Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests WRX - yes I know it has been brought up before!

Finally got around to driving one yesterday - I hated it!!!

Ok, let me qualify: As a daily transport, I would hate it. As a track day car, I would love it.

It was just so damn boring under 25-2600RPM until the turbo kicked in. It was a dog like the base Impreza (I am assuming)when not on the boil.

Driving a car like that everyday would make me nuts, having to work so hard all the time. I think this is why I like the SVT so much.

At 70-80% of it's capacity the SVT is still a blast thanks to the V6, gobs of torque it always makes, and fun handling. At 80% of the WRX, it is still an Impreza, BORING.

Just thought I'd vent.

Your WRX must have been broken. I drove one a few months back, and loved it so much I nearly bought one right there - Until they told me what they'd give me for trade on my SVT.

SVT's have gobs of torque?! Granted, they do have different shift points, but if you keep the WRX high in the revs, you're never going to notice any lag, except from a dead stop, and even then, not for long.

the duratech isnt a torque monster either ya know

The dyno plot tells the story. The WRX has nothing/nada/no balls until boost hits around 3000. My SVT plot is MUCH stronger even before secondaries. WRX is strong 3-6K (though less than you might think after the AWD system gets its cut) then runs out of steam dramatically going to 7K, just when SVT is really hitting its stride.

Now with a ball bearing turbo upgrade + some other stuff WRX power curve looks much better.

I've raced a stock WRX from a roll and it was pretty much even until top of mid to top of 4th when I started to walk away. I was ahead by nearly 3 cars by 220km/hr where my car felt like it may have been close to topped out. I think the furthest I have ever seen the spedo is somewhere just under 230.

My car is a 98 SVT with a modified stock ypipe, pulled resonator and a KKM. I must add that I dont keep weight in the trunk either. I have no spare in there and my sub box is a single 8" bandpass I built which is probably 15 pounds.

Anyway I was not that impressed. I also spoke to a guy who has a Prelude SH with a filter and exhaust and he said he's raced two on the highway and he managed to edge both out.

This thread is probably going to get locked now (street racing story)

The regular impreza engine (2.5) has more low end grunt than the wrx, but on the flip side it doesn't throw you back into your seat when the revs climb either. If you think the wrx has no torque, have you ever driven a honda?

I agree, Pete, the WRX would have LESS thrust than a stock 165 hp 2.5L n/a boxer Impreza (TS?) below 2500 rpm because the compression ratio is significantly lower in the WRX. However, I have a hard time believing that a WRX couldn't pull away from an SVT Contour from a roll. I mean this thing pulls what, 95 mph at the end of the 1/4? That is top end power. Maybe it was an automatic?

Except the WRX engine is 2.0L, not the 2.5L

An above average SVT could hold it's own against a WRX once moving. From a stop or near stop. Not a chance. Modified WRX. Again not much of a chance without adding some serious power.

Gobs of torque?
165 - 169 lb.-ft. @ 5,625rpm. vs. 217 @ 4000rpm

OK before I get flamed, I am just expressing my opinion on STOCK vs. STOCK:

Having owned both of these cars (at the same time) and driving them back to back, I really got to appreciate the good and bad points of both.

I think that both of these cars have some of the same character in performance. They both don't do much below 3,000rpm (the secondaries for the SVT and the turbo for the WRX). The middle of the power band is where they do their best work.

As for 0-60 there is no comparison, 1/4-mile no comparison, but for top end I will have to give a slight edge to the SVT. With a slightly higher top speed and a NA V6 it really shines up top.

Handling wise the SVT has a slight edge but I think the WRX would have done a lot better if the stock rubber wasn't so crappy.

Now as far as a daily driver, everyone's entitled to there own opinion, and I for one do not what balls to the wall performance while sitting in traffic for 2 hours a day. As for creature comforts the SVT wins hands down with leather, sunroof, and a quieter cabin. But when you want to "drive" I think the WRX is better equipped. The WRX seats are some of the best 'stock' I have ever sat in, AWD is a huge plus, it's kind of a no nonsense car that is built for a purpose.

I don't feel that the performance under 3,000 is that bad. And if you?re feeling frisky you got more than enough just a few 1,000 rpm away. If you want to see a car with no balls down low look at an S2000. It is an awesome car but the performance is all up top. I guess this is just an opinion but the WRX is a fine daily driver, you can cruise around with out the turbo at full bore and still have enough performance to pass.

And as far as the after market, well no comment;)

Look at it this way, the SVT is an aging vehicle (at least the 98?s), and at some point it will be replaced. When the WRX first came out it was one of a few vehicles that was a very good replacement for the SVT.

I know the WRX is not the "end all, be all" of cars. It does have its flaws just like any other car, but it also offers some things that many other cars don't. I must admit it's a pretty damn good car for 23-25K.

The middle of the power band is where they do their best work.

You must have been short shiftin' your SVT. Best SVT work is at the top 5-7K RPM NOT middle.

Oh, and your 217 vs 169 torque comparison does not reflect whats happening. SVT has 2 peaks, one at about 3000 and the one at 5500. Check out some dyno plots and see who is making more grunt below 3K.