IW STi Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As far as production cars realeased in America, besides the new EVO and STI, are there any other stock 4-door vehicles capable of sub-5 sec., 0-60 times? Or is our STI one of the first?

(The only close contender I can think of is the BMW M5, which you will see varying times on (from 4.8-5.2), depending on what you read.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
ah

Ah, yes, forgot about those darn AMGs.

Even though Mercedes bought (the previously independent performance company) AMG, I'm still debating whether I consider AMGs stock or not. It's kinda like a Saleen Mustang, in my opinion.

But, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
The BMW M3 (E46) is listed in R&T at 4.7s. Oh yeah, it's no longer available in 4 doors. :( The M5 is pretty close if not there. I guess the Mustang isn't available in 4 doors either. I don't see any others tested by R&T. Other than that, maybe a Dinan package on a 330i (expensive and not really a stock car, but I think you can get it warrantied).

Mercedes... who can keep track of which model is which body type? S55 AMG is listed at 0-60 in 5.7s in R&T vs. your 4.6s. The C32 AMG is similarly listed as 5.1s compared to your 4.9s. They didn't test the S600.

The June 2003 R&T finds the Audi RS6 at 4.6s, the M5 at 4.8s, and the E55 AMG at 4.2s. Some of these are pretty new models, and they're all quite expensive ($73-85k). But they sure are fast. While they'd be fun to take for a spin at an autocross, the STi and Evo should do better and be more fun in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
My brother just picked up his new E55 AMG earlier this week. It is still in the 1,000 mile break-in period but the supercharged throaty 5.4 liter V8 comes alive quick and early...try 516 Ib-ft at 2,500 RMPs :D

I saw it in the new R&T running a 4.2/12.4 1/4 mile. That is just as fast as a Z06 and in Viper territory for a 4,200 pound sedan. I will post a full report once the break-in period is over. It has 3-way adjustable ride hight and pneumatic suspension and 3 settings for stifness.

Hopefully he will wanna swap with my STi when I get it. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Availability Issue in So-Cal

He meant 2003 S55 amg, which is 500 hp and 500 torque, versus old s55 Amg 349 hp and like 370 torque..

WRX_Mundi said:
The BMW M3 (E46) is listed in R&T at 4.7s. Oh yeah, it's no longer available in 4 doors. :( The M5 is pretty close if not there. I guess the Mustang isn't available in 4 doors either. I don't see any others tested by R&T. Other than that, maybe a Dinan package on a 330i (expensive and not really a stock car, but I think you can get it warrantied).

Mercedes... who can keep track of which model is which body type? S55 AMG is listed at 0-60 in 5.7s in R&T vs. your 4.6s. The C32 AMG is similarly listed as 5.1s compared to your 4.9s. They didn't test the S600.

The June 2003 R&T finds the Audi RS6 at 4.6s, the M5 at 4.8s, and the E55 AMG at 4.2s. Some of these are pretty new models, and they're all quite expensive ($73-85k). But they sure are fast. While they'd be fun to take for a spin at an autocross, the STi and Evo should do better and be more fun in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
amdmaxx said:
He meant 2003 S55 amg, which is 500 hp and 500 torque, versus old s55 Amg 349 hp and like 370 torque..
I see... That certainly explains the discrepency. R&T did test the new E55 AMG and got 4.2s. Unfortunately I am woefully under-informed with respect to Mercedes offerings. I didn't mean to imply that he was wrong and I was right -- just pointing out the different numbers, which seemed to be a lot more than simply different testers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
alfredob1 said:
Mercedes-Benz
C32 AMG - 4.9
E55 AMG - 4.5
S55 AMG - 4.6
S600 - 4.6
Yo i was just wondering who published these numbers for the AMG's. I have never seen them that low before. AMG's have gobs of power but they are soooo heavy and don't have the greatest gearbox for speed.

As far as the M5 goes, I have laid down a 4.9 0-60 with a 2000MY according to a G-Tech Pro. That was not at a track but when i compare my G-Tech Pro's times with my track times they are usually verrrry close. I also didn't get the greatest launch cause it was a friends car and i didn't want to damage anything. Also it is a real pain launching an M5 cause there is a very thin line between huge burnout and good holeshot with that car. I know i could get a lower 0-60 if i had an M5 i didn't care about to flog for a day. Peace!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I can't confirm any of the numbers except for the C32. I got one for my wife, and she lets me drive it once in a while. It is *fast* and 4.9 is about right. It definitely feels faster than my modified S4 (never taken it to the track, and I am guess it makes a little more than 300hp).

X-Japan said:
alfredob1 said:
Mercedes-Benz
C32 AMG - 4.9
E55 AMG - 4.5
S55 AMG - 4.6
S600 - 4.6
Yo i was just wondering who published these numbers for the AMG's. I have never seen them that low before. AMG's have gobs of power but they are soooo heavy and don't have the greatest gearbox for speed.

As far as the M5 goes, I have laid down a 4.9 0-60 with a 2000MY according to a G-Tech Pro. That was not at a track but when i compare my G-Tech Pro's times with my track times they are usually verrrry close. I also didn't get the greatest launch cause it was a friends car and i didn't want to damage anything. Also it is a real pain launching an M5 cause there is a very thin line between huge burnout and good holeshot with that car. I know i could get a lower 0-60 if i had an M5 i didn't care about to flog for a day. Peace!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Has anyone heard what the Volvo S60 R will do. Its also a 300hp / 300 lbft torque car. And 4 wheel drive.

Hmmm Sounds familier 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Nasioc has volvo vs STi thread.. go check it out..
Volvo's are unreliable they claiming... I dont know about that though..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Last I heard..., and that wasn't long ago, Volvos were some of Subarus' strongest competition for reliability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
I have to agree with Murley here. (not that that is unusual)

My sister has had a Volvo for 4 year and no troubles yet.

And by the way she drives like a bat outta hell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
ingraham said:
I have to agree with Murley here. (not that that is unusual)

My sister has had a Volvo for 4 year and no troubles yet.

And by the way she drives like a bat outta hell
I have a '96 850 GLT with 100k miles..I swear the engine is as tight as the day we bought the car. Plus, there are no noises coming from the engine: still smooth and quiet. No issues outside of batteries/headlights etc.

I also have an '01 XC70 AWD with 28k miles. No issues with this vehicle as well. If I wasn't buying the STi I'd be buying another Volvo.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top