WRX or RSX type S ???

WRX or RSX type S ???
Need a new car...what do you guys think.

Although they are both really great cars , I would go with the WRX. The Acura Type-S probably has a better interior and comfort , but the WRX is a freaking monster on the road. I would definetly go with the WRX. Or if you have time to wait , then wait till fall , thats when the new Lancer Evolution 7 comes out and its even faster with than the WRX, plus a better quality interior.

Check the subaru site they got a comparison of the RSX and WRX

Originally posted by Dan GSR
WRX or RSX type S ???
Need a new car...what do you guys think.

Well, I hate to say it *choke* but the WRX looks pretty nice.. Depends on what yer look'n for I guess... look at the paperwork.

RSX MSRP: 23,650
WRX MSRP: 23,995
Not enough price difference to matter there..

RSX specs:
200hp
142lbs torque
2.0 litre
2795 lbs

WRX specs:
227hp
217lbs torque
2.0 litre
3085 lbs
AWD

WRX performance wise, seems quite a bit better, however quite a bit heavier as well... I wouldn't mind test drive'n a WRX to see if there's that big of a difference...

so I guess what it comes down to is styling.. IMHO the WRX looks less sporty and more grocery-getter to me... (4 door sedan, big round headlights, kinda boxy) but the rsx seems to look more sporty to me...

I like the RSX better, but that's only because I'm biased.. I like Acura alot, although I have to admit, the WRX looks very impressive on paper and I think if you didn't care one way or another, it'd be a hard choice, especially with the minimal price difference....

So, what it comes down to for me is Styling since I've never driven a WRX, I can't say how much "faster" it is..

Tough choice, good luck man.

-Bryan Layne
1995 Honda Civic EX

0-60 the WRX is 1.2 secs better
1/4mile WRX is 0.9 secs better...

bahhhh..
what to do??
i won't be able to get it for 6 months at least..
plus the subaru is turbo already just get a bigger turbine, intercooler, maybe 50shot of NOS....and 300hp is easy.

Originally posted by Dan GSR
0-60 the WRX is 1.2 secs better
1/4mile WRX is 0.9 secs better...

bahhhh..
what to do??
i won't be able to get it for 6 months at least..
plus the subaru is turbo already just get a bigger turbine, intercooler, maybe 50shot of NOS....and 300hp is easy.

ya, but it's still ugly.. :D

-Bryan Layne
1995 Honda Civic EX

i dont mind the wrx unless it has a kit. who has seen the wrx commercial with the blue wrx with the kit and the 17inch rims???
i really like that one. i dont like the wrx when its stock. fugly
the rsx is pretty cool. i would get red with the dealer bodykit.

oh yah forgot
if i were to chose one. i would definetely go for the wrx. seat 4 people in comfort without tilting the seat (god i hate tilting the seat to put passengers in the rear, screws up my seating position)
if it was for style i would go for the rsx, i like engines that screams at 8000rpm. other than that, too small and i like the awd

I ve got the s type and i couldnt be happier....looks and performace, i love it

Look you need to all realize this. I don't get why these cars are even compared.

I checked into the numbers, and the WRX is running 14 lbs of boost to get that 227 HP. So, take away the turbo set-up, and you lose about $5-8K in the car's value, and then you have a 130-160 HP car. So, there is a $4K difference between the WRX, which comes with SH*T in it, as opposed to a RSX Type S with leather, etc.

Anyway, put 14 lbs of boost in a turbo for the Type S with the extra $4K, plus $1.5K if you wanted leather in the WRX (which may or may not be possible to get from the factory), and you have a 260-285 HP RSX.

I wish they made an AWD RSX. I just don't think the WRX has any potential. You look in a magazine (I believe Automotive) with a tricked out WRX, which they have listed at $500,000 (Yes, that's 5 zeros!), and it is 300 HP.

Not worth it. Someone needs to make a way to AWD the RSX. It would be soooo coool!

My $0.02!

they should make a FR rsx
that would be better. it would be a pure sport
if they make a all wheel drive rsx it would cost about the same as a wrx.
besides wrx is a sports sedan. it would be stupid if you put leather in it because its ment to be driven hard.
the rsx is ment to be driven hard as well, but half of it is ment to be a luxurious sports coupe

a 75 lb-ft difference in torque.. who can argue that? Sure.. the WRX is turbocharged and the RSX isn't.. and yeah, you'd probably get alot more top end out of RSX if you turbocharged it, but that's going to cost at least another $4k, whereas the WRX is still going to hang, and if someone decided to put a moderate to heavy shot of NOS in the WRX it would only cost around 1.5-2k (and that's for a REALLY nice kit and possibly installation included), plus stock internals are already very beefy on the WRX, which means it could handle a higher shot, and still crank on the RSX.

So my vote is a WRX.

Originally posted by mikelemo
I checked into the numbers, and the WRX is running 14 lbs of boost to get that 227 HP. So, take away the turbo set-up, and you lose about $5-8K in the car's value, and then you have a 130-160 HP car. So, there is a $4K difference between the WRX, which comes with SH*T in it, as opposed to a RSX Type S with leather, etc.

Anyway, put 14 lbs of boost in a turbo for the Type S with the extra $4K, plus $1.5K if you wanted leather in the WRX (which may or may not be possible to get from the factory), and you have a 260-285 HP RSX.

so now were taking $4000-$8000 away from the wrx and adding $4000 to the rsx? so youre wanting to compare a $15000 car with a $27000 car? what kind of reasoning is that?

plus itll cost more than $4000 to push 14.7 psi (wrx has 14.7 psi not 14) in an rsx with its high compression.

how does the wrx have no potential? do u realize how easy it is to drag power out of a turbo car? i youve really researched it then u realize the wrx is breathing through 3 catalytic converters and has a low 8.0 compression ratio. remove a couple cats, add 2 pounds of boost, add a 50shot of nitrous, without needing any internal mods just some fuel delivery and ignition mods and some tuning, and youre easily pushing 310-320hp for the $4000 u wanted just to turbo the rsx, which is gonna be a very volatile mixture with that high compression, and youll probably need some internals if u want to push any meaningful amount of boost, including lower compression pistons.

and $4000 is definately and overestimate for how much it would cost to make 300hp in a wrx. lets look at it part by part. fuel pump $200, fpr $100, ignition $200, air/fuel controller $200, nitrous kit $500, manual boost controller $200, j&s ultrasafeguard $500, boost guage $50, air/fuel guage $50, intake $200, intercooler piping $200, downpipe $200, catback exhaust $500. there im at $2900, that even includes some guages and intake and exhaust. hell i even threw in the j&s safeguard that has individual knock sensors for each cylinder and advances and retards the timing in each cylinder individually to ensure there wont be any detonation. lets go ahead and add a programmable engine management system for another $1000 to get it up to $4000. with all those parts the wrx will definately make more than 340hp. thats how much itll cost to put a basic turbo kit on the rsx that will probably only push 5psi cuz of the compression.

dont get me wrong the rsx is a nice car, but u cant say it can make a lot of power easier or cheaper than the wrx.

I'd go with the RSX because it offers so much more than the WRX. Plus, I'm from Canada, and the WRX is about $4,500 more than the RSX Type S. I will purchase the RSX after comparison because although the WRX has an incredible engine, RSX has better estetique and refinement.

RSX... WRX is jus plain ugly

Originally posted by maceez13
RSX... WRX is jus plain ugly

thats just your opinion, looks is only an opinion. i personally think the rsx is one of the uglyest cars out, it has no sense of subtlety at all, it looks like a classroom full of 13 year old rice boy wannabees designed it. but thats just my opinion. the wrx isnt great looking either, but the rsx is horrible in my opinion. the old integra was really nice looking too, what a pity.

well thats your opinion.... glad its not a waggen

Originally posted by maceez13
well thats your opinion.... glad its not a waggen

yeah... its great it has no functionality... thats awesome... :rolleyes:

It really depends what you want. I love my WRX but I'm thinking about buying an RSX as a 2nd car. My chick drives the WRX a lot to work and stuff because I like to ride my bike to work (Honda RC51) and often need my truck to haul a buncha crap I don't want to chew up the inside of the WRX with.

But I'm seriously considering leasing an RSX for a year or two (I'm building a Supra next year).

Styling? I like both. They are certainly different. The RSX is more natively 'ricey' just due to the target audience. The WRX is a homologation car (they have to build it to race it) so well, it looks like a Rally car (which it is).

I will agree that the RSX is more svelte/racey looking, but the WRX is all buisness too. They both have their strong points.

Perfomance-wise, it's no contest.

Even if you spend the 4k and stick a turbo on an RSX, you can spend less then $1000 on a WRX and add another 50hp/30ft lbs of torque (article in this months Sport Compact Car).

Pre programmed piggy back ECU, BOV, under drive pully and belts and an up-pipe. Dyoned and tested.

So you can get WRX STi HP out of a stock WRX with the stock exhaust for another $1000. Not a bad deal. :)

Oddly enough, my RSX (if I get one) will be my grocery getter. ;)

RSX... WRX is jus plain ugly
_______________________



First of all, WRX is not ugly...
Have u ever seen one with th C-WEST KIT?
WRX is not at all ugly~
RSX might look a little better but u shouldnt go around saying WRX is ugly!
It just shows that ur ignorant and don't kno much bout the WRX:finger:

im ignorent and dont know much about the wrx just because i personally think that it is ugly??? that makes u sound pretty ignorent to me... my opinion of its looks has nothing to do with that :flipa: :smoka:

:greenchai

Originally posted by BluStori
RSX might look a little better

in my opinion, the wrx doesnt look very good, but the rsx looks a lot worse.

How in the world does anyone think the RSX is good looking ? I've seen a dozen or so stock RSXs on the street, & everytime I do, I ask "what were they thinking ?" Haven't seen any with a kit yet ... so I won't delve into that. The WRX isn't particularly attractive, but it definitely looks interesting. Boooka

Having driven both vehicles, I would pick the RSX TypeS because the RSX is head & shoulders above the WRX in refinement & looks (depending on what you like). The RSX runs & idles like a gem, the WRX is a little too rough. The WRX is faster on paper, but in reality, you can not feel the difference in real world driving. Both are great cars for their target groups. The RSX will have a better reliability & much better resale/trade-in value. The WRX O2 sensors go bad after much hard driving per the dealership mechanic (& who is not going to be driving these cars hard? That is the whole point of this car).
What is boils down to is if you like a fast car that is rough around the edges, & bold in its styling, the WRX wins. But, if you want a fast car with refinement, style grace & excellent name brand, the RSX TypeS is the winner

Originally posted by jawmtt
Having driven both vehicles, I would pick the RSX TypeS because the RSX is head & shoulders above the WRX in refinement & looks (depending on what you like). The RSX runs & idles like a gem, the WRX is a little too rough. The WRX is faster on paper, but in reality, you can not feel the difference in real world driving. Both are great cars for their target groups. The RSX will have a better reliability & much better resale/trade-in value. The WRX O2 sensors go bad after much hard driving per the dealership mechanic (& who is not going to be driving these cars hard? That is the whole point of this car).
What is boils down to is if you like a fast car that is rough around the edges, & bold in its styling, the WRX wins. But, if you want a fast car with refinement, style grace & excellent name brand, the RSX TypeS is the winner

Eh.. Subaru unreliable? I dunno about that. I drive the piss out of my WRX (SCCA events) have had it for about a year now, and have had zero problems. Nothing, not even a hiccup.

I do agree that the RSX is more luxury-like, because it is. If that is what you are going for, get the RSX.

And if you can't feel the speed difference between the two cars, you sir are dead, lol. :)

The WRX is substantially faster then the RSX Type S. I've driven both extensively.

about the reliability issue, consumer reports ranks subaru higher than honda in reliability. over 90% of subaru vehicles ever made are still on the road.

Originally posted by border_project
it would be stupid if you put leather in it because its ment to be driven hard.

So cars with leather aren't supposed to be driven hard? I don't get it.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
over 90% of subaru vehicles ever made are still on the road.


What a crock of shit statistic that is!
Want to show me a source?

Or prehaps you could look up production number per year for Subaru and find out how many cars they didn't make prior to about 1990.




As for which is the better car?

Well go drive both and take the one you like the most.

The RSX will be a lot cheaper to run, but the WRX might be a little bit faster. (i disagree with this, but the WRX owners in here all live in LaLa land, where a stock WRX will beat anything).
But both will offer a very differnt driving expeiance.
One is a Turbo'd 4WD and the other is a N/A FWD. one weighs more, and the other light and agile.
I personaly would take the RSX, but only because Ill be damned if I can afford petrol and tyres for the WRX, and becasue I happen to really like the way Honda sets up thier Suspensions. (although the USDM RSX will most likely have a differnt set up to the Integra Type-R which is its NZ equivilant in terms of spec)

So take them both for a good long drive and then choose the one you like the most.

well the wrx is better with the holeshot, traction and handling.
the boxer engine gives 227hp the fly.... thats only like 195 to the wheels but still a powerful car.. with its awd, this monster will kill anything for the 0-50ft mark. as far as the rsx, as much as i love acuras/hondas. they didn't do a good job on this machine. they gave this car so much weight and not enough hp to push. with only 175hp pushing the wheels, a fwd will scream for traction, and not getting a good solid 0-60...

although the wrx might have more potential, its just plain UGLY, i would definatly go with the RSX, it looks great, and in the long run (if ya got the money) its worth it

Originally posted by Moppie
but the WRX might be a little bit faster. (i disagree with this, but the WRX owners in here all live in LaLa land, where a stock WRX will beat anything)

really? u actually disagree with that? when the wrx's published times are over 1/2 second quicker than the rsx's? even the rsx community will usually admit the wrx is faster, but wil say the rsx is prettier or more refined in defense. so youre one of those people who refuse to believe anything else in the rsx's price range is faster? the great honda/acura cannot be beaten by anything that doesnt cost at least twice as much right? lets go race an s2000 against a z06, the s2000 is faster cuz it has 100hp/liter.

Originally posted by rollin on dubs
although the wrx might have more potential, its just plain UGLY, i would definatly go with the RSX, it looks great, and in the long run (if ya got the money) its worth it

wow, what a coincidence someone posted this while i was typing my reply...

Originally posted by ldelaysionl
even the rsx community will usually admit the wrx is faster, but wil say the rsx is prettier or more refined in defense.

the height of the rsx is too tall. ill stick with a ITR

Originally posted by border_project
the height of the rsx is too tall. ill stick with a ITR

ITR's are flocking cool. rsx's aren't. my opinion...

Bost cars are ugly but I'd rather have the WRX. Because if I were driving an RSX I would see the tail end of WRXs a lot but if I had a WRX, there would only be open road in front of me.

Seriously, the WRX is A LOT faster and can hit almost 400hp with stock internals. Plus its AWD which is a lot of fun. The WRX is a bit pudgy though but I can forgive it. There are plenty of FF NA sport compacts on the street but only one turbo AWD monster. I'll go with the latter.

And will all you Honda ricers get your facts straight, you make a good car company look bad with your stupidity.

I looked at both of these cars quite a bit when deciding on my last purchase. Actually went with a 2002 Nissan SER SpecV.

The performance numbers speak for themselves. All you Honda/Acura guys talking about how heavy the WRX is should look at POWER to WEIGHT, not just WEIGHT. The RSX has 1 HP pushing 13.9 lbs and the WRX has 1 HP pushing 13.6 lbs not a big difference eh? Then there's torque, a little something Honda seems to know nothing about. Then handling the WRX is AWD. Nuf said.

Looks. Stock for stock. WRX. Sure the front end is a bit ugsome, but the RSX looks like an off road machine. You would need like a 2 inch drop to make that ride look half deacent. Plus wheels and tires.

Bang for your buck, after a SpecV, WRX. Hands down.

yeh ok.. specv = uglier than both wrx and rsx

nah i think the ser looks better than both.

regular sentras are ugly though :bloated:

Hey maceez13, just wanna say, your comments are full of your rice shiiiii. why don't you tell us about what you drive? I bet 50 bucks its some ricemobile like a base rsx with a 5" exhaust tip. by the way dont bother to reply to this post, I'm not interested in your comments. And yes, I'm ignorant.

And mikelemo, why don't we look at things this way, take away the i-vtec in the rsx, and it'll lose about 10000 of it's value plus you get a 90hp car, and with ten grand you can make the interior of a wrx looking like a benz :D
Also, if you drop 50000 bucks in a wrx engine, you can freaken fly. I think the dude that owns that 300hp wrx has about 500 bucks of engine mods in his ride.

What's up ldelaysionl, good job denfeding the wrx from all the ricers man. What's up silverspecv, I think ser's are cool as hell, that's why I've got one too :sun: .

Ok, sorry about that dan, now back on topic. If leather and sunroof mean the world to you, then by all means get the rsx-s. The WRX has better communication with the driver, you can feel the road thru the pedals. To some that mean bad ride quality. But to a true ethusiast, that'll be a dream ride. The wrx is heavier due to its AWD system, and it is not as good on gas as the rsx-s. If you are planning on doing engine mods to your car though, get the wrx. It will not disappoint. (just a little note, replacing the stock air box with a K&N air filter gives the wrx 5 hp, and by putting in high flow cats, you should be able to go up to 250 hp, which is how much hp the jap version have.) Still the same old advise, test drive them and let the machines speak for themselves.

peace out.

Hi again Dan, left out something in my previous post.
If you want to go up to 300 hp, I would'nt recommend nos.

In the WRX, you should only have to:
replace/add a front mount I/C.
boost controller.
Intake and exhaust (just icing on the cake).
turbo timer and bov just to keep things safe.
add a performance clutch while you're at it.

In the RSX-S:
The famous Jackson Racing sc (it's not arround yet, but the way jackson racing do things makes me suspect that it will happen.)
This should give you a 40% boost in power and should cost arround 3-5 grand.


I wouldn't worry too much about the reliability issue in the wrx, if you treat the turbo nicely (ie. turbo timer is a must). because subaru has been working on this engine for years and they build their reputation and pride arround their AWD system (and thier wrx). As for the RSX-S, generally acura/honda vehicles are reliable. One catch though, The enigne and the i-vtec is new technology, so I would wait to see how they do before completely trusting them. Honda seems to have a lot of faith in this engine tho, they put it in a lot of thier vehicles.

actually ass... i drive an rsx type s with nothing on it but a system....i dont care that you dont want to read my comments.. im just giving my opionions just like you.. im sorry if you dont like my opinions but thats your problem not mine.... so Fu*k off

hmmmmm, why would you address your last comment towards me if you really dont care? And if you'd like people to respect your opinion, write something useful. Junk like,
RSX... WRX is jus plain ugly
is just not going anywhere. That's just looks, there are more things to consider when comparing cars.

Don't put down other cars down to make your car look better, give a fair judgement.

peace

i agree with ldelaysionl as much as i can. don't get me wrong the rsx is a real nice car but nice vs. power just doesn't cut it. now pricewise with the subaru ur getting a good deal in power. in the rsx ur getting a good deal in luxury and sportiness. its really what it is ur looking for. i was sort of in the same predicament until i read what i could do with the wrx. sur maybe there aren't many body kits and without one its pretty ugly. but hey there may be a few years to come when some body kit company will find that there is some good business in making a body kit for the wrx. but a noted rally car over a pricy acura its really a great burden that ur faced with.

Originally posted by mikelemo
I wish they made an AWD RSX. I just don't think the WRX has any potential. You look in a magazine (I believe Automotive) with a tricked out WRX, which they have listed at $500,000 (Yes, that's 5 zeros!), and it is 300 HP.

Not worth it. Someone needs to make a way to AWD the RSX. It would be soooo coool!


... Honda... Why FWD??? FWD is a fairly recent concept compared with RWD and AWD, and many people don't see the advantage of having FWD because it is a new concept. RWD, AWD, and FWD all have their different advantages and it also depends on different road conditions to determine their disadvantages and advantages. I believe that Honda is using FWD to prove to the world that there are definitely many advantages with FWD. If Honda suddenly made cars with RWD or AWD... I believe that they would be a even more powerful motor company than they are today. Hell with the WRX... I'd chose the RSX. Oh yeah... If the Type R is comming to North America??? I WOULD WAIT FOR IT RATHER THAN GET THE TYPE S! The Type R has a K20A engine with 220HP Torque(unknown, but definitely more).

at first i chose the RSX over the WRX a long ass time ago, because of the looks of it and the interior, but after comparing WRX's numbers with the RSX, WRX takes it all

rsx looks alot better.... not quite as fast... drove both... but if u drop a turbo in the rsx-s then we are talkin... the only reason the wrx has the power is from the turbo... plus the allwheel drive is nice.. but it takes more power to power the 4 wheels... go wit the rsx...

Originally posted by ballinboi420
rsx looks alot better.... not quite as fast... drove both... but if u drop a turbo in the rsx-s then we are talkin... the only reason the wrx has the power is from the turbo... plus the allwheel drive is nice.. but it takes more power to power the 4 wheels... go wit the rsx...

AGREED:D

Originally posted by ballinboi420
rsx looks alot better.... not quite as fast... drove both... but if u drop a turbo in the rsx-s then we are talkin... the only reason the wrx has the power is from the turbo... plus the allwheel drive is nice.. but it takes more power to power the 4 wheels... go wit the rsx...

drop a turbo in the rsx... and watch it go boom. 11.5 CR ya know. the engine is just too highly strung from the factory. yeah they get a lot of specific output from it, but a 2.0 N/A can only be pushed so far, and they push it so far from the factory its hard to get much more out of it. if you wanna turbo, youre not gonna get any really good results unless you go rebuild the engine to handle it, especially lower compression pistons. but once you lower the compression, its not a 200hp car anymore, so youre turbo has to make up for all that lost power before it makes more.

"only reason the wrx has the power is from the turbo" hmm... maybe its the boxer engine design which is naturally balanced and torquey... plus being a factory turbo means cheap and easy to get a lot more performance out of it. see how much money it would get an rsx to run 12's, and see how much it would take the wrx to run 12's, i think youd be surprised how much cheaper/easier it is in the wrx.

Originally posted by mikelemo
I just don't think the WRX has any potential. You look in a magazine (I believe Automotive) with a tricked out WRX, which they have listed at $500,000 (Yes, that's 5 zeros!), and it is 300 HP.

well duh! thats the prodrive rally car! its got a lot more to it than 300hp! most of the entire car is carbon fiber. the transmission is a specially prepared 6 speed sequential dogbox with autoclutch. the rear differential automatically disengages when the ebrake is pulled to allow smoother handbrake turns. the entire suspension is rally ready. that car does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds on gravel!. it makes 300hp with all the boost and intake restrictions put on to keep it legal in WRC, remove those and it makes a LOT more power.

Originally posted by ldelaysionl


well duh! thats the prodrive rally car! its got a lot more to it than 300hp! most of the entire car is carbon fiber. the transmission is a specially prepared 6 speed sequential dogbox with autoclutch. the rear differential automatically disengages when the ebrake is pulled to allow smoother handbrake turns. the entire suspension is rally ready. that car does 0-60 in 5.4 seconds on gravel!. it makes 300hp with all the boost and intake restrictions put on to keep it legal in WRC, remove those and it makes a LOT more power.

LOL! WELL SAID!!!!!!:D

rsx type-s...

u turbocharge that shit...refine it a lil...dance round the performance...n u get one hot import...(although u still gotta respect the wrx for its performance)

ps...isnt subaru commin out with a new version of the wrx? the wrx sti version??? i herd this car is supposed to giv the lancer evo 7 a run for its money on performance...or sumthing (holla back)

yes there is a STi version.:rolleyes:

I vote RSX!

I won't argue the fact that the WRX is faster. It's a fact and on paper.
The question is, what do you prefer? What do you want in a car?
Is it all about what's under the hood or is it comfort and luxury and a little of what's under the hood?
When I look at the WRX, I personally don't get anything out of it. If we were rally racing, yeah...I would chose the WRX because to ME, that's what it's made for. Again, just my own personal opinion.
I think what really turns me off is the "boxy" shape and the "bug eye" headlights on the WRX. Give it a new look, and I might be all over it!

RSX does have it's pros and cons as well.
Insufficient passenger space(back seats) and not having the AWD technology(especially when driving during winter time...in Canada) are some of the disadvantages of the RSX.
It's sporty look, reliability, luxury(leather seats,.....) are some selling points for this ride.
Everytime I see an RSX, I drop everything I'm doing in order to take a a better look at it. It's a comfortable ride with many extras and when you have a need for speed, it is conveniently available to you!

WRX is definitely a well made car, but I prefer the RSX!

Originally posted by Konfuzion_05
Is it all about what's under the hood or is it comfort and luxury and a little of what's under the hood?

:confused: its all about whats under the hood of course :p

guess we got different tastes, but honstly, my impreza has all the luxury i could ever want. i would rather have manual seats than power, and i would much rather have cloth than leather. i have power everything else. a sunroof would be nice, but its not that important. the interior may not be the highest quality around, but its a damn good design, regardless of the quality of the materials. everything is within easy reach and intuitive to get to. but like i said, we just have different tastes.

oh yeah, id really like friggin cruise control :mad: but the wrx has that.

Originally posted by Konfuzion_05
I think what really turns me off is the "boxy" shape and the "bug eye" headlights on the WRX. Give it a new look, and I might be all over it!

oh yeah, i have to agree with ya the stock headlights are kinda ugly, but the aftermarket options (even the DIY) look good! besides, you cant see the headlights when youre driving anyways :hehe:

Subarus are known to require the most maintenance compared to all other Japanese cars.

the WRX also has lousy mileage. I personally will choose the RSX cuz you're sure that it will last you more than 10 years. Can't say the same for subarus.

RSX would be the wisest choice. Instead of spending $$ on maintenance, you could use it to upgrade your car.

consumer reports ranked subaru higher than honda and toyota in overall reliability.

hmm...
Really? I didn't know that...
Sorry but I still believe that Honda cars are better.
and I'd prefer the Lancer Evolution over Impreza.
Just from looks, performance, etc.
(Subaru doesn't have much cars do they?)
:rolleyes:

the wrx is nicer on paper but it all depends on what you want.... rsx's are easier to soup up in my opinion and better on the street. the wrx is more of a rally car... especially with the awd.

first off i have to say that i would have to see this twin turbo rsx....(captinrsx)..
but anyways they are both great cars, i have the rsx-s, but i hate to admit that i am heavily concidering trading in on a wrx... the rsx is good for handling with the factory strut bars, but i hear that the wrx has good handling too. i raced a wrx the other night...but lets not talk about that. he beat me by about 5 or 6 cars. it was bad. but i like my car and all but i guess i just want somthing faster.. the guy i raced had his cats cut off, a manual boost control, and an apex-i n1 exaust. before the exaust he ran a 13.5. if you want an explosive gas guzzler go with the wrx...but you can look good and feel good and get 27 mpg(while out running most mustangs on the road) with the rsx-s
how much was that twin turbo anyways...concidering nobody even sells a single turbo kit for it yet....im thinkin like 20,000 mabey??