Cobalt SS T/C GMSTG1 kit vs. WRX 265
01-24-2010, 09:44 AM
#26
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-03-09
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yah I get it with my winter tires on .. not with the stock conti's .. can't wait for spring !!
I would usually go down to 3rd if it wasn't for that
I find that since I got the stage kit .. the 4 th gear is VERY different .. but then again all speeds are lol
Last edited by jpower102; 01-24-2010 at 09:44 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-24-2010, 01:11 PM
#28
Banned
Join Date: 11-29-06
Location: CT
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-24-2010, 01:40 PM
#29
Senior Member
x4
01-26-2010, 02:07 PM
#35
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 03-01-09
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats!
QFT...but I do love my sedan. Only problem is that sometimes it is "too" much of a sleeper :-)
QFT...but I do love my sedan. Only problem is that sometimes it is "too" much of a sleeper :-)
Last edited by tglems; 01-26-2010 at 02:08 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-26-2010, 04:00 PM
#36
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-03-09
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an idiot .. but the speed rating of my tires is plenty high and the roads were empty .. so its kinda my choice .. I'm not jeopordizing anyone's life except mine right?
YES torque steer on 3rd gear with winter performance tires..
believe me .. I may not be the best track driver ATM, but I can drive the **** out my car in the straights
Last edited by jpower102; 01-26-2010 at 04:00 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-27-2010, 01:58 AM
#38
Member
Join Date: 01-06-10
Location: NJ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont see the big deal with torque steer in 3rd...just drive it out, progressively push down on the throttle instead of mashing it and you would be surprised how easily you can control the torque steer. and yea....anyone can drive the **** out of a car in a strait line if they had half a brain lmao
01-27-2010, 02:07 AM
#39
Banned
Join Date: 01-19-10
Location: Iraq
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont see the big deal with torque steer in 3rd...just drive it out, progressively push down on the throttle instead of mashing it and you would be surprised how easily you can control the torque steer. and yea....anyone can drive the **** out of a car in a strait line if they had half a brain lmao
01-27-2010, 07:38 AM
#40
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-03-09
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont see the big deal with torque steer in 3rd...just drive it out, progressively push down on the throttle instead of mashing it and you would be surprised how easily you can control the torque steer. and yea....anyone can drive the **** out of a car in a strait line if they had half a brain lmao
AND AGAIN .. I'M ON WINTER PERFORMANCE TIRES= MUCH LESS STABILITY
Last edited by jpower102; 01-27-2010 at 07:38 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-27-2010, 11:57 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-13-08
Location: up my own ass
Posts: 2,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=jpower102;4635494]And how do you explain ppl with 14.5 second 1/4 miles and 13.8 .. with the exact same car .. with the questions sometimes asked on this forum .. I don't know how you can give such an answer
ill explain it. the specific tune, humidity level or just overall temperatures, track prep, and arguably most important, the 60 foot bc .1 diff in 60 foot equals .2 diff in end time. example 1.8 60 ran with a quarter mile time of 12.8. a car with the same mods that get a 2.0 60 foot wil prob be closer to a 13.2. and also the 60 foot is eliminated when rolling in case you didnt know.
ill explain it. the specific tune, humidity level or just overall temperatures, track prep, and arguably most important, the 60 foot bc .1 diff in 60 foot equals .2 diff in end time. example 1.8 60 ran with a quarter mile time of 12.8. a car with the same mods that get a 2.0 60 foot wil prob be closer to a 13.2. and also the 60 foot is eliminated when rolling in case you didnt know.
01-27-2010, 11:59 AM
#42
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-03-09
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=restonSS;4636128]
Alrighty then .. so we are all exactly the same talented drivers !!
Good to know
But seriously .. I understand exactly what you mean .. and of course I wasn't refering to the weather conditions
I'm talking about the fact of just «feeling» the car and it being an extension of your body (LOL.. I'm feeling like a starwars writer)
Some ppl got it more than others .. I'm not the king of the road .. but when its time to really push it .. I can handle my own
YOU possibly are even better than me and I accept it .. but all in all I know how and when to push my car .. thats it
And how do you explain ppl with 14.5 second 1/4 miles and 13.8 .. with the exact same car .. with the questions sometimes asked on this forum .. I don't know how you can give such an answer
ill explain it. the specific tune, humidity level or just overall temperatures, track prep, and arguably most important, the 60 foot bc .1 diff in 60 foot equals .2 diff in end time. example 1.8 60 ran with a quarter mile time of 12.8. a car with the same mods that get a 2.0 60 foot wil prob be closer to a 13.2. and also the 60 foot is eliminated when rolling in case you didnt know.
ill explain it. the specific tune, humidity level or just overall temperatures, track prep, and arguably most important, the 60 foot bc .1 diff in 60 foot equals .2 diff in end time. example 1.8 60 ran with a quarter mile time of 12.8. a car with the same mods that get a 2.0 60 foot wil prob be closer to a 13.2. and also the 60 foot is eliminated when rolling in case you didnt know.
Good to know
But seriously .. I understand exactly what you mean .. and of course I wasn't refering to the weather conditions
I'm talking about the fact of just «feeling» the car and it being an extension of your body (LOL.. I'm feeling like a starwars writer)
Some ppl got it more than others .. I'm not the king of the road .. but when its time to really push it .. I can handle my own
YOU possibly are even better than me and I accept it .. but all in all I know how and when to push my car .. thats it
01-27-2010, 12:29 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-07-05
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2010, 12:29 PM
#44
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 03-03-09
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2010, 12:36 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-07-05
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+ warranty, and applicable taxes etc you are at around the 40K mark. And thats the pre APR price. Add your interest to the price of the car over the duration of your financing as well. I would just save up the extra coin and get the Sti.
01-27-2010, 01:02 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-13-08
Location: Michigan
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25k (here in the US). I'm not lying. And go look at caranddriver, I think it is, they tested the 09/10 sedans and they ran 13.4's stock.
EDIT: This is from Car and Driver
"And when we say "plenty," we mean it: the revised WRX now blasts to 60 mph from a standstill in an electrifying 4.7 seconds. That's 1.1 seconds quicker than the 2008 model—and get this—0.3 second quicker than we've managed in a WRX STI, the supposedly higher-performance version of the WRX. The fact that the WRX is now substantially quicker seems absolutely bonkers, but there are a couple of good explanations. First, the WRX STI weighs a hearty 180 pounds more than the base WRX, according to our scales. Second, the STI and its closer-ratio six-speed manual call for two shifts to 60, while the regular WRX's five speed hits 60 mph in second gear. By the time the pair travel a quarter-mile, the '09 WRX loses some ground, though; both cross the line at 102 mph, with the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
EDIT: This is from Car and Driver
"And when we say "plenty," we mean it: the revised WRX now blasts to 60 mph from a standstill in an electrifying 4.7 seconds. That's 1.1 seconds quicker than the 2008 model—and get this—0.3 second quicker than we've managed in a WRX STI, the supposedly higher-performance version of the WRX. The fact that the WRX is now substantially quicker seems absolutely bonkers, but there are a couple of good explanations. First, the WRX STI weighs a hearty 180 pounds more than the base WRX, according to our scales. Second, the STI and its closer-ratio six-speed manual call for two shifts to 60, while the regular WRX's five speed hits 60 mph in second gear. By the time the pair travel a quarter-mile, the '09 WRX loses some ground, though; both cross the line at 102 mph, with the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
Last edited by bmaynard06; 01-27-2010 at 01:52 PM.
01-27-2010, 01:53 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-16-06
Location: World
Posts: 6,540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25k (here in the US). I'm not lying. And go look at caranddriver, I think it is, they tested the 09/10 sedans and they ran 13.4's stock.
EDIT: This is from Car and Driver
"And when we say "plenty," we mean it: the revised WRX now blasts to 60 mph from a standstill in an electrifying 4.7 seconds. That's 1.1 seconds quicker than the 2008 model—and get this—0.3 second quicker than we've managed in a WRX STI, the supposedly higher-performance version of the WRX. The fact that the WRX is now substantially quicker seems absolutely bonkers, but there are a couple of good explanations. First, the WRX STI weighs a hearty 180 pounds more than the base WRX, according to our scales. Second, the STI and its closer-ratio six-speed manual call for two shifts to 60, while the regular WRX's five speed hits 60 mph in second gear. By the time the pair travel a quarter-mile, the '09 WRX loses some ground, though; both cross the line at 102 mph, with the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
EDIT: This is from Car and Driver
"And when we say "plenty," we mean it: the revised WRX now blasts to 60 mph from a standstill in an electrifying 4.7 seconds. That's 1.1 seconds quicker than the 2008 model—and get this—0.3 second quicker than we've managed in a WRX STI, the supposedly higher-performance version of the WRX. The fact that the WRX is now substantially quicker seems absolutely bonkers, but there are a couple of good explanations. First, the WRX STI weighs a hearty 180 pounds more than the base WRX, according to our scales. Second, the STI and its closer-ratio six-speed manual call for two shifts to 60, while the regular WRX's five speed hits 60 mph in second gear. By the time the pair travel a quarter-mile, the '09 WRX loses some ground, though; both cross the line at 102 mph, with the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
And with nothing but a tune and DP they are faster then the 08-10 STI's. A lot of people hitting mid- high 12's. Quite impressive if you ask me
01-27-2010, 02:07 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-13-08
Location: Michigan
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It aleady does
"the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
I mean I know its because of weight, but I seen on the WRX forum some guy his 12.9 stock. Impressive for 25-26k base. I love them, just wish they were american lol
"the base Rex edging out the STI by just 0.1 second, 13.5 to 13.6."
I mean I know its because of weight, but I seen on the WRX forum some guy his 12.9 stock. Impressive for 25-26k base. I love them, just wish they were american lol