Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: GTI vs Impreza 2.5RS
- Thread starter Lord Blackadder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, that's the normal split for it. They can go 50/50 when necessary. There's also a fuse for FWD only, for when you have a donut on or some other situation.
Don't park illegally.
a five year old GTI or a 10 year old Impreza ?
take the 2002 GTI over a 1998 Impreza.
if they're both 2000 models, well that's a different question entirely.
take the 2002 GTI over a 1998 Impreza.
if they're both 2000 models, well that's a different question entirely.
Hard to say what year I'll get - the 2.5RS was not available in 2001, and in 2002 they released a new generation that is out of my price range.
My biggest problem with the scooby is avilability - they only made the "original" 2.5 RS for 3 years, and they didn't make it to our shores in huge numbers. Finding one is proving more difficult than expected, though I want to give each a test drive before I make a final decision.
My biggest problem with the scooby is avilability - they only made the "original" 2.5 RS for 3 years, and they didn't make it to our shores in huge numbers. Finding one is proving more difficult than expected, though I want to give each a test drive before I make a final decision.
I don't think they made it to our shores at all, I think the most powerful non turbo'd Impreza was a 2 litre, and they're agricultural in their speed.
They don't sell mild Lancer's over there then?
The 2.5 RS was released to test the waters for the coming of the WRX in 2002. The 2.5 liter four was ripped straight out of the Legacy. It isn't light but with 165HP and lots of torque it's a decent power plant, and according to tuners it takes well to turbos.
The Lancer first made it to the states in 2002, and the Evo followed soon after - but the first Lancers all had a 120HP engine - quite slow. They came out with an "OZ-Rally" edition that tried to look fast - but they didn't touch the drivetrain, so it was a complete poser. Now the base Lancer has a 152HP engine, so it's probably a better drive...still, they don't seem to be setting any sales records. Most people that know about Lancer are only interested in the Evo anyhow.
The Evo is so very much better looking than the current WRX, it's painful.
The Lancer first made it to the states in 2002, and the Evo followed soon after - but the first Lancers all had a 120HP engine - quite slow. They came out with an "OZ-Rally" edition that tried to look fast - but they didn't touch the drivetrain, so it was a complete poser. Now the base Lancer has a 152HP engine, so it's probably a better drive...still, they don't seem to be setting any sales records. Most people that know about Lancer are only interested in the Evo anyhow.
The Evo is so very much better looking than the current WRX, it's painful.
The stock EJ25 (2.5 4 cylinder boxer) does NOT take well to turbos. They make several aftermarket turbo bolt on kits but if you run it at anything past 4-5psi the engine will crap out.
The 2.5L in the STi, for example, has completely different internals to handle the boost.
Having said that, I have a 2005 2.5RS and I love it. It's 165 hp/166 torque and it's great around town (same engine from the RS's you are looking at). I get 25-30 mpg range and it has great torque down low. And my car is about 230 lbs heavier than the GC chassis style that you are looking for. But the interior is nicer
FYI the GC 2.5 RS was available as a sedan also, not sure if that would make a huge difference in insurance.
I don't really know anything about VWs but the 1.8T is supposed to be an amazing engine.
Good luck in your car-buying decision!
After owning four VWs (including a Mk4 Jetta VR6) I refuse to ever sit my butt in another VWAG product. I loved driving the car, but I hated owning it. It was never major problems, it was always the petty little things that frustrated the everloving crap out of me.
Of course now I've gone to the other end of the spectrum driving a Toyota, so maybe I'm biased.
Of course now I've gone to the other end of the spectrum driving a Toyota, so maybe I'm biased.
My mum drives that Golf, just that ours has an "S" on the front instead of the VW Logo. She says its very fast, nice to drive, and a lot better than the 115HP golfs we've had. Go for the golf!
You could easily get it to 220BHP with an ECU flash. The Mk1 Seat Cupra R had it IIRC.
. She says its very fast, nice to drive, and a lot better than the 115HP golfs we've had. Go for the golf!You could easily get it to 220BHP with an ECU flash. The Mk1 Seat Cupra R had it IIRC.
Actually, the history of VW's 1.8L goes back into the early '80s. I had one in my '84 Scirocco and a buddy had the same in his '83. Back then, it put out 90HP, which was a great-for-its-day 100HP per liter. I still miss that car as that engine was a nice stroker (good torque).
In any event, I nearly bought a GTI in 2002. At that point in time, the motor choices were the VR6 or the 1.8T (turbo). I don't recall if it was VAG's "old" 1.8T (which my wife has in her 2000 Audi A4), which was around 180HP and ran on 87 octane (regular), or the "new" 1.8T which had a few more ponies (200HP?) but required 91 (super). In test-driving it..and having lived with my wife's car for the past 8 years...I found the output level of the 1.8T to be fine.
There are two cautionary notes -
#1 is that in this time period, VAG had a "sludging" issue. If I recall correctly, the simple bottom line is that the cars should have been run on pure synthetic motor oil, as the non-synthetic stuff was breaking down and sludging from the heat, which could cause a blockage and motor misery. I know that Audi had a warranty extension; don't know if VW did or not.
#2 is that the 1.8T was very easy to do 'chip' mods on. While its nice to have a bit more power, I'd probably pass on a used car that had one done by a prior owner, because its a reasonable indicator that the car got flogged, which invariably shortens its life. If nothing else, use this as a negotiating point to haggle and try to get another $500 off the asking price of the car.
All cautions and caveats aside, I'd personally get the VW. I had 11 years of good experience with my Scirocco, and while VW did have electronic gremblins in later model years, I believe that they've sorted out a lot of their problems, and I enjoy the teutonic setup of vehicles. That, plus there's my general concern that the Subaru with its rear wing is more likely a police ticket magnet, and a couple of years of newer model year fits into the 'buy the newest you can afford' paradigm for getting a reliable car.
-hh
Hmm...I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the 2.5 had forged internals....my Nissan's K24DE did, and according to the tuner forums people had gotten 400HP at the crank on stock internals. I'll bet all the turbo 2.5 engines do, but I suppose the earlier ones may not.
Not that I would ever put a turbo kit on any car I drive daily...I'm helping my friend do a turbo on his Integra GSR and while it is coming along nicely it is a lot of work to do properly...and expensive too.
[/QUOTE]Having said that, I have a 2005 2.5RS and I love it. It's 165 hp/166 torque and it's great around town (same engine from the RS's you are looking at). I get 25-30 mpg range and it has great torque down low. And my car is about 230 lbs heavier than the GC chassis style that you are looking for. But the interior is nicer
[/QUOTE]The 2002+ cars are out of my price range, unfortunately. In my area Subarus have a very strong resale value, stronger than Hondas. I have heard about the sedan version of the 2.5RS but I've never, ever seen one.
Thanks.
I intend to use fully synthetic oil (I always have), so hopefully the previous owner won't have screwed it up for me.
The 2000 (AWD) and 2001 (AWW) code engines get 150HP, while the 2002+ (AWP) engines get 180. There are a few differences, but the major ones are in software, so you can take either engine to 200HP with no real loss in reliability.
However, I'm more interested in putting a limited slip in it, since I think that will improve the car more than adding horsepower.
I'm impressed that the stock altima engine has forged internals - those are usually higher cost parts.
The stock 2.0L in the older WRXs could handle a lot of increased boost, and of course the stock 2.5L in the STI.
I'm fairly positive that the naturally aspirated 2.5 doesn't have forged internals. I was just reading about a guy who wrecked his 2005 2.5RS only running ~6psi.
Here's some good info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_EJ_engine
Also, some good subaru forums for some info:
www.nasioc.com
www.rs25.com
rs25.com is really good for the GC RS - lots of good info on there and quite a few for sale. There might be some in your area.
In a perfect world I'd take a loaded 2002 GTI, but that is at the extreme edge of affordability for me.
It all comes down to what I find and exactly how much money the insurance company gives me.
It all comes down to what I find and exactly how much money the insurance company gives me.
Well in the interest of money I would go with a Subaru. You don't realize the cost of parts on a european car until you own one.
Both the GTi and the 2.5RS are G-Stock cars (SCCA Solo II). From an overall performance standpoint, they are fairly equal. I used to race GS (and later DSP) in my old Neon back in the day and got to see a few pushed much harder than you'll ever see/do on the street.
I've had friends and family that have owned both of those cars - reliability isn't much of an issue for either. Price of parts depends on what goes wrong, where you shop, and how much work you can do yourself. Either way you go, register with some of the enthusiast forum sites; you'll find tons of help and run a good shot at finding cheap used parts if needed. I've also found that most salvage yards tend to be pretty reliable (www.car-parts.com is indespensible!).
If it was me, it would be the GTi and a dedicated set of Nokian tires for the winter. AWD on all-season tires ain't much, the GTi is a blast to drive, and an
sticker looks more appropriate on the GTi's rear window .
I've had friends and family that have owned both of those cars - reliability isn't much of an issue for either. Price of parts depends on what goes wrong, where you shop, and how much work you can do yourself. Either way you go, register with some of the enthusiast forum sites; you'll find tons of help and run a good shot at finding cheap used parts if needed. I've also found that most salvage yards tend to be pretty reliable (www.car-parts.com is indespensible!).
If it was me, it would be the GTi and a dedicated set of Nokian tires for the winter. AWD on all-season tires ain't much, the GTi is a blast to drive, and an
sticker looks more appropriate on the GTi's rear window .Just my 2 cents.
My family has had 3 VWs and 2 Subarus. 1981 and 1985 Vanagons, both had major problems. The 1985 Vanagon caught on fire upon ignition at 11,000 miles (not good!). 1987 Jetta GL was my first car, and it had nothing but problems starting at 20,000 miles. Leaking transmission, bad engine timing, bad brakes, the list goes on... it lasted only 120,000 miles and was fixed many times for tons of money. No more VWs for me!
Now my 2 Subarus: 1999 Legacy Wagon 170,000 miles with zero problems. Just needed oil change, brakes, tires, starter, and power steering pump. Finally died just a few months ago when it was burning oil and I neglected to put in more oil. 2002 Forester 50,000 miles and still going strong. This was my wife's car so it had low miles. But again, zero problems. Just one recalled item about the coolant.
You heart may vote for the VW, but your wallet will vote for the Subaru.
My family has had 3 VWs and 2 Subarus. 1981 and 1985 Vanagons, both had major problems. The 1985 Vanagon caught on fire upon ignition at 11,000 miles (not good!). 1987 Jetta GL was my first car, and it had nothing but problems starting at 20,000 miles. Leaking transmission, bad engine timing, bad brakes, the list goes on... it lasted only 120,000 miles and was fixed many times for tons of money. No more VWs for me!
Now my 2 Subarus: 1999 Legacy Wagon 170,000 miles with zero problems. Just needed oil change, brakes, tires, starter, and power steering pump. Finally died just a few months ago when it was burning oil and I neglected to put in more oil. 2002 Forester 50,000 miles and still going strong. This was my wife's car so it had low miles. But again, zero problems. Just one recalled item about the coolant.
You heart may vote for the VW, but your wallet will vote for the Subaru.
I've had my fill of American cars for the time being. I know it sounds a bit snobby, but they just aren't good enough. If I was buying a truck I'd probably be shopping American, but for a sporty compact car the options from the Big Three are pretty grim. I haven't seen anything decent since the SVT Contour and Focus checked out.
.. and an
This is true. Well, that settles it then.
Yeah, I've been researching the engines and I've noticed that pretty much the only difference is the boost on the turbo, though some of the 2001 engines have a slightly different compression ratio.
Some cars still use the 1.8t with 150BHP, the Seat Ibiza FR, and the Polo GTI I think. The GTI is a good car, you wont regret getting it. Upgrade it a bit as well, like 220BHP with an ECU mod.
Like I said before, the first upgrade I'd be interested in would be a Quaife limited slip, and a good set of tires. "Chip" mods can be scary, I'm a bit suspicious of those. I'd prefer to get a 180HP version and keep the engine basically stock.