Interesting WRX lap (Top Gear)...
01-23-2005, 02:22 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting WRX lap (Top Gear)...
http://topgear.breedbandportal.kpn.com/Library.aspx#
Watch the Ford RS Focus video. They run the WRX time against it. For some reason the WRX only got 1'39"...
Watch the Ford RS Focus video. They run the WRX time against it. For some reason the WRX only got 1'39"...
01-23-2005, 03:36 PM
#3
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few factors play into that, in stock form the WRX has a lot of understeer and the Topgear track is prettymuch designed to punish cars with understeer, it also has horrible all season tires. It didn't surprise me on bit that it was slower than the RS and Type R, the margin did surprise me though. Again, there are some times that are hard to explain from Topgear.
01-29-2005, 09:48 AM
#4
Music and Cars!!! :)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can vouch for the understeer. My STI has plenty of it, so I'd imagine the regular WRX would have more, especially wth those tires. Nothing some modifications can't fix though, if you are serious enough about this sort of thing.
01-29-2005, 11:27 AM
#5
Registered
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
A few factors play into that, in stock form the WRX has a lot of understeer and the Topgear track is prettymuch designed to punish cars with understeer, it also has horrible all season tires. It didn't surprise me on bit that it was slower than the RS and Type R, the margin did surprise me though. Again, there are some times that are hard to explain from Topgear.
Let's just sum up here:
Top Gear test track lap time:
WRX: 1'39"
RX-8: 1:31.8"
Don't bother, I'll say it for you - "But, but, the RX-8 isn't really making 238 hp, Mazda lied, trap speeds aren't there, yada yada yada"
Big deal. On the road (well, track), the performance is certainly there (no, we're not talking lame drag track either) Also note - 350Z, 1:31.8. With it's 287 hp vs. the RX-8's alleged 220 hp, fatter tires, stiffer suspension, it can only do the exact same time? What excuses does it have for not being faster than the no-torque, down-on-power RX-8? :p
Regards,
Gordon
:D
01-29-2005, 11:32 AM
#7
X-Sapper
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i taek all these times with a grain of salt...they are al good cars. that track just happened to be fit into teh rx-8's design......a wrx is not a bad car by anymeans...adn on probable any other track it would've done better (now the sti is a different matter, it woudl stomp on the 8 on just abotu everytrack)
but what can i say i love the 8 and it's performance and design. perfect car for me:D which is why i own one....adn i'm sure the people who own wrx's own them b/c that was teh car for them. at the end of teh day does it really matter what teh 8 or wrx ran on topgear...i mean were you driving the cars? then who cares:p
but what can i say i love the 8 and it's performance and design. perfect car for me:D which is why i own one....adn i'm sure the people who own wrx's own them b/c that was teh car for them. at the end of teh day does it really matter what teh 8 or wrx ran on topgear...i mean were you driving the cars? then who cares:p
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Touge
Canada Forum
3
09-10-2015 08:07 AM
Touge
Canada Forum
0
09-01-2015 10:47 PM
