Reports! CR-Z 1.6 TURBO NEXT YEAR!
#21
12-06-2010 | 02:50 PM
The k20 engine is old news. You can't just keep using the same engine then the technology will never advance. The fact that they are experimenting with forced induction gets me excited.
Forced induction is a great amount of power added to any engine. The Dodge Neon SRT-4 sold millions of units.
Forced induction is a great amount of power added to any engine. The Dodge Neon SRT-4 sold millions of units.
But most of us bought the Fit for it's handling, so boosting our 1.5Ls is certainly the best option. It gives a much needed dose of torque across the board with proper compressor matching.
The 420A block in the SRT-4, the same one from the 3G eclipse and 2g eclipse spyder, hyundai elantra (also under the Mitsu family name 4G64, Hyundai code G4CS, etc.) is a potent little 2.4l 4-banger.
But without the turbo it puts out only 135hp. The original use of the SRT-4 engine was in non-turbo 2G DSMs!
#22
12-06-2010 | 02:59 PM
"just put a bigger engine in it" is archaic reasoning. if honda, or any automaker for that matter, wants to be competitive in 2012+ they're going to exercise all their engineering resources to appease overly demanding consumers. look at chevy and ford, companies known for "bigger is better", they're doing great things with the fiesta and cruze...
i think the 1.6t is a step in the right direction; i'd rather buy a honda with a small displacement fuel efficient turbo engine than lame ass "sport" hybrid.. 200+ lbs batteries and electric motors out. 10 lbs turbos with tune ability in. it's win/win
Last edited by GD3_Wagoon; 12-06-2010 at 03:21 PM. Reason: edited for clarity
#23
12-06-2010 | 03:03 PM
...The 420A block in the SRT-4, the same one from the 3G eclipse and 2g eclipse spyder, hyundai elantra (also under the Mitsu family name 4G64, Hyundai code G4CS, etc.) is a potent little 2.4l 4-banger.
But without the turbo it puts out only 135hp. The original use of the SRT-4 engine was in non-turbo 2G DSMs!
But without the turbo it puts out only 135hp. The original use of the SRT-4 engine was in non-turbo 2G DSMs!
lol
#24
12-06-2010 | 03:17 PM
I agree for the most part unless the K in question is an RDX K23-T
But most of us bought the Fit for it's handling, so boosting our 1.5Ls is certainly the best option. It gives a much needed dose of torque across the board with proper compressor matching.
The 420A block in the SRT-4, the same one from the 3G eclipse and 2g eclipse spyder, hyundai elantra (also under the Mitsu family name 4G64, Hyundai code G4CS, etc.) is a potent little 2.4l 4-banger.
But without the turbo it puts out only 135hp. The original use of the SRT-4 engine was in non-turbo 2G DSMs!
But most of us bought the Fit for it's handling, so boosting our 1.5Ls is certainly the best option. It gives a much needed dose of torque across the board with proper compressor matching.
The 420A block in the SRT-4, the same one from the 3G eclipse and 2g eclipse spyder, hyundai elantra (also under the Mitsu family name 4G64, Hyundai code G4CS, etc.) is a potent little 2.4l 4-banger.
But without the turbo it puts out only 135hp. The original use of the SRT-4 engine was in non-turbo 2G DSMs!
#25
12-06-2010 | 03:49 PM
Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 89
From: Dallastown PA
The Fit is a mass market economy car that also happens to be fun to drive. A turbo performance motor would, imho, kill the car. Putting a 160HP motor in it would not be a great idea to the vast majority of the folks looking at them. This motor would mean they needed to add:
bigger brakes
rear disks
wider tires
maybe wider wheels
premium fuel ($$$)
increased fuel consumption
beefier suspension
EXPENSIVE INSURANCE!
Doing this to a fit would probably add $5K - $7K to the sticker price.
And for that money you could buy a WRX, GTi, or any of the other established breed of hot hatches.
Zach
bigger brakes
rear disks
wider tires
maybe wider wheels
premium fuel ($$$)
increased fuel consumption
beefier suspension
EXPENSIVE INSURANCE!
Doing this to a fit would probably add $5K - $7K to the sticker price.
And for that money you could buy a WRX, GTi, or any of the other established breed of hot hatches.
Zach
#26
12-06-2010 | 04:03 PM
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 120
From: New England
Sales are low? They sold more in the first month than they planned for the whole year here actually. I see them on the road every single day. Of course the sales numbers at first were because of the Japanese need to be trendy and new, but still they already beat their first year numbers so how can anyone say sales are low?
But did you even read the article? Here let me quote it for you...
Plans for more than a hybrid engine for the Japanese Car of the Year come as sales of the two-door coupé have started to sag in the firm’s all-important home market.
#27
12-06-2010 | 04:04 PM
The Fit is a mass market economy car that also happens to be fun to drive. A turbo performance motor would, imho, kill the car. Putting a 160HP motor in it would not be a great idea to the vast majority of the folks looking at them. This motor would mean they needed to add:
bigger brakes
rear disks
wider tires
maybe wider wheels
premium fuel ($$$)
increased fuel consumption
beefier suspension
EXPENSIVE INSURANCE!
Doing this to a fit would probably add $5K - $7K to the sticker price.
And for that money you could buy a WRX, GTi, or any of the other established breed of hot hatches.
Zach
bigger brakes
rear disks
wider tires
maybe wider wheels
premium fuel ($$$)
increased fuel consumption
beefier suspension
EXPENSIVE INSURANCE!
Doing this to a fit would probably add $5K - $7K to the sticker price.
And for that money you could buy a WRX, GTi, or any of the other established breed of hot hatches.
Zach
Well some of those are certainly valid points, but Honda has kind of a Jeckyll and Hyde consumer base.
A $5k-7k grand touring package that added the above and some independent rear suspension like the EUDM/JDM Civic Si hatches from a couple years ago would be fantastic.
The GD3 looks almost identical to the Si hatch, except it has four doors.
Last I checked though the STi and GTI were both $28k+
A loaded GE for $17,000 plus $7k is only $24k. Not only that but it weighs almost 900lbs less than either of the above. Insurance wouldn't be too bad compared to cars of comparable performance, at the end of the day it is still a 4 door honda hatch
Fuel economy would remain roughly the same out of boost, with only 100cc more cylinder to fill. The added rolling friction from wider tires is inescapable, but The difference between a 195 and 215/225 is going to be maybe 2-4mpg.
Plus if you are in the market for a hot hatch you aren't necessarily looking for 40mpg. Plus think of all the cargo space in a GE vs an STi or GTI
And I already put premium in my GD3, so that wouldn't bother me, but some would call me eccentric
#28
12-06-2010 | 04:15 PM
Yeah, I'm sure initial CR-Z sales were high. Any new concept vehicle is going to have a ton of "early adopters" jump on board when the car is first released. And in this case, many loyal CRX owners were eager to pick one up as well.
But did you even read the article? Here let me quote it for you...
I am glad you are keeping inventory of all the CR-Z's you see on the streets of Japan. But I'm going to go ahead and trust the article over your personal accounting system. If you are going to present facts like that you should really back them up somehow...
But did you even read the article? Here let me quote it for you...
I am glad you are keeping inventory of all the CR-Z's you see on the streets of Japan. But I'm going to go ahead and trust the article over your personal accounting system. If you are going to present facts like that you should really back them up somehow...
If sales were low why would they bother developing new drivetrain? The japanese are the reason we have lean manufacturing.. Just my 2psi
Edit: Found this abstract, but still looking for the body of the article:
Well, Honda has finally released their 1st month sales report on the CR-Z. The final orders on this period are as many as 10k, which means nearly as much as the 12k yearly target.
As I've said on a previous topic, it is the norm for any successfully launched car in Japan to largely surpass its monthly target on its first month, but it IS extraordinary for it to do it by 10 times ! For as long as I've been monitoring those things, this has never happened before.
Here is a bit more info from the PR.
Main selling points.
- Unique performance/ECO blend offered by the 1.5L VTEC IMA powertrain.
- Great exterior styling and technologically advanced quality interior.
- 3-mode driving switch.
- Utility offered by the rear hatch and reclining seats.
About the owners demographics.
- 50% come from another Honda, 50% from other brads.
- Pretty varied : 15% singles on their 20s, 35% singles over 30, and 35% married over 40.
About the trims
- 90% alpha (higher trim) / 10% beta (lower trim)
- 40 % MT / 60% CVT
About the most popular options
- HiD : 92%
- 16" alloys : 90%
- Smart key (keyless start) : 90%
- HDD navy with 180º rear camera & internavy : 62%
Colours popularity
- White : 42%
- Silver : 17%
- Black : 12%
- Strange kind of dark green : 12%
- Turquoise : 7%
- Red : 7%
- Orange : 3%
Editorial notes:
- I don't think anyone would have guessed about this start a month or two ago. Sure this kind of selling pace won't last, but for sure Honda must be encouraged by it.
- Pretty much surprised about the high MT penetration, although I would put that on the novelty of this offer alone, and certainly expect it to fade quickly with time. Still, good news for stick-lovers !
As I've said on a previous topic, it is the norm for any successfully launched car in Japan to largely surpass its monthly target on its first month, but it IS extraordinary for it to do it by 10 times ! For as long as I've been monitoring those things, this has never happened before.
Here is a bit more info from the PR.
Main selling points.
- Unique performance/ECO blend offered by the 1.5L VTEC IMA powertrain.
- Great exterior styling and technologically advanced quality interior.
- 3-mode driving switch.
- Utility offered by the rear hatch and reclining seats.
About the owners demographics.
- 50% come from another Honda, 50% from other brads.
- Pretty varied : 15% singles on their 20s, 35% singles over 30, and 35% married over 40.
About the trims
- 90% alpha (higher trim) / 10% beta (lower trim)
- 40 % MT / 60% CVT
About the most popular options
- HiD : 92%
- 16" alloys : 90%
- Smart key (keyless start) : 90%
- HDD navy with 180º rear camera & internavy : 62%
Colours popularity
- White : 42%
- Silver : 17%
- Black : 12%
- Strange kind of dark green : 12%
- Turquoise : 7%
- Red : 7%
- Orange : 3%
Editorial notes:
- I don't think anyone would have guessed about this start a month or two ago. Sure this kind of selling pace won't last, but for sure Honda must be encouraged by it.
- Pretty much surprised about the high MT penetration, although I would put that on the novelty of this offer alone, and certainly expect it to fade quickly with time. Still, good news for stick-lovers !
Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; 12-06-2010 at 06:56 PM.
#29
12-06-2010 | 04:46 PM
Just thinking out loud here, but why couldn't Honda have the current CRZ as well as a perf model w/o the hybrid assist
Hell, for that matter, same idea with the Fit. Honestly, perf wise, the only thing that makes a "sport" stand out is 1" larger wheels (alum) and a rear sway bar, come on. IMO, the sport should offer somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 hp IMO, how awesome would this car be with 150 hp/135 ft/lbs of torque in stock trim. I don't care about running premium, I do that already (please, no comments on this, we've got a thread for this already in ECO)
As far as chassis and brakes to compliment the true "sport", sure, go for it. Slightly larger rear sway bar and 1" larger rotors and better pads for aggressive driving, again, no problem. Add some bracing while your under there too.
I've always wondered why OE's can't just go ahead and make the other part of hi-perf cars a reality, i.e. brakes and handling. I mean it doesn't affect mileage having larger brakes, rear disc brakes and a more aggressive suspension or am I missing something. Not everyone wants/needs 300 hp in a FWD car to really enjoy it. Appeal more to those "educated" enthusists who research their cars and really enjoy the drive, knowing a 250 hp, FWD car isn't the ticket when it comes to carving up mountains roads, back roads or any other twisties out there.
Hell, for that matter, same idea with the Fit. Honestly, perf wise, the only thing that makes a "sport" stand out is 1" larger wheels (alum) and a rear sway bar, come on. IMO, the sport should offer somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 hp IMO, how awesome would this car be with 150 hp/135 ft/lbs of torque in stock trim. I don't care about running premium, I do that already (please, no comments on this, we've got a thread for this already in ECO)As far as chassis and brakes to compliment the true "sport", sure, go for it. Slightly larger rear sway bar and 1" larger rotors and better pads for aggressive driving, again, no problem. Add some bracing while your under there too.
I've always wondered why OE's can't just go ahead and make the other part of hi-perf cars a reality, i.e. brakes and handling. I mean it doesn't affect mileage having larger brakes, rear disc brakes and a more aggressive suspension or am I missing something. Not everyone wants/needs 300 hp in a FWD car to really enjoy it. Appeal more to those "educated" enthusists who research their cars and really enjoy the drive, knowing a 250 hp, FWD car isn't the ticket when it comes to carving up mountains roads, back roads or any other twisties out there.
#31
12-06-2010 | 05:49 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
From: Puerto Rico
Originally Posted by AUTOCAR
The CR-Z Hybrid R concept actually includes both technologies, helping to deliver 200-hp and 175 ft-lbs of torque. That’s up significantly from the stock 122-hp. Of note, the high-powered CR-Z will reportedly use a slightly larger 4-cylinder engine, with a 1.6-liter displacement rather than the 1.5-liter used in the production model and in the SEMA Show concepts.
Like many automakers, Honda will look to promote turbocharging as a way to achieve high-horsepower and conserve fuel. The 1.6-liter turbocharged engine would deliver similar output to a 2.0-liter and could eventually be used in the Jazz/Fit, Civic and Accord. Different levels of tune could also be offered, with a base motor making 160-hp, while a high-performance version could deliver as much as 200-hp.
Like many automakers, Honda will look to promote turbocharging as a way to achieve high-horsepower and conserve fuel. The 1.6-liter turbocharged engine would deliver similar output to a 2.0-liter and could eventually be used in the Jazz/Fit, Civic and Accord. Different levels of tune could also be offered, with a base motor making 160-hp, while a high-performance version could deliver as much as 200-hp.
Last edited by fargasj; 12-06-2010 at 05:53 PM.
#32
12-06-2010 | 06:09 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
From: Puerto Rico
read this...
Originally Posted by AutoCar
The 1.6-liter turbocharged engine would deliver similar output to a 2.0-liter and could eventually be used in the Jazz/Fit, Civic and Accord. Different levels of tune could also be offered, with a base motor making 160-hp, while a high-performance version could deliver as much as 200-hp.
#33
12-06-2010 | 06:28 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
From: Puerto Rico
Some sources say that the Turbo version will still be hybrid:
Originally Posted by http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1042862_honda-cr-z-type-r-planned-for-2012
The Type-R version will also carry an up-rated electric motor which adds an additional 50 hp to the vehicle. Combined output will be 200 hp, or on par with Civic Si vehicles.
#34
12-06-2010 | 06:48 PM
Problem is they are saying it "could" be introduced to the Jazz/Fit, and odds are it won't be going to the USDM.
Also, by the time they introduce it to the USDM, they may not even be using the GE chassis.
All the manufacturers, including Ford and GM have forsaken our domestic market.
We don't get the Ford Falcon, Focus etc We don't get VW's twincharged 1.4L in anything, let alone the 70mpg VW Polo. Honda screws us as well.
Why would they bring it here? Americans are notorious for buying the most expensive base model they can find usually for reasons of perceived status, as opposed to loading up the options on a cheaper model.
Even then, why waste the money to try and swap that engine into the GE/GDs?
You have (GE owners) a Formula Ford/SCCA engine in the car from the showroom, in fact they put restrictors on the engine with the only real modification being a bolt on dry-sump system and a nicer intake plenum and runners..
Turbo your L15A.
Or buy a 1.6T CR-Z. It doesn't make sense in terms of cost or power to do it otherwise unless you are going for novelty.
Also, by the time they introduce it to the USDM, they may not even be using the GE chassis.
All the manufacturers, including Ford and GM have forsaken our domestic market.
We don't get the Ford Falcon, Focus etc We don't get VW's twincharged 1.4L in anything, let alone the 70mpg VW Polo. Honda screws us as well.
Why would they bring it here? Americans are notorious for buying the most expensive base model they can find usually for reasons of perceived status, as opposed to loading up the options on a cheaper model.
Even then, why waste the money to try and swap that engine into the GE/GDs?
You have (GE owners) a Formula Ford/SCCA engine in the car from the showroom, in fact they put restrictors on the engine with the only real modification being a bolt on dry-sump system and a nicer intake plenum and runners..
Turbo your L15A.
Or buy a 1.6T CR-Z. It doesn't make sense in terms of cost or power to do it otherwise unless you are going for novelty.
#36
12-06-2010 | 06:54 PM
Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 89
From: Dallastown PA
Well some of those are certainly valid points, but Honda has kind of a Jeckyll and Hyde consumer base.
A $5k-7k grand touring package that added the above and some independent rear suspension like the EUDM/JDM Civic Si hatches from a couple years ago would be fantastic.
The GD3 looks almost identical to the Si hatch, except it has four doors.
Last I checked though the STi and GTI were both $28k+
A loaded GE for $17,000 plus $7k is only $24k. Not only that but it weighs almost 900lbs less than either of the above. Insurance wouldn't be too bad compared to cars of comparable performance, at the end of the day it is still a 4 door honda hatch
Fuel economy would remain roughly the same out of boost, with only 100cc more cylinder to fill. The added rolling friction from wider tires is inescapable, but The difference between a 195 and 215/225 is going to be maybe 2-4mpg.
Plus if you are in the market for a hot hatch you aren't necessarily looking for 40mpg. Plus think of all the cargo space in a GE vs an STi or GTI
And I already put premium in my GD3, so that wouldn't bother me, but some would call me eccentric
A $5k-7k grand touring package that added the above and some independent rear suspension like the EUDM/JDM Civic Si hatches from a couple years ago would be fantastic.
The GD3 looks almost identical to the Si hatch, except it has four doors.
Last I checked though the STi and GTI were both $28k+
A loaded GE for $17,000 plus $7k is only $24k. Not only that but it weighs almost 900lbs less than either of the above. Insurance wouldn't be too bad compared to cars of comparable performance, at the end of the day it is still a 4 door honda hatch
Fuel economy would remain roughly the same out of boost, with only 100cc more cylinder to fill. The added rolling friction from wider tires is inescapable, but The difference between a 195 and 215/225 is going to be maybe 2-4mpg.
Plus if you are in the market for a hot hatch you aren't necessarily looking for 40mpg. Plus think of all the cargo space in a GE vs an STi or GTI
And I already put premium in my GD3, so that wouldn't bother me, but some would call me eccentric
All the upgrades that would have to go along with a more powerful engine would also increase the weight of the fit. You start running into the "Golf Delema." As more powerful models come out, the weight of the car is also increasing leading to a car that is less fun to drive. To see what I mean, drive an underpowered Mk1 Gti, and a Mk4 or 5 Gti. Its different worlds, even though the later ones have 2X the power of the first.
Loosing 4 mpg off the EPA estimate would bring it into competition with the Subarus and VWs as well. It would still have an edge, but its fighting with force fed cars with a full liter more displacement.
Still, I have to admit the pocket rocket qualities of the car would be a lot of fun to AX with.
Last edited by Vacca Rabite; 12-06-2010 at 06:56 PM.
#37
12-06-2010 | 06:59 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
From: Puerto Rico
A WRX is still ~24K, and that would be where a turbo fit would be competing, not at the STi level. Given a choice between the two cars, it would be a hard sell to choose the Honda over the Subaru, given the huge proven aftermarket for the WRX and the added benefit of AWD.
All the upgrades that would have to go along with a more powerful engine would also increase the weight of the fit. You start running into the "Golf Delema." As more powerful models come out, the weight of the car is also increasing leading to a car that is less fun to drive. To see what I mean, drive an underpowered Mk1 Gti, and a Mk4 or 5 Gti. Its different worlds, even though the later ones have 2X the power of the first.
Loosing 4 mpg off the EPA estimate would bring it into competition with the Subarus and VWs as well. It would still have an edge, but its fighting with force fed cars with a full liter more displacement.
Still, I have to admit the pocket rocket qualities of the car would be a lot of fun to AX with.
All the upgrades that would have to go along with a more powerful engine would also increase the weight of the fit. You start running into the "Golf Delema." As more powerful models come out, the weight of the car is also increasing leading to a car that is less fun to drive. To see what I mean, drive an underpowered Mk1 Gti, and a Mk4 or 5 Gti. Its different worlds, even though the later ones have 2X the power of the first.
Loosing 4 mpg off the EPA estimate would bring it into competition with the Subarus and VWs as well. It would still have an edge, but its fighting with force fed cars with a full liter more displacement.
Still, I have to admit the pocket rocket qualities of the car would be a lot of fun to AX with.
#38
12-06-2010 | 07:06 PM
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,899
From: tx
Refreshing to see some reasonable, realistic, well informed viewpoints on these kinds of things. We probably won't see this car in the US, like most cars that have similar qualities. Too small anyways, and honestly, I'm not really finding the CR-Z to be that striking. I think they need to just basically offer it without the hybrid technology as a base model and just make it a cheaper car. Wouldn't it be faster and sportier than a Fit or current CR-Z without the extra weight, while retaining the six speed? How much does the hybrid system weigh? It's a tiny freaking car.
edit: c'mon Honda, at least bedazzle me with some crazy LEDs on the front or something. I saw one the other day that was dirty, and it looked downright cheap. The S2000 ap2 had an amazing presence with similar cues. What went wrong?? I blame pedestrian crash tests. The nose needs to come down to more of a point, like a lancia or something. Then there's the high beltline, which without the side impact ratings, would be lower, as well as the whole profile of the car. One thing more people need to understand when looking at a car, is all the limitations, because those are what you are working within. The end result is basically the result of compliance through creative problem solving.
edit: c'mon Honda, at least bedazzle me with some crazy LEDs on the front or something. I saw one the other day that was dirty, and it looked downright cheap. The S2000 ap2 had an amazing presence with similar cues. What went wrong?? I blame pedestrian crash tests. The nose needs to come down to more of a point, like a lancia or something.
Then there's the high beltline, which without the side impact ratings, would be lower, as well as the whole profile of the car. One thing more people need to understand when looking at a car, is all the limitations, because those are what you are working within. The end result is basically the result of compliance through creative problem solving.
Last edited by hayden; 12-06-2010 at 07:15 PM.
#39
12-06-2010 | 07:18 PM
A WRX is still ~24K, and that would be where a turbo fit would be competing, not at the STi level. Given a choice between the two cars, it would be a hard sell to choose the Honda over the Subaru, given the huge proven aftermarket for the WRX and the added benefit of AWD.
All the upgrades that would have to go along with a more powerful engine would also increase the weight of the fit. You start running into the "Golf Delema." As more powerful models come out, the weight of the car is also increasing leading to a car that is less fun to drive. To see what I mean, drive an underpowered Mk1 Gti, and a Mk4 or 5 Gti. Its different worlds, even though the later ones have 2X the power of the first.
Loosing 4 mpg off the EPA estimate would bring it into competition with the Subarus and VWs as well. It would still have an edge, but its fighting with force fed cars with a full liter more displacement.
Still, I have to admit the pocket rocket qualities of the car would be a lot of fun to AX with.
All the upgrades that would have to go along with a more powerful engine would also increase the weight of the fit. You start running into the "Golf Delema." As more powerful models come out, the weight of the car is also increasing leading to a car that is less fun to drive. To see what I mean, drive an underpowered Mk1 Gti, and a Mk4 or 5 Gti. Its different worlds, even though the later ones have 2X the power of the first.
Loosing 4 mpg off the EPA estimate would bring it into competition with the Subarus and VWs as well. It would still have an edge, but its fighting with force fed cars with a full liter more displacement.
Still, I have to admit the pocket rocket qualities of the car would be a lot of fun to AX with.
I love AWD/4WD in it's various iterations. So much so that ever since I sold my AWD TSi and the Ram 4x4 dually, I have been determined to finally put the AWD subframe, rear diff, driveshaft and the carriers/yokes/axles into my Laser which is currently in FWD form... because that is the transmission I had available at the time.
After the holidays are over I need to get the motivation to pull and replace the 3/4 shift rail, slider, fork and hub that I broke last summer, then it is back on the road in AWD form!
I don't think I will miss lighting up the front tires after rolling into boost @ 100mph
My dream fit would be a Turbo GD4 (4WD GD3, yes I know it is not a "performance" AWD system in the sense an Evo/STi has) But the import would cost as much as the car, the turbo and all supporting components only to get everything assembled and then shatter gears, diffs and cv shafts..
Last edited by DiamondStarMonsters; 12-06-2010 at 07:21 PM.
#40
12-06-2010 | 07:25 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
From: Puerto Rico
I agree entirely, and for some reason I forget about the poor middle child WRX
I love AWD/4WD in it's various iterations. So much so that ever since I sold my AWD TSi and the Ram 4x4 dually, I have been determined to finally put the AWD subframe, rear diff, driveshaft and the carriers/yokes/axles into my Laser which is currently in FWD form... because that is the transmission I had available at the time.
After the holidays are over I need to get the motivation to pull and replace the 3/4 shift rail, slider, fork and hub that I broke last summer, then it is back on the road in AWD form!
I don't think I will miss lighting up the front tires after rolling into boost @ 100mph
My dream fit would be a Turbo GD4 (4WD GD3, yes I know it is not a "performance" AWD system in the sense an Evo/STi has) But the import would cost as much as the car, the turbo and all supporting components only to get everything assembled and then shatter gears, diffs and cv shafts..
I love AWD/4WD in it's various iterations. So much so that ever since I sold my AWD TSi and the Ram 4x4 dually, I have been determined to finally put the AWD subframe, rear diff, driveshaft and the carriers/yokes/axles into my Laser which is currently in FWD form... because that is the transmission I had available at the time.
After the holidays are over I need to get the motivation to pull and replace the 3/4 shift rail, slider, fork and hub that I broke last summer, then it is back on the road in AWD form!
I don't think I will miss lighting up the front tires after rolling into boost @ 100mph
My dream fit would be a Turbo GD4 (4WD GD3, yes I know it is not a "performance" AWD system in the sense an Evo/STi has) But the import would cost as much as the car, the turbo and all supporting components only to get everything assembled and then shatter gears, diffs and cv shafts..
My past cars:
Rotor Glow '10 EVO MR
First 10 Seconds EVO X
Turbo Magazine featured EVO 9