any WRX owners DRIVEN an SRT-4
01-07-2005 | 12:29 AM
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not a Subaru fanboy in the least. I favor Nissan over all car companies; well the older Nissan atleast. Personally I would never buy a Dodge or many other American cars for that matter. Would you rather have a slightly cheaper and slightly faster car that will have a much shorter life span, FWD, inferior crash ratings, and lackluster build quality or a car that will last a long time, almost as quick stock, has a four star crash rating, and offers you AWD? When I bought my WRX last month the thought of buying an SRT-4 never even crossed my mind. Not to mention the styling on the SRT-4 is horrid in my eyes.
01-07-2005 | 12:06 PM
#152
VIP Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,023
From: Phoenix, AZ
Car Info: Subaru Impreza WRX 2002
Hooray, someone dug up this fossilized thread!! :P
I don't understand this debate in the slightest. If you are going to compare cars, try using cars which have the slightest relationship to one another. The SRT-4 and the WRX/STI have nothing in common, and were built for totally different purposes, environments and audiences.
If you are choosing a car based on going fast in a straight line and having cheap HP mods, the WRX is already a poor choice. Why fight the drivetrain loss of AWD if you want a street drag car? If you want a $16k pocket-rocket that will be hell to insure but will certainly let you smoke average drivers on the street, then your choice is already made. Just don't try to drive it in snow, standing water, in auto-X or up a muddy hill and you'll be fine. If you want a flashy car to tool around in on Friday night, the SRT-4 is an ideal choice, and is sure to leave a shocked expression on some Audi or Porsche owner's face when you catch him on the highway or dust him at the red light.
If you want a car that is balanced for every possible driving condition (except for true off-road) and can use that power in corners and curves, then the WRX is your car. The engine is expensive and difficult to mod, compared to other platforms (I told a friend of mine that it costs $600 just to reflash my ECU and get 18 HP, and he laughed so hard he nearly fell over. He's got a 5.0 liter Mustang and a '78 Nova). You can give the WRX a nicer torque curve than factory and a better exhaust note and upgrade the rubber without voiding your warranty, and you have an extremely stable and reliable platform with a rally heritage. You will get left behind at the traffic light by much lesser cars, due to turbo lag, but you have the satisfaction of knowing that your car will be making tire tracks over that car's grave if cared for properly.
I hope you see my point that comparing the two cars, as driving platforms, is pointless. If you bought your WRX to be a badass on the street, I can't imagine a worse use for your money. If you bought your SRT-4 to do windy hills in a thunderstorm or canyons after a few days of rain, then I'll see you in the obituary column. It really is that simple, IMO.
I don't understand this debate in the slightest. If you are going to compare cars, try using cars which have the slightest relationship to one another. The SRT-4 and the WRX/STI have nothing in common, and were built for totally different purposes, environments and audiences.
If you are choosing a car based on going fast in a straight line and having cheap HP mods, the WRX is already a poor choice. Why fight the drivetrain loss of AWD if you want a street drag car? If you want a $16k pocket-rocket that will be hell to insure but will certainly let you smoke average drivers on the street, then your choice is already made. Just don't try to drive it in snow, standing water, in auto-X or up a muddy hill and you'll be fine. If you want a flashy car to tool around in on Friday night, the SRT-4 is an ideal choice, and is sure to leave a shocked expression on some Audi or Porsche owner's face when you catch him on the highway or dust him at the red light.
If you want a car that is balanced for every possible driving condition (except for true off-road) and can use that power in corners and curves, then the WRX is your car. The engine is expensive and difficult to mod, compared to other platforms (I told a friend of mine that it costs $600 just to reflash my ECU and get 18 HP, and he laughed so hard he nearly fell over. He's got a 5.0 liter Mustang and a '78 Nova). You can give the WRX a nicer torque curve than factory and a better exhaust note and upgrade the rubber without voiding your warranty, and you have an extremely stable and reliable platform with a rally heritage. You will get left behind at the traffic light by much lesser cars, due to turbo lag, but you have the satisfaction of knowing that your car will be making tire tracks over that car's grave if cared for properly.
I hope you see my point that comparing the two cars, as driving platforms, is pointless. If you bought your WRX to be a badass on the street, I can't imagine a worse use for your money. If you bought your SRT-4 to do windy hills in a thunderstorm or canyons after a few days of rain, then I'll see you in the obituary column. It really is that simple, IMO.
Last edited by meilers; 01-07-2005 at 12:31 PM.
01-07-2005 | 12:13 PM
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by meilers
Hooray, someone dug up this fossilized thread!! :P
I don't understand this debate in the slightest. If you are going to compare cars, try using cars which have the slightest relationship to one another. The SRT-4 and the WRX/STI have nothing in common, and were built for totally different purposes, environments and audiences.
If you are choosing a car based on going fast in a straight line and having cheap HP mods, the WRX is already a poor choice. Why fight the drivetrain loss of AWD if you want a street drag car? Why try to force excessive HP out of an engine that is already turbocharged and specifically balanced for the drivetrain and driveability of the car? If you want a $16k pocket-rocket that will be hell to insure but will certainly let you smoke average drivers on the street, then your choice is already made. Just don't try to drive it in snow, standing water, in auto-X or up a muddy hill and you'll be fine. If you want a flashy car to tool around in on Friday night, the SRT-4 is an ideal choice, and is sure to leave a shocked expression on some Audi or Porsche owner's face when you catch him on the highway or dust him at the red light.
If you want a car that is balanced for every possible driving condition (except for true off-road) and can use that power in corners and curves, then the WRX is your car. Although the engine is expensive and difficult to mod, compared to other platforms (I told a friend of mine that it costs $600 just to reflash my ECU and get 18 HP, and he laughed so hard he nearly fell over. He's got a 5.0 liter Mustang), you can give it a nicer torque curve than factory and a better exhaust note, and upgrade the rubber, and you have an extremely stable and reliable platform. You will get left behind at the traffic light by much lesser cars, due to turbo lag, but you have the satisfaction of knowing that your car will be making tire tracks over that car's grave if cared for properly.
I hope you see my point that comparing the two cars, as driving platforms, is pointless. If you bought your WRX to be a badass on the street, I can't imagine a worse use for your money. If you bought your SRT-4 to do windy hills in a thunderstorm or canyons after a few days of rain, then I'll see you in the obituary column. It really is that simple, IMO.
I don't understand this debate in the slightest. If you are going to compare cars, try using cars which have the slightest relationship to one another. The SRT-4 and the WRX/STI have nothing in common, and were built for totally different purposes, environments and audiences.
If you are choosing a car based on going fast in a straight line and having cheap HP mods, the WRX is already a poor choice. Why fight the drivetrain loss of AWD if you want a street drag car? Why try to force excessive HP out of an engine that is already turbocharged and specifically balanced for the drivetrain and driveability of the car? If you want a $16k pocket-rocket that will be hell to insure but will certainly let you smoke average drivers on the street, then your choice is already made. Just don't try to drive it in snow, standing water, in auto-X or up a muddy hill and you'll be fine. If you want a flashy car to tool around in on Friday night, the SRT-4 is an ideal choice, and is sure to leave a shocked expression on some Audi or Porsche owner's face when you catch him on the highway or dust him at the red light.
If you want a car that is balanced for every possible driving condition (except for true off-road) and can use that power in corners and curves, then the WRX is your car. Although the engine is expensive and difficult to mod, compared to other platforms (I told a friend of mine that it costs $600 just to reflash my ECU and get 18 HP, and he laughed so hard he nearly fell over. He's got a 5.0 liter Mustang), you can give it a nicer torque curve than factory and a better exhaust note, and upgrade the rubber, and you have an extremely stable and reliable platform. You will get left behind at the traffic light by much lesser cars, due to turbo lag, but you have the satisfaction of knowing that your car will be making tire tracks over that car's grave if cared for properly.
I hope you see my point that comparing the two cars, as driving platforms, is pointless. If you bought your WRX to be a badass on the street, I can't imagine a worse use for your money. If you bought your SRT-4 to do windy hills in a thunderstorm or canyons after a few days of rain, then I'll see you in the obituary column. It really is that simple, IMO.
Very good post, however no offense but- "Why try to force excessive HP out of an engine that is already turbocharged and specifically balanced for the drivetrain and driveability of the car?" has to be the best way I have ever heard "weak motor and transmission" described and actually justified
.Joe
01-07-2005 | 01:35 PM
#154
VIP Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,023
From: Phoenix, AZ
Car Info: Subaru Impreza WRX 2002
Originally Posted by kwiktsi
Very good post, however no offense but- "Why try to force excessive HP out of an engine that is already turbocharged and specifically balanced for the drivetrain and driveability of the car?" has to be the best way I have ever heard "weak motor and transmission" described and actually justified .
Joe
.Joe
I was also making a point about the SRT-4 (which I have driven, four times so far -- a friend has one) not feeling like it is particularly balanced for that engine and power level, much less the 330+ whp people are modding it to...
01-08-2005 | 12:07 AM
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
You should go with the SRT if u want better "stock" performance. It doesnt sound like u really need the AWD, so why get it? Personally, i just would hate driving the SRT because its a NEON. But for you, it sounds like the SRT would be more practical.
01-08-2005 | 01:04 AM
#157
I would not go with the SRT. It is faster than the WRX in a straight line by a few 1/10ths of a second in the 1/4 mile, it does burnouts, and its tranny holds up stronger. But it is built much cheaper, FWD, ugly, non-functional scoops, and its safety is terrible compared to the impreza. I have driven an SRT, owned a WRX, and own an STi. I would have to put the WRX in first for a first time higher powered vehicle. Its quality, resale value, safety, and awd put it at a much higher advantage over the dodge.
Nick
Nick
01-21-2005 | 10:39 AM
#158
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 173
From: New York
Car Info: 2002 WRX wagon
Only a couple of the posts put much emphasis on quality. I owned several Dodges/Chryslers in years past, from an ancient slush pump 2-speed transmission (with a Hemi!) to a '97 Neon. Also, a Simca (French, bought out by Chrysler and then dumped) a great '68 Mustang and a lot of other foreign and domestic iron. My '02 Subaru just plain beats them all for quality of fit and finish, lots of power and comfort goodies, and then the utility of a 5-door vehicle that you can actually use to carry tons of stuff, pulling it with awd through whatever the roadway is. And, where I am coming from, that's real plus. But, now with 31K miles on, I wish I could have held out for the STI.
01-21-2005 | 11:54 AM
#159
Originally Posted by nypatrick
My '02 Subaru just plain beats them all for quality of fit and finish, lots of power and comfort goodies, and then the utility of a 5-door vehicle that you can actually use to carry tons of stuff, pulling it with awd through whatever the roadway is. And, where I am coming from, that's real plus. But, now with 31K miles on, I wish I could have held out for the STI.
Nick
01-21-2005 | 01:31 PM
#160
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 311
From: Muskegon MI
Car Info: Silver 02 WRX
the tranny only holds up better because its real easy to overpower a FWD. the bigest reason WRX trannys break is people dumping the clutch to launch (there are a few cases out there that they have had premature failures but you cant tell me there arent any with dodge). the WRX is a better overall performer even in stock form. stoplight to stoplight its acually closer than one might think (not that i promote street racing but just as an example). the WRX will get a sizable lead in the begining and the SRT4 will walk it down in the end BUT take these two cars to a track and see which one was built from leftover K-Car parts and which one was designed with a purpose. I almost bought an SRT4 over my WRX until I got to take one through the mountians. impresive as the SRT4's suspension may be it still is an understeering, inside tire melting monster that dosent give you the confidence the WRX does in the twisties.
oh yeah and i was moving to MI but that didnt have a TON to do with it
oh yeah and i was moving to MI but that didnt have a TON to do with it
01-21-2005 | 03:55 PM
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Big_DeWeY
the tranny only holds up better because its real easy to overpower a FWD. the bigest reason WRX trannys break is people dumping the clutch to launch (there are a few cases out there that they have had premature failures but you cant tell me there arent any with dodge). the WRX is a better overall performer even in stock form. stoplight to stoplight its acually closer than one might think (not that i promote street racing but just as an example). the WRX will get a sizable lead in the begining and the SRT4 will walk it down in the end BUT take these two cars to a track and see which one was built from leftover K-Car parts and which one was designed with a purpose. I almost bought an SRT4 over my WRX until I got to take one through the mountians. impresive as the SRT4's suspension may be it still is an understeering, inside tire melting monster that dosent give you the confidence the WRX does in the twisties.
oh yeah and i was moving to MI but that didnt have a TON to do with it
oh yeah and i was moving to MI but that didnt have a TON to do with it
For the most part this is all correct- however, I have heard of and seen more WRX transmissions break from 2nd gear roll on's than 1st gear launches (modded cars of course). Not saying launches are safe, but spinning tires and the reduction of 1st gear puts a hell of a lot less stress on the input side of the trans than 2nd and 3rd gear roll on's.
Joe
01-28-2005 | 01:21 AM
#163
when i drove the 05 srt i felt it had more "pop" when you cane the car... but i bought the wrx just because it was better equiped and awd.... and i don't really like the idea of driving a neon as a daly driver. but its still a nice car for what it is, with TONS of aftermarket parts and what not tho
Last edited by RU-X; 02-04-2005 at 09:53 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Krinkov
Bay Area
193
02-25-2011 01:14 PM
jinxproof96
Cars For Sale
10
04-25-2004 12:05 AM
