Overrated and Underrated sports car
03-07-2006, 09:12 AM
#126
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Apalachin, NY
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.
The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing
) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.
The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing
) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.Sebastian Loeb won in 2004 and 2005 in a Citroen Xsara. Petter Solberg won in 2003 in a Subaru Impreza WRX STi and was runner-up in 2004 and 2005. Loeb is described as the Michael Schumacher of the WRC. He is just an incredible driver. Put him in a Subaru, and he still wins.
03-07-2006, 09:40 AM
#129
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sti_eric
WRC rules stipulate that the that every WRC car must originate from a mass produced (at least 25,000 built) car.
Sebastian Loeb won in 2004 and 2005 in a Citroen Xsara. Petter Solberg won in 2003 in a Subaru Impreza WRX STi and was runner-up in 2004 and 2005. Loeb is described as the Michael Schumacher of the WRC. He is just an incredible driver. Put him in a Subaru, and he still wins.
Sebastian Loeb won in 2004 and 2005 in a Citroen Xsara. Petter Solberg won in 2003 in a Subaru Impreza WRX STi and was runner-up in 2004 and 2005. Loeb is described as the Michael Schumacher of the WRC. He is just an incredible driver. Put him in a Subaru, and he still wins.
Then it's all the driver, not the car
All the WRCs are BASED on normal production cars. 20 years ago, rally cars put the spirit in production cars, nowadays it all went backwards. FIA rules determine it.
If a great driver on an AWD boosted econobox is able to beat the "supposed" rally beasts then it's all about the driver, as a matter of fact the xara has outperformed its competition. Where's the "rally heritage" in subaru and mitsubishi showing?. Gronholm and Solberg are extremely awesome drivers too, both former world champions.
Rally-derived cars are extremely efficient cars, but I wouldnt put them under "sports cars"
I own an Impreza turbo, I know what it is. It's a boosted saloon, with questionable looks, awesome traction and average handling. It makes poor drivers look great, it's so forgiving. But it also takes away some of the fun factor, it feels a lot like gran turismo for playstation to me.
03-07-2006, 09:59 AM
#130
Listen to Zoom44
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NAVILESRX8
They suck
Well, you know that POS Mazdaspeed Protege is overrated and sucks, because its FWD, pulls .88+ on skidpad and slalom speed over 70mph. What am I thinking.
It completly sucked when I ran quicker times at the autox vs an experienced 8 driver on several occasions.
Last edited by Tirminyl; 03-07-2006 at 10:02 AM.
03-07-2006, 10:01 AM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Apalachin, NY
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
If a great driver on an AWD boosted econobox is able to beat the "supposed" rally beasts then it's all about the driver, as a matter of fact the xara has outperformed its competition. Where's the "rally heritage" in subaru and mitsubishi showing?.
All WRC cars are built the same...the manufacturer ships out a car - all Subarus go to Prodrive - for a complete rebuild. Prodrive will strip the Subaru down to the bare chassis and build the car from the bottom up - at a cost of over $500,000.
Originally Posted by maikalnait
Rally-derived cars are extremely efficient cars, but I wouldnt put them under "sports cars"
Originally Posted by maikalnait
I own an Impreza turbo, I know what it is. It's a boosted saloon, with questionable looks, awesome traction and average handling. It makes poor drivers look great, it's so forgiving. But it also takes away some of the fun factor, it feels a lot like gran turismo for playstation to me.
03-07-2006, 10:24 AM
#132
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tirminyl
Then you obviously don't know anything about FWD sport coupes/sedans. Don't discount them because they are FWD.
Well, you know that POS Mazdaspeed Protege is overrated and sucks, because its FWD, pulls .88+ on skidpad and slalom speed over 70mph. What am I thinking.
It completly sucked when I ran quicker times at the autox vs an experienced 8 driver on several occasions.
Well, you know that POS Mazdaspeed Protege is overrated and sucks, because its FWD, pulls .88+ on skidpad and slalom speed over 70mph. What am I thinking.
It completly sucked when I ran quicker times at the autox vs an experienced 8 driver on several occasions.
Yeah...numbers are great when the torque steer hits, and you have to use super hard teeth rattling engine mounts to control the motor in a FWD car.
They suck..I don't care about the numbers....RWD feels right.
03-07-2006, 10:26 AM
#133
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first paragraph referred to something about "roots and history" Ike said. If roots and history meant a real advantage, Citroen would have nothing to do nowadays compared to Subaru and Mitsubishi. I was talking about the rally scene. I understand what Evos and Imrpezas are, as a matter of fact I'm a huge fan of them.
Driving pleasure is all too subjective. You may enjoy a Turbo AWD platform better. I usually drive both and enjoy RWD best.
I also agree the 8 is a sporty coupé. No extreme sports car meant in the layout.
Evos and Stis may be high performance saloons, but no sports car. A porsche cayman would match that definition a lot better to me. It ain't just about AWD, turbo, Brembo brakes and rock-hard suspension, there's somethin' else to it.
Driving pleasure is all too subjective. You may enjoy a Turbo AWD platform better. I usually drive both and enjoy RWD best.
I also agree the 8 is a sporty coupé. No extreme sports car meant in the layout.
Evos and Stis may be high performance saloons, but no sports car. A porsche cayman would match that definition a lot better to me. It ain't just about AWD, turbo, Brembo brakes and rock-hard suspension, there's somethin' else to it.
03-07-2006, 10:42 AM
#134
Listen to Zoom44
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Overland Park
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NAVILESRX8
Yeah...numbers are great when the torque steer hits, and you have to use super hard teeth rattling engine mounts to control the motor in a FWD car.
They suck..I don't care about the numbers....RWD feels right.
They suck..I don't care about the numbers....RWD feels right.
Im not attacking you, I just think that is a rather idiotic statement to make.
03-07-2006, 10:55 AM
#135
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok....for #'s a FWD econo sports car is underrated.
As for respescting them and all the money people sink into those pieces of compromising garbages are...they suck.
And yes...I am an idiot....but I like what I like.
As for respescting them and all the money people sink into those pieces of compromising garbages are...they suck.
And yes...I am an idiot....but I like what I like.
03-07-2006, 11:18 AM
#136
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tirminyl
This isn't a discussion of what feels right. You are stating performance oriented FWD cars are overrated. I give you one example of a FWD car than can handle better and on par with cars double and triple its price tag and is underrated by most due to it being a FWD compact sedan and you retort, "RWD feels right".
Im not attacking you, I just think that is a rather idiotic statement to make.
Im not attacking you, I just think that is a rather idiotic statement to make.
03-07-2006, 11:23 AM
#137
FWD Hater
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's there to research? The fact that Turbo neons blow away RX8's doesn't make you guys trade in your RX8's en masse, does it?
I hate FWD cars...and think they are pointless. The only use I have for a FWD car is for family transportation. And that's for a compact class car...anything bigger than that and it has to be RWD.
I hate FWD cars...and think they are pointless. The only use I have for a FWD car is for family transportation. And that's for a compact class car...anything bigger than that and it has to be RWD.
03-07-2006, 11:40 AM
#138
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not about a certain FWD car blowing away a RWD car. Get the SRT-4 out of your head for the sake of this discussion.
Yes...inherently you'll have some traction issues when the same wheels propelling your vehicle are also turning it, but there so many amazingly well balanced FWD track cars out there. You just have to look. FWD cars make good people movers in the real world because there isn't a driveshaft running down the middle of the car and that reduces interior room.
Yes...inherently you'll have some traction issues when the same wheels propelling your vehicle are also turning it, but there so many amazingly well balanced FWD track cars out there. You just have to look. FWD cars make good people movers in the real world because there isn't a driveshaft running down the middle of the car and that reduces interior room.
03-07-2006, 01:36 PM
#139
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
They may be clueless but you are not Mr. Accurate either.
Up to 1986 group B specs ruled the World Rally Championship. Cars like the Lancia 037, Stratos, S4 and Peugeot 205 turbo 16 competed. This cars were designed as rally cars and THEN had their road version launched. A short number of them were made to be able to homologate the rally car.
Some of them were just prototypes with huge turbos (the s4 had an additional supercharger). In the early eighties 4wd was also introduced.
Some group B cars had in excess of 600 hp, the Lancia delta s4 could qualify for a formula 1 race back in its time.
In 1.986, Lancia driver Henri Toivonen and co-driver Sergio Cresto died in an accident in Rally Corsica. This event, among several spectator deaths triggered a change in FIA regulations and group A cars were born.
Group A cars MUST be based on mass produced cars. Mitsubishi Galant and Lancer, Subaru Legacy and Impreza, Toyota Celica GT4, Mazda 323 GTR, Lancia Delta... all those were Group A. Group A ruled until the late nineties.
WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.
The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing ) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.
Up to 1986 group B specs ruled the World Rally Championship. Cars like the Lancia 037, Stratos, S4 and Peugeot 205 turbo 16 competed. This cars were designed as rally cars and THEN had their road version launched. A short number of them were made to be able to homologate the rally car.
Some of them were just prototypes with huge turbos (the s4 had an additional supercharger). In the early eighties 4wd was also introduced.
Some group B cars had in excess of 600 hp, the Lancia delta s4 could qualify for a formula 1 race back in its time.
In 1.986, Lancia driver Henri Toivonen and co-driver Sergio Cresto died in an accident in Rally Corsica. This event, among several spectator deaths triggered a change in FIA regulations and group A cars were born.
Group A cars MUST be based on mass produced cars. Mitsubishi Galant and Lancer, Subaru Legacy and Impreza, Toyota Celica GT4, Mazda 323 GTR, Lancia Delta... all those were Group A. Group A ruled until the late nineties.
WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.
The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing
) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.
Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.
03-07-2006, 01:56 PM
#140
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
Group A cars had to have 2500 homologation production cars produced, which is how the STI and Evo came to be, there is nothing inaccurate about what I said.
The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.
Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.
The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.
Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.
The only holdouts from a past era are Group B derived cars. Street versions of rally prototypes.
Group A HAD to be based in real world production cars, hence the winged saloons.
Where would you put the rally heritage?
And lastly, my Impreza Gt turbo which NEVER came to your shores, was the base model for the car Colin McRae won the title with, prepared by STi and Prodrive.
And YES I would compare it with STis and Evos of today. They weigh an average of 150 Kg more with less low end torque due to bigger turbos.
03-07-2006, 03:27 PM
#141
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
The only holdouts from a past era are Group B derived cars. Street versions of rally prototypes.
Group A HAD to be based in real world production cars, hence the winged saloons.
Where would you put the rally heritage?
And lastly, my Impreza Gt turbo which NEVER came to your shores, was the base model for the car Colin McRae won the title with, prepared by STi and Prodrive.
And YES I would compare it with STis and Evos of today. They weigh an average of 150 Kg more with less low end torque due to bigger turbos.
Group A HAD to be based in real world production cars, hence the winged saloons.
Where would you put the rally heritage?
And lastly, my Impreza Gt turbo which NEVER came to your shores, was the base model for the car Colin McRae won the title with, prepared by STi and Prodrive.
And YES I would compare it with STis and Evos of today. They weigh an average of 150 Kg more with less low end torque due to bigger turbos.
03-07-2006, 04:46 PM
#142
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Then by that argument, the S204 must be putting down over 400 hp since they rate it at 320. The engine may be underrated, but not by that much. They still have to have some semblance of accuracy when it comes to rating the horsepower. Are you sure that the engine you are talking about isn't from one of the special versions, or even a Type RA spec C?
Here's the peak hp/tq rating for all STi versions:
STi Version - 238/224
STi Version II - 258/228
STi Version III - 278/242
STi Version IV - 278/242
STi Version V - 278/250
STi Version VI - 278/250
New Age STi - 278/275
USDM STi - 300/300
22B - 278/268
UK300 - 218/215
P1 - 278/253
RB5 - 218/214
555 - 208/214
Series McRae - 208/214
Cataluyna - 208/214
Terzo - 208/214
S201 - 300/260
S202 - 315/283
S203 - 320/311
S204 - 320/318
While
Here's the peak hp/tq rating for all STi versions:
STi Version - 238/224
STi Version II - 258/228
STi Version III - 278/242
STi Version IV - 278/242
STi Version V - 278/250
STi Version VI - 278/250
New Age STi - 278/275
USDM STi - 300/300
22B - 278/268
UK300 - 218/215
P1 - 278/253
RB5 - 218/214
555 - 208/214
Series McRae - 208/214
Cataluyna - 208/214
Terzo - 208/214
S201 - 300/260
S202 - 315/283
S203 - 320/311
S204 - 320/318
While
03-07-2006, 08:34 PM
#143
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
Group A cars had to have 2500 homologation production cars produced, which is how the STI and Evo came to be, there is nothing inaccurate about what I said.
The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.
Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.
The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.
Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.
03-08-2006, 12:17 AM
#144
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StealthFox
holdouts from past era really doesn't apply to us in the united states, that past era never occured here. we didn't get any of the original "rally bred monsters" all we have is the recent versions of the high performance imprezas and lancers
03-08-2006, 02:43 AM
#145
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Steiner
Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand what the argument is here. You've basically just repeated his previous post regrading homologation rules as they relate to Group A cars...like the Evo and STi. Are you saying that the Group B prototypes in street form were more aggressive because the production verison was based on the rally version rather than the other way around? If that's the case I hope you don't honestly believe that when Mistu and Subaru first drew up plans for the STi and Evo they didn't design them with WRC in mind.
Mitsu and Subaru EVOLVED an existing platform from a mass produced car, their ROOTS are mass produced cars. In group B the ROOTS were a rally monster. First was the legacy (I got to drive the turbo version, AWESOME!!) and the Galant, which both were Group A also. That's what group A was ALL about, put power down from group B by requiring a mass produced car to be elegible to compete. Therefore we got to see heavily modified mass procuction cars in rallying. The lancer and Impreza are sold in many versions besides EVO and STi.
Think of formula one. Imagine they think it's too expensive and unsafe to run. Therefore they change the rules and make F1 cars be based on real world production cars.That's what happened.
I'm including Ike's statement so you can see the difference between my argument and his.
Originally Posted by Ike
You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.
To me an Sti is an impreza with a bunch of performance parts. It isn't even a coupé anymore!!. It's an Impreza with a big turbo, blueprinted motor, bespoke exhaust, electronically controlled diffs and stiffer suspension. I'ts an AWESOME package, but it is what it is.
BTW, WRC regulations have been on since 1996-1997, and we've seen tons of Sti versions and evos since then. They won't disappear. They are great for marketing reasons, what people see is an Impreza or Lancer winning in rallying, a car BASED/ROOTED on the one they have home.
Last edited by maikelnait; 03-08-2006 at 02:52 AM.
03-08-2006, 02:50 AM
#146
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StealthFox
holdouts from past era really doesn't apply to us in the united states, that past era never occured here. we didn't get any of the original "rally bred monsters" all we have is the recent versions of the high performance imprezas and lancers
All I'm saying is group A required a mass produced car, while group B didn't. To me the roots of an Evo/Sti is mass prouction, not rally cars. That's all.
I'm not denying they are fast, effective and nice pieces of awesome engineering. But they come for normal cars, not the ohter way round.
03-08-2006, 03:50 AM
#147
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
The fact you never got them doesn't mean they never existed. What you are now getting is vestiges from group A, which to me is a decaf version of group B.
All I'm saying is group A required a mass produced car, while group B didn't. To me the roots of an Evo/Sti is mass prouction, not rally cars. That's all.
I'm not denying they are fast, effective and nice pieces of awesome engineering. But they come for normal cars, not the ohter way round.
All I'm saying is group A required a mass produced car, while group B didn't. To me the roots of an Evo/Sti is mass prouction, not rally cars. That's all.
I'm not denying they are fast, effective and nice pieces of awesome engineering. But they come for normal cars, not the ohter way round.
Last edited by Ike; 03-08-2006 at 04:08 AM.
03-08-2006, 04:26 AM
#148
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
Thing is, modern WRC cars with half the horsepower in some cases would most likely beat a lot of those group B cars on a WRC rally stage.
Anyway it's great to see you know and like rallying in the US. Keep it up!
03-08-2006, 05:37 PM
#149
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maikelnait
Anyway it's great to see you know and like rallying in the US. Keep it up!