Support NeoGAF

[Enron]

Yea - if you'd told me that I'd be buying a 300hp RWD sports car from Hyundai 10 years ago, I'd have laughed myself silly, but here I am. Also took a look at the Equus while they were getting the 'key' and was even more impressed. Not sure the world is ready for a $60K Hyundai, but Hyundai is definitely ready for the world.

The Equus was the most impressive car I saw at the auto show. I couldnt believe how nice that car was and for the price tag.

 

[Halvie]

Yea - if you'd told me that I'd be buying a 300hp RWD sports car from Hyundai 10 years ago, I'd have laughed myself silly, but here I am. Also took a look at the Equus while they were getting the 'key' and was even more impressed. Not sure the world is ready for a $60K Hyundai, but Hyundai is definitely ready for the world.

Any plans for it, or just keeping it stock?

 

[MisterNoisy]

Any plans for it, or just keeping it stock?

For now, I'm just going to do the 1500-mile break in thing. I do want to replace the grille with something a little cleaner looking later on, but other than that, I'm pretty happy with it as is. I figure I can wait for a bit before I start screwing around with it.

 

[AlphaSnake]

For now, I'm just going to do the 1500-mile break in thing. I do want to replace the grille with something a little cleaner looking later on, but other than that, I'm pretty happy with it as is. I figure I can wait for a bit before I start screwing around with it.

I like your plans already. I like the Genesis a lot, but that front grille was recycled from a 10 year old Elantra.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

I decided to get the STi. I am pre approved and going to go get it Wednesday god willing. It's a shame I have to drive 250 miles to get it, but, it's my dream car. I have always wanted an STi.

But then think of the 250 miles back....

 

[AlexMogil]

But then think of the 250 miles back....

Yep, I just gotta make it to Wednesday.

Stupid work!

 

[DD]

Australia, I'm guessing?

No, Brazil.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I'm not going to pretend I spent any time driving each of those (the closest I got to either was to be a passenger in the V6 Mustang 2010, which, yeah, the interior is plasticy and smells like plastic too), but isn't the thing about the cars in this class not just about engine performance, but the speed / quality / smoothness of transmission, the way cars behave in tight turns, quality of suspension, brakes, etc. I understand that M is really good with all of that. Doesn't it have the fastest auto transmission of all cars in that class (downshift rev matching too, which I don't think Mustang has?). Doesn't it also have the highest quality/fastest manual stick with dual clutch? Also, those electromagnetic liquid shock absorbers, or have I confused that with CTS-V?

Yes, the price difference is big, but with enthusiast cars like that there always comes the point where you're expected to pay disproportionally more for details that some people would consider 'small'. This just gets more obvious as you go up to the supercars class.

you guys are two different types of customer and or fanboy. One of you is all about performance / dollar (mustang gt - boss) . The other is about refinement and base line quality (m3). The arguemnt is silly because the only comparisons ive seen between the two cars is extensive track tests. Therefore we have a performance/dollar comparison, and they were dead heat in most things, driver was able to get a slightly lower time on the track with mustang, and the 302 had a surprisingly low time at Laguna Seca. Two different themes sell these cars, mustangs are pony cars, fast , agile street legal cars, but far down the list of practical cars. The whole point of pony/muscle cars is how much can you get performance wise within a price range. BMW's are more of a getting what you pay for and loving it type of thing. Where as a pony car would encroach upon a more expensive cars performance envelope like say the old F body firebird was a beast right off teh dealer lot for a very low price 22-28k , the m3 is upscale overall and would in no way shame someone who is only going to drive an expensive luxury car even though in actuality many cars are above the m3 in luxury.

so a moot discussion basically the difference in price highlights the difference in market and appeal basically.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

lol?

a wrx has more in common with a base impreza than an sti, mechanically.

you'll spend way over 8K to replicate the drivetrain, transmission, and suspension from an sti.

moreover, if you're gonna mod heavily, the investment in the sti is worth it based solely on the bullet-proof tranny.

Why would you replicate? For 8k you could buy a better tranny, suspension, and drivetrain than the STI comes with and put it in a WRX!

I'm not going to pretend I spent any time driving each of those (the closest I got to either was to be a passenger in the V6 Mustang 2010, which, yeah, the interior is plasticy and smells like plastic too), but isn't the thing about the cars in this class not just about engine performance, but the speed / quality / smoothness of transmission, the way cars behave in tight turns, quality of suspension, brakes, etc. I understand that M is really good with all of that. Doesn't it have the fastest auto transmission of all cars in that class (downshift rev matching too, which I don't think Mustang has?). Doesn't it also have the highest quality/fastest manual stick with dual clutch? Also, those electromagnetic liquid shock absorbers, or have I confused that with CTS-V?

Yes, the price difference is big, but with enthusiast cars like that there always comes the point where you're expected to pay disproportionally more for details that some people would consider 'small'. This just gets more obvious as you go up to the supercars class.

I'll put it this way: I'd rather have an E9x M3 than a Mustang GT, if both were offered to me. However, in terms of performance per dollar, the Mustang GT spanks the M3. Yes the M3 is $30k more, but you're not getting $30k more in performance, you're getting $30k more in luxury. And like I said before, the point of the comparison between the GT and M3 has never been about feature-set; it's always been about performance. For the same reason, one doesn't compare an R8 4.2 to an M3: sure the performance is similar, but the R8 is more expensive for many reasons, yet that doesn't stop the comparison from being made.

I think I've disagreed with every post of yours that I had read in this thread so far. I personally didn't buy a G35 to race or for speed, I bought it because I think it's a great looking car. To each his own!

Pics! No worries man car GAF is very BMW biased.

Yeah I understand, but I personally feel there's a lot better looking, more well-designed cars than the G35, including its own successor the G37.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I decided to get the STi. I am pre approved and going to go get it Wednesday god willing. It's a shame I have to drive 250 miles to get it, but, it's my dream car. I have always wanted an STi.

Great choice, but TUNE THAT CAR. I can't stress how much difference a good tune makes.

If I remember correctly, just tuning the new STI and putting a catless downpipe on it added almost 70 horsepower at the wheels.

Check this out, stock vs tuned:

That's right, the tuned '11 makes more horsepower @ 4.2k RPM than the stock one does at PEAK. The difference is just silly, shame on Subaru.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

It's not as nice as some of the iron you guys in this thread are pushing, but I just took home a 2011 Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track.

http://i52.tinypic.com/119z60z.jpg[/IMG

[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2h4cm05.jpg[/IMG

Coming from a '07 Scion tC, it's a HUGE step up.[/QUOTE]

Awesome choice! The Genesis Coupe 3.8 is hugely underrated. If you choose to mod it, I think that beast picks up something like 30-40 whp just with a couple of basic bolt-ons. I really like what Hyundai is up to.

 

[ecnal]

Why would you replicate? For 8k you could buy a better tranny, suspension, and drivetrain than the STI comes with and put it in a WRX!

you can't even get USED sti parts for under 8K to replace EVERY part in a wrx that's inferior.

not only that, but you're actually suggesting that people buy a wrx only to perform MASSIVE mechanical overhauls because it will still somehow save money over an sti?

you're clearly not even remotely familiar with either car, nor are you familiar with the amount of time and costs involved in performing major mechanical overhauls.

 

[ecnal]

Great choice, but TUNE THAT CAR. I can't stress how much difference a good tune makes.

If I remember correctly, just tuning the new STI and putting a catless downpipe on it added almost 70 horsepower at the wheels.

That's right, the tuned '11 makes more horsepower @ 4.2k RPM than the stock one does at PEAK. The difference is just silly, shame on Subaru.

since when is adding a 3" TBE considered just a tune?

shame on subaru for putting catalytic converters on their cars from the factory?

 

[reilo]

Not sure where he's getting that dyno sheet from, anyhow. Looking through Cobb's dyno database for 2011 STis, the baseline tune for a stock STi is 235 hp and 240 ft/lb minimum. Others I've seen show 250 hp and 254 ft/lb for a stock baseline. A 15PSI tune at 92 Octane is 270 hp and 288 ft/lb. That's hardly 70whp added from stock. This is why we shouldn't trust any jackass with MS Paint.

EDIT: 213hp and 214 ft/lb stock baseline would put it severely below a stock baseline dyno of a Mazdaspeed6: 223hp and 255 ft/lb. No way the STi does 213/214 stock.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Not sure where he's getting that dyno sheet from, anyhow. Looking through Cobb's dyno database for 2011 STis, the baseline tune for a stock STi is 235 hp and 240 ft/lb. Others I've seen show 250 hp and 254 ft/lb for a stock baseline. A 15PSI tune at 92 Octane is 270 hp and 288 ft/lb. That's hardly 70whp added from stock. This is why we shouldn't trust any jackass with MS Paint.

EDIT: 213hp and 214 ft/lb stock baseline would put it severely below a stock baseline dyno of a Mazdaspeed6: 223hp and 255 ft/lb.

The new STI baselines horribly low.

Just with downpipe and CBE. That's a pretty conservative tune too, they probably could've pulled an extra 10-15 whp.

Note: Mustang dyno, ymmv due to dyno/height relative to sea level etc.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

Am I retarded/ reading that graph wrong? Is it saying that WHP on a factory STi is at 215? I thought the engine made 300bhp, how can it lose that much through the powertrain?

 

[BoobPhysics101]

you can't even get USED sti parts for under 8K to replace EVERY part in a wrx that's inferior.

not only that, but you're actually suggesting that people buy a wrx only to perform MASSIVE mechanical overhauls because it will still somehow save money over an sti?

you're clearly not even remotely familiar with either car, nor are you familiar with the amount of time and costs involved in performing major mechanical overhauls.

If you're going to buy a WRX and mod it beyond STI levels, it isn't hard to spend that 8k in parts to replace it. The tranny doesn't even need to be replaced, COBB themselves have stated that the new WRX tranny is far stouter than the old one. As long as you're not hard launching it in an abusive manner, it'll hold up.

I can think of several aftermarket suspensions that'd be superior to the STi stock suspension. That's not a massive overhaul at all. Adding power isn't either. What's left? Drivetrain modifications?

since when is adding a 3" TBE considered just a tune?

shame on subaru for putting catalytic converters on their cars from the factory?

How hard is it to put on a downpipe? And why WOULDN'T you if you're tuning?

And check the dynos, it isn't about cats at all, the factory tune downright sucks.

 

[ecnal]

the overwhelming majority of sti's have a baseline in the ~250-256awhp range.

~30% loss of claimed hp through drivetrain.

 

[reilo]

The new STI baselines horribly low.

http://innovativetuningdl.com/dyno/InnTuned/2010/12.10/Jay2011Stage2Graph2.jpg[/img

Just with downpipe and CBE. That's a pretty conservative tune too, they probably could've pulled an extra 10-15 whp.

Note: Mustang dyno, ymmv due to dyno/height relative to sea level etc.[/QUOTE]
Cobb uses Mustang dynos. They have three different shops located around the country in Portland, Austin, and Plano. They have five baseline stock dynos, all different vehicles:

235 hp 240 ft/lb 100% Stock
250 hp 254 ft/lb 100% Stock- 3rd Gear- 93 Octane
235 hp 234 ft/lb 100% Stock
251 hp 255 ft/lb Stock
248 hp 266 ft/lb 100% Stock, 93 Octane

I'm gonna go with Cobb on this one. They know what they're doing.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Am I retarded/ reading that graph wrong? Is it saying that WHP on a factory STi is at 215? I thought the engine made 300bhp, how can it lose that much through the powertrain?

No, you're not retarded at all, there's just several factors at play:

Drivetrain loss on AWD is anywhere from 25-30%. As horsepower figures go up, the loss becomes less substantial. For example, if you've got 600 hp at the crank on AWD, you're not dynoing 420 hp... more like 500~. There's two schools of thought on drivetrain loss, but I won't get into that.

Anyways, different dynos read differently, so you can't compare horsepower numbers unless it's on the same type of dyno, and even then ambient temperature, ft above sea level etc can totally skew your numbers. Typically mustang dynos read the lowest, then dynojet, then dynapack. Shawn Church's dynapack reads infamously high: I believe my AP1 stock would read something ridiculous like 230-240 whp, which would put it @ 290 hp crank. :lol

So taking that into account, figure that STI has 300 bhp... but I don't know if Subie publishes which dynos they get their #'s from, and if they even dyno at the wheels. They could dyno at the crank for all I know. If you figure a 25% drivetrain loss/tuning factors, the STI should make 225 whp. It's making anywhere from 210-230 whp depending on the dyno.

Due to the huge gains from tuning (substantially more than older STI's made), you can see that the new STI is definitely down on power. Plus the subpar 1/4 mile times and trap speeds show that as well.

Basically: don't look at crank #'s from the manufacturer, look at dyno numbers. Lots of cars are overrated and underrated from the factory. For example, the 335i is infamously underrated: BMW claims 300 hp/300 tq from the factory, but when you dyno one, they usually come in @ about 280 whp... which would mean that it's actually at about 330 hp!

 

[BoobPhysics101]

the overwhelming majority of sti's have a baseline in the ~250-256awhp range.

~30% loss of claimed hp through drivetrain.

Do 300 - 30%. That's 210 whp. Also, different dyno factor is at play. 250 whp baselines on what dynos? Dynapacks? :lol That'd mean the STI only has 17% drivetrain loss if it's dynoing 250whp.

Cobb uses Mustang dynos. They have three different shops located around the country in Portland, Austin, and Plano. They have five baseline stock dynos, all different vehicles:

235 hp 240 ft/lb 100% Stock
250 hp 254 ft/lb 100% Stock- 3rd Gear- 93 Octane
235 hp 234 ft/lb 100% Stock
251 hp 255 ft/lb Stock
248 hp 266 ft/lb 100% Stock, 93 Octane

I'm gonna go with Cobb on this one. They know what they're doing.

Those numbers look a bit off to me. Either Subaru underrates the STi (very possible), or those are high reading Mustang dynos.

 

[ecnal]

If you're going to buy a WRX and mod it beyond STI levels, it isn't hard to spend that 8k in parts to replace it. The tranny doesn't even need to be replaced, COBB themselves have stated that the new WRX tranny is far stouter than the old one. As long as you're not hard launching it in an abusive manner, it'll hold up.

I can think of several aftermarket suspensions that'd be superior to the STi stock suspension. That's not a massive overhaul at all. Adding power isn't either. What's left? Drivetrain modifications?

if you're going to buy a wrx and mod it heavily, you're a moron for not buying an sti. period.

the new wrx 5spd being better than the old one isn't saying much. even cobb stg2 wrx owners have had problems with their tranny/clutch.

i daily drove an 05 GT30R sti on a stock tranny -- aftermarket clutch -- for 60K miles with no issues; those kind of results are common, and, in the realm of modding heavily, the 6spd in the sti is worth the extra cost alone.

however, this argument is entirely irrelevant to your intial claim. you can't logically suggest someone buy a wrx over an sti for a dd only to heavily mod the vehicle. that makes no sense, at all.

How hard is it to put on a downpipe? And why WOULDN'T you if you're tuning?

And check the dynos, it isn't about cats at all, the factory tune downright sucks.

a catless downpipe isn't even a legitimate option for many people -- depending on their location.

again, your claim was about TUNING ONLY, so i'm not sure why you're throwing up dynos of cars with 3" TBEs. if you're gonna say tuning only, throw up some graphs of tunes ONLY.

the stock tune does blow ass, which is why you should compare a cobb stg1 dyno to a stock dyno.

 

[reilo]

Those numbers look a bit off to me. Either Subaru underrates the STi (very possible), or those are high reading Mustang dynos.

No, your numbers look off to me. Cobb is one of the most reputable shops and tuners in the country especially for Subarus. They know their shit. I'm also gonna go with the consistency that their dynos (Mustang dynos, fyi) show with four different vehicles.

 

[ecnal]

Do 300 - 30%. That's 210 whp. Also, different dyno factor is at play. 250 whp baselines on what dynos? Dynapacks? :lol That'd mean the STI only has 17% drivetrain loss if it's dynoing 250whp.

mustang dynos. you even answered this "problem" yourself...

Those numbers look a bit off to me. Either Subaru underrates the STi (very possible), or those are high reading Mustang dynos.

the bolded has been known for some time. particularly with tq #'s, which are heavily underrated from the factory.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

No, your numbers look off to me. Cobb is one of the most reputable shops and tuners in the country especially for Subarus. They know their shit. I'm also gonna go with the consistency that their dynos (Mustang dynos, fyi) show with four different vehicles.

Here's results from one of Cobb's tuners (Tim Bailey):

http://www.iwsti.com/forums/power-b...ang-dyno-stage-1-protune-277-whp-292-wtq.html

Stock tune put down 226 whp, tune with just cat-back threw down 277 whp. I'm overly familiar with Cobb and their results, I just think this is the 'different dyno factor' at play. My initial point was that the stock tune from the factory isn't great/overly conservative.

if you're going to buy a wrx and mod it heavily, you're a moron for not buying an sti. period.

the new wrx 5spd being better than the old one isn't saying much. even cobb stg2 wrx owners have had problems with their tranny/clutch.

i daily drove an 05 GT30R sti on a stock tranny -- aftermarket clutch -- for 60K miles with no issues; those kind of results are common, and, in the realm of modding heavily, the 6spd in the sti is worth the extra cost alone.

however, this argument is entirely irrelevant to your intial claim. you can't logically suggest someone buy a wrx over an sti for a dd only to heavily mod the vehicle. that makes no sense, at all.



a catless downpipe isn't even a legitimate option for many people -- depending on their location.

again, your claim was about TUNING ONLY, so i'm not sure why you're throwing up dynos of cars with 3" TBEs. if you're gonna say tuning only, throw up some graphs of tunes ONLY.

the stock tune does blow ass, which is why you should compare a cobb stg1 dyno to a stock dyno.

It's pretty hard to get a graph without downpipe or cat-backs thrown in. I never suggested that someone SHOULD dump 8k into a WRX, but rather that they could, and possibly get better results than just buying a stock STi, depending on application. Drag? Track? The WRX could easily be modded to destroy the STI for track applications. This is all a moot argument though.

And this may be a bit trollish, but both the STI and WRX need to be modded to beat Mustang V6's and Genesis Coupes, let alone an Evo X. I'm hoping the 2012-2013 STIs and WRX's have direct injection. Too bad about the Evo being killed off, always loved the Evo vs STi competitions that brought out the best in Subie/Mitsu.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Also, wanted to mention how awesome Car-GAF has been. The discussion is refreshing and you guys bring a lot to the table.

Even the guys that (mistakenly) think that the 350z looks better than the 370z

 

[reilo]

Here's results from one of Cobb's tuners (Tim Bailey):

http://www.iwsti.com/forums/power-b...ang-dyno-stage-1-protune-277-whp-292-wtq.html

Stock tune put down 226 whp, tune with just cat-back threw down 277 whp. I'm overly familiar with Cobb and their results, I just think this is the 'different dyno factor' at play. My initial point was that the stock tune from the factory isn't great/overly conservative.

Stock: 226
Stock: 243

235 hp 240 ft/lb 100% Stock
250 hp 254 ft/lb 100% Stock- 3rd Gear- 93 Octane
235 hp 234 ft/lb 100% Stock
251 hp 255 ft/lb Stock
248 hp 266 ft/lb 100% Stock, 93 Octane

??

That's right in line with what I posted and a far cry from the 213/214 figure you trotted out earlier -- especially the torque.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

??

That's right in line with what I posted and a far cry from the 213/214 figure you trotted out earlier -- especially the torque.

Different Dyno Factor. Wasn't posting those results to disprove you, just showing extra results. There is no "STI baseline", the results vary wildly. Also, the torque is going to vary with the hp, especially considering that hp is just a function of torque.

The only thing that really can be compared is how much better the tunes are vs. stock.

Edit: Just noticed... why is your tag "has a small penis"? WTF

 

[reilo]

Edit: Just noticed... why is your tag "has a small penis"? WTF

Because I said I'd rather spend $35k on a BMW 135i than $42k on a Chevy Volt in 2008.

 

[ecnal]

It's pretty hard to get a graph without downpipe or cat-backs thrown in. I never suggested that someone SHOULD dump 8k into a WRX, but rather that they could, and possibly get better results than just buying a stock STi, depending on application. Drag? Track? The WRX could easily be modded to destroy the STI for track applications. This is all a moot argument though.

And this may be a bit trollish, but both the STI and WRX need to be modded to beat Mustang V6's and Genesis Coupes, let alone an Evo X. I'm hoping the 2012-2013 STIs and WRX's have direct injection. Too bad about the Evo being killed off, always loved the Evo vs STi competitions that brought out the best in Subie/Mitsu.

lol?

i ran a 13.2 @ 103 w/ a 1.68 60' in a bone stock sti -- READ: BONE-STOCK.

new v6 mustangs may be able to run similar in the 1/4 mile, and i haven't seen any low 13 second 1/4 mile runs from a genesis coupe. also, none of these cars will post substantially better times on a track -- the mustang will certainly be slower, and the genesis may be comparable.

so why does an sti need to be modded to beat any of these cars?

it is time for subaru to update the powerplant though.

 

[mkenyon]

Help me GAF!

I used to be a bigtime automotive enthusiast. Had a Integra GSR, 2003 and 2004 modified WRX (first was stolen), 240z, heavily modified Jeep Wrangler, and was an avid reader of Car and Driver.

However, about three years ago I got a 2006 Subaru Outback and got rid of the 240z and WRX. It's now paid off, and pretty close to mileage where it would start to get expensive. As a result, I've gotten the okay from the wife to get a new car.

Here's my situation: I have grown fond of having a simple commuter that will drive in just about any weather. Also, probably due to my age and changing interests, I've also fallen out of the automotive enthusiast scene, and my general knowledge of what is out there has dramatically dropped. Here's my set of requirements for our next car.

-$30k or less, the more towards 20k the better.
-All or 4-wheel drive (Pac NW here, need it for crossing mountains and back road driving). I can *possibly* dismiss this requirement if the car is good enough.
-Wagon/Hatch/Crossover/mini-SUV
-Fun to drive
-20+ MPG
-New
-No Fords or VW (I know the Audi below basically is, but it's the only one I'd consider).

The cars we've been considering:
WRX Wagon
Forester
Honda Fit (would be paid in full, love having no car payments)
Honda Element
Audi A3 Quattro
Acura RDX
Mazda CX-7
Accord Wagon

We're both leaning heavily towards the WRX, as a piece of both of our hearts has been missing since we got rid of my 2004 WRX. Additionally, we started watching Top Gear again, and it's gotten our desires for a performer going. I think that *might* pass in time, but I do love to drive a lot. Anyway, any cars I might be missing?

 

[Halvie]

lol?

i ran a 13.2 @ 103 w/ a 1.68 60' in a bone stock sti -- READ: BONE-STOCK.

new v6 mustangs may be able to run similar in the 1/4 mile, and i haven't seen any low 13 second 1/4 mile runs from a genesis coupe. also, none of these cars will post substantially better times on a track -- the mustang will certainly be slower, and the genesis may be comparable.

so why does an sti need to be modded to beat any of these cars?

it is time for subaru to update the powerplant though.

60's time is incredible.Must be a good driver.

2011 v6 mustangs don't run low 13's stock.

All the genesis I have ran have been much slower than your time. Trap around 101-102, but 13.8 was the fastest pass.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

lol?

i ran a 13.2 @ 103 w/ a 1.68 60' in a bone stock sti -- READ: BONE-STOCK.

new v6 mustangs may be able to run similar in the 1/4 mile, and i haven't seen any low 13 second 1/4 mile runs from a genesis coupe. also, none of these cars will post substantially better times on a track -- the mustang will certainly be slower, and the genesis may be comparable.

so why does an sti need to be modded to beat any of these cars?

it is time for subaru to update the powerplant though.

Amazing 60' time! Which STI? GC or GD?

That being said, I wasn't talking about drag racing, I'm talking about track. The V6 Mustang is on par with the STi on the track. The V6 Mustang beats the STi on the track even with its 114 mph (wtf) governor.

We have little doubt that it could have unseated the co–class-champ 2006 Nissan 350Z Track if the Ford hadn’t been equipped with a 114-mph governor, which the car banged into for more than 15 seconds per lap.

Imagine if that limiter was taken off.

Because I said I'd rather spend $35k on a BMW 135i than $42k on a Chevy Volt in 2008.

Shit, who wouldn't? The Volt is junk, and the 135i is starting to creep into my heart as the little pot-bellied-pig-that-could.

 

[Halvie]

Shit, who wouldn't? The Volt is junk, and the 135i is starting to creep into my heart as the little pot-bellied-pig-that-could.

Same. Just want to see how the n55 aftermarket pans out compared to n54.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Same. Just want to see how the n55 aftermarket pans out compared to n54.

That HPFP issue is ridiculous though, definitely puts a hamper on modding. Going on 5 years and it's still not fixed. My uncle's 335i blew its HPFP less than a week after he bought it. Pathetic.

The 135i/335i is such a steal for car tuners, though. Chipping for an extra 80whp? Yes please. Throw on some bolt-ons and you're at 100-120 whp over stock, and far more torque. That is just crazy.

I really love the N54 twin-turbo setup too. The spool-up sounds nice.

 

[ecnal]

60's time is incredible.Must be a good driver.

2011 v6 mustangs don't run low 13's stock.

All the genesis I have ran have been much slower than your time. Trap around 101-102, but 13.8 was the fastest pass.

thanks.

Amazing 60' time! Which STI? GC or GD?

That being said, I wasn't talking about drag racing, I'm talking about track. The V6 Mustang is on par with the STi on the track. The V6 Mustang beats the STi on the track even with its 114 mph (wtf) governor.

thanks, 05 gd.

as far as the track stuff goes, i'm not really going to magazine race with you.

until i see 2011 v6 'stangs on a regular basis at auto-x/track events, i'll reserve judgement. my gut feeling, however, is that a properly driven sti will still be quicker.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Help me GAF!

I used to be a bigtime automotive enthusiast. Had a Integra GSR, 2003 and 2004 modified WRX (first was stolen), 240z, heavily modified Jeep Wrangler, and was an avid reader of Car and Driver.

However, about three years ago I got a 2006 Subaru Outback and got rid of the 240z and WRX. It's now paid off, and pretty close to mileage where it would start to get expensive. As a result, I've gotten the okay from the wife to get a new car.

Here's my situation: I have grown fond of having a simple commuter that will drive in just about any weather. Also, probably due to my age and changing interests, I've also fallen out of the automotive enthusiast scene, and my general knowledge of what is out there has dramatically dropped. Here's my set of requirements for our next car.

-$30k or less, the more towards 20k the better.
-All or 4-wheel drive (Pac NW here, need it for crossing mountains and back road driving). I can *possibly* dismiss this requirement if the car is good enough.
-Wagon/Hatch/Crossover/mini-SUV
-Fun to drive
-20+ MPG
-New
-No Fords or VW (I know the Audi below basically is, but it's the only one I'd consider).

The cars we've been considering:
WRX Wagon
Forester
Honda Fit (would be paid in full, love having no car payments)
Honda Element
Audi A3 Quattro
Acura RDX
Mazda CX-7
Accord Wagon

We're both leaning heavily towards the WRX, as a piece of both of our hearts has been missing since we got rid of my 2004 WRX. Additionally, we started watching Top Gear again, and it's gotten our desires for a performer going. I think that *might* pass in time, but I do love to drive a lot. Anyway, any cars I might be missing?

I know you said no Fords or VW, and I personally dislike VW myself...

But I really, really think you should take a look at the 2012 Golf R when it comes out. It's going to be a sweet little hatch. AWD, 256 hp, turbo 2.0 4 cylinder, awesome gas mileage. Going to be a hair over $30k though. :\

Also take a look at Mazdaspeed 3's. Fits all of your criteria except it's FWD.

But really, the WRX Wagon is pretty hard to pass over for the price. Pick up a used '09 for $21-23k.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

thanks.



thanks, 05 gd.

as far as the track stuff goes, i'm not really going to magazine race with you.

until i see 2011 v6 'stangs on a regular basis at auto-x/track events, i'll reserve judgement. my gut feeling, however, is that a properly driven sti will still be quicker.

I don't think it's fair to call it magazine racing to dismiss the car's performance It put down those times even with a 114 MPH governor. That's incredible. The potential is there for it to lap those times with a good driver, even if you're not going to see them all the time at the track. It's admirable. But yeah, I'd rather be in an STi myself over a V6 Mustang for track events.

Your '05 GD is faster than the '11 STi is stock, that's for sure.

 

[MisterNoisy]

Help me GAF!
-$30k or less, the more towards 20k the better.
-All or 4-wheel drive (Pac NW here, need it for crossing mountains and back road driving). I can *possibly* dismiss this requirement if the car is good enough.
-Wagon/Hatch/Crossover/mini-SUV
-Fun to drive
-20+ MPG
-New
-No Fords or VW (I know the Audi below basically is, but it's the only one I'd consider).

Mini Countryman, maybe? I really like the MS3 suggestion too, but it sounds like you already know what you want.

 

[reilo]

I don't get why Mazda doesn't go AWD with the Speed3 already. Granted the amount of competition in the AWD-turbo-hatch is huge, but at the price point the Speed3 is in, there is no competition to speak of.

 

[ecnal]

I know you said no Fords or VW, and I personally dislike VW myself...

But I really, really think you should take a look at the 2012 Golf R when it comes out. It's going to be a sweet little hatch. AWD, 256 hp, turbo 2.0 4 cylinder, awesome gas mileage. Going to be a hair over $30k though. :\

Also take a look at Mazdaspeed 3's. Fits all of your criteria except it's FWD.

But really, the WRX Wagon is pretty hard to pass over for the price. Pick up a used '09 for $21-23k.

+1

I don't think it's fair to call it magazine racing to dismiss the car's performance It put down those times even with a 114 MPH governor. That's incredible. The potential is there for it to lap those times with a good driver, even if you're not going to see them all the time at the track. It's admirable. But yeah, I'd rather be in an STi myself over a V6 Mustang for track events.

Your '05 GD is faster than the '11 STi is stock, that's for sure.

i'm sure the 2011 v6 'stangs are good performers, but i'm not going to take car and driver's word that they're faster on a track than a 2011 sti.

as far as the gd vs gr thing goes, it's pretty silly and most often wrong. even 08-10 gr sti's are faster around a track than the 07 gd -- which is arguably the best usdm gd sti, due to the revised gearing and amazing stock tune.

the 2011 sti has, easily, the best suspension a usdm sti has seen, so, unless there's going to be another stock-tune snafu a la 2008, i seriously don't see how c&d is getting slower times on a track with a 2011 sti.

 

[mkenyon]

I don't get why Mazda doesn't go AWD with the Speed3 already. Granted the amount of competition in the AWD-turbo-hatch is huge, but at the price point the Speed3 is in, there is no competition to speak of.

When you don't build a platform for AWD from scratch, it becomes an ad-hoc system that is really heavy and expensive to implement.

 

[reilo]

When you don't build a platform for AWD from scratch, it becomes an ad-hoc system that is really heavy and expensive to implement.

But they've had the experience of doing that in many of their different vehicles.

The 323/Familia/Protege, 626/MX6, Mazda6, all had AWD variants available from the beginning, which means the platforms were planned with the systems in mind. I could be wrong though, but it wouldn't be a new venture for them.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

If you think that thing grips, you should drive a recent Lotus. Or if you want to get totally insane, an Ariel Atom.

I might have to try one just to see. I've always been intrigued by the Exige...but never got around to test-driving one.

oh, and the Porche dealership I'm dealing with has in the showroom:

1 white Porsche 911 Turbo + black interior

1 black Porsche 911 Turbo S + Brown interior

1 white Porsche 911 GT3 + black interior

I only snapped pics of the turbo. On sale for ~$140k, iirc. I can't remember how much the Turbo S and GT3 were. But that Turbo S looked awesome. 0-60 in 3.5 for the Turbo and 3.1 for the Turbo S. WUT. will snap more pics when I go back on Thursday/Friday.

These Porsches are just to die for in white. Black is a close second, IMO.

 

[Halvie]

That HPFP issue is ridiculous though, definitely puts a hamper on modding. Going on 5 years and it's still not fixed. My uncle's 335i blew its HPFP less than a week after he bought it. Pathetic.

The 135i/335i is such a steal for car tuners, though. Chipping for an extra 80whp? Yes please. Throw on some bolt-ons and you're at 100-120 whp over stock, and far more torque. That is just crazy.

I really love the N54 twin-turbo setup too. The spool-up sounds nice.

Yeah. Kid at the shop I go to has one. Said he has been through 5 hpfp in 2 years. If they would just fix that a 135/335 would certainly be my next car. Stage 2 and up they are fucking destroyers on freeway rolls.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yeah. Kid at the shop I go to has one. Said he has been through 5 hpfp in 2 years. If they would just fix that a 135/335 would certainly be my next car. Stage 2 and up they are fucking destroyers on freeway rolls.

that's unfortunate. I never had a problem with my 335i. Did a little chipping, but nothing heavy.

 

[Halvie]

that's unfortunate. I never had a problem with my 335i. Did a little chipping, but nothing heavy.

Yeah I agree. Don't see how someone hasn't taken the opportunity to come up with a fix yet. Would be a huge cash cow I assume. Also sucks cause I think n54 cars are about the best deal you can get if you are taking aftermarket into consideration. Mustang 5.0 doesn't do it for me, and that would be the other "best value" car out there imo. Audi needs to put a turbo on the next s4. Supercharged doesn't really interest me much.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yeah I agree. Don't see how someone hasn't taken the opportunity to come up with a fix yet. Would be a huge cash cow I assume. Also sucks cause I think n54 cars are about the best deal you can get if you are taking aftermarket into consideration. Mustang 5.0 doesn't do it for me, and that would be the other "best value" car out there imo. Audi needs to put a turbo on the next s4. Supercharged doesn't really interest me much.

oh, easily the best deal in cars today. outside of the HPFP issue, I don't think there's any other major issue...and as you said, toss on a Burger Motorsport Tuner in 5 minutes and you add 80hp-200hp to the wheels...for $480.

what the fuck. say what you want about BMW, but that kind of deal just doesn't exist with other brands, cheap or expensive. Trust me, I looked hard. It's hard to walk away from that kind of torque and power for those prices. Add to that the quality of the brand, the materials, fit, finish etc...it's hard not to buy a BMW if you like to tune.

and yea...fuck Audi when it comes to aftermarket tuning. it's expensive and numbers are uninspiring. You can damn near get M3 power out of a 335i right now for next to nothing. overall performance won't be the same of course...but you can get damn close for almost half the price.

 

[Halvie]

oh, easily the best deal in cars today. outside of the HPFP issue, I don't think there's any other major issue...and as you said, toss on a Burger Motorsport Tuner in 5 minutes and you add 80hp-200hp to the wheels...for $480.

what the fuck. say what you want about BMW, but that kind of deal just doesn't exist with other brands, cheap or expensive. Trust me, I looked hard. It's hard to walk away from that kind of torque and power for those prices. Add to that the quality of the brand, the materials, fit, finish etc...it's hard not to buy a BMW if you like to tune.

cars remind me of a modern day b5 s4. Speaking of which, no interest in a tt-rs? Really really really hoping they stuff the 2.5t into the next Golf R, or the a3 sedan. Another motor with crazy potential.

edit: ha didn't see the Audi part when I was first replying. Yeah fuck the 3.0t. Love the 2.5t. Obviously not cheap, but beastly results for only being out a short time. You see the tt-rs 1m (or is it m1???) comparison the other month? 3.something 0-60 and 11 something 1/4. Hard to beat for 55-60k. And with a tune/bolt ons it is going to be way faster still. Audi just need not be dicks and share that motor. 200hp isn't going to cut it for the mkvii gti imo. Dumped way way way too much money into mine for the results I got. Makes me a bit sick to my stomach lol

 

[Dreams-Visions]

cars remind me of a modern day b5 s4. Speaking of which, no interest in a tt-rs? Really really really hoping they stuff the 2.5t into the next Golf R, or the a3 sedan. Another motor with crazy potential.

edit: ha didn't see the Audi part when I was first replying. Yeah fuck the 3.0t. Love the 2.5t. Obviously not cheap, but beastly results for only being out a short time.

indeed.

as for me personally, I'm not a big fan of the TT body style for some reason. I really like the S5...though I'm not a fan of the regular A5 cars going to 4 cylinder engines. Criminally underpowered for the price they're asking.