MSP does good in comparo

[loj68]

ALERT SEARCH NAZI'S: I did search around to make sure I wasn't re-posting. I found a few threads that referenced this comparo but nothing with the actual link.

OK, the link below is to a Popular Mechanics magazine comparo of 12 sport compacts. They include our MSP, the SRT-4, EVO, STI, etc.

The MSP actually beat all the other cars in braking and came in 3rd place for total lap times behind the obvious first 2 which were the EVO and STI. Not too shabby. Goes to prove what many of us already know....what our MSP lacks in HP it makes up for in other areas. That kind of balanced performance is why we bought an MSP in the first place.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2003/8/mighty_mites/print.phtml

 

[BrianV]

0-60 = 8.05 seconds
That feels about right, these cars do not feel like 7.0 second 0-60 cars, although the flash helps a bit.

 

[Newf]

repost

 

[loj68]

repost

lol....I knew I had that one comin'

 

[vodapas77]

Strange how results of tests vary. The Focus actually bested the MSP in the slalom and tied it on the skidpad. That's the first time I have ever seen that happen in a comparo.

Good article though, if it is a repost thanks, cause I missed it on the first round.

 

[Newf]

couldn't help it man Just kidding though. Never been posted in this section as far as I know.

we talked about this in the p5 section under abs vs non abs. The tests are all messed up. They even mentioned something about the elevation messing with the numbers too.

 

[jaymode]

0-60 = 8.05 seconds
That feels about right, these cars do not feel like 7.0 second 0-60 cars, although the flash helps a bit.

It says that the tests were done at a 1/2 mile above sea level, which would explain the times.

 

[vodapas77]

Definitely, amazing how much altitude can mess with a car. I probably only live at around 500 ft asl and it's still amazing the way the hesitation increases when I drive back up from Pearl Harbor.

 

[BrianV]

Yeah 2600 feet will OWN 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

I think the NHRA altitude correction would be around 5-7 tenths at that elevation, which would mean mid 15 seconds or so, but turbo cars are less affected by altitude then N/A cars (and the RSX still was faster).

Oh well, I didn't buy this car for the straight line, although I wish stock it felt faster. The power curve isn't that exciting, I wish it'd make more power up top instead of flattening. At 4500+ RPM it really feels like it's plugged up, I assume exhaust and DP would help.

 

[pluto316]

The handeling and breaking is already there, all I want is 220whp and I am totally happy with the MSP. And even with the modifications, I am still driving a car that is prettier and way cheaper than most of the pack.

 

[rocketspeed]

That 0-60 time is really, really slow. The MSP will get into the high 6's and my SVT in the mid 7's here at sea level. See my Gtech thread for more info on 0-60 time for my MSP.

 

[BrianV]

pluto, unfortunately it doesn't look like we can make 220whp with the basic turbo bolt-ons (intake, BC, exhaust). Actually we can but risk blowing an engine.

I don't think we've completely weeded out the consensus on these blown engines.

Some people say they were stock or like 8 pounds, other say they were 15+. I wish we could know all the truth.

If 12 PSI could be deemed a safe number then 220 would be easy and we'd all be VERY happy.

 

[BrianV]

That 0-60 time is really, really slow. The MSP will get into the high 6's and my SVT in the mid 7's here at sea level. See my Gtech thread for more info on 0-60 time for my MSP.

I just drove my speed around (it's at 8.5 PSI now, but for the most part feels like it did stock, I boosted 7.5 stock). Anyways, the car didn't feel all that fast, but I went from 25-70 on the road (shifted at about 5800 or so) and although it didn't feel fast, it certainly got there fairly quickly.

For the past two weeks I've been driving my mom's new RX330 or my dad's 2000 GS300, both are 16 second cars, and although they feel peppy and quick, I don't think they did 25-70 anywhere near as quickly.

I guess it goes back to that, what feels fast vs what is fast.

 

[shaolin]

I noticed that alot of the cars edged out the MSP in slalom tests...the only comparison I've ever seen where the MSP is second to anyone besides the EVO. I think it has alot to do with the fact that they used a 525 ft slalom and not the standard 700 ft. Still though, it made me look like---->

 

[03MSP]

I just drove my speed around (it's at 8.5 PSI now, but for the most part feels like it did stock, I boosted 7.5 stock). Anyways, the car didn't feel all that fast, but I went from 25-70 on the road (shifted at about 5800 or so) and although it didn't feel fast, it certainly got there fairly quickly.

For the past two weeks I've been driving my mom's new RX330 or my dad's 2000 GS300, both are 16 second cars, and although they feel peppy and quick, I don't think they did 25-70 anywhere near as quickly.

I guess it goes back to that, what feels fast vs what is fast.

That reminds me of something that I have been thinking ever since I got my MSP. In my old MX-6 turbo, I swear I got pushed back into my seat much more in 2nd gear than I do in my MSP; however, my speedo goes up quick as hell in my MSP. I don't know if it's because my MX-6 was pretty much a truck engine(after the turbo install I had around 200-210 ft-lbs and only about 160 hp), I guess maybe the torque just altered my view on how fast it really was.

Sorry, I just had to say that because it's been bugging me ever since I got my MSP thinking that my '88 MX-6 could be faster than my MSP.

 

[loj68]

I noticed that alot of the cars edged out the MSP in slalom tests...the only comparison I've ever seen where the MSP is second to anyone besides the EVO. I think it has alot to do with the fact that they used a 525 ft slalom and not the standard 700 ft. Still though, it made me look like---->

yeah but if you look at the lap times they did the MSP only got beat by the 2 big dogs. I think that says a lot for how good it actually handles. The slalom test is more of a test for emergency evasion and I don't personally put much stock into that.

 

[irr5302]

nice report congratulations

 

[loudpdl]

Yep, those acceleration numbers are embarrassing. It looks like both the N/A and turbo cars had about the same % increase in 0-60 times as compared to those in Car & Driver (adjusts for atmospheric conditions). About half of the 0-60 hit was made up by the time the cars hit the mile, so I think the problem was launch technique.

FYI, MSP accel numbers -- 0-60: 7.1 (C&D), 6.8 (MT); -mile: 15.6 (C&D), 15.2 (MT).

 

[Stealth5]

i noticed all the acceleration times look a little high. maybe they didnt have really good drivers? it seems like they may be closer to what the average joe could pull off. ive seen 0-60 times for the sti in the mid 4's and they got 5.22


7.58 for the rsx is ridiculous, ive witnessed my friend pull off a 6.3sec run to 60 in his and hes not that great of a driver

 

[jaymode]

i noticed all the acceleration times look a little high. maybe they didnt have really good drivers? it seems like they may be closer to what the average joe could pull off. ive seen 0-60 times for the sti in the mid 4's and they got 5.22


7.58 for the rsx is ridiculous, ive witnessed my friend pull off a 6.3sec run to 60 in his and hes not that great of a driver

I think you missed the part in the article and the reply i posted about the track being a 1/2 mile above sea level, which is why the acceleration times seem slow.