02 WRX or 02-03 Rsx type S? (poll)

[dustyturkey]

Sorry if this is the wrong section. Apologies in advance.

As the title states, I am having a hard time deciding between the two.
I have always wanted a Subaru but I do not really want to be driving a wrx while being sad that it is not an STi (if you know what I mean).

The Rsx seems like a nice car and a little cheaper in price than the wrx I am looking at but I dont really want to regret not buying a Subaru lol.

Both cars are stock. I do not think I will be doing much modding.
Please help me reach a decision.

P.s. For the STi owners who have had wrx before, is there are a large difference between the two models? My friend said it was like comparing C350 and C63 AMG.

[rquinn19]

Sorry if this is the wrong section. Apologies in advance.

As the title states, I am having a hard time deciding between the two.
I have always wanted a Subaru but I do not really want to be driving a wrx while being sad that it is not an STi (if you know what I mean).

The Rsx seems like a nice car and a little cheaper in price than the wrx I am looking at but I dont really want to regret not buying a Subaru lol.

Both cars are stock. I do not think I will be doing much modding.
Please help me reach a decision.

P.s. For the STi owners who have had wrx before, is there are a large difference between the two models? My friend said it was like comparing C350 and C63 AMG.

I can't comment on which to get but I think the c350 vs c63 is way off. A regular impreza maybe. When looking at cars that old I'd buy based on condition and maintenance and miles. 10 year old car cold be a ticking time bomb if certain maintenance wasn't done like timing belt and such.

[Calvinball]

If you think you couldn't live with a wrx instead of a sti, then I don't think you'd be too happy with the rsx. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed my rsx but in terms of performance: rsx < wrx < sti.

For the older years, there was a decent power difference between the wrx and the sti, but even so a comparison I've heard a lot is this: if you are going to track the car often, sti. If it is pretty much just going to be a daily driver, wrx. Not that one couldn't be perfectly fine in either role, but I am speaking generally.

Go drive both. See if you can find a sti to drive as well.

Now this will be strictly "what would Will do;" if it were me I would test drive both, and base my decision off of that, but also do some research into what maintenance should have been done for each car at their respective miles, and comparing that to the service records. I'd also be looking to see if there are any signs that either car was not stock at some point.

Finally, this poll is invalid because there is no "bewbs" option.

[Phobic]

buy a Geo Metro, you won't regret that.

[STI*NG]

I can't comment on which to get but I think the c350 vs c63 is way off. A regular impreza maybe. When looking at cars that old I'd buy based on condition and maintenance and miles. 10 year old car could be a ticking time bomb if certain maintenance wasn't done like timing belt and such.

That's good advice right there! On the older cars condition and maintenance records are everything.
I think that the RSX is more sporty looking but I needed to get something with functional back seats so I was a lot more limited in what I could get. I also wanted something with AWD vs FWD.
I test drove both the 09 WRX and STI and went with the STI. Both were pretty comparable in performance and not a big difference in mileage. The STI was a bit costly of course but in the end it came down to the dealership they were at. The WRX was being sold at an Acura dealer and they didn't know much about the car and the STI was being sold by a Subaru dealer and they had the complete history of the car.
I'm not sure about the older models but I think you'd be pretty happy with either.

[RayfieldsWRX]

This comparison happened a lot when the cars in question were new.

Will's advice is probably the most valuable in the thread, since he has seat time in one...however, I don't know if he's actually compared it with driving time in a bugeye. Stock for stock, the straight line performance of the cars were pretty similar, both, I think, trapping in the mid-90's in the quarter. I think you have to know how to drive those i-VTEC engines, though...I don't think a lot happens until past 5000 rpms. Handling-wise, the Acura's were supposed to be excellent, in that particular way that FWD hot hatches can be excellent.

Honda builds fine automobiles...if you can find a nicely-cared-for RSX-S, I'd go see if you can drive it. That will tell you if the character of the car is a good fit for you. I have to say that the interior is bound to be better. This 2003's interior is sure nicer than my 2002 WRX's:



All that aside...I don't like the dynamics of FWD, so it would be a fairly easy choice for me, if my candidates were well-maintained examples. Good luck.

[Ruh Roh]

I had alot of fun in my moms old RSX but ill stick to my bugeye.

Will had an RSX so his advice fits this thread, and no bewbs option. no one reads the rules anymore :/

[Calvinball]

I don't know if he's actually compared it with driving time in a bugeye. Stock for stock, the straight line performance of the cars were pretty similar, both, I think, trapping in the mid-90's in the quarter. I think you have to know how to drive those i-VTEC engines, though...I don't think a lot happens until past 5000 rpms. Handling-wise, the Acura's were supposed to be excellent, in that particular way that FWD hot hatches can be excellent.

You're right, I haven't driven a bugeye, though I have spent time in one that was stock. Obviously 0-60 was no comparison, but you are right, the RSX on a highway probably was not far off in acceleration from the WRX. Now I know the 2.0L (wrx) powerband isn't the same as the 2.5L, but it is still much better from a daily driving standpoint than the RSX. In order for the RSX to be close to a WRX from a roll, you really had to have it well above 5000 rpms. That can be fun, feeling like you've got a commercialized mini-F1 engine as it screams down the highway, but I've found the WRX (mine and my friend's old bugeye) to be so much better at giving usable power.

Handling wise, I do think the RSX "feels" better going around a corner, but I've found that even though it doesn't feel quite as composed at times, the WRX can take them quicker, and the AWD allows for mid-turn corrections and ass-savings that the RSX would never be able to match. That part is based on my 2012, as I can't recall ever attacking twisties in my buddy's bugeye.

[Calvinball]

Honda builds fine automobiles...if you can find a nicely-cared-for RSX-S, I'd go see if you can drive it. That will tell you if the character of the car is a good fit for you. I have to say that the interior is bound to be better. This 2003's interior is sure nicer than my 2002 WRX's:

It is a "better" interior. That said, given the age of the cars in question, it will most likely have a fair share of rattles and such, which is one of the typical complaints about the Subaru. I certainly had a few in my 2004 Acura towards the end. Otherwise, yeah the materials in the Acura are a bit better, but in no way a deal maker or breaker in my mind. Bugeye seats are better, from what I remember.

[11blackSTi]

WRX has the advantage of AWD, so if that is of value to you, it is a huge advantage. RSX is more of a refined look (in my opinion), so if you want a more "mature" looking car RSX fits that look. That being said, I vote for bewbs.

[STI*NG]

If you can find any car with low miles you can certainly reduce the number of problems you may face. I had my 03 Eclipse for 7 years and it had no issues (or rattles) the whole time I had it, and from what I've heard from other Diamond Star drivers that's pretty rare.
In my used car experiences, a lot of it will be luck of the draw as well. I've always done my research on the cars I've bought and, with the exception of the '84 Z-28, have never had any major issues with any of them.
Good luck and happy hunting!

[RayfieldsWRX]

Obviously 0-60 was no comparison, but you are right, the RSX on a highway probably was not far off in acceleration from the WRX.

It would be interesting to compare 5-60mph between the two cars, stock...since that's more of a real-world situation. A well-driven RSX-S might do surprisingly well.

Bugeye seats are better, from what I remember.

I'll put stock bugeye seats up against nearly anything. I've never owned a car with anything better. Good point.

WRX has the advantage of AWD, so if that is of value to you, it is a huge advantage. RSX is more of a refined look (in my opinion), so if you want a more "mature" looking car RSX fits that look. That being said, I vote for bewbs.

AWD is really cool in inclement weather. It's nice being able to take "forward-motion-traction" for granted, as I essentially have in my WRX's. Beyond that..I really just see it as an advantage in that it's "Not FWD"..for performance purposes I'd be just as happy in a RWD car. Actually, I really miss owning a RWD sports car.

[dustyturkey]

Is it true that the 2002 WRX has a really sensitive clutch? I am not too good at manual tranny at the moment. I don't really want to stall and destroy the turbo...

[RayfieldsWRX]

Stalling is unlikely to hurt a turbocharger, IMO. I don't consider the stock clutch to be particularly sensitive, but then I'm not as discriminating as some of the Gen-Y folks around here, who get upset when windows don't roll up exactly the same, etc.

[Calvinball]

It would be interesting to compare 5-60mph between the two cars, stock...since that's more of a real-world situation. A well-driven RSX-S might do surprisingly well.

I think at speed the RSX could do ok against a bugeye. Not a 5-60 though. You just can't get the power from a RSX at 5 mph.