# Spec V vs WRX



## MNspecV11 (Nov 4, 2002)

This is for all those who say the spec v and qr25 don't have it.
I was on my way home from my girls house on the 394 when a silver wrx came up behind me doing 85 or so. I down shifted gears and puuled up along side him, looked at him, I slammed it into 4th, he down shifted and hit, by the time I ran out 4th, around 100, I was car and a half lenght in front of him. From that time until I exitedd the interstate he stayed behind me in shame, poor little wrx, I wish him better luck next time, but he will need more than luck


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2002)

Hmm... might have been an automatic or maybe the guy wasn't trying very hard. WRXs run solid mid 14s at 94-95 MPH stock. That's more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass, and all they have to do is a couple bolt on mods and they run 13s.

I'd say you were the lucky one this time.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2002)

Zak91SE-R said:


> *Hmm... might have been an automatic or maybe the guy wasn't trying very hard. WRXs run solid mid 14s at 94-95 MPH stock. That's more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass, and all they have to do is a couple bolt on mods and they run 13s.
> 
> I'd say you were the lucky one this time. *


Don't forget that this race wasn't from a stop. AWD loses its advantage. Bigger engines tend to win the highway races but I'm not sure how big of a factor is with a turbo 2.0 vs a 2.5. 

I personally will NOT race a WRX on the streets until I get some boost of my own. But to act like a noob and post this quater mile ETA is BS especially when they're rolling on the highway going 60+ already. IMO


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2002)

Trap speed says it all. Spec Vs trap at 89-90 MPH, WRXs trap at 94-95. Trap speeds are fairly traction-independant numbers, so the WRX haviing AWD is kind of irrelevant when talking about trap speeds.

So yes, even from a roll a WRX will waste a Spec V, stock to stock, unless something is wrong with the WRX or it's an automatic or something. The auto tranny in the WRX is really bad.

Oh, and my Sentra is living proof that bigger displacement engines do not tend to win against smaller displacement turbo cars... at least in my case.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2002)

That why I'd never race a WRX myself. Its bad enough that he has the traction advantage, but him having a pretty fast spooling turbo running 12+ psi stock is just not a fair comparison. 

With that 6 grand that I saved from buying a Spec V over a WRX, I think I can use that money elsewhere or put it in the motor so you have a scubie kicking V.


----------



## zeno (Sep 17, 2002)

AWD will smoke you when racing from a stop but it is a whole different story if you are already rolling. The WRX has a serious loss of hp from the engine to the wheels (227 engine to 167 wheels) plus its tiny turbo is fully spooled at 4000 rpms. The lesson here is if you can somehow overcome the AWD from the start, you can easily smoke a WRX.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2002)

No you can't. Like I said, trap speed tells the tale. If it's so easy to beat a WRX, how come nobody's able to pull 94-95 MPH trap speeds in their Spec Vs? Trap speed is an indication of power (or power-weight ratio), not traction. If somebody traps 5 MPH higher than you do, it's a safe bet that they will beat you from a roll. This is the case with the WRX and the Spec V as well.

For comparison, the V6 Altima traps around 94-95 MPH too - any of you guys think you can beat one of them? Trap speed says it all.


----------



## James (Apr 29, 2002)

zeno said:


> *AWD will smoke you when racing from a stop but it is a whole different story if you are already rolling. The WRX has a serious loss of hp from the engine to the wheels (227 engine to 167 wheels) plus its tiny turbo is fully spooled at 4000 rpms. The lesson here is if you can somehow overcome the AWD from the start, you can easily smoke a WRX.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no you can't


----------



## B132nr (Jul 20, 2002)

*Are you sure it was a WRX?*

Are you sure it was a WRX? I mean did you just assume becuase it looked like one you thought it was? or was it a 2.5 RS? Just curious i mean sometimes I assume an integra is a gsr when they have gsr rims becuase with the rims they look like gsr's. Your not me, but it happens.


----------



## MNspecV11 (Nov 4, 2002)

I am sure it was a WRX, I just left out some of my mods to my spec V
HS CIA, HS headers, grounded knock sensor, and NX 50 shot
The look on his face was priceless, he never he would be looking at my tail lights


----------



## cburwell (Oct 11, 2002)

FarmboySE-R said:


> *With that 6 grand that I saved from buying a Spec V over a WRX, I think I can use that money elsewhere or put it in the motor so you have a scubie kicking V. *


I always hear people saying that (reguardless what car they are talking about). Bottom line you probably didn't have the extra 6K, and that is why you are driving a sentra and a N/A at that.

It's like me saying with the 100K+ I saved by buying my Sentra instead of a Porsche GT2 I can make my car faster then the porsche. It's sounds stupid, and everyone know I don't have the money to buy a porsche. Otherwise I would be driving a faster car (although I do love my sentra).


----------



## cburwell (Oct 11, 2002)

MNspecV11 said:


> *I am sure it was a WRX, I just left out some of my mods to my spec V
> HS CIA, HS headers, grounded knock sensor, and NX 50 shot
> The look on his face was priceless, he never he would be looking at my tail lights *


Did you use that 50 shot in the "Race"?


----------



## A20A Sentra (Nov 12, 2002)

i think its bs ur 175 hp cant stand up to the 220 wrx even if it was auto would still catch u and burn u plus the awd


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2002)

*chart*

look at the dyno chart...... awd is gear restricted at a certian mph wich we dont know.. who knows they could have hit that..... also when you talke about trap speeds or quarter mile et's traction is a huuuuuuge issue look at dsm cars gst vs gsx same power gsx has quicker trap speeds as well as a faster quarter mile et...


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2002)

Traction is only a huge issue with ETs, not trap speed. It makes a small difference in trap speed but not enough. You can run a 15.0 @ 92 on street tires and then run a 14.6 @ 92 on slicks. Trap speed is an indication of power, not traction.

And I'll say it again, a WRX trapping in the 94-95 MPH range is more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass FROM A ROLL, not just from a stop.

If any of you would like to test this theory, get a big old pair of slicks for your Spec V and take it to the drag strip. Your ETs will go down but you won't trap at 95 MPH. Slicks don't make your car faster, they simply allow it to cross the line quicker. Once you're out of the hole the race is all about power, and the WRX has a better power to weight ratio than the Spec V does. To prove my point:

WRX: 3085 lbs, 227 HP
Spec V: 2708 lbs., 175 HP

Pounds Per Horsepower (lower number = faster)
WRX: 13.6
Spec V: 15.5

And obviously the trap speeds the WRXs and the Spec Vs are getting bears those numbers out. The WRX is faster guys, and not just from a stop either. If you beat a WRX in a Spec V, then you were either lucky or fairly heavily modded. Or the WRX driver just wasn't trying very hard.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2002)

Ok, let's get the record straight on this one. Acceleration numbers are a result of torque, not horsepower. Horsepower is a figure of sustained power, or what it takes for your car to maintain the speed that the torque got it to. That being said, let's reenter the numbers:
WRX- 217lb/ft @4000rpm
SpecV- 180lb/[email protected]

3085 lbs divided by 217lb/ft = 14.2 lbs per lb/ft of torque
2548 lbs divided by 180lb/ft = 14.1 lbs per lb/ft of torque

The specV actually weighs 2548 lbs, not 2708.
In the end, this means that in power numbers, the SpecV has the advantage by about 90 lbs overall. The actual final numbers on the torque to weight breakdown leave about .05 lbs per foot (14.21 versus 14.16). Again, that leaves them pretty evenly matched, with the specV taking the slight advantage.

Finally, we must consider torque curve. We must assume that at interstate speeds like the ones described here, both vehicles were roughly between 3000 and 4000 rpm. If you have ever seen dynoed torque curves for the two cars in question, you know that the specV has a marvellously flat one, meaning that it makes rather consistent power in this range and below it. The WRX, on the other hand, is a peaky motor, and so in this range, is still climbing dramatically as it comes on boost. As an experiment, run your SpecV against the Sooby up a hill at lower speeds and see what happens. The V has it every time.

The trap speeds, by the way, are rather misleading. Understand first that the WRX reaches 60 mph much faster, leaving it only looking for 34 or 35 mph for the last 8 or 9 seconds of the run. That, my friends, has everything to do with grip. The X launches a whole lot harder, so it has less work to do rowing the gears. It's a good thing, too, because it lacks the potential to do the work in second and third that the Nissan has.

Sorry for ranting. I just had to say it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2002)

> The specV actually weighs 2548 lbs, not 2708.


Not according to Nissan, which is where I got 2708 from. If you want to argue with them about it, be my guest.  

Furthermore, torque alone will not win races. If it did, then why don't we see more 200 HP/550 lb-ft turbo diesel trucks running low 13s? It doesn't work that way. I mean using your logic, turbo diesel trucks should be the fastest vehicles you can buy. I mean do you really think that if a car had 150 HP and 1000 lb-ft of torque it would be ridiculously fast?



> As an experiment, run your SpecV against the Sooby up a hill at lower speeds and see what happens. The V has it every time.


No it doesn't. Unless you're assuming the WRX driver is leaving it in 5th gear to go up a hill at low speed or something... is there any reason why the WRX shouldn't be at its torque or power peak at low speed given the freedom to choose what gear you're in? No, of course not. the WRX makes more power and it's faster. Period.



> because it lacks the potential to do the work in second and third that the Nissan has.


All right, that's just flat out stupid. Sorry.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2002)

If you knew how power worked, this wouldn't be a conversation. If horsepower meant speed, we would actually be afraid of Hondas. Wouldn't that be a nightmare? The fact that horsepower numbers mean nothing to acceleration numbers is evident to anyone with knowledge of engineering. Do you know why semis are not the fastest vehicles on the road? Because of the weight and the fact that they are geared lower to haul that weight. If you dropped those engines (most of which are turbo diesels) into a lightweight vehicle (assuming you could actually balance the weight of the engine on any other frame) with gearing that made sense to acceleration, it would be beyond ridiculously fast. 
The weight I quoted was that of many curb weight figures taken by reliable sources testing the vehicles. It's fine that Nissan says it weighs more, but if that's not the weight for it including all the options, I don't know what happened, because real world scale figures say otherwise. If you choose to hold as more reliable a brochure that specifically says it may be wrong in the print, then be my guest. 
And, if you have never raced a more powerful vehicle in a well-laid out second gear and pulled on him, then you are either not driving a Nissan (they are notorious for having some of the best response in the middle gears) or you are not driving it right. 
And the statement about the hill was assuming equal circumstances for both vehicles, that is, if your WRX was in 2nd, in the Sentra in @nd as well, and pulling up the hill at essentially the same work load, the V would have the slight advantage. 
These statements are based on basic laws of engineering and physics. Who am I to question them?


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2002)

cburwell said:


> *I always hear people saying that (reguardless what car they are talking about). Bottom line you probably didn't have the extra 6K, and that is why you are driving a sentra and a N/A at that.
> 
> It's like me saying with the 100K+ I saved by buying my Sentra instead of a Porsche GT2 I can make my car faster then the porsche. It's sounds stupid, and everyone know I don't have the money to buy a porsche. Otherwise I would be driving a faster car (although I do love my sentra). *


Wrong buddy, I HAVE the money to buy a subbie, 2 things stopped me. Insurance, and look. That thing is plan ugly, and insurance is unusually high for this car. I chose the Spec V NOT because I can't afford the scubbie, but because I CHOSE to go the more rational route. Before you assume other people's financial problems, you ought to ask first. 

Note: Spec V is on top of its class, EVO is going to eat those scubbies up. I'd take those EVO anyday.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2002)

nowuzme said:


> *If you knew how power worked, this wouldn't be a conversation. If horsepower meant speed, we would actually be afraid of Hondas. *


Riiiiight. So let's use actual examples, mmmkay? S2000: 153 lb-ft of torque, 240 HP, 1/4 mile in high 13s.

Sentra SE-R Spec V: 175 HP, 180 lb-ft of torque, 1/4 mile in the low-mid 15s.

Both cars have 6 speed manual transmissions, the Spec V weighs 2700 lbs and the S2000 weighs 2800 lbs, so it's a pretty good example.

Why isn't the Spec V faster? It's 100 lbs lighter and has 30 more lb-ft of torque. Why is the S2000 almost a full second faster in the 1/4 mile if torque is the only thing that matters?

Let's see if you can answer that one before we go any farther with this conversation.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2002)

Ok...
I will happily answer this question, though not for the first time in this conversation. Were you paying attention, you would already know that gearing has everything to do with how a car uses its power. I'm sorry to be the one to explain that to you, but there it is. Where is the redline in an s2000? 9000 rpm. Do you see where this makes a difference? Let's also take a look at the fact that the RELIABLE quarter mile times for a stock s2000 are closer to14.5 seconds, and then maybe we will have some sort of understanding. If you can spool your beehive out to 9000 rpm without shifting, you will obviously make more use of the upper ranges of you power band. Shifts less often, that's right. And what do less frequent shifts mean?
I'm not even answering that one.


----------



## BIGBULS (Sep 24, 2002)

OK....I FULLY agree with Zak on this one.

Nowuzme.......yes, torque is why cars accelerate, but Honda's ARE fast in some cases......because they have the GEARING to multiply the torque......they can do this BECAUSE THEY REV (as you stated....and this contradicts what you said earlier). And horsepower IS an important point, because it is directly related to torque. In fact HP is the WORK that torque does. It is ALSO rpm based (more work/hp at high revs, IF you have the torque at those rpm). This why HORSEPOWER is what gives you a high top speed (and strong trap speed), because it is an extension of the work that the torque does. Put it this way, NO MATTER what you do, lets say you have Car X that makes 150hp but only 120lb/ft and is geared to attain max POWER, will go say 135mph. Now take Car Y with the same 150hp, but 200lb/ft and again, gearing to access max power........if their frontal areas and C.D.s are the same ...guess what...same top speed....regarless of the torque difference. And as for acceleration......if the 120lb/ft car can rev high enough, and has the gearing to take advantage of it, it will match or even pull on the 200lb/ft car. THIS is *another* reason why semi's are slow....they don't rev.

This horsepower argument also applies in roll-ons as stated above, because at higher speeds (above 60mph), POWER rather than torque has a HUGE effect (and weight becomes MUCH less of an issue).

Try this......I have run a series of 15.2's in the 1/4, but at a piddling 90mph.......one of my friends has a 3800lb Lincoln Mark VIII.......but it has a 280hp DOHC V8.....he only runs 15.15, but his trap speed is over 94mph. Guess who gets SPANKED in a roll-on......that's right...me. You can run the torque to weight ratios all day for these cars, and let me tell you, it's a LOT worse of an indicator of roll-on power (and sheer acceleration) than HP.

Oh...and on the weight issue......BOTH Sport Compact Car AND Car And Driver actually weighed their Spec V's.......SCC's (with no options) weighed 2750lbs and C/D's wa 2800lb's (sunroof etc)......both a hell of a lot higher than 2500lbs (and no....they did NOT have the driver in them).


----------



## BIGBULS (Sep 24, 2002)

Oh....also, I see that you have a 240SX......with a nice toquey 2.4L.....

Why is it then, with your 160lb/ft of torque and similar overall gearing, that your car is both slower AND has a lower trap speed than mine (I have a friend with a 95 240SX 5 speed so I KNOW this is true)? He has run [email protected] that's strong for a stock 240.

Sure, your car is heavier (2800lbs for my friends '95...we weighed it....yours is probably a little lighter...vs my 2610lbs...also weighed) by 100lbs or so (less than 5% heavier), but with your extra 30 lb/ft of torque (over 20% more) you should spank me.......nope.....doesn't happen. It's beacuse your hp is only 155 (claimed), vs my 150hp or so (I have a HS header and a timing advance)....this is less than a 5% difference.......which means I win.

Also......on the flip side of this, given the room, the 240SX would actually have a higher top speed (if it wasn't governed at 118mph) due to the HORSEPOWER advantage it has (aerodynamics plays a part, but my frontal area is FAR smaller, so it's a fair comparison)


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2002)

nowuzme said:


> *Were you paying attention, you would already know that gearing has everything to do with how a car uses its power.*


If you honestly believe that the only reason the S2000 is over 1 second faster in the 1/4 mile than the Spec V is gearing, you're certifiably insane. The Spec V has both a torque and a weight advantage, it should be wiping the street with the S2000 according to you. Gearing isn't going to overcome that, it's not as if the S2000 has a 7 or 8 final drive ratio. It's not all that different from the Spec V's gearing, certainly not different enough to make up for what you claim is the Spec V's advantage - all that extra torque and the lesser weight.



> Let's also take a look at the fact that the RELIABLE quarter mile times for a stock s2000 are closer to14.5 seconds, and then maybe we will have some sort of understanding.


No we won't. 14.5 is still faster than low 15s, last I checked. And the fact that the S2000 CAN run high 13s makes that point null and void.

Pay attention to BIGBULS' post. Looks like the key factor you're not understanding is the part about HP being the work that torque does. HP is a function of torque, it's not some irrelevant number somebody invented to make himself look smart.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2002)

nowuzme said:


> *Ok, let's get the record straight on this one. Acceleration numbers are a result of torque, not horsepower. Horsepower is a figure of sustained power, or what it takes for your car to maintain the speed that the torque got it to.*


Do you know the HP number is calculated from torque and RPM?
Do you know what is a transmission for?



> *
> Finally, we must consider torque curve. We must assume that at interstate speeds like the ones described here, both vehicles were roughly between 3000 and 4000 rpm.*




Somebody who would not downshift at these RPMs is stupid or a truck driver.



> *
> If you have ever seen dynoed torque curves for the two cars in question, you know that the specV has a marvellously flat one, meaning that it makes rather consistent power in this range and below it. The WRX, on the other hand, is a peaky motor, and so in this range, is still climbing dramatically as it comes on boost. *


 










You are not even looking at the right direction where your FWD car has a (very slight) advantage. Istead you're just showing your ignorance.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2002)

nowuzme said:


> *If you knew how power worked, this wouldn't be a conversation. If horsepower meant speed, we would actually be afraid of Hondas. Wouldn't that be a nightmare? The fact that horsepower numbers mean nothing to acceleration numbers is evident to anyone with knowledge of engineering. *




OMG!
Looks like you would not recognize an engineer even if he would bite you in the ........  



> * Do you know why semis are not the fastest vehicles on the road? Because of the weight and the fact that they are geared lower to haul that weight. If you dropped those engines (most of which are turbo diesels) into a lightweight vehicle (assuming you could actually balance the weight of the engine on any other frame) with gearing that made sense to acceleration, it would be beyond ridiculously fast. *




Not when the engine and transmission weights more then your whole car.



> * The weight I quoted was that of many curb weight figures taken by reliable sources testing the vehicles. It's fine that Nissan says it weighs more, but if that's not the weight for it including all the options, I don't know what happened, because real world scale figures say otherwise. If you choose to hold as more reliable a brochure that specifically says it may be wrong in the print, then be my guest.*




If you're going this way please use the same scale on WRX and let us know what it shows. I guess official numbers are more comparable or at least more fair.



> * And, if you have never raced a more powerful vehicle in a well-laid out second gear and pulled on him, then you are either not driving a Nissan (they are notorious for having some of the best response in the middle gears) or you are not driving it right. *


 

So you think Nissan has a more special 2nd gear then WRX?



> *Who am I to question them? *


An ignorant?


----------



## UpChuck (Jul 20, 2002)

Apparently nowuzme has some kind of personal vendetta against the WRX. Im fine with him trying to stick up for the spec v but its a loosing battle. Not that anybody wanted to know, but I became aroused when I saw Zak91SE-R's car. Pretty Sweet.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2002)

BIGBULS said:


> *
> Oh...and on the weight issue......BOTH Sport Compact Car AND Car And Driver actually weighed their Spec V's.......SCC's (with no options) weighed 2750lbs and C/D's wa 2800lb's (sunroof etc)......both a hell of a lot higher than 2500lbs (and no....they did NOT have the driver in them). *



not to start more shit...but i wieghed mine at the track with me in it and it was only 2650


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2002)

serspecv said:


> *not to start more shit...but i wieghed mine at the track with me in it and it was only 2650 *


I have the sunroof and RF package. Mine weighed 2740 w/o me in it.

BTW, whp rules and I've been SMOKED by a wrx from a roll and my car pulls 92-93 mph trap speeds. Trap speed is all that matters in a race from a roll.


----------



## BIGBULS (Sep 24, 2002)

FLSpecV said:


> *I have the sunroof and RF package. Mine weighed 2740 w/o me in it.
> 
> BTW, whp rules and I've been SMOKED by a wrx from a roll and my car pulls 92-93 mph trap speeds. Trap speed is all that matters in a race from a roll. *


Most Car Magazines (all of the ones I've ever read anyway) weigh their cars witha full tank of gas and spare etc, all in the trunk still............was yours full? This could explain the slight discrepency (60lbs is like 9-10 gallons of gas......so you could concevably drop 100lbs off of a Spec V by running with a nearly empty tank). As for 2650lbs.........was that with the spare taken out and stuff? Or perhaps the scale was just a little off..........??

 

Oh...I agree totally on the trap speed thing.......as I said above.


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

No one seems to have mentioned how much more the WRX costs.... now take that difference and calculate the aftermarket enchancements you can buy for the Spec with the diff..then compare...


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Besides all the technical mombo-jumbo, I like both the SPEC V and the S2000. The WRX is an exotic car, built with an exotic intent that is different from that of the S2000 and the Spec V. Quickly put, the best bang for the buck is the Spec V in terms of simplicity and mass production as well performance. But it will get served by an S2000 in a heads-up race (point blank). The WRX costs more than the Spec V and will most ceratinly hand the Spec a swift @ss-whipping (the beauty of AWD and boost). With the S2000 being the more expensive and the WRX being the heavier of the trio, I would take the cheaper spec V over the WRX because of it's baseline power that's asking for aftermarket enhancement. I also will take the WRX over the high-powered S2000 because of it's solid foundation, cheaper sticker price and the AWD set-up. But for the sweetest driving machine of the bunch it's easily the S2000 who's engine sings beautifully at 9000rpm. I've raced the S2000 (smoked it) and it is a pretty fast car. I've raced a WRX (Smoked it) and it is a very fast car, but I've never dead stopped raced a Spec . I've always played with them on the highway in which to me isn't any fun at all because they can't keep up! I say give the spec a blower and some bottom end work and the S2000 is in a crap load of trouble. The WRX is a different story. That car just simply rocks. But hell, you spend a fraction of that money on a B12, B13 or B14 and none of those cars stand a chance.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2002)

BIGBULS said:


> *Most Car Magazines (all of the ones I've ever read anyway) weigh their cars witha full tank of gas and spare etc, all in the trunk still............was yours full? This could explain the slight discrepency (60lbs is like 9-10 gallons of gas......so you could concevably drop 100lbs off of a Spec V by running with a nearly empty tank). As for 2650lbs.........was that with the spare taken out and stuff? Or perhaps the scale was just a little off..........??
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I agree totally on the trap speed thing.......as I said above. *


My 2740 was with the spare tire and jack in the trunk, but very little gas. I haven't weiged it without the spare and jack, but just guessing, I'd say they weigh about 40 lbs (spare, jack, wrench, carpet, etc. combined). Just guessing, I'd say my sunroof and RF package could add another 40 lbs. So a stripped, no option SpecV with no gas could conceivably weight 2650.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2002)

myoung said:


> *No one seems to have mentioned how much more the WRX costs.... now take that difference and calculate the aftermarket enchancements you can buy for the Spec with the diff..then compare... *


Very good point. There is a Stage II turbo out for the Spec V ($3900). The output is 250-270 hp and 280+ torque. With all the nuts and bolts, I'd say it'll run your Spec V to 25 grand (including the Spec). Thats the price of a WRX or a RSX. If you can lay that kinda power on the pavement, you can spank them with your eyes closed. I'll say it'll propel that little nissan into the mid to lower 13's ez. Any comments?


----------



## MNspecV11 (Nov 4, 2002)

Where is this turbo? very interested


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2002)

You can find the turbo at:

http://www.forcedinductionracing.com/

I agree about the total cost, but, unfortunately, I didn't pay cash for my car. It is easier to finance the $25,000 car than to finance a $20,000 car and then come up with $5,000 cash or put it on a credit card. The second factor is the turbo kit will completely void the warranty on just about the entire car. Take your car in to the dealer and they will blame the kit on everything, ie. A/C compressor went out because of the underhood heat, tranny broke because it couldn't handle extra power, etc.

The turbo kit is great for someone with $5,000 cash and the financial backing to not care about their warranty. Like, woops, I broke the ringland off my piston and bent valves which damaged the head...no big deal, I'll just buy a new long block.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> The turbo kit is great for someone with $5,000 cash and the financial backing to not care about their warranty. Like, woops, I broke the ringland off my piston and bent valves which damaged the head...no big deal, I'll just buy a new long block.


 Very well put Anybody around here blinging like that????


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2002)

FLSpecV said:


> *You can find the turbo at:
> 
> http://www.forcedinductionracing.com/
> 
> ...


I'm not getting the turbo til the car is paid off or the warranty is gone (which ever comes first). But its nice to know that IF you have the financial backing someday that your Spec V can beat the big boys and represent Nissan for under how much there car was STOCK. I'd rather finace a $20 grand car and save the difference in monthly payments to get the turbo. Hey, but thats just me. Besides, someone here has to give boost boy here a run for his money!


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Besides, someone here has to give boost boy here a run for his money!


 If I wasn't so deep into the underdog theories, I would buy a SPEC V, say screw the warranty and go for the gusto. And though I can right now, I have nowhere to park it and I'm already paying a handful every month for the following: (2) 1990 nissan Sentras

(1) 1991 Ford Taurus SHO (5spd)

(1) 1993 Ford Taurus SHO (Auto)

(1) 1993 Hyundai Elantra (5spd)

(1) 1989 Hyundai Excel with Built 4G63 (Not used)


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Mind you, I'm not dissing the SPEC in no way, shape or form. I haven't had many experiences in racing them and the few encounters I've had has been what I would expect from the time and effort I put into my engine and tuning as opposed to a car bought from the Nissan dealership and has not been worked. However, when I complete my red B12, my expectations are to seriously supercede those of the silver B12 that I crashed and I do mean "Seriously".................


----------



## Nizmonik SE-R (Jun 27, 2002)

oooooook guys lets get this straighten out here......First of all, everyone kinda forgot the fact that MNSpeV was spraying a 50 Shot with Bolt-ons. Yes a Spec V does have 175HP stock and with that 50 SHot he had, that puts him at 225HP right or wrong? Now a WRX has 227HP and thats stock......My Brother has a WRX and i've drove it plenty of times, not to mention experiences of neck snapping launches at the light. Now clearly the weight difference is a big factor, the WRX weighs in over 3000Lbs. Now w/o that 50 shot, he would have never stood a chance. Now i actually had the chance drive his WRX on the way to Nopi in ATL and needless to say that car is fast. I went at it with a Cobra at cruising and walked him off 3rd gear. Now what i think happened in MNSpecV's case is that the guy was either driving an Auto or he didn't downshift to 3rd but 4th. Overall, the WRX is pretty fast but not a Monster. A Civic Hatch with a B16 swap could easily hang with a WRX and i experienced this before.......MNSpecV, hey with that 50 shot i'll give it to you but without it you're simple insane if you think you beat a WRX. BTW, my Bro's car mod are Blitz SUS Intake, Blitz 3" Catback Stainless Steel Exhaust and TurboXS BOV, boosting stock 14.5 PSI and Dropped on SSR Competition Lightweight Wheels.


----------



## Stevie_T_G (Jun 12, 2002)

Ok boyz, In responce to the whole Torque Vs Horsepower it's simple 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Horsepower=(Torque * RPM) / 5252

This is not a debatable item. It's the way it's done. Period. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's quoted from 
http://www.geocities.com/gkurka2001/TorqueVsHp.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is written by a guy who knows EXACTLY what he is talking about and I think you'll see that there is every chance that MNspecV11 had this WRX if you also take into acount reaction times involved etc.

Read the above link.. I did and it made things a whole lot clearer for me.

G


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2002)

I agree that this could have happened. I own a WRX, a decently modded one infact. From 0-60 head snapping fast and in the 1/4 mid 12's, close to 300 at the wheels. But in 5th gear on the highway it is a turd until it hits 3000. It takes longer to get from 1500 to 3000 rpms then to get from 60 to 90 once the turbo hits. I mean under 2500 it is like driving my wifes old Tercel. 

This is why if I feel the need to play with someone on the highway I get it in the right gear before I try and make a move so then at least I have a chance. 

I looked at a Spec V before I got my WRX, the big difference for me was the AWD for the snow durring the winter months. If it was not for that I would have been all over the Spec V.


----------



## MNspecV11 (Nov 4, 2002)

I don't know how do the quote thing
I would never say that a stock spec could beat a WRX, but with the NX and all other mods he had no chance, he just did not know it when he came up on me. It os not like I have NX stickers all over my car.
I am pretty sure it is not an auto, unless he dropped it down gear by hand beacuse when a pulled up on him he dropped his hood, just as I did.
MY whp w/ bolt on's is about 160 or so (that os what cortim1 has w/ similar mods) w/out NX, The WRX is about 167 whp, I am a little lighter than him, throw in the 50 shot and I own that turbo. I get tq. at the start and he has to wait for his turbo to spool up.
In most places I have seen the NX kits are very true to the claimed whp, that should put well above the WRX in whp

The WRX would still hand it to me off the line with the AWD, I can not get good traction until 3rd


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> throw in the 50 shot and I own that turbo.


 I can say this much about the SR and nitrous, used properly out the hole they're nasty and one mis-shift or blunder on the other persons part will result in smokage for I am a testament of that and got smoked by a B13 SE-R (3 years ago because I revved my engine too high and got locked out of 2nd gear).


> I get tq. at the start and he has to wait for his turbo to spool up.


 But once his turbo spools up and you guys are up to speed, the NX will get waxed as I also have proven this theory against the same guy with the B13 SE-R with a 75 shot of drugs. Rolling through first we were pretty close, but once the turbo spooled up the seperation was totally staggering and the final distance over a mile was too many car lengths to list. The WRX will out battle the NX on the highway and the SpecV as well, but i still would love to see it


----------



## 1YellowSpecV (Dec 12, 2002)

I love both cars.
But the only reason why I bought the spec v over the wrx is simply the price tag. I would love to own a WRX, but I don't feel like paying $500.00 a month for it(plus insurance).
Stock vs. stock the WRX is easily take the V, it's that simple. I have driven both very hard, and the WRX is just flat-out faster.
But with the right mods you should be able to take it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2002)

Heh, I got a good idea. Why don't you just race a WRX owners from a roll and you can prove your point that way


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2002)

hehe, guys, trust me, even an auto wrx is hard to beat. ive got an auto wrx, and ive raced an se-r and specV, trust me, i had noooo problem with them. that was when i was stock, trust me, i have a few little bolt on mods, nothing to much, and i will truthfully blow most specV's away. im running high13's/low 14's and im auto. so please dont post crap about it being auto. oh and everytime ive raced these things, its been from a roll, i would love to see how id do against them off the line.  i know a kid that has a spec-v... i should ask him to run just for laughs!

oh by the way, stock for stock, wrx will hand u ur ass. just like it will for the rsx-s and z24's and gti's etc. i dont understand why people compare the wrx with their car????


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2002)

yeah, that's what I was saying originally. Stock to stock a WRX will WASTE a Spec V, from a stop AND from a roll. Doesn't mean I don't like Spec Vs, I mean come on, they cost so much less than WRXs, in my mind that makes up most of the difference.

But the WRX is faster, period.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2002)

As long as it's in your mind, that's all that counts  

Seriously though, thanks for all the spec-v owners that know when to raise a BS flag and for not being dicks, you guys are pretty cool over here

And damn, I hate to admit it, but you've got some nice cars too


----------



## MNspecV11 (Nov 4, 2002)

I never claimed this to be a stock v stock race. It was my spec V (with the mods) v some silver WRX, i do not know what his mods were, if any, but I had no problems beating him. 
In the mean time I have smoked a few contour svt and a jag s-type w/out the NX


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2003)

Just watch out in the next few months, you think your up next to a WRX and it turns out to be a WRX STI. 
2.5L Turbo 300HP Stock....! Just announced Monday at http://impreza.subaru.com 
I wish I could trade my wrx in for one...


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

As cocky as it may sound "bring it". The name "STI" means nothing to me. Only the crap you see on the playstations! Just Do it!


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2003)

I can't believe this forum is still going. If the STI is going to be as easy to mod as the WRX, it's going to be one of the next big super cars i.e. supra. It's more HP stock that a supra or 300ZX and you can probably mod it to about 800-900 hp


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2003)

*Hello*

First of all my friend has a WRX and I have a Spec-V, we both have done racing, autocross and drag in our day, no matter what you say the WRX will kick my ass all day at the drag track, if and only if you lauch at 5000 rpm and burn the clutch through first gear. Otherwise I will kill him from the start. Second I do have I/H/E/KS and I can take him all the time on the highway starting at 55 mph. Also remember there is no governor on the spec there is on the WRX and it's set at @130 so no matter what all you have to do is stay near him and the Spec will win.
Now about the WRX STI it's going to be very fast but its not going to be very strong, the tranny can not handle much more than the stock engine puts out, you'll be lucky to have an extra 50 horse and not have a problem. Also its 30,000 why are we talking about it when our car costs 17,000. For another 13,000 I could probably kick just about anything on the streets ass. Including the STI.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

I concur!!!!!!!!!!Do any of you?


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2003)

Well for one thing you're wrong about the tranny in the STi. it's a brand new 6-speed transmission that's far, far stronger than any other Subie's other trannies. It will easily take whatever you feel like giving it. It's more than 80 lbs. heavier than the regular WRX tranny.

Boost_boy, the STi is a LOT more than "some playstation crap". It's been around in other countries for quite a while, and it dominated world rally for a while, too, in WRC form.300 HP and 300 lb-ft stock is nothing to sneeze at, when you consider it will go to 400 HP with barely any modifcations, and far higher than that with more extensive mods.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Zak, I know what the STI os capable of and definitley know it's no playstation dream car. I was merely implying that this guy with a WRX is boasting on a car that's exotic as an STI and it's not even on U.S. soil yet. And the point I was trying to make was, until it gets I don't see it and if and when it gets here, the car and it's new owners will have their hands full as well.


----------



## Thomas Reynolds (May 1, 2002)

FarmboySE-R said:


> * Insurance, and look. That thing is plan ugly, and insurance is unusually high for this car.*


Umm, bullshit. The insurance on ALL subie's are unusually LOW. Ask any insurance agent. When we looked at buying a '03 WRX and trade in the '96 Firebird (V6 model) our insurance would have been $300 a year CHEAPER with the WRX!!!!

It is unheardof to purchase a new car and have it the same price let alone cheaper than any older car, not to mention the fact that this is a TURBO car, sporty, and first year model (high priced replacement accident parts)

We instead got an '03 Forester and save $400 a year over the Firechicken.

Subaru's are very safe cars, hence the low insurance rates.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2003)

Thomas Reynolds said:


> *Umm, bullshit. The insurance on ALL subie's are unusually LOW. Ask any insurance agent. When we looked at buying a '03 WRX and trade in the '96 Firebird (V6 model) our insurance would have been $300 a year CHEAPER with the WRX!!!!
> 
> It is unheardof to purchase a new car and have it the same price let alone cheaper than any older car, not to mention the fact that this is a TURBO car, sporty, and first year model (high priced replacement accident parts)
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing on the point of safety. The crash tests have been awesome and who can complain about AWD? Yes the insurance will be lower if you compare it with a FIREBIRD. 

I was quoted $2,583 for 6 months for that WRX. COMPARE with the Jetta 1.8T ($1,350) and the Spec V ($1,220). 

I don't have a deep pocket, cuz I bought my own car. And I'm not coughing up $2500 every 6 months on a butt ugly car. I'm sure that insurance on a Firebird/Camero/Mustang is much MUCH higher than the WRX, but for you to say that ALL subarus are "unusully low" based upon the fact that you are comparing it to domestic sport trash is wrong. I've done my research. The GTI, Mini Cooper S, Jetta 1.8t, & Spec V were all the cars that i've considered. And the WRX as well as the Mini Cooper S stood out like a sore thumb when dealing with insurance.

IMO, the WRX's insurance is unusually high. And yes I've talk with different agents and companies, several of them in fact since I was planning to get either a WRX/GTI in the begining. Research got me the better deal and investment: NISSAN SPEC V


----------



## DP03 (Dec 8, 2002)

I briefly read this thread and wanted to say that Zak is correct in saying that trap speeds are MUCH less dependent on traction than ET's. Think of it this way. On my Camaro I have something called a line lock, which locks the front wheels while I heat up the rears for traction. Let's say, hypothetically, that when the tree lights went green, I pushed my line lock so the car just sat and spun. The clock is ticking, which is killing my ET, but as soon as I release, I'm gone, and could easily attain a very high trap speed.

I could show you many time slips that were into the 11's in ET with higher trap speeds than my 10 sec slips.

ET, on the other hand, will ALWAYS suffer from lack of traction.


----------



## SR20D_GTI (Nov 4, 2002)

The WRX is fast from the get go but no matter what when your going 100 MPH it would be very close between a 2.5 n/a and 2.0 turbo. The spec V must have a longer gear ratio. I cant see a WRX smoking a spec V around 100 it would win but not smoke a 2.5. Now the WRX STI on the other hand which i have raced going 120+ would smoke it. He was just playing with me. We got to 130 and bye bye. I live in England and scoobys tend to be more common over here. That 6000 bucks you saved well if youve got it then im sure you could get your spec v to 300 BHP. Slap a nice turbo on to get you started.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2003)

I don't think it would be very close at 100 MPH. Above 100, weight matters less than horsepower. And the WRX has almost 50 more HP than the Spec V.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2003)

*Okay*

All of you with your Spec's, have you ever raced a WRX? It drops HP severely at high RPM's, have you ever driven one? Its really not that fast unless you know how to drive, if you want to go fast all the time the clutch will blow. It will beat a stock spec in the quarter, but I have beaten two of them on the highway, all the way up to the WRX's governor. Try it if you doubt me, then ask the owner if you can drive it, to me it was very dissapointing, not what I expected from all the hype.


----------



## UpChuck (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: Okay*



RJOHN929 said:


> * Try it if you doubt me, then ask the owner if you can drive it, to me it was very dissapointing, not what I expected from all the hype. *


Are you saying that some stranger just let you drive his WRX? 

I dont see how driving fast will cause the clutch to "Blow".Yeah, if you dump the clutch at 6g everytime you take off you will be doing clutch changes every weekend. But thats no different than any other car.


----------



## BIGBULS (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Okay*



RJOHN929 said:


> * It will beat a stock spec in the quarter, but I have beaten two of them on the highway, all the way up to the WRX's governor. *


The only WRX's with governors are auto's......THAT's why you won.

The manuals are ungoverned, and will pull past 140mph (vs 130ish for a Spec V).........


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2003)

Wrong, the sedan is governed and the wagon is not, check your facts before you speak. No it wasn't a stranger if read the whole forum I said my best friend has won and its a stick sedan with a governor. Also my spec will blow by 130, and pull untill its off the speedo. 
To get the WRX to run 0-60 in under 6 sec. you have to drop the clutch there is no other way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2003)

Also you dont't just drop the clutch you run it out to keep the RPM's up and the turbo spooled. Like I said drive one and you will understand.


----------



## UpChuck (Jul 20, 2002)

RJOHN929 said:


> *Also you dont't just drop the clutch you run it out to keep the RPM's up and the turbo spooled. Like I said drive one and you will understand. *


My best friend has an old Doge Omni GLH-T (which I would put up against a WRX*) that has lag out the ass. I know how to keep a turbo spooled up. And on that car it is probably a lot tougher than the subbie. And he never had clutch problems in that car.



*Well maybe not from a dead stop, but from a roll it was mean.


----------



## Nizmonik SE-R (Jun 27, 2002)

Its tru you don't dump the clutch, u let it run to spool the turbo up. I don't have a WRX but my bro does have one and i know what i'm talking about when i say that whatever that governor is on that sedan.....its not at 140mph, it runs past 140mph (off the speedo). I was in the car when we ran with a R33 GTR Skyline coming back from Nopi in ATL and we were doing past 140 (well it was off the speedo) and that R33 still spanked us nastily but oh well it was for fun. WRX Clutch's don't have a problem if you do drop it at 6K but it does hurt the tranny (After a couple of dozen clutch drops like that and u'll need a new tranny). I know alot of WRX owners, alo about WRXs and they never have problems with their clutches. Why is this thread such a attention grabber?? We know that the SpecV the is lighter but the WRX has more HP. They have about a 50HP difference and with that SpecV's 50 Shot, he covered that 50HP difference. Same HP, on a lighter car and you have a winner. Its not like its unbelievable that the SpecV guy won, Yes WRX's are incredible and i have the utmost respect for them b/c i have one in the family (And I get to drive every once inna while ). I'm constantly going thru their forums, www.i-club.com , and learning about these cars. Off the line the WRX is a killer but from cruising it takes a lil time to get them moving, yes A LITTLE time but some still needed. We've gone against tuned S4's at cruising and kept up for a lil bit but fel short to that Extra turbo and extra cylinders that S4 has. All in All both cars are great cars but this race isn't hard to believe.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2003)

Trying to argue that a spec-v is a lot better car than a WRX is like trying to say cars are generally faster than motorcycles, the only way it's ever gonna happen is if A) The WRX/motorcycle is broke or B) You have actually convinced yourself of this hideous lie and believe it no matter what any one else says. Looks like a lot of B) floating around. Spec-v's are nice car but it's about 18-19k for one? a WRX is 24k. It's like trying to compare a $13,000 focus against the spec-v, no matter how much the focus people argue, it's still going to be a $13,000 focus with mods and it's just not going to have any chance in hell keeping up with a spec-v unless you put major time and money into it. Like turbo tom's 300+ whp focus. I bet it took him some money and a lot of time to do it.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Trying to argue that a spec-v is a lot better car than a WRX is like trying to say cars are generally faster than motorcycles, the only way it's ever gonna happen is if A) The WRX/motorcycle is broke or B) You have actually convinced yourself of this hideous lie and believe it no matter what any one else says. Looks like a lot of B) floating around. Spec-v's are nice car but it's about 18-19k for one? a WRX is 24k. It's like trying to compare a $13,000 focus against the spec-v, no matter how much the focus people argue, it's still going to be a $13,000 focus with mods and it's just not going to have any chance in hell keeping up with a spec-v unless you put major time and money into it. Like turbo tom's 300+ whp focus. I bet it took him some money and a lot of time to do it.


 As long as you realize the fact that these guys are going to flame you for this last post.........


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2003)

Of course they are. But all I basically tried to say, stop trying to make your car something it's not. The Spec-V is closer compared to the Impreza RS(stock for stock, just with a little hp difference) If you want to talk nissan cars that are comparable to a wrx, look at the new altima. I'm not sure if it's exactly right but, 244 HP v6 AWD 6 spd. THAT is the car you should be comparing to a WRX. If you have a nissan sentra that can toast a WRX that's good for you. You're a minority in your group and there's not a lot of people out there that can do that and there never will be. So be proud of it. But to say that the spec-v is better bang for the buck and for the X amount of dollars saved you can do this and that is BS. For 5 grand you can buy a super/turbo charger KIT and maybe install it for that price giving you another almost 50% gain in power 180/2 = 90 180+90 = 270CRANK. WRX with $5000 in mods usually includes a new turbo so that puts a 227 stock up to about 350+ CRANK depending on how much you are willing to push your car. No comparision. It's like the civic people trying to compare their car to a WRX or a cavalier person. It's just not going to happen with out major time and money to invest and that's something a lot of people don't have and probably never will.


----------



## vqman (Jan 17, 2003)

*Subaru WRX Killer (cause the SE-R doesn't have it)*

cut and paste job, trying to get idea out, to get a GREAT car!

My first post here, I also go by "vqman" on www.maxima.org, www.freshalloy.com, www.zcar.com, and www.caranddriver.com. 

I am a Nissan Freak, and here is an idea I have:

I used to drive a 1998 Sentra SE with the sr20de engine, and a close ratio 5-speed. I even bought a 200SX SE-*R* badge, and put it on the back, because the Sentra had the same suspension, wheels, engine, brakes...etc...as the 200SX SE-*R *just had 4 doors....wonderful car, never rattled like my Maxima does.

I have since moved on to bigger, faster, but not neccessarily "better" things (1998 Maxima...then a 2003 Maxima SE 6-speed that I still drive...duh, it's a 2003)

but anyway...*KEEP READING!!!*

I would go back to a Sentra if they made my "Dream Sentra".

*"Sentra GT-**R"*
1. redo the droopy rear end
2. keep the same/similar aggressive front end of the current SE-*R* Spec V
3. Turbocharger
4.* AWD* system from the Skyline GT-*R*
5. $23-25,000 sticker price
6. Leather option
7. 6 speed manual tranny ONLY
8. 2 and 4 door models
9. 17 inch alloys
10. 250HP 255ftlb torque

*And for the "Sentra GT-**R Spec V"?*

1. Intercooler
2. Larger Turbo
3. Z/W rated tires
4. tighter suspension
5. Limited colors (like only white, black and red?)
6. Offer only *black* cloth or *black* leather BOTH with red stitching
7. 18 inch wheels
8. Dual exhuast--or at least give it the dual exhuast look
9. 280bhp, 280ftlbs torque
10. $26-28,000 sticker price

All GT-*R* models regular and Spec V would have *ALL WHEEL DRIVE*! 

I would buy a Spec V Sentra GT-*R*

would you?

*BEFORE YOU FLAME, KEEP READING!!!*

I know you are all going to say that Nissan should save the GT-*R* name for something with 400+hp, a 6 cylinder, and possibly the Infiniti nameplate...

I just think there are more Sklyine GT-*R* fans in the segment of people that can afford Sentras...People that can spend $35,000-40,000 would rather have a G35 or a 350Z.

*KEEP READING!!!*

I think my proposed Sentra GT-*R* would be a GREAT Subaru WRX/Mitsubishi Evolution fighter

And it would bring a whole new group of Sentra Enthusiasts..

just a thought

*KEEP READING!!!*

I've owned 2 Sentra's and 2 Maxima's...and I am much more impressed with the quality of my Sentra's...despite the Maxima having a better engine (vq30de in my 1998 Maxima and the vq35de in my new 2003 Maxima) I loved my 1998 Sentra SE...

and I'd love an ALL WHEEL DRIVE Subaru WRX Killer...Like the one I've just proposed...

*why should Subaru dominate the AWD segment? *

Nissan's Skyline AWD system could destroy the Subaru...

-vq


----------



## BIGBULS (Sep 24, 2002)

RJOHN929 said:


> *Wrong, the sedan is governed and the wagon is not, check your facts before you speak. *


Well aren't you the smart onethen. Try checking your facts yourself.

Otherwise, how exactly did Car and Driver get 3 seperate WRX SEDANS to between 140-142mph?

The autos have a different AWD system that splits power differently, AND a different computer that caps the top speed at 130mph.

Ad BTW......unless your Spec V is a Turbo, there is absolutely NO way in hell that you can peg your 150mph speedo unless you have it running off a VERY steep hill with a tailwind. Spec V's only go around 130-135mph in stock form (140mph is possible with bolt-ons....they just don't have the gears to use all of their power...6th is too long)...........it's been proven. Go get a hand-held GPS unit, and a straight stretch of road with no tailwind and then see if your car can exceed 135mph.....oops......nope.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2003)

WRXWV said:


> *look at the new altima. I'm not sure if it's exactly right but, 244 HP v6 AWD 6 spd. THAT is the car you should be comparing to a WRX.*


And if Nissan made anything like that, maybe we would. 

The Altima has 240 HP, a 5-speed and it's FWD. It is, however, more than a match for a WRX in a straight line. Not from a stop obviously, but everywhere else. Plus, that VQ engine is really torquey. I drove an automatic Altima 3.5 and was able to lay 15 feet of rubber without even trying.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Didn't realize the V6 Altima runs like that out of the hole and in automatic trim! That's all I see is big 20-22 inch rims on them and them looking clean and stoudt.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2003)

Yeah, actually the Altima surprised me when I drove it... partially because it was an auto but man that thing has some NUTZ. 

It felt like my DET-powered NX did, it had that same kind of thrust. Pretty damn impressive for a $22k 4 door family sedan.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

If I didn't love my damn taurus SHO (Auto) so much, I would go get an Altima. But I have two SHO's and two sentras and two hyundais, so another car would break me in the insurance department.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

If I didn't love my damn taurus SHO (Auto) so much, I would go get an Altima. But I have two SHO's and two sentras and two hyundais, so another car would break me in the insurance department.


----------

