Ok

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.

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.

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.

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]

'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.

I think that was his point...

Looks like it's time to declare a winner.

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.

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...

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

Makes sense.

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.

Perhaps you have forgotten...

http://www.seccs.org/forums/attachme...1&d=1153092217

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.

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.

That was a bent frame.

Ya think?

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.

Actually here's where the argument came from:

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.

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

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.

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