They are getting more and more defensive to the simple suggestion that anything in the price range could perform better.

[Bobbeh]

STi's are in the 4's (like 4.5 - 5.0 secs) for 0-60, WRX's are more like high 5's - mid 6's because of that AWD.

[cybrpunk]

OK guys, let me use this example....

Magazines have been testing the Euro Spec. EVO VII for some time now to see how the U.S. version will/might be like. The numbers they came up with were...

November 2K1 Sport Compact Car 0-60 /5.1 sec.
(hot weather) 1/4mile /13.6


May 2K2 Automobile Mag. 0-60 /4.8 sec
(weather N/A) 1/4mile N/A

March 2K2 Motor Trend 0-60 /4.7 sec(est.)
(weather N/A) 1/4mile /13.1@105mph (est.)

With those magazine stats given, is it safe to say that the Euro Spec. EVO VII (in reality) is at...

0-60 / 4.5 sec.
1/4 mile / 12.7@110mph?

**NOTE**This is just a guesstimate that I have concluded due to what has been said on this thread. Although it sort of makes sence cause I have scene EVO VII 4.5 0-60/12.7quarter mile times on several internet sites. But then again, they are internet sites.

[cybrpunk]

Any feedback on my last post?

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by cybrpunk
Any feedback on my last post?
I haven't really looked at those numbers since I have zero interest in the EVO. I do wonder how many S2000 and ITR owners are laughing at what BS your sig is though.

[cybrpunk]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

I haven't really looked at those numbers since I have zero interest in the EVO. I do wonder how many S2000 and ITR owners are laughing at what BS your sig is though.

I could care less if you have 0 to any interest in the EVO. I was simply just using the numbers on the EVO VII as an example to figure out any automobile's true potential.

Yakk,
Just an F.Y.I., my sig is just a joke... please don't take it seriously.

[honda troll]

I have an S2000. I thought the sig was actually pretty funny. lol (though I have yet to see a celi's tail lights.... :thumbup: )

[Maestro]

bwhahahahaha.....4.5--5.0 seconds for an STi......boy u yanks must be smoking some strong S**T !!!

[Keyshawn]

Originally posted by Maestro
bwhahahahaha.....4.5--5.0 seconds for an STi......boy u yanks must be smoking some strong S**T !!!

Hehe...How very open-minded of you to think that we "yanks" ALL have the same exact opinion about those STi times you quoted. By the way, which of us "yanks" actually said that about the STi? Read more carefully next time. Also, stop and think instead of trying to generalize about what we're all thinking.;)