i would just like to add that your spelling of the slang term for bmw is incorrect, it is spelled "bimmer." and a bmw motorcycle is a beamer. other wise a great thread, good stuff here

 

Upon re-reading your original post, it sure sounds like a street racing thread...

--
0==WW==0
"…axles of evil…" - george w. bush

 

I dont know bout us winning against the maxima...its got 30 torque and 35-40 hp on us...maybe 400+ lbs? it would be pretty close IMO...i dont know its track times or handling ability though...but my cousin has it, its one fun car according to him.

 

exactly what year m3's are u talking about? the new ones? the 95 and up's? we're talking stock vs stock right?

 

but they have no torque

 

I drove an audi s4...wicked fast...all i have to say is you guys really pick some fast cars to trial on with a stock rex. I think the STI is a better comparison. Good luck! -Todd-

 

superdave,

In what type of race did you beat the listed vechiles. Highway, Stoplight? I don't believe the stock rex has much on the highway. 4th gear doesn't pull too well.

 

If you are actually discussing street racing, then this is one of the more pointless threads I've seen here

I've got a "bone stock" (man, I hate that term) 2002 WRX and I drive it on the highway and street alongside many of the cars mentioned here. I'm going to come out and say what some of you are dancing around: if you bought a WRX to "own" other people on the street, your money was wasted. I'm a fairly serious driver; my first and second cars were a gray-market BMW 325i and a 911 Carerra (1983, pearl white -- I miss that car!) and I've driven just about everything I can get my hands on over the years.

I love my WRX; it is a fantastic machine for what it does. But to expect it to "own" cars with much higher power-to-weight ratios (which is where REAL performance is measured) and to "drag" against cars with RWD (and even FWD) when our power and torque is split between two differentials is just silly. It isn't what the car was designed for or meant for.

The 2002 WRX is frankly an underpowered car for its weight. I've got a friend with that 3.5 liter Maxima you sneered at; that car will kick your *** any day of the week. He and I drove out on the highway together, and I told him to just drive normally, not to punch it (his is automatic.) To keep up with him I had to shift well above 5k RPM; his passenger said the automatic was shifting HIS car at 3800. Once we hit 70 MPH I couldn't gain on him AT ALL, even at 5600 RPM; by the time I got to 5th he was well ahead of me. He could reach 90 by the time I got to 80, not even breaking a sweat, with an automatic tranny and FWD.

The other real weakness of the WRX is a lack of torque. Torque is the reason that Corvettes, Mustangs and even Audis will eat a WRX alive stock-for-stock. Hell, I've been caught napping at a stoplight by Honda Preludes or the 260 HP Accord and had a very difficult time catching up to them. When you have to hit 4-5k between each shift just to get around town, that is a weak engine with little low-end torque.

Here's the other dirty secret that some of you will never admit even on pain of death: there are a LOT of pickup trucks out there that can kick the crap out of your WRX, street or highway. An $18k Toyota Tacoma will pull past you on the highway like you are standing still -- and why not? No weight, in comparison (that big empty bed!) and TONS of torque.

If you want to compare a WRX to other cars, do it where the comparison was meant to be made: on dirt, on wet gravel, climbing a slippery hill. That AWD we have comes at a price on the street -- power transfer, loss to heat and friction, and differential slip. Put us on a muddy hill, where we were MEANT to be, and we'll kick any Maxima's hind end -- but how often does that happen between home and the 7-11?

 

i have to agree with meilers