Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 35 of 181

    Thread: r32 vs. wrx

    1. 01-30-2004 02:01 PM #1
      i know there has been a lot of discussion on the r32 vs. the wrx sti and evo, but how does it match up with a regular wrx, which is supposed to run 0-60 in 5.4 sec.? (Sorry if this has been discussed before. I did a search and didn't find anything.)

    2. 01-30-2004 04:49 PM #2
      Search is your friend.

    3. 01-30-2004 04:53 PM #3
      Hahaha, the regular WRX running 0-60 in 5.4? I dont think so. WRX is the most overrated car on the planet. The STI is a true performer but the regular WRX is not the STI.

    4. Member peppeVR6's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 28th, 2001
      Location
      CT
      Posts
      2,886
      Vehicles
      2010 Audi S4 Imola Yellow
      01-30-2004 04:57 PM #4
      I test drove a WRX before I leased my A4. This is when I had my GTI VR6. I was so dissapointed with the WRX. It didn't feel as fast as I thought it would bel. The WRX handled great but was so cheap looking on the inside. I prefered the VR6 engine. This was a 12V VR6 that I had.

    5. 01-30-2004 05:01 PM #5
      i just based 0-60 in 5.4 sec on some numbers i saw in car and driver's test of the car. are these way off?

    6. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2003
      Location
      Maryland
      Posts
      221
      Vehicles
      95 VW Jetta VR,03 GTI VR,04 R32, 06 Duramax,00 Jetta TDI,04 S4 Avant, Pontiac G8 GT, 13 GLI
      01-30-2004 05:48 PM #6
      Same here I test drove the WRX before getting my GTI

    7. 01-30-2004 06:00 PM #7
      I have two cars that run 0-60 in the high 4s and low 5s. I test drove a WRX and there is NO WAY that the WRX will post a 5.4 I might believe 6.4

    8. Member
      Join Date
      Sep 6th, 2000
      Posts
      14,874
      Vehicles
      2008 R32-1997 D90- 05 1500 Hemi
      01-30-2004 06:06 PM #8
      Quote, originally posted by GelbM3 »
      I have two cars that run 0-60 in the high 4s and low 5s. I test drove a WRX and there is NO WAY that the WRX will post a 5.4 I might believe 6.4

      What is the weight difference between a 01 s4 and 01 wrx. The s4 has a little more hp and torque but is a mid 5 sec to 60 car. So why can't the 227 hp wrx be a mid 5 sec to 60 car???

      I owned both cars and although I never timed them to 60 they seemed very close.

      The downside to the wrx is HORRIBLE interior quality.

      Did you test drive a brand new wrx or one that was broken in?


    9. Member Daemon42's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 9th, 2001
      Location
      colorado
      Posts
      18,408
      Vehicles
      04 R32T, 95/98 4runner
      01-30-2004 09:58 PM #9
      It's not that the WRX can't do it in 5.4 seconds. It's that it can't do it
      more than a few times before blowing up the transmission. Car & Driver's technique for
      getting mid 5's out of the WRX is to rev it up to 5000+ rpms, and drop the clutch.
      They're counting on enough to wheelspin at the launch to avoid fragging the tranny
      or smoking the clutch. If you launch it like a sane person, figure low 6's.

      Two of my friend's have WRX's and one of them loaned me his for a couple
      days, for of allthings, a VW enthusiasts drive (the drive belt on my supercharger had given up
      the day before). So I got to drive his WRX with a whole bunch of other
      Vdubs on the open highway and on various twisty mountain roads. The
      overwhelming thought that kept running through my head throughout the day was
      "Holy Turbo Lag Batman!!"
      Now admittedly, we're a mile above sea level here so that creates
      both more turbo lag and later onset. That means, if you're driving
      a twisty road and brake into a corner in 3rd gear and let the revs
      drop below 3500 rpms, and then hit the gas again midcorner to
      get going again.. *nothing* happens. I mean, it's disconcerting how
      little power there is. Now going uphill this isn't a big deal because
      you tend to row through the gears more to get some power
      as the car is always wanting to slow down and powering out of corners
      going uphill is fun and engaging. But downhill it's really
      weird. I just want to cruise into the turn light on the brakes, hit
      the gas and pull out of it nice and smooth. Instead, with the WRX I had
      to keep it on the boil all the time, even doing downhill, and
      of course that then means I was shifting and braking twice as much too.
      I also noticed there's almost no backpressure on the engine when
      you get off the gas so you can't slow down or adjust your line
      with the throttle. This means, you're braking to slow down,
      downshifting to keep the revs above 3500 rpms, and then having
      to get back on the gas quickly to make any headway out of the corners
      before the turbo slows down. If you want to go balls to the wall
      all the time, it'll do it. It's not relaxing or fun to drive at a moderate pace.

      Now I've heard that at sea level it's not this bad. The cutoff between
      no power and power is at about 3000 rpms instead of 3500 rpms, but
      I'd still find that annoying. The R32 by comparison makes
      peak torque at only 2800 rpms. Hit the gas, and *bang* you've
      got torque, right now.

      Ok, so how'd it stack up against the other dubs in the group I was driving with?
      Against a stock 1.8t, it was faster, but not by much.
      Against a chipped 1.8t, it was faster off the line (if launched properly)
      but slower on the highway at high 75+ mph speeds.
      Against a chipped VR6 at this altitude, it's faster (the VR6 is down 30hp here).
      I've heard that a chipped VR6 will hang with a stock WRX at sea level in a
      3rd-4th gear pull.
      Against a supercharged VR6 like my own.. beats it off the line
      but gets walked badly on the highway. The WRX suffers from huge drivetrain
      loss, and its 4th gear is too short, and 5th gear too tall so it always
      seems to get slaughtered on the highway.

      In the handling department the WRX didn't inspire me. It's comfortable over
      the rough stuff, but has lots of body roll, and while the AWD pulls the front around
      if you're in the meat of the torque, otherwise it shows moderate understeer
      when driven at only 7/10ths.

      The sound? What sound? My WRX friend always comments on how
      much he loves the sound of my VR6 whenever I let him drive it, which I do
      fairly often, just to rub it in. He gets back in his WRX and it's "blub blub blub"..
      totally uninspiring.

      Interior.. very basic and functional. Great steering wheel (but the R32 has a nice wheel too)
      seats are supportive but nothing like the Konigs. Doors close with a horrible tinny
      rattle, especially if the windows are rolled down. The interior look doesn't matter
      as much to me as how much road/suspension noise intrudes, and the WRX
      is pretty noisy (more road noise than engine/exhaust noise), compared to my Mk3 GTI-VR6
      and I'm sure the R32 will be quieter still.

      ian


    10. 01-30-2004 09:59 PM #10
      It's not that the car can't post those times, but what they did to get those times...
      The WRX was launched at a 5000 rpm clutch drop... good for acceleration numbers, bad for a car...

      I raced one in my stock 1.8T with him starting behind me so AWD launch wasn't a factor..(if he was faster, he would pull me and/or pass me) he wasn't faster in fact i pulled him...take it for what it is worth...


    11. 01-30-2004 11:08 PM #11
      Quote, originally posted by g60rabbit »

      What is the weight difference between a 01 s4 and 01 wrx. The s4 has a little more hp and torque but is a mid 5 sec to 60 car. So why can't the 227 hp wrx be a mid 5 sec to 60 car???

      I owned both cars and although I never timed them to 60 they seemed very close.

      The downside to the wrx is HORRIBLE interior quality.

      Did you test drive a brand new wrx or one that was broken in?

      I have test driven two WRX's. Both were new. One was about 2 years ago, the second was last fall. They both felt heavy and the turbo "boost" seemed slow and over quickly (nothing much before 3500 RPM and it was all over at 5500 RPM). Quite honestly, they felt maybe a half second faster than my '99 GTI.

      To convince myself that my sense was "about right", I just did a simple linear regression on 0-60 times vs HP & TQ to weight ratios for a half dozen cars where I knew the HP, TQ, weight and 0-60 times. Assuming that an AWD looses 25% in the driveline while a FWD or RWD looses 15%, my calcs tell me that a WRX should run about 5.9 to 6.0 and is a bit faster (0.2 to 0.3 sec) than a 1.8T GTI, and about the same as a 24V VR6 (the WRX is approx 300 lbs heavier than a 1.8T and 200 lbs heavier than a VR6, and, per my driveline assumption, has larger driveline loses). Using the same regression, the WRX should be about 0.5 sec faster than my '99 12V VR6. The time vs TQ/wt (compared to the time vs HP/wt) curve fit is statistically better as one would expect. I am ignoring gearing, HP profiles, TQ profiles, tires, who's driving, how they are driving, etc. But it feels about right.


    12. 01-30-2004 11:19 PM #12
      No comparison. The WRX is a cheap piece of poo. DRive both and you will know why the R32 cost more. DOnt worry about the numbers. both cars will have similar performance that only a true pro could eek out the differences. My guess it the R32 would overtake the WRX at some point and keep ahead all the way till redline. If thats your thing. The STI, pure performance for the buck. IF you are considering spending 30k for the R32, than forget the regular WRX, look at the STI. compare the two 30k cars, not the 30k and 25k cars.


    13. 01-31-2004 10:57 AM #13
      If there's one thing I hate in a turbo car, it's BAAAAD turbo lag.
      That is what the WRX has... big... BAAAAAAD lag.

      Off topic: Anyone know off the top of their heads what turbo Subaru is using for this car? I'm sure the Disco Potato would be a nice matchup for the WRX engine, if it fits. I might try to find a cheap WRX for my next company car, as my wife thinks we're total dorks for having two Jettas currently, and I want a used 337/20AE for my next work car. But, my first mod would be trying to get the GT28RS in there to reduce the lag.


    14. 01-31-2004 12:22 PM #14
      funny....I have a friend( in sales) at a rather large local Suburu dealer....
      he tells me that there replacing transmissions/drivelines/all wheel drive components at an alarming rate on WRX's..
      I've always suspected that it's a tin can with a large engine...after driving one for a few hours...I realized that I was correct....

      The WRX can't hold a candle to an R-32...I'd hate to try and buy a WRX used...


    15. 01-31-2004 06:19 PM #15
      You guys need to pull your heads outta your butts. I'm sure the R32 is a nice luxurious car but it's in the $30,000 class and compared to the competition it's performance is lacking. A stock Evolution or STi would eat the R32 any day, let's compare our numbers!

      Evolution: 271HP 3263lbs $30k
      STi: 300HP 3263lbs $30k
      R32: 240HP 3409lbs $30k
      WRX: 227HP 3100lbs $25k

      Heck, throw a turbo-back exhaust and a tunable computer on a base WRX and it'll probably be faster than the R32! The R32 weighs more than the competition and has less power than the $30k competition. At least you guys will like your interior! Too bad you'll be laughed upon from the outside when you get smoked by something like a Subaru or a Mitsubishi or maybe even a stock Mustang GT.


    16. 01-31-2004 06:27 PM #16
      Homo.

    17. 01-31-2004 06:30 PM #17
      Quote, originally posted by N2N »
      Homo.

      Now is that any way to treat the Noob?

      DaVidJ 1) welcome to Vortex.
      2) we are sick and tired of explaining why we want an R32...search for this very subject and you will see why....it isn't just about the performance, if it was $30K would go a long way to making an aircooled Beetle in a Monster...


    18. 01-31-2004 06:33 PM #18
      Quote, originally posted by N2N »
      Homo.

      HEY LOOK AT ME, I'm mad because someone shoved the facts in my face and I can't think of a better way to respond! What an intelligent way to represent the VW community.


    19. 01-31-2004 06:36 PM #19
      Quote, originally posted by gizmopop »

      Now is that any way to treat the Noob?

      DaVidJ 1) welcome to Vortex.
      2) we are sick and tired of explaining why we want an R32...search for this very subject and you will see why....it isn't just about the performance, if it was $30K would go a long way to making an aircooled Beetle in a Monster...

      Seems like the people around here ARE concerned with performance with all this talk of 0-60 times.


    20. 01-31-2004 06:46 PM #20
      Everyone forgets, too, that the WRX was released in late 2001/early 2002. What other car at the time had the same performance/fun per dollar value as the WRX?

      None.

      That's why it was so critically acclaimed, and that's why tons of people got them. It's not a bad car - it's just that the competition has finally brought over some competition and the WRX isn't so blatantly wonderful. It's even mediocre now, 2 years later.

      It's not meant to compete with an R32 - debating it is pretty fruitless, ESPECIALLY in a VW forum.


    21. 01-31-2004 06:51 PM #21
      Quote, originally posted by davidj »

      Seems like the people around here ARE concerned with performance with all this talk of 0-60 times.

      I didin't say I( or aynone else in here) was not interested in performance, I just said it wasn't the only part of the equation..

      If i had $30K and all I was looking for was uncompromised performance, then the STI, EVO, would be high on the list. Thats not the case for me, VW's are damn good all arounders and this one competes fine with the rest of the cars in that price range ie the STi Evo and R32 aren't the only cars in this price range.


    22. 01-31-2004 07:58 PM #22
      this is foolish!!! If anyone had any experiance with a wrx they would knw that the way to luanch is simply rev to about 4-4.5 and feather quickly without burning, (if u drive the car more than once this is easy to learn) by doing this a stock rex will easily pull 0-60's in the mid 5 sec range. much faster than a R32, which seems a little under powered any ways. I have driven several 03 1.8t's and love the cars, however they are not as fast as a rex. although the turbo does spool up nicely by about 2 grand it seems, they just dont have the power. they do have a great modding potential and i have seen may nicely modded 1.8s. they just dont have the pull or power a rex has off the line, and as far as interior quality/style, doesnt any one think the buyer off the rex knws what its like when they are buyingit and its not a factor for them? even though the seats are great and the momo wheel is much better lookin than the vw

    23. 01-31-2004 08:34 PM #23
      Quote, originally posted by blk04 »
      this is foolish!!! If anyone had any experiance with a wrx they would knw that the way to luanch is simply rev to about 4-4.5 and feather quickly without burning, (if u drive the car more than once this is easy to learn) by doing this a stock rex will easily pull 0-60's in the mid 5 sec range. much faster than a R32, which seems a little under powered any ways.

      I don't care how well you "feather," your stock tranny will quickly die doing this, but at least you can brag about your mid 5 sec run. I'll make sure and wave at you in your rental, while your 5 second "rex" is in the shop....

      Quote, originally posted by blk04 »
      and as far as interior quality/style, doesnt any one think the buyer off the rex knws what its like when they are buyingit and its not a factor for them? even though the seats are great and the momo wheel is much better lookin than the vw

      you're probably one of those guys that has every decal of every product you own on your car, and even the products your don't own...


    24. 01-31-2004 09:54 PM #24
      Quote, originally posted by davidj »
      You guys need to pull your heads outta your butts. I'm sure the R32 is a nice luxurious car but it's in the $30,000 class and compared to the competition it's performance is lacking. A stock Evolution or STi would eat the R32 any day, let's compare our numbers!

      Evolution: 271HP 3263lbs $30k
      STi: 300HP 3263lbs $30k
      R32: 240HP 3409lbs $30k
      WRX: 227HP 3100lbs $25k

      Heck, throw a turbo-back exhaust and a tunable computer on a base WRX and it'll probably be faster than the R32! The R32 weighs more than the competition and has less power than the $30k competition. At least you guys will like your interior! Too bad you'll be laughed upon from the outside when you get smoked by something like a Subaru or a Mitsubishi or maybe even a stock Mustang GT.

      If performance was all that mattered, I would buy a Neon that would hand a wrx it’s a$$. Do a search because this topic is tired.


    25. Banned Integrale's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 1st, 1999
      Posts
      5,813
      01-31-2004 10:13 PM #25
      Quote, originally posted by davidj »
      You guys need to pull your heads outta your butts. I'm sure the R32 is a nice luxurious car but it's in the $30,000 class and compared to the competition it's performance is lacking. A stock Evolution or STi would eat the R32 any day, let's compare our numbers!

      Evolution: 271HP 3263lbs $30k
      STi: 300HP 3263lbs $30k
      R32: 240HP 3409lbs $30k
      WRX: 227HP 3100lbs $25k

      Heck, throw a turbo-back exhaust and a tunable computer on a base WRX and it'll probably be faster than the R32! The R32 weighs more than the competition and has less power than the $30k competition. At least you guys will like your interior! Too bad you'll be laughed upon from the outside when you get smoked by something like a Subaru or a Mitsubishi or maybe even a stock Mustang GT.

      You have to compare cars in all areas...not just 0-60 and 1/4 mile. People need to stop wetting their pants about 0-60 times. It's getting pathetic.

      As an overall performer that you can also have as a very comfortable daily commuter and not look like a stunt driver for 2F2F, the R32 is an excellent blend. Given the added equipment, it's a fairly priced car considering it's base price as a regular VR6.


    26. 01-31-2004 11:28 PM #26
      This thread is too much. I think its fair to say that R32 owners care about performance, but not for the sake of drag racing. Everything thread always turns up comparing numbers. the R32 has been nothing but a hard working numbers wench around here. hehe

      When I saw the car and sat in it, I decided I could care less if a EVO is a second faster to 60. OR an STI! IT felt really good. I must admit, with some xenons and a nice exhaust it would be sweet. I would rather drive the R32 to work than the STI, EVO, or WRX, or SRT-4. I know those cars are fast, but you have to look stupid to go fast, and the interiors blows chunks.


    27. 01-31-2004 11:42 PM #27
      Yeah, the low to mid 5 time IS possible, but not the kindest thing to the tranny. A bit of slip, keep the revs up and it will stick you in the seat with some authority. Turbo lag....with the TD04(stock turbo), I don't know how anyone can call it lag. It comes online pretty dang quick, its when ya get into the bigger aftermarket snails that the lag becomes apparent. A 2 liter engine does not create all that much exhaust to spin one, so any turbo worth a flip up top is gonna take a few k revs from the slug to get it goin.

      Handling. WRXs have INCREDIBLE suspension travel, nutty amounts in fact. I've heard 9 inches(bit dubious, but its been bandied about), all I know is I have yet to upset mine enough in a turn to warrant the puckered butt syndrome. A litte tweak of the anti-sway bars and some camber/toe adjustments and its really a great little car. Go the route I did with adjustible sways and full TUNED coilovers and its in a different league, feels like a huge vacuum is holding you to the road, coupled with the AWD and it eats turns. The biggest letdown is driving a WRX with the factory tires. I disgrace the word tire by calling the Re-92(Bridgestone) a tire. Worthless amalgamation of rubber, steel and cord. Only good for rolling the car off the boat, then maybe for creating habitats for fish in the local fish pond. Horrid tire that 92. Someone at Fuji Heavy Industries needs thier pension revoked for that blunder. Hell, the RS has better tires and rims than the WRX(the one time Halo car for Subaru).

      I'm quite interested in the R32, looks clean and knowing VW will have great driving charastictics(spelling?). The APS(that right?) kit I saw in R&T is downright silly. 3.2 60 times, thats hyper-exotic times. Didn't mention if a tranny rebuild was needed or not.

      I won't go into interior issues, as I kinda ignore that aspect. I tend to focus on the tach, and where the local constables might be lurking, not if the carpet is of suitable grade. I never hear rattles, has something to do with a catless exhaust thats 3" in diameter from the turbo back and a frightening deletion of a muffler(loud...I'm sayin LOUD here). Seats are supportive, not as much as the J-spec seats due to the side impact airbags tho. The tilt steering wheel interferes with the top of the speedo if you like the wheel in yer lap(I do). Nice dead pedal, and enough room to heel-toe when the situation calls for such. Doors are tinny, and the frameless windows tend to rattle about some. Rolled up, they seal well, no complaints up to 150ish, side mirrors roar like the dickens at high speeds.(Mine is pretty highly modded, doubt a stock WRX will bury the speedo)

      I got the WRX, because at the time not much that I could buy compared to the price/performace ratio. Now the SRT is out there, the R32...with the R32 being much more car(AWD is soooooo much better than FWD). The 30k is a bit pricey, I would be tempted to wander towards an EVO or the STi for that price.

      Just wanted to help clear up some misconceptions.


    28. 02-01-2004 12:03 AM #28
      This thread is hillarious.

      Guess what? I pulled a 0-60 in 4.8 in my WRX with just exhaust and an MBC. Is that BS? No.

      MANY magazines are pulling in the 5s for 0-60...this is nothing new.

      I think you guys are mad because the R32 you pay 30 grand to go 0-60 in the 6s.

      By the way I had a 326 whp WRX on stock transmission. Now I own an STi.


    29. 02-01-2004 12:30 AM #29
      You are hilarious because not everybody is interested in 0-60 time only. Why don't you read nor do a search. Most people here do not care about 0-60 time only. They care about the whole package which the wrx lacks. If 0-60 is what I am looking for, I would not buy a wrx. There are better cars out there for that.

    30. 02-01-2004 01:00 AM #30
      Quote, originally posted by Taez »
      You are hilarious because not everybody is interested in 0-60 time only. Why don't you read nor do a search. Most people here do not care about 0-60 time only. They care about the whole package which the wrx lacks. If 0-60 is what I am looking for, I would not buy a wrx. There are better cars out there for that.

      Yes I know, I dont care about 0-60 either, but when they say a car's 0-60 is 1 second off, they have to be corrected.


    31. 02-01-2004 01:12 AM #31
      Quote, originally posted by davidj »

      HEY LOOK AT ME, I'm mad because someone shoved the facts in my face and I can't think of a better way to respond! What an intelligent way to represent the VW community.

      Homo Dave.


    32. 02-01-2004 01:18 AM #32
      Quote, originally posted by wrxtacy1 »
      Yeah, the low to mid 5 time IS possible, but not the kindest thing to the tranny. A bit of slip, keep the revs up and it will stick you in the seat with some authority. Turbo lag....with the TD04(stock turbo), I don't know how anyone can call it lag. It comes online pretty dang quick, its when ya get into the bigger aftermarket snails that the lag becomes apparent. A 2 liter engine does not create all that much exhaust to spin one, so any turbo worth a flip up top is gonna take a few k revs from the slug to get it goin.

      Handling. WRXs have INCREDIBLE suspension travel, nutty amounts in fact. I've heard 9 inches(bit dubious, but its been bandied about), all I know is I have yet to upset mine enough in a turn to warrant the puckered butt syndrome. A litte tweak of the anti-sway bars and some camber/toe adjustments and its really a great little car. Go the route I did with adjustible sways and full TUNED coilovers and its in a different league, feels like a huge vacuum is holding you to the road, coupled with the AWD and it eats turns. The biggest letdown is driving a WRX with the factory tires. I disgrace the word tire by calling the Re-92(Bridgestone) a tire. Worthless amalgamation of rubber, steel and cord. Only good for rolling the car off the boat, then maybe for creating habitats for fish in the local fish pond. Horrid tire that 92. Someone at Fuji Heavy Industries needs thier pension revoked for that blunder. Hell, the RS has better tires and rims than the WRX(the one time Halo car for Subaru).

      I'm quite interested in the R32, looks clean and knowing VW will have great driving charastictics(spelling?). The APS(that right?) kit I saw in R&T is downright silly. 3.2 60 times, thats hyper-exotic times. Didn't mention if a tranny rebuild was needed or not.

      I won't go into interior issues, as I kinda ignore that aspect. I tend to focus on the tach, and where the local constables might be lurking, not if the carpet is of suitable grade. I never hear rattles, has something to do with a catless exhaust thats 3" in diameter from the turbo back and a frightening deletion of a muffler(loud...I'm sayin LOUD here). Seats are supportive, not as much as the J-spec seats due to the side impact airbags tho. The tilt steering wheel interferes with the top of the speedo if you like the wheel in yer lap(I do). Nice dead pedal, and enough room to heel-toe when the situation calls for such. Doors are tinny, and the frameless windows tend to rattle about some. Rolled up, they seal well, no complaints up to 150ish, side mirrors roar like the dickens at high speeds.(Mine is pretty highly modded, doubt a stock WRX will bury the speedo)

      I got the WRX, because at the time not much that I could buy compared to the price/performace ratio. Now the SRT is out there, the R32...with the R32 being much more car(AWD is soooooo much better than FWD). The 30k is a bit pricey, I would be tempted to wander towards an EVO or the STi for that price.

      Just wanted to help clear up some misconceptions.

      This is the type of objective opinion I like.
      Thanks!

      As a side note, I've asked before what the stock turbo was in the WRX. Now I know that the TD04 is the problem. That is the same hair dryer I had in my Syclone... from 1991. I realize that the TD-04 is good to support some sick HP numbers, but it lags like hell.

      I'm seriously considering a WRX for my next company car. A used one, that is, as they've become pretty cheap on the used market. The first thing I'd try to do is find out if the new GT28RS Garrett "Disco Potato" turbo could be swapped in. That turbo is impressive, even though it tops out at "only" 325HP.

      Jon


    33. 02-01-2004 10:22 AM #33
      Yes the lag on the TD04 is pretty bad from the factory. But once you remove all three cats, you hit full boost at around 2800.

    34. 02-01-2004 10:25 AM #34
      as far as the tranny and drive train are concerned i have no idea where all of u are getting this wont last a week attitude kinda bull****? Is it becuase non of u have any experiance or knowledge with the wrx what so ever!!?? Yes the tranny is the wrx's weekest link, how ever it will last the life time of the car and as far as the feathering method.......NO DAMAGE TO THE DRIVETRAIN CLUTCH OR TRANNY...... of course its a little hard to understand that for some people? AS far as the hole package the wrx will out handle/outdrive/outlast almost any vw be it the new gti 1.8t's or the r32. As far as the r32's handling ive never drivin one and i think most of u havent either!! but no matter how good it is u can throw soem teins on a wrx and it will far out handle it and still be much lass than anyone payed for there R32

    35. Member Voodoo.T's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 4th, 2002
      Location
      Minneapolis
      Posts
      10,897
      Vehicles
      2009 R56 S, 1987 E30
      02-01-2004 10:39 AM #35
      Daemon42's assesment of the WRX was on par with what I thought of the thing after a test-drive.

      Glad to see the WRX enthusiasts come on here and defend their machine. The car has as loyal and enthusiastic a following as any dub. The car is great off the line, the AWD definitely helps. But faster than a chipped 1.8T? Not really. We test drove an 03 WRX and then an 03 20th AE GTI. Guess which one my gf bought? Wasn't the gutless WRX. When you have to DOWNSHIFT to pass ppl on the highway, the car is completely weak The car did absolutely NOTHING below 3500rpms - by comparison, my 1.8T is at full power by 2000rpms! AWD, yeah that's nice but when your "power," if you can call it that, doesn't come on til the 1.8T is already at your bumper, what good is it?

      The WRX was a pretty uninspiring driver. The interior was total basic junk, the seats were uncomfortable, the power was not there. And for the money, I'd rather just save up an extra $5k and get an R32.

      I didn't drive an STI (they claim they're not letting anyone test drive one unless you put money down ), but just sitting in it, I wouldn't pay $30k for that "interior." I don't care how many ponies it has under the hood, the refinement of the car was a joke

      It still cracked me up that at the Subaru dealership, they have a poster claiming better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than an Audi S4... Talk about They must've driven an S4 with blown turbos

      This is, of course, IMHO, after having test-driven two 03 stock cars back to back. And being heavily biased

      2009 MINI Cooper S
      1988 BMW 325i topless

    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •