markd

A car that goes ABOVE the advertised hp numbers? You lost us--that's a concept we're not familiar with here

Audioslave8

I did a little research, and Shiv from Vishnu performance ( a reputable source id say) said:
"Just thought I'd share the news. It made 175 wheel hp on our Dyno Dynamics Dyno, or about 10-15 more whp than the regular WRX. Peak hp was generated by approx 5000, which is really early. IIRC, peak torque as around 180ft-lbs as well. Needless to say, the claimed power rating is understated. Assuming that SOA is honest with the WRX rating, the Forester Turbo is making at least 240bhp."

Def underrated from the factory.

The link: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...hreadid=424011

cas2themoe

Looked at it but couldn't find any other sites with specs and numbers on it. Have any? From what they said, does sound like taking a corner at any high speed wouldn't be a good idea. I'm only really questioning this because while I was in Hawaii 2 years ago, I rented a Forester and I swear it was the slowest car I had ever driven. Ofcourse it wasnt the XT thought, but still............. And my buddy who rented the same exact car but in silver said the same thing.

Ike

Lastly, XT owners are buying up the used STi turbos, TMICs, uppipes and they're direct boltons. Then toss in a fuel pump and engine management along with a few hours of work and you're good to go. So for 1500-2000 in mods they're putting down 260-275whp. If they go with a FMIC and larger turbo 350+ whp is easy. Someone also hit 591whp with their STi a couple months ago so if you've got the dough it's possible.

BlueEyes

C'mon man.
That's like me not thinking the STI is fast because I drove the 2.5RS.

Ike

It's a totally different car today than it was 2 years ago. They are pretty soft in the turns but they're meant to be. Since it's the Impreza platform there are suspension upgrades galore and just getting new tires will make a big difference in handling.

mike0615

In Japan the MAX HP allowed is 250, the skyline puts out over 300 easy stock. so there are times when stock cars to put out more then the advertised HP. this is in Japan so i don't know about over here in the US or in UK. but in US usually actually HP is lower then advertised HP. i must admit the STI's are very fast going straight, but i have yet to see a fast STI on the track. I keep up with STI's pretty well on corners, they only pull away on straights. i was gonna get an STI before i bought my 8, but after seeing how they did on the track i was glad i didn't. i bet it'll be fun to take the STI out on rally track though. but bang for the buck sports car has to go to lancer EVO 8. i dare anyone to argue EVO 8 verses STI. stock for stock. i've seen enough proof on track to know that EVO is better sports car. but i think both evo and wrx is very ugly compaired to rx8 looks wise. ultimately i went with looking cool then speed and power. anyways, in los angeles u can't drive to fast without getting bunch on speeding tickets so its pointless.

markd

I was being very sarcastic, but interesting, I didn't know there was a 250-hp limit in Japan. Apparently, it's only a formality, but interesting nonetheless.

cas2themoe

That's pretty impressive then. But I've heard from many reviews and actual owners that without the Turbo the pick-up is horrible. Also heard you get a lot of Turbo Lag.

Deslock

To those that doubt the straight-line acceleration of the Forester XT, you should drive one. The N/A 2.5L is a pig, but the XT hauls *** (it's faster than the WRX).
I don't at all agree with the characterizations of the STI being a sports car and the RX8 a GT. The RX8 has better steering response, a better shifter, better chassis, better weight distribution, better balance, better road feel, and it's more nimble. My 6-speed RX8 weighs 400 pounds less than the STI and the weight is lower to the ground and more concentrated towards the center of the car. All of those things are important in a sports car, not a GT. Also, I don't think the STI's understeer is blown out of proportion... sure, it's better than the WRX, but it's noticeable at the more than just the track. Lastly, the STI's braking isn't better than the RX8.

Even the lowly Miata offers more of a traditional sports car feel than the STI (despite the Miata's lack of power). Don't misunderstand me... the STI is a wonderful vehicle, but it's more of a street legal track car (despite its mediocre steering feel, understeer, and hefty weight). Ultimately, the fact that the RX8 is able to offer a more comfortable ride than other sports cars is irrelevant to it being called a sports car so long as it offers sports car driving dynamics (same goes for it having 4-doors... the reason people usually cite for calling it a GT).

Ike

I don't know what owners you're talking to... The XT spools fast and feels almost like a 6 cylinder NA but better because you still get that nice turbo woosh. The lag thing with turbos is so stupid to me, drive it in it's powerband and almost any modern turbo car had almost no lag. Go drive around your RX-8 out of the powerband and tell me it's not gutless.

cas2themoe

Ahh come on Ike................ we're talking about Turbo's. I'm going off of what the reviews say. They even said there was a lot of lag in the STI and EVO's Turbo. When your talking about lag in a Turbo powered car and one without Turbo, that's two different stories. The drift I get from them is if the cars with Turbo's didn't have them, they would be a hell of a lot slower.

BlueEyes

I think you need to go and drive these cars and draw your own conclusions. Of course a turbo car which lost its turbo would be slower, if it wasn't, why would you put a turbo on it.

And, Ike is right about the turbo lag. No offence, but the 8 is garbage in the low revs, just like some turbo cars. You have to wring it out to feel its potential, just like some turbo cars.

Ike

You say better shifter, I say sportscars should have notchy mechanical feeling shifters not buttery smooth soulless shifters. Do you have something to prove that the weight is lower to the ground on the RX-8? I'm pretty damn sure the boxer is shorter than the renesis, and the exhaust it a configuration is lower in addition to a lot of the weight in the STi coming from the drivetrain which is far lower than the than either engine. I also don't get why you say better chassis, the proof is in the pudding if you ask me, toss out all the ridgitity numbers you want, the STi chassis has proven time and time again to be a wonderful platform.

The mediocre steering feel also baffles me, there is more feedback and the steering is very connected, it may not be as fast as the Evo lock to lock but to call the STi steering mediocre is silly and it now becomes clear to me that you've never driven one. You also say better weight distribution, I don't know where you guys got that 50/50 means it's a better handling car, I think you pay too much attention to marketing gimmicks. Most of the best handling cars in the world have a pretty decent bias.

I can't think of a scenario where the STi would have noticable understeer on the streets. With proper tires I've never noticed it on my WRX and barely noticed it on a stock STi on an autox course, but I've also heard some complaints of understeer in the RX-8 on autox courses. Don't get me wrong, the STi does understeer but dialing it out is fairly simple. How bout we take the body roll of the RX-8 vs. the Understeer of the STi and call it a wash :p

The braking I'll give you, I was thinking of the SRT-4s numbers, but the STi is right there with the RX-8 and with a few tweaks I think the Brembos on the STi would surpass the RX-8 brakes with the same tweaks (pads, braided lines, rotors, etc.). The biggest problem with the STi brakes is the over engineering ABS system Subaru has, it almosts works too well and is overly sensitive.

Your last statements in my eyes support my feelings, more than they do yours. I don't know what your idea of a traditional sportscar is. But I've driven some of the more raw older purist sportscars. They're raw, the gearboxes are notchy (ever driven a Ferrari?), the ride is rough, and they're loud, masculine, and in your face. There's little sound deadening, there are no sunroofs, no navigation systems, and they're fun as hell. That's how I view the STi, raw and fun as hell, while the RX-8 is more refined and fun as hell even if it is a little pokey in comparison. :D

Umbra

Hey, IkeWRX
I test drove a STI, the hood vibrated and the spoiler vibrated both enough to be easily visible at only 30mph constant speed. Is that normal? It felt like there was a lot more vibration comming from an engine design that's supposed to minimize that.

Ike

Does this sound like a car with a lot of turbo lag to you?

(From C&D)
"The bottom line is an engine that provides more thrust with less rowing through the six-speed manual gearbox and less waiting for turbo boost to assert itself. Although rowing the six speeds in either of these cars is far from tedious, thanks to positive engagements, particularly in the WRX, there are times when the driver wants to tramp on the gas and have something happen immediately. The STi is good at this. Moreover, it feels good, delivering that heady sense of massive hydraulic thrust that goes with a powerful turbo engine."

"the Subaru's turbocharged and intercooled 2.5-liter flat-four cranks out 300 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 300 pound-feet of torque at 4000. That torque peak is 500 rpm higher than the Evo's (not to mention stouter by 14 pound-feet), but the curve is fat and flat, yielding plenty of thrust across a broader band"

"Highs: Right-now throttle response, fat power band, ultra-positive shift engagements."

"You stepped on the gas, then you waited and waited, and then you suddenly got more than you'd bargained for. Thanks in part to the Subaru's relatively large displacement (at 2.5 liters, it's half a liter up on the Mitsu or the standard WRX) and the first application in the U.S. of variable valve timing by the company, this flat-four is pleasant and drivable in all circumstances.

Only the absolute bottom of the engine's rev range feels weak-kneed. To launch it briskly requires a greater-than-usual number of revs."

Lastly the street start of an STi is 5.8 seconds according to that article while they came up with 7.8 for the RX-8. 0-60 the difference between the RX-8 and STi is 1.3 seconds, streetstart is 2.0 seconds, one would think the STi would have a bigger advantage from a dig. The STi makes more torque at 3000rpms than the RX-8 makes anywhere in its powerband.

Ike

Kinda normal with the spoiler unfortunately, but the hood shouldn't be doing that and I've never noticed it on the STis I've driven.

klegg

I agree...it should not be. Yeah, another post!

Ike

Forgot the last part... The boxer in no way is designed to minimize engine vibration. Quite the contrary, it rattles, rumbles, shimmys, and shakes due partially to the unequal length headers. It's not a smooth running engine but it's got a great exhaust note and it's rather compact and lowers the center of gravity. In the same way you guys love the quirks of the rotary many people love the boxer for it's idiosyncratic nature. I'd say the spoiler moving about is due to the stiffer suspension and rough riding tires and has nothing to do with the engine though.

cas2themoe

Your by-passing my whole point with my statement. The RX8 has NO Turbo, There's A big difference. The Rotary has always been known for its low torque so you wont feel the pick-up until you hit that 3-4K mark. We're talking about the Subaru's with Turbo's. What I'm basically saying it without a turbo in any of the Subaru's they are far from anything performance in the straight line of 0-60 mph! I would love to see times if you take the Turbo's out of all them. You can keep pointing to C&D if you want but I've heard different stories from the reviews and owners!

cas2themoe

Ike, this is from C&D review of the STI and the EVO. Basically saying what I was saying that I heard. Directly from the article....................... "the Subaru's is, with 14.5 pounds of turbo boost—tend to be a little, well, unpleasant in daily use" & "You stepped on the gas, then you waited and waited, and then you suddenly got more than you'd bargained for"

This is basically stating what I was saying about the Turbo Lag. Yes it's great when the turbo kicks but before that, hang it up!

Ike

Way to completely misrepresent what they were saying. Did you comprehend a freaking thing that I posted?

Oh, and stop already with the ricer nonsense of "well take the turbo out of it and it's slow". It's a part of the car in its stock form.

cas2themoe

It's not ricer nonsense. Its common sense, I was just making a statement in which you couldn't even acknowledge because you don't want to admit it. That's Fine with me. But since you didn't respond to anything I stated properly then I have my answer. The Subaru's NEED the Turbo's to have any kind of performance. It's not just Subaru's It's OK......................... I wish all cars came with Turbo's!

Jeffjett

Great post heelntoe

BlueEyes

You know, I read this and thought "no, he isn't still saying this garbage". But, then I read it again, and you were and I was in disbelief. The engine was designed with the turbo in mind. I have no clue what you are trying to prove by saying it would be slow without the turbo. It has a turbo, it has always had a turbo and it will always have a turbo. Why would you take the turbo out and expect good performance.

I wonder how fast an F40 would be without it's turbos, oh no wait, I don't. Why would anyone want an F40 without turbos!!