WRX or A4? That is the question...

[Graphics Man]

I've been thinking about getting a new car ever since my 95 Talon Tsi started to experience the dreaded crankwalk problem. :-(

I've been looking at both the WRX and the 1.8t A4 Quattro. The A4 is definately better looking, but the WRX handles SO nice and is very quick. While test driving it, I spanked a 5.0 mustang (I had a young salesman with me, don't buy that particular WRX though ;-) ). It's a tough choice. The WRX is cheaper, faster, handles better, more unique, but is not as refined as the A4. The look is growing on me, but I'm a rally fan. I also hate the 2002 A4's, so I would be getting a 2000-2001. Audi made a mistake by rounding off the car, it looks like a small A6 which I think is hideous.

Opinions?

If you haven't done it yet, you HAVE to testdrive a WRX. They are fun as hell, even if you wouldn't ever buy one. It reminds me of my Talom, pure pocket rocket: all engine and handling, no money spent on the interior. ;-) My girlfriend really likes the A4 and thinks the WRX is ugly. But after you drive the car, it is hard to care whether people think it is ulgy. Especially when they are in your rear-view mirror. ;-)

-Mike

[Leon]

How about getting the WRX and then using the money you saved from not buying an A4 on a body kit?

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by Graphics Man
I've been thinking about getting a new car ever since my 95 Talon Tsi started to experience the dreaded crankwalk problem. :-(

I've been looking at both the WRX and the 1.8t A4 Quattro. The A4 is definately better looking, but the WRX handles SO nice and is very quick. While test driving it, I spanked a 5.0 mustang (I had a young salesman with me, don't buy that particular WRX though ;-) ). It's a tough choice. The WRX is cheaper, faster, handles better, more unique, but is not as refined as the A4. The look is growing on me, but I'm a rally fan. I also hate the 2002 A4's, so I would be getting a 2000-2001. Audi made a mistake by rounding off the car, it looks like a small A6 which I think is hideous.

Opinions?

If you haven't done it yet, you HAVE to testdrive a WRX. They are fun as hell, even if you wouldn't ever buy one. It reminds me of my Talom, pure pocket rocket: all engine and handling, no money spent on the interior. ;-) My girlfriend really likes the A4 and thinks the WRX is ugly. But after you drive the car, it is hard to care whether people think it is ulgy. Especially when they are in your rear-view mirror. ;-)

-Mike

Looks like you kind of decided already.
1.8 A4 is not worth it, even the Quattro.

[pennypinch]

I'm not real impressed with the Audi, and Subaru's are underrated in terms of reliability. But here's the rub: the Audi'll keep its value way better than the WRX will.

But if you're going to get an A4, you better go with the 2.8. Since that's price prohibitive, the WRX seems like your best choice.

[shaggymatt]

Buy the A4 and do some upgrades, I have the Passat with the same engine. There are some mad upgrades for the engine. 300+ hp turbo upgrades (wwww.goapr.com). I have a turbo upgrade and am running about 245hp. A chip alone will give you about 200hp.

Here's my car and mods: http://www.vidavision.com/hobbies/shaggymatt/

[shaggymatt]

Oh and I just saw some pics of body kits for the new A4 already, have a look: http://clubb5.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005139.html

[Ice-9]

How do you like those RE730s, shaggymatt? I was considering a set. I've got the Kumho 712s at the moment.

[shaggymatt]

Ehh they are so-so. Most people love them, but I don't think that they care so much about performance as I do. Previously I had Yokohama AVS S1-Z, those were killer tires. The sidewall was so stiff on those and there was no rollover on hard cornering. The RE730's are so flexy, that in the ruts left by 18 wheelers, they gush over them and you don't have to fight the car like a really stiffed sidewalled tire.

Overall it is a great priced tire, long life (300 UTOQ! Yok's were 160 UTOQ and lasted 15k miles), excellent wet performance with only moderate dry performance. Still with my setup, I can shake most people in the corners.

[KoalaFD]

Originally posted by Jihforce


Looks like you kind of decided already.
1.8 A4 is not worth it, even the Quattro.

You're killing me. Death, I tell you. The 1.8T A4 is "not worth it"? I suppose it all depends on how you look at things. To me, it's worth it. When I bought it, it was worth more to me than the comparable BMW 3-series out there. And even now, I think it's still a better value than the 323/325s and even the 328s. Saying it's better than the 330s is pushing it, and I wouldn't do that.

Of course, I'm biased. I drive an A4... but I only drive one because I've compared it to all the cars in its class. Including your BMW. And the Quattro, at $1650 above the comparable non-Quattro version, is DEFINITELY worth it.


Again, it depends on how you are. I'm always tinkering in my garage with my cars. I have no issues with modifying cars. Like shaggymatt said, my chipped A4 1.8T (with chip costing about $500), puts out a good 200hp an 236 ft/lbs of torque (this is, of course, claimed by the company, but I have little problem with believing them seeing as others have produced similar results) with a torque curve like you wouldn't believe.

Yes, MSRP isn't everything. Your BMW 325i MSRPs at $26,990. A 2001 A4 1.8T MSRPs at $24,540. With Quattro (about $26,000) and a chip ($500), you end up at about the same price (actually less, but only a couple hundred bucks). Your 184 HP/175 ft/lbs. vs. 200HP / 236 ft/lbs. Yes, I believe Leon when he says that your BMW is more luxurious than my Audi. And yes, your BMW does have more power compared to the stock Audi 1.8T. But come on... not worth it? Read the numbers and recognize...

I'm sick of BMW owners believing that their cars are the best thing ever invented. Yes, the M3 and the 3 series are great cars. I don't deny that. But when you have M3 owner upon M3 owner coming up to me and telling me that their stock M3 is gonna "whoop up" on my RX-7... please. Makes me hate them almost as much as I hate your typical Arizona Supra owners. I'm not saying that you're one of these people, Jih (or hapoo!), despite what it may seem. This is just a vent for my frustration.

As for the WRX vs. A4 question... yes, it does look like you've decided already. They are different cars. The WRX is a "fun" car. The Audi is kind of a .... dunno... cruiser? It sounds like you're in a fun mode so go with the WRX. I think you'll be happy.

As for the 1.8T vs. 2.8 debate, I think that the 1.8T is actually a better bargain. The 1.8T engine is a great one... which is why VW and Audi has stuck it into practically every damn car they have. It's potential is very good (look at the 50+ hp gain with just a chip) and it runs well. The 1.8T, chipped, is the way to go. If you're queasy about chipping (warranty issues, etc), then maybe do the 2.8... but for overall value; the 1.8T is better - same or slightly better engine output (which is pretty much why you buy the 2.8 over the 1.8T right?) and less money!

Ok. I'm done. Flame on.

[DarienOta]

I''m a FIA Rally Fan too.

Go for the WRX, even in unmodified form they can take a beating and still kick ass.

You could also wait a few years, rumor has it that the lancer EVO VII, latest generation of another kick ass Rally Car, may be coming to US shores in 2003.

[Apex]

Mid to late 2002, as 2003 model.

[Graphics Man]

The problem with the EVO is that the engine has some design issues. I have the same engine in my Talon, without the 16G, and many of these cars experience crankwalk. Mitsu refuses to replace the engines because not all cars experience the problem. But once you get crankwalk, you might as well toss the engine.

EVOs have been having this problem as well, but since people with EVOs end up rebuilding their engine so often that they hardly notice. But as a consumer product, it will need to be fixed.

I'm also curious about emissions stuff on the EVO. I wonder if they'll have to put 3 cats on it like Subaru had to do on the WRX.

Just my 2 cents

-Mike

[StonedWheat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KoalaFD
[B]

Originally posted by Jihforce


...the 1.8T is better - same or slightly better engine output (which is pretty much why you buy the 2.8 over the 1.8T right?) and less money!

Ok. I'm done. Flame on.

I'm not flaming you, but I just wanted to say that some people (like me) would buy the 2.8 over the 1.8T for engine smoothness, quietness, and lower RPM torque.

[KoalaFD]

Originally posted by StonedWheat

I'm not flaming you, but I just wanted to say that some people (like me) would buy the 2.8 over the 1.8T for engine smoothness, quietness, and lower RPM torque. [/B]

Have you seen the torque curve for the 1.8T yet? It's supposed to peak at 1650 rpm. "Peaks" is actually probably the wrong word since it's basically FLAT from 1650 to about 5000 rpm. The 2.8 peaks its 207 ft-lbs at 2750 rpm. Oh... and look, when you chip it... the 1.8T is at about the same place... 207 ft-lbs at 2750... and then you have even more to go!



Dyno courtesy of APR.

Have you driven either car?

I would not say that the 1.8T is any less smooth or quiet than the 2.8. It's true... you will get a slight (this is all relative depending on the number of turbocharged cars you drive ) turbo lag with the 1.8T. But driving around town, normally, it's not that big of an issue. When you mash on it, the car does jump a little a second after you get on it.

But, understood... You can buy a 2.8 if you want. It's your money, not mine.

[IrishSS]

Originally posted by Apex
Mid to late 2002, as 2003 model.

Any guesses on the MSRP? I may just have to start saving up some $$$.

[epoxi]

how much can dealers knock off the sticker price usually?

[Apex]

Much of it has to do with if the WRX STi is coming over, because Mitsubishi has to position themselves relative to the Scubby offering. Currently, the WRX is roughly $24-25k or so. In japan, the Evo VII RS is a little less than the WRX and the GSR-4 is a few thousand more. I'm guessing when the vehicle comes over, they're going to only bring the GSR-4 or a comparably equipped model (the RS is stripped for racing, and includes the center torsen diff standard, has an optional multiplate clutch, and slightly different turbo).

I'm guessing the EVO VII will be a couple thousand more than the WRX, which makes it just under the price of a Honda Prelude.

In terms of how much dealers can knock off the sticker price, that has a LOT to do with the supply and demand. They're selling VERY well in Japan, so there's no real reason they're going to want to strip the market there to supply people here with those cars. Let's hope they do a stupid and flood the market, so that the price drops quickly.

[att]

in the bay area, you can walk into any dealership and get a wrx for $700 over dealer invoice. you might do better if you have cash in hand, and that is hard to argue with. a car of the subaru's magnatude for around $23000! although, for about $100,000, you can get a race ready audi s4! if you havent watched the speedvision touring car series this season you are missing out!
i am having the same problem with my girlfriend, she hates the way the wrx looks, and i love the car. she'll just have to deal with it.

[shaggymatt]

Why would you want a race ready S4 for the streets? An S4 with a chip and exhaust puts it at 310-320hp (it'll cost no more than $1500). That's enough for most people! If that's not enough for you, there are already some turbo upgrade kits to put you around 450hp. The car stock runs the 1/4 in the low 14's, 0-60 in 5.8 seconds.

A built A4 would actually be faster than the S4 to an extent as it is about 800 pounds lighter. European Car did a test on this about half a year ago, and the built A4 was faster than the S4, not by much but it still edged it out, and its what like $10-$15k cheaper. Of course the S4 has a higher overall hp potential, so it just depends on how far you want to go with it.