What's the big deal? Don't get me wrong, it's cool, but there's no way I'd trade the RS for one. I'm not one of those guys with turbo envy or anything, so don't flame me on this one, I also don't think that the old 2.5rs is the "better looking" car of the two, in fact, the WRX's looks have really grown on me. I wanted to test drive the WRX because I was thinking about trading the 2.5 for one. Boost is a beautiful thing, don't get me wrong, but it kind of reminded me of driving a Honda VTEC car, if the motor's not in the boost (or on the cam as in the VTEC's), it's not making power. It's my opinion that the 2.5 has much more useable "real world" power. So I may not win drag races against Integras, but who really cares? Now, I've owned and driven turbo powered cars before, so it's not something new to me, I think the WRX needs a bigger turbo, a little more torque, and it would be great. Maybe the STI version will be my next car, but certainly not the standard WRX.

i guess u can say that since u have a RS
whatever strokes your ego

if you didnt have a RS (if you werent stuck with one)
you would be loving the WRX
and everything about it

hmm odd,....My brother and I went out test driving RS's last friday,...he was leaning toward an RS over a WRX because that fit his budget a little better. We both took turns driving a 5 speed 2.5RS thru all sorts of roads. Then I suggested he drives a WRX next (so he could get a back to back comparison,...I didnt need to test the WRX cause I own one =P ).


anyway we both came up with the same impressions about the RS and WRX

They are both really nice cars.

The RS and the WRX felt really really similar below 3000 RPMS...they both had equivilant "pull"/ torq.

Above 3000rpms it felt like the RS's power grew linearly where as the WRX's took off exponentialy.

I dont think I could tell between a WRX and a RS below 3k rpms,...it just seams like the 2.0 and the 2.5 engine preform really similarly and then with the WRX you just throw a turbo on top of that.


Just my two sense.
XBD

Hi. I have both the RS and the WRX.
The RS is quicker and more torquey off the line, for about the first 50 feet. After that, boost kicks in, and the WRX is gone.

I'll kind of agree that the RS has more "usable, real world" power. I have to pay more attention to rpms/gearing in the WRX, to keep it in or near the powerband. With the RS it really doesn't matter, just floor it and go. Gotta love the 2.5 truck motor. ;) I also find the RS more fun to drive, but I think that's because the WRX can still scare the heebie-jeebies out of me at times, especially in the rain (RE92s suck!).

Roger that. The WRX has plenty of torque down low. But when the boost comes on, it hits so hard that off-boost the car seems sluggish. I've driven RSes hard, and have thrilled, but never thrilled enough to drive my Legacy GT wagon over to the dealer, with a check in my hand.

When I drove a WRX...well, I have a silver wagon now. 'Nuff said.

But I don't really know what the purpose is of a thread like this one. If you love the RS, cool. I dig 'em too, but I also dig Scoobies of all stripes. But what generally happens with these is:

RS owners chime in with "Yeah! Our cars rock!"
WRX owners chime in with "You guys are nuts!"

And things degenerate. There have been hosts of threads like this one, that rarely have anything new to add to the body of knowledge about the WRX. I will say this. I have learned a lot more about this car after over 2,500 miles, than I ever could from a test drive. When you get a corner perfectly, that is, downshifting and grabbing that gear that keeps you on boost (revs above 3,000), all you can do is go, "Muhahahahaha!"

Kevin

It sounds like he is rationalizing. I had a non turbo 97 saab 900 and would find myself doing the same thing, even though I knew the turbo 900 was much faster and more fun.

I have a WRX and a sports car with ~400rwhp for comparison.

All I have to say is that the WRX does not feel sluggish at all to me, the only times it ever has is when I bog off the line for fear of hurting the AWD tranny.

The car feels soo light and darty to me that I find it hard to believe anyone would/could call this car slow.

Enjoy your RS but make no mistake that stock for stock the RS will not beat the WRX at anything substantial other than perhaps price :)

lateRZ

I don't recall saying that I didn't like the WRX.. I just don't really see what the big deal is. Now, I'd undoubtedly buy a WRX, it's just that I wouldn't trade my 2001 RS for one, not right now anyhow. I do agree that I'd probably like it better after a few months, the RS was the same way, it takes some getting used to. I don't agree however that the RS and WRX are the same "off the line" I certainly felt a lack of torque in the bottom end compared to the 2.5, but that's to be expected due to it's smaller displacement. There's no "rationalizing" going on, hell, I was ready to buy one, it's not that I need to convince myself that the 2.5 is better because I can't afford a WRX. I'm not "stuck" with the RS, I was ready to ditch it and place my order for a silver WRX! I was just giving my opinion, no right or wrong, just an opinion. I kind of figured that it's probably not ok for me to have a less than positive opinion about the "holy grail" of automobiles.

LOL!

4.4 sec 0-60 is as real as it gets my friend. ;)

"Now, I've owned and driven turbo powered cars before, so it's not something new to me, I think the WRX needs a bigger turbo, a little more torque, and it would be great"

UM. Since you're biggest problem seems to be down low torque, why would you put a bigger turbo on it? That would just mean more top end. More lag.

Ever wonder why the 1.8T VW's have little or no lag? Smaller turbo.

I don't think that anyone's saying that the WRX is a grail of any kind. The car has warts just like any other car except the Ferrari 360 Modena (fly yellow, please :D)

My only comment was that this wasn't a new topic, and that it was all about the Scooby love. Drive whatever you have and love it.

Kevin

4.4 sec 0-60 is only if you change the turbo, FMIC and a whole bunch of other stuff, yes ?

If you are going to do that, might as well just get an old impreza, put in an STi engine and etc. It might be more cost-effective since you are already voiding your new warranty by changing those parts.

Any car can be made to go real fast, it's only a matter of cash.

make a Geo Metro fast.

My car ran 4.4 sec with a slipping clutch, uppipe, VF-22 turbo and turbo back exhaust. Tuned with TEC II. Running 1/2 psi over stock. 4.4 sec. Whooopa!

No FMIC, no even intake or upgraded top mount IC. ;)

Just give me till the end of fall to finish my project and I will show you 4.0 sec 0-60. ;)

Ferrarri's, bring it on!

What's the total cost of the mods that you have, Imprezer ?

Do you need to change any of the drivetrain components such as clutch, gearbox, diffs ?

Thanks

Imprezer:

Did you have to any upgrades to the fuel system? Or still the stock injectors, fuel rail, fuel pressure regulator, and fuel pump?

Just curious, because that sounds d@mn impressive heheh

lateRZ

I had that time with only the mods I listed. The reason I ran only 15 psi is because that is what the stock fuel system can handle.

Now, I have some new goodies waiting to be installed. Amoung them are CUSCO clutch and flywheel and big injectors. That will allow me to run more boost and transfer ALL the power to the wheels.

The cost of the mods are ~4k.

-Alex