why a wrx over a rsx-s?
02-15-2003 | 01:26 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just thought that I'd throw in my two cents since I've had the chance to drive both cars and test out their potential.
Both cars are great cars without a doubt. As far as power and torque, the RSX Type-S is more linear whereas the Impreza WRX is quite explosive once the turbo is spooled. The Type-S interior is superior with all of its standard features and conveniences, but the WRX still has everything you really need. Some call the RSX feminine and some call the WRX ugly; personally, I feel the RSX's lines are quite handsome and the WRX's beauty is further realized after you drive the car and step outside of it. The Type-S handles really well, but it still doesn't touch the WRX's AWD which will benefit you on any surface. And don't forget all the extra backseat room and trunk space that the WRX has over the RSX.
Personally I'm waiting for the 2004 WRXs to come out so I can get an up-close look at the car. It comes with a few extra conveniences (tachometer at the center of the gauges rather than the speedometer, new front seats, optional sunroof, etc.). Performance should be nearly identical. Whether you're considering an RSX Type-S (personally I'd rather wait for the Type-R), a 2003 WRX, or a 2004 WRX, in the end it all boils down to taste and preference. Choose wisely whichever car you think will satisfy you the most. But before doing so, test drive every car and take that SOB to redline to see how much the car excites you.
Both cars are great cars without a doubt. As far as power and torque, the RSX Type-S is more linear whereas the Impreza WRX is quite explosive once the turbo is spooled. The Type-S interior is superior with all of its standard features and conveniences, but the WRX still has everything you really need. Some call the RSX feminine and some call the WRX ugly; personally, I feel the RSX's lines are quite handsome and the WRX's beauty is further realized after you drive the car and step outside of it. The Type-S handles really well, but it still doesn't touch the WRX's AWD which will benefit you on any surface. And don't forget all the extra backseat room and trunk space that the WRX has over the RSX.
Personally I'm waiting for the 2004 WRXs to come out so I can get an up-close look at the car. It comes with a few extra conveniences (tachometer at the center of the gauges rather than the speedometer, new front seats, optional sunroof, etc.). Performance should be nearly identical. Whether you're considering an RSX Type-S (personally I'd rather wait for the Type-R), a 2003 WRX, or a 2004 WRX, in the end it all boils down to taste and preference. Choose wisely whichever car you think will satisfy you the most. But before doing so, test drive every car and take that SOB to redline to see how much the car excites you.
02-15-2003 | 11:23 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, I decided to mention a bit about the Type-R since I typed its name in my post.
Compared to the Type-S, the Type-R has the following:
*11.5:1 compression ratio (up from 11.0:0)
* 220hp (up from 200)
* 152 lb.-ft (up from 142)
* Type-R interior (Type-R Recaro seats that match the interior color you choose between black, red, and blue; Type-R shift ****; Type-R aluminum pedals; Momo steering wheel; etc.)
* Type-R body kit (front, side, and rear side skirts; Type-R rear wing)
* Type-R suspension (far more advanced than any previous Integra/RSX)
* Front helical limited slip differential
* 17" Type-R rims (up from 16")
* HID headlights
* 4" exhaust tip
* 4-pot Brembo front brakes
Honda's estimated quarter-mile time for this badass is 14.3 seconds. There is nothing in its league really (since it definitely brutalizes its typical competition like the Celica and Eclipse), but it should be able to put up a good fight against the Mustang GT, Neon SRT-4 (especially since they're both FWD), Nissan 350Z/Infiniti G35 Sports Coupe, and the Impreza WRX (that is, until you hit some curves on the road).
Compared to the Type-S, the Type-R has the following:
*11.5:1 compression ratio (up from 11.0:0)
* 220hp (up from 200)
* 152 lb.-ft (up from 142)
* Type-R interior (Type-R Recaro seats that match the interior color you choose between black, red, and blue; Type-R shift ****; Type-R aluminum pedals; Momo steering wheel; etc.)
* Type-R body kit (front, side, and rear side skirts; Type-R rear wing)
* Type-R suspension (far more advanced than any previous Integra/RSX)
* Front helical limited slip differential
* 17" Type-R rims (up from 16")
* HID headlights
* 4" exhaust tip
* 4-pot Brembo front brakes
Honda's estimated quarter-mile time for this badass is 14.3 seconds. There is nothing in its league really (since it definitely brutalizes its typical competition like the Celica and Eclipse), but it should be able to put up a good fight against the Mustang GT, Neon SRT-4 (especially since they're both FWD), Nissan 350Z/Infiniti G35 Sports Coupe, and the Impreza WRX (that is, until you hit some curves on the road).
02-15-2003 | 04:26 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Automobile Magazine's 2003 All-Sport Sedan is a tie between the 2003 WRX and the BMW M5 " - WR xplosive
I saw and read that article about 5 times in a row. That was the selling point to me. If you can put a $25k car against a $70+k car and say that it holds its own... WTF else is there to know. They said that the WRX can hold its own against the M5, thats saying alot for a car that is $25k. Nothing else on the market can touch the WRX when it comes to pricing and performance. They had to put the S4 and the 330 xi against it to do a comparison. The S4 and 330 xi are both near /or over $40k.
If you read the Sport Compact Car magazine with the STI on the cover they did a comparison with the RSX-s and the WRX wagon. The RSX lost. A Wagon beat a Coupe. They overall feeling from the editor was that the WRX was more fun to drive with its turbo, AWD and aftermarket support. The RSX-s was a pick if your going around the track because it handles better than the WRX on the Slalom and Lane Change (all Subarus sux at these 2).
If you put the WRX vs the RSX FP then the WRX is gonna get Beat around the track. In the latest Road and Track magazine with the Z and the S200 on the cover the RSX FP beat the WRX by a few miliseconds and thats saying alot considering the WRX is stronger and has AWD.
All in all Ill get the WRX (wagon) personally. The RSX FP is something that u may consider if ur going around the track (note FP does not have any Engine upgrades yet). If your just gonna be driving around town and want some Fun then the WRX is a Blast.
I saw and read that article about 5 times in a row. That was the selling point to me. If you can put a $25k car against a $70+k car and say that it holds its own... WTF else is there to know. They said that the WRX can hold its own against the M5, thats saying alot for a car that is $25k. Nothing else on the market can touch the WRX when it comes to pricing and performance. They had to put the S4 and the 330 xi against it to do a comparison. The S4 and 330 xi are both near /or over $40k.
If you read the Sport Compact Car magazine with the STI on the cover they did a comparison with the RSX-s and the WRX wagon. The RSX lost. A Wagon beat a Coupe. They overall feeling from the editor was that the WRX was more fun to drive with its turbo, AWD and aftermarket support. The RSX-s was a pick if your going around the track because it handles better than the WRX on the Slalom and Lane Change (all Subarus sux at these 2).
If you put the WRX vs the RSX FP then the WRX is gonna get Beat around the track. In the latest Road and Track magazine with the Z and the S200 on the cover the RSX FP beat the WRX by a few miliseconds and thats saying alot considering the WRX is stronger and has AWD.
All in all Ill get the WRX (wagon) personally. The RSX FP is something that u may consider if ur going around the track (note FP does not have any Engine upgrades yet). If your just gonna be driving around town and want some Fun then the WRX is a Blast.
02-15-2003 | 04:34 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you gonna get an RSX get the FP not the Type - R. The FP is the same as the Type - R except the FP is 200HP. RSX FP and a Supercharger for low end punch and Vtec at high end and the WRX will have a contender. You all can debate this but you have to agree to some degree.
note: FP package on the RSX is gonna run $4500 extra
note: FP package on the RSX is gonna run $4500 extra
03-03-2003 | 09:47 AM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bought an RSX-S about a year ago...
Next month I'm trading it in on a WRX wagon. Not sure if I'll go 2003 or 2004 yet.
Saying that the transmission in the RSX is better is only true for the first couple thousand miles. Check out the "Problems" section of the message board on www.clubrsx.com . Nearly everyone has a horrible notch, and quite often grind, between 1st and 2nd. Acura put out a TSB that actually makes it worse and hasn't found a fix yet.
Oh... and the traction and wheel hop is horrible on the RSX. Even with proformance springs and Bridgestone S03s.
Next month I'm trading it in on a WRX wagon. Not sure if I'll go 2003 or 2004 yet.
Saying that the transmission in the RSX is better is only true for the first couple thousand miles. Check out the "Problems" section of the message board on www.clubrsx.com . Nearly everyone has a horrible notch, and quite often grind, between 1st and 2nd. Acura put out a TSB that actually makes it worse and hasn't found a fix yet.
Oh... and the traction and wheel hop is horrible on the RSX. Even with proformance springs and Bridgestone S03s.
03-03-2003 | 11:41 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Really?
That sucks.
The trans action is so fine in the RSX. But, my experience has only been with new cars that I've driven. I've not driven a used model with some miles on it so I'm not aware of problems that happen down the road.
That does really suck if the quick slick trans gets bad latter on.
However, as you suggest to look on the trouble section for the RSX, the same can be said for the WRX whoes trans is initially not as nice as the RSX.
It does seem that most postings for tranny problems comes from 2002 WRX owners with only a few 2003 owners posting issues. Maybe the 2004 WRX won't have any trans problems.
I hope.
T
That sucks.
The trans action is so fine in the RSX. But, my experience has only been with new cars that I've driven. I've not driven a used model with some miles on it so I'm not aware of problems that happen down the road.
That does really suck if the quick slick trans gets bad latter on.
However, as you suggest to look on the trouble section for the RSX, the same can be said for the WRX whoes trans is initially not as nice as the RSX.
It does seem that most postings for tranny problems comes from 2002 WRX owners with only a few 2003 owners posting issues. Maybe the 2004 WRX won't have any trans problems.
I hope.T
03-04-2003 | 01:45 AM
#27
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 513
From: southern california
Car Info: 98 L w/hybrid ej257 Linked
since we are comparing cars here, what does everyone think about the 97-98 nissan 240sx and the 93-96 mr2 compared with the 99-01 impreza's? handling, potiental power (swaps and what not) basicly the over-all car. and how fun they are.
03-04-2003 | 09:43 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
You think WRX has a 'glass' tranny? The 6-sp in the RSX is a piece of S***. About third of RSX-S has been or is at the dealer getting the syncros or the whole tranny replaced, most with less than 2000mi. Any even then it hasn't completely fixed the problem.