lloydsound

Im slightly confused about something and maybe its always going to be a subjective battle here, based upon peoples commitments they have made purchasing their cars and also the personal relationships they have with their cars. From the small amount of time I have been looking on here I get the feeling that generally speaking all Impreza's are considered to be fast cars, I mean relatively speaking against those normal/every day cars - E.G 1.6 vauxhall astra's and VW Golfs. But when it comes to comparing the WRX to the sti I have read on many posts that the wrx can be faster than an sti - this came as a surprise to me - and is it even true? I guess you have to talk about the stock model cars here because once you start tuning then the goalpost is always moved, I presumed that the sti's were always quicker than the standard wrx's but maybe i am wrong or maybe its a different type of power - or maybe there are so many different specs that you can never generalise. All I know is that there are tons of posts with people stating the wrx is quicker and there are tons stating the complete opposite. THe figures seem to point towards the sti every time? Now when reading about the classic ones people always refer to them as raw, why is this? And what does it refer to? Power delivery? Handling? Does it mean they are more unpredicatable due to lack of driver aids? I am not asking which is better as this is an invalid question and is completely subjective, also it seems like a never ending argument, lol. I guess I just don't really understand what each model offers over the other or where they fit in relation to one another. My initial thoughts were standard newage wrx is quick but not so quick that its hard to drive on the road, and offers the comforting feeling of a modern car, then the newage sti's were the same but with more rapid acceleration, then the classic's were the same only with different looks and less technology??? Again I dont know any of this for sure?

AzzDSM

classics are considerably lighter than the newage. Meaning a classic with the same power as a newage will be quicker, corner better, stop better and feel generally more connected.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Nice if it were true but it isnt.

OP, raw really defines the car as a whole, it doesnt make it better or worse but you do find that "raw" will also include more tiring and taking more concentration, not as nice to drive over longer distances or at higher speeds due to aerodynamics making the car less stable (happens far more with classics v new age which are much nicer to drive faster).
Brake wise, classics have always had crap brakes, new age wrx's have the same crap brakes as the later classics but with more assist, they still suck though, new age STI's have decent brakes which was one of the improvements they needed overall along with better cooling and better aerodynamics and stability, this makes owning and driving a new age nicer if less "raw" than a classic.

As for the wrx v sti debate, just take it with a pinch of salt, the new age WRX's dont have the power to outperform a new age STI in standard form, JDM's add more of a gap to this due to their higher output v the JDM WRX's and have the parts to prove it (better mechanically, better suspension etc).
Add a debate for tuning and classics are much closer than the new age cars, go new age and a wrx will end up adding half the parts the new age has (gearbox for instance which is where a fair bit of extra weight gets added), gearing also makes a difference, 5 speed v 6 speed, you need to go into 3rd to get to 60 in the 2ltr STI's, you can do that in 2nd in a WRX, and still the STI is quicker off the line to 60
If you start comparing modified cars then it changes, as ive said most wrx's add half the stuff the STI's have because out of the box they are not as capable as a whole package v an STI, also the driver will make a difference, not everyone is willing to be that mechanically unsympathetic to their car as the next person and it doesnt take much to break something in a wrx as it does say compared to an STI which has stronger/better components.

HTH

lloydsound

Very informative reply and I think you managed to answer the question very well, thanks a lot

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Oh no....Not again! My eyes, my eyes!

joe v3sti

iTrader: (8)

Great reply Tony, very informative!
Admin can we get this thread locked before it descends into the usual pile of rubbish

*matthewturb2000*

iTrader: (11)

Corrected your post

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Same power???
A friend who uses this site(sorry mate if your reading this) had a 390bhp blob newage STi with plenty of money spent on it, and at the time I had a 308bhp Version 6 Classic STi that had just a full decat and remap.

We decided to put both cars side by side to see the difference in power, and the 308bhp classic pulled 3-4 car lengths from the 390bhp newage with ease, given a longer road probably would have been more, there was no way the newage could even keep up.

So if a 308bhp classic sti could pull quite a bit ahead with 82bhp less power then the newage, what sort of power would the newage need to be on par with the classic sti???

Both cars were mapped by JGM and both Rolling Road printouts from Surrey RR, so both made the stated power on the same rollers!!!

lloydsound

Lol thanks for correcting my post - I didn't like to say any names hahahahahahaha

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Again a subjective post. Did they have the same tyres? Old vs new suspension? How many miles on the clutches/gearbox?

There are so many factors to throw in the mix.

Infected by sti

iTrader: (6)

My good friend has a v5 type R that is circa 380 hp and I have a JDM blob sti running 453, I can assure you it was the other way around with us.

I get full boost by 3k and when she's on song she moves!

I personally find the newage car more planted after driving a few now, it just feels more sure footed to me when pushing on, where as the type R grips, it feels as if you need to take it by the scruff of the neck and really show it who's boss, the back end comes alive on them cars with ease.

I love my JDM blob but at the same time I love my mates type R, 2 totally different cars that both deliver just on 2 different scales. It always feels manic when pushing on over the hills in the R with the back end skipping on compressions in the road, you still get that in the blob but it's just more refined about it and you don't feel it's trying to kill you so to speak as easy as the type R does, or at least that's my view

lloydsound

We digress from the original question which relates ONLY to stock cars here, as I said the goal post is moved once we start bringing in mods and introducing so many variables

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

But all the factors favour the newage.

Newage had more power, stronger 6 speed box that had just been built with new clutch, new tyres, BC Coilovers, whiteline parts fitted etc, handling the newage would be a lot better, but straight line the classic STi was quicker in a straight line!!

The classic had the standard 5 speed box/not sure on clutch but car had done 80k miles at the time, so probably been changed sometime in its life, Tein coilovers(dangerous as the car would bounce about it was so hard) but the newage on paper was the better spec/built car.

Obviously the classic is a lot lighter, and I dont want to say it but the ratio's maybe shorter/kinder to the classic JDM 5 speed box then the longer UK blob 6 speed box(RS Matt will love that quote)!!

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Ive felt the JDM newage STi is as close to a JDM classic STi in terms on how they perform/feel as you can get, with the better handling/brakes of a newage car!!

But then again a JDM blob has the twin scroll that spools quicker then the UK blob, faster gearing, and if im right a higher rev limit, but then thats newage JDM v UK and that can open another can of worms

OP stated classic standard v newage standard WRX and STi, then I would say if they where all UK cars, the classic would be faster then the WRX, but the newage STi would be faster, all in straight line of course!!!

Lee_

Hi Lloyd, it was good to meet you in the petrol station last week!

Personally my preference is the classic due to looks and how connected it feels to later models. It feels very raw and purposeful. The later cars are certainly made better. There is no right or wrong here, just opinion.

The classics also have a significant advantage in the weight stakes which means the later cars need to be running a lot more power to match or get away from them.

When we spoke I mentioned my maintenance costs have been very high which is due to the previous owner not maintaining the car well and it being a 14 year old car. Hopefully your later car won't have the issues my old car has had.

I hope you enjoyed the sound of my recently converted twin scroll RB5 when I burst past you a few times!

Lee

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

But you are still missing the point, the driver may have been sh*te. There is so much pub talk but very little evidence for many of the ***** waving A vs B vs C threads that start on SN. No matter how quick you are someone is always quicker. Compare the F1 driver stats on TG to the SIARPC, night and day but the same car.


Unless you know what your doing then you will not get the results you want or expect.


On a visit to the Nurburgring in September one of the quickest cars on the track was an AMG Merc, huge thing but **** was it fast. But the fastest was a GT3 RS followed by a 458.

Oh yeah, and a Spec C RA is quicker round the Ring than a Classic STi RA. Both standard of course and the GD is heavier than the GC.

lloydsound

Hey Lee great to hear from you mate and thanks for the info, it's always good to hear an honest opinion, I definately enjoyed the sound of your machine, although I did get a smack from the mrs for being perhaps OVER-excited, lol. I can certainly confirm that the sound was raw, lol. Can't wait to get mine and I'm sure it'll be any minute now

fat-thomas

iTrader: (4)

this sums it up to a tee.
dont take any notice of one man who has just owned a wrx or an sti etc.
i had the use of a newage wrx and sti back to back for a couple of years and the sti is streets ahead performance wise

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

Cue rs matt to pipe in with more nonsense about how awsome wrx,s are because they are lighter, dont have a 6 speed etc and probably a link to some 1/4 mile footage of a guy in a modded wrx who got lucky with a good start against an sti (in standard form)

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Missing what point??? So how else would you compare 2 cars in a straight line(no bends) both rolling at 30mph, and both gun it at the same time???, not to much driver skill involved to be honest, not like we was driving round the Nurburgring and comparing lap times or even a drag race at Santa Pod where driver error could come into play(with proper launch/start), this was 2 cars side by side, nothing really difficult in that.

No ***** waving here mate, I really couldn't care less about 2 **** Jap cars, but thought the OP might be interested!!!

Spec C RA faster then a classic STi RA round the ring??? Are you sure!!!
Was in slightly warmer when the classic went round(heat soak) and was the correct tyre pressure in the classic as this could make a big difference, and more important was it the same driver in both cars, just to make it fair!!

Lee_

Good luck with the car mate, I hope its everything you want it to be!

See you around!

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Well considering it was the first Subaru to break the 8 min barrier (it did 7:59) and thats a good 10+ seconds faster than any GC8, I think it is faster (and heavier )

Tony

scoobyboy1

iTrader: (16)

Tongue in cheek mate, I know its quicker, you only put the first line of what I quoted!!