sti vs evo rolling start
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Originally Posted by Dragonfly5338
from a slow roll my boyfriend's STi will take my evo. highwayish speeds I can nab him. STi has a TINY TINY turbo that just runs out of juice when you get to a certain point.
Originally Posted by nasti
I'm talking stock for stock, you guys are a joke. If there was an EVO vs Civic meet you guys would get owned by all the 9s civics out there... you always use the EVO vs STi meet as ammo. Wow your years old engine won a shoot-out against an engine that was out for ONE YEAR!! Good Job, nice win, hahahah
It's funny cuz the only shoot-out you can win is against a 1-year old engine, you wouldn't win against any other car.
It's funny cuz the only shoot-out you can win is against a 1-year old engine, you wouldn't win against any other car.
I think they are talking street cars.Not some trailer trash car.Whats so impressive about some gutted out honda????
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: Minnesoter
Originally Posted by gsujeff55
no, it doesn't work like that. on those times, you are accelerating THROUGH 60, not starting at 60. i can guarantee you that it will take longer than 7.6 seconds. The car has rolling momentum going through 60mph. Nothing to do with math, i know how to subtract. I was giving an example in my post.
And to you other post, 104 trap in a stock evo is far fetched. More like 101, 102 at best.
And to you other post, 104 trap in a stock evo is far fetched. More like 101, 102 at best.
Originally Posted by twinevo
you're a complete moron. when Car and Driver did their 0-100 mph test, do you think they shifted any differently than from 0-60? Of course not, they redlined all the gears until they hit 100. And to my other post, again you're a complete moron. I did not make up the 104 trap speed. Car and Driver got that speed in their test. Click the link. Far fetched? Car and Driver must be on crack to make up that speed.
And i KNOW that c&d SAID they trapped 104, but, did you trap 104 stock? did anyone who has posted their numbers on EVOm trap 104 stock.....the answer is NO. 95% of the cars trap 101-102. For future reference, don't believe everything you read in a magazine, its misleading and sometimes bias.
Originally Posted by twinevo
you're a complete moron. when Car and Driver did their 0-100 mph test, do you think they shifted any differently than from 0-60? Of course not, they redlined all the gears until they hit 100. And to my other post, again you're a complete moron. I did not make up the 104 trap speed. Car and Driver got that speed in their test. Click the link. Far fetched? Car and Driver must be on crack to make up that speed.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: Minnesoter
Originally Posted by gsujeff55
Why don't you understand that its not about how fast they shift, LOL. Its about rolling momentum and the laws of physics. Its a FACT that if you go 0-100 you are rolling hard through 60, not punching it at 60. The time will be significantly different. Again, go take some physics classes then talk to me about it.
And i KNOW that c&d SAID they trapped 104, but, did you trap 104 stock? did anyone who has posted their numbers on EVOm trap 104 stock.....the answer is NO. 95% of the cars trap 101-102. For future reference, don't believe everything you read in a magazine, its misleading and sometimes bias.
And i KNOW that c&d SAID they trapped 104, but, did you trap 104 stock? did anyone who has posted their numbers on EVOm trap 104 stock.....the answer is NO. 95% of the cars trap 101-102. For future reference, don't believe everything you read in a magazine, its misleading and sometimes bias.
Last edited by twinevo; Mar 11, 2005 at 09:36 AM.
Originally Posted by twinevo
rolling momentum? physics? dude, you're making it a lot harder than it really is. just imagine running hard from 0-130 and marking down the time when you hit 60, 100, 130. Then do 3 separate runs of 0-60, 0-100, and 0-130. The times will be approximately the same for the corresponding target speed. If they wanted to be lazy, they could get these three times with one run to 130. It aint scientific rockets.
Originally Posted by gsujeff55
Why don't you understand that its not about how fast they shift, LOL. Its about rolling momentum and the laws of physics. Its a FACT that if you go 0-100 you are rolling hard through 60, not punching it at 60. The time will be significantly different. Again, go take some physics classes then talk to me about it.
And i KNOW that c&d SAID they trapped 104, but, did you trap 104 stock? did anyone who has posted their numbers on EVOm trap 104 stock.....the answer is NO. 95% of the cars trap 101-102. For future reference, don't believe everything you read in a magazine, its misleading and sometimes bias.
And i KNOW that c&d SAID they trapped 104, but, did you trap 104 stock? did anyone who has posted their numbers on EVOm trap 104 stock.....the answer is NO. 95% of the cars trap 101-102. For future reference, don't believe everything you read in a magazine, its misleading and sometimes bias.
if you push someone and start running you're going to have all that momentum behind you. Same concept applies for pushing a car...its much easier to have 2 people push it and then let the one take over, then doing it from scratch.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: Minnesoter
Originally Posted by en1gma19
You said the time from 60-100 would be the same as the time for 0-100 - the time for 0-60 which is just not accurate or true at all.
Originally Posted by twinevo
can you point out where i said that the time from 60-100 would be the same as 0-100? i said that if it takes x seconds to get to 60 and y seconds to get to 100, you can subtract x from y and get the number of seconds it would take to get to 100 after you've reached 60 on a sustained run (meaning you are accelerating at wot).
Guys, look at the posts above. twinevo and I already went down this whole argument. Nobody's going to change their opinion unless someone posts a video of this theoretical accelleration actually happening or actual data. Both arguments theoretically make sense, even though one of them is surely wrong...
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
From: Long Beach
i'm going to make another idiotic post here.
unless you're running on high boost at 60mph on 3rd gear (maybe 6000rpm)
and then "punch" it until 100mph the time i guess would be very similar as 0-100 minus 0-60.
Inertia force or momentum i dont know the term will drag you down when you're starting at 60mph with no boost... and let's not get into the turbo lag ok? whenever you punch it at 60mph there will be turbo lag ...
so, time( 0-100 ) - time(0-60) != time(60-100)
unless you're running on high boost at 60mph on 3rd gear (maybe 6000rpm)
and then "punch" it until 100mph the time i guess would be very similar as 0-100 minus 0-60.
Inertia force or momentum i dont know the term will drag you down when you're starting at 60mph with no boost... and let's not get into the turbo lag ok? whenever you punch it at 60mph there will be turbo lag ...
so, time( 0-100 ) - time(0-60) != time(60-100)