i have a lot of experience with both cars... of course i own an s2k myself and i often get to drive my cousins wrx. If i had the choice i would still pick the s2k over the wrx. my primary reason would not be exterior or interior cosmetics rather the totally different styles of powertrains. the all wheel drive can be a plus side for the wrx but can be just as fragile as our poor little differentials. one bad launch in the wrx and you can easily bust both the front and rear differentials! overall i know the s2k is a faster car both paper racing and actual racing, although the wrx is known to rip up a 14.1 quarter it still takes a lot of work. sure its gonna be though to get used to the bug-eyed styling of the wrx compared to the sleek appearance of the s2k but you decision should be based on the kind of driving experience you want.

 

Get the S2k now and wait for the STI to come.

 

Frayed, the WRX will hand you your ass right now, software upgrade or not.

To put it into a fashion analogy in comparing the two, the S2000 is the Armani suit - a svelte, Euro-cut style that really exudes the modern look. The WRX is Hugo Boss - boxier, but a quality suit that gets the job done for a lot of fellas out there.

Both are sharp, but in terms of straight-up stylin' points, the S2000 definitely takes the cake.

Liquor analogy:

S2000 = Tanqueray 10
WRX = Guiness

Both are good, but in different ways.

 

Well, I've read many an opinion on i-club as well that the WRX is no looker... Folks see the beauty in its function, not its form. I just like to have both form AND function.

What I find most frustrating is that Sube can make decent looking cars.. they just didn't with the WRX. Also very little visual differentiation between a run-of-the-mill econobox Imprezza and the WRX.

The car I wish Sube made: A Legacy GT based sedan with a WRX-like drivetrain (o.k, maybe a 2.5L turbo instead ), wheel arch blisters,Brembo brakes, six-speed transmission, Alcantra & leather interior, sport seats, sunroof, 17" stock wheels with S02 rubber.

That would be a true S4 ass-kicker.

 

Come on now. Not even close. Especially with the stock wheels and tires. You would at least need to do shock or coil-over and wheel replacements to even get it in the same league for handling.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WRS2K
[B]the S2000 is the Armani suit

 

hAhA well i was just trying to be nice just to keep some peace around here.

 

Relax Francis.

In my post, I don't think I ever faulted the Scoobie (or is it Scubie?) for performance or fun. Just looks. But this is highly subjective. In the world of dogs, I think Pugs are ugly, but my Rhodesian Ridgeback is beautiful. Whatever.

But I differ with your 'handing ass' comment, since I just walked a silver WRX on the highway this afternoon, with temp tags and a Gillman Imports license plate frame on the highway. But, it wasn't fair anyway, since my M3 makes 270 hp and 273 ft-lbs., and he had has girl with him and I was running solo. Not bragging, just rebutting your statement.

 

Gabe - As many here have mentioned , both are great vehicles. If I only had to choose one, I would choose the WRX. It is simply more pratical and cheaper to mod. It really doesn't take too much to get the car into the 12's. However, you should really decide what you want and desire in a car. I personally don't think the WRX is an ugly car but some people do. If that type of stuff matters to you then ultimately you may regret your decision. The WRX is in many ways just like the s2000; it is not about prestige and status. It is about provide a pure driving experience unlike many others. Simply put the WRX is a bad boy. I believe that you would enjoy either one tremendously. I myself was also looking to purchase a WRX but it seems like I may stay with my M3 order. Peace



2000 SVT lightning
2000 Honda S2000 #7444 Comptech Supercharger,DC Headers
2002 BMW M3 (Jan.)

 

Look, maybe I can add a little perspective here.......I've driven both cars extensively. In Australia when I lived there, I had a lot of experience with the '94 and onwards models. I even drove a friend's one that had the full HKS works, as well as my best friends 2000 STi. The only one I liked was the STi - for good reason!

There is no way that a WRX will handle 100 times better than an S2000 - even the STi. That is a ridiculous comment and totally unsubstantiated. Besides, the '01/02 US WRX is 200 odd pounds heavier than the old one with no more power.........it's actually slower than the old one and has smaller brakes. The S2000 posted even better times around the famed Nurbugring track in Germany than the C5 Corvette....and the C5 is way faster than the WRX - even modified. I know this because I owned a 2000 C5 6sp for a year.

The WRX is a great buy for the $$ - you just can't go wrong. The styling in stock mode is subjective, but I do like the way it looks when modified with bigger wheels and rear spoiler etc. Yes, I would definitely have one if I could afford both.

But the interior is not special at all, it has a clunky gearbox and runs out of puff very quickly. Yes, it has a 'cheap' interior. Actually, I was seriously considering a WRX before I bought my S2000, but I just couldn't stomach the interior. I almost felt like I could hose it out after a dusty run...too pedestrian for me! 4 doors? - no thanks.

And, to say that it handles better than an S2000 is simply silly. I've never seen a WRX EVER win an award for 'best handling spotscar' or 'handling superstar'. And, I don't think I've even seen it referred to as a sports car! They understeer really badly when pushed hard.

I've never driven a tortionally stiffer car than the S2000. Please show me another mass produced car that I can do a stupidly quick absolutely flat lane change at 90mph and I will then concede that the S2000 is a handling dog. But, there simply is not another car that is capable of doing this (Oh, yes, actually, m...a..y..b..e the Lotus Elise). The S2000 is just THAT direct, it's like a damn go cart! How the WRX can eclipse this, I am dumbfounded?????

Don't forget that the S2000 also has higher slalom numbers, higher peak skidpan g's, better brakes, suspension and gearbox than the WRX.

Now in snow or rain, the S2000 DOES has it's ass handed to it. It's a useless car! But a whole lot of fun if you like oversteer!!! This is where the AWD practicality comes in strong.

I know that the SCC cars did handle exceptionally well. But all of them except one had race tires (if I remember correctly) and LOTS of money spent on the suspension. Put a SC and money into the S and it will be comparable. You gotta comare stock with stock here to be fair. Fark, for $280,000 I bet I could make a damn UGO handle better than a F1 car! (well, maybe not, but I'm sure you all get my point!!! ).

I've raced many modded S2000's at the track and they couldn't beat me in a 1997 RX7. I would say that my S2000 handled better than the 7, the S2000 had better brakes and they both have the same power. The WRX also hits a brick wall at higher speeds due in part to both its crappy aerodynamics and low gearing. I'd like to race a WRX in my S2000 though.

If you were to buy a WRX and keep it stock, it would be a great buy for the money...but mod it and it will soon drain your wallet. Modding a turbo car is a real drain on your finances......first you get a bigger exhaust, intercooler, then a bigger turbo etc etc etc. Plus, you'd have to replace the interior too!

I do like both cars, but the S2000 is special to me...and it's a convertible to boot. Nobody looks at WRX's. If I had the cash, I'd buy both and keep the WRX as my daily driver. The S would live in the garage for perfect days, but if I had the choice and needed to lose one, the Scoobie would be the first to go!

Just my $0.02

Cheers!