I had purchased a WRX from our local dealer (the next nearest is over 75 miles away) in early 2001. i had traded in a 1999 vw mk4 golf vr6, I had to get on a list and wait for it, so I was never able to test drive it first. If I had drove it first, or at least sat in it I most likely would not have made the purchase due to lack of quality fit and finish. I understand that this was a great car for not alot of money (in terms of performance that is) but it was a complete let down for me. My other car is 1989 951 S (2.5 liter, kkk hybrid 26/27 turbo). These cars are very cheap used (48k new/12 to 18k used!), very well put together, easily tuneable (320 hp with a chip change)handle very, very well (adj bilsteins and sway bars from the factory [w/m030 option]!) brembo 4 piston calipers and forged alloy wheels and are easy find! In my OPINION, this car and others like it are the best performance value out there right now.

 

porsches are great cars and i lust for a 911 very, very much...but the stock 944 is not going to be able to hang with a stock WRX let alone an STi..with a stock 208hp(right?) and almost 3000lbs(?) its no slouch but no match for a modern WRX...the numbers and specs you quote are for a modified 944--as we all know the WRX can also be modified for relatively low $$$...and as in any car that old you, as they say, buy in "as is condition"...if you were lucky enough to find a good one for the price you said and modified it to produce 320hp with a total outlay of less than $30k rthen good for you---but still we will smoke you with our STis!!!

 

First of all, the guy has a 1989 944 turbo, which stock-for-stock will eat a WRX for lunch, and certainly give an STi a good run. 250HP, 243lb-ft of torque in a 2700-lb car. It could run 13s easily. And on top of that, his is modified.

The N/A 944s came in several configurations and horsepower ratings. The 2.5L 8v had approx. 150 to 160HP, depending on model year. The 2.5 16v was rated at approx. 190 HP and the 3.0 16v (aka 944 S2 and precursor to 968) at approx. 210HP. An S2 would hang with an WRX pretty easily, and the 2.5 16v probably would too. Off the line they are obviously at a disadvantage but from a roll, it's a wash.

Now, I'm not sure what the guy is getting at. Is he disappointed that the WRX doesn't stack up to a 951 in terms of performance, fit and finish? If that's the case, I reckon you get what you pay for. An '89 944 turbo sold for today's equivalent of $68,000. Those of us who don't have that kind of money to shell out, yet don't want to buy 15 years worth of mileage and wear & tear, will gladly settle for cheaper plastic and a little more wind noise.

I've seen this argument time and time again. It's almost a religion on the DSM boards. "Why buy a new car when you can make a faster car for less money?" Answer: You can buy a cheap old car with 100,000 miles on it and hop it up if you want. It might be faster, but in the end, you still have a cheap old car with 100,000 miles on it and the maintenance headaches that go with it.

My WRX hasn't had a single maintenance problem in 40,000 miles. I wonder how many 944 owners or hopped-up DSM owners can say the same thing.

 

How is this related to the STI? Now I am not cutting any one down but what has this to do with the STI countdown. I have been seeing non discript subjects. Like rumor, let me see...

We need better subjects like "old 911 turbo will eat an STI" or "911 Kicks Butt". Put this junk in the OT forum.

Blue