2006 Wrx Sti Top Speed
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
You'd be surprised at what that little spoiler on the back of a wagon can so. I remember way back when, when a volvo 740 turbo wagon was clocked going 155mph compared to the sedans 145mph. Wagons are pretty aerodynamic if done right.
Joined
·
42 Posts
Either way, an RPM vs MPH chart would be awesome, cause I had a little fun yesterday and don't know how fast I was going. Too busy paying attention to the road, RPMs and the car I was pulling on.
Joined
·
20 Posts
I was playing with a VW Corrado last night. I don't think I pulled on him at all anywhere from 70 till 110 but from there up I started to get him. Those sure were nice cars.
Joined
·
433 Posts
I have gone about 100 in my WRX and at those speeds and with the wind blowing strong to the left of me, it didn't exactly feel safe. But the STI wing will probably put more downforce on the car making it slowerbut more stable at higher speeds.
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
It is very stable with the wing.
Joined
·
13,832 Posts
I drove an '06 and had it up to 42mph.:eek3:
The 2.5L allows 42mph, whereas the 2.0L topped out at 39mph. Big difference when you're racing Civics.
Joined
·
603 Posts
Last I recall the wing does generate some downforce, but not enough to make a huge difference. The stiffer suspension, lower height, and underbody aero bits probably have more to do with it feeling more stable at 100+ speeds.
Joined
·
352 Posts
If you take the numbers from the MS3 vs. WRX article in consideration and their claim of 2300RPM @ 60mph that seems to work out to almost 170mph @ 6500RPM. This, of course, is assuming that it's not electronically limited to something lower AND more importantly can the car pull all the way up to 6500RPM in 5th gear. In stock form, I say no, it can't, but then its also electronically limited to about 145-150mph in stock form anyway. Stage 2 and higher, it may be able to pull all the way to redline in 5th gear but I haven't tried it so I don't really know. I do know that the limiter has been raised to 186mph with the Cobb AP so at least you wouldn't run into that. Anyway, I hope this helps.
Joined
·
6 Posts
Does anyone know if there is a speed vs. rpm chart for the '06 WRX??
If you know the gearing and RPM you can figure it out. Maybe I'll make a chart just for fun.
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Last I recall the wing does generate some downforce, but not enough to make a huge difference. The stiffer suspension, lower height, and underbody aero bits probably have more to do with it feeling more stable at 100+ speeds.
100lbs downforce @ 80mph is pretty effective.
Joined
·
8,436 Posts
I'd like to see a comparison of wing effectiveness "Whale Tale" versus "STI" in a windtunnel at 100mph. If I ever get bored I could model it in fluent given the CAD work was done already. I have seen the STI's results in a wind tunnel but never the stock wing.
I've had my 06 to 120+ ( not quite sure watching the road) and frequently, 2-3 times a week see 100+. The instability some are feeling might be the tires the stock 06 came with. Mine are the lower line Bridgestone Potenzas, but they wander something awful at speed on certain types of asphault. Definatly looking forward to when they where out. My recent clover leaf asaulting has netted lateral G's in the .90-.97 range turning right and I hit 1.0 turning left. Needless to say the tires are getting chewed, and I am fine with that.:thumbup:
Joined
·
603 Posts
100lbs downforce @ 80mph is pretty effective.
Effective sure, but I don't see 100lbs of downforce completely changing the feel of a 3000lbs+ car.
Joined
·
8,436 Posts
Effective sure, but I don't see 100lbs of downforce completely changing the feel of a 3000lbs+ car.
100lbs of downforce at the rear of the car has the potential to induce a substantional moment about the cars CG and can drastically effect pitch.
For example:
If the CG acts directly at the center of the car, the potential "simplified" moment calc (suspension effects and materials deflections aside) would be:
Moment=F*d
F=100 lbs
d=173.4/2=86.7 in/12in=7.225 feet
moment = 100 lb * 7.225 feet = 722.5 lb*ft
Which can have a huge impact on the vehicle , especially when you take into account the other aerodynamic forces acting on the vehicle at 100mph+, and overall reduction in tire contact patch at 100+.
Joined
·
603 Posts
100lbs of downforce at the rear of the car has the potential to induce a substantional moment about the cars CG and can drastically effect pitch.
For example:
If the CG acts directly at the center of the car, the potential "simplified" moment calc (suspension effects and materials deflections aside) would be:
Moment=F*d
F=100 lbs
d=173.4/2=86.7 in/12in=7.225 feet
moment = 100 lb * 7.225 feet = 722.5 lb*ft
Which can have a huge impact on the vehicle , especially when you take into account the other aerodynamic forces acting on the vehicle at 100mph+, and overall reduction in tire contact patch at 100+.
I have to admit I am not familiar with that calculation. I would like to think I could understand this with a little more explanation. First what is the moment you are talking about? I am assuming moment of inertia, but just want to be sure. Second can you cite the source you got this equation? When equations are simplified they are done so with specific purposes and I would like to make sure that this one is appropriate for ours. Third can you fully expand your calculations into a step by step format? You say F=100 but then you sub in a Moment that is apparently known without stating where or how you got that number which makes this hard for me to follow.
Joined
·
0 Posts
im having a little trouble following this too
Joined
·
109 Posts
E = MC^2
and since I is before E except after C...
There for your car can top out at 300mph
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 · (Edited)
One word......NERDS!!!!:rotfl:
Ahhahaha!
No seriously, this is good shizzle.:thumbup:
Hmmm, so my nerdy CFD friends, I have a word problem for you.
If the DF (downforce) is 100lbs. @ 80mph, then what would it be at a rate of 150mph?
Winner gets a free ride in my car hahahahaha! 
Joined
·
8,436 Posts
I have to admit I am not familiar with that calculation. I would like to think I could understand this with a little more explanation. First what is the moment you are talking about? I am assuming moment of inertia, but just want to be sure. Second can you cite the source you got this equation? When equations are simplified they are done so with specific purposes and I would like to make sure that this one is appropriate for ours. Third can you fully expand your calculations into a step by step format? You say F=100 but then you sub in a Moment that is apparently known without stating where or how you got that number which makes this hard for me to follow.
Ok.
First off lemme say that I over simplified the problem to illustrate just how much difference a 100lbs of downforce can make. The actual Calulations to determine the exact effects of 100 lbs of downforce on a WRX would be an extremely lengthy series requiring and introducing variables such as spring rate/ damping force, corner weight, weight distrbution. These calcs would take up numerous pages and require longer than I want to spend, and would be pretty much WRX specific depending on suspension choice of the owner and body style changes/body kit choices.
.
There are several computer programs built to exactly model these effects and simplify calc times, but they are expensive and only most OEM's have the capitol required to purchase them. Most specifically I'm talking about the ADAMS modeling series from MSC Software. This software coupled with Fluent, would yield exact real world results.
Other programs can be used such as NASTRAN and Working model 2d but would also require tons of assumptions and simplifications.
For the purpose of a downforce argument I simplified the WRX to a simply supported beam
and used a moment of force equation to get the above calculation. I use this process all the time to determine payload capacities and axle loading on our equipment here at work.
You can get this info out of "Vector Mechanics for Engineers, Statics and Dynamics." But the book is kinda hard to follow without it being taught to you (at least I thought so when I was in school).
Again this equation is oversimplified for illustration purposes and is not 100% accurate, but the concepts are the same.
Joined
·
465 Posts
look up "aerodynamic" in the everyday forum. theres athread still active recently showing the windtunnel test of an evo and a sti. the sti's wing created a lot of downforce at high speed, but it creates more drag. the evo is neutral, thus its ability to hit high speeds easier. stis will be more solid in high speed turns, but it creates more wind resistance.
i heard the 04 05 sti wings werent that rigid compared to evos, did they change anything on the 06 for better perf. and less flex?
Joined
·
465 Posts
look up "aerodynamic" in the everyday forum. theres athread still active recently showing the windtunnel test of an evo and a sti. the sti's wing created a lot of downforce at high speed, but it creates more drag. the evo is neutral, thus its ability to hit high speeds easier. stis will be more solid in high speed turns, but it creates more wind resistance.
i heard the 04 05 sti wings werent that rigid compared to evos, did they change anything on the 06 for better perf. and less flex?
Source: https://www.clubwrx.net/threads/06-wrx-top-speed.152778/page-2
0 Komentar