I'm sure some of you have seen it... but the sept issue of Car and Driver has a nice comparo. The WRX beats the cobalt SS, Neon SRT4 ACR and Saturn Ion Redline. The Acura RSX wins the contest.

Some interesting points:

1. They gave the WRX a 9/10 in handling even though it had the worst handling test numbers. The actual test numbers were likely affected by the re-92s vs the real tires on the other cars. This goes to show there is more to handling than a skidpad or slalom number.
2. They tested a 2005 WRX, and the only real complaint was turbo lag. This bodes well for the 2.5L 2006 WRX.
3. They also complemented the WRX on its Steering (like a sporty lexus) visibilty and flexible suspension.
4. THe WRX got better scores for brake feel, ride, and transmission than all but the acura. :D

Anyway looks like this 4 year old car isn't doing too bad challengine today's competitors. Some of you out there were saying that the WRX is ancient and no longer competitive. They didn't even test the 2006 revised model and it still did pretty well. :p

The acura is a great car unless you need 4 doors....which I do. I can't disagree with this test.

doesn't suprise me about the rsx, it's really well built.... slap re92's on it and then we'd have a contest

Anyway looks like this 4 year old car isn't doing too bad challengine today's competitors.

The WRX has been receiving minor upgrades all along and the '05 is certainly the best of the 2.0l bunch, IMO (and I had an '03 for two years/43,000 miles). As for the steering feel, that make sense - the '05s have a solid steering rack :D

I should hope it beats those POS considering they're 10K$ less than the WRX...

I should hope it beats those POS considering they're 10K$ less than the WRX...

I don't know what pricing is like in Canada but the Ion is 3k less, the ACR SRT-4 is 3k less and the Cobalt SS is only 2k less. And none of them are AWD.




Did they say why the RSX was the best?

18 seconds 0-100????

The last one they had did 15.5...ouch...

The 05's are nice, but the powertrains don't seem to perform quite as well as 02-03's. Maybe its the little bit of weight...

Notice the subie 4th in the auotcross. Maybe this will give the Noobs something to think about when they defend against srt starightline victories with "wait till theres a turn in the road". Its all about rubber boys, and RE92's don't cut it in taht group...

the loss in the autocross and the loss to the honda can both be explained by the tires. REX8 should consider that a tire upgrade (which they could have relfected in the as tested price) would have completely changed those results, and since most owners have upgraded the tires, and it would have made a more level playing field by making the cars being tested more similarly equiped, it would have been a reasonable thing for them to do. they didnt. if that ever happens we'll examinine the results.

and if a suby has equivilent rubber it could DEFINTELY take an srt in the twisties. sorry.

I'm sure some of you have seen it... but the sept issue of Car and Driver has a nice comparo. The WRX beats the cobalt SS, Neon SRT4 ACR and Saturn Ion Redline. The Acura RSX wins the contest.

Some interesting points:

1. They gave the WRX a 9/10 in handling even though it had the worst handling test numbers. The actual test numbers were likely affected by the re-92s vs the real tires on the other cars. This goes to show there is more to handling than a skidpad or slalom number.
2. They tested a 2005 WRX, and the only real complaint was turbo lag. This bodes well for the 2.5L 2006 WRX.3. They also complemented the WRX on its Steering (like a sporty lexus) visibilty and flexible suspension.
4. THe WRX got better scores for brake feel, ride, and transmission than all but the acura. :D

Anyway looks like this 4 year old car isn't doing too bad challengine today's competitors. Some of you out there were saying that the WRX is ancient and no longer competitive. They didn't even test the 2006 revised model and it still did pretty well. :p


Could also mean that you need to replace the uppipe. I can't understand why so many people beat up on the 2L. A 2L can spool up a turbo just fine.

the loss in the autocross and the loss to the honda can both be explained by the tires. REX8 should consider that a tire upgrade (which they could have relfected in the as tested price) would have completely changed those results, and since most owners have upgraded the tires, and it would have made a more level playing field by making the cars being tested more similarly equiped, it would have been a reasonable thing for them to do. they didnt. if that ever happens we'll examinine the results.

and if a suby has equivilent rubber it could DEFINTELY take an srt in the twisties. sorry.

Can you read...??? I said it was because of the tires

Why would the wrx on equal rubber DEFINATELY take the srt in the twisties???Awd does NOT help cornering, mabe you think the wrx's extra weight will help turning??? :huh:

I love how people put down all of those others cars in the turns. Why is the suby so much better? Maybe you can get in the throttle on exiting a bit sooner, but theres a reason the srt4 is a d-stock car. On equal tires, its about equal to the wrx IF NOT BETTER. It probably makes its way through the course a little faster, but losses something on the start to our AWD. Why in the world does everyone assume a FWD car can't handle? Absolutely incorrect...Civics dominate RS's at the national level, Silly people

So seriously, tell me why the wrx would be faster in tight turns on equal tires...AWD doesn't increase LATERAL grip...but you'd like to think it does.

WRX has the most potential in that comparo.

WRX has the most potential in that comparo.

Power? No, the srt4 can make more than the wrx...
Handling? Maybe, but still, Srt-4's are competing in T2 ( I believe) and battling quite nicely.

I'd say the Srt has more potential for outright speed than the wrx...

Awd is good for stading starts, its not actually good for the track...no tthat FWD is either...

Power? No, the srt4 can make more than the wrx...
Handling? Maybe, but still, Srt-4's are competing in T2 ( I believe) and battling quite nicely.

I'd say the Srt has more potential for outright speed than the wrx...

Awd is good for stading starts, its not actually good for the track...no tthat FWD is either...
AWD > FWD around the track and for the 1/4 mile, especially with 300+WHP. The srt4 might make more power stock but I would think the WRX engine has more potential since it's being used in their race cars. What's considered outright speed?

AWD > FWD around the track and for the 1/4 mile, especially with 300+WHP. The srt4 might make more power stock but I would think the WRX engine has more potential since it's being used in their race cars. What's considered outright speed?

An srt4 engine is capable of more power. Heck, it already puts down 50 more whp than a wrx. AWD does not necessarily perform better around a track...that depends on the track. It's heavy and loses about 10-15% more power due to drivetrain loss. You're right about the 1/4 mile. But again, not necessarily around a track. An srt will dog a wrx on a track...go ahead and try it...

Around a road course properly setup FWD WRX would probably outrun a AWD wrx. Think about it, 100 less pounds and 10% more power...You can't compare apples to oranges, but an srt4 on a track will defeat a wrx, without question.

Turn on speed vision (or better yet, go to the track) and you'll see plenty of FWD cars lapping faster than a wrx...AWD is NOT ideal for a track...

Still waiting for the other poster to explain why a wrx "turns" better than a FWD car...

You know what forget about it....

No reason for anther srt-4 vs. wrx thread. If you want to know the truth, stop talking about it and get out to a track and see for yourself...

I dont think C &D should factor better tires for the wrx even if it would make it more "even." It came with re92s from the factory because they are cheap and are decent in the rain/mud. Thats why the base price is more reasonable. The only thing that I think is unfair is that they put an aftermarket performance handling package on the SRT-4 of course it still didnt beat the wrx :). REX8 you defend the SRT-4 too much, if you really like it that much go to SRTforums enough already. I understand where you are coming from, I was weighing my options a year ago(srt4 vs wrx) and people were like its just a neon! Even though I seriously considered getting it anyways. But at the same time you need to calm down. You are forgetting a couple things that I believe turn handling in the wrx's favor. First is the chassis, it is really stiff and well designed, not just for a japanese car but for any car in general although it does add to the weight. Also subaru's suspension is better and the flat4 engine pushed forward while making the weight distribution worse does lower the center of gravity. I know the neon is a solid handler and a potential monster in autox but at the same time dont look down on the wrx just because its not the underdog. An srt-4 will not simply defeat a wrx at the track either, it depends on how technical the course is. The srt-4 definitely has more power 230/250 whp/torque but the wrx can put it down earlier and if you take it to a track you should not be running on re92s. Once the tire difference is eliminated the track comparison does become a lot different. Also even if a fwd car is as fast an awd car around the track, the fwd car still feels like ass.

oh and I agree AWD is not the fastest around a track, I think MR is the most ideal drivetrain setup... but AWD is significantly better than fwd especially as you add power.

I dont think C &D should factor better tires for the wrx even if it would make it more "even." It came with re92s from the factory because they are cheap and are decent in the rain/mud. Thats why the base price is more reasonable. The only thing that I think is unfair is that they put an aftermarket performance handling package on the SRT-4 of course it still didnt beat the wrx :). REX8 you defend the SRT-4 too much, if you really like it that much go to SRTforums enough already. I understand where you are coming from, I was weighing my options a year ago(srt4 vs wrx) and people were like its just a neon! Even though I seriously considered getting it anyways. But at the same time you need to calm down. You are forgetting a couple things that I believe turn handling in the wrx's favor. First is the chassis, it is really stiff and well designed, not just for a japanese car but for any car in general although it does add to the weight. Also subaru's suspension is better and the flat4 engine pushed forward while making the weight distribution worse does lower the center of gravity. I know the neon is a solid handler and a potential monster in autox but at the same time dont look down on the wrx just because its not the underdog. An srt-4 will not simply defeat a wrx at the track either, it depends on how technical the course is. The srt-4 definitely has more power 230/250 whp/torque but the wrx can put it down earlier and if you take it to a track you should not be running on re92s. Once the tire difference is eliminated the track comparison does become a lot different. Also even if a fwd car is as fast an awd car around the track, the fwd car still feels like ass.

I agree with everything you said...I guess I just needed to change my tone...

I should have stressed the positives of the WRX too. Its obviously my favortite car by far, I'm just willing to admit its not the best at everything...

Just to add to the tire debate, the rsx also comes with some pretty bad tires also. Those Michelin Pilots are pretty bad performance wise, they are at least 215/45-17's though. The other three FWD cars do come with pretty good tires however. Of course better tires would of helped the wrx but I don't think just a change of tires would of made the wrx dominate all the other cars.

Everybody realize it is just a C&D comparo, it doesn't mean we should sell our subarus and go get a rsx or srt-4 :)

REX8 you're giving SRT-4's too much credit. Of course we all know they will beat a WRX in a straight line but when it comes to handling SRT-4's don't stack up. Simply put the front wheels are doing wayyyyy too much in that car. All the steering, most of the braking, and putting down 230 whp. On a track the front wheels' available grip is going to be used up quick resulting in the car understeering and smoking the front wheels. Ever watch Top Gear? They've done tons of tests showing this effect in Alfa Romeos and the like. FWD is not a good platform for big power. I've personally witnessed a SRT-4 at an autocross and it was understeering all over the place and looked nearly out of control.

REX8 you're giving SRT-4's too much credit. Of course we all know they will beat a WRX in a straight line but when it comes to handling SRT-4's don't stack up. Simply put the front wheels are doing wayyyyy too much in that car. All the steering, most of the braking, and putting down 230 whp. On a track the front wheels' available grip is going to be used up quick resulting in the car understeering and smoking the front wheels. Ever watch Top Gear? They've done tons of tests showing this effect in Alfa Romeos and the like. FWD is not a good platform for big power. I've personally witnessed a SRT-4 at an autocross and it was understeering all over the place and looked nearly out of control.

It was obviously over-driven...

You saw a poorly driven srt4 in an autocross. The wrx UNDERSTEERS like a pig too. The SRT4 and FWD type R are VERY (repeat...VERY) competitive DS autocrossers...Clearly you haven't spent much time autocrossing...

The acura is a great car unless you need 4 doors....which I do. I can't disagree with this test.

I agree. My mother who's almost 60 drives a RSX and it is very solid. I actually considered it but I don't want another integra although the RSX and integra are different. I just wish the WRX's had a nicer/higher quality interior like the RSX's.

Rick

No reason for anther srt-4 vs. wrx thread. ...

12345

It was obviously over-driven...

You saw a poorly driven srt4 in an autocross. The wrx UNDERSTEERS like a pig too. The SRT4 and FWD type R are VERY (repeat...VERY) competitive DS autocrossers...Clearly you haven't spent much time autocrossing...



Sure part of the problem could have been attributed to the driver, I'll admit that. And of course I know WRX's understeer too. It doesn't change the fact that the SRT-4 has too much going on with its front wheels. It's putting way too much power through the front wheels for it to be a competent handler. The difference between the SRT-4 and the Type-R is Type-R's don't make nearly as much power and WAY less torque.

AWD > FWD around the track and for the 1/4 mile, especially with 300+WHP. The srt4 might make more power stock but I would think the WRX engine has more potential since it's being used in their race cars. What's considered outright speed?

Any comparison between the engine you can buy for your car and what Subaru uses in WRC cars should be limited to the number of cylinders. An in-line 4 will always have an advantage over a flat 4 in making power. There is no complicated plumbing required.

"Ever watch Top Gear? They've done tons of tests showing this effect in Alfa Romeos and the like. FWD is not a good platform for big power."

It's true FWD can't handle too much power, the front wheels have to do steering/braking/accelerating while the rear wheels dont do much but that Alfa Romeo (actually I think it was vauxhall) comparison doesnt work here. The integra type-r and SRT-4 both have limited slip differentials. The quaife torque sensing LSD on the srt-4 in particular is really good at putting power down out of turns. The minute I heard they were putting the quaife on the srt-4 I immediately thought autox monster. Anyway, the reason that vauxhall was so slow at the track was it had an open differential. Just wanted to point that out, still can't stand fwd myself.

"Ever watch Top Gear? They've done tons of tests showing this effect in Alfa Romeos and the like. FWD is not a good platform for big power."

It's true FWD can't handle too much power, the front wheels have to do steering/braking/accelerating while the rear wheels dont do much but that Alfa Romeo (actually I think it was vauxhall) comparison doesnt work here. The integra type-r and SRT-4 both have limited slip differentials. The quaife torque sensing LSD on the srt-4 in particular is really good at putting power down out of turns. The minute I heard they were putting the quaife on the srt-4 I immediately thought autox monster. Anyway, the reason that vauxhall was so slow at the track was it had an open differential. Just wanted to point that out, still can't stand fwd myself.

Yeah I have seen the Vauxhall one but they had very similar results with an Alfa 147 GTA (I think, I can't remember the exact model.) I'm not sure if that one had a diff or not.

Shouldn't the MSP be in that comparison?

...........after awhile these threads become something just to scroll through.... SRT,SRT,SRT,WRX,WRX,WRX... Im all for a good SRT joke, but jeez, I'm a Soob nut, I wouldn't be caught dead in one, despite how f4st3r they are/aren't.

I rode in my friends 04 stock suspension srt-4 and it handles WAAAY better than i thought. Don't forget that the 04-05 models get the torque slip differential up front to prevent wheel spin and torque steer...I actually think it outhandles me on my stock RE-92's =/

I dont think C &D should factor better tires for the wrx even if it would make it more "even." It came with re92s from the factory because they are cheap and are decent in the rain/mud. Thats why the base price is more reasonable.


hmm ... well Subaru must get a good deal on RE92s but they are pretty spendy if you buy them yourself. Around 150 vs around 100 for several better alternatives.

The 05s don't have camber bolts? My 04 WRX and 02 RS do, so I thought the 05 did as well. They claimed that there was no camber adjustment in the autocross portion. I also liked the "telepathic" description of the steering. I would have expected that from the RSX.

In the mean time, anyone has a scan of that article?

It's been so long since WRX was compared to the proper competitors on a major magazine. It's been mostly out of the econo-turbo comparos bacause of the AWD factor, and probably the price as well.

Ah, but it's ok. Second place is a great place to be for a four year old car, and even better if it was next only to Honda on C&D. You know that's a reserved spot. :devil:

It is funny how people say that AWD does not = better handling - as if that is all that the WRX has going for it in the handling department.

Compared to a FWD car the WRX typically has better weight distribution front to back (SRT-4 63% up front) and lets not forget side to side. The lower center of gravity of the boxer contributes to its handling, plus the fact that a lot of its weight is futher back in the chasis. Aside from that the suspension is no slouch either. Come on people, those that write off the WRX's handling as nothing special at all, have you ever driven one hard with decent tires on it?

REX8 you're giving SRT-4's too much credit. Of course we all know they will beat a WRX in a straight line but when it comes to handling SRT-4's don't stack up. Simply put the front wheels are doing wayyyyy too much in that car. All the steering, most of the braking, and putting down 230 whp. On a track the front wheels' available grip is going to be used up quick resulting in the car understeering and smoking the front wheels. Ever watch Top Gear? They've done tons of tests showing this effect in Alfa Romeos and the like. FWD is not a good platform for big power. I've personally witnessed a SRT-4 at an autocross and it was understeering all over the place and looked nearly out of control.

No offense intended, but you don't know what you're talking about. The SRT-4 has proven itself in a number of venues, not the least of which are Rally America/Prorally and T2 SCCA. There are a lot of people out there proving otherwise. I won't even get into the straight line stuff.

On a track the front wheels' available grip is going to be used up quick resulting in the car understeering and smoking the front wheels.

2004 and 2005 SRT-4s have Quaife LSDs.

I don't like the SRT-4 any more than most people here, but I give respect where it's due. The SRT-4 gets a bad rep around here, not all of it deserved.

It probably makes its way through the course a little faster, but losses something on the start to our AWD.

I think this is pretty accurate right here. I think the cars are close enough that in competition it can really come down to the drivers. At my first auto x in my '03 sedan, I was full stock (down to the tires) and was running 1 to 2 seconds faster than a very lightly modified SRT-4. With a different driver in his or my car, who knows what it would have been..

The real point is that 97% of the community(myself included) arent good enough drivers to realize the full potential of either car. The handling of a car is almost as dependant to the tires as to whos turning the wheel. To most of you a good suspension is one that makes it idiot proof to you so when you take a turn horribly wrong it compensates, keeps you right side up and moving. Same for power, you figure hey add 50 more hp and I dont need to learn how to shift properly I can just mash through it and be just as fast. I dont mean to be sour, like I said Im no pro driver, it just really bugs me when so many people blame how well the car drives on the components of the car, rather than accepting the fact that we arent Peter Solberg(or your favorite driver) and it just might be that we arent as good of drivers as we think. Flame on if you like, but I think some of you will realize it. So enough of the "my dad can beat up your dad" bull and just accept that both cars have great potential and all depends on what flavor excites you more.

Ah, but it's ok. Second place is a great place to be for a four year old car, and even better if it was next only to Honda on C&D. You know that's a reserved spot. :devil:

:lol: :lol:
I have a good idea for a caricature...Chubby Cheddar and all those writers inside a giant's (Honda) pants pocket.

EDIT: I started typing my previous post before sonicsuby eluded to the driver factor. I couldnt agree more with you.

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/5/web/257000-257999/257090_73_full.jpg > RE92's :D

I don't like the SRT-4 any more than most people here, but I give respect where it's due. The SRT-4 gets a bad rep around here, not all of it deserved.


The SRT-4 is a bad ass car period. If they made back when I bought my WRX I might not be driving a WRX. Just the fact that Dodge went ahead and made this car that has one purpose for that price awsome.

My RS (driven by my brother) was quicker on all seasons than an SRT-4 that classed himself as GS at an auto-x last year. The SRT-4 was quicker than me by 0.01 seconds. :mad: Of course, there is plenty of driver error to take into account... mainly my own! I'm on Falken Azenis ST-115's now, though. Overdriving the car a little less should help my times. :banana:

Rev - take a gander at the crash tests of the current neon platform. I like what the SRT-4 can do as far as performance goes. Protecting the passengers is something that the neon chassis does very poorly, though.

~~Quentin

Rev - take a gander at the crash tests of the current neon platform. I like what the SRT-4 can do as far as performance goes. Protecting the passengers is something that the neon chassis does very poorly, though.

~~Quentin

In its quest to become fast it has no doubt neglected other desireable car qualities. Comfort, safety, handsome interior, power rear windows - all neglected. I know all that, still I won't deny that it is a bad ass car because of it. It raises the price/performance bar, and I am glad for that.

I thought the overall comparo in the magazine was pretty fair I agreed with much of what was said. To address a comment about the MSP being in the comparison it was for cars at or under $25k and with at least 200hp. Basically all the cars are good bangs for your buck just some are better than others and it really depends on what you're looking for.

I thought the overall comparo in the magazine was pretty fair I agreed with much of what was said. To address a comment about the MSP being in the comparison it was for cars at or under $25k and with at least 200hp. Basically all the cars are good bangs for your buck just some are better than others and it really depends on what you're looking for.


I thought the best line was when they said that they didn't pick the Eclipse GT b/c they didn't think it could compete :lol:

That article is interesting considering that R&T just did a comparo of the RSX s and the Cobalt SS. Cobalt got #1, but only by 1/2 point. Another funny thing I read in R&T is that the new Audi RS 4 has no power windows (like the SRT-4) on the Euro version and is a $80k car.

hey rex8 if you love the srt-4 so much why dont you marry it :p

what i was trying to say earlier (may not have come out that way) was that it would have made things more interesting to have all the cars on equivalent tires to show how the cars ACTUALLY compared to eachother with all variables being more similar.

as for the srt-4 being as good or better in twisties, that depends GREATLY on the driver. for your average driver the wrx will feel more stable in turns and less prone to understeer. IF YOU CAN DRIVE IT WELL the SRT-4 may be as good as you say it is, but most people probably wont be able to. read the post above about one being out of control on an autocross. so you MAY be correct in a perfect world, but think of how many lousy drivers/ham-fisted idiots you know, and tell me that you still think that is true.

The SRT-4 is a bad ass car period. If they made back when I bought my WRX I might not be driving a WRX. Just the fact that Dodge went ahead and made this car that has one purpose for that price awsome.



i think that might the problem....

--------------------------- good

----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\-----/\/\/\/\--- better

Rev - take a gander at the crash tests of the current neon platform. I like what the SRT-4 can do as far as performance goes. Protecting the passengers is something that the neon chassis does very poorly, though.

~~Quentin

I'll never forget that pic of the yellow SRT-4 some kid in Mexico crashed...he ran into something and the roof buckled like a soda can. :eek:

I have much respect for SRT4 for its power and straight line acceleration. It traps 4-5 mph higher than WRX, which is cobb stage 2 territory.

After reading the article, I think the SRT4 would be the most fun to drive... for short distances.

After reading the article, I think the SRT4 would be the most fun to drive... for short distances.

And which one would you want to live with?

I have much respect for SRT4 for its power and straight line acceleration. It traps 4-5 mph higher than WRX, which is cobb stage 2 territory.

Not to mention the ones in the other tests that trap 100+...they're roll on monsters...I'm thinking of three letters... S _ i

And which one would you want to live with?

None of those. That's why I have an FXT. But, if I had to pick one it would be the Acura. Now, if they had included an 06 WRX TR, that would be my choice. I just don't like the WRX 2.0 engine and I'm not inclined to do much modding before my warranty is up.

None of those. That's why I have an FXT. But, if I had to pick one it would be the Acura. Now, if they had included an 06 WRX TR, that would be my choice. I just don't like the WRX 2.0 engine and I'm not inclined to do much modding before my warranty is up.

If you think the 2.0 wrx engine is weak on the bottom...drive the acura!!! Then again, the acura has its other strong points...

After reading the article, I think the SRT4 would be the most fun to drive... for short distances.
Yep, until you want to roll down your rear windows.

this thread should be less about SRT's and more about the comparo...

^^They all do eventually^^
Its called evolution (not the car).

Seriously, try putting down any real torque with a FWD and it's going to be a problem (you will kill any tire that much quicker). The RSX is well built but still being a FWD, there is a limitation on how much useful power you can put down. If you're talking about track times, it depends on how tight and twisty the track is - even then, it's easier to put the power down with AWD vs 2WD (RWD better than FWD still). Handling wise, RWD > AWD > FWD in general but I'm not saying you can't make a FWD handle, just that you can't have as much power thru it. Ever seen a 300whp, 400whp or even 500whp FWD around a road-racing track? Probably not, but I'm certain you see those figures regularly with a RWD/AWD platform. As a package from the factory/dealer, I would some what agree that the RSX takes it but if you're going to mod for power, the WRX is preferrable against any of the above (Cobalt, Ion, SRT-4, RSX) just because it's NOT a FWD

Car and Driver may have placed the RSX above the WRX in this venue however Road and Track placed the Cobalt SS over the RSX, which came in 4th in Car and Driver's comparison. All these comparisons are more or less opionated and subjectively based although supported by fact. All that matters is that the WRX is the bet car for you.

Not to mention in 02 when 2 of 3 C/D editors put a WRX 1st out of a 330 and S4.

Not to mention in 02 when 2 of 3 C/D editors put a WRX 1st out of a 330 and S4.
i have that article.... it got 2nd place, but they said for the price it was better.... which i love to point out to my audi-loving older brother
(PS the s4 may have won over all, but after seeing my brother's repair bills on his a4 there is no contest)

i have that article.... it got 2nd place, but they said for the price it was better.... which i love to point out to my audi-loving older brother
(PS the s4 may have won over all, but after seeing my brother's repair bills on his a4 there is no contest)

Yes, 2nd, I just said 2 of 3 editors put it 1st.

In 10/01 C/D The Subaru WRX posted the following #s:
0-60 5.5, 0-100 15.5, 0-120 25.2 , 14.1 @96 mph.
Street start (5-60) 6.6, top gear (30-50) 14.2, top gear (50-70) 10.0, top speed 142.


Now this month's C/D: 0-60 6.0, 0-100 18.0(!!), 0-120 28.5(!!), 14.6 @94mph.
Street start (5-60) 7.6 (!!), top gear (30-50) 16.3, top gear (50-70) 11.0, top speed 143.


What the hell happened???!!! :eek: :eek:

Thats what I said. Those C/D numbers were pretty fast, but other mags in 02 were still posting around 16 flat to 100 and well into the 5.5-5.7 range to 60. The cars got a little heavier and harder to launch. The 05 Sti lost a little power to the 04 Sti, I wonder if the same was true for the wrx. Who knows...

Just look at it like this, if you have an 02-03, you'll be too far ahead of an 04-05 to even see his sunroof... :lol:

In 10/01 C/D The Subaru WRX posted the following #s:
0-60 5.5, 0-100 15.5, 0-120 25.2 , 14.1 @96 mph.
Street start (5-60) 6.6, top gear (30-50) 14.2, top gear (50-70) 10.0, top speed 142.


Now this month's C/D: 0-60 6.0, 0-100 18.0(!!), 0-120 28.5(!!), 14.6 @94mph.
Street start (5-60) 7.6 (!!), top gear (30-50) 16.3, top gear (50-70) 11.0, top speed 143.


What the hell happened???!!! :eek: :eek:

Could it be more weight combined with a different ECU?

Rick

In 10/01 C/D The Subaru WRX posted the following #s:
0-60 5.5, 0-100 15.5, 0-120 25.2 , 14.1 @96 mph.
Street start (5-60) 6.6, top gear (30-50) 14.2, top gear (50-70) 10.0, top speed 142.


Now this month's C/D: 0-60 6.0, 0-100 18.0(!!), 0-120 28.5(!!), 14.6 @94mph.
Street start (5-60) 7.6 (!!), top gear 30-50 16.3, top gear 50-70 11.0, top speed 143.


What the hell happened???!!! :eek: :eek:


My theory is the following:
1. Different weather conditions
2. Different drivers
3. Slightly higher weight
4. ECU changed

Notice that the 2005 wrx was significantly slower 0-100 (18 vs 15.5 is a pretty big difference). HOWEVER, both take approx 10 seconds to go from 100-120 and the "slower" accelerating wrx has a higher top speed. This is weird. It looks like after 100 mph the two cars are about equal.... so maybe the ECU was pulling timing early from 0-100 in the 2005 wrx but then went all out after that speed...

I was pretty sure after Don Schroeder died that C/D didn't top speed test their cars anymore. At least that had been the policy for a few years now. And I'm pretty sure Larry Webster tested both in any event.

Yes, 2nd, I just said 2 of 3 editors put it 1st.
my bad

Just look at it like this, if you have an 02-03, you'll be too far ahead of an 04-05 to even see his sunroof... :lol:

:lol: cheers to that

eat me "new-old-school" dust, people with newer cars than mine :banana:

I sent them an email...

"Although I cannot fault you for comparing stock to stock, the obvious weak-link in the WRX chain is the wheel/tire combo. I think it would be rather interesting to see how the numbers would change with all 5 competitors wearing identical size, brand, and weight wheels and tires.

Andrew"

I'd like to see a straight up comparison to a WRX with good tires and Cobb Stage 1 (otherwise completely stock) vs. a SRT-4, not butt dyno **** either, good numbers and comparison.

because in my opinion their is no reason why the WRX EM shouldn't be as smooth and refined as Cobb Stage 1 stock from the factory.

I'd like to see a straight up comparison to a WRX with good tires and Cobb Stage 1 (otherwise completely stock) vs. a SRT-4, not butt dyno **** either, good numbers and comparison.

because in my opinion their is no reason why the WRX EM shouldn't be as smooth and refined as Cobb Stage 1 stock from the factory.
that's unfair unless you get to tune the SRT-4 as well, then you could see the comparison of two lightly tuned cars.

that's unfair unless you get to tune the SRT-4 as well, then you could see the comparison of two lightly tuned cars.

Agreed. However, I do think it would be fair to have all the cars wear the same wheel/tire combo, and in the same exact sizes, as well as the same brand. This could easily be accomplished with a quick call to Tirerack, and they'd get advertising for it as well.

When they threw "got to have" factor into their tests, that pretty well took out whatever objectivity was left. Face it, C&D could have a comparison test without a Honda, and a Honda would still win.

When they threw "got to have" factor into their tests, that pretty well took out whatever objectivity was left. Face it, C&D could have a comparison test without a Honda, and a Honda would still win.

Honda's are that good... ;)

My theory is the following:
1. Different weather conditions
2. Different drivers
3. Slightly higher weight
4. ECU changed

Notice that the 2005 wrx was significantly slower 0-100 (18 vs 15.5 is a pretty big difference). HOWEVER, both take approx 10 seconds to go from 100-120 and the "slower" accelerating wrx has a higher top speed. This is weird. It looks like after 100 mph the two cars are about equal.... so maybe the ECU was pulling timing early from 0-100 in the 2005 wrx but then went all out after that speed...

I was under the impression that C/D, unlike R&T, corrects their times for weather, and standardizes weight (in terms of fuel load, driver, etc).

I was under the impression that C/D, unlike R&T, corrects their times for weather, and standardizes weight (in terms of fuel load, driver, etc).

you are right, but I don' think that impacts 2-4.

When they threw "got to have" factor into their tests, that pretty well took out whatever objectivity was left. Face it, C&D could have a comparison test without a Honda, and a Honda would still win.


:lol: the SRT-4 should have won. Best bang for the buck.

I owned a 2002 Acura RSX-S. I hated it. I live in seattle and it rains a lot. I would spin the tires pretty much on a daily basis, espescially on hills, and this made daily driving difficult. I had a Hondata ecu, Jackson racing header, new motor mounts, and some other stuff. It was slow....I had to get the engine up to around 6500rpms to make ANY usable torque. I would spin my wheels through 2nd gear while trying to accelerate hard, which i do not think is cool. It handled really well, except when i tried to corner hard and the understeer took over.

Other then that, the RSX had a absolute great interior, super high quality materials, shifted flawlesly, and rode smooth.

It also burend a quart of oil per oil change (normal for the 02's)

And the 2002 is most definatly a girly looking car.

The RSX was a great car, not suitable for all weather driving, and not very fun for daily driving. It would probably handle well on the track with suspension upgrades.

And for those who think AWD is not that great for racing, check out Audi's DTM racing site. http://www.audi.com/audi/com/en1/experience/motorsport/dtm/audi_in_dtm.html

And yes i know the R8 is rwd.

No one seems to understand that there was more to the comparison than just 0-60 times and hp. Read the article. They agreed that the SRT-4 is the performance champ of the group, and none of us can really disagree with that. Oh boo hoo, my WRX is slower than an SRT-4. Big deal.

C&D looked at the cars from a realistic perspective and factored in actually living with these cars on a daily basis. The SRT-4 is a street-legal track car. They're obscenely quick for the money, but are otherwise loud (which is fun when you're showing off, but annoying for everything else), stiff (great for the track, but not fun when you're just trying to get to work over a bumpy, pot-hole-riddled midwest road while drinking a cup of coffee), and difficult to drive on a day-to-day basis (I mean, it was hopelessly easy spinning both fronts on wet pavement in 2nd on my test drive - that'll be fun in the snow).

They didn't like the Ion nor the Cobalt because they were a little to bland for their tastes. The Acura won because while it has most of the 'sport' of the others, it has a 6-speed transmission, the fit-and-finish that makes Acura a 'premium' brand, and overall 'fun-to-drive' quotient.

Those of us with WRX's understand their attraction. They've got the power to be fast, the AWD and excellent handling to be reliable in all weather situations, but are quiet and moderately civilized vehicles when you don't call on them to be anything else. That's why I love mine.

I had an Acura Integra many years back, and I have checked out the RSX, and I think they are wonderful cars. Just don't like the idea of a front wheel drive car anymore. Rear or AWD, or it just isn't enough sport for sport car to me. But the Acura dealer which took care of my Integra was awesome. Great folks. My Subaru service dept. could learn a lot from them.

No one seems to understand that there was more to the comparison than just 0-60 times and hp. Read the article. They agreed that the SRT-4 is the performance champ of the group, and none of us can really disagree with that. Oh boo hoo, my WRX is slower than an SRT-4. Big deal.

C&D looked at the cars from a realistic perspective and factored in actually living with these cars on a daily basis. The SRT-4 is a street-legal track car. They're obscenely quick for the money, but are otherwise loud (which is fun when you're showing off, but annoying for everything else), stiff (great for the track, but not fun when you're just trying to get to work over a bumpy, pot-hole-riddled midwest road while drinking a cup of coffee), and difficult to drive on a day-to-day basis (I mean, it was hopelessly easy spinning both fronts on wet pavement in 2nd on my test drive - that'll be fun in the snow).

They didn't like the Ion nor the Cobalt because they were a little to bland for their tastes. The Acura won because while it has most of the 'sport' of the others, it has a 6-speed transmission, the fit-and-finish that makes Acura a 'premium' brand, and overall 'fun-to-drive' quotient.

Those of us with WRX's understand their attraction. They've got the power to be fast, the AWD and excellent handling to be reliable in all weather situations, but are quiet and moderately civilized vehicles when you don't call on them to be anything else. That's why I love mine.


This is why I do not think they should include the WRX in these tests. It is in sort of a class of its own, and with the wagon option it is more of a all-purpose daily driver for any condition. FWD can be ok in the snow, actually I have never had a problem with it, but the RSX did not like it at all. I could go nowhere. I just dont like how the WRX is always clumped together with FWD cars, they are not the same. I guess they may have the same target buyer though, so perhaps that is why.