![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You've no idea how he was driving or even if he could be bothered racing the guy in the baseball cap with the big spoiler.
Golf GTI faster than the new Subaru WRX
- Thread starter Hawk Tuah
- Start date
You've no idea how he was driving or even if he could be bothered racing the guy in the baseball cap with the big spoiler.
I had a 911 turbo the other day, he couldn't touch me.
Alternatively he may not have been trying
Not a chance if he was going for it, sounds more like he was changing at 3000rpm.
This is a perfect case which shows up that it is only the power at the wheel figure that matters.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 9,829
- Location
- West Midlands
Since when did a GTi have 240bhp anyways? Was this a limited edition or something? Anywho, I've played at silly speeds with a GTi, and low speeds, and I know they were trying because when I'd had my fun they'd boot it past 
My car isn't standard btw.
My car isn't standard btw.Since when did a GTi have 240bhp anyways? Was this a limited edition or something? Anywho, I've played at silly speeds with a GTi, and low speeds, and I know they were trying because when I'd had my fun they'd boot it past
Well if your car isn't standard than you can't compare a standard Scooby to a standard GTi.
You can't get past the fact that you have a much larger transmission loss with 4wd. If I remember correctly your old none turbo made just about the same power at the wheels than my old 1.6 Focus did. Thinking that the Focus should have 98bhp at the fly and the Scooby have 123bhp at the fly. That instantly shows up how much of a difference having 4wd can have at higher speeds due to transmission loss.
Since when did a GTi have 240bhp anyways? Was this a limited edition or something? Anywho, I've played at silly speeds with a GTi, and low speeds, and I know they were trying because when I'd had my fun they'd boot it past
Important bit highlighted. We're talking about standard cars.
The ED 30 has 230bhp, the stock GTI has 200ish.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 9,829
- Location
- West Midlands
Someone obviously missed the explanation by powerstation showing that there were 2 contact points on the RR making the ATW figures completely inaccurate for the road, as more tyre was touching than had it been on the road.
This was before I'd actually done anything other than remove the smallest cat in the car, I'd dread to think what I'd do to one now.
And Fox, I don't own a baseball cap, and he came coming up to me to play.
What are the supposed performance figures for these GTis? 0-100 & 60-100?
Since when did a GTi have 240bhp anyways? Was this a limited edition or something? Anywho, I've played at silly speeds with a GTi, and low speeds, and I know they were trying because when I'd had my fun they'd boot it past
make your mind up !
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 9,829
- Location
- West Midlands
It just has an exhaust. Hardly massively modded...
hmmm, attitude issues abound...
On to the question, 0-100mph for a normal golf GTI is around 17 secs, for the ED 30 it's nearer 16.5secs. Finding specific figures for the WRX is difficult as most magazines etc didn't bother with it and went straight for the STI, but it's going to be very similar.
Ahh yes I forget having an extra propshaft, 2 driveshafts and ~5 bearings won't add any transmission loss.
0-100 figure cannot be used to compare a 4wd car with a fwd car. I would only be interested in 60-100 or 30-70.
2003 WRX is 15.9
Quick google suggest 6.2 for the GTi (anyone find different? not a reliable source..) and 5.7 for the WRX.
Which WRX is this?
2003 Blobeye, like ScoobyDoo69's.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 9,829
- Location
- West Midlands
Ahh yes I forget having an extra propshaft, 2 driveshafts and ~5 bearings won't add any transmission loss.
0-100 figure cannot be used to compare a 4wd car with a fwd car. I would only be interested in 60-100 or 30-70.
I haven't once said that transmission loses aren't large in the Subarus, put you seem to think the OMG LOL THE SPORT HAS NO POWER ATW joke is still funny. Even after Powerstation came on here explaining just why they were so low for all the cars from here than ran. Just think, the Mustang lost how much power on PS rollers? Thats with 4 contact points instead of two. Now think about 8 contact points and think of the effect that will have to the ATW figure.
The reason I'm defending this point is because it would seem the opinion of the crowd in here is one that a Golf GTI would monster any WRX. Some figures have been quoted which suggest otherwise, but this thread is about the new ultimately soft WRX which it would seem is incredibly slow! 0-100 in 18seconds, so the 240bhp one would do it in what 16? Hmm.. I'm sure I got 102mph in 13.2 seconds, so 0-100 in 13 compared to 16.
Remember playing with one of those GTech things in my folks old blob eye and we were hitting 5.5 consistantly, although don't think it was doing the clutch much good. Then again twas only a lease hire car so who cared 
18secs to 100 for the golf seems a bit longer than I'd have expected, would have thought it to be in the 17s at most, but that's not exactly a lot of time either way.
18secs to 100 for the golf seems a bit longer than I'd have expected, would have thought it to be in the 17s at most, but that's not exactly a lot of time either way.
ScoobyDoo69, For a start where was I making out your old Scooby as a joke, I was using it as an example. I would be interested to read about the contact points as I do not instantly see how it would affect it if it was correct adjusted in the first place. Could come in handy for the engine dyno I am designing right now for my course.
I am not saying the GTi would monster the WRX, nor am I saying a WRX would in return. I cannot see how only 15bhp in the WRX can make it so much quicker, especially with tranny loss.
I am not saying the GTi would monster the WRX, nor am I saying a WRX would in return. I cannot see how only 15bhp in the WRX can make it so much quicker, especially with tranny loss.