To the White SS/TC
To the White SS/TC
Who raced the blue STi on the PA turnpike heading towards Philly Saturday night..
its stock.
also why the ricer fly by after i beat you twice?
proof a stock TC will not beat a STi from a roll, it was at least 2-3 cars and i shut down pretty fast it would have pulled more too. Dead Zen is my witness as he was in the car
its stock.
also why the ricer fly by after i beat you twice?
proof a stock TC will not beat a STi from a roll, it was at least 2-3 cars and i shut down pretty fast it would have pulled more too. Dead Zen is my witness as he was in the car
Who raced the blue STi on the PA turnpike heading towards Philly Saturday night..
its stock.
also why the ricer fly by after i beat you twice?
proof a stock TC will not beat a STi from a roll, it was at least 2-3 cars and i shut down pretty fast it would have pulled more too. Dead Zen is my witness as he was in the car
its stock.
also why the ricer fly by after i beat you twice?
proof a stock TC will not beat a STi from a roll, it was at least 2-3 cars and i shut down pretty fast it would have pulled more too. Dead Zen is my witness as he was in the car
stock ones = no problem for me with all cooling but meth/basic bolts/off my custom tune and on the gms2 map....then again s/c and turbo powerbands are different..
sti's arent better. first off they are different platform. so you cant compare. secondly
8:22.85 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo (2008)
8:22 BMW M3 E46 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2000)
8:22 BMW M Coupe E36/8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (10/1998)
8:24 Subaru Impreza (2004)
oh yeah and their engines suck. shoulda bought an evo
8:22.85 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo (2008)
8:22 BMW M3 E46 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2000)
8:22 BMW M Coupe E36/8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (10/1998)
8:24 Subaru Impreza (2004)
oh yeah and their engines suck. shoulda bought an evo
your logic is very skewed btw, it beat a 260hp FWD car, with very little drivetrain loss, an STI will put about the same numbers to the ground, with A LOT of drivetrain loss being AWD, not to mention the gearing on an STI is alot shorter then the SS/tc, and is designed more for 0-~80 mph acceleration.
or are you downplaying your SS/TC? its a good race, give credit where credit is due. The ss/tc is no joke.
well that's like your opinion man.
not everyone ehumps the evo.
and those times you posted.... those are with professional drivers. this is the real world, we aren't professionals. the OP is a good comparision because everyone on here is ehumping the SS/TC and claiming that they can beat certains cars.... well this is proof that a STi pulled a SS/TC like a bitch in a roll race. AWD + roll race = no bueno in most cases. if this was a dig... it would of been ALOT worse for the SS/TC.
not everyone ehumps the evo.
and those times you posted.... those are with professional drivers. this is the real world, we aren't professionals. the OP is a good comparision because everyone on here is ehumping the SS/TC and claiming that they can beat certains cars.... well this is proof that a STi pulled a SS/TC like a bitch in a roll race. AWD + roll race = no bueno in most cases. if this was a dig... it would of been ALOT worse for the SS/TC.
what year sti bish
he said sti>ss t/c
you cant just measure dig racing thats why i brought out the track times.
and fyi if it wasnt a 04 then it was slower then what is posted above
the 04s were regarded as the best stis produced
so what year are we comparing??
he said sti>ss t/c
you cant just measure dig racing thats why i brought out the track times.
and fyi if it wasnt a 04 then it was slower then what is posted above
the 04s were regarded as the best stis produced
so what year are we comparing??
sti's arent better. first off they are different platform. so you cant compare. secondly
8:22.85 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo (2008)
8:22 BMW M3 E46 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2000)
8:22 BMW M Coupe E36/8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (10/1998)
8:24 Subaru Impreza (2004)
oh yeah and their engines suck. shoulda bought an evo
8:22.85 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbo (2008)
8:22 BMW M3 E46 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (12/2000)
8:22 BMW M Coupe E36/8 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (10/1998)
8:24 Subaru Impreza (2004)
oh yeah and their engines suck. shoulda bought an evo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_times
in fact the STI is 9 spots ahead of the evo 9... what your list includes is the base impreza
d-bag

i keep forgetting the year of his STi, i know it's the "hawk eye" version, i want to say 06... but i'm not 100% on this.
and i know who you are talking to here, but i ain't no kid, son.
i keep forgetting the year of his STi, i know it's the "hawk eye" version, i want to say 06... but i'm not 100% on this.
and i know who you are talking to here, but i ain't no kid, son.
stock for stock the 04 sti was quick but when you start modifying it the evo is a better platform to work with.
evo always handled better then the sti btw
80-120 roll t/c would win all day
evo always handled better then the sti btw
80-120 roll t/c would win all day
Last edited by madlion; Sep 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
roll races are a drivers race. so the "80-120 roll t/c would win all day" comment you made is very inaccurate.
but roll races are for people who can't launch, IMO.
oh hell.... i own a ss/sc, my ***** weaksos anyways, i dont know what i'm talking about.
this made me lol
but roll races are for people who can't launch, IMO.
oh hell.... i own a ss/sc, my ***** weaksos anyways, i dont know what i'm talking about.
this made me lol
Last edited by rallycobalt06; Sep 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
sti 06
0 - 60 (sec): 5.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 100
30 - 0 (ft): 28.7
60 - 0 (ft): 114.5
Slalom (mph): 68.1
Turning Circle (ft), curb-to-curb: .93
ss t/c
slalom 72.40 mph
60-0 braking 117.00 ft.
1/4 mile 13.6 sec. @105 (rounded up for you)
0-60 5.50 sec.
skidpad 0.92 g.
here are some quick stats i just wanted to point out the slalom speed
0 - 60 (sec): 5.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 100
30 - 0 (ft): 28.7
60 - 0 (ft): 114.5
Slalom (mph): 68.1
Turning Circle (ft), curb-to-curb: .93
ss t/c
slalom 72.40 mph
60-0 braking 117.00 ft.
1/4 mile 13.6 sec. @105 (rounded up for you)
0-60 5.50 sec.
skidpad 0.92 g.
here are some quick stats i just wanted to point out the slalom speed
sti 06
0 - 60 (sec): 5.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 100
30 - 0 (ft): 28.7
60 - 0 (ft): 114.5
Slalom (mph): 68.1
Turning Circle (ft), curb-to-curb: .93
ss t/c
slalom 72.40 mph
60-0 braking 117.00 ft.
1/4 mile 13.6 sec. @105 (rounded up for you)
0-60 5.50 sec.
skidpad 0.92 g.
here are some quick stats i just wanted to point out the slalom speed
0 - 60 (sec): 5.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 100
30 - 0 (ft): 28.7
60 - 0 (ft): 114.5
Slalom (mph): 68.1
Turning Circle (ft), curb-to-curb: .93
ss t/c
slalom 72.40 mph
60-0 braking 117.00 ft.
1/4 mile 13.6 sec. @105 (rounded up for you)
0-60 5.50 sec.
skidpad 0.92 g.
here are some quick stats i just wanted to point out the slalom speed
dig races are driver's races so thus your statement is inaccurate. how hard is it to launch at 5500 in an sti. way more difficult to launch the ss t/c properly. when you are going around a track you very rarely encounter a dead stop making launching not as big of a deal. while in the quarter mile the sti may have a small advantage go to a track with two good drivers and i will tell you its a drivers race. so this sti>t/c is bs
nah got them from edmunds c&d and cobaltss.net actually i meant my dash hawk
nah got them from edmunds c&d and cobaltss.net actually i meant my dash hawk
Last edited by madlion; Sep 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost


