Performance specs

[Chiketkd]

Originally Posted by SVXMAN2001

I know i wasn't crazy! haha thanks guys. yeah i know just as well as any other fanatic that the engine output is 230 and like 186 at the wheels.

Ummm, the power at the wheels is nowhere close to 186. Due to the awd drivetrain and automatic trans, you're looking at a parasitic loss of around 30%!!!

A stock 230hp SVX makes ~160hp at the wheels as a result. This has been shown by dyno plots from a few members over the years.

When I dyno'd my SVX on 12/15 which at the time had an STI panel filter (no other engine mods) my car made 165.1hp & 173.4 ft-lbs at the wheels.



I added a few more mods over the winter, so I'm making a little more at this point...

-Chike

[SVXMAN2001]

i stand corrected!! Still however the 92 svx is faster off the line and has a higher top end speed.

These performance specs were taken from factory publications. They are the reason that I would only buy a 1992.

1992 LS AWD: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.2, Top Speed 154, Braking 70-0 169, dBA 73

1992 LSL AWD: 0-60 6.9, 1/4 mile 15.1, Top Speed 155, Braking 70-0 170, dBA 73

1994 LS Front wheel drive: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.3, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 189, dBA 71

1994 - 1996 AWD models: 0-60 7.6, 1/4 mile 15.9, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 174, dBA 71

ALL 1997'S 0-60 7.4, 1/4 mile 15.5, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 171, dBA 70

gpsjim

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by gpsjim

These performance specs were taken from factory publications. They are the reason that I would only buy a 1992.

1992 LS AWD: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.2, Top Speed 154, Braking 70-0 169, dBA 73

1992 LSL AWD: 0-60 6.9, 1/4 mile 15.1, Top Speed 155, Braking 70-0 170, dBA 73

1994 LS Front wheel drive: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.3, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 189, dBA 71

1994 - 1996 AWD models: 0-60 7.6, 1/4 mile 15.9, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 174, dBA 71

ALL 1997'S 0-60 7.4, 1/4 mile 15.5, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 171, dBA 70

gpsjim

Is the drop in the top speed due to the change in the ECU? I take the '92s didn't have an electronic governor?

My favorite Subaru repair guy in Tacoma told me that very thing. The governors were placed on the cars after the factory decided the first model year was just a little too fast for American roads. Truth or myth?

I know that I've taken hotshots driving BMW 735i's uphill. I tend to believe the story.

gpsjim

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by gpsjim

My favorite Subaru repair guy in Tacoma told me that very thing. The governors were placed on the cars after the factory decided the first model year was just a little too fast for American roads. Truth or myth?

I know that I've taken hotshots driving BMW 735i's uphill. I tend to believe the story.

gpsjim

One things for sure, I'll never know for sure... Ain't no way I'm going that fast... It's been a loooooonnnnnnngggggg time since I was 17 and indestructable.

Originally Posted by Electrophil

One things for sure, I'll never know for sure... Ain't no way I'm going that fast... It's been a loooooonnnnnnngggggg time since I was 17 and indestructable.

why just yesterday I was tooling along at 90 mph+ in the wet..and im 33..indestructable..no...insane..answers point to yes

[Chiketkd]

Originally Posted by gpsjim

These performance specs were taken from factory publications. They are the reason that I would only buy a 1992.

I wouldn't let results like these keep you from buying a later model year SVX. A switch to a 4.111/4.444 trans & diff will soon rectify any short comings.

-Chike

[TomsSVX]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Is the drop in the top speed due to the change in the ECU? I take the '92s didn't have an electronic governor?

For the FWD i can testify that they will do 140+. Also, they have the shorter 3.70 gears so the top speed will drop. The 94 AWD should have the same top speed as 92. So if 92's are so much faster, why did I tear one up with my 94 FWD last time I was at the track? Bone stock 92 lsl against my bone stock 94 L. I ran 15.9 and he ran 16.4. So tell me again how does that work? Oh yeah he also had less mileage than me and a fresher trans. So dont go by numbers, go by what you know your car will do. Thats why everyone needs to drag their car at least once so they can stop saying, it should be this fast...

Tom

Originally Posted by tomssvx

For the FWD i can testify that they will do 140+. Also, they have the shorter 3.70 gears so the top speed will drop. The 94 AWD should have the same top speed as 92. So if 92's are so much faster, why did I tear one up with my 94 FWD last time I was at the track? Bone stock 92 lsl against my bone stock 94 L. I ran 15.9 and he ran 16.4. So tell me again how does that work? Oh yeah he also had less mileage than me and a fresher trans. So dont go by numbers, go by what you know your car will do. Thats why everyone needs to drag their car at least once so they can stop saying, it should be this fast...

Tom

true that Tom....
the best my 92 can do according to my g-tech is a 16.4..I live at high altitude so at sea level I would expect better results..now as comparison my 94 Probe GT did a 17.1 and my 98 VW GTi VR6 did a 16.2..both were manuals..the Probe is supposed to do a mid 15 and the GTi a low 15..alas neither could do that..no matter how many times I ran them...no matter how well I got my shifts down..so my 92 is quick in comparison esp with an auto..and I have compared 2 other SVXi up here a 94 and a 95..the 94 ran a 16.8 and the 95 a 16.6..on my g-tech..however my 92 seems to be and shows that its in better shape than either of those examples..I would expect a run at the drag strip to yield somewhat different results due to the g-techs inaccuracy..tho the baselines would be in the same order

[TomsSVX]

I would not be intirely surpirsed to find that most people are going to have a problem with what I said. I guess thats where I and few others differ. We live in a legitimate world where times are only ture when they have been accomplished by one's self. My brother can run his 300zxtt at 12.8 but if I were racing it, I would prob tap the mid to low 13's because of not knowing the car. So this tells me the driver matters, the car also matters too, as no two are the same. So those stats pulled, although interesting info, mean nothing to someone like myself as I did not pull those times nor seen them done. not to mention they probably did them shortly after production when the trannies were spankin new along with the motors. So to wrap it up, Most stock SVX's all years will run aprox 16.3-16.7 this allows .2s on either end for measurement of error. As it seems to me that the average is aprox 16.5. FWD models are faster than AWD models. For two reasons, higher gears and less weight. Hooking up the FWD is easy as hell on the track so launch is not much of a problem allowing it to not only have faster traps than an AWD but also faster 1/4 times. The slips we saw with the FWD running slower, obviously means that the person racing could not get his tires stuck which is driver error. Anyway I am rambling now so i will stop.

Tom

[BordeauxComet]

Originally Posted by gpsjim

These performance specs were taken from factory publications. They are the reason that I would only buy a 1992.

1992 LS AWD: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.2, Top Speed 154, Braking 70-0 169, dBA 73

1992 LSL AWD: 0-60 6.9, 1/4 mile 15.1, Top Speed 155, Braking 70-0 170, dBA 73

1994 LS Front wheel drive: 0-60 7.1, 1/4 mile 15.3, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 189, dBA 71

1994 - 1996 AWD models: 0-60 7.6, 1/4 mile 15.9, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 174, dBA 71

ALL 1997'S 0-60 7.4, 1/4 mile 15.5, Top Speed 136, Braking 70-0 171, dBA 70

gpsjim

Anyone know why the braking is so much worse on the FWD? The LS has ABS and it's lighter so shouldn't it stop faster?

[Chiketkd]

Originally Posted by BordeauxComet

Anyone know why the braking is so much worse on the FWD? The LS has ABS and it's lighter so shouldn't it stop faster?

Not all LS models had ABS - it was an option. I bet that LS model was a 'stripped down' version w/o abs...

-Chike

Originally Posted by BordeauxComet

Anyone know why the braking is so much worse on the FWD? The LS has ABS and it's lighter so shouldn't it stop faster?

It's worse because some people don't know how to control a car without ABS under heavy braking conditions. I detest ABS. Having ABS and driving in the snow is like having no brakes at all. Granted, it is good to have sometimes, I would rather not have it at all though.

I once read an article that talked about the test results on cars with ABS versus cars without ABS. Essentially, if one knows how to properly handle a car without it, the car can easily be stopped just as quickly as the other ABS equipped vehicle.

[nextse7en]

With stock 3.54 tranny 4th gear will result in 195 MPH at 6700RPM Thats if the engine had enough power.

because an SVX won't see that speed without some engine building and forced induction. Saying that shorter gears will result in a lower top speed just isn't true. Just the opposite, While it doesn't make mathmatical sense at first - a stock engine will reach a higher top speed with shorter gears by requiring less horsepower to accelerate to and maintain any given speed. Shorter gears will only provide a lower top speed on a car that actually can reach its redline (as opposed to drag) limited top speed.

Just my $.02


PS. Someone sell me a 4.44 auto and rear diff please.






97.5 3350