I *was* really really getting ready for the WRX until i started reading the reviews.

one of the magazines said it would run the

 

Necromancer.....I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but there is absolutely NO way that your WRX is going to be able to "hang with an S4". Some guys in S2000's have reported being beaten by S4's.

I have driven and ridden in a '94, '95, and '96 standard WRX. I have driven hard a manual transmission 99 WRX modded with HKS boost control, HKS exhaust, Blow off valve, intake and a host of other goodies - all the things designed to give the car even more power. While it did have more power than the standard WRX, this modded version was NOT all that fast, and I can comfortably say that the S2000 would easily beat it.Yes, the WRX will get a better start due to traction, but then the S2000 will take over. Even with these extra performance mods, the WRX still hits a brick wall at 6200rpm. And, don't forget that the one I drove was over 120lbs lighter than the fattened-up 2001 model. I also beat this car in my Honda CRX Vtec...and that was only a 1.6 liter B16a with front wheel drive with 17" wheels!

The WRX owner doesn't even want to THINK of running an S2000 in gear.

And, on the racetrack.....I was running against modded WRX's (non-STi's) in my Series 6 RX7. The RX7 has the same peak power as the S2000. I would say that the RX7 and S2000 are comparable cars on the track. Well, with the RX7, I was reeling in WRX's like they were missing a piston. On straights AND in corners. And the drivers COULD drive, so there is no question of mismatched drivers which may explain why the WRX was slower. They suffer a lot of understeer, as well as high parasitic losses from the 4WD drivetrain. Plus, being heavier AND with smaller brakes...they won't stop consistently well either. It's what happens when you try to build a performance car out of a family sedan.

By all means, please go to Thunderhill and do some 'hot laps'. I'm interested to know how far ahead the S2000's will be. I hope that I don't put my foot in my mouth too prematurely, but I hope that you aren't too embarrased by the results!! Besides, the WRX is not even set up as a 'track' car - the Honda is. I don't think that you can rightfully compare these cars (S2000 and WRX) on the track. Consider this.....the S2000 was able to achieve a faster lap time than even the Boxter S!!!

FWIW, one of my friends in Australia has a 2000 STi WRX. Now, THAT is a completely different car. You wouldn't know that it was a WRX. Great car!

You know, it might sound like I am bagging the SHI# out of the WRX. I'm not really...just trying to convey a sense of realism about the car. All these WRX owners are going to get their cars and are going to think they are Richard Burns from Prodrive. Well, that dog won't hunt. I predict that we will see a LOT of crashed WRX's soon - it hapened in Australia and it will likely happen here too.

That being said and strange as it may seem, I actually like the WRX. Yes, I like it!!! There isn't much around $25K that will offer you what the WRX offers. For $25K, yes, all you get is an el-cheapo interior (doesn't even get the good seats that the rest of the world market gets), soft suspension, 'funny' looks' and small brakes. The cost, like the S2000 is in the driveline and engine.

My conclusion is....Yes, I would have one in a heartbeat as my winter driver. You can't beat AWD in the snow and rain. But that's about it. It's really nothing more.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but having a LOT of experience around WRX's (being from Australia, I have been around them since 1994), I speak with experience that they are not all that they are cracked up to be.

Cheers,

 

At $22-$23k (Van bortel subaru in Upstate NY) it is a pretty decent car. I am not a engine Modify'r though, so I was thinking stock w/280hp would be more ideal, even it they raised the price a couple thousand.

The older Wagon UK version weighed less and w/ 215hp could run to 100mph in 14.9 (just a tick slower than the S2000).

O well...long live the Evo VII if it shows up in current form!

Scot

 

http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum28/HT...TML/001449.html

they seem to have a different opinion

it's all about personal choices, when you get down to it.

 

While I was waiting for my car to be serviced today, I walked over to the new WRK and I have to say, sitting inside it, other than the momo badged steering wheel and the barely visible drilled peddals, it reminds me a great deal of my brother-in-law's 5 year old kia. I too have a fondness for suburu ever since I spent two years in Tahoe and went everywhere with my buddy and his Suburu something or other wagon. That thing kicked @ss in the snow and I have always thought about getting a Sub for a beater car. But after sitting in it and hearing the opinions about the performance, if I dont like it when I drive it, I will probably opt for the BMW or Audi...

P.S. On the performance note, could it be that we are all just spoiled rotten by our cars? It seems like all of us judge cars in the light of the S. We want anything that costs more than $25k to be a sub 6 0-60 and have the fit and finish of the S. Maybe we just need to accept that nothing out there is going to feel quite the same anymore after owning the S.

 

A couple of points here from another aussie guy. Unlike some of my brethren I happen to think the WRX is a damn good car. I actually had an '00 model on order prior to buying the Stook. As it happened, my WRX was delayed in shipping, the Stook was released 6 months earlier than I thought it would be and it was a convertible. In essence that's why I chose the Stook - I paid 75% more than the price of the WRX because I thought I could get similar performance but with the ability to take (and keep ) the roof off.

Anyway, back to my point:
1. In OZ, a Stook costs 75% more than a WRX which means the equivalent US price should be around 18-18.5k for a WRX. You guys are paying a lot more than this.
2. Styling is subjective, the previous model WRX wasn't exactly a beauty queen either.
3. Inereiorwise you miss out on the good seats. In general the interior on this model is much more luxo than the previous one.
4. I suspect the US suspension is a lot softer then the Oz/european version.
5. Auto in a WRX - I know they make them but seriously you gotta be joking.

What I think you all need to be aware of is that in Yankee land you are basically spoilt for choice.

In Australia, $AUD40k is about the max your average joe can afford to spend on a vehicle (as a matter of fact it is significantly more than most owners can afford and represents the annual income of most people - BEFORE TAX). For $40k there are no other hot performers around down here except for GM/Ford sedans with big V8s. So basically if you want a fast four - the WRX is all most people can afford to buy. PFB you mentioned a 325Xi at $US4k more than a WRX - in Australia a 325 BMW will set you back the same price as a Stook or 75% more than the cost of the WRX.

So I guess what I am saying is that here in Australia even if the new WRX is a little porkier, a little uglier and a little slower than its predecessor it is still so darn far out in front of its competition on a price/performance basis that it still represents the performance bargain of the century. In the US, with your broader range of vehicles and affordable pricing maybe the WRX doesn't represent such a clear cut bargain but it is still a tremendous value for money fun car and probably a lot more practical for those poor bastards among you who have been freezing their butts off in the snow for the past 4-5 months.

 

I test drove the 5 speed WRX sedan today. It's no Camaro SS, but it will make a fine rain/snow car to compliment the S2000. Since it is a 2 liter with a turbo driven power peak at 6000 rpm, drag strip starts will require 4500rpm or higher launches with 4 wheel spin (and possible broken parts). It's looks aren't great, but it has a nice sounding engine and it is quick if driven properly.

 

Hey Sime, can you remember what lap times you were doing with your RX7 at Sandown? Also, can you rememer what the WRXs were doing there?

Hi 2kturkey, you forgot about the new 200SX here - it's the same price as WRX and offers same (in some way better, in some way worse) performance, is a well set up RWD, has a 6 speed gearbox and looks pretty good too. In a recent test here (Winton) the 200SX also beat the WRX on lap time by good 0.5 secs. If you're surpised by that then concider the fact that bmw330 beat the WRX by good 1.0 sec and that Z3 3.0 with an auto tranny beat the WRX by almost 2 secs (1.8 I think).

Awyway, besides the WRX you can get the 5.7l V8 Comodorre SS here. That has 225kW and shows up the WRX in the straight line in all but the launch. Lap time wise there was nothing really between the WRX and SS. Though, 3 cars is all you get to chose from here if you want that kind of performance and don't have limitless supply of money.

ps. Still waiting to line up that WRX (and STI) with my S2000.

 

Gudday David. Yes, you're right - I did forget about the 200SX. I guess I forgot because it wasn't around at the time when I bought my Stook (as you know, 200SXs were unavailable in OZ for around 18 months).

Which magazine has the Winton tests you refer to? I'd be interested to see these.

I know we differ on this subject, but frankly it is the awd aspect of the WRX that particularly appeals to me - I really like the idea that you can still drive the WRX hard once the weather starts to deteriorate.

 

Hi 2kturkey,
The thing that really turns me off a WRX is not that it is 4WD ut that despite it being 4WD, it drives just like a FWD ... it has all handling traits/characteristics of a FWD car. If FWD characteristics apeal to someone then WRX is perfect for them. For me though a 4WD 'should' feel like RWD and when it needs to then transfer some power to the front wheels (not the other way around). Personally, I don't like FWD 'cos my needs/wants are performance oriented.

ps. The Winton times are in the latest Motor magazine where they have the latest "Performance Car of the Year". Nice read so get it :-)