I really like the WRX. It was actually the car I was going to get, before I decided on the S2000. I had a bad experience with the Sales Manager...it was a hassle trying to get any real information out of him. So i decided to end my order and get my deposit returned.

Now that I have the S2000 I still read about the WRX daily. They have some pretty good forums located at www.i-club.com

If I can convince my wife that I need a daily driver and that we can afford it I'm set to place my order again. If that doesn't happen then I'll be set to buy the STi version when that arrives in the next few years.

276hp can't be wrong.

Jaykkub

 

I think when people consider "performance" comparisons with other cars they need to look at a variety of factors.

1. Acceleration - the WRX can get close to an S2K in terms of quarter mile times, but only because of its AWD launch. This requires beating on the car, much like a good launch in the S2K does. If drag racing is important to you, AWD is awesome and you probably don't like your S2K. On the roll, there is simply no contest. An S2K has a significantly higher trap speed than even mildly modified WRX's. Stock a WRX will be lucky to break 95 mph in the quarter. Hell, on the roll an RSX-S will be neck and neck with (or ahead of) a WRX. Remember, a WRX weighs in around 3100 lbs, has 227 crank hp, but also has an AWD system which creates more parasitic losses. Wheel hp is reportedly in the 160-170 range. Oh, and BTW, a WRX is about the same level of threat to an S2K as an AWD Eclipse. Can be brutishly fast with the right mods, but I don't see anyone sweating older Eclipses :-).

2. Handling - the WRX is a pretty good handling car, but it doesn't begin to compare to something like an S2K or Boxster. With a 60/40 weight distribution, open diffs and the inherent push of most AWD cars, it just isn't as responsive. That's not a knock on the WRX, its just a characteristic of the design. In my test drive of the car I found the handling to be tolerable and predictable, if not brilliant. Also, compared to the S2K, the brakes on the WRX leave something to be desired.

3. Modability - a turbo car is usually pretty easy to mod, within reason. But on most modern turbo cars, you run out of headroom for more power pretty quickly, which necessitates changes to critical components. For example, "with a Tec-II and a new turbo"...Add an exhaust manifold and intercooler and you've got yourself a pretty decent turbo kit for an S2000 :-). You can make a WRX on the stock turbo a bit faster (trap speed) and substantially quicker (ET - AWD) than an S2K, but a turbo upgrade appears to be the way to go.

There are other factors to consider too. The WRX is a far better car for daily use than the S2K. Bad weather, no argument, WRX hands down. For many drivers, the WRX will feel more stable and easier to drive fast as well. However, if you thought the S2K interior was a bit cheap, then watch out for the WRX. And of course, it isn't a convertible, nor is it particularly attractive. And if you want the most fun on an auto-x or road course, I'd have to lean toward the S2K, as its the most fun I've ever had in any car at the racetrack. In the end, two cars that are, frankly, more complimentary in the garage, as opposed to competitive.

UL

 

I test drove one yesterday as a matter of fact, and I got to say, I was a bit un-impressed. It FELT like I could get better lap times on a moderately tight course with my Prelude SH. It could of been that I just need to get used to exactly how to enter and exit with an AWD car, but it sure seemed to push a hell of allot more than our cars and even a bit more than my Lude. Yes it was definately quick, but no where near as quick as our cars. However, that could be something that will get better as the car is completely broken in. I did like the fact that the pedals were pretty close; I was able to heel & toe it with my sandals on. Oh, and BODY ROLL, did I mention BODY roll? It felt like I was in a 12' zodiak in 12' seas. Bottom line, it is a good car with allot of potential, but if I were to get one, I would immediately buy a chip, a bigger turbo, bigger wheels and MUCH stiffer suspension.

 

i think the WRX is just ugly.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjcohen
[B]HAHAHAH, only 227 Horses with turbocharge.

 

people ripping the WRX need to get out a little and watch some rally racing. The WRX is an awesome car. Looks aside (i hate the new front lights) it can be, and is, (in other countries) a very fast, awesome handling car. The best version in europe runs with a 911 turbo for less the half the cost. Even the new less powerful version is still a fun car to drive. Get one on a nice gravel rode and hold on. I know from experience the S2k doesn't do nearly as well on gravel!! j/k I did drive my S on gravel though...stupid friend...and his short cuts...didn't do any damage...just covered it in dust!! Anyway, lets lay off ripping on cars that aren't a competitor in a single way.

The US version of the WRX is 8-10k cheaper, hold 5 people, comes in a wagon, is AWD.
The S2000 is 2 seater, 2 door, convertible, costs a lot more, and is quite a bit faster, RWD.

I'm not sure why these two are even being talked about in the same breath....totally different classes of cars.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Humanatek
[B]I test drove one yesterday as a matter of fact, and I got to say, I was a bit un-impressed.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elanderholm
[B]
what the hell are you talking about??
WRX's in other countries pull over 400HP out of the same engine...jeez...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mjcohen
[B]

Naturally aspirating, 2.0 L 400 Horses, I don't think so my friend.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elanderholm
[B]
where did i say NA?? i said...that subaru is extracting 400HP from the same engine in europe.