So me in a WRX beats you in an S2000. I can live with that .

I don't know that everyone agrees with that. The performance car mags here have praised the S2000's controllability at the limit. One Japanese video I saw had the driver commenting on how incredibly easy the car was to drift. I found it harder to drive than the WRX, but not by that much. I still remember with pleasure drifting it through the fast corners, and how beautifully it turned in to the slower ones on a trailing throttle. I never once had the back come round on me. If you think an S2000 is hard to drive fast, try a solid axled go kart on slick tyres. That's where I learned my RWD skills.

 

My WRX is the old model, as I've always made clear. The new one is about 130kg heavier, depending who you ask. It also gets bigger wheels and brakes, and has generally been reported to have more grip and better turn-in. The US version has about 15hp more than my car. I can't say first hand whether it's faster or slower than mine on a track, but I don't think it would be that much different.

It's possible that the US cars have softer suspension, I really have no idea. One difference I'm sure of is that you get really rubbish tyres. Ours have some reasonable 225/45R17 Bridgestones. My car is on 205/50R16 RE010s. In the end, this is a pretty trivial item that can make a big difference. I don't think anyone who was remotely serious would keep the US spec tyres on the car for the track. And here's the rub, the car that was 5 seconds quicker than mine had fairly minor mods - exhaust, slotted brake rotors and ducts, R compound tyres, maybe some stiffer anti-roll bars. It might be interesting to compare the stock cars, but it has little real world relevance when nobody keeps their WRX stock. If you want bragging rights, I'm reasonably confident that my S2000 was slightly faster than my WRX, but it's a meaningless comparison given the disparity in tyres, not to mention price! For a fair comparison you have to compare a WRX STi with an S2000, and I have no doubt which way that comparison would go! More to the point, you can make a normal WRX faster than an STi pretty easily for a lot less money.

Anyway, who cares? The S2000 is more fun with the top down on a mountain road in the sunshine, and a woman at your side. That's why I bought it, not to out lap an AWD turbo

 

--------------------
....The only situation where I've seen WRXs go up against S2000s with pro drivers is in production racing in Australia, and the WRXs win....

 

I think your right David, I remember a few years ago this guy in a Suzuki GTi in GTP said he was lucky to avoid hitting the front of his car because they did some engine development and he didn't want to see the hard work go to waste. I think GTP is interesting but misleading, it's not really 'Showroom showdown' like how they put it.

And I remember they banned AWD in european sedan racing (BTCC I assume) because they are much easier on their tyres and brakes over a race distance, not because they are faster...Oh and I think they banned RWD too at the same time...

 

Hi DavidM

Some of those WRXs up the front are STis, and some aren't. There are so many of them out there, some pro driven and some by rank amateurs, that there's a significant spread in their performance. The faster guys, even in the "standard" cars are faster than the two S2000s. Actually I think in GTP the letters "STi" only refer to the donor car, as after all the regulations are applied they might as well be the same. I guess the STi has a bigger turbo, but with the boost restrictions I can't see it being an advantage.

You're right about the suspension, but the S2000s also have the same mods.

You clearly know more about GTP than me, but I heard that all the turbos were restricted to 1.0 bar. That's the stock boost on a WRX. An STi would have to come down from over 17psi to 14psi. I also heard that they cannot change anti-roll bars, which would be a serious handicap to the WRX which really benefits from a stiffer rear bar.

Anyway, I think at the end of the day there are people on this forum who just won't or don't want to believe how fast the WRX can be. I don't really care save for the technical interest of the thing. It's not like I care which of my cars is faster. I've got another track day at Wakefield in about a month. I was going to take the WRX with its new Bridgestone 540s tyres, but out of interest I might take the S2000 instead and try to get some electronic times. I might surprise myself!

PLAYLIFE, don't you remember the killer GTRs driven by Richards and Skaife? We never thought anything could beat those Cosworth Sierras until they came along. What about the Audis in super touring driven by Brad Jones and Cameron McConville (sp?) that won every race for 2 seasons, most of which were sprints. They ended up 100kg heavier than the competition and still won. In the end they got banned.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by naishou
[B]


AWD all the way, all things being equal.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kadeshpa
[B]

How about weight?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kadeshpa
[B]

How about weight?

 

-------------------------
Some of those WRXs up the front are STis, and some aren't. There are so many of them out there, some pro driven and some by rank amateurs, that there's a significant spread in their performance. The faster guys, even in the "standard" cars are faster than the two S2000s. Actually I think in GTP the letters "STi" only refer to the donor car, as after all the regulations are applied they might as well be the same. I guess the STi has a bigger turbo, but with the boost restrictions I can't see it being an advantage.
-------------------------
Correct - the WRX and STi 'blend' in the GTP as they have the same pwer/mods. Though, it is still not eazy to qutqualify an S2000 (this is the yellow one as the red one never did well). Here's some qualifying times from the last few gaces in GTP:
----------------------------
GMC 400, CANBERRA
CANBERRA STREET CIRCUIT
GT PERFORMANCE QUALIFYING
1 1 MARK KING DELPHI/ KING SPRINGS MITSUBISHI EVO V 1997 A 6 5 1:58.8006R
2 26 BRETT PETERS BRETT PETERS SUBARU WRX STi 1994 A 7 5 1:59.6671 0:00.8665
3 60 WAYNE BOATWRIGHT ALTIRIS SOFTWARE SUBARU WRX STi 1994 A 7 4 1:59.6934 0:00.8928
4 300 PETER FLOYD PETER FLOYD HSV VX GTS 300kW 5665 A 7 3 1:59.7536 0:00.9530
5 8 ED AITKEN MY ACCESSORY HSV VX GTS 300kW 5665 A 6 2 2:00.1481 0:01.3475
6 43 TREVOR SHEUMACH WHERE IS NAVIGATION SUBARU WRX STi 1994 A 6 5 2:00.2531 0:01.4525
7 91 GARY DEANE JAMES KcKNOULTY SUBARU WRX STi 1998 A 7 4 2:00.3090 0:01.5084
8 15 BOB HUGHES BOB HUGHES MITSUBISHI EVO VI 1997 A 6 5 2:00.8919 0:02.0913
9 16 DAVID WOOD ROBERT LANE HONDA/KLEENDUCT HONDA S2000 SPORTS 1997 A 7 4 2:01.1939 0:02.3933
10 57 GRAHAM ALEXANDER CORIO AUTO PARTS PLUS MITSUBISHI EVO V 1997 A 6 3 2:01.2995 0:02.4989
11 39 BOB PEARSON PRO-DUCT MOTORSPORT P/L MAZDA RX-7 2616 A 6 2 2:01.5805 0:02.7799
12 11 BARRY MORCOM BARRY MORCOM HSV VX GTS 300Kw 5710 A 6 3 2:01.7592 0:02.9586
13 31 SHANE JENNER SHANE JENNER NISSAN 200SX Spec-R 1998 A 7 5 2:01.8062 0:03.0056
14 23 STEVE KNIGHT MITSUBISHI MOTORS AUSTRALIA MITSUBISHI EVO VI 1997 A 7 5 2:02.3375 0:03.5369
15 47 PHILIP POLITES CRYSTAL IT/DIAMOND AGE RACING MAZDA RX7 2616 A 6 3 2:02.5023 0:03.7017
----------------------------
Wakefield Park Promotions - PROCAR Series
Fastest Times Summary
Saturday 5th May, 2001
Q03: GT Performance Qualifying

Pos No Driver Vehicle Laps Fastest On
1 9A John Bowe Ford Mustang Cobra-R 13 1:05.6679 13
2 60A Wayne Boatwright Subaru WRX STi 21 1:06.0254 18
3 15A Bob Hughes Mitsubishi EVO VI 23 1:06.3575 19
4 39A Bob Pearson Mazda RX-7 21 1:06.5858 19
5 1A Mark King Mitsubishi Evo V 19 1:06.7225 10
6 91A Gary Deane Subaru WRX STi 20 1:06.9458 18
7 57A Graham Alexander Mitsubishi EVO V 22 1:06.9586 17
8 71A Phil Kirkham Mazda RX-7 14 1:07.1136 10
9 26A Brett Peters Subaru WRX STi 22 1:07.2147 13
10 88A Michael Brock Mitsubishi EVO V 23 1:07.2850 17
11 16A David Wood Honda S2000 Sports 18 1:07.2943 17
12 47A Philip Polites HSV VX GTS 300kW 18 1:07.3206 16
13 300 Peter Floyd HSV VX GTS 300kW 17 1:07.4824 17
14 8A Ed Aitken HSV VX GTS 300kw 17 1:07.6011 11
15 23A Steve Knight Mitsubishi EVO VI 20 1:07.6414 9
16 11A Barry Morcom HSV GTS VTII 23 1:08.0834 20
17 4A Anton Mechtler Mitsubishi EVO V 24 1:08.4119 18
18 38A Dennis Gilbert Mitsubishi EVO V 20 1:08.4192 18
19 31A Shane Jenner Nissan 200SX Spec-R 23 1:09.0192 12
----------------------------
2001 CLIPSAL 500 ADELAIDE
ADELAIDE PARKLANDS CIRCUIT
2001 CENTURY BATTERIES AUSTRALIAN GT CHAMPIONSHIP - ROUND 1 QUALIFYING

1 47 Crystal IT/Diamond Age Int. Philip Polites HSV VX GTS 5665 A 4 4 1:38.8408*
2 1 Mark King Mark King Lancer RS Turbo EvoV 1994 A 11 5 1:39.5639 0:00.7231
3 15 Bob Hughes Bob Hughes Lancer RS Turbo EvoV 1994 A 11 4 1:39.5723 0:00.7315
4 71 Maz Motor Wreckers Phil Kirkham Mazda RX7 Twin Turbo 2610 A 9 9 1:39.6875 0:00.8467
5 300 Peter Floyd Peter Floyd HSV VX GTS 5665 A 10 8 1:39.7784 0:00.9376
6 8 Ed Aitken Ed Aitken (VIC) HSV VX GTS 5665 A 12 10 1:40.0582 0:01.2174
7 91 Jim McKnoulty Gary Deane Subaru WRX STi 1994 A 12 3 1:40.4469 0:01.6061
8 16 Peter Phelan David Wood Honda S2000 1997 A 11 10 1:40.5237 0:01.6829
9 57 Graham Alexander Graham Alexander Lancer RS Turbo EvoV 1997 A 10 7 1:40.9041 0:02.0633
10 39 Bob Pearson Bob Pearson Mazda RX7 Twin Turbo 2610 A 11 9 1:41.0862 0:02.2454
11 14 Clyde Lawrence Peter Gazzard (SA) Subaru WRX STi 1994 A 10 3 1:41.2022 0:02.3614
12 88 Brock Partners Real Estate Michael Brock (SA) Lancer RS Turbo EvoV 1994 A 12 3 1:41.2688 0:02.4280
13 26 Brett Peters Brett Peters Subaru WRX STi 1994 A 12 10 1:41.2803 0:02.4395
14 51 Scott Jacob Scott Jacob Impreza WRX Turbo 1994 A 12 9 1:41.3618 0:02.5210
15 85 Craig Dontas Craig Dontas (SA) HSV VT II GTS 5710 A 10 9 1:41.5232 0:02.6824
16 41 Jim Stewart Jim Stewart Subaru WRX STi 1994 A 11 10 1:41.5601 0:02.7193
17 11 Barry Morcom Barry Morcom HSV VX GTS 5665 A 10 7 1:41.6954 0:02.8546
18 4 Anton Mechtler Anton Mechtler Lancer RS Turbo EvoV 1994 A 11 11 1:41.8656 0:03.0248
19 23 Steve Knight Steve Knight (SA) Lancer EVO VI 1997 A 11 10 1:42.1385 0:03.2977
20 3 Marget Engineering Pty Ltd Vin Macaro Nissan 200 SX SpecR 1998 A 11 8 1:42.1948 0:03.3540
-------------------------

As you can see, the S2000 manages some respective laps even in this league, though they can't make it go any faster as there's not much to give it more power (which is what it needs .... or lose another 100kg).

---------------------
You're right about the suspension, but the S2000s also have the same mods.
---------------------
Correct, but what it doesn't show you is that one car can have horrible suspension 'stock' while another car can have great suspension 'stock' - in GTP they all have 'great' suspension setup no matter what it was stock.

---------------------
You clearly know more about GTP than me, but I heard that all the turbos were restricted to 1.0 bar. That's the stock boost on a WRX. An STi would have to come down from over 17psi to 14psi. I also heard that they cannot change anti-roll bars, which would be a serious handicap to the WRX which really benefits from a stiffer rear bar.
---------------------
Here are the 'parity' changes to the cars running in GTP (weight includes an 85kg driver):

Mustang 1620kg, 7000rpm vs stock = 1642kg, ~6400rpm
Holden 1620kg, 6300rpm vs stock = 1795kg, 6500rpm
EVO 1435kg, 1.0bar, revs free vs stock = ~1435kg, ~7200rpm
Mazda 1320kg, 0.7bar, revs free vs stock 1340kg, 0.8bar, ~7400rpm
Subaru 1273kg, 1.2bar, revs free vs stock 1345kg, 1.1bar, 7900rpm
Nissan 1255kg, 1.0bar, revs free vs stock 1350kg, 0.6bar, 7200rpm
Honda 1235kg, revs free vs stock 1354kg, 9000rpm

So as you can see, some of these cars have very little to do with their 'stock' counterparts.

---------------------
...I've got another track day at Wakefield in about a month. I was going to take the WRX with its new Bridgestone 540s tyres, but out of interest I might take the S2000 instead and try to get some electronic times. I might surprise myself!
---------------------
Yeah, take the S2000, it'll be good to see what you can do in it when you're being timed :-)

 

You're a bit misinformed... I'm not sure where you picked up your information.. but it is incorrect. The six wheel drive allowed a lower Cd and frontal area in addition to a greater contact area for the tires. The fan, well that has been pretty much substituted by the highly articulated floors. Four wheel drive will ruin the SETUP of a F1 car (not sure why you took this to mean the shape of a car.)

The ballasts you suggest are something F1 designers need. This allows them to optimally place weight in the needed areas... a 4wd system will not do this. I understand why you feel 4wd would be useful in a car with high hp, put down torque easier. Remember though, like the s2000, the f1 cars are low on torque and deliver there horsepower through revs. A 4wd system would effectively rob the engine deliver characteristics of a modern f1 car. Much more weight adding devices would be needed in addition to the 4wd to make it viable which in turn would make it useless.

As it is, F1 cars are EXTREMELY light with teams trying to find weight SAVING solutions...not the other way around.

They are looking into things such as dimpled bodies (i.e., golf balls exteriors) to look for that extra tenth of a second. I think the "informed" view you're looking at is a bit dated (circa 70's?)and therefore would not apply in today's F1.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by naishou
[B]

Yes I think they would do it in the blink of an eye, if they were allowed.