Well I finally met up with a friend of mine who has a WRX. It is a previous shape '98 model (ie. about 80kg lighter than the new one) and he has 17" wheels, bigger tyres (225s) and lowered suspension on it. Otherwise it was stock standard. Also, he has 55,000km on it so it's nicelly run in. My S2000 is stock standard and has 3300km on it. Night was reasonably cold (cold here - about 17deg Celcius) and the road did not have too much grip (as I could spin the wheels for fraction of a second in quick 9k change from 1st to 2nd). Also, I had my roof down and we wer both 'solo'.

Anyway, we did some 'real world' comparisions where we lined each other up and did rolling starts from different speeds and different gears. Here's the results:

Test #1, Rolling start from 15km/h in 1st gear (2k revs) - We launch and the WRX instanlty pulls away and gets about a car lenght on me. I think he florred it a fraction earlier than me, though he moved only about a foot ahead when I put the foot down. Though, despite him getting a slight jump, he was a fair bit quicker in those initial few seconds. Once I hit 6k revs I held him and pulled back a little bit (1/4 car lenght at most) and then change to 2nd. Here I get a slight wheelspin and lose about 1/2 a car lenght again (I'm about 1 and 1/4 car lenght behind). By the time we hit 120km/h I'm pulling slighlty on him but am still a car lenght behind.

Test #2, - Rolling start from 30km/h in 2nd gear (2.5k revs) - I think he started a fraction earlier agian but this time we stay even for the 1st second or two as the WRX was still of boost (which comes in about 2.5 - 3k). Once he hits boost he starts pulling away pretty quickly as I'm still a bit shy of 6k. Again he gets a good car lenght and a half on me before I hit 6k revs and even though I'm accelerating a bit quicker now, I'm still a bit behind and all I'm doing is stopping the WRX from pulling away ... that is untill I hit 105km/h and shift to 3rd. By this stage I'm still 1 and 1/2 car lenght away but slighlty pulling back on the WRX. By 130 - 135km/h I'm going a touch quicker (not much) but still over a carlenght behind.

Test #3, - Rolling start from 45km/h in 1st gear (5.9k revs) - It was clear by now that the WRX had a much better bottom end and the turbo kicked in way before my VTEC so we figured let's see how it goes if I keep the S2000 in VTEC from the word go ... I was always loosing in the pre-VTEC zone. So we line it up at 40km/h and floor it exaclty at the same time. By the time we hit about 140km/h, we were execlty door to door (side by side). We were even all though out but I lost about a 1/4 car lenght in the 1st to 2nd change (again wheels spin slowed me down). Though, I pulled him back ever so slighlty to be even by 140km/h. Then I start to pull away and by 160km/h I am about 1 car lenght ahead and pulling away. Then we eazed off.

I was very impressed with the raw speed of the WRX - it was a very good match in all drags bellow 140km/h (in some ways WRX was better). It definatelly has a better pull at lower revs. The top end of the S2000 is better than the WRX but the WRX has a more usable/broader range of power. He even took me for a spin and I had to comment on his bottom end - noticably better that the S2000. It keeps that pull all the way to red line and pulls very strongly up to 140km/h or so. In turn, I took him for a spin in the S2000 and the low end power/pull was not as good as ther WRX (noticable by both of us). Though, he did comment about the car feeling faster when above 6k revs (in VTEC) ... which agrees with what we saw on the road. Also, above 140km/h the S2000 pulled a lot better than the WRX. He made a comment about that too - he sais that he can't get the WRX to go faster than 220km/h as he is against a 'brick wall at 220km/h'.

So, in conclusion, beware of WRXs om the road ... they can beat the S2000 in a lot of situations. For instance in low revs rolling starts the WRX will always be ahead ... you may be travelling faster, but the WRX will be ahead 'till at least 140km/h. WRX is hard to launch agressively (weak clutch and 4WD ... though, this particular WRX has a 3rd party heavy dyty clutch in it). Therefore, unless the WRX is willing to fry it's clutch, the S2000 will pull away nicely from it with an aggresive launch (7k+ clutch drop) ... the S2000 (at least mine) is very comfortabe in doing these kind of starts and I don't feel/see/smell the clutch hurting. We didn't do any launches like that as then the drag between these 2 cars turns into a 'driver' and not the 'car' contest. Anyway, over 140km/h the S2000 has the legs on WRX and is only getting faster and faster compared to the WRX ... by 160km/h he is doing about 5-15km less .. that is if I can stay with him of the line. What that means is that bellow 140km/h (which is more then enough speed in the city) the WRX has enough 'go' to keep in line with the S2000 ... I'd say that the 2 cars are very much even up to that speed if you ignore the launch (as the final test demonstrated).

Looks like the WRX figures are justified - it 'can' do sub 6secs for the 0-100km/h and can do very low 14s for the 400m run. It's also very likely that the WRX will actually cross the 400m line before the S2000, though, the S2000 will be travelling quicker by that stage ... might be behind, but good 10km/h quicker.

 

Wow, that's quite a bit quicker than what I would have expected from my test drive of the US version yesterday. I suspect that you would have pulled harder and sooner with the roof up (drag and all), but hey, I drive with the roof down all the time too, so that's how I'd race it.

When you started at 6000 rpm in first, was he in first too? If so, did you pull ahead noticeably when he had to shift before you?

UL

 

Well, the previous generation WRX is much faster than the current gen WRX. Faster as in the Euro 215hp model (actually the GT) did 0-100mph in 14.7seconds, whereas the new Euro WRX (215hp not US 227hp) did it in 16.9 seconds.

I think that the real beauty of the WRX is the performance bargain you get, not to mention that it should be relatively easy to get another 40hp out of the engine for about $1000.

 

Dave, I'd say that in those tests, Jay was starting before you. But, yes, despite even that....the WRX with better low end torque and AWD will always get a better start.

Which leads me to my old CRX Vtec

As you are aware, back in 1999, I had a run against my friend Chris in his '99 WRX with HKS boost controller, exhaust, blow off valve and stock wheels. When we started, he bogged down and I was wheelspinning. When we both hooked up and started moving, we were even. Then, surprisingly, my CRX started to pull away from him. At 110kmh, I was 3/4 car length ahead of him and definitely pulling away.

Even though my CRX only had about 190hp at the flywheel, it was way lighter than the S2000. Dave, like I said, even though you don't believe me, I really think that my S2000 and the CRX are very close on accelleration. I know that the S2000 will be faster over 120kmh though as it has more torque than the CRX I had.

Good runs though! Say G'd day to Jay for me will you?

One point though - I would say that the US S2000 owners have nothing to really worry about with the US WRX's. They are fast, but they are heavier, and have smaller brakes. They don't handle nearly as well either. The WRX might get you on a low rev start, but once moving, the S2000 will reel in the WRX.

Cheers!

 

Whats the power of an Aus WRX? Here in the UK the Subaru is very confusing, in the old shape the UK Impreza Turbo model put out about 205 BHP and the imported WRX about 240, the imported WRX STI was 280.

Now we have the new shape which is officially called a WRX which is about 210-215BHP.

I used to reguaarly tussle with a Impreza Turbo (205 bhp) model in my 94 JDM Prelude VTEC (197 bhp) and he was always quicker.

 

Ansewrs 1st:
- This was the 'older' shape WRX which weights about 80 - 90kg less than the current one (hence is quicker).

- The Australian WRX (this particular model in question) pumps out 155kW which is about 210hp.

- The WRX STI here pumps out 206kW (about 280hp).

- The roof would make me quicker over 100km/h ... I was quicker already there but I know for a fact that on the track where I was recenly, the roof-on gave the car extra 10km/h at about 200km/h. So I'm sure I was losing some time/speed because I had the roof-down. Still, over 140km/h I was visibly quicker and was only getting stronger.

Here magazines have clocked the WRX (like the one I raced) as fast as 5.8secs for 0-100km/h (5.4 for 0-60mph) and 14.1 for the 400m run with terminal speed of 154km/h (96mph). That is fast ... though usually they clock them at 6.1 - 6.8sec for the 0-100km/h sprint and I've seen the terminal velocity at 400m as low as 146km/h (91mph). Over the last couple years they must have timed the WRX at least 40 times here while there are only about 6 incidents of S2000 being timed localy (fastest being 6.2 for 0-100km/h and 14.4 for the 400m run with terminal velocity of 160km/h (100mph)).

Last of all, hey Sime :-) I can't comment on your findings (as you'd know better) but I do know that with an 'agressive' launch I can blow away the MR2 by quiete a few car lenghts to 100km/h (I am literally flying away at 100km/h) while when you lined up my MR2 with the CRX you could not really get too much ahead by 100km/h mark (I'm not even sure if you were always ahead ... were you?). I can only go by what I saw and I see the S2000 as being fair bit quicker all around. Then again, you now have an S2000 so you can fill me in on how it compares to your old CRX.

 

I got some more 'stats' on the WRX (the previous model):
- It weights the same as S2000. ie. 1260kg
- The 1st three gears are pretty short. This is the gearing for WRX at redline (7000revs):
- 1st = 59km/h
- 2nd = 104km/h
- 3rd = 147km/h
- 4th = 208km/h
- 5th = 272km/h
- Also, even though the WRX has, at the peak, 155kW (it is 25kW less than S2000), it has:
- 100kW at 3.5k revs, (S2000 = 70kW)
- 118kW at 4k, (S2000 = 80kW)
- 130kW at 4.5k (S2000 = 90kW)
- 150kW+ from 5.5k - 6.8k. (S2000 = 115kW at 5.5k and 155kW at 6.8k)

As you can see, the WRX has a lot more power at the bottom (almost 50% more) so that explains why the WRX does so well against the S2000 from low revs. I'm now guessing that it must get such an advantage on the S2000 at these low revs that it takes me (ie. the S2000) 'till 140km/h to be actually going faster. Must try a run from 70km/h in 2nd (6k revs) and see what happens. According to the 'numbers', if we coordinate the 'start' perfectly, then I should always be pulling away.

 

I posted this in another related post, but I'll add my opinion here too! I hope it's helpful as I am trying to base it as much on fact and direct personal experience as I can...

I have found the following personal experience from racing them side to side:

STOCK TO STOCK
The WRX IS faster 0-60 definitely.
If you launch both right (and I'd say the S2k is harder to optimally launch), then the WRX will take the S2k out of the hole by at least a length right from the start!
In 1st and 2nd, the WRX pulls harder and pulls on the S2k slightly.
In 3rd, the S2k pulls back
by the 1/4 mile, depending on how much the WRX pulled, I find the S2k reeling the WRX in, or passing near the end or after the 1/4 mile mark.

Typically, the WRX is faster 0-60 and mostly 1/4 mile. After 1/4 mile the S2k is definitely faster.

MODIFIED
The WRX will crush the S2k, mod for mod. The mods for WRX can net so much more power, than those for the S2k!

I have tracked my WRX and I find it to be an awesome track car! I haven't tracked the S2k yet, so I can't compare, but here's my guess from driving the 2 all the time:

average to above avg. track driver..the WRX is easier to push, you can get on the power much earlier.
higher skill drivers,...I think the S2k will be superior to the WRX on the track!

fun factor: S2k, but then again, when you feel the rush of torque from the WRX, it is also very addicting!
one is a shove in the seat, powerful push which pulls hard most of the way and levels off near the end! WRX
the other is an ever building mad crescendo of power that starts off low but keeps building right until the end! S2k

looks: S2k. The WRX is more of ugly duckling car, that can be a builtiful swan in the right person's eyes.

price: WRX

interior: hmmm...tie. whoever said the WRX is cheap quality,etc.doesn't entirely make sense to me. By looking at and sitting in both interiors, I'd say it's fairly the same. Neither is a BMW, Audi, nor Mercedes. Both have nice build.

steering wheel: S2k is very nice for stock Honda! WRX has a wonderful leather wrapped MOMO.

pedals: the same, both cross drilled aluminum w/ rubber grip inserts.

seats: S2ks are more curvaceous and of course leather!...WRX has slightly better side bolstering I think and grip better, afterall they are suede.

luxury features: powertop to s2k, heated seats to wrx.

utility: no contest...WRX esp. the wagon which I have!
seating: WRX 5, S2k 2, but diff. purposes.

exclusiveness: s2k

overall: can't say....I love both!

btw: they DO NOT weigh the same!

WRX: 3200 lbs sedan, 3280 lbs wagon!
S2k: 2750-2800 lbs.

so weight adv. goes to the S2k by 400+ lbs!!!!