Senior_AP

I was driving along a local dual carriageway earlier today when I saw 2 cars aproaching in my rear mirror. The first was a WRX (bugeye - I think, possibly a blobeye) then a P reg BMW 323i Coupe. 32'3' not 32'8'.

They were having some fun by the looks of it, anyway my speed was matching theirs (they slowed). After a short while, the WRX dropped it down a gear and went for it, the BMW quickly followed suit.....I also tried but with somewhat limited success in the Vectra

Anyway, I was quite surprised to see the WRX, after a few seconds begin to edge away - was only minimal but it did surprise me somewhat. I used to own a BMW 323i SE Saloon, quite a nippy car and was a match for my brothers FTO GPX Mivec manual.

You live and learn eh!!

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

The BMW's are only 170 bhp are they not ?

Pumpkin

I can see the headlines now. "slow get gets beaten by fast car shocker"

Rabid

No fast or slow cars were involved in this 'race' though.

Senior_AP

Disregarding handling/grip and so on the simple straight line performance difference is minimal, as shown here. The 323 gets to 100mph in a respectable 19.8 secs. The WRX only a couple of secs off that. Just thought in gear it may have been a dead heat.

The WRX may have had some cheeky mods....


J4CKO - yes, they are around the 170bhp mark, quite a torquey engine. Same block as the 325 but a little de-restricted (somehow - don't know how).

swtmerce

Note that 'a couple of seconds' when you're doing 100 mph equates to a very very very long distance!

Rabid

Note that when rolling the couple of seconds advantage of AWD traction from a standing start wouldn't apply.

Senior_AP

Exactly. Was quite impressed the WRX edged it.

swtmerce

Well you have a point there, however I currently own a MY03 WRX and have owned a 328i coupe in the past. The WRX is way faster than the old 328i I had, in my opinion. As for a 323i, I guess the WRX would drop it!

turbodan

Since when does a WRX take over 20 secs to a hundred? Have i read this right???

Senior_AP

Minus a couple of secs.....not plus a couple. Easily misunderstood by the way I worded it - apologies.

I'm making an assumption that everybody on here knows the WRX takes a tad under 18.

swtmerce

Regarding the 0-100 figure, I've always sworn by Autocar, and the figures they have here in the magazine are:

2000 WRX 4dr, 215 bhp - 16.9
2003 WRX 5dr, 221 bhp - 16.1

And lastly:

2000 BMW 330i, 231 bhp - 16.5

Richard_P

The 323's are not quick, I had a 325 and it felt pretty slow at times. I've never actually driven a MY03 wrx and I am aware they aren't quick either but I would expect it to take a 323.

I can see your point though if a 323 takes ~19 secs to 100 and a wrx ~16 assuming the 323 0-60 time ~ 8 secs and wrx ~5 secs presumably the 60-100 times are similar.

Somebody should notify the insurance companies! WRX not fast

Senior_AP

WRX less than 16 to 100?? No chance, unless heavily modded.

Everything else is bang on though.

hades

Less than 16 doesn't need heavy modding if the blobeye does 0-100 in 16.1 standard as claimed in Autocar per above. 16.1 to my mind counts as ~16.

I wouldn't say my WRX is "heavily" modded (exhaust, map a few minor tweaks to give 284bhp or 282bhp on the two rolling roads I've been on) and that does 0-100 in the mid-low 13s (once did it in low 12s if you were silly enough to believe the speedo for a moment!).

I also wouldn't be silly enough to claim that my WRX is one of the fastest things you'll ever encounter.

bob r

iTrader: (46)

ive hears so much crap about the wrx not being "fast" and infact "slow"
if a wrx isnt fast,what is?
a classic? perhaps marginally when rolling
a wrx sti? again marginally
theres too many people slate the wrx in my opinion as i own one and its a great alrounder and recently kept up with a civic type r till over 110.(from a 40mph start) or perhaps the ctr is also considered slow?
the bottom line is the wrx is fast(imo) perhaps not guite as quick as other cars i have mentioned but theres not much in it.

swtmerce

Nice one Bob R It baffles me when people remark a WRX isn't all that fast. It's the fastest car I've ever owned and I love it to bits!

Richard_P

~ means approximate - not less than


I guess a wrx is fast to your average driver. probably inaccurate to say it's not fast, just compared to many newer hot hatches etc it's not as fast as subaru's used to be thought of.

FletchCSL

all is well quoting the 0-100 times but what about 60 to 100 times? i reckon they are near identical

lowlander

honestly, in todays traffic, does it really matter if one car is a fraction faster in a straight line? Would that influence your decision to buy?

Rabid

It means everything here on scoobynet. After all, if it wasn't important what would the point of the Impreza be?
Shame for Subaru new age cars got a weight problem while everything else gained BHP. Unless you need AWD the cars now look expensive to run and slow to boot.

Senior_AP

It seems to for some people...

If it was from the lights (good old green light grand prix) then the I would have fully expected the scoob to have won, hell a regular Impreza Sport probably would have done so too. That's the thing with 4WD cars, the 0-30 "spurt" gives false and inflated claims of overall performance.

In gear there was pretty much nothing in it, though I woudld have thought there would have been nothing in it.

The BMW did have 3 occupants to the WRX's 1 though.

hades

Fast is all relative. WRX is probably faster than 95% (guessing) of cars on the road. I've met people who thing a 150bhp 2L rep-mobile is a fast car, and no question to them a scoob is very quick. However, a standard WRX isn't faster than some hot hatches in many situations (civic type R in your example being a case in point); some people around here seem to think Subarus are supercar slayers, that's something a WRX isn't.

As to what is fast, it all depends on what you're used to. Andy F's scoob probably counts as fast in anybody's book (1/4 mile in under 10 seconds at >140mph, 210 mph top end). Caterham Superlight R's, let alone radicals etc are definitely in a different league to any standard scoob on a track.

A lot of scoob drivers also get excited about the fact that they aren't quicker than a well sorted tuned old hot hatch - such as a peugeot owned by someone on this thread . Where people get wound up, others will happily do the winding!

pj748r

just a little pointer to the people who think the WRX is sloow

http://www.prodrive.com/uploads/03MY%20WRX%20PPP.pdf

have a look

DRINKYWRX

Was this on the a3m buy any chance AP?

ScoobyDoo555

OK.
In relation to most cars, the WRX is a quick car. The STI is quicker. But there does seem to be this time-warp based urban myth that the Scooby is tis almighty machine.

It was during the "Classic" years, when there wasn't much competition. The problem is that Subaru have rested in their laurels for the last 10 years, giving the competition time to catch up and in some cases, overtake.

Also bear in mind that Subaru are also trying to change their buying market - hence the reason for a the perceived "lardy" barge persona it has now.

The Impreza has gone the way of the Golf GTI in terms of performance/size etc....

However, it still doesn't take away from the fact that the Scooby is still a "special" car - sit in other marques and you'll see what I mean. There is still that something that makes you want to drive it.

Dan

DavidS

fact is guys, a quick car is a quick car, and in real life situations on the road you would have to be dramatically quickeer to 'lose' a slow car.
You also come to handling and driver ability.... a clio cup is a very capable track car, and with a good driver will give many a scooby driver a hard time on the twisties.
Fact is fact, are you buying it for you to have some fun?, or to tell people how big your manhood is at the bar?
Fast car = Fast car. The end.

Mike123

Here's some numbers to crunch ( figures from Autocar Road tests )

Subaru WRX ( tested 2000 )
0-100 16.9 seconds
Power 215bhp @5600
Torque 215lbft@3600

Kerb weight 1385kg

E46 ( yes it's not an E36 but for comparison purposes ) 323i
0-100 19.8 seconds
Power 170bhp@5500rpm
Torque 181lbft@3500

Kerb wt 1448kg

Assuming the in-gear acceleration took place from 60-100 ???

3rd gear 60-80 Subaru 3.8 secs Bmw 5.0 secs
70-90 Subaru 4.6 secs BMW 5.8 secs
4th Gear 60-80 Subaru 5.6 secs BMW 7.1 secs
70-90 Subaru 6.0 secs BMW 7.5 secs
80-100 Subaru 6.6 secs BMW 8.1 secs

Looking at those figures I would expect (both cars being std) the Subaru to have a definite edge - enough to pull a car length or 2 over a 40mph increment but not a massive gap.
Now factor in the fact that the BMW was carrying 3 people to the WRX's 1 person and I find nothing particularly surprising about the results. He could have been carrying an extra 160kg if they were 2 blokes in the BMW? I am assuming as well that both cars chose the lowest gear available at the speed they started at. If the BMW went down 1 gear rather than 2 but the WRX driver dropped to 3rd at 60 or 70mph the results would be more biased towards the Subaru.

mg driver

well done senior ap you did it again

Mike123

Mg Driver - just to add that I drive a Ford! Just thought nothing suspicious about a WRX outpacing a heavier BMW with 45 less bhp considering it was carrying 2 extra passengers .........

Didn't realise it was a trap ...