New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    479
    #21

    Good day Sir Si_06.

    I could well imagine your addiction to the Subie WRX-STi!!!! Could even see sir that you're grinning up to your ears with the STi haha!!!! Hay naku sir, kung may pera lang ako ng ganoon sana, WHY NOT?!?

    Just yesterday, i posted at TG Phils (Top Gear) regarding the WRX-STi vs. the Evo X, and this is an excerpt from our discussion, which actually concerns the 2.5-litre Forester XT versus the 2.5-litre Monterosport GTV:


    Gvm0116:

    Sir, i think i give it a shot though i'm not an owner of either cars, besides the fact too that i'm not fond of cars.

    In my case, based on the spec sheets i would choose the manual-tranny Subie WRX-STi over the manual-tranny Evo X, because of the following:

    1. Makes more power at a relatively lower-rev (305 metric-hp at 6000 rpm versus 295 metric-hp at 6500 rpm);

    2. Puts out almost the same torque (407 to 408 Nm at 4000 rpm);

    3. Has bigger engine i.e. 2.5-litre versus 2.0-litre;

    4. Because it has a bigger engine, it can afford to have a slightly lower compression ratio (8.2 : 1 against 9.0 : 1) ---- which also means with a head mod on the STi-WRX, the squish clearance can still be "tightened" and tuned further by car racing specialists/ tuners to gain an increased in compression and derived extra power from it;

    5. Because in stock-trim, it has a lower compression ratio, the "minimum" fuel grade requirement is 93-octane against a 95-octane and up "minimum" for the Evo X. But of course, both cars would dramatically benefit from a higher octane-boost;

    6. It has 6-speed manual-tranny against a 5-speed manual-tranny;

    7. Has a slightly shorter wheelbase where handling in terms of "tight" cornering at speed could be better, not sure though on high-speed straight-line stability, which of the two is more stable since the Evo X traction can opt for the all-wheel control mode like the Subie's natural all-wheel drive;

    8. It weighs lesser by 102 kg; and

    9. It cost way lesser ---- PhP2.50 M for the WRX-STi against PhP3.25 M for the manual-tranny Evo X. The 6-speed auto-tranny Evo X, on the other hand, cost PhP3.69 M HUWAAAAW!

    But, this is just me sir....




  2. #22
    I prefer the Subaru AWD system, and the Forester's better off-road ability, but since the Santa Fe is diesel-powered it's a better option for a daily-drive.

  3. Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,980
    #23
    Gwapong gwapo ang sti ni sir si_06... :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by hinDMaxsiado View Post

    Good day Sir Si_06.

    I could well imagine your addiction to the Subie WRX-STi!!!! Could even see sir that you're grinning up to your ears with the STi haha!!!! Hay naku sir, kung may pera lang ako ng ganoon sana, WHY NOT?!?

    Just yesterday, i posted at TG Phils (Top Gear) regarding the WRX-STi vs. the Evo X, and this is an excerpt from our discussion, which actually concerns the 2.5-litre Forester XT versus the 2.5-litre Monterosport GTV:


    Gvm0116:

    Sir, i think i give it a shot though i'm not an owner of either cars, besides the fact too that i'm not fond of cars.

    In my case, based on the spec sheets i would choose the manual-tranny Subie WRX-STi over the manual-tranny Evo X, because of the following:

    1. Makes more power at a relatively lower-rev (305 metric-hp at 6000 rpm versus 295 metric-hp at 6500 rpm);

    2. Puts out almost the same torque (407 to 408 Nm at 4000 rpm);

    3. Has bigger engine i.e. 2.5-litre versus 2.0-litre;

    4. Because it has a bigger engine, it can afford to have a slightly lower compression ratio (8.2 : 1 against 9.0 : 1) ---- which also means with a head mod on the STi-WRX, the squish clearance can still be "tightened" and tuned further by car racing specialists/ tuners to gain an increased in compression and derived extra power from it;

    5. Because in stock-trim, it has a lower compression ratio, the "minimum" fuel grade requirement is 93-octane against a 95-octane and up "minimum" for the Evo X. But of course, both cars would dramatically benefit from a higher octane-boost;

    6. It has 6-speed manual-tranny against a 5-speed manual-tranny;

    7. Has a slightly shorter wheelbase where handling in terms of "tight" cornering at speed could be better, not sure though on high-speed straight-line stability, which of the two is more stable since the Evo X traction can opt for the all-wheel control mode like the Subie's natural all-wheel drive;

    8. It weighs lesser by 102 kg; and

    9. It cost way lesser ---- PhP2.50 M for the WRX-STi against PhP3.25 M for the manual-tranny Evo X. The 6-speed auto-tranny Evo X, on the other hand, cost PhP3.69 M HUWAAAAW!

    But, this is just me sir....




  4. Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,069
    #24
    si imperialv makinis ung FXT at malalim ang bulsa

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,980
    #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Si 06 View Post
    si imperialv makinis ung FXT at malalim ang bulsa

    butas kasi.. walang laman... ;-)

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #26
    Yes, it's not just the compression you should be looking at... but the amount of boost. Because boost creates compression...

    For those wondering what the four-speed does to useable power, I've got a calculator I made for comparing dyno data to the real world. This is a comparison of how much torque the Fozzie and the Santa Fe put down in each gear, with data taken from dynos and interpolated into a torque curve (note the shape of the Fozzie curve... many dynos show peak hp actually occurs at 2500 rpm)

    (I'd share the Excel program that makes this, but it's still hard to use unless you know where everything is)

    In a drag race, the Subaru, even if it were the same weight as the Santa Fe, has the advantage. More torque* everywhere after first gear. And on the highway, despite lacking gears, it's producing more power than the Santa Fe at all speeds when you're going flat-out... but where the Santa Fe hits the speed limiter at 190 km/h, the Fozzie just keeps on going... don't expect to hit 300 km/h, though... even if you're making power at that speed, doesn't mean you're making enough power to hit it.

    Yet things are different at low speeds... In first gear, obviously, the torquey Santa Fe is a monster... and thanks to tight gearing from 1st - 3rd, it can hang with the Subaru up to 100 km/h in a drag race.

    But remember, also, that in city driving, you will be at part throttle, then you will only get on the power when you need to overtake... thanks to the variable geometry turbo, the transient response of the Santa Fe is very good... and while it will be shuffing between 2nd-4th gear, the Fozzie will only have 2nd gear to play with... the computer obviously won't shuffle back into first gear at 60 km/h!

    -

    I've driven two generations of Fozzies and the latest Santa Fe, and this bears out. While the Fozzie feels spectacular driven flat out, the current Santa Fe feels just as quick when puttering around town under the speed limit.

    Quote Originally Posted by renzo_d10 View Post
    Uh, Niky, what's more practical when it comes to modding? The previous Forester STi or the current XT ? Practical in the sense of having a more widespread aftermarket add-ons available which produces a greater amount of power.
    Previous-gen Forester XT, from what I've heard.

    *Incidentally, this proves that the old adage: "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races" is rubbish. The Forester makes more torque at high speeds because it has more torque at high rpms... in other words... it makes more horsepower than the Santa Fe, which has sh*tloads more torque. In other words... peak numbers are meaningless, what matters is how much you make over a wide spread of rpm ranges.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    21,343
    #27
    *niky:May 190 limiter din ba ang Santa Fe?

    I was able to do a flat 200 (sa speedometer, pero sa real world nasa 190 something lang)

  8. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #28
    Thought it did. Wanna go play with the V-Box to find out?

    Most of these crossovers are speed limited, typically between 190-200, but I've heard tell that Fozzies can go up to 230-240 (depending on how much you believe the stock speedos) on the highway.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  9. Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    479
    #29

    Boss Niky, looking at your graph, just one question? ---- why does the torque keeps pushing to the right while your rev is at zero? Meaning, it is making more torque while your rev is even going down to none....

    Hindi kaya sir nagkabaligtad lang ang x-and-y axes mo, that instead, the torque in Nm should be at the Y-axis and the rpm in the X-axis while maintaing the similar shapes of the torque curves?

    .....Something like this one derived from the DMax VGS Turbo's paper specs


    Kind regards.


  10. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #30
    The x-axis is not rpms. It is road speed. Torque increases at lower road speeds because lower gearing multiplies torque. This is why you never dyno in first gear... because first gear produces too much torque for the dyno to record. (dyno and car dependent)

    Here are the power graphs plotted as hp/tq versus rpms:
    Forester:


    Santa Fe:


    Both vehicles make more torque at lower rpms because they're turbocharged... thus they don't make the classic curve like my car does:

    (the dip in the curve is the variable intake changeover point. This is copied from my last dyno data and transposed to bhp from whp)

    The lowest data point for the trucks is 500 rpm, and torque is low there... while at 1000 rpm, both trucks make appreciable torque.

    At just 1500-2000 rpm (actually, 1800 rpm), the Santa Fe is already making maximum torque. The Forester supposedly makes maximum torque at around 4000 rpm, but all dynos I've seen of Foresters suggest that torque at 2500 rpm is higher than this still. Both curves are copied from actual dynos using brochure-quoted numbers to approximate the graphs. The spike in the Forester graph at 2.5k maybe should be a little more pronounced, but that's good enough for this comparison.

    The Santa Fe graph is made from a combination of brochure numbers and real world Santa Fe dynos (they're hard to find)... manufacturer provided power curves are often woefully incorrect, and don't reflect dips in the power band. In my experience (and this is backed up by dyno evidence), many modern diesels make and peak power earlier than the manufacturer claims, with a significant drop-off at high rpms, even when they claim peak power is there. Whether this is an artefact of dyno-testing, or variance in programming from pre-production to road-going models... or simply the engine pulling back power to stay safe in real world conditions, I don't know.

    ----

    As for why I'm using torque-in-gear instead of horsepower, horsepower is derived from torque by torque per revs in third or fourth gear (whichever is closest to 1:1)... so multiplying horsepower by gearing then plotting by speed will simply give a meaningless figure, as you're multiplying by gear twice. (Confirmed this firsthand when I tried it on a whim)

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
2.5-litre Subaru Forester AWD or 2.2-litre Hyundai Sante Fe eVGT 4x4