View Poll Results: Should I get a wagon or sedan WRX?
Wagon
63
59.43%
Sedan
43
40.57%
Voters: 106. You may not vote on this poll
WRX Wagon or Sedan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Choice was easy for me... wagon
My wife and I have 2 large dogs (a Rottweiler and a White German Shepherd), as well as a new baby (with another one in the planning stages). The wagon has enough room for at least one of the dogs in back (haven't tried making both of them ride back there at the same time yet), and we can transport the dog while the baby's in the car. If we'd gotten a sedan, that wouldn't have been nearly as easy, if it was possible at all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What I would REALLY love is if Subaru came out with a 5-door hatchback that looks like a sedan. This is what Mazda is doing with their Mazda 6, and IMHO the hatch looks better than the sedan, and has 80% of the utility of a wagon without looking like one. Stealth. If stupid US buyers would just wake up and realize the benefits of the hatchback, maybe more manufacturers would do this.
Oh, but if it's a choice between the WRX sedan and wagon; I'd take the wagon if it's a daily driver, but the sedan if it's a toy.
Oh, but if it's a choice between the WRX sedan and wagon; I'd take the wagon if it's a daily driver, but the sedan if it's a toy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Sea Dragon Rex
Uh, maybe I'm missing something but the two areas where the wagon doesn't perform as well as the sedan is accelleration and braking and that's because of the extra 80#. In terms of slalom speed, I seem to recall that the wagon was faster than the sedan (check Motor Trend since they are the only magazine which tested both the sedan and wagon on the slalom). Might be because of the narrower stance and/or better weight distribution.
Uh, maybe I'm missing something but the two areas where the wagon doesn't perform as well as the sedan is accelleration and braking and that's because of the extra 80#. In terms of slalom speed, I seem to recall that the wagon was faster than the sedan (check Motor Trend since they are the only magazine which tested both the sedan and wagon on the slalom). Might be because of the narrower stance and/or better weight distribution.
Unless both the sedan and the wagon were tested back to back under exactly the same conditions by the same driver, i would not rely too heavily on those results.
Besides, Motor Trend testers are NOT exactly top notch Autocross drivers so I would'nt trust their ability to consistently extract the maximum out of a car.
Also, was the wagon fitted with the same tire/wheel package as the sedan? As I recall, the Wagon in the test against the Matrix and the Protege5, was equipped with the optional 17-inch wheels. That can make a HUGE difference!
All else being equal, a wider track will increase a car's slalom speed.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 179
From: somewhere in the U.S.
Wagon.
1) The hatch protects most things going into the "trunk" from the rain.
2) Rear leg room increases by 3 inches.
3) If the driver of the sedan = 200 lbs. and the driver of a wagon = 160lbs. the difference = 40 lbs. Not a heck of a lot of difference.
4) Ask gtguy or jorge, on nasioc.com, and they will tell ya all about wagons with the works.
5) Sleeper.
6) Rare.
7) $500 cheaper.
8) Equally upgradable, minus a few body kits, rims, and aluminum control arms. Wait till us wagon owners get ours!
9) Space for everything, and almost anything.
10) Best of all, you can do the nasty, if you ever care to (and no, I have never, nor will I ever. EVER!).
i.
2) Rear leg room increases by 3 inches.
3) If the driver of the sedan = 200 lbs. and the driver of a wagon = 160lbs. the difference = 40 lbs. Not a heck of a lot of difference.
4) Ask gtguy or jorge, on nasioc.com, and they will tell ya all about wagons with the works.
5) Sleeper.
6) Rare.
7) $500 cheaper.
8) Equally upgradable, minus a few body kits, rims, and aluminum control arms. Wait till us wagon owners get ours!
9) Space for everything, and almost anything.
10) Best of all, you can do the nasty, if you ever care to (and no, I have never, nor will I ever. EVER!).
i.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 201
From: Somerville MASS
I have to 100% diagree with one point there
6) Rare
No way are these rare. Not around eastern Mass anyway. I see more wagons than I do sedans.
I myself am a sedan guy. But I do have to say, there is a certain cool feeling you have when driving a "grocery getter" that runs in the 14's bone stock...
No way are these rare. Not around eastern Mass anyway. I see more wagons than I do sedans.
I myself am a sedan guy. But I do have to say, there is a certain cool feeling you have when driving a "grocery getter" that runs in the 14's bone stock...
wagons rule!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 162
From: Reston VA (not dead, just reston)
Car Info: '02 WRX TurboXS Stage 4
Hey danwink
Have you come to a decision?
Do you check this anymore?
What is it you have decided and when did/do you pick it up?
After all this debate how about some closure.
Have you come to a decision?
Do you check this anymore?
What is it you have decided and when did/do you pick it up?
After all this debate how about some closure.
Last edited by Andersonwrx; Dec 28, 2002 at 11:17 PM.
VIP Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 469
From: Pleasant Hill, CA
Car Info: 02 WRB Wagon (Cobb AccessPort, P7's), 2-73 914 2.0, 74 914-2.0
Agreed that magazine numbers are not absolute but they are a resource. Look at the numbers on the track (auto-x and big track) and you'll notice that the difference between the cars in stock form comes down more to driver than car potential. I disagree with your assertion that greater track equals faster slalom speed. In that case, the widest car should be the fastest. It has more to do with the way the car transitions and the balance of the car. The narrower car can actually have an advantage in that the is does not have to traverse as much laterally as a wide car does. In the case of the wagon vs. the sedan, I doubt the 1" of track makes that much of a difference in stock handling. And, the wagon has better balance than the sedan which could enable it to transition better.
I'm not sure if the wagon had the 17" wheels for that test (or on the sedan for that matter) but after driving both in stock form with the 16" wheels, the difference feels negligible (on the street and not timed on the track).
I'm not sure if the wagon had the 17" wheels for that test (or on the sedan for that matter) but after driving both in stock form with the 16" wheels, the difference feels negligible (on the street and not timed on the track).
Originally posted by 97itr153
Rule #1 regarding magazine test data.
Unless both the sedan and the wagon were tested back to back under exactly the same conditions by the same driver, i would not rely too heavily on those results.
Besides, Motor Trend testers are NOT exactly top notch Autocross drivers so I would'nt trust their ability to consistently extract the maximum out of a car.
Also, was the wagon fitted with the same tire/wheel package as the sedan? As I recall, the Wagon in the test against the Matrix and the Protege5, was equipped with the optional 17-inch wheels. That can make a HUGE difference!
All else being equal, a wider track will increase a car's slalom speed.
Rule #1 regarding magazine test data.
Unless both the sedan and the wagon were tested back to back under exactly the same conditions by the same driver, i would not rely too heavily on those results.
Besides, Motor Trend testers are NOT exactly top notch Autocross drivers so I would'nt trust their ability to consistently extract the maximum out of a car.
Also, was the wagon fitted with the same tire/wheel package as the sedan? As I recall, the Wagon in the test against the Matrix and the Protege5, was equipped with the optional 17-inch wheels. That can make a HUGE difference!
All else being equal, a wider track will increase a car's slalom speed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Sea Dragon Rex
In that case, the widest car should be the fastest. It has more to do with the way the car transitions and the balance of the car. The narrower car can actually have an advantage in that the is does not have to traverse as much laterally as a wide car does. In the case of the wagon vs. the sedan, I doubt the 1" of track makes that much of a difference in stock handling. And, the wagon has better balance than the sedan which could enable it to transition better.
In that case, the widest car should be the fastest. It has more to do with the way the car transitions and the balance of the car. The narrower car can actually have an advantage in that the is does not have to traverse as much laterally as a wide car does. In the case of the wagon vs. the sedan, I doubt the 1" of track makes that much of a difference in stock handling. And, the wagon has better balance than the sedan which could enable it to transition better.
And yes you are correct that the wagon has better overall balance but that is negated by thinner real roll bar and the narrower track.
I have driven both a stock wagon and a stock sedan at an autocross driving school event where i got 6-7 laps in each car. Both cars were manuals and had factory alignment settings. I kept switching cars during the event. The Sedan was consistently faster by about 0.3 seconds on a 40 second course. I cannot say for sure that the sedan was making time in the slalom, but it was turning in sharper during transitions.
Here are the times from the printout.
Sedan
1. 43.89 (DNF)
2. 42.02
3. 41.83
4. 41.61 =>FASTEST LAP
5. 41.77
6. 41.64 (+1 cone)
Wagon
1. 42.53
2. 42.26
3. 42.01
4. 42.08
5. 41.97 (+1 cone)
6. 41.93 => FASTEST LAP
7. 42.09
BTW I own a wagon and I love it ! To me the 0.3 seconds are not worth the lack of cargo capacity.
VIP Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 469
From: Pleasant Hill, CA
Car Info: 02 WRB Wagon (Cobb AccessPort, P7's), 2-73 914 2.0, 74 914-2.0
Now that's a good comparison! From your timing slips it looks like you are very consistent. .3 is a lot of time difference. Were the cars identically prepared? I know you said stock suspension and tires but were the tire pressures the same, fuel level close and/or same amount of wear on the tires?
I seem to recall that running my 914 with 1/4 of a tank of gas was about a tenth or two faster than running with 3/4 tank. Also, tire wear and pressure can make a big difference. Of course, the extra 80# alone could be the difference considering it would impact braking and accelleration times (I'm surprised it would be that much but considering it probably adds .1 sec to 0-60 times).
I seem to recall that running my 914 with 1/4 of a tank of gas was about a tenth or two faster than running with 3/4 tank. Also, tire wear and pressure can make a big difference. Of course, the extra 80# alone could be the difference considering it would impact braking and accelleration times (I'm surprised it would be that much but considering it probably adds .1 sec to 0-60 times).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately, i dont remember anything about the fuel level or the condition of the tires. They were both on OEM tires though. As far as the acceleration or braking was concerned, i could'nt tell the difference. However the turn-in characteristics of the sedan were better and the wagon was more prone to understeer. The course was not a typical autoX course as it was full of slaloms and transitions (no straightaways), so the difference between the two cars might have been somewhat exaggerated.
Although I have been autocrossing for a few years now, including 2 trips to the SCCA Nationals in Topeka, I too was surprised at the consistency of my times. Normally, I am not that consistent when I autoX my D-Stock Type-R. On the other hand, since I was trying to compare the two cars, i was trying very hard not to deviate from the lines and braking/acceleration points througout the day. If I was attempting to set absolute fast lap, i can alsmost guarentee i would have been less consistent.
Having said all that, looking at one person's autox lap times dosent provide any more evidence than a typical magazine road test. Still, it is a reasonable indicator.
Although I have been autocrossing for a few years now, including 2 trips to the SCCA Nationals in Topeka, I too was surprised at the consistency of my times. Normally, I am not that consistent when I autoX my D-Stock Type-R. On the other hand, since I was trying to compare the two cars, i was trying very hard not to deviate from the lines and braking/acceleration points througout the day. If I was attempting to set absolute fast lap, i can alsmost guarentee i would have been less consistent.
Having said all that, looking at one person's autox lap times dosent provide any more evidence than a typical magazine road test. Still, it is a reasonable indicator.
