He raced an STI, they are just a little bit faster then the srt's stock.

 

On the street for sure the sti is faster than the srt4 as the sti has awd and the srt fwd.At the track on drag tires the advantage would be more equal.
Think the lower rated power of the srt is offset a bit by the higher weight of the wrx sti but forget how much each way.Think fairly close to each other and both lighter than typical f body by several hundred pounds or mabye many hundred pounds.My 99 ta is very heavy with subframe connectors,heavy stereo .

I did some surfing on the srt 4 forums and I have to say that there are many people over there that have to be lying huge about what the cars can do and with what mods and about who they have wasted in races.

Stock the mags have gotten times similar to stock lt1 times both in mph and
et.Yet I see mildy modded srt 4 cars supposedly running much much faster than mag times.Now its possible to pick up a few tenths from no lifting to shift and upping stock boost a couple of pounds but you are not going to lop off two seconds by doing that..!!!
Of course 99% of these claims have no timeslips and even if they did its easy to get timeslip from another car.I wish timeslips would say what type of car is running not just a number.At our track you can pick up whatever time slip you want thrown on the ground or in the garbage.

I have personally never seen one of these magic near stock srt 4s.The ones at my track so far did not so great and didn't see any thirteens out of any stock ones there yet.

Also these things aren't going to be that fast on street tires.And the one I test drove sure needed big help in the wheel hop department but I guess swapping motor mounts and stuff helps that problem out a lot.

They are neat cars and if they made a two door awd one might even pick one up myself but the hype is starting to get out of control with many stock srt guys trying to claim they are wasting ls1s and modded lt1s and all that so easily.
I have a turbo car and upping boost a couple pounds does not add 100hp.

And it takes lots of money on support mods and bigger turbos to get consistently in the 12s and faster.The myth of a near stock srt4 running low 12s is exactly that a myth.Now add some enough spray and its easily possilby to knock over a second off.Turbo cars respond very nice to spray and some companies like nx rate their power more at the wheels so a nx 100 shot is more like a 125 compared to other companies.

Anyway I for sure wouldn't fear a stock srt 8 or near stock.One with a big aftermarket turbo like my 92 awd talon has on it thats another story as long as the guy has put on the support stuff.Big intercooler,big injectors,fuel system upgrades.upgraded clutch etc.

The laws of physics don't magically disappear.Power to weight is the same
and adding thirty hp don't make you seconds faster in the quarter.

And the mph and 60fts don't add up at all on lots of the srt 4 claims.
Like saw 13.2 think it was at 98mph with 2.15 60t. That don't look right to me..

 

Even at the track on drag tires it would be a big difference. That would put the srt-4 to a what lets say 13.6-7 if it had REALLY bad traction stock and still ran a 14.0. And the STI would still be at 13.1-2. To me a 1/2 second is big in the world of 1/4 mile. What do they say that is about ~5 cars.

 

Your TA probably weighs about 3500-3600 lbs. STIs weigh about 3280, SRT-4s about 2980.

 

I feel like a complete idiot
Thanks for the correction, I dont know why I thought srt. I guess I had a brain fart

 

All the newer cars like that just get jumbled up together because they all came out together basically.

 

[QUOTE=80TA]

Of course 99% of these claims have no timeslips and even if they did its easy to get timeslip from another car.I wish timeslips would say what type of car is running not just a number.At our track you can pick up whatever time slip you want thrown on the ground or in the garbage.[quote=80ta]


i ran a 13.3 when i first ran my car, but i found a timeslip on the ground and now my car runs 6 seconds. easiest mod i ever did

 

STi's don't run 13.1 stock. If you are going to claim 13.1 for a STi, then you better put the SRT-4 at about 13.7 stock(which is also pushing it). Fastest time I've ever seen for a stock STi is 13.3@101 and even that's pushing it, since it takes a clutch drop off the rev limiter to get the 1.7 60' time. SRT-4's trap the same as STi's, they just don't have the off the line performance of the STi. From a roll, it's a pretty even race.

At best, STI's are 13.3, and SRT-4's are 13.8 bone stock

Dan

 

Here is two 13.2 bone stock runs:

http://www.car-stats.com/stats/shows...tsgivenid.aspx
look at that trap speed, too

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
scroll down a lot.

Robvas says stock Sti's have gone 12.9 at 102 or 103. PM him, maybe he has a link.

 

I would think its possible to get another tenth or two depending on track condiitions,density altitude,winds and even just simple power shifting no lift to shift.This makes huge diff on turbo cars as the blow off vents boost as soon as you back throttle.Another thing that really works good in turbo cars is two step systems.This lets you build more boost at the line for really good lauches.Also not every test driver is going to totally rag on the car and launch at absolute max etc.

Just like that one ls1 ran 12.89 don't mean most of us can do it.Evan Smith is god!!

 

Steve, good links. Thanks. I've seen those MT times before, but the trap speed is much higher than any other results I've seen.

It's funny because it's Motortrend that also got 13.3@100 out of the '05 STi. 5 mph in the trap speed is a LOT, and to be quite honest I don't believe a stock STi has the power, weight, gearing to ever hit that mark. I can believe up to 102 though. The 13.1-13.3 is believeable, but not the norm. By the way, that 105 trap speed that MT got is 3 mph higher than any other trap I've seen, and I've searched a lot. By the way, MT "corrects" their track times/traps, and I'm not sure what method they use, but they don't report the actual timeslip numbers.

In the second link, it is funny how the same year STi ran 13.8, and 13.2 so which one is it?

Dan

 

Yeah, it's crazy how much stock cars vary in the 1/4 mile. That 105 trap probably had a tailwind or a ringer car involved.

 

i ran a 13.3 when i first ran my car, but i found a timeslip on the ground and now my car runs 6 seconds. easiest mod i ever did [/QUOTE]



Hillarious

 

yea, yea , the sti is defenetly a quick car when a dangerously hard launch is attempted. but in retrospect the sti weighs in at the sticker over 30 grand thats pretty pricey for a clown car made for a midget, when my z cost me brand new 26.6 k and with a flow-pac and a loud mouth(about 5 hundred) it ran a 13.2@106 and at 6'3" i can actually fit in it.ill take that 4 grand and mod some more and could proabably (realisticly also) be in the 12 .3 world.BUY AMERICAN the job you save may be your own!

 

Agreed, and I'm not about to buy a foreign car, but the STi wasn't designed for the drag strip. It stops as well as any car out there, and can give just about any car within $30k of it's price range a run for it's money on a road coarse. I agree though, they are not cheap.

It's like people forget that it's based off an economy car to begin with. I certainly don't consider them a sports car. I don't know what I consider them. They are this weird anomaly of speed with econobox looks. Not something I'd pay $32,295+ for. I couldn't ever see myself keeping one for nostalgiac reasons like you would a Corvette, Camaro, Mustang...

Myself, for $32k I'd go for the '05 GTO with better straight line performance than the STi and a MUCH nicer interior and even with it's bland exterior, it looks better than the STi. Of coarse it doesn't handle or brake quite as well.

Dan