Golf GTI vs subaru WRX lap times.

Plug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzB6C1MquLI

I just couldn't believe that!:eek:
Very good car!

Gumbo

GTi is a cracking car, but the new impreza is just poo imo

miceal

Plug wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzB6C1MquLI

I just couldn't believe that!:eek:
Very good car!

I want the stig to drive them! See who comes out on top then!

SV

Ah..Dunno about those results now.

I'd like to see that done a few more times.

Graham_B18C

Never been a Subaru fan but that cannot be right...but if it is...i'm very suprised! Next they should put the r32 against the top sti or evo...see who'd win then!

JJJJNR

I dunno, I'd say the GTi was chipped.

omega man

kceire wrote: »

GTi is a cracking car, but the new impreza is just poo imo

Agree but its still a sub 6 second car with awd. I very much doubt the GTI is stock.

moleyC

JJJJNR wrote: »

I dunno, I'd say the GTi was chipped.

I don't think so, if you listen to the max speeds she says she is approaching on the long straight, the GTI was 111-112mph(I think) and the Subaru 120mph, so the WRX does pull on the straights but must loose time in the bends.

And don't forget that they are pretty even in the power to weight ratio stakes, 151hp/ton for the GTI and 155hp/ton for the WRX, and then there could be greater losses from the 4wd system.

omega man

moleyC wrote: »

I don't think so, if you listen to the max speeds she says she is approaching on the long straight, the GTI was 111-112mph(I think) and the Subaru 120mph, so the WRX does pull on the straights but must loose time in the bends.

And don't forget that they are pretty even in the power to weight ratio stakes, 151hp/ton for the GTI and 155hp/ton for the WRX, and then there could be greater losses from the 4wd system.

The wrx hits 100km in 5.9 while the GTI (manual) takes 7.2 so how do they have an even power/weight ratio?

Anan1

moleyC wrote: »

I don't think so, if you listen to the max speeds she says she is approaching on the long straight, the GTI was 111-112mph(I think) and the Subaru 120mph, so the WRX does pull on the straights but must loose time in the bends.

And don't forget that they are pretty even in the power to weight ratio stakes, 151hp/ton for the GTI and 155hp/ton for the WRX, and then there could be greater losses from the 4wd system.

That doesn't really add up though, does it? The Subaru could only have been that much faster on the straights with either a) a noticeably higher power to weight ratio or b) a noticeably higher exit speed from the corners. At least that's what I would have thought?

cyborg

omega man wrote: »

The wrx hits 100km in 5.9 while the GTI (manual) takes 7.2 so how do they have an even power/weight ratio?

4wd helps the standing start figures

JimmyCrackCorn!

If i had the money and wanted a subaru it would be the older version not the new hatch thing.

Subaru need to put a bullet in that new fugly thing.

Gumbo

Grahamo999 wrote: »

Never been a Subaru fan but that cannot be right...but if it is...i'm very suprised! Next they should put the r32 against the top sti or evo...see who'd win then!

my mates Mazda 3 MPS is quicker than an R32 :eek:
3.2 litre car, 4 wheel drive and only 250bhp! fair enough it might be heavily restricted but i would of expected more tbh.....i still love the looks of golf though

Gumbo

moleyC wrote: »

I don't think so, if you listen to the max speeds she says she is approaching on the long straight, the GTI was 111-112mph(I think) and the Subaru 120mph, so the WRX does pull on the straights but must loose time in the bends.

And don't forget that they are pretty even in the power to weight ratio stakes, 151hp/ton for the GTI and 155hp/ton for the WRX, and then there could be greater losses from the 4wd system.

the golf with 200 bhp at the fly is equal to about 180 bhp at the wheels, while the scooby with 225 bhp is equal to about 185 bhp at the wheels.

very evenly matched cars, and tbh i wouldnt of put them in the league before i seen that vid (always thought the scooby, even the WRX would be much quicker).

but agree with the above statement, if i was buying an impreza, it would deffo be the older version, as the new one does nothing for me, its not even one of those "you'll grow into" shapes!

tossy

Wellity wellity wellity....

Welcome to 2 years ago and discovering what most already knew.

The golf GTI is a good car,the New impreza is not.

Let me address the R32 issue first(it leads nicely to my next point) i would agree 250bhp from a 3.2 V6 is not that amazing and some would say typical of big heavy overrated VWs,but when alfa do it,its petrol head heaven? hmmmm

As for comparing an R32 to a mazda MP3 please,mazda haven;t made a decent performance car since the RX7,thats where their pedigree lies not with hot hatches.

Now,225bhp from a 2.5L turbo car is not exactly earth shattering performance either is it? considering all newer GTIs are fitted with engines with the BWA engine code (uprated pistons and a few other tweaks due to running problems with poor quality petrol in some countries),the BWA has been consistently proven to be putting out 220 plus BHP,and the manufacturers 0-69 of over 7 seconds is way off,last year during testing on a private track with decent pilots we could regularly get mid 6 sec 0-60 secs on a bog standard BWA engined GTI.

So... taking all of the above in its no surprise to me that the GTI is faster in fact when watching that 5th gear episode months ago live on TV,i called the GTI to win and was greeted by cynical laughter from my peers in the room,its an oft quoted phrase on here that VW is living of its reputation from the late 80s and mid 90s,well its now official that the impreza is living of its reputation from the previous generation imprezas.

Don't under estimate how good a car the GTI is,esp how well it handles for a 220bhp front wheel drive car,it is leagues ahead of its rivals in that stake (even the AWD impreza)

and

Don't under estimate just how much of a disappointment the new impreza is.

C_Breeze

Not really surprising as they are fairly evenly matched cars, even on paper.

On a track the power and 0-60 figures are secondary when it comes to handling dynamics and precision.

The Mazda RX-8 for example held its own against an e46 BMW M3 on the Top Gear track 'Power Laps'!

The RX-8 is 231BHP , Whereas the M3 is 343BHP and both got around the track in 1.31.8

And it also got around only 0.2 Seconds slower than a Honda NSX-R which is condisdered "Raw" and a "supercar"

... now that is impressive!

Honda NSX Type R 1.31.6
BMW M3 1.31.8
Nissan 350Z 1.31.8
Mazda RX-8 1.31.8

Biro

C_Breeze wrote: »

Not really surprising as they are fairly evenly matched cars, even on paper.

On a track the power and 0-60 figures are secondary when it comes to handling dynamics and precision.

The Mazda RX-8 for example held its own against an e46 BMW M3 on the Top Gear track 'Power Laps'!

The RX-8 is 231BHP , Whereas the M3 is 343BHP and both got around the track in 1.31.8

And it also got around only 0.2 Seconds slower than a Honda NSX-R which is condisdered "Raw" and a "supercar"

... now that is impressive!

Honda NSX Type R 1.31.6
BMW M3 1.31.8
Nissan 350Z 1.31.8
Mazda RX-8 1.31.8

The RX8 and M3 had their run on a nice bone dry track. The NSX-R went round on a track that you could see 2 NSX's, one was the reflection in the standing water. Mid engined cars would loose more in wet conditions over their time in dry than a front engined car would. You could easily take 4 seconds off that NSX time, if not more.

Biro

Mostly good post, few things...

tossy wrote: »

Wellity wellity wellity....

Good old Homer!

tossy wrote: »

Let me address the R32 issue first(it leads nicely to my next point) i would agree 250bhp from a 3.2 V6 is not that amazing and some would say typical of big heavy overrated VWs,but when alfa do it,its petrol head heaven? hmmmm

Fair point in one sense, but Alfa have the excuse that you shouldn't put much more through the front wheels. What's VW's excuse?

tossy wrote: »

As for comparing an R32 to a mazda MP3 please,mazda haven;t made a decent performance car since the RX7,thats where their pedigree lies not with hot hatches.

That's just not true. They've had decent cars in all areas.

tossy wrote: »

Now,225bhp from a 2.5L turbo car is not exactly earth shattering performance either is it? considering all newer GTIs are fitted with engines with the BWA engine code (uprated pistons and a few other tweaks due to running problems with poor quality petrol in some countries),the BWA has been consistently proven to be putting out 220 plus BHP,and the manufacturers 0-69 of over 7 seconds is way off,last year during testing on a private track with decent pilots we could regularly get mid 6 sec 0-60 secs on a bog standard BWA engined GTI.

The limited edition GTI had 220 didn't it?

tossy wrote: »

So... taking all of the above in its no surprise to me that the GTI is faster in fact when watching that 5th gear episode months ago live on TV,i called the GTI to win and was greeted by cynical laughter from my peers in the room,its an oft quoted phrase on here that VW is living of its reputation from the late 80s and mid 90s,well its now official that the impreza is living of its reputation from the previous generation imprezas.

Don't under estimate how good a car the GTI is,esp how well it handles for a 220bhp front wheel drive car,it is leagues ahead of its rivals in that stake (even the AWD impreza)

and

Don't under estimate just how much of a disappointment the new impreza is.

I agree with this, the Impreza is a poor effort from a company who definately know better. Turn-in sharpness is where the Golf had the advantage, and if you can place your car better on a track then you have a better chance of a good lap time. Golf 1, Impreza 0 I'm afraid.

tossy

Biro wrote: »

Mostly good post, few things...
The limited edition GTI had 220 didn't it?

The limited editions i.e ED30 and perilli have 230,but this is not an uprated version of the exisitng GTI engine but a de tuned version of the cupra/S3 engine as a result the limited editions will see jusat over 300bhp with a simple remap,but thats crazy power for FWD.

The exisiting engine in the GTI,the second generation engine is a BWA i know a good few golfs and octavia VRS's that have been dyno'd as standard have been shown to be producing 220-224 bhp,i was merely making the point that the golf and impreza are almost equal matches on paper sadly not on the track.

Its a sad indicator of how the impreza has fallen off that it is compared to a germna hot hatch full of compromises and still loses,if we put previous generations up against previous generation GTI there would be no contest and rightly so the impreza has always been a slightly tamer rally car for the road,where as the GTI has always been an autobhan tourer with loads of creature comforts and less than sharp handling,but now the creature comfort packed tourer is kicking its ass.

C_Breeze

Biro wrote: »

The RX8 and M3 had their run on a nice bone dry track. The NSX-R went round on a track that you could see 2 NSX's, one was the reflection in the standing water. Mid engined cars would loose more in wet conditions over their time in dry than a front engined car would. You could easily take 4 seconds off that NSX time, if not more.

Ok point taken , but what have you if you take the NSX-R out the equation . An RX-8 againts an M3 which is damn more impressive than a GTI golf against a Subaru WRX

Plug

Im a bit suspicious of the lap time of the nissan GTR on the topgear track. I don't think that car is capable of them times.

omega man

[QUOTE=As for comparing an R32 to a mazda MP3 please,mazda haven;t made a decent performance car since the RX7,thats where their pedigree lies not with hot hatches.[/QUOTE]

As an MPS owner i agree. The reason been that they the R32 is AWD and costs about 10K more. The R32 is in the S3/130i league. However the mazda belts out 260BHP froms its 2.3 engine and believe it or not mazda have done a great job of getting the power down. The MPS, on paper, is faster than the DSG R32. I appreciate that perhaps in wet conditions the R32 has the advantage. I love the R32 but its power output for its 3.2 V6 is low.

Getting back to the point i dont believe the GTI and the WRX are in any way equal from a performance car perspective (WRX by a mile) but as a 'hot hatch' the GTI wins as an all rounder. Sadly though the GTI is ten a penny on the roads so for me it wont get my attention. As for the WRX, Subaru have screwed up big time. They have tried to go with the crowd and have lost their advantage. The fact they put the same engine in the new model shows a lack of ambition for me.

S.I.R

kceire wrote: »

my mates Mazda 3 MPS is quicker than an R32 :eek:
3.2 litre car, 4 wheel drive and only 250bhp! fair enough it might be heavily restricted but i would of expected more tbh.....i still love the looks of golf though

the masda 3 speed is a Very nippy car, with veyr little work you can de-restrict them and push the ecu up quite high...

Vastly more relyable then the new Rather... erm... Vouge looking golfs....


the only reason id by a golf is to join the " slaves to society " club... with the man u supporters... VAG owners club, muster supporters...

tossy

omega man wrote: »

Getting back to the point i dont believe the GTI and the WRX are in any way equal from a performance car perspective

Yes the GTI wins which goes back to be original point and backs up your point that the impreza has fallen off,the GTI and WRX "shouldn't" be equal on performance,but the are.

omega man

tossy wrote: »

Yes the GTI wins which goes back to be original point and backs up your point that the impreza has fallen off,the GTI and WRX "shouldn't" be equal on performance,but the are.

I have just researched and discovered to my amazement that the new wrx only does 0-100 in 6.7. Doesnt suprise me then that the GTI would beat it. The old model with the same engine was sub 6 seconds so how they have managed this is unreal. Even with its awd i cant see how they will sell at 40K plus.

tossy

read my earlier post 7.2 to 60 is a woeful understatement by VW,im not even sure that vw published that exact figure,ive seen standard GTI (read my ealrier post about the BWA engine and over 220bhp) get mid 6 sec 0-60 times(no dsg) quite regularly.

5th gear did put a good driver in each on the same track and the results speak for themselves,the AWd drive saps enough flywheel BHP from the car to the extent that at the wheels the would be pretty evenly matched,and the GTI doesn't handle like a typical FWD golf or audi,the turn in is percise you can nail the apex of the corner every time,you can put it where you want it.

If you pit 2 cars together (equal driver) one weighing 1328kgs and putting out 220bhp and the other weighing 1440kgs and putting out 225bhp (regardless of 0-60times or drivetrain) then under no circumstances will one "serve the other its backside" the win will always be close and marginal.

Get over it,this generation impreza is a failure take solice in the EVO,and wait till the next generation when subaru realise the error of their ways,or just by an old impreza.

Gary ITR

tossy wrote: »

.

See it's cool to not like VW's round here

omega man

tossy wrote: »

read my earlier post 7.2 to 60 is a woeful understatement by VW,im not even sure that vw published that exact figure,ive seen standard GTI (read my ealrier post about the BWA engine and over 220bhp) get mid 6 sec 0-60 times(no dsg) quite regularly.

5th gear did put a good driver in each on the same track and the results speak for themselves,the AWd drive saps enough flywheel BHP from the car to the extent that at the wheels the would be pretty evenly matched,and the GTI doesn't handle like a typical FWD golf or audi,the turn in is percise you can nail the apex of the corner every time,you can put it where you want it.

If you pit 2 cars together (equal driver) one weighing 1328kgs and putting out 220bhp and the other weighing 1440kgs and putting out 225bhp (regardless of 0-60times or drivetrain) then under no circumstances will one "serve the other its backside" the win will always be close and marginal.

Get over it,this generation impreza is a failure take solice in the EVO,and wait till the next generation when subaru realise the error of their ways,or just by an old impreza.

Sorry i have edited my previos post. Didnt realise the new WRX only does 0-100 in 6.7. I assumed as it had the old WRX engine that it was as fast. Me wrong. I dont need to 'get over it' mate as i drive an 3 MPS which will take the GTI thanks.

cancan

The wrx has been just boosted to 265bhp as standard in the us, and europe soon afaik, with stiffer suspension and a host of other goodies, and a 0-60 time in the 4.8 secs.

Problem solved.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_0810_2009_subaru_impreza_wrx_test/index.html

The R32 wouldn't even get near it now, but drivers can take solace in the fact that they have a nicer dash, for a lot more cash...

omega man

cancan wrote: »

The wrx has been just boosted to 265bhp as standard in the us, and europe soon afaik, with stiffer suspension and a host of other goodies, and a 0-60 time in the 4.8 secs.

Problem solved.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_0810_2009_subaru_impreza_wrx_test/index.html

The R32 wouldn't even get near it now, but drivers can take solace in the fact that they have a nicer dash, for a lot more cash...

So Subaru have listened to their customers. Sounds more like a WRX. It still couldn't possibly be faster than a GTI though!

Biro

The WRX is a funny badge in ways. It sounds impressive, but it actually usually means the entry level turbo in these parts. Back in the olden days of the 90's, You could get the Impreza Turbo here. That had around 215bhp roughly. The early ones I think had 208. The WRX was a jap only model with between 270 and 280bhp, and these got imported by the dozen. Then the bug-eye model came over here, and the WRX was the bog basic Turbo. You had to go for the WRX STI before you were getting the equivalent of the old WRX from Japan. So the STI is still around in the new shape, you can get a 300bhp one.
I think people still get the impression that the Impreza WRX is the top dog of Imprezas, when it isn't really.
(All this is aside from the special editions like the RB5, WR1, 22B, P1 etc).
(Also, this is from memory, so don't criticise me with minor 2 or 3 bhp discrepencies!)