RSX vs. WRX?

What would win in a drag? An RSX Type S or a WRX? Even though the WRX has 30 more hp, i would think they would be almost equal because of the 200 less pounds for the acura.

What would win in a drag? An RSX Type S or a WRX? Even though the WRX has 30 more hp, i would think they would be almost equal because of the 200 less pounds for the acura.

dude a stock rsx has no chance up against a wrx. the wrx's have awd so they can drop the clutch at redline without spinning. and they'll put mustangs to shame in the 0-60. check it out:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0107subaru/index.html

Yeah, brandtson has a point. The AWD will help, plus they have 100 more HP. The 200 lbs isnt going to kill it that much, mainly because the WRX's weight is in the rear, so at quick acceleration, it will help the tires stick better!

i dont think he is talking about the sti... so actually it has 25 more hp not 100... and yes i agree the wrx would win with equal drivers... the launch would be quicker with its awd plus the extra hp... 200lbs wont drag it that much

Anyone try and calculate the Hp/lb. for each car? Like total weight divided by total hp. I wonder if they would be close due to the WRX being heavier?

Anyone try and calculate the Hp/lb. for each car? Like total weight divided by total hp. I wonder if they would be close due to the WRX being heavier?


its not just about the power to weight ratio....its also about gearing and power curve

RSX
2721lbs
160hp
17:1 Hp to Lb ratio

RSX-S
2778lbs
200hp
13.89:1 Hp to Lb ratio


WRX
3085lbs
227hp
13.59:1 Hp to Lb ratio

WRX STi
3263lbs
300hp
10.87:1 Hp to Lb ratio

Even though the WRX has 30 more hp, i would think they would be almost equal because of the 200 less pounds for the acura.

Anyone try and calculate the Hp/lb. for each car? Like total weight divided by total hp. I wonder if they would be close due to the WRX being heavier?

Why do Honda guys always try to make things so complicated? "Well maybe they're equal cuz if you calculate the capacitance of the battery it makes up for the lack of zippers in the front seats."

A stock WRX can pull a 14.0. An RSX-S can't. Case closed. And I didn't even have to figure out which car has denser rubber on the tires or the most exhaust hangars.

yup stock RSX-type S at best i've seen is a 15.0 flat. stock WRX the best i've seen is 14.1 they are not even close. unless you got from a 60mph roll. the RSX will stand no chance.

yup stock RSX-type S at best i've seen is a 15.0 flat. stock WRX the best i've seen is 14.1 they are not even close. unless you got from a 60mph roll. the RSX will stand no chance.


and by the way not to flame, but i think WRX are quick even for me. but i think the RSX type S is quit slow. its quick for what it is, but i wouldn't try to race any REAL cars with it.

and by the way not to flame, but i think WRX are quick even for me. but i think the RSX type S is quit slow. its quick for what it is, but i wouldn't try to race any REAL cars with it.
pwned

A stock WRX can pull a 14.0. An RSX-S can't. Case closed. And I didn't even have to figure out which car has denser rubber on the tires or the most exhaust hangars.

yea dude, 1/4 mile times show it all. Stock wrx's can take out gt stangs. Sti's get 13.1's. And at the races, I've seen stock ones rip trans-am's, camaro's, and gt mustangs that were spraying.

Sure RSX-s are pretty quick and light, but on strips they get shitty launches from the fwd, and on the highway they can get torn up from cars with turbos.

Unless you're squeezing with a set of good tires or have a set of toda cams and valve springs, don't even bother going near a wrx.

WRX has a lot more torque too compared to the rsx/rsx-s.

I think a WRX towing a trailer with a jet ski and an RSX-S would make for a good race...both from a roll and a dig.

I think a better question would be RSX-S vs. Spec V...RSX-S vs. V6 Tiburon...or maybe RSX-S vs. Civic Si? The WRX is in a different class of car because of that turbo.

yup stock RSX-type S at best i've seen is a 15.0 flat. stock WRX the best i've seen is 14.1 they are not even close. unless you got from a 60mph roll. the RSX will stand no chance.


Those times also reflect the price differences!
Type-S = $23,270
STI = $30,995
That $7725 could easily make the S faster than the STI!!

Ummm, no. It can't.

Modifying the RSX to run high 13's will run you an arm and a leg in labor and parts. Why do I say labor? Because I get the feeling you don't own a machine shop and aren't able to sleeve that aluminum block for a .030 overbore or mill the head for higher compression. My guess is also that you haven't the foggiest idea how to grind the journals for a stroker crank, and I'm going to bet that you can't machine the combustion chamber valve seats to accomodate bigger valves.

Then let's start talking cams, cam gears, ignition system reconfiguration with new computers, injectors, intake manifold, header......

Yeah, you can get all that for 7k for an engine that's only been out for 5 years at the most.

Oh, and we haven't gone into redoing the front suspension for drag racing, or strengthening the transaxle, or closer ratio straight-cut gears, or anything of that nature.

Those times also reflect the price differences!
Type-S = $23,270
STI = $30,995
That $7725 could easily make the S faster than the STI!!

TatII said nothing of the STi, he was mentioning the stock WRX thats $24,495 and runs low 14s.



WRX... I'll take two. :biggrin:

7k can buy u a turbo...there ya go

7k can buy u a turbo...there ya go

Hahahahahahaha....... cute.

For $3000 I can hang a Moss Motors supercharger on my MGB and gain 70hp, but I'll be waving bye-bye to my bottom end if I just add boost.

Same thing'll happen to that Honda four in the RSX. Boost in an unprepared engine = broken pieces. End of story.

So, sorry, no easy fix to the 13second RSX quandary that will result in a comfortable, reliable, daily driver that'll still corner.

7k can buy u a turbo...there ya go



you know i just got one...and they don't do anything....i have it in the car and its not even a bit faster...







just the other day I got smoked byt a WRX....and i was looking a the turbo sitting and doing nothing....just sitting like a big metal smail on the passenger seat...it wasn't even spooling.....they suck...why did i pay for one i'll never know

well you can get a greddy kit for a RSX for around 3K. and its a pretty complete kit, it comes with a piggy back ( the e manage ), and larger injectors. all you need is a fuel pump and a front mount intercooler. the e manage is good for up to 10 psi before it becomes useless. i'm sure the K20 can take 6 psi no problem which is hte default settin on the wastegate for the turbo in that kit. that should be good for a high 13 second pass.

edit: i was referring to a regular WRX which is only a few hundred dollars apart in price to a RSX type S. and a regular WRX will run low 14's stock.

Those times also reflect the price differences!
Type-S = $23,270
STI = $30,995
That $7725 could easily make the S faster than the STI!!

The regular WRX starts at like $24k, and I think the WRX wagon is in the $23's. The STi costs $30,000 like you say, but it's not a 14.1 car, I've seen them go 12.8 bone stock.

Ummm, no. It can't.

Modifying the RSX to run high 13's will run you an arm and a leg in labor and parts. Why do I say labor? Because I get the feeling you don't own a machine shop and aren't able to sleeve that aluminum block for a .030 overbore or mill the head for higher compression. My guess is also that you haven't the foggiest idea how to grind the journals for a stroker crank, and I'm going to bet that you can't machine the combustion chamber valve seats to accomodate bigger valves.


Hate to correct ya, Octy, but you don't even need $1,000 to have an RSX-S capable of high 13's.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?threadid=62877

jdkindle is famous for his RSX that ran a 13.8 @ 100.40 with just a CAI, Hondata ECU, and Falken Azenis (drag radials). He has the timeslip in here to prove it: http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47794

Also edo, on that list, has spent about $3,000 on performance-mods for his RSX that has gone 13.154...all N/A.

So $1,000 will get an RSX in the 13's, and $3,000 will get an RSX low 13's... I believe it, they have awesome engines that are really mod friendly. So how fast would a WRX be with those same amounts of money in mods? The 13.8 is doable with a $50 MBC and otherwise stock off the lot, and with $3,000 20 bucks says it'd be deep in the 12's on street tires. The RSX is a great car, but it's not gonna outrun the WRX with the same amounts of money invested.

So $1,000 will get an RSX in the 13's, and $3,000 will get an RSX low 13's... I believe it, they have awesome engines that are really mod friendly. So how fast would a WRX be with those same amounts of money in mods? The 13.8 is doable with a $50 MBC and otherwise stock off the lot, and with $3,000 20 bucks says it'd be deep in the 12's on street tires. The RSX is a great car, but it's not gonna outrun the WRX with the same amounts of money invested.

Chill, Scooby Nazi, chill...

I never said anything about out-running WRXs...I just corrected Octagon in his assumption that it'll take a lot of money to get an RSX into the 13's.

Of course an F/I car will be normally faster than an N/A one, dollar-for-dollar, but since you said it:

Let's go with 2004 cars, as 2003 cars are getting sold with crazy deals, and lesser is just used, with MANY more variables in pricing than a brand-new car has.

You're saying that the Acura RSX-S (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=145790809&dealer_id=44829557&cardist=16&car_year=2004&address=85017&make=ACURA&model_year=2004&model=RSX&search_type=new&=&distance=25&color=), at $24,415 dealer-price (at least locally to me), will be THAT much slower than a $25,560 Subaru WRX (http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=149221158&dealer_id=49448000&cardist=12&car_year=2004&address=85017&make=SUB&model_year=2004&model=IMPREZ&search_type=new&=&distance=25&color=), when the RSX-buyer actually spends the extra money to match the price-difference with the WRX? (Hint: the price difference is over $1,000.)

I know that last argument is assinine, but I'm trying to check your WRX fanaticism here.

You have sat there and argued that the SRT-4 vs a WRX is driver's race, because despite the fact that the SRT has the WRX beat hands-down in the HP-per-lb department, you know of WRXs that have gone 14.0 bone-stock...even though there are stock SRTs in the 13.6 area.

I know what you're saying...you're saying that a WRX is "capable" of beating a less-than-perfect SRT driver.

Well, let me tell you this, I have personally seen a WRX go 15.6 with an awful driver, and the best an RSX-S has run bone-stock is 14.7, should the WRX vs the RSX be a driver's race then? Same standards you're using with the "vs SRT" argument, right?

I stand corrected carrrnutt. Now let's talk twelves. :cwm27: :cwm27: :1zhelp:

But, in all seriousness, I do believe that many people severely underestimate just how much work goes into a performance engine. Hell, I'm a mechanic and I had to get cozy with a local machine shop to do a lot of the work on my B.

There's a lot of things best left to professionals, after all.

Those times also reflect the price differences!
Type-S = $23,270
STI = $30,995
That $7725 could easily make the S faster than the STI!!
i was waiting for the "but with the money i save, i can make it faster" quote.
ghey.

point is, that even the subaru wrx wagon can outrun a type s, stock to stock.
that's badass to me.

sure, you could spend some cash on the type s to make it as quick as a STOCK wrx, or STi, but what happens when those guys put about 1000 dollars into the subaru, and then you've got to pay (yes, i mean pay, not play) catch up...
sorry. i'll take something with a turbo and awd any day...

Chill, Scooby Nazi, chill...

I never said anything about out-running WRXs...I just corrected Octagon in his assumption that it'll take a lot of money to get an RSX into the 13's.

This thread is about RSX vs WRX... You posted about how fast you can make an RSX, so I compared it to a WRX since that's what the thread is about... Excuse me... :eek7:

You have sat there and argued that the SRT-4 vs a WRX is driver's race, because despite the fact that the SRT has the WRX beat hands-down in the HP-per-lb department, you know of WRXs that have gone 14.0 bone-stock...even though there are stock SRTs in the 13.6 area.

:lol: I still don't think you understand what I was saying about that. If you were in a stock SRT4, and you've ran a 13.7 (wasn't it a 13.7 not a 13.6 last time we had this discussion?), and you were to race a stock WRX, would you be 100% confident in a win? You'd be foolish if you were. I don't know if you've spent much time on a drag strip, but just because you pull a 13.7 on your best time, doesn't mean you're gonna pull a 13.7 every time. If your best time is a 13.7, your average is probably a 14.0, and you probably log some 14.2s or even 14.3s. Now you pull up against a stock WRX, and you're a good driver who can pull a 13.7, but this time you get a 14.1. WRX guy is also a good driver and this run manages a 14.0. Mr. 13.7 SRT4 just lost to a stock WRX. Hell you might line up again right afterwards and this time pull a 13.9 and the WRX gets a 14.3 and you smoked him this time. The point I was trying to make is that their times are close enough that even with equal drivers (I'm not giving the WRX the drivers advantage) the wins would probably go back and forth.

Well, let me tell you this, I have personally seen a WRX go 15.6 with an awful driver, and the best an RSX-S has run bone-stock is 14.7, should the WRX vs the RSX be a driver's race then? Same standards you're using with the "vs SRT" argument, right?

So if you understand the point I was making there, you also understand why this is not the same. I was comparing equal drivers, you're comparing a bad WRX driver with a good RSX driver.

So if you understand the point I was making there, you also understand why this is not the same. I was comparing equal drivers, you're comparing a bad WRX driver with a good RSX driver.
LMFAO.

With equally efficient drivers in the WRX and the SRT-4, a 14.2 run by an SRT will be a 14.6 run by the WRX, just as equally excellent drivers in each car can get the SRT into the 13.7's (and the best rumored is a13.6 in a 2004, while 13.7 is the best recorded in a 2003, k?), while the WRX will be in the 14.0-13.9 range...how's that equal?

You said you've seen a best of around 14.0 from a WRX, while I see 14.5 to 14.7 as the norm stock.

14.2 to 13.9 is the norm for SRT-4's, with 13.7 being the best. Again, how is that a driver's race? Those norms are usually from green drivers (at least to the car), as the SRT-4 hasn't been around that long, while the WRX drivers have had since late 2001 to practice their launches.

Bottomline, you're the pot, and I'm the kettle. You were comparing an awesome WRX driver to an average SRT-4 driver, and calling it equal.

How did the SRT-4 manage to sneak into this thread. I think you're all closet SRT-4 lovers personally! ;)

How did the SRT-4 manage to sneak into this thread. I think you're all closet SRT-4 lovers personally! ;)

I was just showing how he has a double-standard: one equation works when it's for the WRX, but it doesn't when it's against it.

I was just showing how he has a double-standard: one equation works when it's for the WRX, but it doesn't when it's against it.

Gotcha. I think that comes from owning a car you actually like. Most people instantly become a mouthpiece for their new ride. I catch myself doing the same thing too occasionally.

LMFAO.

With equally efficient drivers in the WRX and the SRT-4, a 14.2 run by an SRT will be a 14.6 run by the WRX, just as equally excellent drivers in each car can get the SRT into the 13.7's (and the best rumored is a13.6 in a 2004, while 13.7 is the best recorded in a 2003, k?), while the WRX will be in the 14.0-13.9 range...how's that equal?

You said you've seen a best of around 14.0 from a WRX, while I see 14.5 to 14.7 as the norm stock.

14.2 to 13.9 is the norm for SRT-4's, with 13.7 being the best. Again, how is that a driver's race? Those norms are usually from green drivers (at least to the car), as the SRT-4 hasn't been around that long, while the WRX drivers have had since late 2001 to practice their launches.

Bottomline, you're the pot, and I'm the kettle. You were comparing an awesome WRX driver to an average SRT-4 driver, and calling it equal.

You obviously still don't understand...

Question: Do you think a stock SRT4 can always beat a stock WRX, equal drivers, no matter what?

If you answer yes, my reply is you're foolishly overconfident in the SRT4

If you answer no, you're agreeing with the point I've been trying to make all along

Question 2: Do you think a stock WRX can always beat a stock RSX, equal drivers, no matter what?

Now do you see why those aren't the same scenario?

edit: just to reiterate, in case you still don't get it... I'm not comparing "equally efficent" runs in both cars, I'm comparing equal drivers.

You obviously still don't understand...

Question: Do you think a stock SRT4 can always beat a stock WRX, equal drivers, no matter what?

If you answer yes, my reply is you're foolishly overconfident in the SRT4

If you answer no, you're agreeing with the point I've been trying to make all along

Question 2: Do you think a stock WRX can always beat a stock RSX, equal drivers, no matter what?

Now do you see why those aren't the same scenario?

edit: just to reiterate, in case you still don't get it... I'm not comparing "equally efficent" runs in both cars, I'm comparing equal drivers. No matter how good of a driver you are, you're only human and your runs will vary, just because you have pulled a 13.7 in an SRT4 before, doesn't mean you'll pull it on the time you race a WRX. Anyone whos spent much time at a dragstrip knows what I'm talking about.

Dude, give it up. Your logic is full of holes. So, if an SRT that normally runs 14.0 gets a 14.7, and a WRX that normally gets a 14.5 gets a 14.2, or even a 14.5, the SRT-4 gets beat right?

Doesn't that mean the SRT-4 driver did something wrong, and the WRX driver either did something better, or stayed consistently right, right?

How does a mistaken SRT driver, and a consistent/improved WRX driver, even in just one run, constitute equal drivers?

Same goes for the RSX: I never said it was faster than the WRX, but let's use your logic...

..."Mr. Consistent" WRX driver messes-up, and runs a 14.9 in the 1/4, and the RSX-S driver drives the RSX to its potential, and gets a 14.7...is that equal-driving at that exact moment?

Fact is, when they're driven EXACTLY equal, it should be SRT-4>WRX>RSX-S. Let's say they all get maxed to their potentials, EQUALLY, then the SRT-4 will be running a 13.6, the WRX a 13.9, and the RSX-S a 14.7.

Granted, the SRT-4 and the WRX are a lot closer than the RSX-S and the WRX, but that still doesn't make the SRT-4 and the WRX equal.

BTW, to whoever said it, the (much) LESS THAN 1,000-dollars invested in the RSX-S running a 13.8, does NOT match a stock WRX...it surpasses it...now imagine the race between the two vehicles went past the quarter-mile...

You obviously still don't understand...

Question: Do you think a stock SRT4 can always beat a stock WRX, equal drivers, no matter what?

If you answer yes, my reply is you're foolishly overconfident in the SRT4

If you answer no, you're agreeing with the point I've been trying to make all along

Question 2: Do you think a stock WRX can always beat a stock RSX, equal drivers, no matter what?

Now do you see why those aren't the same scenario?

edit: just to reiterate, in case you still don't get it... I'm not comparing "equally efficent" runs in both cars, I'm comparing equal drivers.

I think I get it. But for simplicity's sake the title of the thread was "RSX vs. WRX". The thread wasn't called, "with equal drivers who would win a best of seven at sea level with stock tires if you took their average 1/4 mile times?". I think people have a habit of complicating things a little when the general consensus contradicts the verdict they hoped to see. I've seen it a hundred times in the SRT forums when people post an STi vs. SRT-4 story. I have seen some SRT-4 owners bring up some very creative shit that would impress even Johny fucking Cochrane.

BTW:

ldelaysionl, you should read this thread: http://acura-cl.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=121990

There's a video of an STi vs a Acura CL-S in there too that you would find interesting.

:lol: What the hell does an Acura CL have to do with anything? Or an STi for that matter? We're arguing because I compared the RSX to the WRX in a thread titled "RSX vs. WRX", and you act like I'm off topic -> "Chill, Scooby Nazi, chill... I never said anything about out-running WRXs"

Then you bring up SRT4's and Acura CLs? :confused:

I'm sorry for being a nazi by making a calm, non-inflammatory and completely on-topic post. Obviously that's all it takes to get you guys up in arms.

Chill, anti-scooby nazi's.

P.S. You never answered my question. If you were driving a stock SRT4, and pulled up next to a stock WRX at a stoplight, how confident would you be? Yes it's possible for equal drivers in an RSX and a WRX, for the RSX to win, but it's very unlikely. 3 tenths (SRT vs WRX) is not a significant difference, and it is very possible for either to win. 8 tenths (RSX vs WRX) is almost a full second, and is possbile but improbable. It's even more in the WRX's favor on the street, an RSX that pulls a 14.7 (or an SRT4 that pulls a 13.7) on a prepared surface will be slower on the street, a WRX won't. Or how bout most people don't race for a full 1/4 mile when they race on the street, and the WRX has more of an advantage in a short race. Being this is a thread comparing RSX's to WRX's in the street racing forum, it's reasonable for me to compare RSX and WRX performance on the street, right? Or am I off topic again?

Feel free to show me a vid of an '84 Monte Carlo vs. a STi V6 RA to bring me back on track.

:lol: What the hell does an Acura CL have to do with anything? Or an STi for that matter? We're arguing because I compared the RSX to the WRX in a thread titled "RSX vs. WRX", and you act like I'm off topic -> "Chill, Scooby Nazi, chill... I never said anything about out-running WRXs"

Then you bring up SRT4's and Acura CLs? :confused:

I showed you that thread/video because it shows your holy-grail, the 30-large STi, almost being outrun by a 14.1-14.3 N/A CL-S, which an I/Hondata RSX-S is faster than...meaning, that it is possible for an RSX-S with minor mods to chase-down a stock STi costing a lot more...now what of the "regular" WRX?

How's that for relevance to the thread?

I'm sorry for being a nazi by making a calm, non-inflammatory and completely on-topic post. Obviously that's all it takes to get you guys up in arms.

Chill, anti-scooby nazi's.

Whoever said I was anti-Scooby? I'm anti-Nazi.

I can't stand people that go "but the LS1 can do this..", "the WRX is capable of that...", "the Mustang only lost because..."

Like I said, when your argument benefitted the car of your choice, you used the logic...but when it didn't the logic didn't work.

P.S. You never answered my question. If you were driving a stock SRT4, and pulled up next to a stock WRX at a stoplight, how confident would you be?

First off, you never asked that question. You simply asked, and I quote: "Question: Do you think a stock SRT4 can always beat a stock WRX, equal drivers, no matter what?"

You asked equal drivers. Period. Equal drivers, meaning each can squeeze the same percentage of potential from the respective cars, then yes, the SRT-4 will beat the WRX everytime.

Now if you're talking street, conditions vary. In the right conditions, a WRX wagon will beat a 2003 Cobra...does that mean that it is a "driver's" race between the two?

Besides, if you're asking about pulling next to somebody next to a light...how would you know if they're stock?

If you've figured anything out about me around here, I'm a big fan of sleepers, and it's usually the decked-out ones that I underestimate.

Even if I did know that the other car is stock, how do I know we're equal drivers at that given time? Because if we were, whoever's driving the more powerful car (Hint: the one that makes more power to the wheels than the other one to the crank) should win. Bad logic?

Yes it's possible for equal drivers in an RSX and a WRX, for the RSX to win,

What? How can it be equal if the slower car pulled-out a win?

3 tenths (SRT vs WRX) is not a significant difference, and it is very possible for either to win.

You're the track-rat, do you have ANY idea how far behind a car that is .3 seconds behind is? In street circles, that constitutes a kill...hardly a "driver's race". In this side-by-side comparison (http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=227&ID2=3), there is less than a .3 difference between the cars...but look at the trap-speed (indicative of power, and how fast the car is accelerating at the end.)

A "driver's race" would be say, a Camaro SS and a 1997+ Acura NSX (http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=74&ID2=84). They have almost exact performance numbers, and if one is ahead in one test, the other is ahead of the other...and both are capable of high-12's with excellent driving. NOT where the other is consistently a gap ahead in every test. (Hint: look at the traps in the link.)

I guess I can see your point, if the races only go till 50mph...(Hint: in the side-by-side I gave the WRX only has the advantage till about 50mph.)

Now, going back to the subject, let's hope that the stock WRX doesn't do a 60-100 run against a stock RSX-S with a halfway decent driver.

Look: http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=5&ID2=3

If you do the math, the WRX accelerates from 60 to 100 in 11.07 seconds, while the RSX-S does the same in 10.9 seconds. Not that much of difference, but enough indication that the RSX-S can walk away at higher speeds. That's "street-racing" no?

And last, but not least, HAPPY FUCKING NEW YEARS...http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/sunglasses.gif

Oh my... such complication.... eeeeeek.

I stand corrected carrrnutt. Now let's talk twelves. :cwm27: :cwm27: :1zhelp:

But, in all seriousness, I do believe that many people severely underestimate just how much work goes into a performance engine. Hell, I'm a mechanic and I had to get cozy with a local machine shop to do a lot of the work on my B.

There's a lot of things best left to professionals, after all.



i agree with you.....i'm sick of this argument "i'll just slap on a turbo and beat you"....you never slap a turbo...its a time consuming job


and then comes the tuning...which cannot ever be too good

IDk, i think the RSX has no chance cause of it FF, i think that AWD would always dominate over FF.

STI seems to be better overall. A better handling too.

there not talkin STI though, eventhough cause that has 300hp and would easily beat a RSX

New Years Resolution #1 - Stop posting in this thread.

STI seems to be better overall. A better handling too.


we're not taking about the sti...we're talking about the regular WRX

IDk, i think the RSX has no chance cause of it FF, i think that AWD would always dominate over FF.

How about from a roll?




New Years Resolution #1 - Stop posting in this thread.

hahahahaha.. Good one.. really made me giggle. :icon16:

The wrx is better off the start even though the weight is more. I have both these cars so I would know!