Si.t

Hi guys,
i'm thinking of buying a bugeye as a replacement to my my98.

what are they like performance/driving experieince/fun factor versus the older scoobi think they are down on power, but what is the general feeling on these, and what can be done to get a bit more omph out of them? anyone got a 300 or a 240 version of these?

cheers

si

chris's scooby

I've got a 215bhp model at the moment, although it's on the market ( WR1 purchase) It's a lot better to both drive and also be inside of compared to my cousins '99 turbo.

Hope that helps.

Si.t

cool, sounds promising, i'm after probably a wrx to keep me going till next spring when i can really fork out some dosh.... better go for a test drive.

what way is it better than your cousins drivingwise?? faster?

cheers

chris's scooby

It feels it , although from memory ithink as standard they're the same power tho.

I know it sounds sad but my car is more comfortalbe as well as having a stiffer body shell. ( Touch wood it's never let me down or missed a beat and i still smile when i open the garage door in the mornings!)

Can't fault the handling either.

Si.t

so yours is just standard? the one thing i really need is air con it gets very hot sitting in traffic inside this time of year!!

chris's scooby

The uk wrx's came with air-con as standard, mines got it although i think it may be called semi auto climite control.

Still a must have this weather tho.

Jim_B

iTrader: (1)

My opinion is the classics feel quicker and are more fun to drive - perhaps as they are more raw. The interior in the Bugeye is a tad better - well getting there anyway, but you can feel the extra weight when pushing hard too. Seems to understeer more. The brakes also seem more assisted [ some people like this - other dont so thats a preference thing ]. Also the driving position seems higher in a Bug eye..

Maddy

This subject has been done umpteen times, I more or less agree with Jim, But can add if your used to the classics power (which I am) then try find a cheap bug with ppp i'm sure there a fair few around, It more than makes up for the difference in power. That way you have best of both worlds fun and refinement apart from endless modifications if your unahappy with the styling. In all IMO I feel the bug is a better car providing your willing to shell out for a few modifications, Although it never was the car it should of been.

Maddy

jjones

classics feel quicker because they are.

they weight significantly less than a new age wrx

jonnie c

I've got a friend who works at a subaru garage, and he says that they've had both the classic and bugeye side by side and raced them up and down and said they're exactley the same.

IN THE STICKS

I'ld love to leave my car with them to be serviced

IN THE STICKS

Have a read here http://www.iwoc.co.uk/my2001e.html

greasemonkey

Not. As jjones says, 170-odd kilogrammes of extra weight, plus a more restrictive exhaust system and increased frontal area/drag coefficient slow the new age cars down slightly.

The bugeyes are more solidly built, and have some handling advantages in the wider track and modified suspension geometry, but you'd need a bit more power to equal the straight line performance of a GC/GF.

Senior_AP

Standard MY01 bug eye I went in might be a good car but was slower than my other mates Clio 172. I thought it was w&nk really.

STI was cool though - if not thirsty.

Mat Mc

Anorak on

Top Gear Times:

Renault Clio 172 - 0-60mph 7.4secs
Renault Clio 172 Cup - 0-60mph 6.8secs
Renault Clio V6 255 - 0-60mph 5.8secs

Subaru Impreza WRX - 0-60mph 5.6secs

May not be 100% true but should be consistant benchmark

Anorak off

16vmarc

alot changes after 60mph though

Mat Mc

True, I still wouldn't put a 172 in the same league as any Turbo'd Impreza.

My mate used to have a 172 that was Superchiped (Arrgh) and it wasn't as quick as my WRX before it's de-cat. Handling was not that exceptional either.

Nice but not that nice.

Subie Gal

I own one of each and i feel the classic is much more drivable.
less weight
better seating position and feeling
just all around more 'flickable' than the bug-eye

but both of them are quite quick! and reliable...
I still prefer the classic style tho... IMHO much more feedback from the car

Jamie
SubieGal.com

chris's scooby

The classic looks the best out of the 2. They should've gone straight from the classic model to the current shape. But thats hindsight!

ps I do own a bug eye.

wacky.banana

Hello there,

You are going to get quite disparate views on this here. There was a lot of negativity expressed towards the new age car when it first came out and a lot of resistance expressed from owners of the so-called "classic" car, methinks in part because they did not want to see their model usurped by something new/better, which is only natural.

I have owned both types of car, ie old shape and new. I won't say what my preference is as it probably doesn't matter. What DOES matter is how YOU feel about the new age car after YOU have spent an extensive amount of time driving one and getting a good feel for the car.

There is a lot of talk about the extra weight of the new age being a disadvantage. While one cannot go against the laws of physics you need to take that with a large pinch of salt, in the same way as you would for the comments about the WR1 being whipped on Top Gear by the Evo because the WR1 had been "over driven" What counts, at the end of the day, is the real world experience on the road, not 0-60 times.

The new age car is better built than the original car which, from my first hand experience, does influence one's sense of perspective on eg speed. My old car leaked air around the window seals like nobody's business, leaving me with the distinct impression that it was quicker than my current STi

The key word here is impression........

My strong advice to you is to view the comments on here as they are but get out there and drive a new age car for yourself. Don't take one out for an hour's test drive because you will learn nothing from that experience. See if you can blag one for a week, or a substantial period of time then make your own decision. Do not be unecessarily influenced by what you read here (that comment made with respect to all). We are all different with different tatses, likes and dislikes. Only you can say what you really want/like.

Good luck.

WB

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

I've got a bugeye running 300 BHP plus a bit.......

Sad part is that they seem pretty unloved for a well sorted car (inside and mechanically) which means they can be had pretty cheap

WRX's with PPP or EcuTek equivalent probably the best "bang per buck" at the moment !!

Midlife.....

WRX with mods and a resale value that would make your nose bleed !!

scoobydooooo

not a chance , i've owned both cars and the scooby is much faster ,

achad

Classic's are, as already said, more 'raw'. The kick in the back, aseptically when de-catted and dawesed is awesome! Although the new age cars do imo have there own strengths. I've owned a slightly modded MY98, driven a bug eyed WRX for a day and currently own a WR1 I'd say the classic is the most raw out of the three purely coz of the kick when the car comes on boost, although it is over much sooner than the WR1 which keeps going till the red line. The WRX doesn't 'feel' as quick as the classic because I feel as if you can 'feel' the extra weight. The flip side of this though is it feels more planted to the road, not so floty. The interia is also much better... Not so may moans, creaks, whistles etc. IMO the WRX needs 'sporting' up though. The visual appearance I think adds to the expectations and experience of the car and the std gear ***, strearing wheel ect isn't inducive of a 'super car eater' or what ever.
Your going to hear this a lot, but, the only way your going to find out your self is buy driving the cars by your self and for a prolonged period of time. i find i can only compare what-ever cars once i fell fairly comfortable in them, thus boiling them down to there lowest common denominator, me!

davyboy

Me too....

The Clio is the faster car.

Forget 0-60 crap.

Ignore Subaru "official figures"

Evo times it at 18 secs which made the 60-100 dash laughable!

davedipster

Me too, same conclusion in every situation

Anyway back to the question...
I personally prefer the new age cos they feel more solid, and better built.
If your 98 is unmodified or non PPP'd then I think you would really enjoy a bugeye wrx with PPP or go the whole hog and get an sti with PPP

dipster

RB5_245

Funny how some people, who've driven both say the clio is faster and some the scoob.

When I drove a 172 i found it gutless, and awful with the light pedles... and the diff stopped it going in a straight line on a b-road.... anyway not the point.

I think although the bugeye was ugly when it came out, and the wrx still is, the sti versions look lovely now imho, specially with bigger wheels on. I'd definetly consider swapping my classic for a spec c, or type r.

Dave

davyboy

I think it depends if you have "upgraded" to a WRX. I don't think anyone would admit to buying a slower car.

I think the WRX is overall a better car, it's just not as quick as a 172/cup.

People have been getting in the 14's with a cup on the 1/4 mile.

I also think it would lap a track quicker.

Obviously the only place a 172/Cup is slower is the wet twisties

JDM

Wouldn't the Clio be slower overall because of the time it spends in dealers having pieces reattached and replaced?

davyboy

That just makes it lighter!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I notice alot of people say the classics are more prone rattling and wind noise.

Odd. As mine has never had the problem - perhaps mine is the only well screwed together classic on SN The only irrititation is the tyre/road noise on the classics (esp with 17" or 18" wheels). All through poor rear sound proofing.

It's all horses for courses. A bug is more nicer to live in, 6 speed box is a nice feature when compared to the tallish geared UK classics. IMO both bugs and classics still suffer from similar flaws in drivability, response, handling, poor comunication to the driver of the road and overall "feel".