|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496 |
Car and Driver states 14.8 @95mph
BKent please find me some near stock or near stock SVT timeslpis in the 15.2 range. People have such a hard time with traction, times are usually in the 15.5 - 15.7 range on this board.
I say Aucra by 1/2 second!
Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars ~ Hobart Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716 |
Originally posted by Fmr12B:
Car and Driver states 14.8 @95mph
BKent please find me some near stock or near stock SVT timeslpis in the 15.2 range. People have such a hard time with traction, times are usually in the 15.5 - 15.7 range on this board.
I say Aucra by 1/2 second!
WTF!!!???!!!???!!!???!!!!! no way an RSX is running the quartr in under 15...i dont believe it...
95 GL MTX Zetec, Carbon Fiber hood:
*neoprene seat covers
*new SVT rear bumper 
*Proud Owner of 1962 Chevy Corvette 427
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
i think it's a driver's race bone stock vs. bone stock. . .thye're fast and peppy, but truth be told, I've driven a Type S, and there's no umph until like 6 or 7k, and given an SVT has a more revable engine, we could get into the sweet spot faster if the driver is good enough not to screw up the shifting (I should be talking!). . .remember, it's a SEDAN vs. a 2dr cpe, if you put 4 doors on a type-s, you'd get a CL whatever they are Acura type S, and those things aren't that tough to keep up with. . .IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
and about C&D. . .I wonder about them, I get R&T, C&D, and Automobile, and C&D always posts faster 0-60. . .like the subbie sti, 0-60 in 4.6(C&D), 4.9(R&T) and 5.1 (Auto). . .I'm thinking they make numbers up, .5second difference, unless their entire staff has F1 drivers, I doubt they're schooling all the other magazines, 5.1 I can believe, but. . .I dunno, I wouldn't take a magazine's numbers to seriously (which is what this ramble is trying to say). . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716 |
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
and about C&D. . .I wonder about them, I get R&T, C&D, and Automobile, and C&D always posts faster 0-60. . .like the subbie sti, 0-60 in 4.6(C&D), 4.9(R&T) and 5.1 (Auto). . .I'm thinking they make numbers up, .5second difference, unless their entire staff has F1 drivers, I doubt they're schooling all the other magazines, 5.1 I can believe, but. . .I dunno, I wouldn't take a magazine's numbers to seriously (which is what this ramble is trying to say). . .
see thats weird i was told by the dealer that the regular WRX does a 5.2 0-60 with an MTX and an ATX is a second slower... for over 80 more horses and a better suspension, 4.6 on an STi seems a little bit slow...should be closer to 4...
95 GL MTX Zetec, Carbon Fiber hood:
*neoprene seat covers
*new SVT rear bumper
*Proud Owner of 1962 Chevy Corvette 427
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Fmr12B:
RSX S destroys a SVT. There 0-60 is 6.1 seconds as measured by Car and Driver.
Cars are light (2800lbs) and quick, yes they rev to 8000rpm. Test drove one two weeks ago. Unbeleivably quick.
Of course real world driving has lots of factors but bench racing: stock for stock RSX S wins!
I think you overstate the advantage a bit..
Car weighs about 2800-2880 lbs (range Ive seen) vs 3020-3060 lbs for SVT....so about 200 lbs lighter
SVT makes about same WHP
SVT makes about 20-25lb/ft more tourque across rev range.
Overall, SVT powerband is fatter = slightly greater HP under the curve in "powerband". Powerband is just about 1000 RPM higher up the tach for RSX.
The 0-60 run is going to go to RSX BECAUSE it gets 60 in 2nd gear where SVT needs a 2-3 shift. The 1/4 mile is the more useful comparo...RSX in mags from between 14.7-15.0 sec with trap speed about 94 MPH. SVT gets about 15.4 with 91-92 MPH. So that is about .5 sec but only 2-3 MPH trap speed advantage...which is you first clue that SVT is closing the gap. Sure enough, by 130 MPH the cars are pretty close IIRC.
So, agre, edge goes to RSX-S but gap closes considerably at speed. Driver & Mods can decide this race easily. And regard engine size...true the SVT needs 2.5L to match the 2.0L Hondas power BUT..you get a broader stronger torque curve for around town driving satisfatction, superior smoothness (with DMD anyway) and much nice accoustics (SVT sounds great)...thats worth something.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I think you overstate the advantage a bit..
Car weighs about 2800-2880 lbs (range Ive seen) vs 3020-3060 lbs for SVT....so about 200 lbs lighter
Actually Car and Driver listed curb weight at 2750-2800 lbs. I listed the 2800 due to the RSX S having more standard options.
Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars ~ Hobart Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
i don't believe an RSX runs under 15 bone stock...no way
I'm thinkin 15.1 RSX and 15.4 SVT
but being that the SVT has the bigger engine I give the race to the SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 69
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 69 |
(Flame suit on)
Once again the age old question arises. Let me bring up a point, the RSX with minimal mods is running 2.2 and 2.3 60 ft times, So where is your torque advantage? The SVT's torque only increases wheel spin from what I've experianced. I honestly feel, as I am the only person who has owned both, the RSX is faster and from a roll is superior. Now that isn't to say a good driver in an SVT couldn't take it. Anything can happen. But alot of stock guys are putting high 14's stock. And dyno proven in numerous mags the k20a responds huge to intake mods. 19 wheel hp from AEM CAI. Guys with cai, hondata reflashed computer and exhaust are putting down 199 hp to the wheels.
SO mod VS Mod, SVT needs to watch itself, even worse than racing stock for stock. Now with that said, you want a good race. Sentra S-ER Spec V with small amount of mods is sick fast...
There are 3 very un-happy SVT owners in my town that know what an RSX-S can do, who knows though. I am trying to get a track meet together for the Capitol CEG to race..
R
2004 WRX STI
91 Eclispe GSX (to many mods to list, Want to race?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810 |
The RSX-S will eat you up.
|
|
|
|
|
