The sti is a nice drive, but...

I haven't driven a WRX, but my MY02 RS will gear down into first while moving. I do it regularly.

Ditto for my 2002TS. No problems getting into first while the car is moving.

If you are going faster then 5-10 kph, you do have to double clutch it.

R.

I did buy an STi. The tranny seems pretty solid and the clutch is different than the WRX. In addition, it is the same tranny that is in all STi cars worldwide. The difference the North American version has is the 2.5L vs the

2.0L turbo. I am more concerned with the engine than the tranny. However, Subaru has a pretty good track record, so I am pretty comfortable with it.

They have, there is a tsb for replacing the WRX clutch.

Steve

>

They are not. The STi 2.5L has been strengthened, the rods and valves are different, and it has variable valve timing. In addition, it is nearly impossible to get the correct fuel in most places (it needs 93+ octane). Consequently, one has to resort to octane boost additives. These are the things that concern me.

Not sure what this has to do with the original thread, but morden is correct. The engines are essentially the same:

- DOHC vs. SOHC engine on 2.0l or non-turbo

- variable valve timing (Active Valve Control System)

- enhanced semi-closed deck aluminum engine block

- redesigned pistons and camshaft to reduce weight

- electronic throttle control

Sure, the STi produces more boost and has a larger intercooler. And thanks to the increased boost, higher octane is a really good thing (even the Forester needs 91+ octane).

By the way, C/D tested the Forester XT at 5.3 sec 0-60mph and 13.8 sec @

97 mph - both subtantially better than the WRX!

- D.

Actually, it doesn't produce more boost - 14.2 PSI same as the 2L WRX. It also has the same compression ratio of 8:1. Saying that the STi 2.5L is like all the other 2.5L with all of the differences you highlighted is like saying the Dodge 3.0L is the same as GM 3.1L; both have 6 cylinders so they are the same...

The Forester is essentially the same chassis as a the Impreza, and it is geared much lower than the WRX. It has better low-end grunt than the WRX (which makes sense since it is targeting an SUV market), but it tops out substantially slower than a WRX (which also makes sense; the WRX is a rally-inspired car). However, 5.3 secs 0-60 is not a whole lot faster than the WRX. In addition, handling is where the WRX shines. Both the WRX and the STi are up around the .9 range (.93-.96 for the STi, depending on who you talk to) on the skid pad, where the Forester was in the .78-.84 range.

They are different vehicles for totally different purposes.

The WRX or at least mine has to be going 10 mph or less to get back into 1st gear. Makes for a problem in Autocross. Maybe Redline would help? Either way it's may last WRX mainly due to teh oversensitive ABS which has nearly gotten m into accidents on dry road at low speeds. A pothole will activate the ABS and it takes longer to stop in a straight line. Forget winter driving I've had $300 POS beater cars that stopped better. Their ABS is known to be oversensitive. Plenty of other cars out there and in 3 years unless the problem is fixed my next car will NOT be a Subaru.

The Forester XT has only 11.6 psi boost.

I guess I did not make myself clear - those are *similarities*, not differences. And I forgot to mention the sodium-filled exhaust valves. Of course, I am only talking about the 2.5l turbo in the Forester and Baja, not about the NA engines.

And the Forester is a brick on wheels - after 80mph or so wind resistance will play a role.

I agree, although with a little suspension work (minumum, thicker sway bar) and some decent tires, the difference would narrow a bit. By the way, C/D only recorded 0.81g for the WRX with stock tires (although I think that number can be disputed!)

Yes, and also for different type of owners. I prefer the stealth of the XT, and I am sure I will get fewer midlife-crisis comments when I buy it.

- D.

Ooops, with 'double clutch' I'm sure we have gone over the heads of those that can't get it into first over 10 mph.

I can shift my 02 Outback MT5 into first at 30 mph, without even pushing in the clutch.

Do it regularly. In fact I often don't use the clutch for most everyday normal shifting. Its just a habit, didn't do it with my SHO either, though I could shift it into first at

45 mph without pushing in the clutch, due to much higher gearing. Comes from driving unsynched trannies and shifting them relentlessly till the clutch becomes a bother.

nate

Perhaps I should reword: "If *I* am going faster then 5-10 kph, I feel more comfortable double clutching it" :)

As far as not using the clutch at all..... ick. Never could work up the nerve to try and regularly shift without it. That grinding noise if you don't nail it perfectly really gets to me :).

Cheers,

R.

Legal towing weights are completely unrelated to the size and power of the engine. It's the *braking* ability that is normally at issue -- distance to stop from a given speed, and the amount of control you have while doing it.

-- Bruce

Yep.

I'm not recommending it to anybody else. I have an ear for it, and never grind anything. I can go thirty miles per hour and shift into all five gears without a single grind.

Just something I enjoy doing. Its why I own a five speed.

I did it with my Taurus SHO from 60k to 185k, and the tranny was still perfect, and is in another SHO now, after the Ford underbody rusted away.

Thanks for rewording your comments. I think your on my side of the fence.

nate

You regularly shift into first at 30mph, w/o the clutch. So you put it in neutral blip it to 6k, push on the stick and wait for the revs to match? Why bother?

Hmm. There seems to be a fair amount of variance for skid pad recordings depending on who you talk to...

LOL

...

From the recent usnews review (

):"With a whale's tail rear spoiler and a hood scoop the size of a snow shovel, the STi has the gaudy look of a 17-year-old's shop project. When I was that age, I would have drooled over the STi and maybe even hung a poster of it in my room. But as a 30-something with two kids, I felt self-conscious driving it around, like somebody having an industrial-strength midlife crisis." See, I am not the only one who thinks that way ;-)

As reviewed by Captain Milquetoast.

hey, that's what the link was for. You are right, I don't think it's a bad review at all. But my point was not whether it would grow on me, I am sure it could. Perhaps I am just a Caspar Milquetoast after all. Nah- than I would want to buy an Outlander or an Avalon, not an XT...

- D.

Face it, we'd have KEPT those fun cars if we didn't do that 'family' thing. It isn't 'mid-life crisis' it's going back to where we belong! It's reclaiming that which we sacrificed for our kids and others. We're about

16-21 on the inside - we just know more stuff.

Is it midlife crisis when our females want the botox, breast lifts, dermabrasion, tummy tucks so they can try to look like....well...CHEERLEADERS!

Carl

1 Lucky Texan (still wish> FNO wrote: