RS America vs. WRX Impreza

wastintime · 06-18-2005, 04:09 PM

Hey everyone,

First, I apologize profusely if it sounds like I'm bragging, but I just got off the racetrack, and I haven't quite come back down to earth yet.

It kind of pains me to post this, but I have to give a lot of credit to Subaru. I just got back from the racetrack (Roebling) where I went in my '04 WRX because the 911 wasn't really ready, I figured it would be a good learning experience, and I didn't think I could handle taking the RSA with no A/C there. Overall... on the skinniest, crappiest, street tires you can run (Bridgestone RE92s) on the WRX, with about 50 less hp, 300 extra lbs, but comparable suspensions, I came within 4-5 seconds of my fastest 911 times at the same track.
My first run in the car, I thought I hated the car, it was so different, power steering was screwing me up, and the tires... jeez.
I got faster every session though. Lol, it helped that I hate 996s, and got within sight of one, so I pushed a little too hard to get around him and then kept picking up the pace.
I took it as a great compliment that at the event I was running at, I was running in the advanced group for guys with race liscences and things like that, and right before I was leaving, I had one of the guys in the group with a 911 who I've seen at a bunch of PCA events come up to me and tell me it was so neat being on the track with me because every session, every lap I was going faster and faster and by the end I was keeping pace with him.
So, the WRX was a blast... it was too easy to drive though... it just felt great, it was forgiving, it had no understeering problems, I could come off throttle rotate it exactly as much as I wanted and get back on it. Granted I do have a really nice coilover suspension on it, but it was just a blast to drive. It was very underpowered compared to the 911 however, it felt slow compared the RSA. It was my first experience with full course passing too, so that was pretty fun actually, it was different, and a little nerve wracking at times, but definitely fun.
Toasting the tires was great. I need to keep them as a souvenir. I literally drove to the limits of the tires, they were just chunking and losing rubber like crazy. From turn one to turn 9 they were just screaming at me. Lol, everyone thought I was spinning going around 4, but the problem was I hadn't upgraded the brakes, other than pads and ATE blue fluid, yet, and I just couldn't slow down enough after 3, so 4 was getting pretty exciting.

I still love my 911, but I certainly see where the WRXs are bada$$es not just at rallying, but with a good suspension, they are very road course worthy. Had I had the 70 more hp of the STi, I probably would have at least cut the gap in half to my 911s times.

Anyway, sorry for going on guys, but I'm still excited as you can tell. I'll try to post some pics in a second.

wastintime · 06-18-2005, 04:38 PM

Sorry, no action pics, but here's the car:

skinnerd · skinnerd's Garage

Nice job.
Some of these imports are very fast, and can keep up with Porsches quite nicely.
Myself I am considering a Mitsubishi Evolution, that I know will keep up with the local Porsches.
It is so inexpensive to upgrade one of these imports and get incredible performance out of them.

I for one....am on your side with this.

J P Stein · 06-18-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skinnerd
[B
Myself I am considering a Mitsubishi Evolution, that I know will keep up with the local Porsches.
[/B]

We'll see about that

wastintime · 06-18-2005, 10:57 PM

I wouldn't really call it inexpensive... When I'm done with the Subaru as far as suspension, brakes, wheels, safety equipment, I'll be right at about $5.5k or $6.5k depending on how far I take the brakes, and that's without touching the engine and making any extra power. Doing the same mods to a 911 wouldn't be that much more expensive.

I don't know, I guess I almost consider it more expensive to run the imports on the track just because of all of the suspension and brake upgrades necessary to get them on par with 911s. As for $ per hp, yeah, I guess that's a lot cheaper than a 911. I've got 90k miles left on the car's warranty, so the mods to the engine I'm willing to make are very limited to what can be switched out in an hour or so... maybe an intake, bigger intercooler, and an exhaust. Even that's probably around $2k.

Lol, still I'm happy my 13 year old 911 will give brand new imports a serious run for their money.

htron435 · htron435's Garage

I've been driving an '03 WRX sedan for about 6 months now, and I have to say that it's the perfect daily driver. Quick, fun, comfortable . . . but you're right -- the tires and brakes do suck in comparison. As much as it hurt, I chose it over the '83 for the trip to the USGP (saturday only thank God! !) this weekend -- couldn't pass up the modern A/C and stereo! I haven't had the pleasure of tracking the car though. You've got guts lapping on those Bridgestones! !

jmz · jmz's Garage

that's it Doug! I want my engine back. you know what would look good on that mitsubishi, a BIG R sticker and Rockford Fosgate on the back window!

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

skinnerd · skinnerd's Garage

nah....
but you can count on some neon under the rocker panels !

rick conrath · 06-25-2005, 04:18 PM

If you haven't driven an STI yet, your missing out. Impossible to touch the performance for the money. I just went to the dyno the other day with my '05 STI...for a total of $900 (piggyback ECU and dyno time) I saw 285 AWHP(340 at the crank) from an otherwise stock car.
The car also handles like it's on rails...stock. Time to upgrade the 930.
Rick
'78 930

Jack Olsen · 06-25-2005, 05:55 PM

I respectfully have to disagree. I've driven both the normal WRX and the STI at the track, and I'd say that dollar-for-dollar it's easy to get better performance out of a 911.

Obviously, the Subaru turns great magazine numbers. But I think that's part of the problem with the STI model, in particular -- it seems like it was built to crank out great numbers at the expense of real-world functionality. I actually thought the stock WRX was a better-mannered car on a track. The STI was too peaky for my taste. I think its gearing is lower, too. I kept hitting the rev limiter, and the boost kept kicking in and dropping out.

The 4WD makes them very forgiving when it comes to saving yourself from too-hot an entry to a corner. But even with all the tricks done, they're not all that quick around a track. In the Open Track Challenge, pro driver Gary Sheehan ran a heavily modified WRX in 2002. He essentially had full factory supprt for the effort, and reportedly went through several transmissions (and more than one engine?) in the course of the week. He was in the 'unlimited' class, which meant he could run any tires he wanted, and they had a truckload of them. Even so, his best times at Willow Springs were three seconds off what my car can do there on street tires.

I'm sure the Subarus will get quicker as more aftermarket support focuses on track-specific mods. And don't get me wrong, I think the WRX is a very capable street and track car. I'm glad that cars like this are being made. (And I wish Porsche would build something like it.) But I think you can still build a quicker 911 for less money.

wastintime · 06-25-2005, 09:16 PM

Jack, first I was talking about hp per $, not necessarily lower times on a track per $. I do think if you're going for pure horse power, it's cheaper to get it out of a Turbo japanese car than a 911.

even then, I'm kind of shocked to hear you say that $ for $ the 911 is superior in terms of performance. Mainly because 911s are IMHO ridiculously expensive to buy, own, and upgrade. If I didn't work in a Porsche shop and have access to so many tools and materials I don't think I could even afford to own the car let alone modify it for track use. I've seen pics of your car, and read a lot posts about it, and you can't tell me that car was cheap to build. I'm sure it's fast, but you must have spent a good bit on it to get it there. I'm not being nosy, how much someone spends on their car is their own business, I'm just really surprised you'd think they're cheap to modify.

My experience as far as Subarus vs. 911s is pretty much the exact opposite, Leh Keen who races in the grand-am series for Autometrics took his personal stock STi to Roebling and on the stock street tires turned 1:23s... that's flying! BTW, he did say the same thing you said about the gearbox. Granted, he's 10 seconds faster in his GT-3 cup car, but most pretty well modified 911s, cannot turn those times on street tires. I know of a few professional racers in highly modified like 1900lb 911s who turn 1:17s on R-compounds. I would think the STi could close that gap pretty easily with some mods and tires... I don't know what it would take to get it into the cup cars' 12.9 range, but still... I can't imagine it could possibly be as expensive as modifying a 911 to perform as well as a GT3-cup car, or buying a GT3-cup car.

Grantsfo · 06-25-2005, 10:01 PM

I think better track car bargin would be a used $30K first generation Viper. Slap some slicks on the car and wipe almost everything off the track.

rick conrath · 06-25-2005, 10:48 PM

Jack, are you implying that the 911 is better in "real world functionality" than a Subaru? What's the benchmark ? The STi is still one of the best hp/$ bargains on the street today....and it functions superbly as a daily driver. On the track...that's a different story.
Rick
'78 930

Jack Olsen · 06-26-2005, 12:13 AM

Don't get me wrong. The HP/$ ratio of the WRX is great. I'm glad the car is getting made, and I wish more companies made modestly-priced performance cars.

But all you need to do is to put a 3.2 into an early car and do a mild set of suspension mods, and a stock STI is easy pickins on the track, IMO. You can pick up a car like that for less than 15K. How much does a new STI cost? (And by the way, the 911 will still be worth 15K in 10 years, while the STI's value will probably have taken an ugly nosedive.)

The WRX is a great daily driver. Its AC alone is head and shoulders above most 911's. And as a quarter-mile car, I'm sure it's a winner.

But I'm actually more impressed by the Honda S2000, as a low-cost track car, than I am by the STI or the Mitsubishi Evo.

wastintime · 06-26-2005, 08:39 AM

Jack, you're never going to convince me that an early 911 (how early btw) with a 3.2 and MILD suspension mods will outrun a stock STi. I know too many people that track them and I've helped build too many of them, and they're not nearly as fast on a track. Even if they were, I wouldn't call that a cheap upgrade.

You'd need to have an incredibly capapable driver in the STi, and in a mildly modified early car go at it sometime, and I don't think the early car would stand a chance. Maybe in an endurance race where it would simply outlast the STi, but not in terms of track times.

LOL, I will refrain from making my comments about the S-2000

Jack Olsen · 06-26-2005, 05:03 PM

We disagree, then. There's no harm in that.

Like I say, I've driven both Subaru variants on the track, as well as a lot of 911's. I've also competed against them. I lump them in with the Mitsuishi Evo as magazine cars that are still a long way from really distinguishing themselves on the track.

The S2000 started out the same way, but there's enough aftermarket support that now (on the West Coast at least) modified examples are setting very respectable lap times, relative to their cost and power. This may happen with the WRX and Evo, in time -- but I haven't seen it yet, even with professionals at the wheel.

rich22 · 06-29-2005, 01:50 AM

That's one of the great things about the Open Track Challenge - instead of bench racing you can go look up previous results. Even the fastest Evo's can't touch Jack, and if you count the expense of all the blown engines it's taken them to get where they are, they've probably got a hundred grand in their cars. Jack has over 3 years of hard track running on his motor and it hasn't blown up yet.

As for the S2000, there really is not much comparison to the WRX or Evo except that it's about the same price, Japanese, and also blows up engines under heavy track use, but not as often. It's much lighter weight, and the suspension design is really very good. The WRX and Evo overcome their deficiencies, up to a point, with great big tires and real stiff springs.

MichiganMat · MichiganMat's Garage

The subaru transmissions are certified crapolla.
If you have to choose between the Evo and the STI, go EVO. Much better build quality IMO.

Im suprised to hear that the WRX didn't perform better at the OTC, thats interesting to hear.

rick conrath · 07-01-2005, 11:19 AM

I have actually heard quite the opposite concerning the EVO...especially the transmission quality. Build quality of an EVO versus STI....what are you basing this on? Post this comment on the STI forum where most really know the difference between a WRX/STI and Evo. See what kind of response you get.
Rick
'78 930

MichiganMat · MichiganMat's Garage

Yeah, I hear ya. Everyone wants to fight for their marque, I get it, whatever.

My buddy here runs the NorCalEvo group and they flog their cars all over the state. His wife has an STI that she runs with them. From what I've been told, they see more problems with their Subarus than they do with the Evos. I haven't had a chance to buy a fleet of them myself to take to my secret test facility to do any govt. sponsored testing, but when I do, I'll let you know.