2004 2.5 RS vs 2004 WRX
2004 2.5 RS vs 2004 WRX
10-19-2003, 08:12 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am planning on getting a wrx, but there is a little piece of me that likes the RS better.
Personally, I like the RS for it's low-end punch, and the simplicity and lower cost all around of the N/A engine. I don't know a whole lot about engines, and the RS seems like it would be easier to learn on.
That being said, drive one back to back with a wrx and the RS feels a little lacking. It handles about as good IMO, but the RS engine seems loud and unrefined compared to the rex. Even when pushed hard, the wrx seemed quieter and smoother.
Since I will probably not be doing any major modding, for me I think the wrx is worth the extra money. Just my 2cents....
Good Luck!
Personally, I like the RS for it's low-end punch, and the simplicity and lower cost all around of the N/A engine. I don't know a whole lot about engines, and the RS seems like it would be easier to learn on.
That being said, drive one back to back with a wrx and the RS feels a little lacking. It handles about as good IMO, but the RS engine seems loud and unrefined compared to the rex. Even when pushed hard, the wrx seemed quieter and smoother.
Since I will probably not be doing any major modding, for me I think the wrx is worth the extra money. Just my 2cents....
Good Luck!
10-19-2003, 08:21 PM
#4
The RS won't have the turbo lag that the wrx has, it's a little better when you're in traffic where the low end punch comes in handy, but once the turbo spools, woo-hoo. I looked on MSN and this is what I found out for you, the wrx comes with a LSD where the RS does not. Safety-wise, the wrx has front side airbags with head protection where the RS does not. That's off of MSN, if it's wrong then I goofed 
10-21-2003, 11:37 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 173
Car Info: 2002 WRX wagon
I've been a driver since about 1950, starting with an International pickup, a giant Packard, a hugh Chrysler, a Dodge hemi, a Simca (great little car) a '68 289 Mustang that a drove for 214K miles, and others: a '97 Neon and several Hondas, and others I have forgotten about. The only one even close was the Mustang for fun. My 02 wrx has peeled many a layer of age away. I especially love the look on low slung loud Civics when I dust them, especially on some of the more challenging parts of the Northeast- the curving roads, hills and dales. Get either one, and be happy! For me: its the vvvvvvvooooooooooooooom!
10-21-2003, 12:03 PM
#7
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
go with the turbo, you will never be unhappy with the performace a turbo gives you
down the road when you have to spend the big money to get the RS running as fast as the WRX, you will regret the purchase of the RS over the WRX
down the road when you have to spend the big money to get the RS running as fast as the WRX, you will regret the purchase of the RS over the WRX
10-27-2003, 06:35 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Arcade, NY
Posts: 462
Car Info: 2004 2.5TS manual
One thing I noticed with the RS and TS when compared to the WRX is the engine noise.
I had the pleasure of test driving an 04 wrx with my brother and then hopping back into my 04 TS.
The 2.5 seems louder than the 2.0
I had the pleasure of test driving an 04 wrx with my brother and then hopping back into my 04 TS.
The 2.5 seems louder than the 2.0
10-27-2003, 07:52 PM
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally posted by Malero
well its a 2.5 engine vs a 2.0 engine...... so the 2.5 would be alot better for long term modding.
well its a 2.5 engine vs a 2.0 engine...... so the 2.5 would be alot better for long term modding.
10-28-2003, 12:09 AM
#10
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: LA, 91355
Posts: 352
Car Info: '03 WRX WRB
the 2.5 engine also has only 2 valves per cylinder. this means it probably won't respond well to any forced induction plans you might have. you should check the rs forum here and see what kind of numbers they'r putting down and with what mods.. actually im curious myself now.
10-28-2003, 12:14 AM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bike Lane
Posts: 2,531
Car Info: Black 2003 WRX Sedan
spend a little extra now and get the WRX, you not only get the extras like the seat air bags and the LSD, but like Ban Suvs and Scott said, it will be eaiser to mod it later, and will be a better platform to start out on.
10-28-2003, 06:56 AM
#12
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally posted by gordy
the 2.5 engine also has only 2 valves per cylinder. this means it probably won't respond well to any forced induction plans you might have. you should check the rs forum here and see what kind of numbers they'r putting down and with what mods.. actually im curious myself now.
the 2.5 engine also has only 2 valves per cylinder. this means it probably won't respond well to any forced induction plans you might have. you should check the rs forum here and see what kind of numbers they'r putting down and with what mods.. actually im curious myself now.
It's a 16 valve engine!
-Gagan
10-28-2003, 07:00 AM
#13
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally posted by Malero
well its a 2.5 engine vs a 2.0 engine...... so the 2.5 would be alot better for long term modding.
well its a 2.5 engine vs a 2.0 engine...... so the 2.5 would be alot better for long term modding.
As Ban Suvs has stated, this is not true at all. You cannot even make top power on a RS-T over a well built WRX. The EJ205 is made for forced induction, whereas the EJ251 is not. Yes, it will make more torque and more power on a level boost, but you will hit a plateau where realiblility comes into play.
if you have the money, get the WRX.
-Gagan