It would be impossible for any of us to know what DCCD settings the Stig used. But you would think an accomplished driver like the stig would have given a fair test. Either both cars set to Auto or both set to the best setting for the test. I doubt they deliberately set out to make the WR1 look bad ,which seems to be what some are implying

 

I'd happily have a standard spec c

 

If that was directed at me then that is not what I said or implied...I just said TG is not fact based

 

They maybe the best of the bunch but if they were that great no one would feel the need to fit after market parts. I'm sure they suffer just as much as all the others with trim rattles, rusting nuts and bolts ect ect. Japanese build quality and corner cutting. There bikes are the same.

 

Well you said it after i posted a video. So either you don't trust your eyes or you think the test was in some way not representative of the cars true handling.

 

Build quality aside the spec c is one of the quickest out of the box and does not suffer from understeer as early as 03

 

No I didn't, go re-read my words...bold is pretty fair though.

 

Got to disagree with you on that one, Depends which one you buy
You beat me to it banny

 

Well at the end of the day putting all other models aside, I think the thread has shown the WR1 does not do the 0-100 in the time Prodrive stated and defiantly not in the time some owners state with their unsophisticated timing methods. I think it's also fair to say out the box it didn't handle as well as other models but many will disagree despite any evidence layed before them. I suppose the many owners fit a better ARB and coilovers just for fun rather than to sort out an already great handling car out

 

there both sh1te

one has a crap engine that the japs palmed off on the uk.
the other looks like its been coloured in with crayon.

 

We have a winner

 

its like arguing if cat **** or dog **** is the best


who cares as at the end of the day they are both ****.............

 

I don't know why i bother with this cess pit sometimes. I really need to get out more.

 

anyway the wr1 would win on the 1 lap as it would make it to the end without the hg failing or the ringland dying.

tortoise and the hare......

 

You know you love the place really, little treat for you

 

all i can see is lexarse lights................

 

that's the streamline effect from the big spoiler

 

I don't have, don't want and will never own a WR1...in fact I will never own any newage car (well maybe an S202 at a push), so no agenda; they are all too damn fat and unrewarding in my experience. I didn't say it handled well either, in fact I said they were all set up to understeer out of the box; my comment was based on DCCD equiped cars only and with a bit of rear bias there should be no understeer...perhaps it's not the quickest way from A to B but it's the most rewarding.

 

DCCD set up properly there then

 

That RB320 was tailed by a Caterham R500 and not an M Coupe as stated.

 

EFA

 

I'm impartial to this debate, but I really think that Top Gear would do something like that just to discredit it for being a special edition. They've done it before and given unfairly scathing reviews of some pretty good cars.

It's not an impartial review show, as much as I love it.

 

The WR1 was unfortunately not as good as the boggo model that came out a few months later. The quoted performance figures were absolute nonsense!

Anyone who has driven both cars will agree that the RB320 was a far better car in every way. I am actually quite amazed that people believe the performance figures (and have tried to justify it as true) and furthermore amazed that a more nimble car with improved suspension, widened track and a torquier engine is less fun to drive.

If you ask me, all UK Hawks should have been set up like the RB320 and the WR1 should have been set up using the DCCD Widetrack as the base.

Whether or not the UK Hawks should have been given the 2.5 or 2.0 engine is open to debate; I think it is a good engine with a set of forged pistons and decent head gaskets. The engine should have been revised to this standard after it became apparent that there were failures. The way it was dealt with is the reason there is a collective apathy towards it, not the problem itself.

 

I agree with this post

The 2.5 was a product of government and there emission targets. That was the reason why the yanks have had it for years and the UK changed to it from the 2L. I also believe this is the reason the BRZ uses a 2L that's non turbo charged. Older cars could play by a different set of rules than their modern counterparts. I doubt Subaru could have used forged pistons even after the issue of the hyper bull**** pistons became apparent. Changing them to forged may have taken the engine outside the type testing requirements required in this country. As an owner you are not subjected to type testing rules so can fit whatever you like as most have now done. Once forged pistons and decent head studs are fitted the 2.5 seems to be very reliable.
As for the WR1. As i have said many times, i like it. Im one of the minority that actually likes the colour too. Its is a weird special edition because a few months later a non special edition was put on sale that was a better all round package.
Subaru build quality is a bit naff imo like most European, yank or jap products. With the exception of a couple of models most seem to have a known issue of one type or another. Whether its crap pistons, crap shocks, weak gearbox or rust. We love these cars because when there working there is nothing better. But in owning a subaru you either have a good tool kit or your on first name terms with your local specialist.

 

OMG is this still going
Instead of comparing a 2004 car with a 2007 car, why not compare the WR1 and RB320 to the other scoobies out at the same time as they were launched.

IE Is the wr1 better than the STI PPP out at the time? likewise with the RB320.

They are two very different cars to drive but both good fun, although obviously the WR1 wins hands down for fun on the track out of the two in standard form (not that i am biassed )

 

Last i saw we were comparing the WR1 to the widetrack blob
And it was either you or WE that bought the RB into the debate claiming the WR1 was better on track.

 

I was agreeing with you about emissions until you said that the reason they went non turbo on the BRZ was for emissions. This was not the case, they wanted it to be NA for the driver involvement and pleasure. If you take a look at some of these 1.6 turbos in the likes of Renault Clios they are attracting a VED of £140 a year whereas the BRZ is £220. It is amazing what you can get out of one of these little engines off boost, and then the grunt you can get out of them on it. If this government was wholly serious about CO2 with its VEDs and RFLs then they'd charge according to what the engine chucked out at peak horsepower!

Yes the WR1 was a weird special edition for that reason. A quirky entry in the long list of special editions that this country has rolled out - some glorious and others like the WR1 not so. We can all argue that particular special editions were a disappointment in many ways - the P1 too expensive, the Cosworth too expensive, the RB5 just a UK turbo with some bells and whistles stuck on at a time when people were importing JDM STis - and I'm not saying it is a bad car because it isn't but it was one hell of a missed opportunity and unfortunately was out of date very soon after it arrived. We didn't see an all-new and improved Hawkeye months after the RB320 was launched (in fact we saw the 2008 hatch, arguing whether that is an improvement or not is really opening a can of worms) and I can't recall a forged 400bhp build as standard for the 2010 saloon!

Yes a lot of cars have problems - all three of my newage cars had knocking shocks for example. I know that my R32 Golf has a high chance of dropping a DSG gearbox on me but if so it's hardly the end of the world, it's a couple of hundred quid to six hundred quid with a specialist.

HOWEVER, if a 2.5 drops a ringland then it is anything from totally fooked and seized engine and a several thousand pound rebuild, through to a forged build with pistons, bearings and head gaskets as a minimum at... yes you guessed it, several thousand pounds. Even if the HG alone go, it is a similar bill. THAT is the reason people hate the 2.5, not because it's a bit unreliable.

That Subaru hasn't been on Watchdog or on the wrong end of some aggressive legal action surprises me massively.

 

So as not to cause offence by linking to a gif of Mr Garrison dangling a triangle and insulting his class members, I will come up with something honest in my assessment of someone who thinks that a WR1 is potentially a better track car than an RB320.

""

They are miles apart!

The WR1 vs a boggo 2004 STi PPP was a small improvement performance-wise. As it was sold alongside the 2005 DCCD PPP for so long I have to wonder why anyone would have chosen a dynamically less-capable car in a horrid colour ahead of something that could be specced up to their hearts content.

The RB320 vs a Hawk PPP in my eyes is close until you look at the setup and the fab suspension.

 

I agree with what your say but i'm more synical about the highlighted part. In fact i think thats marketing bollocks hiding the fact that they cant get type approval on the BRZ turbo in this country using a 2L lump. They dare not use the 2.5 because they will be back where they started with failures. I read they intend to bring out a Turbo BRZ in 5 years. Why 5 years ?? It's been said its because of the Toyota deal but again that has to be bollocks. Why would Toyota be bothered when you look at the ratio car sales deal. What was it 40 Toyota's per 1 BRZ ?

 

is that the royal WE?

We have compared a lot of cars so far in this thread, can anyone remember the original topic?