Who's faster?? Auto WRX or MY01 Auto RS??

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Well one has 227 HP by 5000rpms, the other has 165 by 5000rpms.... I think the choice is clear http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Brian

AIM: NUrsalia ICQ: 84483950
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/northursalia/impreza/index.htm
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
</FONT f>

i think it's pretty obvious too.....

How or why would a person with 247 posts ask a question like this?

chosenwon: http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/lol.gif that is why he is still a newbie. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

nick - you mean... i cant race vipers and porsches? its only a couple more horses and we both have stick!

for auto cars it doesn't take long for a turbo to kick in. i would imagine that the lag on the auto WRX isn't too bad.

no..i keep hearing that the lag on the auto turbo WRX is really bad so i want to know if the 2.5 rs is faster.

Lag or no lag, when the turbo kicks in, its no contest.

You also posted in the wrong forum, I dont know what this question has to do with dress up and style. IMO, this should be in General.

Jay McDade
Auto Tech--Lincoln/Mercury/Jaguar
www.hometown.aol.com/impreza25rs2000 (http://www.hometown.aol.com/impreza25rs2000)

you guys are WRONG!!

the RS is gonna hand any auto WRX it's butt..

i drove the auto WRX... a few times... last week.. all i can say is well... IT SUCKS

the turbo lag is so poor that the RS would be miles away by the time the WRX got going...

it is really, truly that bad!!!

nope... in this one the RS wins hands down... i would never, ever recommend that anyone buy the auto WRX... you would be seriously disappointed!

j. www.subiegal.com (http://www.subiegal.com)

I agree with subiegal, but let me elaborate.

I think that 0-60 or maybe even 0-100 mph a MY02 WRX sedan or wagon verses a MY98-01 RS 5 speed, would be interesting. I think the torque and on demand (always there) power of the RS would prevail, but if you compare the WRX 5speed an any RS, no way!

I offer to do a stoplight run with the auto wagon WRX at the dealership (Beardmore) that let us 'really drive' the WRX and he said no, I don't think the boss would like to see me racing the car down Saddle Creek (name of the road). I said the offer still stands anytime as I was emensly dissapointed in the Auto and unless they can get a 5 speed to test drive, I won't buy one. I need to test drive it first as I was disapointed in the auto. I like the feel of turning and the suspension of the WRX, and I have felt a 5 speed which was much better. I liked everything except the pull of the auto. I did get a chance to ride in a 5 speed WRX when the NJ rep was in town traing the dealers, but never got to drive it. The 5 speed felt nice, but the auto was week, feels like an old impreza 1.8L I test drove a while back.. gutless below 3k above nice, but still takes a little gas pedal work to get it to really kick down and go!

IMHO

Jon

but the question itself is MY01 Auto VS WRX AUTO, so which one will be faster if what subie gal said is correct?

You guys are all wrong. Neither one would be faster then the other unless they each had drivers... as it is now they're just sitting still. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/tongue.gif http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/lol.gif

Damn 8'
You REALLY must be bored....http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/lol.gif

I agree completely regarding the lagginess of the auto WRX. It was horrible. You mash the peddle to the floor and then wait what seems like an eternity, and then it takes off, shoving you back in the seat. I guess it takes a few seconds to wake the gerbils. Supposedly in the stick it is far less noticable. It's nice when you can go for a test drive with a real car-guy type salesman. Full brake pedal to the floor stops from 70 are fun http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif. I'd still think the WRX's is faster than the RS, stick or auto (well duh, more power). Either way who buys these cars in an auto? It's not as bad as buying an automatic Porche Carrera (that should be an actual crime, with jail time and cannings), but still.

Bob

I can't believe that anyone that is normally close to correct(omahasubaru, SubieGal) would say the RS is quicker than the WRX, IN ANY SITUATION!! Come on people. I spent a good period of time driving an auto WRX, and there is still no comparison. Yeah, there's turbo lag, but GOD I can't take it anymore. I'm done posting on these rediculous threads. Is this an April Fools joke? You people kill me.

Chad

wow.. you spent a good period of time driving the lame auto WRX? that's impressive considering it's only been out for a couple of weeks... http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/rolleyes.gif

anyway.....

in an outright speed contest boys and girls.. the WRX will win as it EVENTUALLY comes up to it's potential HP...

but in a race/speed contest... from A to B - 1/4 mile even... the WRX just doesnt go... it took a GOOD 4-5 seconds to get the turbo to boost... no kidding.. and in that 4-5 seconds.. i'd be well on my way in my RS..

so now what's this joke about???

please... get your facts straight before you start a flame war....

j. "flame suit on" www.subiegal.com (http://www.subiegal.com)

I have to admit to that as well... when I drove the stick WRX, I was very unimpressed by how long it took to get into boost... I can only imagine the auto version.

I'm not starting a flame war. You are the one saying there's no way I could have spent a good amount of time in the car. Have you ever driven a stock manufactured turbocharged car before? If you have, you wouldn't be so critical of the lag, b/c it's not that bad if you know how to drive it(not knocking your driving abilitieshttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif). How far do you wanna race? My salesman friend, driving an auto WRX wagon, raced me, driving my unmodified RS, and I got a one car length jump on him before he passed me. When he passed, I hadn't even hit 60 yet.
So what facts do I need to get straight?
I wasn't lucky enought to go to AZ for your adventure (as I am not a member of the SIPPhttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif) but I have run the car through the mill, and I think you, no I know you are wrong.

Chad

Hey,

What about the Buick GNX?

That was an auto...

Roger

in comparison...
i've driven a Legacy GT-B - which only comes in an auto form... and the GT-B suffered NO.. zero turbo lag... an amazingly quick car..

the WRX... look at the posts from the SIPP WRX ride and drive... in general.. i am not the only one who's complaining of the lag... there are other accounts of the same issues

i AM totally knocking the auto WRX and you can knock my drivin abilities if you want..

i could care less as i dont know you and u dont know me... so it's another blah.. blah.. stupid internet arguement... i am not
going there...

PERHAPS i am confused? raced me, driving my unmodified RS, and I got a one car length jump on him before he passed me. When he passed, I hadn't even hit 60 yet.


sounds like an unmodified RS passed up a WRX before it even hit 60?? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/eek.gif well that being said, i rest my case...

j.

You know what the point of that statement was. Of course a 2.5 liter is going to beat a 2.0 liter of the line with an auto especially.
Don't give me this "blah blah blah" crap. I simply stated my opinion and you, with your almighty Subaru knowledge, rip on me. I never said that no one was complaining of lag, but people are complaining about EVERYTING on the new car. Yeah, the car would be better with less lag, but that means a smaller turbo or a ball bearing turbo with means less top end power or more money. There are always trade offs. But that doesn't change the fact that in any road-going situation, the WRX will beat a 2.5RS. No argument needed.http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Oh, and I wasn't ripping on your abilities, hence the http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif.

Chad
Chad

okay i am really confused here. I have driven/owned an auto 2000 RS and boy did that suck. Even turbo'd it still sucked but not as bad http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif here is my somewhat stretched view:
stock 00 RS 4EAT - sucked really bad. that puppy REALLY died on you in the accel.
t3/t4 RS 4EAT - huge improvement. it was not too laggy (saw boost ~3k) and if i could race against my non turbo self I would have left myself harder than a jilted lover.
now how can a 2.0L 227hp auto WRX with a smaller turbo be SO laggy that it would lose to an auto RS!?! if that is so damn that is the weirdest thing i ever seen.

hey nick http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

have you driven it yet? go drive it...

you'll be surprised...

j.

I challenge anyone out there with a stock 2002 WRX auto to do a 0-60 run against a stock MY98-01 5 speed.

If the WRX wins I'll shut my trap, but until someone has actually done this (prior post) doesn't specify auto or stick) then I'm skeptical.

It is obvious that an auto n/a 2.5 liter will be slower than an auto turbo 2.0 liter, but is the auto WRX much faster than a 5 speed pre '02 RS?

No flaming should exist until someone can prove the other wrong.

Please I love the turbo WRX and I love my RS, I'm just not willing to upgrade from my 5 speed RS to the new WRX auto as power doesn't seem much better.

I'm willing to be in the RS, although mine isn't stock, it isn't heavily tuned either.

Can someone prove my theroy?

I know the RS won't win in top speed or above 60, but I think at least until 50 mph the 5 speed RS pre '02 can beat the auto '02 WRX.

Please someone prove me wrong. I'd like to know the truth.

Jon

subarurabbit, from what I've seen, the '87 GNX was pretty quick, it did 0-60 in 5.5secs, and if you ask me, that's fast for a heavy car. What helps w/that quick acceleration has to be the torque, that sucker had 360ft-lbs of it! That's a car I'd like to restore, should be fun! http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Jon,
When I raced my friend, him in an auto WRX wagon, me in my 5spd STOCK '99 RS, my friend stated after the run that he was back even with me right as the WRX shifted from 1st to second. Now I don't have the gearing handy, but I remeber looking down at 60, and he was already passing me. The laws of acceleration will tell us then that he was already doing OVER 60 to be passing me, therefore reached 60 at some point in time before that.
I understand your argument, but the lag in an auto is only going to play a major part when racing from a dead stop. BTW, he brake torqued the WRX to put as much load on the engine as possible without neutral dropping for take off.
I too am a WRX fan, but might just keep my RS, but no matter which car you want to rip on, the WRX auto is still a faster car in every aspect, except maybe 0-30 or something like that. I hope this helps Jon.

Chadhttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/cool.gif

You cant use the GNX in this due to the fact it is a V6 with a snail on it.....

Chad and SubieGal, both of you lighten up.

Your both entitled to your opinons. Chad has driven the WRX a fair amount, and his RS is a 5 speed. Chad I think your going a bit Turbo crazy though. Until any of us lines up against an AUTO WRX, we wont be able to settle this.
I will challenge any AUTO or 5 spd WRX to go to Gateway's 1/4 mile and we'll see what we can do. I know I will loose to the 5 speed, but I think I can take the auto pretty solid.

Subie Gal, your expeience in AZ was mostly with 5 speeds right? But you have driven the auto. Im with you on this, I think a stock (or modded like mine) will slaughter an auto WRX.....

Car and driver tested a '94 Legacy L outdoor wagon 5spd:

3076 lbs, 130hp@5600, 137lb-ft
0-60 : 9.1
0-100: 33.5
5-60 : 9.8
1/4 : 17.1 @ 79

95 Legacy Outback auto:
3089 lbs, 135hp@5400 rmp, 140lb-ft@4400
0-60 : 10.6
0-100: 48.8
5-60 : 10.7
1/4 : 17.9 @ 75

What gives here?
better gearing in the 5spd?
ineffeciency of an automatic?

I can't wait until mine is supercharged.

Roger

what if you did a brake stand in a wrx till it reached max stall speed and let it go. will it still lag enough to put it behind a WRX?

50 second to 100mph. Wow, is that right, that's an eternity.

also do you guys think that most of the lag on the auto WRX comes from the 3 cat set up?

ummm Jon he asked which was faster, an auto RS vs an auto WRX, not a 5spd RS vs an auto RS

It is obvious that an auto n/a 2.5 liter will be slower than an auto turbo 2.0 liter, but is the auto WRX much faster than a 5 speed pre '02 RS?

this was not what he asked nor what i was saying is obvious.

hope that sheds some light

and subie gal - who needs a wrx anyway... i know this musclecar in miami... doesnt have any wheels but sure can ri... http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/redface.gif http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

The main reason the RS would be "faster" is that for the first couple seconds off the line in an auto WRX you have a plain old 2.0 liter 8.0 to 1 compression engine. Your probably talking 100hp at the wheels if your lucky for those first few seconds.

Jeremy

when u say first couple you mean 2s? if so who counts a zero to 36.7mph race? maybe if ur driving a toyota echo i guess.

Would be neat to line up an MT 01RS vs. an AT 02WRX at a strip wouldn't it? I have never driven a WRX auto or stick but I will share some of my thoughts on the matter. If I fall out of line, just let me know because I want to know the truth as much as you do.

Personally I don't think standing start AT acceleration runs are all that useful and comparable because I imagine you'll have one tester or mag doing AT brake torquing while another doesn't.

Let's talk about launching AT cars! I remember as a rosy eyed teen, reading the Car&Driver magazine GN or was it the GNX road test back in 86/87... their test methodology involved slamming on the brakes hard and gently squeezed the gas hard enough with 1 selected on the AT gear lever and then when the rear drive tires started to slip with the car still sedentary, they let the brakes go and away they went shifting manually selecting each successive gear with the AT. Good for two reasons...
1. boost was up and so no fear of bogging
2. tires were already slipping so it made it relatively easier to regulate tirespin and not oversmoke the tires with that much power on tap... can selectively hit that magical 20-30% slip rate right at T minus zero that will allow for max acceleration.

I'm a big fan of the scientific method and when launch technique makes that much of a difference in AT equipped cars, it only follows that one compare apples to apples.

However it gets interesting because I don't know if it's a safe practice to brake torque a center diff equipped AWD car? Anyone know?

This doesn't exactly apply to what we're talking about now but hear me out.
My fave stat is not the 0-60 or the 1/4mile but rather the 5-60 street starts to simulate real world situations where one might have to accelerate in order to avoid being an unwilling participant in an accident, elude a carjacker, whatever... and in this test, a 01 MT RS with 1st selected would move quite nicely ahead. This test also removes the significance of proper launch technique as there is no launch and to some extent, driver ability. Not quite as good a gauge as the 50-70MPH in 5th tests but yes we are trying to factor out driver ability and rate the cars and not a driver's ability here.

The auto WRX? Not sure, never driven one but I can just imagine, sitting in "Drive" mode or whatever it's called nowadays pressing the gas just hard enough to maintain 5MPH. Starter pistol goes off, foot gets buried... how long will that take to get to 60MPH? Half a second to fetch a kickdown perhaps? Then followed by what must seem like an eternity of boost building as per Subiegal... again I have never driven a WRX so I'm just going with what I heard.

To be fair, 1st should be explicitly chosen on the AT WRX but with it off boost, even without the kickdown, I foresee the RS dipping heavily into second gear before the auto WRX even shifts into second gear so it should be a close race. Am I way off here?

As for the 0-60... line em up I say! If the AT WRX brake torques effectively so that most of it's torque is available and shifts manually, I really can't see the RS hanging with it but whether or not that's a recommended habit, you'll have to ask someone else.

Thanks for the clarification.. oh well.. At least this proves that they were pretty close from a stand still from 0-60 (RS).

BTW my friend has a GN (no X) and it is quite quick and the less noticable lag is due to the V6. But I too think the GN (non-intercooled) won't beat me 0-60.. plus since his GN is a one wheel peal!

But alas.. the GN's and especially GNX's are fast and mad props go to Buick for this hidden treasure... too bad they don't make any fun cars anymore (except for the Supercharged Regal).

Jon

NickSTi I am aware of the subject and question of this thread.. I answered it and then posed an additional more comparable question.

2.5 RS auto - vs - 2.0 WRX auto
WRX will always be faster.

2.5 RS 5 speed - vs - 2.0 WRX auto
closer comparison
WRX will likely be faster depending on the drivers.

Hopefully I shed some light on the subject Nick.

This thread is in the wrong forum anyway.

[This message has been edited by omahasubaru (edited April 03, 2001).]

This is what Webkris had to say about auto WRX:

"These are all automatics?!" I gasped as the flashback of my 2.2L AT hit me. They chose automatics for this event to even the scores for the people that couldn't drive stick. Plus - to flatten the times more, we were not allowed to brake-stand, and build boost. Let me tell you. Slapping down the gas in an automatic WRX works like this... You have a 2.0L 8:1 compression engine for a good 3 seconds. Jim remarked that my 2.2L Auto could hand the AT WRX it's hat off the line.

-Roger

Geez you guys are dumb http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/tongue.gif

Ive been trying out the brake/rev thing with the auto with a few cars, and im sure that reving the WRX auto up to 3000+ will make it launch WAY better than even a 5 speed RS...

Anyone car to test drive one and try? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

Actually Ramzi, I think your thinking of the regular grand national, the GNX had over 400 hp and over 400 lb/ft torque IIRC, it did 0-60mph in 4.7 seconds, with an auto. It was and still is one of the fastest production vehicles ever made.

too bad it handled like a fridge.

It seems that there are 2 arguments going on here. "Fastest" simply refers to top speed, whereas "quickest" would be a measure of acceleration. Is an auto WRX faster? I don't know the top speeds of the two, but it's not that complex a question....