2008 Subaru Wrx Sti Unveiled
Check this pic out.... I like!!
2007 Mazdaspeed3 Sport</span>
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
-
Colombia28
- Posts: 4216
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:14
- Location: Lone Tree
- Contact:
-
Huzer21
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Colombia28 @ Nov 1 2007, 07:12 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=9197]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
I agree there! Black does suit this car very well.
HOLY HOTT [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif[/img] ! Black is defiantly the new STi's color[/b]
I agree there! Black does suit this car very well.
-
ZoomPrincess
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2782
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:14
- Location: Aurora, CO
- Contact:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CeXy7 @ Nov 2 2007, 02:57 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=9287]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
you and turbo girl would get along quite well.... [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif[/img]
Like I told Pooh Bear, the only way I would own a Subie is black with all the pink decals and emblems.. haha Gotta have the pink in there for me.[/b]
you and turbo girl would get along quite well.... [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy.gif[/img]
"20<cut off="">"</cut>
-
arctic_blue83
To anyone who's interested, Subaru just officially released specs for the new STI at the LA Auto show, check it out:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1387769
Just to clarify, the '07 STI, due to the newer SAE horsepower rating system, was rated at 293hp, whereas the upcoming '08 STI will be rated at 305hp, so an increase of 12hp, not too shabby. Honestly, after reading through all the specs over there, I think the new '08's are going to be badass! Hopefully, with the new double-wishbone suspension in the rear, it will finally be able to show tail lights to the damn EVO on a road course lol.
Although, it sucks they were only able to fit a double-wishbone in the rear, and not in the front... as IMO, a double-wishbone would have been more useful in the front on a car like that. A double-wishbone has an advantage over a MacPherson strut in terms of camber gain, allowing you to more effectively use more of a tire's contact patch, giving you more grip, at least in theory.... which sounds great, but on the GD chassis Impreza, there isn't really a need for more rear grip, or at least not as much of a need for more front grip... if your rear tires give before your front tires, the car oversteers, whereas if your fronts give out first (which is what happens in most cases, especially on Impreza's) the car understeers. So really, the new Impreza would have benefit more from double-wishbones up front more than in the rear.
The only real problem with that is, due to the engine layout, it's almost impossible to fit a double-wishbone up front, as the boxer engine is too wide, so they're forced to run simple MacPherson struts, or in the STI's case, inverted struts.
A lot of people don't realize why Subaru uses a boxer engine, as there are both pros on cons to using the boxer design... the con being the fact it has 2 heads & 4 cams, which is pretty extreme for a 4 cylinder. That makes production more expensive, which is bad. Boxer motors also aren't as robust as inlines, as they don't dissipate heat as well, in order to keep the heads cool, you have to tune them richer than you would an inline, to avoid detonation. Which is one of the reason's why it's cheaper/easier to make more power out of an EVO. So basically, you have a motor that's slightly heavier than an inline, costs more to make and requires to be tuned a little more conservatively... now you might ask, why would you want to make a motor like that?
There are several answers to that question.... the first being the fact that they're inherently smoother than an inline 4, not requiring any sort of harmonic balancing. The 2nd reason being that because they lay flat, boxer motors enable a car to have a much lower center of gravity than an inline 4 powered car. Also the fact that the pistons are going side to side as opposed to up and down in an inline, decreases the amount of wheelhop the car could potentially have, even though that's not much of a factor in an AWD car. Another reason, one of the most important reasons Subaru uses a boxer motor, as that it mounts directly in the center of the engine bay, and is longitudely opposed (like a RWD car), which has a 2 part advantage, allowing Subaru to connect their AWD transmissions to the rear of the motor, in the center of the car, making for better weight distribution, and taking down on the complexity of the AWD drivetrain (which cuts costs, and allows Subaru to make AWD systems more affordable than other cars), allowing to make the AWD system perfectly symmetrical, which is part of the reason why Subaru's are known to have so much grip, unlike many AWD systems, that are really just modified FWD systems, and as such act more like FWD cars than 4WD cars under slippage. Lastly, since the boxer-4 only has the length of about a 2 cylinder inline, it's easy to mount it longitudely without having to use a long wheelbase to compensate for the extra room as well as balance the car, which helps to keep the car light, and have a nimble short wheelbase.
Think about it.... think about other cars, with longitudely mounted inline-4's... like the Nissan 240SX, Mazda Miata & Honda S2000.... don't they all have fairly long hoods? Especially in comparison to the Impreza's short hood. If the Impreza chassis had to retain 4 doors, a usable trunk, AWD and had a longitudely mounted inline-4 (as opposed to it's boxer-4), I would guarantee they would have to elongate the wheelbase, making the car significantly heavier.
So really, the reason(s) behind Subaru using a boxer motor, doesn't have much to do with horsepower/torque, it has more to do with the chassis & drivetrain. Some of you Speed guys should keep that in mind, as in theory, it should be easier to squeeze power out of your inline-4's (once more engine management options come around) than a WRX's boxer-4. Although, the WRX will easily have a chassis advantage due to lower center of gravity & superior AWD setup.
Technically, the WRX/STI has an overall superior chassis setup to that of the EVO's, although the EVO continues to be quicker around a track... ever wonder why? They may be in the same class, but anyone who's ever driven both hard will tell you, they're 2 entirely different cars. Where the EVO lacks in chassis design, it more than makes up for in electronic enhancement. It's AWD system actually has the ability to transfer power specifically to the outside or inside wheels in order to pull itself into a corner. It's almost unnatural feeling... don't get me wrong, you can take corners at scary fast speeds, but it almost feels like the car is driving itself. Also, a HUGE factor is that EVO's have better spring/dampening rates for road courses. Their spring rates from the factory are almost 200lb/in higher than the STI's, for those that don't know, that's huge folks. Their valve dampening also complements the high spring rates, cutting down body roll. If you pay attention to STX or classes like it, you routinely see WRX's winning national championships, and handing EVO's their asses, although these WRX's are not anywhere near stock... so that leaves us to believe the WRX/STI chassis just lacks the proper suspension setup from the factory, but the question is, why?
Why would Subaru make lower spring rates? Well, to add to that, from the factory STI's are considered undersprung/overdampened, why would they do that? To add yet another stumbling block in there, WRX's have about 8 inches of suspension travel, which is huge, and not typical of a sports car. I'll give you a little clue, WR in WRX stands for World Rally. The GD WRX/STI chassis has captured more Group N rally championships than any other car currently on the market. Long suspension travel, lower spring rates & overdampening may not make for the best road course car on earth, but when combined with an inverted strut design, it makes for world class grip in the dirt, snow, gravel ect, and allows the chassis to soak up more road imperfections without getting too squirly. Put simply, from the factory, the EVO is a better road car, but the STI is a better rally car.
Sorry for the long rant, just felt like sharing lol.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1387769
Just to clarify, the '07 STI, due to the newer SAE horsepower rating system, was rated at 293hp, whereas the upcoming '08 STI will be rated at 305hp, so an increase of 12hp, not too shabby. Honestly, after reading through all the specs over there, I think the new '08's are going to be badass! Hopefully, with the new double-wishbone suspension in the rear, it will finally be able to show tail lights to the damn EVO on a road course lol.
Although, it sucks they were only able to fit a double-wishbone in the rear, and not in the front... as IMO, a double-wishbone would have been more useful in the front on a car like that. A double-wishbone has an advantage over a MacPherson strut in terms of camber gain, allowing you to more effectively use more of a tire's contact patch, giving you more grip, at least in theory.... which sounds great, but on the GD chassis Impreza, there isn't really a need for more rear grip, or at least not as much of a need for more front grip... if your rear tires give before your front tires, the car oversteers, whereas if your fronts give out first (which is what happens in most cases, especially on Impreza's) the car understeers. So really, the new Impreza would have benefit more from double-wishbones up front more than in the rear.
The only real problem with that is, due to the engine layout, it's almost impossible to fit a double-wishbone up front, as the boxer engine is too wide, so they're forced to run simple MacPherson struts, or in the STI's case, inverted struts.
A lot of people don't realize why Subaru uses a boxer engine, as there are both pros on cons to using the boxer design... the con being the fact it has 2 heads & 4 cams, which is pretty extreme for a 4 cylinder. That makes production more expensive, which is bad. Boxer motors also aren't as robust as inlines, as they don't dissipate heat as well, in order to keep the heads cool, you have to tune them richer than you would an inline, to avoid detonation. Which is one of the reason's why it's cheaper/easier to make more power out of an EVO. So basically, you have a motor that's slightly heavier than an inline, costs more to make and requires to be tuned a little more conservatively... now you might ask, why would you want to make a motor like that?
There are several answers to that question.... the first being the fact that they're inherently smoother than an inline 4, not requiring any sort of harmonic balancing. The 2nd reason being that because they lay flat, boxer motors enable a car to have a much lower center of gravity than an inline 4 powered car. Also the fact that the pistons are going side to side as opposed to up and down in an inline, decreases the amount of wheelhop the car could potentially have, even though that's not much of a factor in an AWD car. Another reason, one of the most important reasons Subaru uses a boxer motor, as that it mounts directly in the center of the engine bay, and is longitudely opposed (like a RWD car), which has a 2 part advantage, allowing Subaru to connect their AWD transmissions to the rear of the motor, in the center of the car, making for better weight distribution, and taking down on the complexity of the AWD drivetrain (which cuts costs, and allows Subaru to make AWD systems more affordable than other cars), allowing to make the AWD system perfectly symmetrical, which is part of the reason why Subaru's are known to have so much grip, unlike many AWD systems, that are really just modified FWD systems, and as such act more like FWD cars than 4WD cars under slippage. Lastly, since the boxer-4 only has the length of about a 2 cylinder inline, it's easy to mount it longitudely without having to use a long wheelbase to compensate for the extra room as well as balance the car, which helps to keep the car light, and have a nimble short wheelbase.
Think about it.... think about other cars, with longitudely mounted inline-4's... like the Nissan 240SX, Mazda Miata & Honda S2000.... don't they all have fairly long hoods? Especially in comparison to the Impreza's short hood. If the Impreza chassis had to retain 4 doors, a usable trunk, AWD and had a longitudely mounted inline-4 (as opposed to it's boxer-4), I would guarantee they would have to elongate the wheelbase, making the car significantly heavier.
So really, the reason(s) behind Subaru using a boxer motor, doesn't have much to do with horsepower/torque, it has more to do with the chassis & drivetrain. Some of you Speed guys should keep that in mind, as in theory, it should be easier to squeeze power out of your inline-4's (once more engine management options come around) than a WRX's boxer-4. Although, the WRX will easily have a chassis advantage due to lower center of gravity & superior AWD setup.
Technically, the WRX/STI has an overall superior chassis setup to that of the EVO's, although the EVO continues to be quicker around a track... ever wonder why? They may be in the same class, but anyone who's ever driven both hard will tell you, they're 2 entirely different cars. Where the EVO lacks in chassis design, it more than makes up for in electronic enhancement. It's AWD system actually has the ability to transfer power specifically to the outside or inside wheels in order to pull itself into a corner. It's almost unnatural feeling... don't get me wrong, you can take corners at scary fast speeds, but it almost feels like the car is driving itself. Also, a HUGE factor is that EVO's have better spring/dampening rates for road courses. Their spring rates from the factory are almost 200lb/in higher than the STI's, for those that don't know, that's huge folks. Their valve dampening also complements the high spring rates, cutting down body roll. If you pay attention to STX or classes like it, you routinely see WRX's winning national championships, and handing EVO's their asses, although these WRX's are not anywhere near stock... so that leaves us to believe the WRX/STI chassis just lacks the proper suspension setup from the factory, but the question is, why?
Why would Subaru make lower spring rates? Well, to add to that, from the factory STI's are considered undersprung/overdampened, why would they do that? To add yet another stumbling block in there, WRX's have about 8 inches of suspension travel, which is huge, and not typical of a sports car. I'll give you a little clue, WR in WRX stands for World Rally. The GD WRX/STI chassis has captured more Group N rally championships than any other car currently on the market. Long suspension travel, lower spring rates & overdampening may not make for the best road course car on earth, but when combined with an inverted strut design, it makes for world class grip in the dirt, snow, gravel ect, and allows the chassis to soak up more road imperfections without getting too squirly. Put simply, from the factory, the EVO is a better road car, but the STI is a better rally car.
Sorry for the long rant, just felt like sharing lol.
-
RX-7 Chris
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
- Location: Colorado Springs
- Contact:
When are you going to order one? [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]
1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm
[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]
My Car Blog
The non-STI WRX that was at the Red Rocks meet yesterday looked as though someone beat it with the ugly stick. I was not a fan. Hopefully this new STI looks as good in person as it does in pictures.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
1997 Explorer XLT - 4.0 SOHC V6 Controltrac 4x4
mods- 30" BFGs, AAL + TT = 1.5" lift, more to come
1997 Explorer XLT - 4.0 SOHC V6 Controltrac 4x4
mods- 30" BFGs, AAL + TT = 1.5" lift, more to come
-
arctic_blue83
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RX-7 Chris @ Nov 19 2007, 09:16 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=11382]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
Meh, I'm not. I'm sticking with my '06 STI, hopefully this will be a car I run into the ground [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
When are you going to order one? [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img][/b]
Meh, I'm not. I'm sticking with my '06 STI, hopefully this will be a car I run into the ground [img]http://coloradomazdaclub.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests