sorry that sounds like utter rubbish imo, this is a volume car manufacturer we are talking about...they would have turned the power down and increased reliability and fuel economy.

 

IIRC WRX saloon and STi were 280PS from '97. The difference is the WRX doesn't have the same torque (or the 8k rev limit). And you get alot of extra bits with the STi.

Believe the WRX wagon was lower at 260PS. I did a lot of research before I bought mine, but that was a few years ago now...

 

I'm well aware that plenty of cars did make more than the stated power output...but that's not what we are talking about; all the examples you mention above are top line variants of their range...unlike the wrx, hence the lower power level than their premium range; sti variants

 

as I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong...with the emphasis on the word proven

But I've yet to see any worthwhile evidence that supports the claim.

 

The wrx was improved from 240ps to 280ps from 92 up to 97 on. As any manufacturer would do. The Version 2 sti was already rated at that so even though there were 4 more versions (improvements) subaru could do nowt about the power.

And the later wrx also ran VF turbo`s just like the sti.

 

but they wouldn't undermine the value of their premium model...so they would keep the lower spec\cheaper model at a lower power rating.

i was always under the impression that wrx's all ran either TD04's or 5's...never heard of a wrx with a VF turbo. Be interested where you get your information from?

 

Got one sat in my drive. Version 5. Came with a VF29 standard.

 

really...did you import it from new?

 

The wagons were always a bit of an oddity as some models ran a higher compression ratio than the equivalent saloons...

Browser Warning

Shaun

 

3 people corroborating the same stats, and you still don't want to believe it's correct. Also, I stated my sources - have a look for yourself! starting with the link in post # 11 (but ignore the 300PS figures - they should read 280PS)

You seem to have it in your head that the STi must have more power at all costs "because it's an STi". For whatever reason, that's only your take on things - just because you think it, doesn't necessarily make it right (or wrong), does it?

By the way, that thing about the Japanese 'gentlemen's agreement' isn't "rubbish"... it's a well known thing...

 

dunno about that one...I know that the earlt sti wagons (vI iirc), had a bit less power than the saloons but after that they were identical.

 

Came in brand new from www.dhcars.co.uk in 1999 have every bill from new. Its still serviced there now.

 

three people...one of whom you have already admitted is partially wrong, just because it's been published doesn't mean it's correct; you need the correct sources...as I've said, happy to be proven wrong

no it's not my take, it's the specification of the car the manufacturer released. It's also based on the old SIDC faq and on basic logic

I know the gentlemans agreement in not rubbish, it was your statement I was referring to. I was lucky enough to be exposed to a factory fresh R32 back in 1990 and I can tell you that was phenomenally fast o I'd guess it had a bit more than 276bhp

 

well sounds like I'm in danger of being proven wrong

gotta say this is the first one I've ever heard of...maybe the exception that proves the rule

don't tell me you got it dynoed when you got it too?

 

MY94 STi v.1 wagon 250PS
MY96 STi v.2 wagon 260PS

MY97-00 STi wagon 280PS

I mentioned this in the posts on the previous page.

 

'nuff fun for me for now...off to the pub

 

Thats funny. Was just thinking the same thing.

 

From the 98-99 Subaru brochure :



Courtesy of North Ursalia (ex-Ravensblade) site, other MYs are there too. And apologies the WRX Wagon is 240 not 260.

 

Eh? That is precisely what we're talking about! You challenged that from MY97, the WRX saloons didn't get the same power as the STi's!

At the risk of repeating myself, you've got it in your head that because the STi is the superior car - the range's flagship - then it MUST have more power than the WRX, for any given MY comparison? Why? Who says so? You?


Oh right, so your opinion/what you believe to be correct, is to have more gravitas?! Forgive me, but I'm opting for the more probable odds and will go with the books thanks...

Why do I have to prove you wrong? All I'm doing is quoting researched books/sources. What makes you think you're so sure your source is correct?! It's you that seems to be quoting hypothetical stuff - so it's your onus to prove the researchers wrong...


I was just saying their 300PS figures were wrong. Otherwise the power/torque info is the same as the other 2 sources. Also when I said 3 people, I actually meant me, BLACK V5 and the other poster with symbols for his username.


As I said, your take on things. What's subjective "basic logic" got to do with anything? It's not stats is it?


I wasn't stating anything! I was just musing that Subaru would have no doubt probably liked to have kept the STi's power output higher than the WRX (from when it got to 280PS)... and if that would've been the case, then they would've been scuppered by that 'gentlemen's agreement', that's all.

I don't think that's necessarily an unreasonable thing to think, based on the pattern of MYs 93 to 96.

 

I'll get back in my box then

Cheers for that, I've never seen an original scan of the brochure...are there others available on that site?

 

Joz, I broke my own rule abut arguing on the web...but it was Friday afternoon and I was pretty bored. I wasn't trying to antagonise you, I just thought I was right and you were just repeating a popular web myth...seems it was the other way around and I was the one spouting BS. As I said; happy to be proven wrong

 

No worries mate. I'm not into these 'spiky' exchanges (not really in my personality - can't be bothered normally). I was worried that I'd made a permanent 'enemy' - we don't want that.

It was just a case of - and although one can't be totally certain of these things (short of asking the Subaru boss of the time!) - I was 'sure' that the fact was right. Hence why I 'kept on going...' for, hopefully, the benefit of other members that could be bothered to read through the exchange! lol

Normal service resumes...

 

looks like we were both doing using the same tactic...unfortunately for me I was the one that was wrong

 

trails, where in Chelmsford are you based?!

I lived in Stubbs Lane, Braintree all my life up until August 2001! I know Chelms. well - had a long term g/f from there between June 88 to May 95... She obviously got the 7-year itch! lol

<--- ...Or, maybe, she thought I was a sexist piglet!

 

Trails - Theres scans of various MYs on www.northursalia.com under the downloads section. Its a bit hit and miss on whats there, but a great site all the same.

Just need to learn japanese now

 

That site has great modification "How to..." read-throughs.

 

Near St John's Hospital in Stewart rd...it's close enough for an easy ride to the Station and way quieter than Old Moulsham where I used to live. Other than the crappy skatepark and (obviously), Freewater Braintree is a mystery to me

I like your avatar

 

cheers [-(o)-] I'll have to find a friendly Japanese young lady to translate

 

lol. I was born in St John's!

In all the years Freewater has been there, I prob only ever frequented it 2 or 3 times. Hateful concrete jungle - can't abide large throngs of shoppers!

 

Lol, me too

The only reason to go to Freewater would be the Vans\Fluid shops...or girlfriend pressure