Another badass GC8 (GM2)

[JC]

I might not have my GC any more but I can't be negligent in constantly point out their superiority to this forum. haha

Topspeed's Time Attack L...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/IM0002043.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/DSC00674.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/DSC00672.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/DSC00666.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/DSC00667.jpg

464hp 427tq @ 22psi; supposedly at 612hp now but no dyno chart
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b4/badazzcr/brighton1.jpg

Weight: ~2600lbs

Mods list...
EJ257 BLOCK (2.7L I believe)
PORTED HEADS
272 AVCS CAMS
PORTED INTAKE
PORTED TGV'S
DC SPORT HEADER WITH MODIFIED 2.5" FLANGE
ULTIMATE RACING GT35R
ULTIMATE RACING DOWNPIPE
TIAL 44MM WASTEGATE
TOPSPEED 4" OVAL SIDE EXIT EXHAUST
TOPSPEED CUSTOM COLD AIR INTAKE
TOPSPEED CATCH CAN
TOPSPEED FUEL SURGE TANK
PWR ALLUMINUM RADIATOR
TOPSPEED CUSTOM FMIC WITH 3' PIPING
255LPH IN TANK WALBORO FEEDING AN EXTERNAL WALBORO AFTER SURGE
TOPSPEED ECUTEK ECU
TURBO XS UTEC
PE 850CC INJECTORS
ACT 6PUCK SPRUNG RACE CLUTCH
2006 STI 6SP
FULL SILKOLENE FLUIDS
RACING BRAKE 6PSITON 355MM FRONT BRAKE KIT
2006 STI REAR BREMBO BRAKES
HAWK DTC70 FRONT PADS
HAWK DTC60 REAR PADS
2006 STI CROSSMEMBERS FRONT AND REAR
2006 STI CONTROL ARMS AND LATERAL LINKS FRONT AND REAR
2006 STI GAS TANK WITH CUSTOM BAFFLES
2006 STI DCCD, ABS, AND COMPLETE WIRING HARNESS
2006 STI HID CONVERSION
2006 STI DASH, INSTRUMENT CLUSTER, CENTER CONSOL
2006 STI PEDAL ASSY
2006 STI MASTER CYLINDER, BRAKE LINES, ABS
2006 STI REAR DIFF AND AXLES
KW CLUBSPORT 2WAY COMPETION COILOVERS
KW FRONT AND REAR CAMBER PLATES
WHITELINE FRONT (27mm-26mm) AND REAR (26mm-24mm) SWAY BARS
CUSTOM FRONT AIRDAM
CUSTOM REAR SPLITTER
8 POINT ROLL CAGE
MOMO ACROPOLIS DRIVER SEAT
KIRKEY PASSANGER SEAT
AVCR BOOST CONTROL
TCDESIGNS REAR WING
STAINLESS BRAKE LINES
CASTROL SRF BRAKE FLUID
CUSTOM FRONT BRAKE DUCTS
CHATTERBOX INTERCOM SYSTEM WITH IPOD HOOK UP

[Kevin M]

Unpainted bolt-on flares FTL.


Everything else... oh my motherfucking uNf uNf uNf!~

[MattR]

I like it, looks hot...and OMG look at all that juicy power!

[tysonK]

Interior is nice.:P :lol:

[wrxkidid]

i agree with kevin. if they colored them they might look ok but still eh.

otherwise i want one!

[Joeyy]

What size rubber could I fit under the wagon if I did some trimming and bolted some of those flares on?

[JC]

Those are 285s but those fender flares won't fit your car.

[M3n2c3]

What size rubber could I fit under the wagon if I did some trimming and bolted some of those flares on?

Eh, just do the trimming and forget the flares. Function before form, right? :lol:

I like the exhaust sticking out the side.

[MPREZIV]

I'll take two. One in black please... [drool]

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Who gives a shit what it looks like? Sounds fast to me.

[Libila]

I read that guy's build thread on RS25 all the way through the other night. That car is sweeet.

[Joeyy]

I read that guy's build thread on RS25 all the way through the other night. That car is sweeet.

Link please?

[Libila]

Link please?


http://www.rs25.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49054

[cody]

Sick.

I noticed Mike W built up an L too. Does the GC8 Chassis hold up ok under the loads associated with the mods and racing? No biggie?

[MikeK]

Sick.

I noticed Mike W built up an L too. Does the GC8 Chassis hold up ok under the loads associated with the mods and racing? No biggie?

The only things that don't hold up around that thing are eardrums :lol:

[sperry]

Sick.

I noticed Mike W built up an L too. Does the GC8 Chassis hold up ok under the loads associated with the mods and racing? No biggie?
When you weld in a beefy cage and replace all the suspension w/ STi stuff... there's really not much L left to wear out. :lol:

[JC]

Sick.

I noticed Mike W built up an L too. Does the GC8 Chassis hold up ok under the loads associated with the mods and racing? No biggie?

The GC was designed specifically to be a race car chassis. It wasn't until the GD that they designed it to fit 20 inch rims and maximize BOV sound projection instead of track performance.

[Libila]

The GC was designed specifically to be a race car chassis. It wasn't until the GD that they designed it to fit 20 inch rims and maximize BOV sound projection instead of track performance.

:lol: Bahahaha!

[sperry]

The GC was designed specifically to be a race car chassis. It wasn't until the GD that they designed it to fit 20 inch rims and maximize BOV sound projection instead of track performance.
Comedy... but back in reality, the GD was designed specifically to improve on the GC's lack of stiffness. That's where some the extra 200 lbs came from. There's a reason the GD never came as a coupe... the new super B-pillar required 4 doors.

[cody]

Pssh, whatever.
GC chassis comparison to the GD chassis
Pros

Subaru claims that the GD chassis is 148 percent and 82 percent stiffer in torsional and beam rigidity, respectively, than the GC chassis. This stiffness is primarily due to the addition of a steel "ring" which encircles the cabin at the B-pillar. Due to the increase in stiffness, the car has much better stability in corners and is easier to control at the limit. The GC chassis is so weak compared to today's cars that engineers called the body a "Watermelon frame", referring to how a watermelon shatters on impact.

In terms of safety, the GD chassis scored much higher than the GC chassis and earned a "Good" rating (highest mark) from the IIHS's offset crash test. 4 stars front driver, 5 star front passenger and 4 star side safety ratings from the NHTSA. In a magazine article from the Dec. 2005 Firehouse magazine (a periodical written and made for firefighters), Ron Moore writes how it is well-known that the Impreza chassis has great protection in its B-pillars. This side structure has 8 layers of high-strength, high-tension steel including a round steel bar running through the middle. The author notes how drivers simply walk away from horrific side-impact accidents.

Cons

The GD chassis gains nearly 200 kg in weight over the GC chassis. Most of this weight comes in the form of chassis stiffening as the car was made to meet every country's crash standards. The weight also hampers the cars maneuverability, transistions and turn-in capabilities.[citation needed] The GC Imprezas were notable for being very lightweight despite having AWD. The WRX Type R STI Version VI using the GC chassis, at 1260 kg, was lighter than the competiting Mazda RX-7 type RZ (1270 kg) and Honda NSX type S Zero (1270 kg). In this fashion, the GC chassis has a better advantage.

The author of the forementioned article also notes that the Jaws of Life need to cut the Subaru's B-pillars at certain points in order to cut through the car frame.[4] This information was not widespread before, so there have been many incidences where firefighters could not cut the B-pillars due to their structural integrity. This may become a concern if the driver or passengers need to be cut out of the vehicle quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Impreza_WRX

:P

[JonnydaJibba]

"Rings of Saftey" or whatever.

[JC]

Pssh, whatever.

:P

I don't know what wikipedia you are reading? It clearly says the chassis was stiffened for safety and not performance. ;) :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Impreza_WRX#GC_chassis_comparison_to_the_GD _chassis

Pros

Subaru claims that the GD chassis is 148 percent and 82 percent stiffer in torsional and beam rigidity, respectively, than the GC chassis. This stiffness is primarily due to the addition of a steel "ring" which encircles the cabin at the B-pillar. Rather than being for performance, the stiffness was added primarily to increase safety.

In terms of safety, the GD chassis earned a "Good" rating (highest mark) from the IIHS's offset crash test. 4 stars front driver, 5 star front passenger and 4 star side safety ratings from the NHTSA. In a magazine article from the Dec. 2005 Firehouse magazine (a periodical written and made for firefighters), Ron Moore writes how it is well-known that the Impreza chassis has great protection in its B-pillars. This side structure has 8 layers of high-strength, high-tension steel including a round steel bar running through the middle. The author notes how drivers simply walk away from horrific side-impact accidents.

Cons

The GD chassis gains nearly 200 kg in weight over the GC chassis. Most of this weight comes in the form of chassis stiffening as the car was made to meet every country's crash standards. The weight also hampers the cars maneuverability, transistions and turn-in capabilities.[citation needed] The GC Imprezas were notable for being very lightweight despite having AWD. The WRX Type R STI Version VI using the GC chassis, at 1260 kg, was lighter than the competiting Mazda RX-7 type RZ (1270 kg) and Honda NSX type S Zero (1270 kg). In this fashion, the GC chassis has a better advantage.

The author of the forementioned article also notes that the Jaws of Life need to cut the Subaru's B-pillars at certain points in order to cut through the car frame.[4] This information was not widespread before, so there have been many incidences where firefighters could not cut the B-pillars due to their structural integrity. This may become a concern if the driver or passengers need to be cut out of the vehicle quickly.

[cody]

:lol: You changed facts! :lol:

[sperry]

Unreal. JC just edited the Wiki article. :roll: How about a reference for that change JC? Granted the previous article needs a reference as well, but common knowledge was that the chassis update to the GD was to make the rally car stiffer.

[JC]

Unreal. JC just edited the Wiki article. :roll: How about a reference for that change JC? Granted the previous article needs a reference as well, but common knowledge was that the chassis update to the GD was to make the rally car stiffer.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. My version of the truth is just as truthy as the other unreferenced one. "Watermelon Frame?" Please, I've been around since that car was launched and I've never heard that. There were plenty of terrible accidents in the Subaru community before the WRX ruined it and there was zero chassis shattering. When I get off work I might do some digging around for actual facts. Don't make me put my entire history of the Impreza on there.

[cody]

Do it! :lol:

[sperry]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. My version of the truth is just as truthy as the other unreferenced one. "Watermelon Frame?" Please, I've been around since that car was launched and I've never heard that. There were plenty of terrible accidents in the Subaru community before the WRX ruined it and there was zero chassis shattering. When I get off work I might do some digging around for actual facts. Don't make me put my entire history of the Impreza on there.
I'm not saying the watermelon crap is right. I'm just saying that when the GD chassis came out, there was a ton of bitching about a lack of coupe, and the reasoning from Subaru was that it's 'cause they were able to make the GD significantly stiffer for rallying, but that it required 4-doors only. The purpose wasn't for safety alone, they were improving the platform to go racing.

[JC]

I'm not saying the watermelon crap is right. I'm just saying that when the GD chassis came out, there was a ton of bitching about a lack of coupe, and the reasoning from Subaru was that it's 'cause they were able to make the GD significantly stiffer for rallying, but that it required 4-doors only. The purpose wasn't for safety alone, they were improving the platform to go racing.

Prove it. Prove to me that they increased the stiffness of the chassis for rallying and not just for safety. Then I will change wikipedia and cite it. If it's just going to be uncited crap anyway it doesn't really matter. I 100% agree with you about the 4 doors btw. Not to mention even if it was stiffer for rallying that doesn't necessarily translate into better street handling. Keep in mind a stock 02 "WRX" has stiffer springs and swaybars than a real Impreza does stock, so naturally it will handle better.

[cody]

Don't forget 20" rims and a loud BOV. :roll: :p

[JC]

Don't forget 20" rims and a loud BOV. :roll: :p

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped

[cody]

Oh yah? well I'm pretty sure you're late to the Bitter Asshole...School...or something.

[JC]

Oh yah? well I'm pretty sure you're late to the Bitter Asshole...School...or something.

Never.

http://edushop.edu4kids.com/catalog/images/products/VA513_big.gif

[sperry]

Prove it. Prove to me that they increased the stiffness of the chassis for rallying and not just for safety. Then I will change wikipedia and cite it. If it's just going to be uncited crap anyway it doesn't really matter. I 100% agree with you about the 4 doors btw. Not to mention even if it was stiffer for rallying that doesn't necessarily translate into better street handling. Keep in mind a stock 02 "WRX" has stiffer springs and swaybars than a real Impreza does stock, so naturally it will handle better.
Hey, you're the one editing the Wiki article. You prove to me it *wasn't* for rally! ...which is my point, there are no good sources for this stuff, why interject a reason at all. The GD is stiffer and handles better out of the box than the GC did (be it due to the chassis, the spring, or both). Does that make it a "better" car overall, obviously not, but don't deny the facts.

Besides, you were around when the WRX came out. Did you selectively forget the 2-door vs. 4-door speculation that was flying around then?

[JC]

Hey, you're the one editing the Wiki article. You prove to me it *wasn't* for rally! ...which is my point, there are no good sources for this stuff, why interject a reason at all. The GD is stiffer and handles better out of the box than the GC did (be it due to the chassis, the spring, or both). Does that make it a "better" car overall, obviously not, but don't deny the facts.

Eh, I just wanted to take out the watermelon frame which is clearly BS. Who is denying facts? The wikipedia article said nothing about rally. The only thing I deleted was this..

"Due to the increase in stiffness, the car has much better stability in corners and is easier to control at the limit."

Which is VERY debatable. I just said that safety was the primary reason that they stiffened the chassis which I stand by. Undoubtedly Subaru gets design input from Prodrive but I'd like to point out the GD chassis has been much much less successful than the GC in WRC. So either Prodrive got it wrong or Subaru was really driven towards consumer safety.

Besides, you were around when the WRX came out. Did you selectively forget the 2-door vs. 4-door speculation that was flying around then?

What exactly are you refering to? That was a lot of bitching about there being no more 2 door.

[sperry]

Undoubtedly Subaru gets design input from Prodrive but I'd like to point out the GD chassis has been much much less successful than the GC in WRC. So either Prodrive got it wrong or Subaru was really driven towards consumer safety.

I'm betting it's just that everyone else got so much better with smaller cars. The Cits and Pugs were much better platforms... afterall, even with the updates over the years, the GD chassis really isn't all that far removed from a '92 Legacy.

What exactly are you refering to? That was a lot of bitching about there being no more 2 door.

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

[Nick Koan]

Well, the WRC in the mid to late 90's saw some of the weakest competition in recent memory.

Subaru's dominance in the late 90's was mainly because their main competition being pretty weak. Ford dropped factory support for a few years. Mitsubishi effectively ran one car for Makinen (the second driver always got the shaft in those days) and Toyota had the cheating scandal.

Also, when the WRC spec cars started replacing the Group A cars in 1998, the ballgame changed. The homologation rules changed quite a bit, and allowed manufacturers more leniency on what could be changed from the road-going version. Subaru was able to get the jump, but shortly afterwards Ford and Peugeot were able to catch up.

Basically, saying that the GC chassis is better because it was more successful in its era of rallying is not fair. The sport and the competition changed a lot between the GC and GD eras and the correlation does not equal causation.

[Kevin M]

I am in the camp that thinks Subaru axed the cou[e out of a desire to reduce production costs. Building 2 chassis is cheaper than building 3.

[JC]

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

Look at Subaru's own description, not a word about chassis stiffness...

Along with the full model change for the Impreza production car, the Impreza WRC 2001 model received a completely new body. The external appearance changed considerably from a two-door to a four-door body. However, the engine’s basic components were carried over from the Impreza WRC 2000. Along with the change in body shape, the layout of the machine had to be re-planned. The weight balance due to the lower center of gravity and concentration of mass made this machine even better than the Impreza WRC 2000.

http://www.subaru-msm.com/global/history/car/2001.html

[Dean]

Well, here is an official Subaru press release. (http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=prod_info_archive_2001.xm l&articleId=20010208&attrNavItemId=NEWS_PRODUCT_INFORMATION) While they do not directly link the chassis changes to Rally, they certinaly follow closely on their heels..

And a more current article (http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=prod_info_index.xml&articleId=20060414&attrNavItemId=NEWS_PRODUCT_INFORMATION) specifically uses the words "Competition-Bred Chassis" followed by: "A super-stiff Ring Frame Reinforced body structure...". That tells me that at least some portion of the chassis design is related to Rally...

While I agree safety was a large part of the change, I find it hard to believe they did did not include performance and handling as criteria in their design.

Where is Austin when we need him? Torsional rigidity is almost a good thing in a sprung chassis.

[MPREZIV]

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped

:brill:

[cody]

:roll: At least make a short bus joke. :monkey:

[wrxkidid]

I'm pretty sure classes are already out at Marvin Picollo*. Shouldn't you be getting to work?

*Marvin Picollo is a Reno area school for the mentally handicapped


hey i live next to that school.
cool kids.

just for cody i see about 20 short busses a day. i always think your drivng by when i see them though. :P

[cody]

I'm in the back with a disco ball. :disco:

[JonnydaJibba]

Never.

http://edushop.edu4kids.com/catalog/images/products/VA513_big.gif

:lol:

[JC]

I'm betting it's just that everyone else got so much better with smaller cars. The Cits and Pugs were much better platforms... afterall, even with the updates over the years, the GD chassis really isn't all that far removed from a '92 Legacy.

Exactly. Everyone else got smaller faster cars and Subaru got a bigger slower one. Doesn't sound like that would be Prodrive's choice to me.

People were bitching about the lack of a coupe, and the reasoning I always heard was "Subaru redesigned the car as a 4-door only because it makes for a better rally car".

People said that the bugeyes looked like a Mercedes E Class too. People will say a lot of things to justify stupid purchases. Some will even spend tens of thousands of dollars try to make a bugeye fast. Clearly these people lack proper judgment and perspective.

Basically, saying that the GC chassis is better because it was more successful in its era of rallying is not fair. The sport and the competition changed a lot between the GC and GD eras and the correlation does not equal causation.

Incorrect, the GC chassis just made all other vehicles pale in comparison. It was only with the introduction of the GD that other cars were able to compete again. Don't make me quote wikipedia I GUARANTEE it will agree with me. :P

Well, here is an official Subaru press release. (http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=prod_info_archive_2001.xm l&articleId=20010208&attrNavItemId=NEWS_PRODUCT_INFORMATION) While they do not directly link the chassis changes to Rally, they certinaly follow closely on their heels..

And a more current article (http://www.subaru.com/common/news/article_details.jsp?file=prod_info_index.xml&articleId=20060414&attrNavItemId=NEWS_PRODUCT_INFORMATION) specifically uses the words "Competition-Bred Chassis" followed by: "A super-stiff Ring Frame Reinforced body structure...". That tells me that at least some portion of the chassis design is related to Rally...

While I agree safety was a large part of the change, I find it hard to believe they did did not include performance and handling as criteria in their design.

Where is Austin when we need him? Torsional rigidity is almost a good thing in a sprung chassis.

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.

:roll: At least make a short bus joke. :monkey:

That WAS a short bus joke. You are in the middle of a JC and Scott GC vs GD debate, there is no room for slow thinkers here. Try to keep up Sally or become one of the many members who get mowed down in the crossfire.

[cody]

Sorry Dr. Cox.

[Dean]

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.There is nothing saying they ignored handling while adding safety which appears to be your claim. Their focus may have been safety, but those citings clearly show a linkage between the chassis and racing. Would Prodrive like it to be 300-500-800 pounds lighter, sure, but that apparently could not be accomplished at the same time as meeting other design and business requirements. Everything is a trade off, but chassis stiffness IMHO is almost always a significant enhancement to a racing frame. Do you disagree with that?

[sperry]

Exactly. Everyone else got smaller faster cars and Subaru got a bigger slower one. Doesn't sound like that would be Prodrive's choice to me.

The 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg. But the 2001 was a stiffer chassis.

People said that the bugeyes looked like a Mercedes E Class too. People will say a lot of things to justify stupid purchases. Some will even spend tens of thousands of dollars try to make a bugeye fast. Clearly these people lack proper judgment and perspective.

You work with what you got. I thought about an '01 instead of an '02, but the lack of a turbo made a bigger difference to me than the looks. Some of us aren't so vain that we would pass up 60hp. :P

Incorrect, the GC chassis just made all other vehicles pale in comparison. It was only with the introduction of the GD that other cars were able to compete again. Don't make me quote wikipedia I GUARANTEE it will agree with me. :P

The GC and GD chassis have both won a single WRC Championship each (McRae in '95 was still Group-A, and that was when Toyota was DQ'd, so who knows if they'd really have won it). Plus when Solberg did it in '03, he did it with 4 wins over much more advanced competition than Burns' single win in '01. I see no evidence that the GC was more dominant than the GD, and I see no evidence that it was the introduction of the GD that put Citroen on top in '04+. IMO, the reason the GD started getting beat was because Seb Loeb is a better driver than Subaru's pilots, and because the Xsara and the 206/307's all got better. Going back to the GC chassis in '04 certainly wouldn't have suddenly bumped Subaru back to the top of the WRC standings.

Nothing in that says increasing chassis stiffness was to be more competitive in racing. Do you really think if Prodrive had free reign to design a chassis they would have added 300lbs to the car? I mean honestly guys. They made the car safer, quieter, and more solid. That's so they can sell more cars not win more races.

Again, the 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg according to Subaru's own website. The 4-door GD is a stiffer chassis than the 2-door GC. Facts are facts. Feel free to make up your own "whys". I don't think the road-car weights mean much to Prodrive, considering they strip it down to nothing, then weld in a massive cage. Prodrive can make the car weigh pretty much whatever they want it to weigh, which I'm guessing is the 1,230kg WRC minimum. But I'll bet Prodrive was interested in a more rigid chassis which would allow them to spend less weight in the cage making it stiffer, thus moving weight lower in the form of ballast which lowers the CG of the car.

[Dean]

I agree with Scott completely. ;)

[sybir]

I agree with Scott completely. ;)

*spontaneous end of universe*

[JC]

The 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg. But the 2001 was a stiffer chassis.

Ok

You work with what you got. I thought about an '01 instead of an '02, but the lack of a turbo made a bigger difference to me than the looks. Some of us aren't so vain that we would pass up 60hp. :P

It was a good choice on your part. It's not like you've replaced the entire drivetrain or anything. :P One us drives an attractive car with 271hp stock and one an ugly abortion of an automobile with 227hp stock. So really I have 45 hp more AND a good looking car.

The GC and GD chassis have both won a single WRC Championship each (McRae in '95 was still Group-A, and that was when Toyota was DQ'd, so who knows if they'd really have won it). Plus when Solberg did it in '03, he did it with 4 wins over much more advanced competition than Burns' single win in '01. I see no evidence that the GC was more dominant than the GD, and I see no evidence that it was the introduction of the GD that put Citroen on top in '04+. IMO, the reason the GD started getting beat was because Seb Loeb is a better driver than Subaru's pilots, and because the Xsara and the 206/307's all got better. Going back to the GC chassis in '04 certainly wouldn't have suddenly bumped Subaru back to the top of the WRC standings.

Uh, who is re-writing history now? Subaru won the manufacturer's title in 1995, 1996, 1997 with the GC. They have won the manufacturer's title exactly zero times with the GD. Last time I check 3 > 0.

Again, the 2000 and 2001 WRC Rally cars both weighed 1,230kg according to Subaru's own website. The 4-door GD is a stiffer chassis than the 2-door GC. Facts are facts. Feel free to make up your own "whys". I don't think the road-car weights mean much to Prodrive, considering they strip it down to nothing, then weld in a massive cage. Prodrive can make the car weigh pretty much whatever they want it to weigh, which I'm guessing is the 1,230kg WRC minimum. But I'll bet Prodrive was interested in a more rigid chassis which would allow them to spend less weight in the cage making it stiffer, thus moving weight lower in the form of ballast which lowers the CG of the car.

The new Camry is stiffer too, is that so they can be more competitive in NASCAR? Each generation of car gets stiffer, that's the nature of automobiles. I'm sure Prodrive had say in the chassis design, they have had for some time now but to think that added chassis stiffness was somehow a concession to rallying is asinine.

[Joeyy]

The poduction chassis of Toyota have no barring on Nascar. That idea is asinine, Mr. JC. -that's my two cents.



The new Camry is stiffer too, is that so they can be more competitive in NASCAR? Each generation of car gets stiffer, that's the nature of automobiles. I'm sure Prodrive had say in the chassis design, they have had for some time now but to think that added chassis stiffness was somehow a concession to rallying is asinine.[/QUOTE]

[sperry]

Uh, who is re-writing history now? Subaru won the manufacturer's title in 1995, 1996, 1997 with the GC. They have won the manufacturer's title exactly zero times with the GD. Last time I check 3 > 0.

'95-'97 was still Group-A. Different ruleset for the cars. When the WRC rules changed in '98, it took Subaru 4 years to make the GC competitive, and even then they felt they needed to redesign the car. 0 = 0 as far as Subaru WRC Manufacturer's Championships by the GC vs. GD.

Plus, Manufacturers Championships are won by reliability, not speed. Winning 3 Manufacturers Titles does not indicate a fast car, it indicates cars that don't break down and/or drivers that don't crash into stuff... or just lots of cars on the grid.

Also, this is a silly debate. The GD chassis is a better platform, you're just bitching because it's ugly. If the bugeye didn't have the crappy headlights, you'd be just a bigger fan of the '02 than the '01... it's a better chassis with more power and better suspension! If that stuff isn't important to you, why did you ditch the RS for an EVO? The RS is 10 times better looking than the EVO.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

The poduction chassis of Toyota have no barring on Nascar. That idea is asinine, Mr. JC. -that's my two cents.

I think that was his point...

[JonnydaJibba]

'95-'97 was still Group-A. Different ruleset for the cars. When the WRC rules changed in '98, it took Subaru 4 years to make the GC competitive, and even then they felt they needed to redesign the car. 0 = 0 as far as Subaru WRC Manufacturer's Championships by the GC vs. GD.

Plus, Manufacturers Championships are won by reliability, not speed. Winning 3 Manufacturers Titles does not indicate a fast car, it indicates cars that don't break down and/or drivers that don't crash into stuff... or just lots of cars on the grid.

Also, this is a silly debate. The GD chassis is a better platform, you're just bitching because it's ugly. If the bugeye didn't have the crappy headlights, you'd be just a bigger fan of the '02 than the '01... it's a better chassis with more power and better suspension! If that stuff isn't important to you, why did you ditch the RS for an EVO? The RS is 10 times better looking than the EVO.

Looks like it's time to declare a winner.

[cody]

So, I realize that a performance shop could turn a Geo Metro into a competitive sports car, but I still have to wonder why they're choosing to do an L as apposed a WRX or STi. The only reasons I can think of are price, weight, and looks.

It seems like racing a more modern Subaru would get more people interested in (and make more money for) the shop and even with all of this bickering, I'm still not convinced that one or the other makes a better racecar chassis. Perhaps it's better to start with the light/flexible chassis since either way, a full cage is going in.

[M3n2c3]

So, I realize that a performance shop could turn a Geo Metro into a competitive sports car, but I still have to wonder why they're choosing to do an L as apposed a WRX or STi. The only reasons I can think of are price, weight, and looks.

It seems like racing a more modern Subaru would get more people interested in (and make more money for) the shop and even with all of this bickering, I'm still not convinced that one or the other makes a better racecar chassis. Perhaps it's better to start with the light/flexible chassis since either way, a full cage is going in.

I think it's one of those "just because" type things. You take a cheap car from the bottom of the barrel and make it badass, just because you can.

[MPREZIV]

So, I realize that a performance shop could turn a Geo Metro into a competitive sports car, but I still have to wonder why they're choosing to do an L as apposed a WRX or STi. The only reasons I can think of are price, weight, and looks.

It seems like racing a more modern Subaru would get more people interested in (and make more money for) the shop and even with all of this bickering, I'm still not convinced that one or the other makes a better racecar chassis. Perhaps it's better to start with the light/flexible chassis since either way, a full cage is going in.

Maybe they're going on the idea that starting with a CRAP beat to death Impreza L says more for their shop's abilities than starting with a car that's a rocket from the factory. I.E. STi.

My $0.02

What J. said. He beat me to it...

[JonnydaJibba]

Perhaps it's better to start with the light/flexible chassis since either way, a full cage is going in.

That's what I was going to say, because L's are the lightest. And if that's a Brighton it's even lighter.

[cody]

I think it's one of those "just because" type things. You take a cheap car from the bottom of the barrel and make it badass, just because you can.

Maybe they're going on the idea that starting with a CRAP beat to death Impreza L says more for their shop's abilities than starting with a car that's a rocket from the factory. I.E. STi.

My $0.02

What J. said. He beat me to it...

Makes sense.

[JC]

'95-'97 was still Group-A. Different ruleset for the cars. When the WRC rules changed in '98, it took Subaru 4 years to make the GC competitive, and even then they felt they needed to redesign the car. 0 = 0 as far as Subaru WRC Manufacturer's Championships by the GC vs. GD.

Plus, Manufacturers Championships are won by reliability, not speed. Winning 3 Manufacturers Titles does not indicate a fast car, it indicates cars that don't break down and/or drivers that don't crash into stuff... or just lots of cars on the grid.

Also, this is a silly debate. The GD chassis is a better platform, you're just bitching because it's ugly. If the bugeye didn't have the crappy headlights, you'd be just a bigger fan of the '02 than the '01... it's a better chassis with more power and better suspension!

What are we arguing about now? My point was that the GD chassis was made stiffer for consumer concerns not for racing. The GD is certainly a better platform than the GC for a street car. I just think if Prodrive really had their say, the car would have gotten stiffer and stayed the same weight. Who cares if they are won by reliability? That's a big component of winning rallies. IIRC the changes made in rules were added restrictor plates and the like. That would certainly make other platforms more competitive but doesn't prove your point.

If that stuff isn't important to you, why did you ditch the RS for an EVO? The RS is 10 times better looking than the EVO.

Perhaps you have forgotten...

http://www.seccs.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3628&stc=1&d=1153092217

[Dean]

What are we arguing about now? My point was that the GD chassis was made stiffer for consumer concerns not for racing.If you honestly believe they did not consider handling as well when they did the redesign, I'm sorry. Scott and I agree... FTW... :P

And that is only a flesh wound... Probably buff right out.

[JC]

If you honestly believe they did not consider handling as well when they did the redesign, I'm sorry. Scott and I agree... FTW... :P

Of course they considered handling. What they didn't do was sit down and say how can we make the next generation Impreza a more competitive rally car and design to that. That wanted to build a better street car first and foremost. I think the arguement came from what makes a better track car. I still think a GC platform if you are going to go all out.

And that is only a flesh wound... Probably buff right out.

That was a bent frame.

[cody]

I think the arguement came from what makes a better track car.

Ya think?

[Kevin M]

So, I realize that a performance shop could turn a Geo Metro into a competitive sports car, but I still have to wonder why they're choosing to do an L as apposed a WRX or STi. The only reasons I can think of are price, weight, and looks.

The WRX is out for building a dedicated track/time attack car. Ask Scott why.

An STi is a pretty good choice, but why spend $30k for a drivetrain in a heavier chassis? It's cheaper for a true race shop to swap everything into a beater they can strip down to a bare metal body-in-white than to do the same to a nearly new car.

[sperry]

I think the arguement came from what makes a better track car.

Actually here's where the argument came from:

The GC was designed specifically to be a race car chassis. It wasn't until the GD that they designed it to fit 20 inch rims and maximize BOV sound projection instead of track performance.

You stated that the GC was designed to be a race car, then you (sarcastically) implied that the GD was designed to be a street car, thus making it a worse platform for racing. I pointed out that, with the exception of the looks of the car, the GD was actually an improvement on the design of the GC with regards to racing.

If you want to talk about "track cars" and not "race cars" then things are a little different. On a track car, where modifications aren't nearly as extreme as they are in the WRC, and where the minor differences in chassis rigidity and CG between the two chassis with installed roll cages aren't as big a deal, and where there are no minimum weight rules, clearly the GC (or GM2 for that matter here in the US) is the better platform. The weight difference greatly makes up for the softer chassis. If my WRX's drivetrain were installed in a GM2, the car would probably be 400 lbs lighter, because the car itself is lighter, plus at under 3000 lbs, I could get away with a lighter roll cage and still be legal.

But in terms of the WRC, who's homologation rules prompted the changes between the GC and GD, the GD is the better race car chassis. In fact, the only thing worse about the GD (it's looks) were a result of the non-racing program. Basically, you're saying that Subaru made the car stiffer so it'd sell better, when in reality they made uglier so it'd sell better... and they F'd that up. If it weren't for the turbo being offered in the US for the first time, the bugeye would have been a huge flop just 'cause it's ugly, not 'cause it's an inferior platform.

As long as you're willing to truly believe in function over form, you'd see the GD is the superior Impreza over the GC in terms of going racing in the WRC.

[8URSTI]

Cool car, engine specs sound familiar..... Seems to have turned into a "Ive read more than you have on the internet" thread.....awsome.

[JC]

You stated that the GC was designed to be a race car, then you (sarcastically) implied that the GD was designed to be a street car, thus making it a worse platform for racing.

Oh ya, I was kidding about that. Although the GC was designed to be a race car more so than the GD, engineering and more importantly manufacturing had just come a long way since the GC was designed.

Seems to have turned into a "Ive read more than you have on the internet" thread.....awsome.

Eh, we just actually try to support our arguments with sources.