Trey, what you are capable as far as times is not an accurate representation for G35 owners as well. You are probably one of the quickest divers on this forum if not the quickest. Either way props to the kill.

 

13.3 on STI is from various reputable car magazines for a stock STI, not dream times. 0-60 is much better because the car weighs less, has more power, and has awd for better traction. It's very representative!

The only way you beat one is when the driver, as you yourself mentioned, can't drive.

 

Oh - so you're quoting magazine times now? Your credibility has gone WAY up.

I don't care about ET. What about trap speeds? Wait, did you ever take your car to the track?

 

Thank you, but I'm not the quickest on the site. And you're right that I'm not representative either.

Let me put it this way. My second time to the track, ever, I raced a stock evo8. Both of us were stock. It was really hot, and I ran a 14.8@96. The evo8 ran a 14.6@94. This was not the evo driver's first time at the track.

I trapped two mph faster than the evo8, but the evo got me by two tenths in the ET. The trap difference was shifting, in my favor. The ET difference was the launch, in the evo's favor.

 

i'm faster, ran a 14.4 on an auto 04 at 96 mph, lol. stock

 

Magazine review times for both stock cars from Road and Track or Car and Driver are certainly more likely to be accurate than alleged times posted by drivers on the net. I'm not claiming any times for myself. I'm just saying that any reputable testing by objective parties shows STI is much faster than the stock G35, because of obvious reasons such as horsepower, torque, weight, and awd, and all your little cute, internet smiley faces and laughing faces can't change the facts. I only cited 0-60 and 1/4 miles,which are well documented from multiple authoritative sources, and that's all.
Anyone that has had both cars knows this to be a fact. I'm not saying the STI is a better car in all respects, but it is certainly faster.

 

I don't think your car is slow, must be something else........ probably global warming.

 

i dont think he was questioning which should get to the 1/4 first- the STi is a quicker machine in that sense.

i think what he was pointing out is that the STi is not that much faster if it is at all.... BUT by faster he's referring to the speed of the STi at the end of the 1/4mile.

i think he's also pointing out that the reason why the STi is quicker is due to the launch. So, from a rolling start for instance, the difference in performance between the STi and G isnt as large as these 1/4mi ETs indicate.

looked at another way: take a different ~13.3 sec car like a 6mt e46 m3. and put it against a STi. from a rolling start, which would win? most likely the m3.

two different kinds of speed. two different ways of going about things.

so to say it again, i think trey is pointing out that the G is NOT as slow as these numbers would suggest (13s vs 14s)

 

My stock dyno was 198rwhp, dont feel bad.

It was on a mustang tho =\

 

There is absolutely no doubt that an STi will have a lower ET in the 1/4. But that is due to the launch. The same goes for the 0-60 time.

The 1/4 ET indicates how long it takes for the vehicle to cover that distance. ET is partly a function of power, but it's mostly a function of traction. I don't disagree with you that the STi will own the g35 from a dig, given the AWD launch.

In addition to the ET, one can also examine the trap speed. The trap speed is a function of power and gearing. The cars trap very close to one another, so they are making similar power over the 1320 feet. That means that if the two cars were side-by-side, running from a roll, the cars would be very close. That's because the STi's AWD's advantage(launch) is neutralized, and instead it becomes a liability(drivetrain loss).

Then you have gearing. From what I've read, 5th gear and up on the STi is a dog. So if the race extended into 5th gear, the race is that much closer, possibly leading to a win for the g.

You can quote 0 to 60 times and 1/4 ET's, and use those metrics as your definition of "fast." That's fine. But there are other indicators of power and speed, including things such as trap speeds and 100-120 times. Those are the metrics I choose to define fast.

When I questioned your credibility, it is because you seem to be unaware of the significance of each of the different, contrasting metrics.

 

Thank you. You expressed exactly what I meant, though much better.