Contour Enthusiasts Group CEG

General >> General

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
obicanobi0
Veteran CEG'er

Reged: 08/05/01
Posts: 661
Loc: WNY
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#61543 (Re: bnoon) 10/17/02 08:34 PM

Just for reference, The WRX puts 187 to the wheels. All four of course

--------------------
Fast Cheap reliable
Pick two

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
kerrychin
Veteran CEG'er

Reged: 07/24/00
Posts: 661
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#61692 (Re: PXRacing) 10/17/02 11:34 PM

wattspxr, I'm sorry we couldn't debate this in a civilized manner.

I realize a Saab is not a WRX is not an SVT. It was fun while it lasted.

187 hp to all 4 wheels ain't too shabby either.

- Kerry

--------------------
99 SVT Contour Silver Frost, #365/2760, DMD
98 Audi A4 2.8 Quattro Tiptronic, 30V -- SOLD!
91 Isuzu Impulse XS Kammback, Handling By Lotus
Victoria, BC, Canada

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
ben9
Newbie

Reged: 10/15/02
Posts: 2
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#61843 (Re: kerrychin) 10/18/02 01:52 AM

Its not always how fast the car goes its how fast the car gets there... obviously the 6 cyl. will have more top end but the turboed 4 cyl. will have more overall speed getting to its top speed.. also where i live its rare to get a long straight away... Also someone said the WRX is Japenese, its actually Australian, also i have heard rumors that Ford Motor Co. is a share owner of the company,

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
PXRacing
CEG'er

Reged: 05/23/01
Posts: 368
Loc: Maile, Hawaii
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62023 (Re: CJ 2000) 10/18/02 04:47 AM

Originally posted by CJ 2000:
Wattspxr, you're funny...


I take that as a Sarcastic Remark

--------------------
PERFORMANCE PARTS for the TOUR
click here:PXRACING Homepage

email:pxracing@aol.com


Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
PXRacing
CEG'er

Reged: 05/23/01
Posts: 368
Loc: Maile, Hawaii
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62025 (Re: PXRacing) 10/18/02 04:54 AM

This Debate has been covered so many times here, that's the FUNNY Part!!!!

If you consider what the WRX has backing it Aftermarket wise, then there really is no contest. Developement of the Contours aftermarket backing is very slow, I can attest to that, but it's nice to know that a car with limited backing and a shorter racing history can still play hard to get even with cars like the WRX, which any untrained person will easily side with anyday until proven wrong. Fortunately I've done it number of times on/off track and against similarly qualified drivers, It's nice to have such a backing in any argument like this....

--------------------
PERFORMANCE PARTS for the TOUR
click here:PXRACING Homepage

email:pxracing@aol.com


Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er

Reged: 08/16/01
Posts: 5810
Loc: Ozark, AL
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62063 (Re: CJ 2000) 10/18/02 05:43 AM

Four wheel drive simply means that four wheels are driven and has nothing to do with hi/low gear reduction.
All Wheel Drive means that all wheels are driven.
Therefore an AWD car that has four wheels is a four wheel drive vehicle.
Don't generalize a whole genre of cars/trucks because you are 'used' to the way a certain term or sequence of words conjures up images in your head. Engineers use the words as technical definitions, the marketers just twist them to sell cars.

warmonger


--------------------
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er

Reged: 08/16/01
Posts: 5810
Loc: Ozark, AL
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62074 (Re: kerrychin) 10/18/02 06:15 AM


In reply to:

Whoever stays in the part of the curve with more area under it for longer will do better. The WRX has the added advantage of an intercooler, whereas the SVT has heat soak issues in hotter weather (there is no air movement underhood, even at speed).



I'm not defending anyone, but all three statements here are incorrect or non-specific.

* In the first one you don't specify whether you mean the power curve or the torque curve. Second, horsepower to weight ratio will determine which vehicle will do better. Gear ratios and gear spacing w/regards to rpm range will also determine the better car. Your statements are too general and vague... This information can only be determined by testing the cars, or estimated if there are VERY gross differences in numbers, i.e. a 5 HP motor in an average weight car vs a 500HP motor in an average weight car.
* comparing a turbo/intercooler to a N/A car based solely on the presence of an intercooler is like comparing apples and rocks. Do you think that compressed air can be cooled below the temperature of the cooling medium? What I mean is do you think that the hotter compressed air will cool below the temperature of the outside air, considering it is the outside air that cools the air to air intercooler? That one is simple thermodynamics and you can do the math on it. That example also assumes 100% efficiency...which AINT happening in the real world, you'd be lucky to get 70%...therefore the compressed air will not be cooled back down to ambient and WILL be hotter going into the engine than the air going into a naturally aspirated car given the same ambient temperature for both. This puts you back to comparing the power output of the motor, NOT how each engine achieved that number.

*Heat Soak!!! You think a turbo'd car doesn't have heat soak just because it has an intercooler? Where does the heat go that is taken out of the compressed incoming air? I'll tell you, back into the engine bay as it 'SOAKS' into the cooling system since most air to air systems are in front of or next to the radiator; or into the engine itself as the now 'hotter' air flows through the engine bay. Lets not forget that hot-azzed turbo and housing sitting in the engine bay acting as a giant heat sink, soaking all that exhaust heat instead of sending it quickly out the exhaust pipe like a less restricted exhaust.
And for the record there is plenty of air circulation even in a contour engine bay (as with all cars) when the car is moving above 30mph. Ask anyone doing temp measurements with their air temp sensor with an open air intake.

So those are my arguments, and I hope you understand that it is nothing personal. I just couldn't stay silent when I read something that I strongly felt would be misleading to many readers. I also hope to provide you with some food for thought.
Remember, turbos, superchargers, and N/A engines all have advantages/disadvantages as compared to each other. If one was 'the best' then all manufacturers would be using just that one.

warmonger


--------------------
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Quicksilver
Hard-core CEG'er

Reged: 06/09/01
Posts: 2529
Loc: www.contour2.org
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62075 (Re: PXRacing) 10/18/02 06:21 AM

Those that know me know that I do not talk out of my ass. I woldn't post the SVT vs. WRX top end stuff if I did not think it was true. I had not one, but several opportunities to test the WRX, and each time the results were the same. Off the line, I got beat by a car lenght or so. But when it came to over 100mph, the WRX was history...

I don't get why people get all worked up over the WRX? Yeah it is quick off the line, but the car has no high end at all. And to add to it, it is unbelievably ugly too. Doesn't even look like a sports car either. All that car has to make it proud is the motor, and if it didn't have the turbo... Well, no comment about the regular Impreza.

--------------------
-Milan-

My New Home -> www.contour2.org

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
CJ 2000
Veteran CEG'er

Reged: 08/16/02
Posts: 552
Loc: Port Chester, NY
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62187 (Re: warmonger) 10/18/02 01:15 PM

Your post was in reply to mine, so I'm assuming you're replying to me, but...

I didn't mention anything about hi/low gear reduction. At least, I don't think I did.

As far as my perceived differences between AWD and 4WD, even AngerManagement said that there is and look how "qualified" he is. In english definitions, a car with AWD is 4WD, but in car definitions, it's not the case. There are many websites you can check that outline the differences. I was not attempting to generalize in any way. I simply have written what I've read. If what I read is wrong, then I apologize.

--------------------
2000 Black Contour SVT

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
SnafuFlux
Hard-core CEG'er

Reged: 07/07/02
Posts: 2586
Loc: London Ontario, Canada
Re: Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT new
#62275 (Re: CJ 2000) 10/18/02 03:04 PM

I dunno about you guys, but I think this WRX looks great

http://pub38.ezboard.com/fsweetcarzfrm16.showMessage?topicID=6.topic

--------------------
97 T-Red LX ATX
pre98 CF SVT front,SVT rear/side skirts
FSVT wheels
Custom Front Ford Logo (body Colour)
35% tint all around with sun visor
WP With Metal Impeller?
Elky Grills
CTA Intake
CTA Custom Dual Exhaust

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 27 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  GTO Pete, Trapps 

Print Thread

Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 4172

Jump to

Contact Us Contour.org

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3

Generated in 0.061 seconds in which 0.055 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.

Copyright 1999-2005 Lance Kinley

CEG and contour.org are not affiliated with nor endorsed by Ford Motor Company