damn, they're fast... and super torquey!

friend of mine has picked one up... we went for a spin, I have to say, must be the fastest FWD car you can buy right now.

and TORQUEY! Will blow the doors off of my FD at any RPM, twin turbos be damned! Seems to spool the turbo at /any/ rpm. Hard to believe the econobox hauls so much ass.

I'm gonna test drive one this week, hopefully.

I really wish they'd have gone AWD with it.

Having lots of power in a FWD car is a waste, I guarantee that if that motor was driving all the wheels or the rear wheels it would be twice as good.

damn, they're fast... and super torquey!

friend of mine has picked one up... we went for a spin, I have to say, must be the fastest FWD car you can buy right now.

and TORQUEY! Will blow the doors off of my FD at any RPM, twin turbos be damned! Seems to spool the turbo at /any/ rpm. Hard to believe the econobox hauls so much ass.
Your FD must be fucked up!

Apparently the Subie guys are all butthurt about it. "An STi will blow it away in a 1/4 mile". Sure, reply the automotive journalists who've tested both. By 0.1 seconds. But the MS3 will pass it shortly thereafter, and with far fewer complicated parts.

Apparently the Subie guys are all butthurt about it. "An STi will blow it away in a 1/4 mile". Sure, reply the automotive journalists who've tested both. By 0.1 seconds. But the MS3 will pass it shortly thereafter, and with far fewer complicated parts.
Did you read Car & Driver?

0-60: 5.8
Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.7
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 10.6
50-70 mph: 6.8
Standing 1/4 mile: 14.4 sec@ 99 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 155 mph



Wheelbase: 103.9 in
Track, front/rear: 60.4/60.0 in
Length/width/height: 176.8/69.5/57.7 in
Ground clearance: 4.8 in
Drag area, Cd (0.32) x frontal area (25.5 sq ft, est): 8.2 sq ft
Curb weight: 3180 lb
Weight distribution, F/R: 63.5/36.5%
Curb weight per horsepower: 12.1 lb
Fuel capacity: 14.5 gal

Zero to 30 mph 2.3
40 mph 3.4
50 mph 4.4
60 mph 5.8
70 mph 7.2
80 mph 9.3
90 mph 11.4
100 mph 14.8
110 mph 17.8
120 mph 21.9

-vs- a Toyota Camry

Wheelbase: 109.3 in
Length: 189.2 in
Width: 71.7 in
Height: 57.9 in
Curb weight: 3528 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 31.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 145 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 170 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 22/31 mpg

they are not 1/4 mile cars. (the whole FWD thing). I think stock. vs. stock an FD could probably toast one in the 1/4... but from a highway roll it's a different story. And no, nothing is wrong with my FD. well... nothing in that department anyways :P


I really find it hard to believe that a camry is faster. I think I should go test drive a camry :D

postential for the 2.3L DISI is far higher than the camry. All it takes in the 2.3L is some BPU (heatsoaking TMIC to FMIC, BC, I/E, and a bigger turbo that the tiny little K03)

besides i almost got killed slapping down some 2GR camry in my N/A V6 323 (with stock exhaust) idk... stock numbers are for non-tuners.

They already have turbo upgrade kits for the mps3/6. Uses stock manifold iirc.

They already have turbo upgrade kits for the mps3/6. Uses stock manifold iirc.


true true, the ATP kit. It turned out some NICE #'s, even with less than stellar tuning. Someone needs to seriosuly crack that ECU. I woudlnt trust a piggyback at ALL.

Apparently the Subie guys are all butthurt about it. "An STi will blow it away in a 1/4 mile". Sure, reply the automotive journalists who've tested both. By 0.1 seconds. But the MS3 will pass it shortly thereafter, and with far fewer complicated parts.

what the FUCK are you talking about. run with pos stock wrx in 1/4 mile, yeah, same price too... ms3 isn't doing anything with a sti, period.

he's right, not until subaru steps up and adopts direct injection lol

ms3 will own an sti from a roll.

+1

this coming from the same guy that spent all that time bragging about the Camry's 1/4 mile times.....:blah:

I'm racing one on March 29th in my mustang. 75 shot of nitrous, drag radials and a list of other goodies. I should be running low 13s. Yeah, I know, it's nothing to write home about.

14.4 @ 99....no better than a V6 Camry

I remain unimpressed

It all comes back to the classic displacement to power ratio. People will give more props to the 2.3 than to the...

What the hell is the Camry these days? A 3.5?

Back on topic: If I made my Caddy have 1000 HP out of its 8.2 liter V-8, everyone would say that the Supra is better because it does it with 3.

Support for the 2.3L DISI is kinda in it's infancy now, but heres a taste of a 2.3L with a PROPER size turbo on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ZI5E0FdDA

SRT-4 2870 lb. curb (unladen), 18+psi, BPU 2.4L engine
MS6 3589 lb curb (unladen), 22psi, 2.3L engine (exhaust cut out CLOSED, due to raising boost higher than it was currently tuned to; lots of fuel cut would result)

Notice the MS6 still slapped the SRT down, even from a roll!!! The SRT has a bigger engine, and is much much lighter.... thats gotta say something.

That same engine is in the MS3.

Support for the 2.3L DISI is kinda in it's infancy now, but heres a taste of a 2.3L with a PROPER size turbo on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ZI5E0FdDA

SRT-4 2870 lb. curb (unladen), 18+psi, BPU 2.4L engine
MS6 3589 lb curb (unladen), 22psi, 2.3L engine (exhaust cut out CLOSED, due to raising boost higher than it was currently tuned to; lots of fuel cut would result)

Notice the MS6 still slapped the SRT down, even from a roll!!! The SRT has a bigger engine, and is much much lighter.... thats gotta say something.

That same engine is in the MS3.
ATP's GT3071R VS stock K04.
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/8/web/2324000-2324999/2324495_26_full.jpg

of course

lighter cars have no significant advantage from a high speed roll, that's a very common misunderstanding

as you approach triple digits, it's all about horsepower and aerodynamics


not quite.


The perception that weight impacts it less at higher speeds is a result of proportion. The massive increase in other resistance such as drag and friction results in the force required to accelerate that extra mass being a much smaller total percentage of the force required to accelerate the object that 30mph, but that extra mass still requires the same amount all the same. So as I mentioned, it has the same impact, but you perceive it to be less with it's proportionate decline in the total force required.

what does rolling resistance have to do with mass?

And that makes the car's mass easier to move how?

You're just going off on a tangent here, that doesn't make the effect of the mass any less. In fact, what you copied/pasted there just proves my point further.

I'm racing one on March 29th in my mustang. 75 shot of nitrous, drag radials and a list of other goodies. I should be running low 13s. Yeah, I know, it's nothing to write home about.

I would hope so, Trav has bolt-ons and a gear... runs 12.6 NA. 8.10@84.2 in the 1/8th. 264whp, gear, elbow, exhaust, TB.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uhkA3mHYVg0

We had another 2000 GT on a 75 shot running 7.70@85mph. It had a lot less mods: gear, mufflers, X-pipe, pulleys, K&N filter only. Off nitrous 8.35 @ 83mph, 275/50/15 nittos. I think it dyno'd 257whp.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Htri7w7w9k

I think mine will be a little faster when the TKO gets here.

lol

I'm not "going off on a tangent" at all

your post was reasonably accurate, just poorly articulated and unscientific, with generalizations


well I had half a book written but I trimmed it down some :P

1/8 mile is poo. AWD cars own all in the 1/8 (well on street tires anyways).

well, the fact that the tire rolling resistance does change from 1.2% at 30 mph to 1.6% at 70 does mean that its a function of speed, just not a very strong one. Plus, it is also a function of weight, otherwise a car being too heavy for the tires its on would not significantly increase the tire rolling resistance.

Take 2 cars, one weighing 1500 kg and the other weighing 3000 kg, with the same Cd, frontal area, 300 hp, and each on its weight-appropriate tires (same tire rolling resistance). When they're moving at 150 mph, lets say that drag and rolling resistance require 270 hp to overcome. This leaves only 30 hp left to each car for acceleration. Since the heavier car has twice the mass, it will require twice the force (x wheel radius x wheel speed approx = power) to accelerate at a given rate. however, since both cars have the same power, the ligher one will accelerate twice as quickly as the heavier one instantaneously, at that given speed, only with the left over 30 hp (instead of the 300 it has at rest with no losses). So weight still does make a difference as long as there still is acceleration, but other losses account for so much more of the power at high speeds that weight's roll is diminished

what the FUCK are you talking about. run with pos stock wrx in 1/4 mile, yeah, same price too... ms3 isn't doing anything with a sti, period.

Look it up, dipshit. As I posted, that's what the automotive press is saying. You know, the guys that drive both cars under like weather conditions on same tracks and with same drivers, then compare the numbers...

Support for the 2.3L DISI is kinda in it's infancy now, but heres a taste of a 2.3L with a PROPER size turbo on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ZI5E0FdDA

SRT-4 2870 lb. curb (unladen), 18+psi, BPU 2.4L engine
MS6 3589 lb curb (unladen), 22psi, 2.3L engine (exhaust cut out CLOSED, due to raising boost higher than it was currently tuned to; lots of fuel cut would result)

Notice the MS6 still slapped the SRT down, even from a roll!!! The SRT has a bigger engine, and is much much lighter.... thats gotta say something.

That same engine is in the MS3.

when the srt driver didnt mis-shift, or bog the launch, neither car seemed to pull. agree?

so given that the information in the video description is correct (and its youtube so it has to be true) that 6 traps very near 100 mph.


100 mph?





wait





what is everyone getting excited about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ZBi6iJQEw

wow, a stage 2 srt4 is faster than a stock ms3.

big surprise!

(read the whole SRT forums thread)