RSX vs. WRX?

[Layla's Keeper]

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.

[-The Stig-]

Originally Posted by ghostxranger

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.

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

[Layla's Keeper]

Originally Posted by ghostxranger

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.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by ghostxranger

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

[TatII]

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.

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by ghostxranger

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.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Layla's Keeper

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...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.

[LjasonL]

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.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

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, at $24,415 dealer-price (at least locally to me), will be THAT much slower than a $25,560 Subaru WRX, 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?

[Layla's Keeper]

I stand corrected carrrnutt. Now let's talk twelves.

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.

[flylwsi]

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...

[LjasonL]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

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...

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 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.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by ldelaysionl

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.

[Steiner]

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