# True or false?



## fullarmor2 (Mar 1, 2006)

The GTO is the fastest new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.)


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

Until the camaro and challenger come out, yeah.


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

that is quite a specific question, kinda like....... true or false, a chevy aveo is the fastest car in America you can buy (brand new/stock) under $9K


----------



## fullarmor2 (Mar 1, 2006)

tommycheng1728 said:


> that is quite a specific question, kinda like....... true or false, a chevy aveo is the fastest car in America you can buy (brand new/stock) under $9K


 Its a little different when we are talking about a car that will do 160mph, not to mention 0-60 in 4.7 seconds for under 34 grand.


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

fullarmor2 said:


> Its a little different when we are talking about a car that will do 160mph, not to mention 0-60 in 4.7 seconds for under 34 grand.


Don't dget me wrong, I love my GTO, but I have seen hondas that will do the same numbers for well under $10K, but to answer your original question, for $34K, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR is faster than the GTO by 0.1 seconds 0-60 and 0.2 seconds faster than the GTO in the quarter mile, but oddly enough, 0-100, the GTO is faster by half a second. but if you want to save $2 grand, for $32K, the Subaru WRX STi is slower than the GTO by 0.2 seconds 0-60 but is 0.2 faster than the GTO in the quarter mile. Hope I answered your question, but if you asked me: true of false? The GTO is the fastest (*AMERICAN/AUSTRAILIAN*) new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.) I would say: YES!!!


----------



## fullarmor2 (Mar 1, 2006)

I did not answer the original statement one way or the other, however, try finding a car with a v-8 that is in the same class please.:lol:


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

fullarmor2 said:


> I did not answer the original statement one way or the other, however, try finding a car with a v-8 that is in the same class please.:lol:


REVISED.........The GTO is the fastest new 2 door car you can buy in the world that has a V8 and is not Japan made for under 34 grand. (New without mods.) 

Now you got me stumped.........:lol:


----------



## fullarmor2 (Mar 1, 2006)

I should have specified v-8 in the first place. I mean who cares if a four or six banger can compete when you give up certain things like low end torque(usually). I'm just playing regarding this thread anyway!


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

fullarmor2 said:


> I should have specified v-8 in the first place. I mean who cares if a four or six banger can compete when you give up certain things like low end torque(usually). I'm just playing regarding this thread anyway!


I know, you caught me working late tonight , I personally would not trade my GTO for any of the imports, I dont car about tenths of a second speed wise, its all on the driver anyways, but I do care that my interior is 1000 times better and more comfortable than their stripped down interiors.


----------



## Trukcrazy (Feb 16, 2006)

> but I do care that my interior is 1000 times better and more comfortable than their stripped down interiors.


This was a definite bonus, that's for sure. It's just a great car, we love ours.


----------



## Jeffs386 (Nov 1, 2005)

CrabhartLSX said:


> Until the camaro and challenger come out, yeah.




Camaro and Challenger will NOT be under 34K


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

tommycheng1728 said:


> Don't dget me wrong, I love my GTO, but I have seen hondas that will do the same numbers for well under $10K, but to answer your original question, for $34K, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR is faster than the GTO by 0.1 seconds 0-60 and 0.2 seconds faster than the GTO in the quarter mile, but oddly enough, 0-100, the GTO is faster by half a second. but if you want to save $2 grand, for $32K, the Subaru WRX STi is slower than the GTO by 0.2 seconds 0-60 but is 0.2 faster than the GTO in the quarter mile. Hope I answered your question, but if you asked me: true of false? The GTO is the fastest (*AMERICAN/AUSTRAILIAN*) new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.) I would say: YES!!!



I completely disagree with an STI being faster than our cars. I have never been beat by a stock car EVO or STI. 


Also they claim a 4.9 0-60 on their site. 


+ we get better gas mileage than their 4 cyl.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

The original question was fastest (top speed) not quickest (0-mullet or 1/4 mullet).

The GTO is faster than the little ricer 4 bangers.

Now back to the original question. Is the GTO the fastest new car you can buy for less than $34K.

Sorry, but no it's not. 

If you have pictures of your local Chevy store owner in bed with his "assisstant". You can likely get a steep discount on a new Z06 that will net out below $34K. 

Pictures of your local Chevy store owner in bed with his service manager, below $24K. 

Pictures of your your local Chevy store owner with any Massachusetts politician plus a sheep, now you're below $10K.


----------



## novacoke (Mar 11, 2006)

:lol:


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

Jeffs386 said:


> Camaro and Challenger will NOT be under 34K


Say what? Grow up in Latvia Jeff? 

I'd be extremely surprised if GM did not position the Camaro to do battle with the Mustang for the Mullet Market. That is what the Camaro brand represents. Cheap, low tech, poor taste, pony cars. That's a market that GM has completely abandoned at the moment. Ford is cleaning up.

Didn't you hear the collective Mullet-moan when the GTO was rolled out and the F-body faithful lined up to buy a Trans-Am replacement only to find out they needed a few more hours of overtime to pay for it. Not to mention, there was no plastic, where's the plastic!!! There was total confusion.

Dodge will likely position the Challenger as a "musclecar" in the $34-$38K range specifically to separate it from Mustang/Camaro.

But the Camaro....it will start around $23K and top out around $30K with the really big front air dam and cool decals.


----------



## SJAndrew (Sep 28, 2004)

Another reason the GTO should have never been named the GTO. 

It's not the same as the bigass, handles like ****, solid rear axle, plastic everywhere and built with log-cabin tolerances stang. 

It should have been called the Pontiac Monaro or whatever. Calling it the GTO, imho, was always a bad idea.


----------



## jacobyb (Jan 2, 2006)

Wing_Nut said:



> The original question was fastest (top speed) not quickest (0-mullet or 1/4 mullet).
> 
> The GTO is faster than the little ricer 4 bangers.



Sorry, but how is an STi or EVO a "ricer?" Everything you see on the car from the factory is functional and benefits the respective car in the performance category. The defenition of "rice" is unnecessary modifications to a vehicles interior or exterior that not only make the car uglier, it also drops the performance potential of the vehicle, i.e. big heavy wheels, stupid body kits, etc.

One of the things I hate the most about vehicle specific "enthusiast" sites is the absolute ignorance of other vehicles especially when it comes to American V8 owning people trying to play down Asian cars. I don't know if that was your intention, but I see it a lot here and it is really getting lame.


----------



## GOATGIRL (Feb 6, 2006)

jacobyb said:


> Sorry, but how is an STi or EVO a "ricer?" Everything you see on the car from the factory is functional and benefits the respective car in the performance category. The defenition of "rice" is unnecessary modifications to a vehicles interior or exterior that not only make the car uglier, it also drops the performance potential of the vehicle, i.e. big heavy wheels, stupid body kits, etc.
> 
> One of the things I hate the most about vehicle specific "enthusiast" sites is the absolute ignorance of other vehicles especially when it comes to American V8 owning people trying to play down Asian cars. I don't know if that was your intention, but I see it a lot here and it is really getting lame.


jacobyb, I don't think he was referring the STi or EVO as a "ricer", he was just stating that the GTO is faster than 4 cylinder "ricers" in general...or, that is at least the way that I interrpeted.


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Sorry, but how is an STi or EVO a "ricer?" Everything you see on the car from the factory is functional and benefits the respective car in the performance category. The defenition of "rice" is unnecessary modifications to a vehicles interior or exterior that not only make the car uglier, it also drops the performance potential of the vehicle, i.e. big heavy wheels, stupid body kits, etc.
> 
> One of the things I hate the most about vehicle specific "enthusiast" sites is the absolute ignorance of other vehicles especially when it comes to American V8 owning people trying to play down Asian cars. I don't know if that was your intention, but I see it a lot here and it is really getting lame.



imports suck!!!!!


z06 dominates all!!!! 



AHAHAHAHA!!!!!! just kidding. 


Seriously though. I have all respect for the STI, EVO, and the 350z. But I personally hate their styling, interior. A 4/6cyl can be an awesome engine if built right, which the above are. One of my top 3 cars is the legendary Supra Twin Turbo. 

Its not that we are import haters, but there is a very legitimate stereotype with the majority of the owners of those vehicles.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Sorry, but how is an STi or EVO a "ricer?" Everything you see on the car from the factory is functional and benefits the respective car in the performance category. The defenition of "rice" is unnecessary modifications to a vehicles interior or exterior that not only make the car uglier, it also drops the performance potential of the vehicle, i.e. big heavy wheels, stupid body kits, etc.
> 
> One of the things I hate the most about vehicle specific "enthusiast" sites is the absolute ignorance of other vehicles especially when it comes to American V8 owning people trying to play down Asian cars. I don't know if that was your intention, but I see it a lot here and it is really getting lame.


Thanks for the defense Goatgirl but, yeah, I was lumping the STI, EVO into the ricer category. Neon blue paint and giant rear wings that serve no purpose = rice. Only function there is to excite teenagers.

Fast? Yes. 
Handle well? Yes. 
Look like a kids matchbox car? Yes
Feel and sound like a tin can from the eighties? Yes.

Oh yeah, I've driven an STI. It's a joke. A friend owns an EVO. Another joke. I wonder how many 20 somethings that buy those things still own them 3 years later? Gotta wear on your nerves.


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

Wing_Nut said:


> Thanks for the defense Goatgirl but, yeah, I was lumping the STI, EVO into the ricer category. Neon blue paint and giant rear wings that serve no purpose = rice. Only function there is to excite teenagers.
> 
> Fast? Yes.
> Handle well? Yes.
> ...



don't forget the faded gold rims.


----------



## GOATGIRL (Feb 6, 2006)

dealernut said:


> don't forget the faded gold rims.


...spinners:rofl:


----------



## jacobyb (Jan 2, 2006)

Wing_Nut said:


> Thanks for the defense Goatgirl but, yeah, I was lumping the STI, EVO into the ricer category. Neon blue paint and giant rear wings that serve no purpose = rice. Only function there is to excite teenagers.
> 
> Fast? Yes.
> Handle well? Yes.
> ...


Like I said, ignorance. The wings on those cars are totally functional. Being a sedan with a high roofline, and please tell me if you knew this, causes lift. Lift is dangerous at high speeds. The wings on those cars are designed to cancel the lift. Double important on a light weight vehicle.

If you are of the opinion that the STi blue is "rice," what does that say for everyone on this board that has an EBM Goat? Thay are identicle. 

Calling the STi a joke is pathetic. Honestly I am not trying to pick a fight here, but come on. No, it is not a big torque V8 car that MANY view as dated and behind the times, but give credit where it's due. I jsut don't understand this mentality especially from from people that are supposed to be enthusiasts! It is the same kind of mentality that has people talking **** about a Mustang simply because it is a Ford and not a GM vehicle. It's really pathetic.


----------



## 2LS1's (Dec 30, 2005)

In the words of a Hyundai driver (Rodney King)---"Can we all just get along" :confused


----------



## GOATGIRL (Feb 6, 2006)

2LS1's said:


> In the words of a Hyundai driver (Rodney King)---"Can we all just get along" :confused


And in the word's of Lil Jon....*YEAH!!!*


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Car and Driver road test results for the EVO STI and GTO:

STI 
0-60 4.9
1/4 mile 13.4
top speed 145
price as tested $33,808

EVO VIII MR
0-60 4.8
1/4 mile 13.6
top speed 152
price as tested $36,074

GTO
0-60 4.8
1/4 mile 13.3
top speed limited to 158
price as tested $33,695

We have a clearly defined winner in all 4 catagories. 

A quick scan of C&D's road tests shows nothing under 40k beating the GTO. There are a couple Chryslers in the ball park, the SRT8 cars are just a tick off, and the Crossfire SRT6 is equal. The SRT6 is priced at 51k, but dealers are taking 15k off them all day long. 

The area where the STI and EVO should be able to beat the GTO, 0-60, the best only manages a tie. Oh well, maybe the EVO XXVIII MR GSD TKJUYTHT will be able to take the GTO.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Like I said, ignorance. The wings on those cars are totally functional. Being a sedan with a high roofline, and please tell me if you knew this, causes lift. Lift is dangerous at high speeds. The wings on those cars are designed to cancel the lift. Double important on a light weight vehicle.
> 
> If you are of the opinion that the STi blue is "rice," what does that say for everyone on this board that has an EBM Goat? Thay are identicle.
> 
> Calling the STi a joke is pathetic. Honestly I am not trying to pick a fight here, but come on. No, it is not a big torque V8 car that MANY view as dated and behind the times, but give credit where it's due. I jsut don't understand this mentality especially from from people that are supposed to be enthusiasts! It is the same kind of mentality that has people talking **** about a Mustang simply because it is a Ford and not a GM vehicle. It's really pathetic.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see any publication that show that the spoiler on a street driven car as being functional. And what speed do you consider high speed?


----------



## Clueless (Mar 2, 2006)

6QTS11OZ said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see any publication that show that the spoiler on a street driven car as being functional. And what speed do you consider high speed?


I would seriously like some more information on this, too, if you know of any references, Jacobyb. I have often heard people say that the spoiler on the STi is functional. But.. what happens if it does not have a spoiler, and it is daily driven? I've heard (online--not known personally) of people removing the spoilers from their STis and having 0 problems for daily driving, even if they speed a bit on the highways (unfortunately I do not know or recall the top speed gone, and I understand this may be a factor).

I've heard numerous times of people purchasing the non-STi WRX, and then modding it to get the same or better output as the STi. Some of these same people have claimed to drag race them, and I have seen no mention of problems. The WRX doesn't have the big spoiler AFAIK except I think it is an option. 

So, I'm not bad-mouthing the STi or anything--I'm just seriously curious about the effects of spoiler vs non-spoiler on it. Unfortunately, Google searching just pulls up nothing helpful, and I don't care about it *that* much to spend an extended time searching.


----------



## SJAndrew (Sep 28, 2004)

I think the STi is a pretty badass car.

But....I would never buy it for lots of reasons:

1) I'm 6'5" 287 LB.
2) It looks pretty....well....stupid (sorry) with that giant wing on the back.
3) I like the flat torque of a V8.

I think the STi is a good performer and a very good performance deal. But, it's not my cup of tea. 

I want a car that sounds brutal...not like a sewing machine or a vibrator in a coffee can. I want a car that looks sleek, not overstated and gaudy. I want a car that fits me well (this is not an indictment of the STi, but it's too small for me), not one that requires a shoehorn to get into.


----------



## Don (Sep 20, 2004)

Don't autocross a WRX of any kind. You will not win ever. If changing direction is involved the WRX it a lot quicker.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Like I said, ignorance. The wings on those cars are totally functional. Being a sedan with a high roofline, and please tell me if you knew this, causes lift. Lift is dangerous at high speeds. The wings on those cars are designed to cancel the lift. Double important on a light weight vehicle.


The marketing guys at Subaru are high fiving over your post.
Were you born a Tard or did your mama drop you? On purpose?

You seem to be very familiar with the word ignorance. 
No doubt you've heard it quite often in your short life.

All right my budding aerodynamicist, here's where you can wow everyone with your knowledge of fluid dynamics. Let's see a lucid argument for a spoiler on a street car producing any meaningful downforce. Even that ridiculous STI wing won't start to function until north of 120MPH. Granted a large wing can function at lower speeds (sprint cars). Crap, I'm just feeding the ricers ideas. I better shut up.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Calling the STi a joke is pathetic. Honestly I am not trying to pick a fight here, but come on. No, it is not a big torque V8 car that MANY view as dated and behind the times, but give credit where it's due. I jsut don't understand this mentality especially from from people that are supposed to be enthusiasts! It is the same kind of mentality that has people talking **** about a Mustang simply because it is a Ford and not a GM vehicle. It's really pathetic.


I'm not calling the STI pathetic because it doesn't have a V8. As I said before, I'll give you acceleration, braking, and handling.

I'm calling it pathetic because it is a cheap tin can. Noisy, poor ride, plastic interior made for midgets, and styling made for ricers.

Seriously, I would be embarassed to be seen in one. That's why I call it a joke. My standards are a lot higher than a few performance specs.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

6QTS11OZ said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to see any publication that show that the spoiler on a street driven car as being functional. And what speed do you consider high speed?


I agree here. 

When Ford made the Contour SVT they tested it on the race track and in the wind tunnel. It is a 4 door for those that don't remember it. They actually removed the small lip spoiler that the car had because it accomplished nothing and slowed the car down. This was a spoiler about the size of the one on the GTO. They did add small side skirts a rear diffuser and a lower and larger front air dam to the car. It had a higher top speed than the STI even though it had 100 hp less.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Like I said, ignorance. The wings on those cars are totally functional. Being a sedan with a high roofline, and please tell me if you knew this, causes lift. Lift is dangerous at high speeds. The wings on those cars are designed to cancel the lift. Double important on a light weight vehicle.
> 
> If you are of the opinion that the STi blue is "rice," what does that say for everyone on this board that has an EBM Goat? Thay are identicle.
> 
> Calling the STi a joke is pathetic. Honestly I am not trying to pick a fight here, but come on. No, it is not a big torque V8 car that MANY view as dated and behind the times, but give credit where it's due. I jsut don't understand this mentality especially from from people that are supposed to be enthusiasts! It is the same kind of mentality that has people talking **** about a Mustang simply because it is a Ford and not a GM vehicle. It's really pathetic.



I like the STI. The wing is a joke. The stickers on it and the look at me styling is just over done. The car though is a great car. It beats a GTO in the handling department, but loses in looks, fit and finsh, comfort of the seats and interior, straight line performance and fuel economy. The STI also conveys the message that a 20 yr old kid is the driver and the main reason he bought the car is so the zit faced drive-thru attendants will drool over his car. Ditto that for the EVO.

Oh, by the way the reason I talk s*** on the Mustang is because Mustang guys come on here and put down the GTO. The GTO is able to out-perform the Mustang in all performance and comfort catagories. Now that the GT isn't getting over sticker, the only thing the Ford has going for it is price. If you take a close look at it though you will see the major cost cutting Ford did to get it to that low of a cost. At one time I did like Fords, but Ford has lost it's way. GM is doing much better but not great. The Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon are great replacements. The Impala is a nice replacement too, but GM really needs a rear drive full-sized car. The GTO was never marketed right, but that was due to the UAW putting a restriction on how many GM could bring to the US. It and the C6 are excellent examples of what GM can do.


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

to the guys saying the wings on the sti and evo arent functional, one of my buddies has an sti and he took his wing off and that thing is all over the road without it.....not trying to start a fight here, but to anyone who thinks that a big ass wing isnt functional until over 120mph...next time your going 60-70mph take your hand make it flat...and stick it out the window facing the front of your car parallel to the ground...then slowly angle your hand down to the ground and see what happens, and then come back and tell me that you still think something with as much surface area as an sti or evo wing has no function until 120mph


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

fullarmor2 said:


> The GTO is the fastest new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.)


not if you find a leftover 05 SRT-4...:rofl:


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

wow this thread went from zero to gay in less than a page.


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> to the guys saying the wings on the sti and evo arent functional, one of my buddies has an sti and he took his wing off and that thing is all over the road without it.....not trying to start a fight here, but to anyone who thinks that a big ass wing isnt functional until over 120mph...next time your going 60-70mph take your hand make it flat...and stick it out the window facing the front of your car parallel to the ground...then slowly angle your hand down to the ground and see what happens, and then come back and tell me that you still think something with as much surface area as an sti or evo wing has no function until 120mph


You really can't compare a hand that weighs ounces to a car that weighs 3000+ lbs. Even if it does create downforce, remember that in a straight line downforce slows a car down not speed it up. Also I know a few guys who don't have a spoiler and they never have problems at high speeds. And I'm talking about mid 11 to low 12 cars. Regardless, those wings do look pretty damn goofy. Maybe Subaru and Mitsubishi just need to design those bricks a little better so they won't need to have that big ass ironing board attached to the trunk. And just a little dose of reality for ya... Why doesn't some of the worlds fastest supercars don't have spoilers? Z06, Viper, McLaren F1, etc. BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THEM!


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> to the guys saying the wings on the sti and evo arent functional, one of my buddies has an sti and he took his wing off and that thing is all over the road without it.....not trying to start a fight here, but to anyone who thinks that a big ass wing isnt functional until over 120mph...next time your going 60-70mph take your hand make it flat...and stick it out the window facing the front of your car parallel to the ground...then slowly angle your hand down to the ground and see what happens, and then come back and tell me that you still think something with as much surface area as an sti or evo wing has no function until 120mph


The following is a cut and paste from someone else's paper but he says it better than I could. Just reverse direction of surfaces and fluid flow in your head as you read and the description applies to downforce instead of lift.

*"QUOTE"*Reaction Lift is the effect of the pressure of moving fluid (air, in this case) against the bottom of a tilted surface. Newton described action and reaction, and this is an example. The air which hits the bottom of that tilted surface is deflected downward (action), which creates an equal and opposite reaction, upward lift, in the wing itself. From a reference point on a wing (airfoil) on a moving aircraft, the air appears to be moving, and it creates an equal pressure against any and all surfaces of an aircraft. If you stick your hand out the window of a moving car, you can feel this pressure. If you hold your hand vertically, where you are completely blocking the wind, you will feel the greatest pressure, what is technically called the stagnation pressure. The stagnation pressure is easy to calculate as it represents a simple example of Newton's Conservation of Energy, in this case changing the kinetic energy of the air's motion into pressure energy. It is given by 1/2 * (rho) * velocity2 where rho is the density of the air.
In the case of your hand in the car, if the car is traveling at 60 mph (to the air and not necessarily the ground) (which is 88 ft/sec), then the stagnation pressure is: 1/2 * (1/13 pound/cu.ft) * (88)2 / 32, or about 9.3 pounds per square foot. (the 32 was necessary to convert the weight in the density into a mass unit, 32 being the acceleration due to gravity). The actual pressure on your hand is a little higher than that, because air that had hit the windshield also has to move past the area where your hand is, and so the actual pressure there is higher.

If, instead of holding your hand vertically, you tilt it forward, your hand will feel a Reaction Lift. Essentially, air that then hits your angled hand gets deflected downward, giving the air a new downward motion along with its remaining rearward motion. Newton's action-reaction (in an up-down direction) tells us that your hand experiences an UPWARD motion as a result. For small angles of your hand from horizontal, an analysis of the pressures involved is pretty simple. The available stagnation pressure is simply multiplied by the sine of the angle of the tilt from horizontal. For example, if your hand if angled 15° from horizontal out that car window, the Reaction Lift pressure on your hand would be about 9.3 pounds per square foot * (0.2588) or around 2.4 pounds per square foot vertical lift force.

For an airplane flying at 500 mph (730 ft/sec), in the less dense air at 30,000 feet altitude, the stagnation pressure is around 260 pounds per square foot.

The process of Reaction Lift is naturally unstable. If you tilt your hand at more of an angle, there is both a lot more force now pressing against your hand, and it also has greater leverage, so it tends to want to both tilt and raise your hand even more. You have to stiffen your arm muscles to keep that from happening. There actually IS one specific angle where your hand tends to be able to remain (called meta-stable) but a wind gust will quickly upset that temporary stability.

Reaction Lift is sort of a "brute force" lift. It relies on the availability of a lot of (engine) power to create strong windspeeds, since it essentially creates Reaction Lift by deflecting that air downward, which uses up a lot of power. It is also naturally unstable. Because modern aircraft have very powerful engines, all modern large aircraft primarily rely on Reaction Lift for the majority of their total aerodynamic lift.*"END QUOTE"*


So let's see, that mighty blue wing on your WRX has maybe 10 sq ft of surface area. That means at 60 mph, you get a staggering 2.41 X 10 sq ft or 24.1 pounds of downforce. Whoop de doo! 

Now, let's take the speed up to 120. 
Assume no change in density of the fluid, angle of the wing, etc. Just the speed changes.
1/2 * (1/13 pound/cu.ft) * (176)2 / 32 = 37.23 now multiply by the sine of 15 degrees or .2588 and you have 9.64 lb/sq ft or 96.4 total pounds of downforce.

Now let's accelerate to 180mph. Same deal, only the speed changes.
1/2 * (1/13 pound/cu.ft) * (264)2 / 32 = 83.77 now multiply by the sine of 15 degrees or .2588 and you have 21.68 lb/sq ft or 216.8 total pounds of downforce.

Now think about that airplane mentioned above doing 500mph where the lift/downforce reaches 260lb/sq ft. Get it?

Admittedly, I don't know the exact surface area of the STI wing or the angle of said wicked cool neon blue appendage. But the point here is...... that thing is doing nothing but impressing zit faced teenagers at any speed you are likely to drive on a public road for any length of time.

Also, Bernoulli lift is not addressed by the above.

On top of that, aerodynamicists actually calculate the force on a wing by calculating the circulation of the air as it flows over the wing.

But the simple reaction lift example above illustrates the point quite well.

But, if you gotta believe, then be my guest. The rest of you with naked butts on yer GTO better put the plastic back on the decklid.


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

CrabhartLSX said:


> wow this thread went from zero to gay in less than a page.


LOL. When it comes to STis, this thread pretty much sums up my opinion of them. Imagine a 21 page thread discussing the benefit of powdering your nuts.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=375921&perpage=25&pagenumber=1


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

6QTS11OZ said:


> You really can't compare a hand that weighs ounces to a car that weighs 3000+ lbs. Even if it does create downforce, remember that in a straight line downforce slows a car down not speed it up. Also I know a few guys who don't have a spoiler and they never have problems at high speeds. And I'm talking about mid 11 to low 12 cars. Regardless, those wings do look pretty damn goofy. Maybe Subaru and Mitsubishi just need to design those bricks a little better so they won't need to have that big ass ironing board attached to the trunk. And just a little dose of reality for ya... Why doesn't some of the worlds fastest supercars don't have spoilers? Z06, Viper, McLaren F1, etc. BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED THEM!


they dont need them because they arent sitting as high as 4 door sedans and they are a lot wider...when you put them in a race situation they do need them, but with their stance on the street and their low center of gravity they dont need them....and like i said im not trying to fight im just discussing lol....oh and my friends sti has 600+ whp


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> ....and like i said im not trying to fight im just discussing lol....


Cool then. I'll put the gloves away :lol:


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

:rofl: lolol


----------



## fullarmor2 (Mar 1, 2006)

> b_a_betterperson said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. When it comes to STis, this thread pretty much sums up my opinion of them. Imagine a 21 page thread discussing the benefit of powdering your nuts.
> ...


----------



## Clueless (Mar 2, 2006)

b_a_betterperson said:


> LOL. When it comes to STis, this thread pretty much sums up my opinion of them. Imagine a 21 page thread discussing the benefit of powdering your nuts.
> 
> http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=375921&perpage=25&pagenumber=1


Thanks for the laugh, that's hilarious!


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

Wing_Nut said:


> The marketing guys at Subaru are high fiving over your post.
> Were you born a Tard or did your mama drop you? On purpose?
> 
> You seem to be very familiar with the word ignorance.
> ...


hey im no ricer by any means i dont even own an sti(not saying that sti owners are rice).....but 24 pounds of downforce at 60mph is still function is it not?


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

fullarmor2 said:


> :lol: I really caused a can of worms to get opened up here! But it has been entertaining.


Why you dirty, rotten, no good, so and so! :lol:


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> hey im no ricer by any means i dont even own an sti(not saying that sti owners are rice).....but 24 pounds of downforce at 60mph is still function is it not?


Are you sure you're not trying to start a fight? Unlike me, *Wing_Nut* doesn't use gloves :lol:. So I'm warning you to, *"Prepare to defend yourself"*.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> hey im no ricer by any means i dont even own an sti(not saying that sti owners are rice).....but 24 pounds of downforce at 60mph is still function is it not?


Well let's see, the STI weighs 3,351 Lbs with the gold wheels.

An increase of 24 pounds of downforce is a difference of 24 / 3351 or .007. That's 0.7%.

If you call that function, OK it's functional.

Of course you could ditch the wing and throw a couple of sand bags in the trunk and it would be like yer doing 120 all the time. And not as ugly.


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

haha good point...i do like stis though....i take it you dont lolol


----------



## malum in se (Feb 16, 2006)

nut powder!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: Somebody please tell me that thread is a put up job! I damn near fell over - my wife thought I was having a fit, that I was . . . (wait for it) . . . going nuts! :rofl:


----------



## NHRATA01 (Mar 27, 2006)

Wing_Nut said:


> The following is a cut and paste from someone else's paper but he says it better than I could. Just reverse direction of surfaces and fluid flow in your head as you read and the description applies to downforce instead of lift.
> 
> *"QUOTE"*Reaction Lift is the effect of the pressure of moving fluid (air, in this case) against the bottom of a tilted surface. Newton described action and reaction, and this is an example. The air which hits the bottom of that tilted surface is deflected downward (action), which creates an equal and opposite reaction, upward lift, in the wing itself. From a reference point on a wing (airfoil) on a moving aircraft, the air appears to be moving, and it creates an equal pressure against any and all surfaces of an aircraft. If you stick your hand out the window of a moving car, you can feel this pressure. If you hold your hand vertically, where you are completely blocking the wind, you will feel the greatest pressure, what is technically called the stagnation pressure. The stagnation pressure is easy to calculate as it represents a simple example of Newton's Conservation of Energy, in this case changing the kinetic energy of the air's motion into pressure energy. It is given by 1/2 * (rho) * velocity2 where rho is the density of the air.
> In the case of your hand in the car, if the car is traveling at 60 mph (to the air and not necessarily the ground) (which is 88 ft/sec), then the stagnation pressure is: 1/2 * (1/13 pound/cu.ft) * (88)2 / 32, or about 9.3 pounds per square foot. (the 32 was necessary to convert the weight in the density into a mass unit, 32 being the acceleration due to gravity). The actual pressure on your hand is a little higher than that, because air that had hit the windshield also has to move past the area where your hand is, and so the actual pressure there is higher.
> ...


It is a simple way to illustrate the point, but there are things regarding the desing of the wing that are being neglected that can influence how much lift/downforce the wing is creating at speed.

Is the cross section symmetrical or assymetrical? If it's assymetrical, we can create lift or downforce at even 0 degrees of angle. Also I think the STi wing is a double decker, isn't it?

The main thing we are leaving out is the coefficient of lift, which to figure out we would need to know exactly the angle of attack and the aspect ratio (width of the wing divided by its length). 

The more precise equation we'd be using then would be:
1/2(rho)*V^2*A*CL

where A is the area and C sub L is the coefficient of lift.

And then of course the debated Bernoulli lift, and circulation effects. But I'm just a MechE, most of the Fluid Mechanics I studied was fluids through pipes (even that was 5+ years ago so the memory is fading), so I'd rather let an aeronautical guy handle that. I've already stayed up too late anyways because the topic caught my interest.

So to be fair, we really need to know more before guestimating how much that wing is helping. Even still, ~200lbs of added downforce at 140mph is not insignificant.

And it's not really fair to compare a car like an Enzo, McLaren, and other supercars that don't have wings. Those cars were designed to utilize the airflow underneath the chasis to provide the downforce, while limiting the aerodynamic inefficiency of having a large wing that increases the drag and decreases the top speed. A Evo/STi coming off humble econocar roots doesn't really have that luxury.

Anyways, is the wing functional? Certainly. To what extent, we'd have to study it in more depth. Is it likely a selling point to the boy racer crowd? Even more likely. Will it do jack **** under 100mph, most definitely.


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

damn lol :agree


----------



## 6QTS11OZ (Mar 27, 2005)

NHRATA01 said:


> And it's not really fair to compare a car like an Enzo, McLaren, and other supercars that don't have wings. Those cars were designed to utilize the airflow underneath the chasis to provide the downforce, while limiting the aerodynamic inefficiency of having a large wing that increases the drag and decreases the top speed. A Evo/STi coming off humble econocar roots doesn't really have that luxury.


The point I was making is, those cars don't require a spoiler because of their design. The STi and Evo uses a spoiler because their designers "think", "thought", "propose", or "assume" it's functional. Who has proof that it is? And if so, to what at extent? Probably not much. Regardless, it really doesn't matter. On a road course, the spoiler isn't what gives the STi and Evo an advantage... it's the all wheel drive. If the road course have a lot of slow speed corners... the spoiler means nothing! So to me, like I said before, the spoiler is way over done and useless. Useless for the every day driving that I do.


----------



## NHRATA01 (Mar 27, 2006)

6QTS11OZ said:


> The point I was making is, those cars don't require a spoiler because of their design. The STi and Evo uses a spoiler because their designers "think", "thought", "propose", or "assume" it's functional. Who has proof that it is? And if so, to what at extent? Probably not much. Regardless, it really doesn't matter. On a road course, the spoiler isn't what give the STi and Evo an advantage... it's the all wheel drive. If the road course have a lot of slow speed corners... the spoiler means nothing! So to me, like I said before, the spoiler is way over done and useless. Useless for the every day driving that I do.


Right, and I'm agreeing that's the reason those cars don't require one. But like I said, and Evo/STi come from econoboxes, so no one's really concerned about spending the time and money to engineer the underchasis to provide downforce when 99.9% of the cars off the platform won't see more than 70mph. Also consider both cars are geared more towards rallying, then all-out on road performance like an Enzo/F1, so there needs to be some ground clearance along with skidplates for the drivetrain, as opposed to a asphalt hugging design of the supercars.

But I'm sure the engineers who designed the Evo/STi, the goal being function over form (otherwise would they both be so damn hard on the eyes!) certainly designed in functionality for the wing in the rear. Compared to say, my T/A which just has its abomination of a wing to flow with the car's lines and probably does little. It's not fair to say its useless on the econobox twins, when even some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations we've done here show that it is indeed doing its job.

200lbs of downforce @~140 on the rear end is an extra 100lbs of normal force per tire back there; if we have the coefficient of kinetic friction you could calculate out the added frictional force you'd gain back there, giving you a bit more leeway until your g-forces from turning overcome it, and you break loose. And we also don't know if the front end is designed to provide any downforce.

I drove an '89 Firebird through 8 NY winters, and let me tell you, an extra 50-100lbs of cinder blocks or sand over the rear helped noticeably in keeping the ass end in place driving through the snow at a snail's pace. When you're going triple digits, every little bit helps.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> Like I said, ignorance. The wings on those cars are totally functional. Being a sedan with a high roofline, and please tell me if you knew this, causes lift. Lift is dangerous at high speeds. The wings on those cars are designed to cancel the lift. Double important on a light weight vehicle.


OK Jacobyb, where'd ya go? A couple of us have hung a nice big grapefruit out there in the form of some elementary physics. 

As I said before, come back with a lucid argument for big blue ugly wings on little ugly Japanese cars.

Prove my ignorance, please.......I thought so.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

NHRATA01 said:


> It is a simple way to illustrate the point, but there are things regarding the desing of the wing that are being neglected that can influence how much lift/downforce the wing is creating at speed.


Thanks for the additional physics NHRATA01. Pretty hard to type a simple example on a web forum but I think we beat the pimple faced believers into submission on the wingie thingies.

That was fun.


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

nah...this pimple faced believer still believes in wings like the ones on the sti or evo.....or even my car...whatever little function it provides is more than nothing, id rather have it than not have it


----------



## NHRATA01 (Mar 27, 2006)

Wing_Nut said:


> Thanks for the additional physics NHRATA01. Pretty hard to type a simple example on a web forum but I think we beat the pimple faced believers into submission on the wingie thingies.
> 
> That was fun.


Well, thanks, although my point was indeed that there is an amount of functionality to the wing. It is just not possible to calculate how much without knowing more specifics about the design. If someone goes out and gets us some dimensions, then we can figure it out. But again, even 200+lbs of extra downforce @ 140mph isn't insignificant.

I'm not defending the STi either, though I have respect for it as a performance car, and as fun as they can be to drive on occasion, turbo'd 4s aren't my cup of tea compared to the rumbling of 8 cylinders. But an engineering discussion piqued my interest, so I had to throw in my 2 cents, being semi-familiar with the topic.

Of course I'm just a mullet wearing Fbody driver who'd certainly have to work lots of hours of overtime to afford a Goat, even though I paid cash out the door for a brand new T/A back in '01.


----------



## GibsonUSA (Jan 8, 2006)

tommycheng1728 said:


> Don't dget me wrong, I love my GTO, but I have seen hondas that will do the same numbers for well under $10K....


Brand new and unmodded?
I think the original question implies that the car is off the dealer's lot and untouched by 3rd parties.


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

GibsonUSA said:


> Brand new and unmodded?
> I think the original question implies that the car is off the dealer's lot and untouched by 3rd parties.


I appreciate you trying to contribute to this overly discussed thread, but my entire post was: 
"Don't dget me wrong, I love my GTO, but I have seen hondas that will do the same numbers for well under $10K, but to answer your original question, for $34K, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR is faster than the GTO by 0.1 seconds 0-60 and 0.2 seconds faster than the GTO in the quarter mile, but oddly enough, 0-100, the GTO is faster by half a second. but if you want to save $2 grand, for $32K, the Subaru WRX STi is slower than the GTO by 0.2 seconds 0-60 but is 0.2 faster than the GTO in the quarter mile. Hope I answered your question, but if you asked me: true of false? The GTO is the fastest (*AMERICAN/AUSTRAILIAN*) new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.) I would say: YES!!!"

which in fact answers the question asked, so good job taking my post and commenting on 10% percent of it, keep them posts comming, can't wait for the next one buddy!!!:lol:


----------



## 4 BKT VET (Mar 28, 2006)

Notice all the EVO's and WRX's out there under 20,000 miles for sale. The chiro' made the get out of them. Fast as they may be, we haul but in comfort. And when we can cruise too.


----------



## SJAndrew (Sep 28, 2004)

NHRATA01 said:


> But I'm sure the engineers who designed the Evo/STi, the goal being function over form (otherwise would they both be so damn hard on the eyes!) certainly designed in functionality for the wing in the rear.


I think the giant sail comes from a designer and not an engineer.

Most engineers (myself included) value elegance via simplicity and subtlety. The point being is that I would venture to say that while the wing probably is functional at relatively low speed, the same thing could be accomplished as effectively (if not more) via less obvious means. 

Personally, I think the wing is there is make people think "whoa....it must be fast to need that giant hunk o' plastic!".

Even on the GTO, the wing is there for looks first. Any function is all but secondary.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

tommycheng1728 said:


> I appreciate you trying to contribute to this overly discussed thread, but my entire post was:
> "Don't dget me wrong, I love my GTO, but I have seen hondas that will do the same numbers for well under $10K, but to answer your original question, for $34K, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR is faster than the GTO by 0.1 seconds 0-60 and 0.2 seconds faster than the GTO in the quarter mile, but oddly enough, 0-100, the GTO is faster by half a second. but if you want to save $2 grand, for $32K, the Subaru WRX STi is slower than the GTO by 0.2 seconds 0-60 but is 0.2 faster than the GTO in the quarter mile. Hope I answered your question, but if you asked me: true of false? The GTO is the fastest (*AMERICAN/AUSTRAILIAN*) new car you can buy in the world for under 34 grand. (New without mods.) I would say: YES!!!"
> 
> which in fact answers the question asked, so good job taking my post and commenting on 10% percent of it, keep them posts comming, can't wait for the next one buddy!!!:lol:


Please quote your source for these numbers. 

I quoted Car& Driver. The GTO is faster to 60 and in the 1/4 than both these cars and costs less. The as tested price on the STI was higher by a couple hundred bucks and the Evo was a couple thousand more.

The main reason I think there is an error in your numbers is where you state the 0-60 for the GTO being faster. The EVO and STI are at their strongest down low, and the GTO is scratching for traction. 

The wrost road test I've seen of the GTO had it at 13.5. That was Road and Crack. They weren't able to launch though, so their numbers were real bad. Even Motor Trend beat them. 

Motor Trend has the GTO at 13.3 at 105.9 and 4.7 0-60. 
I found a road test between the STI and EVO that they talk about the wings. The EVO's is basically non functional until you get over 120. What is very functional on the EVO is the shark's teeth at the rear edge of the roof that generate 35lbs of downforce at 100 mph. Their recomendation ditch the wing. The STI's wing is a more functional design. It produces 50lbs of downforce at 100mph. 

They launched the EVO at 5000 RPM's. By doing that they were able to get a 0-60 of 4.7 and a 1/4 of 13.3 at 103.3. They didn't like the exhaust note though which sounded like a restricted leaf blower.

The STI was a 6000RPM launch. It would have beat the EVO to 60 but you have to make a 2-3 shift at 58 so it ended up being a dead heat, 4.7. The 1/4 mile for the STI is 13.3 at only 100.1. They did say this STI felt softer than others they had tested and usually they trap in the 103-104 range. 

The STI is $33,698 and the EVO is $34,900. 

So there is 2 mags showing the GTO faster or equal to 60 and quicker in the 1/4.


----------



## tommycheng1728 (Nov 23, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> Please quote your source for these numbers.
> 
> I quoted Car& Driver. The GTO is faster to 60 and in the 1/4 than both these cars and costs less. The as tested price on the STI was higher by a couple hundred bucks and the Evo was a couple thousand more.
> 
> ...


sure thing, got my numbers from Road and Track magazine April 2006 Volume 57 No.8 pages: 126 and 127


----------



## Roccosrt4 (Mar 26, 2006)

those road and track drivers must be pretty bad...their times are always like 3 or 4 tenths of second slower than everyone elses


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Roccosrt4 said:


> those road and track drivers must be pretty bad...their times are always like 3 or 4 tenths of second slower than everyone elses


Unless you are an EVO or STI driver then Road and Track is the one. 

Thanks for getting back to me Tommy. Road and Track does show the GTO as slower to 60 and through the 1/4, but quicker to 100 ?????????? 

Oh well there are two mags showing something different, and my GTO spanked any STI or EVO it lined up against. The GTO is just so tricky to launch, that unless the mag drivers spend lots of time with it, they never get the best results. The STI and the EVO, you just wind it up and dump the clutch, hang on and bang your shifts real quick.


----------

