MSP in comparison to a 2004 Toyota Celica Sport

[FSDET]

^lol

 

[FSDET]

Popular Mechanics should be considered a reliable source:

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

The GT-S has a faster 0-60 time (although very minimal), and the MSP has a faster 1/4 mile time (0.01 faster), but the Celica has a higher trap speed. The RSX spanks both. End of story.

hey they got 15.8 with the spec-v and 16 with the msp, i say hell no. thers NO way the spec-v is faster then the MSP... maybe they had the 5psi Msps, or a leak or something ...

 

[Spooled]

As someone else pointed out your just magazine racing The RSX might be faster in a magazine review but what type of real world racing (where they race for wins and championships instead of giving a car a lower review because of small buttons on the radio) do you know of where they determine which car is faster exactly like a magazine. Real races are determined by the driver and his car and what they can accomplish. By all means go with the 05 Type-S and get on the Honda/acura wagon, you fit the bill.

If you are talking about SCCA, the Protege is allowed the most performance mods out of any other car in it's class just so that it can keep up with the rest of the pack (ie. RSX). They do that to make it a drivers' sport.

I know it's hard for you to understand, so I'll say it again (repetition is the key to learning, right?) It doesn't matter who is driving the two cars, as long as it's the same person and they are consistant. Sure, mag times are slow, but they are run by the same driver, so the only difference is the car itself. Facts are facts.

 

[xtrememps]

The SCCA Protege's are N/A, that's unfair comparison first of all. I know if it's the same person driving both cars and they are consistent that an RSX can get a better time, but the same person doesn't drive two cards head to head....tard. (flame2)

 

[Spooled]

The SCCA Protege's are N/A, that's unfair comparison first of all. I know if it's the same person driving both cars and they are consistent that an RSX can get a better time, but the same person doesn't drive two cards head to head....tard. (flame2)

Why would it matter if they are next to each other on the track? Are you 12?

 

[Spooled]

The SCCA Protege's are N/A, that's unfair comparison first of all. I know if it's the same person driving both cars and they are consistent that an RSX can get a better time, but the same person doesn't drive two cards head to head....tard. (flame2)

And I wasn't the one who mentioned championships.

 

[xtrememps]

Lol...this thread is funny. Read my earlier post. That sums it up. It's a driver's race. PERIOD. (stfu)

 

[4001]

If you are talking about SCCA, the Protege is allowed the most performance mods out of any other car in it's class just so that it can keep up with the rest of the pack (ie. RSX). They do that to make it a drivers' sport.

Great info but that wasnt what I was talking about I was talking about motorsports in general. Racing for a purpose, not reviews on cars driven by writers.

I know it's hard for you to understand, so I'll say it again (repetition is the key to learning, right?) It doesn't matter who is driving the two cars, as long as it's the same person and they are consistant. Sure, mag times are slow, but they are run by the same driver, so the only difference is the car itself. Facts are facts.

As I stated before whom in motor sports racing goes and has one driver race each and every car that is on the grid. Theres no such thing outside of pointless magazine reviews. So what if one guy can get Car A to the finish before Car B. It depends on who can get himself and their car over the line first in the real world. What matters is who can win against their competition, not what a magazine tells you. But because some article that encompasses the whole general area of mechanics the MSP is now labeled slower than a RSX.

 

[4001]

Lol...this thread is funny. Read my earlier post. That sums it up. It's a driver's race. PERIOD. (stfu)

No no no youve got it all wrong it all comes down to whos got the Type-R badge

 

[Spooled]

Great info but that wasnt what I was talking about I was talking about motorsports in general. Racing for a purpose, not reviews on cars driven by writers.




As I stated before whom in motor sports racing goes and has one driver race each and every car that is on the grid. Theres no such thing outside of pointless magazine reviews. So what if one guy can get Car A to the finish before Car B. It depends on who can get himself and their car over the line first in the real world. What matters is who can win against their competition, not what a magazine tells you. But because some article that encompasses the whole general area of mechanics the MSP is now labeled slower than a RSX.

Sure, I agree with all of that. But we don't know who is driving the car, and it's a better bet that the faster of the two cars will get that driver from point A to point B faster in a straight line (which is what we have been talking about). I'm not trying to argue that anyone should get any car. I myself bought an MSP because I like it overall and handles better than any other car in the class in stock form. I can make a bee-line from point A to point B faster than my buddy in his Type-S can, but he can spank me in the quarter. Then I can get in his car and he in mine, and I can spank him in the quarter. A faster car will only make the driver faster, and vice versa. Give a good driver a slower car, and he will be slower in the quarter mile than he was in the faster car.

 

[Spooled]

Lol...this thread is funny. Read my earlier post. That sums it up. It's a driver's race. PERIOD. (stfu)

Is a Ferrari vs. Escort a drivers' race? It's an exaggerated comparision, but 0.2 seconds is a big spread in the 1/4 mile. How close does it have to be to be a drivers' race? And what two drivers are you talking about? Put someone who's never driven in a Ferrari Enzo and put Christian Rado in an '84 Buick Century, and the race could go either way. The person in the Enzo might stall. Does that mean that an Enzo and a Buick Century is a drivers' race?(jerkit)

 

[4001]

The person in the Enzo might stall.

With a electrohydraulic sequential paddle shift transmission (semiauto), Im pretty sure thats not possible

 

[Notorious]

I would hardly consider Popular Mechanics as a reliable source. Maybe if they focused only on automotive.

Popular Mechanics should be considered a reliable source:

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

The GT-S has a faster 0-60 time (although very minimal), and the MSP has a faster 1/4 mile time (0.01 faster), but the Celica has a higher trap speed. The RSX spanks both. End of story.

 

[jersey_emt]

Is a Ferrari vs. Escort a drivers' race? It's an exaggerated comparision, but 0.2 seconds is a big spread in the 1/4 mile. How close does it have to be to be a drivers' race? And what two drivers are you talking about? Put someone who's never driven in a Ferrari Enzo and put Christian Rado in an '84 Buick Century, and the race could go either way. The person in the Enzo might stall. Does that mean that an Enzo and a Buick Century is a drivers' race?(jerkit)

The problem is there's not a 0.2 second difference, they post the same 1/4 times. A good driver can consistently pull 14.9's out of a stock MSP, same goes with a RSX-S. Now if the race lasted for more than a 1/4 mile the RSX-S would start to pull.

 

[4001]

Sure, I agree with all of that. But we don't know who is driving the car, and it's a better bet that the faster of the two cars will get that driver from point A to point B faster in a straight line (which is what we have been talking about). I'm not trying to argue that anyone should get any car. I myself bought an MSP because I like it overall and handles better than any other car in the class in stock form. I can make a bee-line from point A to point B faster than my buddy in his Type-S can, but he can spank me in the quarter. Then I can get in his car and he in mine, and I can spank him in the quarter. A faster car will only make the driver faster, and vice versa. Give a good driver a slower car, and he will be slower in the quarter mile than he was in the faster car.

Yeah and my whole point is just because that you see a magazine article get a better number out of one car comparing it to another in its class doesnt mean your always going to see that exact outcome in the real world. The magazine article is in a controlled environment with controlled testing. In racing in any aspect it doesnt work that way. On paper the car may look faster and that may give it a slight advantage or it may not depending on who is racing the cars. The car may be fast as hell, like your comparison with the Ferrari, its the person behind the wheel who is making it go that fast or slow.

 

[Spooled]

The problem is there's not a 0.2 second difference, they post the same 1/4 times. A good driver can consistently pull 14.9's out of a stock MSP, same goes with a RSX-S. Now if the race lasted for more than a 1/4 mile the RSX-S would start to pull.

I've never seen an MSP with a corrected 1/4 mile tim e of 14.9. Same conditions will give the RSX-S a good lead.

 

[Spooled]

Yeah and my whole point is just because that you see a magazine article get a better number out of one car comparing it to another in its class doesnt mean your always going to see that exact outcome in the real world. The magazine article is in a controlled environment with controlled testing. In racing in any aspect it doesnt work that way. On paper the car may look faster and that may give it a slight advantage or it may not depending on who is racing the cars.

Exactly: controlled environment. That is the only fair way to compare cars.

The car may be fast as hell, like your comparison with the Ferrari, its the person behind the wheel who is making it go that fast or slow.

We aren't talking about the drivers, we are talking about the cars. I don't know why you keep bringing that in like it means anything. Sure, drivers mean something when you are racing, but we are talking about which car is faster in a straight line. Driver independent testing. Controlled environments. See the pattern?

 

[4001]

[/size][/font][/font][/color]

Exactly: controlled environment. That is the only fair way to compare cars.


We aren't talking about the drivers, we are talking about the cars. I don't know why you keep bringing that in like it means anything. Sure, drivers mean something when you are racing, but we are talking about which car is faster in a straight line. Driver independent testing. Controlled environments. See the pattern?

Yes and as you are trying to make it look like im thick and can not understand things you can not as well. Where outside of magazine testing do you see controled environment racing...No Where. It holds no weight in the real world

 

[jersey_emt]

I've never seen an MSP with a corrected 1/4 mile tim e of 14.9. Same conditions will give the RSX-S a good lead.

I'm not talking about corrected 1/4 mile. Actual 1/4 mile, seen by my very eyes. Several times actually.

How will the same conditions give the RSX-S a good lead when they perform exactly the same under the same conditions?

 

[Spooled]

I'm not talking about corrected 1/4 mile. Actual 1/4 mile, seen by my very eyes. Several times actually.

How will the same conditions give the RSX-S a good lead when they perform exactly the same under the same conditions?

Because any environmental advantages that the MSP gets in a given situation also hold true for the RSX. Cold air makes the MSP go faster? It also makes the RSX go faster, etc.

The point about corrected times is that you can compare a car running in 50 degree weather at 200 ft. below sea level to the same car running in 85 degree weather at 1500 ft. above sea level, and the difference in times will be huge. Point being: that 14.9 means nothing unless you compare it to another caar in the same conditions. Tracks can make a difference, too (traction, grading, electronics [ie. tree]).