Speed freak stats - WRX, Type-R, Clio, R32 etc
13 January 2003, 02:00 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to EVO ..
0-60 0-100 so 60-100
Golf 6.4 16.3 - 9.9
Focus 5.9 14.9 - 9.0
WRX 6.0 18.3 - 12.3
Civic 6.8 16.9 - 10.1
Clio 7.1 20.0 - 12.9
330i 5.9 17.0 - 11.1
I think Autocar have them all 0-100 between 16-17 seconds.
Classic Impreza - 5.4 14.6 - 9.2
Doofus.
0-60 0-100 so 60-100
Golf 6.4 16.3 - 9.9
Focus 5.9 14.9 - 9.0
WRX 6.0 18.3 - 12.3
Civic 6.8 16.9 - 10.1
Clio 7.1 20.0 - 12.9
330i 5.9 17.0 - 11.1
I think Autocar have them all 0-100 between 16-17 seconds.
Classic Impreza - 5.4 14.6 - 9.2
Doofus.
13 January 2003, 02:14 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting post
Bummer about the formatting as its a bugger to read
The bugeye I drove was very disappointing after classic shape turbo's. In fairness, I drove a tight one as it didn't have many miles under its belt, but I remember thinking at the time that my VTS would have taken it from 0-100mph. It would obviously have come good in later life but even back then I could tell it was a fair bit slower than the classic shape scoobys.
Bummer about the formatting as its a bugger to read
The bugeye I drove was very disappointing after classic shape turbo's. In fairness, I drove a tight one as it didn't have many miles under its belt, but I remember thinking at the time that my VTS would have taken it from 0-100mph. It would obviously have come good in later life but even back then I could tell it was a fair bit slower than the classic shape scoobys.
13 January 2003, 02:30 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okily Dokily ......
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
Here is me trying to sort the format out a bit .. doesn't make the stats for fat boy WRX any better though 
... it's no wonder that people coming from VTS, ST200, GSi etc etc think 'what's all the fuss about'.
I had a 1.8T Quattro Sport A4 (180 BHP) before the Scoob and trust me there is a HUGE difference in acceleration!
I'm assuming that when they tested the WRX it was not run in and pretty tight BUT can an engine loosen up that much that some of those numbers will change by 2 seconds or more ? I don't think so.
I wish I had some 'classic' shape stats to compare with
Oh and to add my tuppence to your original post Kenny, all the mags so far have tested the Civic high sixes to 60, low to high 16's for 100. So I would guess it's around 9-10 seconds 60-100.
Doofus (hoping the formats a bit better!)
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
Here is me trying to sort the format out a bit
.. doesn't make the stats for fat boy WRX any better though ... it's no wonder that people coming from VTS, ST200, GSi etc etc think 'what's all the fuss about'. I had a 1.8T Quattro Sport A4 (180 BHP) before the Scoob and trust me there is a HUGE difference in acceleration!
I'm assuming that when they tested the WRX it was not run in and pretty tight BUT can an engine loosen up that much that some of those numbers will change by 2 seconds or more ? I don't think so.
I wish I had some 'classic' shape stats to compare with
Oh and to add my tuppence to your original post Kenny, all the mags so far have tested the Civic high sixes to 60, low to high 16's for 100. So I would guess it's around 9-10 seconds 60-100.
Doofus (hoping the formats a bit better!)
Trending Topics
13 January 2003, 02:41 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bollox, I've been an a**e, forgotten about too many edits and lost the original post .. anyhow if you didn't see it ... basically I compared EVO stats for the cars above. All in gear acceleration times.
It was to add to SaxoBoy's post in the 'other makes' section about Civic Type-R acceleration between 60-100.
Summing up again,
Focus hauls *** when turbo is on song.
Golf does really well and is quicker than the Focus (pre on-song) and almost as quick after
Civic does well pretty solid throughout.
Clio is slow.
330i is OK.
WRX is a fat boy tubster and is beaten in EVERY increment by the Civic. No more VTEC only stories, whether Turbo has spooled up or not the Civic is quicker.
Doofus.
It was to add to SaxoBoy's post in the 'other makes' section about Civic Type-R acceleration between 60-100.
Summing up again,
Focus hauls *** when turbo is on song.
Golf does really well and is quicker than the Focus (pre on-song) and almost as quick after
Civic does well pretty solid throughout.
Clio is slow.
330i is OK.
WRX is a fat boy tubster and is beaten in EVERY increment by the Civic. No more VTEC only stories, whether Turbo has spooled up or not the Civic is quicker.
Doofus.
13 January 2003, 02:50 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to Evo (again) here are the UK STi stats added .. can someone do a table format thing ?????
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
STi 4.5 3.2 2.8 3.1
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
STi 7.1 5.3 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.2
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
STi 11.8 10.1 8.2 6.1 5.3 5.5
and Sti UK - 0-60, 0-100 so 60-100
5.8 16.0 10.2?
Looks like the STi UK is the quickest in the majority of occasions. It does have the advantage of a 6 speed box over the WRX though as does the Civic.
Maybe these stats do not do the WRX any favours as in gear stats will favour 6 speed boxes, no? S'pose the RS only has 5 gears and it kicks the WRX's butt good and proper.
Doofus.
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
STi 4.5 3.2 2.8 3.1
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
STi 7.1 5.3 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.2
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
STi 11.8 10.1 8.2 6.1 5.3 5.5
and Sti UK - 0-60, 0-100 so 60-100
5.8 16.0 10.2?
Looks like the STi UK is the quickest in the majority of occasions. It does have the advantage of a 6 speed box over the WRX though as does the Civic.
Maybe these stats do not do the WRX any favours as in gear stats will favour 6 speed boxes, no? S'pose the RS only has 5 gears and it kicks the WRX's butt good and proper.
Doofus.
13 January 2003, 03:22 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dum dum de dum....
Posts: 2,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Storm......
I recently chopped in my Clio 172 (51 Plate) for my WRX and it definately feels quicker AND safer
...at the end of the day a clio is French and made from Tin Foil - but still a craking little motor!
I recently chopped in my Clio 172 (51 Plate) for my WRX and it definately feels quicker AND safer
...at the end of the day a clio is French and made from Tin Foil - but still a craking little motor!
13 January 2003, 03:28 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
NO arguments about the WRX being quicker than the Clio ... that's what the stats say 
(unless your labouring in 5th in your Scooby).
What the stats also say is compared to a Type-R or new Golf, Focus etc the WRX is majorly slow. EVO did a import STi, UK300, RB5 and P1 test a while back but unfortunately they did not do any in gear stats ... that would have been interesting
I'm assuming a classic shape Impreza would be about Focus RS level in terms of in-gear? Who knows.
Doofus.
(unless your labouring in 5th in your Scooby).What the stats also say is compared to a Type-R or new Golf, Focus etc the WRX is majorly slow. EVO did a import STi, UK300, RB5 and P1 test a while back but unfortunately they did not do any in gear stats ... that would have been interesting
I'm assuming a classic shape Impreza would be about Focus RS level in terms of in-gear? Who knows.
Doofus.
13 January 2003, 03:31 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are all quick cars, down to personal preference although I will probably be changing my MY 01 WRX to the new shape WRX STi later this year. Tried a current MY 02 shape UK STi and liked it
13 January 2003, 03:47 PM
#16
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STI-7 PPP
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100
2.5__|1.9__|_2.4_|2.6__|3.0__|3.5__|4.0
4th gear
---__| 4.4_|_3.1_|_3.0_|3.2__|_3.5_|4.0
5th
-----|11.0_|_7.3_|_4.9_|4.2__|4.4__|4.8
0-60 4.62
0-100 12.2
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100
2.5__|1.9__|_2.4_|2.6__|3.0__|3.5__|4.0
4th gear
---__| 4.4_|_3.1_|_3.0_|3.2__|_3.5_|4.0
5th
-----|11.0_|_7.3_|_4.9_|4.2__|4.4__|4.8
0-60 4.62
0-100 12.2
13 January 2003, 03:56 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to put the last one in perspective .. try a BMW M5 
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 3rd
Sti 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0
M5 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.1
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 4th
Sti 4.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.5 4.0
M5 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 5th
STi 11.0 7.3 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.8
M5 6.2 5.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8
Sti
0-60 4.62
0-100 12.2
M5
0-60 4.9
0-100 11.5
Sti with PPP comes out very well ..
Doofus.
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 3rd
Sti 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0
M5 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.1
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 4th
Sti 4.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.5 4.0
M5 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0
20-40|30-50|40-60|50-70|60-80|70-90|80-100 in 5th
STi 11.0 7.3 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.8
M5 6.2 5.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8
Sti
0-60 4.62
0-100 12.2
M5
0-60 4.9
0-100 11.5
Sti with PPP comes out very well ..
Doofus.
13 January 2003, 05:56 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit my WRX does not feel as fast as I expected it to.
I came from a Modded VTS which was fairly quick but i expected to see massive gains from the scooby.
Stu..
I came from a Modded VTS which was fairly quick but i expected to see massive gains from the scooby.
Stu..
13 January 2003, 07:04 PM
#21
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: www.m-soc.com
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember thinking at the time that my VTS would have taken it from 0-100mph
UK spec's of course
Possibly feels slower because the kick from the Turbo doesn't feel the same
My Bug eye seems quite quick anyway and I have had two classic shapes as well
13 January 2003, 07:06 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny BELFAST
Posts: 19,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who really cares? all these cars are faster than about 95% of the cars on our roads, we dont need to prove anything and that is best part. really pisses ppls off if u is at the lights and you pull away leisurely like, makes me
cheers
big sinky
cheers
big sinky
13 January 2003, 07:11 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what your asking Steve 
On paper and in real life the classic shape is faster than the bugeyes. On paper and in real life all turbo'd scooby's are faster than a VTS. The bugeye I drove had single figure mileage - hadn't even been PDI'd - and at the time the Saxo had 30k and would have humped it!
On paper and in real life the classic shape is faster than the bugeyes. On paper and in real life all turbo'd scooby's are faster than a VTS. The bugeye I drove had single figure mileage - hadn't even been PDI'd - and at the time the Saxo had 30k and would have humped it!
14 January 2003, 09:54 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Added Clio Cup below standard 172 ..
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Cup 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Cup 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 6.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Cup 9.1 8.3 8.2 8.4 9.2 10.0
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
330i 9.6 8.5 8.7 8.2 7.9 8.2
Does much better than normal 172 but again gets it's *** kicked by the RS, R32, Type-R on most occasions.
Still not sure the comparisons favour the 5 gear cars. Looking at the figures I assume that the WRX is quite long legged compared to the Focus?
I currently have an MY00 classic with a few mods. Next on the list of cars for me WAS a bugeye/blob-eye but looking at these stats and reading most of the normal car mags the Scooby is no longer the obvious choice.
Taking 4WD out of the occasion (and FWD is catching up handling wise) and not being interested in traffic light grand prix lots of things like Mondeo ST220, new Saab 9-3 Aero .. even Vectra GSi are almost as quick 30-70 and off boost probably better.
Looks like it has to be an STi or at the very least a PPP'd WRX
Doofus.
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80
Golf 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6
Civi 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.2
Clio 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9
Cup 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3
Focu 4.7 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.4
WRX 5.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.5
330i 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3
4th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1
Civi 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.9 6.0
Clio 7.5 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.7 7.0
Cup 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 6.0
Focu 8.0 6.0 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.6
WRX 9.3 7.1 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.9
330i 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.4
5th gear
20-40 30-50 40-60 50-70 60-80 70-90
Golf 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.8 6.4 7.0
Civi 8.1 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.7 9.0
Clio 10.7 9.6 9.4 9.6 10.7 11.3
Cup 9.1 8.3 8.2 8.4 9.2 10.0
Focu 12.8 10.7 8.7 7.1 6.4 6.6
WRX 16.2 13.4 11.2 9.0 8.8 10.2
330i 9.6 8.5 8.7 8.2 7.9 8.2
Does much better than normal 172 but again gets it's *** kicked by the RS, R32, Type-R on most occasions.
Still not sure the comparisons favour the 5 gear cars. Looking at the figures I assume that the WRX is quite long legged compared to the Focus?
I currently have an MY00 classic with a few mods. Next on the list of cars for me WAS a bugeye/blob-eye but looking at these stats and reading most of the normal car mags the Scooby is no longer the obvious choice.
Taking 4WD out of the occasion (and FWD is catching up handling wise) and not being interested in traffic light grand prix lots of things like Mondeo ST220, new Saab 9-3 Aero .. even Vectra GSi are almost as quick 30-70 and off boost probably better.
Looks like it has to be an STi or at the very least a PPP'd WRX
Doofus.
14 January 2003, 10:12 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just been having another peruse through some old Evo's ... not going to put up any more figures as the table is unreadable as it is but sobering thought for WRX drivers
... if you see an Astra Turbo Coupe behind you (not the new 200 BHP one .. the OLD one) ... errm you are not losing it very quickly
even if you change down to 3rd. It's only 10th's of a second behind in every increment and as usual off boost he is away
Man, this looks worse every time I see it .. off to check some Daihatsu Sirion stats now .. ... it's bound to be quicker.
Doofus.
but sobering thought for WRX drivers ... if you see an Astra Turbo Coupe behind you (not the new 200 BHP one .. the OLD one) ... errm you are not losing it very quickly
even if you change down to 3rd. It's only 10th's of a second behind in every increment and as usual off boost he is away
Man, this looks worse every time I see it .. off to check some Daihatsu Sirion stats now ..
... it's bound to be quicker.Doofus.
14 January 2003, 10:27 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On paper and in real life the classic shape is faster than the bugeyes
Subaru quote a 6.3(or 6.4) 0-60 for the Classic Impreza and a 5.8 for the Bugeye. In reality we all know that the classic will beat 6.4 easily where the bugeye won't top 5.8 but still paper is paper
Laurence
14 January 2003, 10:31 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had my MY01 WRX for just over 12 months and the only thing I couldn't keep up with was a 911 Carrera 4 down the A1. Not struggled with anything else. The WRX is plenty quick enough and yes there are lots of other cars out there just as quick but its personal preference at the end of the day.
14 January 2003, 10:55 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
storm555,
I see where you are coming from BUT back in 1998-odds you bought a Scooby because it had good handling, fantastic grip and basically it was a rocket ship compared to anything remotely close to it's price bracket.
Nowadays that's no longer the case, it's still relatively quick but there are so many cars that will keep up with a WRX.
Great for the performance buying public ... not so good IMO for Subaru buyers like people on here. I'm buggered if I'm spending 20 K on a jap-euro-box with so so interior, crap stereo that's expensive to run/insure unless there is a marked difference in performance/handling to others in the same price bracket.
Case in point, take on 16K Civic Type-R and one WRX .. wet or dry with an average driver there's not going to be much difference over any type of road. Same goes for Leon Cupra-R etc etc
Why buy the WRX? No longer the iconic road rocket it was IMO. Maybe it's just me but for 4K difference I'd want extra grunt. PPP as standard, now you're talking.
DOofus.
I see where you are coming from BUT back in 1998-odds you bought a Scooby because it had good handling, fantastic grip and basically it was a rocket ship compared to anything remotely close to it's price bracket.
Nowadays that's no longer the case, it's still relatively quick but there are so many cars that will keep up with a WRX.
Great for the performance buying public ... not so good IMO for Subaru buyers like people on here. I'm buggered if I'm spending 20 K on a jap-euro-box with so so interior, crap stereo that's expensive to run/insure unless there is a marked difference in performance/handling to others in the same price bracket.
Case in point, take on 16K Civic Type-R and one WRX .. wet or dry with an average driver there's not going to be much difference over any type of road. Same goes for Leon Cupra-R etc etc
Why buy the WRX? No longer the iconic road rocket it was IMO. Maybe it's just me but for 4K difference I'd want extra grunt. PPP as standard, now you're talking.
DOofus.