Why do you hate the wrx?
16 February 2005, 12:42 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: weymouth
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you hate the wrx?
Just browsing through the forum and again and again the wrx is taking a bashing, if I read that it is slow one more time i will go round to the writers house and make him drive my 1.4 berlingo
Yes the sti is fast and great but for some of us the power in the wrx is quite enough and for whatever reason was the model we chose ( enough power for now )
We are all scooby lovers ( I think ) so why give my beloved a hard time? I like foresters, sports, leggys because I like subarus, sometimes I feel that justy's get more respect.
Dont get me started on the bugeye is it ugly? debate
rant over
Yes the sti is fast and great but for some of us the power in the wrx is quite enough and for whatever reason was the model we chose ( enough power for now )
We are all scooby lovers ( I think ) so why give my beloved a hard time? I like foresters, sports, leggys because I like subarus, sometimes I feel that justy's get more respect.
Dont get me started on the bugeye is it ugly? debate
rant over
16 February 2005, 01:01 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love my WRX and right at this point in time wouldn't want anything else..... apart from a slightly larger spoiler... but that will come.... wifey willing!!!
Lets put things in perspective.... the WRX is NOT a slow car. Compared with THE VAST MAJORITY of UK road going vehicles it's performance puts it into the supercar league! Take a look at most manufacturers "fastest" models and you will find that only a handfull can break the 6 sec 0-62 barrier let alone everything else the WRX is capable of.... top speeds are a pointless indicator as anyone using them on public roads should be banned for life IMHO.
Now... compared to a WR1 the WRX is relatively slow (not by very much though) compared to an STi there really isn't much in it..... 0.5 seconds 0-62????
Now lets compare an STi with say.......... a McClaren F1...... the STi then becomes a slow car!!!
Be real people..... the WRX is in no way shape or form a slow car... It's only in what you compare it with that makes it look either fast or slow. Just try and remember those first couple of weeks of ownership before you got used to the power!!!!!
Rant over
Paul
Lets put things in perspective.... the WRX is NOT a slow car. Compared with THE VAST MAJORITY of UK road going vehicles it's performance puts it into the supercar league! Take a look at most manufacturers "fastest" models and you will find that only a handfull can break the 6 sec 0-62 barrier let alone everything else the WRX is capable of.... top speeds are a pointless indicator as anyone using them on public roads should be banned for life IMHO.
Now... compared to a WR1 the WRX is relatively slow (not by very much though) compared to an STi there really isn't much in it..... 0.5 seconds 0-62????
Now lets compare an STi with say.......... a McClaren F1...... the STi then becomes a slow car!!!
Be real people..... the WRX is in no way shape or form a slow car... It's only in what you compare it with that makes it look either fast or slow. Just try and remember those first couple of weeks of ownership before you got used to the power!!!!!
Rant over
Paul
16 February 2005, 01:19 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owned mine for 3 1/2 years - great fun, good performance, utterly reliable. Can't ask for more than that (OK, cheaper insurance and more than 22mpg would have been nice 
)
)
16 February 2005, 01:21 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: If you rev it, they will come!
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trails
cause its got a funny name?
Yes that's right I'm a WRX owner and proud of it
Trending Topics
16 February 2005, 01:21 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont hate it I only pity the people (not everyone) who buy one and think they own a rally car which will out gun everything. Thats isnt the case. Its no different with the STi either though .........
Gary
Gary
16 February 2005, 01:36 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely nothing wrong with a WRX. It's a turbo'd Impreza for god's sake. Cracking cars
By the way, any of you WRX owners want to buy an STI Exhaust and/or fuel pump?
Cheers
Keith
By the way, any of you WRX owners want to buy an STI Exhaust and/or fuel pump?
Cheers
Keith
Newage UK wrx..pants 
16 February 2005, 01:44 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Ali, had a classic wrx many moons ago. WRX name now watered down with questionable Subaru Uk rebranding.
16 February 2005, 01:52 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jay m A
Newage WRX = slower than a Clio
Don't even go there
Don't even go there
BTW... book 0-62 on the cliocup 182 = 7.1 (and that's without all that FWD bouncing taken into account!)
Book on the WRX = 5.9 so how on gods earth (unless you have some "alternative" form of time & math) does that make the Clio faster??? (not arguing... just intrigued).... Also... Prodrives 'tested' 0-60 on the 05 WRX is 5.5!
paul
16 February 2005, 01:53 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: weymouth
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a simple fact that a standard WRX is not siginificantly faster than a Clio Cup/182 etc.....in fact I doubt it is faster at all.
My car was not bought as a **** extension, I have a feeling that a few peoples on here was.
Old wrx's were great no denying that, what I cant get over how bitter some owners are of the updated models
16 February 2005, 02:01 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vipa
Who gives a T@ss..... that doesn't make a WRX a slow car!
BTW... book 0-62 on the cliocup 182 = 7.1 (and that's without all that FWD bouncing taken into account!)
Book on the WRX = 5.9 so how on gods earth (unless you have some "alternative" form of time & math) does that make the Clio faster??? (not arguing... just intrigued).... Also... Prodrives 'tested' 0-60 on the 05 WRX is 5.5!
paul
BTW... book 0-62 on the cliocup 182 = 7.1 (and that's without all that FWD bouncing taken into account!)
Book on the WRX = 5.9 so how on gods earth (unless you have some "alternative" form of time & math) does that make the Clio faster??? (not arguing... just intrigued).... Also... Prodrives 'tested' 0-60 on the 05 WRX is 5.5!
paul
Clio 182....60-100....10.9
WRX.........60-100....10.2
Hardly a huge difference....i think you will agree.
Now I have always been hugely sceptical of Subaru's figures too.....it was not long ago that the WRX was listed as 18 secs too 100 in Evo magazine. How on earth an extra 13 bhp made all that difference I will never know!
gb
16 February 2005, 02:01 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vipa
Who gives a T@ss..... that doesn't make a WRX a slow car!
BTW... book 0-62 on the cliocup 182 = 7.1 (and that's without all that FWD bouncing taken into account!)
Book on the WRX = 5.9 so how on gods earth (unless you have some "alternative" form of time & math) does that make the Clio faster??? (not arguing... just intrigued).... Also... Prodrives 'tested' 0-60 on the 05 WRX is 5.5!
paul
BTW... book 0-62 on the cliocup 182 = 7.1 (and that's without all that FWD bouncing taken into account!)
Book on the WRX = 5.9 so how on gods earth (unless you have some "alternative" form of time & math) does that make the Clio faster??? (not arguing... just intrigued).... Also... Prodrives 'tested' 0-60 on the 05 WRX is 5.5!
paul
I think they are referring to in gear times i.e. time it takes to get from say 40-50, 60-70, etc in which case the WRX in some departments is not much quicker if at all than say a clio, civic type r, etc.
0-60 times quoted by Subaru are quite optimistic also, if you try and get 0-60 in 5.9 in a standard WRX you'll fry the clutch pretty sharpish.
I assume your reference to a WRX is the newage "bugeye" and not the classic import WRX's which are obviously another kettle of fish entirely.
Not slagging the bugeye, I own one, it's fantastic and wouldn't swap it for the world
A lot is made of the extra weight the bugeye's carry, I've come up against various classics some slightly modded, some not and none could pull a great distance from me (if at all) except for Tweenierob's car which made me look like I was going backwards
Chris
16 February 2005, 02:11 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,350
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
Originally Posted by bgood
what STI??? yeah that is a bit odd
Yes that's right I'm a WRX owner and proud of it
Yes that's right I'm a WRX owner and proud of it
who give a toss anyway; my car is faster than yours, my car out handles yours blah, blah, blah...smile when you drive it don't bore everyone to death telling them how good you THINK it is.
16 February 2005, 02:17 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think its a classic case of 'my ***** bigger than yours'
usually written by men (sorry guys but its true) who cant really handle that sort of power anyway and believe that having cash to throw at a problem solves it.
put a good driver in a sport and she (lol ok they) will beat an average driver in a STI.
I wouldnt worry about it guys, i've got a sport, we got it as a 'sensible' car (were into classic cars minis bugs etc), and i've come across the 'turbo snobbery'...he he
I still think its a lush motor.
Dont worry about what they think ENJOY and be happy!
usually written by men (sorry guys but its true) who cant really handle that sort of power anyway and believe that having cash to throw at a problem solves it.
put a good driver in a sport and she (lol ok they) will beat an average driver in a STI.
I wouldnt worry about it guys, i've got a sport, we got it as a 'sensible' car (were into classic cars minis bugs etc), and i've come across the 'turbo snobbery'...he he
I still think its a lush motor.
Dont worry about what they think ENJOY and be happy!
16 February 2005, 02:22 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is everyone bringing other marques into this debate? I thought the thread was about STI owners looking down on the standard newage WRX as being slow. Which it patently isn't. 
16 February 2005, 02:28 PM
#27
Whilst the WRXs may not be slow, they certainly arent the performance of the Classics. This makes them easier bait for civic type Rs and clio etc who will re-run their stories of beating a 'Subaru'. This is the only thing that annoyes me (apart from bug/blob eye looks) is the watering down of a performance icon.
You'll still get a wave (before I leave you for dust in me classic )
Geek: How did you come up with those figures? Please tell me you didnt just deduct the 0-60mph time from the 0-100mph time?
Bob
You'll still get a wave (before I leave you for dust in me classic
)
Originally Posted by Geek Boy
well 0-60 in an imreza is always going to be it's party peice with 4WD, but since most of us are beyond traffic light GPs what about a rolling time of 60-100?
Clio 182....60-100....10.9
WRX.........60-100....10.2
Hardly a huge difference....i think you will agree.
Now I have always been hugely sceptical of Subaru's figures too.....it was not long ago that the WRX was listed as 18 secs too 100 in Evo magazine. How on earth an extra 13 bhp made all that difference I will never know!
gb
Clio 182....60-100....10.9
WRX.........60-100....10.2
Hardly a huge difference....i think you will agree.
Now I have always been hugely sceptical of Subaru's figures too.....it was not long ago that the WRX was listed as 18 secs too 100 in Evo magazine. How on earth an extra 13 bhp made all that difference I will never know!
gb
Bob
16 February 2005, 02:30 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bubba po
Why is everyone bringing other marques into this debate? I thought the thread was about STI owners looking down on the standard newage WRX as being slow. Which it patently isn't.
What i was trying to get across is theres always someone else banging on that they have better........just ignore them, you love your scoob so it shouldnt matter!
16 February 2005, 02:33 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOB'5
Geek: How did you come up with those figures? Please tell me you didnt just deduct the 0-60mph time from the 0-100mph time?
Bob
Bob
You dont think thats a good way to test? even if you did do a 60-100 test....I figure the result would be the same, as you would be in the same gears at the same time etc.
gb