Why are they shifting early and why did they hit 5th gear?

 

Because fun =/= fast. Plenty of fast and sterile cars. Plenty of fun and slow cars.

I bought my STI because it's fun to drive, not because it's fast (it isn't).

 

you said it best. There are 3 different categories IMO. Looks, Fun, and fast. Some can clear all 3 while others do 1 thing good. You think you've experienced fast til you sit in something with true power then the wrx feels like a family sedan (which isnt a bad thing). The thing I always remember is there will always be someone with a faster car on any given day and just enjoy your car. Maybe if I had Rob Dahm money I'd be more interested in chasing big power.

 

While my 23 WRX isn't "fast" compared to some cars (including the Mustang I almost bought), I won't street race, don't go to tracks , and need a decent driving record for my Job. I rarely get to use my measly 275 horsepower as it is. If all I cared about was power and speed the WRX wouldn't have been a consideration or a recommendation, I would've got the Mustang with an auto.. With my use a WRX is faster and more consistent than any 2wd performance car regardless of the power loss. If the WRX had 500 hp I would never get to use it.

 

Wait...they forget to test getting your child seat in the back, hauling your kids around, and what about a less than perfect surface? Why not do a race on gravel, snow, or a wet surface? How about doing an ECU tune on both cars and running the race again?

Seems as if the WRX was set up to fail. It's clearly the better all around car. If you want a fun weekend toy that you drive only when the sun is shining on good clean roads....then go BRZ. But what about the real world of daily driving?

But...I gotta ask....what would the BRZ be like with the WRX engine? Come on Subaru...DO IT!!

 

But...I gotta ask....what would the BRZ be like with the WRX engine? Come on Subaru...DO IT!!

HKS has answered that question, i think turbo kit is 6-7k.

 

It'd be the base 4cyl Supra.

That car already exists.

 

At your local Toyota dealership. Yes. But not at a Subaru dealership.

And...the Supra is stupidly cramped inside. Taller drivers don't fit well like they do in the 86/BRZ.

 

Bmw.

I've only seen an original in car shows.

 

It is often said that it is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow. Cars with enough horsepower to be fast are inherently more dangerous. The WRX is a combination of fun and practicality at a price point. I was honestly surprised that the BRZ was faster. One of my fellow HPDE compatriots drove a BRZ. He turned very quick laps at NOLA Motorsports. He had invested in the driver mod and was very good.

 

It is often said that it is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

Saying the WRX isn't "fast" really has to be put into context.

When I got interested in cars, I was just a kid. It was the 1970's and Smokey and the Bandit was the greatest thing my 5yo self had ever seen. I was 7yo the first time I got to ride in a real "Bandit" car. My Dad's good friend owned a Pontiac dealership and let my mom take me to get some lunch in the car. I remember my mom going to pull out on to a busy highway and she hit the gas just as she would have in her Olds Cutlass and we did a burnout and a 180 degree spin. My mom got out of the car...just left it sitting in the middle of the road...grabbed me...and walked back to the dealership and told my dad's friend, "I'm not driving that damn thing! It ought to be illegal to sell cars like that". I remember it like it was yesterday.

That car made 220hp and weighed 3600lbs. But what about that big V8 torque?? It put out 320ft/lbs. Remember, these numbers were AT THE CRANK. My WRX is both more powerful, more torquey, and lighter than that car.

The envy our our high school was a girl named Shannon. Beautiful blonde cheerleader who had a brand new 1988 Corvette. That car had 240hp and but a healthy 340ft/lbs of torque. It had a blazing fast 5.6 second 0-60 time that came close to the coveted Ferrari Testarossa's time of 5.2 seconds.

Then there was the car I lusted after, but my Dad refused to let me have because it was too fast. The Mustang GT. With 225hp it had tire shredding power.

All of these cars were "fast". I mean...stupid fast. Driving any of them down a twisty country road could easily get you in over your head....quickly.

So what do we consider "fast" today? Hellcat? Tesla Plaid?

What do we consider fast for $30,000?

I really don't get the people who claim even the stock WRZ with 271hp isn't "fast". I have an OTS tune that is supposed to provide 50hp more than stock, so approx 320hp at the crank...probably 300 to the wheels. I can tell you, the car is FAR faster than I can use on the twisty roads I drive it on. Taking it over the Cherohala Skyway and down Tail of the Dragon really shows what the car can do. When you're running it up the tail pipes of sport bikes, you know that you're in a properly quick car. There is more car than I have skill...for sure. Now, if you're a professional race car driver, the WRX is crap.

What I will concede is that the WRX is "cheap". While the engine has good power, it needs better oil cooling as when I was pushing it hard on the twisties I saw oil temps creep up over 230 degrees and I'd get off the boost to let it cool back down. It also has crap brakes. Even with upgraded rotors and pads, the brakes are barely adequate for a car that makes this much power. I really needs performance brakes. The stock suspension is bad too. Coilovers and rear lower control arms give you much better ride, handling, and camber adjustability.

So I could have spent another $20k and bought a car that had a better suspension, better brakes, and more power. But...I like spinning wrenches. I like "sleeper" cars. I like the underdog. The WRX is an insanely fun car to drive. I literally laugh out loud when I'm driving down a back road. Would I rather have a C8 Corvette...yes...absolutely. But I don't have $100k burning a hole in my pocket right now.

 

Whenever I see any of these comparisons, I always just assume the WRX (and STI) will lose. They usually do.

 

Defensive around here...

God forbid someone calls my STI slow.

Oh wait, that's me. I call it slow.

Plain and simple: the WRX is blitzed by just about everything around a track today. The Elantra N, CTR, even the lowly GTI. I'm not saying it's not fun to drive... I'd have no idea anyway since I've not driven an VB of any type.

 

Defensive around here...

God forbid someone calls my STI slow.

Oh wait, that's me. I call it slow.

So what is "fast"? F1 Car? Hypercar?

Once we know what your benchmark of "fast" is, we can talk about what cars are fast and slow.

Then we can factor in the cost. To say, "A Supra is fast"...sure it is.. for $60k. So you could buy two WRX's or one Supra. And what happens when you want to haul the family around in the Supra?

I'm not being defensive. I'm making a point. If you have a $30k budget for a new car, and you want to use it as a daily driver family car, and you want AWD...what are your choices that are "fast"?

 

Why do you want AWD?

Because yeah, I'd argue the current budget performance crown sits on the Elantra N. That car is ugly as hell but so is the WRX so 🤷

 

Why do you want AWD?

• To get out of my driveway in inclimate weather
• To get up the big hill in front of my house in inclimate weather
• I hate FWD wheel hop and understeer
• I like torque vectoring
• I like the not seeing the traction control light blinking when I take off in the rain

Just to give a few reasons.

 

As a owner of multiple Stis through different model years, the Sti is slow in camparison to most sports cars. You're point is if you're on a budget its a good sports car (which it is in lower model forms but once you get up there they can reach 40k) but if you have money to spend for anything less than 80k its very slow compared. Top end it gets beat by vehicles with more horsepower (pretty much every sports car) off the line 4.4ish 0-60 isnt anything to write home about and a 14 second quartermile. Anything from a used CTS-V to a Zl1 to a Mustang GT to a Porsche.

 

I'd wager proper tires on any of the FWD cars I mentioned would work just fine in this case.
Nope. I have owned many FWD cars and have two in the driveway right now. Neither of them can get out of my driveway when it snows or we get ice. My Honda Ridgeline AWD went up the driveway and the hill in front of my house as if nothing was on it. I also don't do winter tires...I live in Tennessee...I don't think I've ever seen winter tires for sale here. I just run all seasons on all my cars. Haven't had any bad weather since purchasing my WRX, but I'll let you know how it goes when we get some.


Your car already drives like a FWD car with the same types of understeer present in a performance FWD car. The only difference is that Honda and others have cleverly designed front suspension to decouple cornering and braking/accelerating forces. Subaru has not. A CTR will drive far more neutral with less understeer than a WRX.
Again...Nope. I have had FWD performance cars and I know that sinking feeling of turning the wheel and the car still going straight. My WRX is very neutral. I've not had it understeer once. In fact, it has done some nice 4 wheel drifts and even some off throttle oversteer.


Great - but your car doesn't have it. At least not a real system anyway.
True...but it does more than a FWD car.


But it will all the same, because your car does not have proper limited slip differentials... the TC will need to intervene to keep power from "leaking" out into any one wheel with limited traction.
I've driven like a wild banshee in the rain in my WRX and never seen the TC light come on. Maybe it's broken...I've only seen it on gravel when I purposely tried to make the car spin.

Look - I like AWD too which is why I lust after a GR Corolla instead of a CTR despite the latter being objectively a better car in every metric. I am willing to admit my reasons are stupid, just like me... a neanderthal.
Sadly, I can't afford a CTR or a GRC. Even if I could, there are none for sale anywhere around me. I'm not claiming the WRX is the greatest car ever made. Far from it. But I'm making a strong case that it may be the best daily drivable family friendly sports sedan for $30k. Fits my needs and my budget. Also, I'm 6'5" and can't fit in most sports cars. I do fit well in the WRX as well as the CTR...but again...can't afford a CTR or find one to buy. Maybe in a few years when the WRX's time has come to an end, I can grab an Integra Type S.

 

My name is "TrackRIDER"....as in:

Many many track days on bikes. Not one in a car...unless you count autoX.

The beauty about debate is there are two sides. I have never once said the WRX was the "best" car. And I have asked, and will ask again....what new $30k family friendly sports sedan with AWD is better?

And no, other than the crap Dunlops that came on the WRX, I've never run summer only tires on a car. I'm not fond of paying huge sums of money for super sticky tires that I can't use all the potential performance of on the street and they last 10k miles...if that.

I'm a STREET driver. Meaning, I'm heading down twisty back county roads that have animals darting out of the woods, driveways connecting that cars can pull out of, blind hills, blind corners, etc. Even if I had the worlds greatest, fastest sports car....I wouldn't drive it any faster than I drive my WRX because it's not safe to do so on public roads.

 

You are comparing a modern car to a several FWD cars from the 1990s or earlier.

I suppose it isn't a TERRIBLE comparison since the WRX has an AWD system that should have stayed in the 1980s.

 

That's what you would think based on paper stats, until you drive it hard in the rain against more "modern" awd systems. I'm glad they stuck with it. Aside from STi, ATESSA or xdrive, very few systems work as well as the old fashioned 3 diff + viscous coupling system in wrx.

Also subaru probably has much better ESP programming than others. WRXs tend to recover from 4 wheel slides quicker than most cars with no input from driver. A fun test of this is to find an empty patch of hard land with no grass, holes, dips or anything the wheels can catch on. Then send the car into a 4 wheel slide at 60-70, fold your arms, keep the throttle pinned and watch the car correct itself and move in the exact direction you were pointing before taking your hands off the wheel. Do it more than once and you will start to hear and feel as it brakes each wheel independently and adjusts throttle. I've tried that in other cars with "better" awd systems and they just spin out.

 

Funny that you say that, because Subaru really did copy their layout from Quattro... excepting the less performance oriented center differential.

 

Ok, some pretty good discussion. Fast or what is called fast does change. I went to my senior prom in a 1966 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 cubic inch mill. It would surely smoke the bicycle narrow, bias ply tires. FWIW, my grandmother (Dad's mother) had the killer car and I didn't know it. She had a 1964 300K with the 413 Wedge. You could land a 747 on the hood of the New Yorker. The fast cars of that era turned high 14 / low 15 second quarter miles. Yea, there were the unicorn cars that could turn 12 second quarter miles, but they were that rare. Handling and braking was thrilling. Stopping was by request and not on demand (many had drum brakes on all 4 corners).

One car that has stood the test of time is the monkey motion, 4 pot, big valve, Europa. The handling was extraordinary and the upgraded 4 side draft Webers provided a bit more punch. Of course you couldn't lower both power windows at the same time or electrical things went boom. FWIW, the first LS1 powered F-body that I owned turned low 13s. The Firehawk turned high 12s. They both had top-ends in excess of 150MPH. These were similar to the WRX in being more price point built vehicles (no IRS).

The WRX is built to a price point. It offers a very solid combination of handling, performance and function in an affordable package. My 2015 WRX worked just fine on the Tail and Cherohala Skyway. It was better suited than the 6th Gen SS. A bit of understeer is better for the general public than a shading towards over-steer. I fully support that type of chassis tuning.

 

The WRX is built to a price point. It offers a very solid combination of handling, performance and function in an affordable package.

BINGO!

To compare my $30k brand new from the dealer WRX with cars costing $10k or $20k more is ludicrous. Even if a GR Corolla or a Civic Type R were in my budget (which they aren't...even without mark ups), you can't buy one. No dealers have any within at least 200 miles of me. Same with a GTI. All sold out. My local VW dealer did have a Golf R...for $50k. Hyundai dealer had an Elantra N for $36,000 but it was sold and they didn't know if they'd get another one.

The WRX wasn't my first choice until I drove one. I'd driven the GTI before and really wanted to drive the Elantra N, but never had a chance too. But I did watch videos that showed how bad the wheel hop is on those cars. That was a show stopper for me. I hate wheel hop and torque steer. When I drove the WRX, I loved it. It's really fun to drive. I also liked that it didn't have safety nannies or screens everywhere. I love the analog gauges and the "old school" feel of the car. I love that it has an old school key. I'm not planning on tracking the car, I just want to bomb back roads while jamming some tunes...and the WRX works great for that.

 

I had a similar conversation with my dad recently about his 1967 Shelby Gt500. He had sold it when I was a kid (like 1989) and I noticed it at a car show recently. I asked him if he would want to buy it back to which he replied quickly "no". I said but that was your baby and it was a fast car, He said cars nowadays would beat the brakes off that car and its just a nostalgia thing. I throw around the idea of buying one of the lucid airs but I think I would miss the engine noises more than the lightning quick quartermiles.

 

Also the understeer argument isn't really for awd. Yes, in a 500+hp GT-R or R8, the torque bias will make a big difference to handling balance. In a nose heavy 220whp car, the under vs oversteer balance is mainly about suspension.

VA has ~1.2 deg front and ~2deg rear camber, and toe-in with 24mm front and 20mm rear bars. It also has bloody awful spec ranges which means plenty of cross-camber and everything is different side to side. Then there's the rear subframe bushings which move around and change the rear thrust angle, camber and toe mid-corner. Once you get urethane subframe bushings, a 22mm rear bar and a good alignment with zero toe or slight toe-out, there's no understeer, neutral in most corners with slight oversteer in some corners or lift-throttle.

 

I feel the understeer more in my 2020 wrx than my 2013 Sti. To say theres none is a misleading statement in its stock form. Is it outrageous? No but it is there. I too always had a smile on my face driving my Sti even if it has its faults.

 

Trackrider was talking about VB, not VA. From the factory VB has much less understeer. In VA you can adjust the suspension to dial it out.

One variable with under/oversteer is the driver. A lot of people drive cars the same way, i.e. they don't change their line, input or driving style according to the car, they stick to what they first learned on, whether it's rwd, fwd or awd. And that can make even great handling cars feel miserable.

 

Theres also modifications, tire pressure, and like you said how someone drives. A car can feel terrible to one person and great to another. I was just talking about Wrxs in general always had the stigma of understeer. Havent driven a VB to compare yet. Probably wont get to drive one before they put out some electric hybrid equiv the way every companies pushing for EV.

 

Haters. My WRX puts a little over 300 torque to the pavement and it will delight. That's what matters. The smile that you get behind the wheel. These roads aren't meant for driving fast, but 0-60 or a QM, I'll eat a BRZ.

 

I don't think anyone is hating on the WRX (considering everyone here bought one). more simply stating what it is and isnt in its stock form.

 

I will say one thing as a new owner of a WRX. I have owned several performance cars and have participated in many enthusiast forums. I have never see any other enthusiast form that s--ts on it's on car like the WRX community.

I love my WRX and think it's a great value for the money. It's fun to drive and has more than adequate power to rip down twisty public roads. I don't know what folks expect for a car with pricing that starts at $30k, has AWD, a turbocharged performance oriented engine, and very good handling. There really isn't another car that competes with the WRX.

If you don't like it, that's fine. Different stroke for different folks. But there are either a lot of trolls on all the WRX forums and groups, or people love to doo doo on their own car.

 

 

Zax!?!? Come on bro at least open a window...

 

I think its just more tempering peoples expectations. Alot of younger guys buy these cars thinking they are gonna be the rally cars of old or that they are gonna be able to do world rally events like Travis Pastrana. Or they think they are gonna throw acouple thousand at it and its magically gonna do 10 second quartermiles or feel like a different car completely. I enjoy my Wrx that I drive most of the time as I also need AWD in Alaskan winters. I'd rank it up there among the best winter vehicles for the money.

 

I think its just more tempering peoples expectations. Alot of younger guys buy these cars thinking they are gonna be the rally cars of old or that they are gonna be able to do world rally events like Travis Pastrana. Or they think they are gonna throw acouple thousand at it and its magically gonna do 10 second quartermiles or feel like a different car completely.

So basically they are judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree.

If given the choice of a Civic, Sentra, Carolla, etc. for a daily driver, I think the WRX is the more fun option and the more capable option. If you're trying to compare a WRX to a Porsche, Corvette, BMW, Mercedes, etc....I think you will be disappointed.

 

.