Stock WRX 1/4 Mile Times
03-24-2003, 11:36 PM
#16
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
I tried dumping and slipping between 4000 to 5000. I did not want to risk any higher RPMs. This got me from 1.9 to 2.0 for 60fts.
14.5 isn't bad for stock if you're not too experienced with drag racing and launching in general. Just be sure to wind the gears out. With the mods I stated above I went from consistent 14.40 runs to 14.15 by simply winding out the gears. I tried w/o winding out at first because I wanted to see the effect between letting boost drop as the ECU tends to do after 5500RPM or so as opposed to shifting a bit early and staying a on a boost curve that had peak boost more centered around shift and clutch engage points.
jason
14.5 isn't bad for stock if you're not too experienced with drag racing and launching in general. Just be sure to wind the gears out. With the mods I stated above I went from consistent 14.40 runs to 14.15 by simply winding out the gears. I tried w/o winding out at first because I wanted to see the effect between letting boost drop as the ECU tends to do after 5500RPM or so as opposed to shifting a bit early and staying a on a boost curve that had peak boost more centered around shift and clutch engage points.
jason
03-25-2003, 05:35 PM
#17
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 785
Car Info: '03 WRX Sedan
Actually, I'm quite experienced with drag racing (just not with the WRX). I used to own an sohc vtec civic that ran 12.6 on drag radials so i know all about this stuff. HOWEVER, I just believe that I didn't push my car to the limits launching because I was just afraid to. I might bring myself to clutch dumping next time at the track, but we'll see. I always wind out the gears, so I know that it's all in my wussy, afraid launch.
03-25-2003, 10:15 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excerpt from my webpages at http://members.cardomain.com/uncle_dan
Here's my time slip from the California Speedway on the weekend of January 11 & 12, 2003. (I'm car # 721 in the Right Lane.) Below, I compared my most recent performance results with the results from my very first performance test when I drag raced my stock WRX at the California Speedway back in September of 2001. I'm happy to say that with the few strategic mods I've made so far, I'm now a second quicker down the 1/4 mile.
R/T = .663 (9 Sep 2001 - stock) >> .699 (11 Jan 2003 - mod)
60 = 2.075 (stock) >> 1.883 (mod)
330 = 6.105 (stock) >> 5.635 (mod)
1/8 Mile = 9.480 (stock) >> 8.792 (mod)
1/8 MPH = 72.12 (stock) >> 79.03 (mod)
1000 = 12.397 (stock) >> 11.502 (mod)
1/4 Mile = 14.865 (stock) >> 13.830 (mod)
1/4 MPH = 91.05 (stock) >> 96.85 (mod)
When I first started to run performance tests on the car back in September of 2001, I was worried and a bit upset that the times I ran didn't match the 1/4 mile run times listed in the various popular car magazines:
__Car & Driver (October 2001) >> 14.1s
__Motor Trend (July 2001) >> 14.2s
__Sport Compact Car (October 2001) >> 14.3s
__Road & Track (May 2001) >> 14.4s
Regardless, my mission was to establish a benchmark or reference point for me to start from before making any upgrades or mods and my 1/4 mile ET average of 14.8s seemed to be where I would have to start. Altitude, temperature and humidity levels can definitely effect the ET and could have been factors of why I ran slower-than-published times that hot September afternoon. Running on oxygenated 91 octane fuel in California doesn't help matters either.
Here's my time slip from the California Speedway on the weekend of January 11 & 12, 2003. (I'm car # 721 in the Right Lane.) Below, I compared my most recent performance results with the results from my very first performance test when I drag raced my stock WRX at the California Speedway back in September of 2001. I'm happy to say that with the few strategic mods I've made so far, I'm now a second quicker down the 1/4 mile.
R/T = .663 (9 Sep 2001 - stock) >> .699 (11 Jan 2003 - mod)
60 = 2.075 (stock) >> 1.883 (mod)
330 = 6.105 (stock) >> 5.635 (mod)
1/8 Mile = 9.480 (stock) >> 8.792 (mod)
1/8 MPH = 72.12 (stock) >> 79.03 (mod)
1000 = 12.397 (stock) >> 11.502 (mod)
1/4 Mile = 14.865 (stock) >> 13.830 (mod)
1/4 MPH = 91.05 (stock) >> 96.85 (mod)
When I first started to run performance tests on the car back in September of 2001, I was worried and a bit upset that the times I ran didn't match the 1/4 mile run times listed in the various popular car magazines:
__Car & Driver (October 2001) >> 14.1s
__Motor Trend (July 2001) >> 14.2s
__Sport Compact Car (October 2001) >> 14.3s
__Road & Track (May 2001) >> 14.4s
Regardless, my mission was to establish a benchmark or reference point for me to start from before making any upgrades or mods and my 1/4 mile ET average of 14.8s seemed to be where I would have to start. Altitude, temperature and humidity levels can definitely effect the ET and could have been factors of why I ran slower-than-published times that hot September afternoon. Running on oxygenated 91 octane fuel in California doesn't help matters either.
03-26-2003, 06:48 AM
#19
When I first took my car to Infineon Raceway I was very disappointed. I had a Blizt NUR Spec Catback, no intake silencer, and a TurboXS H-RFL. I honeslty think the BOV screwed up my times immensely. Running extremely rich between shifts, and I think it was at some points sticking open. I never missed a shift, and I shift extremely fast. Look at my times, and tell me what you think.
R/T .921
60ft 1.990
330ft 5.927
1/8 9.327
MPH 73.27
1000 12.221
1/4 14.720
MPH 90.03
I also have leather interior, and everything that came stock in the trunk was left in, including tire, and all that. Now does my car having only 2.5k on it effect the performance that drastically? I've only had the car for 1.5 months. But as the 60ft time tells you I can launch it pretty damn good.
R/T .921
60ft 1.990
330ft 5.927
1/8 9.327
MPH 73.27
1000 12.221
1/4 14.720
MPH 90.03
I also have leather interior, and everything that came stock in the trunk was left in, including tire, and all that. Now does my car having only 2.5k on it effect the performance that drastically? I've only had the car for 1.5 months. But as the 60ft time tells you I can launch it pretty damn good.
03-29-2003, 11:19 AM
#20
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
You 60fts, not to burst your bubble, are "OK". 60fts on a mostly stock car in the "pretty damn good range" would be in the high 1.8x... which I have yet to do.
As for the ET down the whole line, it doesnt seem like you're really pushing the car. Shifting early perhaps? Take it past redline. The BOV could be a factor... I've shied away from getting an aftermarket one. I'd be most interest in knowing when you shift. Your timeslip looks all to similar to one I had and that was my issue.
jason
p.s. maybe this thread should be moved?
As for the ET down the whole line, it doesnt seem like you're really pushing the car. Shifting early perhaps? Take it past redline. The BOV could be a factor... I've shied away from getting an aftermarket one. I'd be most interest in knowing when you shift. Your timeslip looks all to similar to one I had and that was my issue.
jason
p.s. maybe this thread should be moved?
03-30-2003, 09:51 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 24
Car Info: 2002 Subaru WRX
I heard from my dealerhip that the WRX transmission is not very strong (not in those words, he basically said people abuse them) and doing a clutch drop at high RPMs can (has) result in cracked gear teeth.
He also went to say he had an e-mail from SOA that stated if there are any WRX 5-sps with transmission problems, the customer is responsible for the repair, until such time as Subaru has the transmission stripped down and it is deemed to be warranty.
After hearing this from the service manager, I basically told him to go pound salt. Turned out to be that notorious clutch issue.
-Phil
He also went to say he had an e-mail from SOA that stated if there are any WRX 5-sps with transmission problems, the customer is responsible for the repair, until such time as Subaru has the transmission stripped down and it is deemed to be warranty.
After hearing this from the service manager, I basically told him to go pound salt. Turned out to be that notorious clutch issue.
-Phil
03-31-2003, 11:20 PM
#22
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Unfortunately for him, after he stiffs you 3 times, he has the California Lemon Law to deal with (If you're in CA anyhow). Unless, of couse, he can find those spy photos he took of you at the drag strip 
jason
jason
04-01-2003, 03:31 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
I took my car to Cecil County Dragway a month after I got it (used with 16k on it). Tthis is my first AWD car and first time at the track. Stock I ran a 14.4x @ 93.x. I then did the "pulled hose mod" and ran this:
76 Degrees & 96% Humidity
R/T .531
60' 1.966
330' 5.721
1/8 8.867 @ 78.14
1000' 11.571
1/4 13.89 @ 96.8
I always assume I hold some sort of record for a WRX with "$0 in mods."
Also, this was all full interior + 20lb bookbag and 93octane @ 1/2tank.
76 Degrees & 96% Humidity
R/T .531
60' 1.966
330' 5.721
1/8 8.867 @ 78.14
1000' 11.571
1/4 13.89 @ 96.8
I always assume I hold some sort of record for a WRX with "$0 in mods."
Also, this was all full interior + 20lb bookbag and 93octane @ 1/2tank.
04-02-2003, 12:01 AM
#24
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Posts: 3,639
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
That 2 octane ratings above what I could get a hold of. Fun stuff. It makes all the difference.
Most of the Car & Driver, etc, stats you see, while done with merciless tactics, are using regular pump gas.
jason
Most of the Car & Driver, etc, stats you see, while done with merciless tactics, are using regular pump gas.
jason
04-03-2003, 08:34 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cleveland, TN
Posts: 121
Car Info: 03 WRX silver
Originally posted by FraudulentNeon
I took my car to Cecil County Dragway a month after I got it (used with 16k on it). Tthis is my first AWD car and first time at the track. Stock I ran a 14.4x @ 93.x. I then did the "pulled hose mod" and ran this:
76 Degrees & 96% Humidity
R/T .531
60' 1.966
330' 5.721
1/8 8.867 @ 78.14
1000' 11.571
1/4 13.89 @ 96.8
I always assume I hold some sort of record for a WRX with "$0 in mods." Also, this was all full interior + 20lb bookbag and 93octane @ 1/2tank.
I took my car to Cecil County Dragway a month after I got it (used with 16k on it). Tthis is my first AWD car and first time at the track. Stock I ran a 14.4x @ 93.x. I then did the "pulled hose mod" and ran this:
76 Degrees & 96% Humidity
R/T .531
60' 1.966
330' 5.721
1/8 8.867 @ 78.14
1000' 11.571
1/4 13.89 @ 96.8
I always assume I hold some sort of record for a WRX with "$0 in mods."
Also, this was all full interior + 20lb bookbag and 93octane @ 1/2tank.
What is the "pulled hose mod" if you don't mind my asking
04-17-2003, 10:57 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: a woodchucks hole
Posts: 73
Car Info: 2003 WRX
Originally posted by EvoEater
What is the "pulled hose mod" if you don't mind my asking
What is the "pulled hose mod" if you don't mind my asking
But when you take off the hose it lets the turbo run peak boost which is around 17psi. Which is also way to high for stock! I dont see how he even got down the track with that much boost. I did this "mod" and you will hit fuel shut off in 3rd through 5th gears in WOT. Its not fun, it feels like you down shifted at 5000 and dumped the clutch. I wouldnt recommed doing this..
04-18-2003, 05:17 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: a woodchucks hole
Posts: 73
Car Info: 2003 WRX
Originally posted by landsharkca
to run more than 16psi you need a fuel cut defender or a piggy back computer
to run more than 16psi you need a fuel cut defender or a piggy back computer
