Impreza WRX Vs. Contour SVT

I was wondering what you guys thought was a better buy? Which is the faster of the two an which is more reliable? I need some opinions.. cant decide what kind of car to buy. Any other sports cars you guys can suggest please post...

I love my contour, but i'd probably go with the wrx, if you could get over the but ugliness....

the wrx is faster...kinda small for my taste,and also kinda ugly to me..they seem to be pretty good little cars though..they haven't been out a long time so the verdict is still out on reliability..they sure seem like fun little cars,if you can get past the looks...

the svt is a great car,and i love mine...i suggest driving them both,as well as others,and decide for yourself what you like...it seems to be either hit or miss on contour reliability..some like mine are great no problems..others haven't been so lucky...

i love my svt..test drive one and decide for yourself..make sure to try out some twisty roads,and enjoy the awesome handling...

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
the wrx is faster...kinda small for my taste,and also kinda ugly to me..

Obviously you haven't looked at the 2003 WRX then.

Originally posted by AirKnight:

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
the wrx is faster...kinda small for my taste,and also kinda ugly to me..

Obviously you haven't looked at the 2003 WRX then.

actually i have looked at it,and it is still fugly...

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:

Originally posted by AirKnight:

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
the wrx is faster...kinda small for my taste,and also kinda ugly to me..

Obviously you haven't looked at the 2003 WRX then.

actually i have looked at it,and it is still fugly...

Originally posted by SVT ST PETE:

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:

Originally posted by AirKnight:

Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
the wrx is faster...kinda small for my taste,and also kinda ugly to me..

Obviously you haven't looked at the 2003 WRX then.

actually i have looked at it,and it is still fugly...

I still can't get over the ugliness of it...

WRX is faster (even better when you take out all the California emmisions crap

) BUT, I guess it depends on the driver because I've been able to hang with one around town. SVT just looks better and our aftermarket is finally beginning to take wing... and soon we will fly

(huh what? oh sorry, i've just heard that line too many times.. but atleast it's 80% the truth)

IMHO

Cost - used SVT is cheaper than new or comparabley used WRX
Appearance - SVT hands down
Aftermarket - WRX's is nice, SVT is limited
Interior - WRX - cheap looking, limited (and don't give me that "rally car" bs

)

Good luck!

AirKnight - The only change for 2003 WRX's is the lighted ignition switch, and the new yellow color. The supposed front-end change isn't happening until 2004 at the earliest.

As far as the comparison goes, the WRX is just awesome. I test drove one last year. I just went for a test drive, and nearly walked out with the car

If it wasn't for the poor trade-in value they were giving me, I probably would have done the deal. Acceleration is crazy, AWD is great, the seats are incredible, and the look (inside and out) grows on you after driving the car. The doors are light and tinny, the paint is prone to chipping, and the suspension "feels" vague, though it grips when it needs to.

If you get one, get the short shifter, STi shift knob, and the boost gauge. Money well spent.

Originally posted by Officer Cartman:
The supposed front-end change isn't happening until 2004 at the earliest.

Subaru really think that damn "bug-eye" headlight is that good huh.

on the WRX... I just wished the 2 doors were available. The damn dealers don't even know whats going on with those. The front end is wicked [censored], they just need to work on the rear, it's too bland. It's one bad ass car tho. Gotta love german engineered engines.

WRX is smaller than the SVT, ugly too in comparison. Performance is better for the WRX.

1. It's Japanese (reliable)
2. It's tried and true (long company history and racing)
3. It's very now, and many aftermarket parts avaliable
4. You can easily get the cool rally style headlights
5. Prodrive makes THE WRC body kit (looks great and geat quality)
6. It's new,warranty,resale value,etc.
7. No FORD recalls!!!!
8. Great handling and power and AWD
9. Cool seats,MOMO wheel,even cool factory options (exhaust,short shifter,etc)

I'd have to go for it,sorry SVT guys.

I love that car. I've driven it before and it has great acceleration and a turbo and AWD.

Turbo's respond better to mods, and when the WRX aftermarket does truly open up it will be amazing. With the Michigan winter I would take WRX over my Tour any day of the week. I don't think it's fugly at all! But if Ford ever decides to bring ove the Cosworth turbo AWD Focus I'll be all over that

Like white on rice!

The WRX is awesome...for an Imprezza. That's the problem with it. The construction is just plain cheap. If you really like it, though, buy a two year old Imprezza with AWD (Subarus generally depreciate faster than almost any other make) and do whatever mods that suit you. You'll have a much better looking car and you'll save a bundle.

I am goin' to stay out of this one. My friend has an 11 sec. WRX w/out NOS and with about $1500 in aftermarket.

Oh yeah, it gets pretty good air also.

Originally posted by Escort1991:
I am goin' to stay out of this one. My friend has an 11 sec. WRX w/out NOS and with about $1500 in aftermarket.

Oh yeah, it gets pretty good air also.

Sorry but that will never happen unless he made everything himself and paid for material. Goto this site, www.turboxs.com Look in the top left corner to see a 11 second wrx. You can see what they have installed on it.

I say you wait and buy a Lancer EvoVII, 276 turbocharged stallions. Suposedly those things will keep up with a Z06. 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, fast!

Originally posted by zeteched:
I say you wait and buy a Lancer EvoVII, 276 turbocharged stallions. Suposedly those things will keep up with a Z06. 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, fast!

Or the WRX STI

280 hp

Low end, WRX... High end, SVT! Ever seen a WRX in action over 100mph? You haven't? That's right, it is somewhere a mile back behind the SVT.

But when the EVO VII hits the US market it will be detunned for emissions standards

. I'd be interested to see what a US production EVO would put out?

Originally posted by Quicksilver:
Low end, WRX... High end, SVT! Ever seen a WRX in action over 100mph? You haven't? That's right, it is somewhere a mile back behind the SVT.

Are you serious? Peak hp for peak hp, we lose.

And turbocharged cars are very strong once spooled up. I think we would have a hard time against a previous gen Saab 9-3 SE (205 hp 2.0L turbo) because it's computer controlled turbo allows for 5-8 seconds of overboost, so it's a really strong 205 peak hp.

I think the Subie would be even stronger.

Don't believe me? Look at one of the old C&D where the SVT was against the Saab 9-3 (185 hp) and A4 1.8T, 323i, VW Jetta VR6.

The SVT barely won the stoplight derby (0-60), but by 100 mph the Saab was quicker and it steamed on to a higher top speed than the SVT at 145 mph. And this from 185 turbocharged horses.

C&D Apr 1999.
0-60: 6.9s (SVT), 7.2 (Saab).
0-100: 19.1s (SVT), 18.4 (Saab).
1/4: 15.4s @ 91 (SVT), 15.5 @ 92 (Saab).
Top speed: 141 (SVT), 145 (Saab).

It's obvious that by the end of the 1/4 mile, the Saab is moving quicker, and that advantage will be held all the way to top speed.

By extension, I can only assume that with the 42 extra hp of the WRX over the Saab, the difference could only be greater, even if the WRX is a tad less aerodynamic.

Kerry

Kerrychin then obviously you know nothing about cars. Seems to me untrained people constantly love to take numbers and toss them around as there basis for every argument.

If you don't already know, WRX is AWD which in English simply means FourWheelDrive!!! A AWD vehicle will always need to make up for power for it's Parasitic Loss through the complete drive train. With the WRX, there simply not the greatest top end cars as compared to the capability of an SVT. To compare a SAAB to a SVT is absurd, if you're trying to argue about all turbos in general or the WRX. Sure it may have a turbo, but does it also have AWD????? My wifes Eagle Talon TSI FWD will eat a similarly built Talon TSI AWD on the go any day, it's just simply MATH!

Since I do alot of Solo 1 & 2 Racing a have alot of Subaru Buddies, I've raced a couple of them a few times on and off the track, even against a friends slighlty modded WRX he still couldn't beat me up top..........

4WD usually refers to something slightly different than AWD.
One is usually reserved for trucks.
The other reserved for small SUV's and cars.

4WD - Usually manually engaged...all four wheels powered.
AWD - Usually automatically engaged...a la Subaru wheels that slips to wheels that grip (that's a bit simplified, but get's the point across).

Four wheel drive also has a high and low for better torque numbers, on top of the regular transmission gears!

-Andy

Originally posted by wattspxr:
Kerrychin then obviously you know nothing about cars. Seems to me untrained people constantly love to take numbers and toss them around as there basis for every argument.

If you don't already know, WRX is AWD which in English simply means FourWheelDrive!!! A AWD vehicle will always need to make up for power for it's Parasitic Loss through the complete drive train.......My wifes Eagle Talon TSI FWD will eat a similarly built Talon TSI AWD on the go any day, it's just simply MATH!

Since I do alot of Solo 1 & 2 Racing a have alot of Subaru Buddies, I've raced a couple of them a few times on and off the track, even against a friends slighlty modded WRX he still couldn't beat me up top..........

I don't know everything about cars, but you mentioned math, so let's play.

SVT: 200 hp @ 15% loss = 170 hp to the ground
WRX: 227 hp @ 28% loss = 163 hp to the ground

I assumed 28% because it's a lot higher, but not double.

Now, in a real world situation, there are other factors like:
- aerodynamics (advantage, SVT)
- power curve

My argument is that even with more losses and a slightly worse drag coefficient, an SVT will not be "a mile" ahead of a WRX or even beat a WRX above 100 mph.

Remember we are comparing peak hp numbers. 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).

My additional argument was that I suspect the Subie allows overboost conditions, which would give it more than 227 hp for some period of time as long as all sensors check out OK. (Saabs do)

So it may be close, but it's not entirely obvious by looking at the numbers. First you said I shouldn't toss numbers around, then you said it all comes down to MATH, so what do you want?

Kerry

First off, the point of 4WD was not taken so lighltly. The fact is I know exactly what a AWD is, obviously you don't know exactly who you're arguing with. The point of 4wd was for some people who seem to like to take numbers of other cars and use it as a base comparison for other vehicles that have a totally different platform layout (it was a very simplified term without getting into any real details). So, let's not get into the whole AWD/4WD debate, you're absolutely wasting your time. Probably 4wd wasn't a "Best Phrase" to use, but in essense that's really what it is and no doubt the reall difference between the two being one is in operation all the time the other isn't.

Kerrychin plz just admit the fact that you're argument for comparing a WRX, by using a SAAB to a SVT is Rediculous!!!!!!

Again, don't waste your time throwing numbers around BRO, I participate and am a Liscensed Racer on a regular basis. The numbers you throw around will not have an corralation to 'Real World' Findings. Simply put, can you back any 'MATH' up???

Speaking from experience against not only stock Subbies but even modified ones, these cars lack the top end performance. Alot has to do with it's Drivetrain Layout but also the Turbo's Size as well. I can attest to this fact over and over again because I've lived and breathed it.
Sure, if they put some major money, change the turbos, put a much larger intercooler and run high boost levels than we're talking a whole different story, but from stock to a midly modified WRX (consist of Exhaust, Intake and slighlty upping the boost, ect.) my experience has shown that even against a mildly modified SVT, the WRX just can't touch the topend performance of the SVT Duratec. I have new mods coming along very soon that will up the ante even more of my SVT.

And by the WAY I don't ever recall saying anywhere that an SVT can put a mile on a WRX, ANYWHERE??? I can relate an experience with a friend who has a mildly modified WRX, pretty much similar mods to what I have done to my SVT, we did a little side-by-side race on the go, we we're already at about 70mph, we were both in the proper gears for accelertion, at one point we both finally took off pretty much at the exact same time, with him having a bit of a head start. Well he shot ahead of me a tad bit but I quickly closed that deal and started to pull ahead of him, ever so slighlty the SVT began to pull away and as the MPH increased so did the gap start to. I eventually let off at about 120, but if it went any further there would have been a good 3-4car length gap between us two at probably 130/140. So, no the SVT isn't gonna lay an ARSE Whooping on the WRX, it just has an advantage over them in a number of cases in certain performance areas...

It depends more on the driver. A race experienced driver,
driving my modded SVT, had no problem keeping up to and
could possibly pass, SVT Mustangs at our last SVT
Track Day. Do you honestly believe, some chick driving
her BMW M3 is going to out race me in my SVT? And no
smart a*s remarks about my driving

Wattspxr, you're funny...

I happen to know WRX's can't beat a SC'ed SE Contour, can't beat SVTs either at waaaay above 100. Of course this was on tracka and very safe... would I lie?

Those at SZ02 and/or got the video know part of the story...

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

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

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,

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

I take that as a Sarcastic Remark

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....

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Originally posted by CJ 2000:
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.

I was replying to Kerry. But thanks for the input anyway!

oh, nevermind then

Sorry if it came off strong, I was feeling bad yesterday and had to spread the wealth.

Mostly when I see something that isn't quite right I just keep on scrolling and reading, but yesterday I felt nitpicky.
No need for an appology on anyone elses account.

well ive had the fortune and misfortune to run two diferent wrxs one belongs to my brother and the other is a local. to make all this short me and my bro have went from a dead stop and a 25 mph roll. point is as earlier stated . they are beasts of the line but lack as the rpms increase. cant touch him from a stop jumps me by at least 3 cars. from a roll 1 car and by the time i hit 75-80 ive caught him 90 hes history both cars are only slightly modified. the other one i had a dyno day with and is pushing 460 at the wheels totally different beast. yes the wrx is a well built quick car but that does not mean its fast

Just thought I'd chime in here. Car and Driver I believe had the 0-100mph of the two stated as follows:

svt contour- 19.xx
Subaru WRX- 20.xx or 21.xx

I do know that the SVT was about 1.5 seconds faster. Can't remember the exact numbers though.

Originally posted by 95Mike:
Just thought I'd chime in here. Car and Driver I believe had the 0-100mph of the two stated as follows:

svt contour- 19.xx
Subaru WRX- 20.xx or 21.xx

I do know that the SVT was about 1.5 seconds faster. Can't remember the exact numbers though.

Umm... no. WRX in 10/01 issue against S4 and 330i went 0-100 in 15.5. Quite a bit quicker.

-R-

my bad. I was thinking 0-110mph which would put the wrx a little bit quicker.

Those are pretty good numbers. Its hard to compare those results to the various SVT results since there are too many factors such as altitude/Baro pressure, temperature and humidity. The only good test is a well documented wrx vs svt race to 100.

I know that here in Arizona in the summer it's hard for a stock SVT to match the reported quarter mile results of 15.6 or whatever it is because of heat.

warmonger

Originally posted by Richard David:
Umm... no. WRX in 10/01 issue against S4 and 330i went 0-100 in 15.5. Quite a bit quicker.
-R-

My car gets to 100mph in ~15 seconds.

My point exactly.

warmonger

And therein lies the beauty of a decently modded SVT. He may put 3 cars on you off the line, but that hellacious duratec top end pull will reel him. I've beaten my wifes car from a roll on the highway and I'm completely stock. I can only imagine what my car would do with another 40whp.

-R-

I'm Really SICK of #'s being tossed around all the time. I want to see real world TALK Here. Thanks Warmonger for saying what I couldn't put into words. The fact of the matter is a AWD is a 4WD, Like it or not.

What anyone needs to realize here is these are two totally different motors. I can easily attest anyday Humbly to the dominant Acceleration of the WRX since I've gone up against them in Full Track Competition from a Dead Stop as well as Drag Racing. On the Contrary, time and time again, and I'll add against very qualified drivers like me, once up to speed the Contour really sticks it to the WRX. On the Straights I always have a bit of an advantage then they do. On average before most of any mods done to my car, basically bone stock, I use to average about 110mph onwind and about 114 downwind on almost a half mile straight, obviously much less if you include your braking point as well, with mods I've averaged about 116mph onwind and 119 downwind which is better than the average of my fellow WRX racers. If you look at at cars in terms of a Race Track, there are different advantages each car will have to another, maybe the Type R (which I also go up against) will have excellent handling balance and superb braking, the WRX will have great pull out of slow Turns and great Balance, the SVT well it has good power compare to the three, especially a well modded one, DEMON can Chime here (though GREG, I still feel you need a Quaife

) stock suspension wise, I can attest, is way to spongy with excessive dive.

Point is the WRX is a superb car, IMO much better than the SVT in Real World from the standpoint of modifying it but for an overall comparison of stock to stock or mildly modified, the SVT takes the CAKE........

Originally posted by wattspxr:
The fact of the matter is a AWD is a 4WD, Like it or not.

Didn't we already have this debate?

Originally posted by CJ 2000:

Originally posted by wattspxr:
The fact of the matter is a AWD is a 4WD, Like it or not.

Didn't we already have this debate?

A Definate "Smart A*S!!"

Yep, come on... no harm intended just a little fun that's all

Thanks for clarifying, warmonger. I learned some stuff too.

I'm not gonna argue with people's experience in blowing by WRXs at 100+ mph but I did find it a bit hard to believe.

There was a comment about SVTs not being able to consistently pull the 15.6 1/4 miles or whatever our cars are supposed to do, due to the heat. That was my point in saying that heat seems to affect our cars more than others.

I'll bet the WRX could beat us at altitude!!

You have a 3.0, so the 100+ mph runs should be a piece of cake for you.

Kerry

Originally posted by ben9:
I was wondering what you guys thought was a better buy? Which is the faster of the two an which is more reliable? I need some opinions.. cant decide what kind of car to buy. Any other sports cars you guys can suggest please post...

re-reading this whole topic, i just looked back at the poor bastard who started it all, only 2 posts under his belt, and we jump all over him LOL... 4WD!!!! AWD!!! INTERCOOLED TURBO AT 100+ MPH 3.0 TRACK REAL WORLD CONDITIONS!!!

man, i bet he's regretting ever even opening his mouth.

btw, i'd get a wrx. more aftermarket, and you can modify turbos cheaper. i dont think they're ugly, either, so throw that out the window. my mom's got a subaru outback with 150k on it, no problems at all, and i dont think shes ever even changed the filters, if that says anything about reliability. not that im bitching about my tour, our family owns 3, no major problems yet, knock on wood.

100+ MPH runs?

NO way.
I think only the supercharged tours or ones with at least 250HP to the ground are doing that. Not to mention the fact that I live in a desert here in AZ with the hot air.
All the cars suffer here, actually turbo / superchargers just as bad. Best time to drag race here in the summer is 6:00 am.

Remember my 3.0 is running only about 10.25:1 compression and producing any where from 205-210 at the wheels right now depending on the type of gas I use. My all-time high is 217HP as shown on my web-site but that is many mods ago and also before the porkish 17" rims went on, so in fact I maybe making a bit more power now.

warmonger

Originally posted by warmonger:
100+ MPH runs?

NO way.
I think only the supercharged tours or ones with at least 250HP to the ground are doing that. Not to mention the fact that I live in a desert here in AZ with the hot air.
All the cars suffer here, actually turbo / superchargers just as bad. Best time to drag race here in the summer is 6:00 am.

Remember my 3.0 is running only about 10.25:1 compression and producing any where from 205-210 at the wheels right now depending on the type of gas I use. My all-time high is 217HP as shown on my web-site but that is many mods ago and also before the porkish 17" rims went on, so in fact I maybe making a bit more power now.

warmonger

I Cruise to work at 100 (sometimes, and note the word cruising), might I add this is in Hawaii!!! In a fairly slight down hill slope on the, well I can't say, I've hit almost 160mph (speedo 160 that is) back in the day, within about 1 mile approx. stretch from about 65/70mph and vehicle has no forced induction, no nos and no 3.0 and definately aint making 250 @wheels, but warmonger I'm sure you already knew the potential of these cars as your previous statements claim.

All I can say is thank god we are comparing 2 German engineered cars here. we sure know for a fact that unless you put a load of freakin $ into a jap car you cant come close to what you can do with the contour or the volkswagen engineered engine of a subaru.

Come to think about, the Duratech started on the sheets of the Porche engineers, then Cosworth then finally laid out before Ford so you can say our motor is of German Heritage as well and through the same line of thinking that the Suby went through....

I was talking 1/4 mile runs in response to KerryChin. Even stock and non modded some SVT's can almost hit 150. I'm confident that now I can surpass the speedo's capability easily now on flat ground. It has just as much pull now above 125 in 5th than it did at the same rpm in fourth when I had the stock motor.

warmonger