from 2k vette to '12 wrx limited. thoughts and comparison

[lordgrinz]

Originally Posted by equiraptor

It's similar in price and offers a better interior, but it doesn't have the performance of an STI. The weight is what harms the BMW so much - it may have power, but it's lugging around so much weight it's noticeably slower accelerating and not really any better handling. The M3 is the better comparison by performance, but costs more. Of course, for more money you also get the better interior (and the BMW status claim, if you care about that).

There are a lot of options in this basic price range, showing it's not a crazy amount to spend. And if one chooses an emphasis on utility and performance over utility and luxury or performance (alone) or performance and luxury, well, that's their choice.



Muscle cars started their existence as souped up economy cars. There's nothing wrong with it.

The 335i would be a very good comparison to the STi, I believe the 335i actually best the STi in the track test. Oh, and the STi isn't even in the same league as the M3, put down the crack pipe....lol

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[leebruk]

i dont think my comparison isnt all that unreasonable given my situation now that i think about it.
single, succesful, with a passion for cars. looking to spend 20-30k for low miles or new. why not compare the vette to the others, i looked at a lot of stuff. bmw, mazda, audi, mustang, porsche to name a few.

[equiraptor]

Originally Posted by lordgrinz

The 335i would be a very good comparison to the STi, I believe the 335i actually best the STi in the track test. Oh, and the STi isn't even in the same league as the M3, put down the crack pipe....lol

I'm basing my claims on having driven the cars on track. I don't place a lot of value on which car gets the better lap time in a single test. I'm basing it on the feel the cars have and what it's like from behind the wheel. The weight of the BMW is easily felt, and it really harms the enjoyment on track.

Why don't you find that test? Different tracks have different characteristics, favoring one car over another, so details about the track would be relevant when comparing the cars. Conditions and driver are relevant, as well.

[Grusselgrosser]

The M3 is like 20k+ more than the STi. If you're going to compare those, you might as well compare the Nissan GT-R to the M3.

[ClassicPurcell]

Originally Posted by Grusselgrosser

The M3 is like 20k+ more than the STi. If you're going to compare those, you might as well compare the Nissan GT-R to the M3.

This^

[leebruk]

Originally Posted by equiraptor

Better tires would have helped, and getting an alignment would have, too, I suspect. If you'd wanted better handling, you could have gotten it out of that car, but it sounds like that wasn't a priority for you.

i was just never comfortable railing it on public roads, it would loop out way too ez. i have had a v8 vega, v8 monza, built 454 chevelle, built 72 camaro...all squirrely but this thing took it to another level entirely. like i say if i could run slicks and i wasnt in the pacific northwet....

[equiraptor]

Originally Posted by leebruk

i was just never comfortable railing it on public roads, it would loop out way too ez. i have had a v8 vega, v8 monza, built 454 chevelle, built 72 camaro...all squirrely but this thing took it to another level entirely. like i say if i could run slicks and i wasnt in the pacific northwet....

*nod* The Corvette has fantastic handling, but not easily accessible handling. I've had the opportunity to take them out on track, in a controlled environment, where their handling is more accessible. They're really impressive machines and use their power extremely well in that environment.

[leebruk]

i also blame the 2.xx gear ratio. everything else was 3.55 or higher, too ez to overpower the tires imo unless my logic is wrong haha.
with $800 in tires and future maintenance looming, it was a no-brainer to trade the car in on a lower interest new wrx with warranty.
i am sure i will love the wrx its just different. tried the heated seats today wow that is nice!

[MaddMax]

Originally Posted by kilfarsnar

BMW 335i? MSRP 42,400. 300 HP, twin turbo, 4 door, BMW handling. No AWD, but hey...

Amazing cars no doubt, but goodluck ever finding a 335 for $42K. Most 335s with the more common options (leather, sports package, audio, creature comforts) are $50-55K now. Many loaded 335s are pushing $60K. Heck, most new 328s are going for nearly $50K now.

[rkramer]

Originally Posted by lordgrinz

The STi limited has the same cheap interior as the WRX Limited, and same crappy stereo.....and anyone who pays $42,000 for an STi needs to have their head examined.

Yep, I didn't say its better in those areas... My comment was only that the straight wrx is not the flagship. By price & performance its the fully optioned out STi, but creature comforts its the fully optioned LGT.

[MaddMax]

The Vette wouldn't have had traction problems if outfitted with the right tires. That's been said. I've driven newer Z06s with quality summer rubber and you can plant the gas at 20mph in 1st and just get a solid bark of the tires and then you're gone with a little spin on the 1-2, 2-3, and sometimes the 3-4 shifts.

I guess I'm the only one in the thread that thinks the stereo in the new WRX isn't horrible. I've heard much worse in all the rentals I've had over the years. The WRX's stereo isn't great, but it's far from horrible unless you're coming from a higher end OEM stereo. The WRX's stereo sound and depth is easily fixed with a $300-400 headunit swap.

My prior car was a lightly modded 2003 G35 sedan that I had for 7.5 years. I've had my WRX for almost a week. I'm still trying to find a comfy seating position, mostly because my leg and ankle muscles aren't use to a clutch again. I'm also figuring out the really light, but very direct steering, somewhat numb (but strong) brakes, and most importantly, turbo power delivery (my first turbo car). It would be nice to have have more soft touch surfaces in the interior, but I find the plastic grain, thickness, and color to be pretty decent for a car of this type.

[JFern]

Originally Posted by MaddMax

Amazing cars no doubt, but goodluck ever finding a 335 for $42K. Most 335s with the more common options (leather, sports package, audio, creature comforts) are $50-55K now. Many loaded 335s are pushing $60K. Heck, most new 328s are going for nearly $50K now.

True true, but just for funsies I found 2 M3's near me for ~40K, granted newest is a 2008. I wouldn't own one, but that's just me. I have always been someone who owned multiple cars for different reasons.

But it begs the question of what YOU (anybody really) wants from a car. Some like speed, some like utility, some like economy, or handling whatever. So comparisons become VERY subjective.

I liked my friend's C5 a lot and that thing will blow my car out of the water, but again I wouldn't buy one b/c I like more utility in my cars. I also wouldn't buy a new WRX either for various reasons. So its cool that a comparison was done, but like most things, should only be taken with a grain of salt

[Grusselgrosser]

The stereo in the new WRX isnt that great, along the same lines as older BMW stereos. I had a '93 318is and the stereo in that sucked too. But I don't listen to it that much anyway, I like hearing the engine. Plus it makes shifting smoothly easier, for me at least. My previous car, a 2006 Sentra 1.8S SE had a pretty decent Harmann Kardon stereo in it, even came with a subwoofer in the trunk. That was a car with a puny engine and an automatic so you didn'nt need to hear it operating anyway and didn't particularly care to, but the WRX, not so much.

[HinshawWRX]

You can easily change the issues with both cars. Want a better radio? Buy one. Want it to handle better? Buy sway bars and coils/springs. Want more power? Buy a downpipe and tune it.

It's still mostly the fact your facing a 50-60K 2 door RWD car made to be a sports car, against a 4 door, AWD sporty car. Each will be better in respective categories. It's pretty simple.

[jeepnut_nh]

Originally Posted by equiraptor

Muscle cars started their existence as souped up economy cars. There's nothing wrong with it.

wha?

NOBODY was concerned with economy in the '60s, they were more concerned with fitting the most cubic inches under the hood that was possible. then feeding those motors as much fuel/air as possible.

[equiraptor]

Originally Posted by jeepnut_nh

wha?

NOBODY was concerned with economy in the '60s, they were more concerned with fitting the most cubic inches under the hood that was possible. then feeding those motors as much fuel/air as possible.

"Economy cars" as a class, as we know them today, didn't really exist back then. What people tend to call muscle cars these days (Mustang, Camaro, etc.) were really pony cars way back when. The pony cars shoved larger engines into smaller cars, the cars as close to "economy cars" as existed in the 60s. What people now think of for muscle cars, what were pony cars, originated by souping up the (effective) economy cars of the day. Keep in mind, "economy" doesn't necessarily refer to fuel economy. It can mean "with a mind on economy" or "budget minded" - cheap.

History has muddled the terms, making such discussions more confusing.

[JFern]

Originally Posted by jeepnut_nh

wha?

NOBODY was concerned with economy in the '60s, they were more concerned with fitting the most cubic inches under the hood that was possible. then feeding those motors as much fuel/air as possible.

Pretty sure up until 1964 that was not the case (until pontiac came along with the GTO) I wouldn't call them economy before 1964 but they definitely were not very performance oriented for street cars since most had V6's and modest V8's with barely 200whp (which is financially economical). But after 1964 was when muscle cars boomed. I would hardly compare muscle cars to newer economy cars and the wrx etc. Not the same... At all

[equiraptor]

Originally Posted by JFern

I would hardly compare muscle cars to newer economy cars and the wrx etc. Not the same... At all

The only comparison was in the idea of taking a relatively common, relatively inexpensive car and souping it up, making it more performance oriented. The way the "souping up" has been done, the goals, and the resulting cars are quite different. But souping up a cheaper car has a long history.

[ltre87]

shoulda got an sti