That seatbelt issue is a third party supplier (a couple of GM products have been hit with it as well). If you're going to have a shot at Subaru, I wouln't be recommending safety of their vehicles as an avenue of attack - the Impreza, Liberty/Legacy/Outback and Forester are all very highly rated in that regard.
VW's next evolution in America. . . Possibly
- Thread starter miata13B
- 81 comments
- 3,664 views
That seatbelt issue is a third party supplier (a couple of GM products have been hit with it as well). If you're going to have a shot at Subaru, I wouln't be recommending safety of their vehicles as an avenue of attack - the Impreza, Liberty/Legacy/Outback and Forester are all very highly rated in that regard.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
You know what M5Power. You are right. I didnt give you enough reasons to justify the price difference. But it seems that the only way I could prove it to you is by doing a huge research on a R32 and another huge research on a WRX, and look at all the specific details and then come up with why there is that price difference... But I must say you havent been able to give any good proof as to why the WRX is soundly better. You have been putting this all on a 0-60 time. So I suggest we wait and see what the R32 can manage on the slalom, around a race track, in braking, and then add the 0-60, 1/4 mile, and top speed stats. Then we can judge which is soundly better. I hope you atleast agree with this.
Hey miata13b, why arent you sticking up for the R32?? Its a heck of a good car. Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear picked it over all the other hot hatches. If you want to see the movie either search for it on Kazaa for "Top Gear R32" or I can send by setting up my ftp. ( I can give max 64 k/s )
Hey miata13b, why arent you sticking up for the R32?? Its a heck of a good car. Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear picked it over all the other hot hatches. If you want to see the movie either search for it on Kazaa for "Top Gear R32" or I can send by setting up my ftp. ( I can give max 64 k/s )
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Good News. The video has proof that the R32 is quite an amazing car. It gets compared to a Focus RS around a test track where it is 1 second slower. But what is more interesting is that it is 3 seconds faster than the WRX around the same test track. The proof is in the video so go watch it. They also say 0-60 in 6.0 seconds and top speed is 153 mph. And its Top Gear so its good stuff.
Again, I repeat:
- The WRX has a quicker quarter mile time (14.4 to 14.8)
- The WRX has a quicker 0-60 time (5.6 to 6.5)
- The WRX is cheaper ($23,595 to 'about $28,000')
- The WRX wagon has 61.6 cu ft of cargo space to the R32's 41.8
- The WRX has capacity for 15.9 gallons of fuel to the R32's 14.5
- The WRX has 33.7" of rear leg room to the R32's 33.5"
- The WRX has 39.7" of maximum from head room to the R32's 38.6"
- The WRX has 42.9" of maximum front legroom to the R32's 41.5"
- The WRX's turning circle is 35.4' to the R32's 35.8'
- The WRX can tow a maximum of 2000 lbs, the R32 cannot tow
- The WRX's passenger volume is 90.4 cu ft, the R32's is 88.0 cu ft
- The WRX comes standard with a rear spoiler and fog lights, they're options on the VR6 GTI (not sure about the R32)
- The WRX offers an automatic, the R32 does not
- The WRX gets 27.7 (non-imperial) MPG, the R32 gets 24.9 (also non-imperial) (NEW!)
What the hell else do you want? Seriously, what else is there? You could beat me by slalom, braking, and top speed and I honestly wouldn't give a damn because the WRX is still the better deal based on the fourteen statistics above.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Dude your reasons suck. Now you are saying the WRX has more room for luggage and people in the car, and in some places by 0.2" more 
So it is definately better... The 0-60 is barely faster (see Top Gear Video), who cares about a rear spoiler and fog lights ( its a hatchback ), and 1/4 mile is only 0.4 seconds faster. Now around a race track the R32 is 3 seconds faster than the WRX. The R32 has heated seats and all the ASM, TCS stuff. I would really like to know where you got those fuel consumption numbers.... The WRX is cheaper but has less also. Automatic tranny raises the price of the WRX and whats the point of putting one in the R32 when the car is designed for car enthusiasts.. not your mom. The R32 also has a 6 speed tranny compared to a 5 speed on the WRX.
So it is definately better... The 0-60 is barely faster (see Top Gear Video), who cares about a rear spoiler and fog lights ( its a hatchback ), and 1/4 mile is only 0.4 seconds faster. Now around a race track the R32 is 3 seconds faster than the WRX. The R32 has heated seats and all the ASM, TCS stuff. I would really like to know where you got those fuel consumption numbers.... The WRX is cheaper but has less also. Automatic tranny raises the price of the WRX and whats the point of putting one in the R32 when the car is designed for car enthusiasts.. not your mom. The R32 also has a 6 speed tranny compared to a 5 speed on the WRX.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
I seriously hope you are just pushing me on this manner to get as much info possible out of the two cars so that you can count yourself happy. Because the reasons you have given me thus far reflect that of a person that doesnt know what to look for in a car when saying it is better than another. Your reasoning can be summed up to this:
a Cavalier costs less so the R32 is garbage
a Yukon has more room and luggage space so the R32 is garbage
an Evo is faster around a track so the R32 is garbage
a Civic has higher mpg so the R32 is garbage
a WRX has rear spoiler and fog lights so the R32 is garbage
almost all cars can come with an AUTO tranny so the R32 is garbage
an SRT-4 has faster 0-60 so the R32 is garbage
I cant believe there are ppl at age 26!!! that reason like this.
Edit: Oh and most importantly.. if the car cannot tow, it is garbage
a Cavalier costs less so the R32 is garbage
a Yukon has more room and luggage space so the R32 is garbage
an Evo is faster around a track so the R32 is garbage
a Civic has higher mpg so the R32 is garbage
a WRX has rear spoiler and fog lights so the R32 is garbage
almost all cars can come with an AUTO tranny so the R32 is garbage
an SRT-4 has faster 0-60 so the R32 is garbage
I cant believe there are ppl at age 26!!! that reason like this.
Edit: Oh and most importantly.. if the car cannot tow, it is garbage
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Unfortunately for you, it seems that someone 5 years younger than you acts more maturely.Originally posted by M5Power
Thanks, but I wasn't trying to get under his skin, I was just trying to tick him off enough until he began using personal insults at which point I would become hysterical at his use of personal insults.[/B]
Ok M5, stop comparing them in such right's man "Cargo space" "Passenger area" The WRX is a 4 door, of course it will have more space, yes the WRX had a 5 star crash rating, but not much was left of the car huh? Yeah it CRUMPLED right, great, how what do you drive to work? European cars you know, arn't prone to become junkers after a accident at 15mph, while a frontal accident in a WRX at 5mph, yes the "pole test" will run you 11,000 dollars in damages. The fact is the R32 will more than likely be ALOT higher quality of a car than a "wrx", for 1 the WRX is being imported like crazy, so obviously the cost will be less, how many of the R32's will be shipped to the US yearly? As many as the WRX, I doubt it. The fact is Cars from Europe will cost more than cars from Japan, face it. It doesn't make it a bad car, hell you have "m5" in your name.
Well the m5 does the 1/4 in 13.3 seconds. the NSX-S Zero does it in 12.8
The m5 is garbage now
The M5 weights more than a NSX-S Zero, therefore the M5 must be garbage.
Heck the M5 only has 41.7" of front leg room
and only 37.4" of front head room, what an awful car it must be, because the WRX has more headroom, the WRX must be the new supercar.
Your rational is very infantile, the R32 is a great car, and it looks a HECK of alot better than a WRX, considering the WRX looks like a crack addict with lymphnode problems.
Well the m5 does the 1/4 in 13.3 seconds. the NSX-S Zero does it in 12.8
The m5 is garbage now
The M5 weights more than a NSX-S Zero, therefore the M5 must be garbage.
Heck the M5 only has 41.7" of front leg room
and only 37.4" of front head room, what an awful car it must be, because the WRX has more headroom, the WRX must be the new supercar.
Your rational is very infantile, the R32 is a great car, and it looks a HECK of alot better than a WRX, considering the WRX looks like a crack addict with lymphnode problems.
Originally posted by T13R
Dude your reasons suck. Now you are saying the WRX has more room for luggage and people in the car, and in some places by 0.2" more
How thicker is that steel?
I'm going by the manufacturer's statement for both vehicles.
Who cares about top speed? I don't. I'm sure some people have different cares than you.
Still faster... duh? At what point does it become 'significant?' 0.5 seconds? So would 0.499 work? What about 0.498?
True. It doesn't matter what race track or who's driving.
How many more stupidities will I WRITE!?!
'Car' magazine, July 2003.
Didn't I just prove it 'has more?'
Well, it still has it available - duh? Doesn't that make the WRX 'have more?'
And thicker steel.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Why are you still arguing this? You are WRONG. Thats it. End of discussion. Even Driftster shares my opinion. You are just making yourself look ridiculous in a lost cause. So stop typing more stupidities. Its not helping you at all. You still have alot to learn about cars, so stop acting like you are god. And no, Im not saying I know more than you, but I have more common sense than you.
And none of those can do ALL OF THAT like the WRX can.
Duh?
My God, this is becoming truly hilarious - when you're defending, you're losing, and you've been defending from the first post. Why don't you tell me all of the wonderful things that make the R32 worth $4500 more.
[/b]
You don't get crash test ratings. The cars are always totaled, barring none. Period. Simple as that. Even the perfect $28,000 Golf is totaled. The star ratings are likelihood of personal injury - five stars is the best. Before you make a statement like 'the car is CRUMPLED,' do a little research.
On the research topic, the front crash test is at 55 MPH, not 15. The side crash test is 35. If I hit something head-on at 55 MPH, I'd sure as hell not be worried about what I'm driving to work - I'd be worrying about how injured I was. And the WRX has a less than ten percent likelihood of serious injury at that speed.
Again I repeat - DUH?
I agree on cargo space and passenger area - the categories are stupid. But he refused to accept safer, cheaper, and quicker so I had to resort to stupid stuff. Okay?
Actually, the Subaru Impreza is a best pick by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety - only it and the Honda Civic received good (the highest) ratings across the board. Meanwhile, your precious Golf 3-door, on the same tests, received two 'acceptables,' including one in the 'restraints' category (that's belts, in case you didn't know).
Also - that $11,000? Did you think I wouldn't actually check that, because you were too lazy to? Check this. In the test you're talking about the Subaru Impreza's rear bumper (not front, the test is done backwards) costs $606 to replace. You were only $10,494 off, though - give yourself a pat on the back.
So costs are lower.
Can I add that to my running count of things that make the WRX better?
Considering the WRX beats the R32 in fifteen categories (sixteen now with the costs added) and you've quoted one category in which the NSX beats the M5, I'd say that you're clearly missing my point.
And you've failed to do any research on the topic.
Good point - you're the one who said the WRX would cost $11,000 when replacing the bumper in the low-speed 'pole' test where the actual costs is $606, you're the one who admitted the Golf's costs would be higher, and that one wouldn't be able to drive a WRX to work the next day after getting in a 55-MPH head-on collision.
You make brilliant points.
The only infantile thing here is that I've continued this argument to the point where you make claims like a bumper costs $11,000 to replace and that cars in 55MPH accidents won't be ready for the drive to work the next day.
Too bad we can't scientifically test your brilliant opinions...
I'm wrong because...? Because you say so? The only argument you make are that the R32 is 'built better.' You don't even defend your own arguments when pressed! The fact that you think you're right and you still haven't made one lasting argument to drive that point home shows how mature you are.
Oh, well if Driftster shares your opinion I'd better just concede right now.
So then PROVE ME WRONG!
I'm asking you - I've asked you - to show me why the R32 is $4500 more expensive and the only thing you can come up with is steel thickness, frameless windows, top speed, and the still-undefined 'quality.'
The only thing you can do is tell me how stupid and wrong I am, and how irrevocably correct you are. You haven't given any proof, you and Driftster have both made incorrect, outrageous, and downright false claims, and you haven't refuted any of mine.
If you think you can win arguments in this manner, you're stupid. Not lacking in common sense, not misunderstanding, but stupid.
I'm wrong? Please - I ask for proof.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Hey Snoopie, I had asked M5Power to wait until a full test was carried out of the R32. I told him it would be nice to see the braking distance, slalom speed, lap times, 0-60, 1/4 mile. Yea its true, top speed doesnt really matter, but it is something in the R32's advantage ( but its no good for M5 ). All we really know is 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Actually I know that the R32 is 3 seconds faster than the WRX on the Top Gear test track. But I'll let that one go seeing as M5 cannot download the movie in case I might be right. So then M5 just went ahead saying, 0-60 and 1/4 mile is faster, and the car costs less. That has been his proof all this time. I dont refute it, but there are other things to consider like the first three stats I mentioned above.
Yesterday I went to an Acura dealer to take a look at the new TSX. For the price of that car, it has basically everything. More than BMW, Mercedes, Audi and for less. But when looking at the hood and the side panels. I could see that they were not even flush. One side was higher than the other. Also on the inside, there is a plastic pin that holds some of the console plastic. This pin was off-centered to the hole designed for it. It is these types of things I am trying to say about build quality.
Also the interior of the R32 is made of better material.
Now for some WRX facts taken straight off www.subaru.com:
Base MSRP: 24 495$ ( I guess you dont know math cuz thats 3 505$ difference )
Rear Spoiler Optional: 395$
Standard Wheels are 16", 17" 5 spoke: 1 350$
17" BBS: 3 035$
Front heated seats comes in a package: 1 500$ (this has the rear spoiler)
I just found the 60-0 mph braking distance for the R32 off the web page miata13b put up: 115 ft
The WRX does 130 ft.
So now add up the cost of the WRX: 27 895$ ( with the normal 17" wheels ) And you still dont have 18" wheels. The interior is still more crappy than the R32. It brakes 15 feet later than the R32. Faster 0-60, 1/4 mile, but much slower on a track.
Is that enough M5?
Yesterday I went to an Acura dealer to take a look at the new TSX. For the price of that car, it has basically everything. More than BMW, Mercedes, Audi and for less. But when looking at the hood and the side panels. I could see that they were not even flush. One side was higher than the other. Also on the inside, there is a plastic pin that holds some of the console plastic. This pin was off-centered to the hole designed for it. It is these types of things I am trying to say about build quality.
Also the interior of the R32 is made of better material.
Brushed aluminum, not silver coloured plastic. It also comes with the 18" wheels and already has the whole skirt kit thing going. Those are optional on the WRX. It also has a 6-speed manual.
Now for some WRX facts taken straight off www.subaru.com:
Base MSRP: 24 495$ ( I guess you dont know math cuz thats 3 505$ difference )
Rear Spoiler Optional: 395$
Standard Wheels are 16", 17" 5 spoke: 1 350$
17" BBS: 3 035$
Front heated seats comes in a package: 1 500$ (this has the rear spoiler)
I just found the 60-0 mph braking distance for the R32 off the web page miata13b put up: 115 ft
The WRX does 130 ft.
So now add up the cost of the WRX: 27 895$ ( with the normal 17" wheels ) And you still dont have 18" wheels. The interior is still more crappy than the R32. It brakes 15 feet later than the R32. Faster 0-60, 1/4 mile, but much slower on a track.
Is that enough M5?
Blaaaaaaaah! Blaaaaaaaaaah! Blaaaaaaaah!
Which has more of the letter 'a?' You decide!
I gave you sixteen statistics about why the WRX is better, and you continue to say I only gave you three, or four, or two, or six - WHATEVER.
What Acura product do you own?
MY GOD!!! HE DOES WANT AN ACURA! I swear I didn't read that before replying above.
Yeah - Acura is really poor in quality. None of their cars are reliable. My friend, he's had 23 transmissions put into his RL and last month it caught fire. Infiniti and Lexus are bad too. Meanwhile, Mercedes and Audi kick ass. They're totally kickass, in fact!
Fine - we'll keep the 16" wheels to play into your stupid comparison, and keep the price of the sportwagon ($23,595). So that makes the R32 (still 'about $28,000') $4,500 more expensive.
Now, you've given me the way the R32 wins: 18" wheels, 15' earlier braking, and 'crappier interior,' of which the only thing you've cited is polished aluminium rather than plastic. So each of those three statistics are worth a total of $4,500 - whipping out my trusty calculator, here's what you're paying $4,500 more for:
- $1,500 for 2" more on the wheels ($750 per inch; $93.75 for every eighth of an inch; $46.88 for every SIXTEENTH of an inch!!)
- $1,500 for polished aluminium
- $1,500 for 15' of better braking (that's $100 per foot, or $8.33 per inch)
We've already got the WRX winning in sixteen categories to the R32's three. "Faster around a track" doesn't count for about six million reasons which I really shouldn't have to explain to you.
Worth it? Obviously. Why wouldn't I pay $1,500 more for better braking from 60 MPH to a full stop? After all, I do that every week. I'm just cruising along on the motorway and suddenly I have to stop.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
your sixteen or twenty or hundred reasons all relate to cabin space and luggage space. Huh, 4 door car VS hatchback. Thats smart. Its convenient that you specify each statistic too.. head room in front, leg room in front, leg room in back, head room in back, total cabin capacity... You put all the ****ty reasons to be right, and all the good reasons to be wrong. If you think going fast in a straight line for 14.3 seconds is all that matters to you, good for you, I have said this before. Truth is, the fun is in the curves, and the R32 is just that much better than the WRX at it. And why did you not add all those options to the price? I thought I had specified the reasons for the WRX being cheaper, but now you dont want to add the options to get even close to R32 specs.
You know what.. if you dont understand now, you will never understand. And your username is a disgrace to BMW and M.
You know what.. if you dont understand now, you will never understand. And your username is a disgrace to BMW and M.
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
So the WRX has bigger dimensions, better fuel economy, is cheaper, quicker to 60, quicker to the quarter mile, has slightly more features, is cheaper to repair, and can tow more - yet because you refuse to admit you're wrong, the R32 wins because it's 'fun in the curves.'
As I say - you won't even back up your own arguments. You only continue to repeat that I only think the WRX is good in a straight line, despite my sixteen overall statistics that prove you wrong.
This thread and your opinion on it is a complete joke. If you had any half-decent arguments, I might give you the benefit of the doubt but the simple fact is that you don't know what you're talking about and you continue to show that everytime you post.
Yes, I know - get proved wrong in the actual discussion then go off and attack in any way possible. Not everything that comes out of Europe is better than everything that comes out of Japan. Quit having stupid blind allegiances to countries and manufacturers and you might be able to actually see which are better. If you weren't such a blind Volkswagen-lover, you would've conceded several pages ago.
- 1,575
- GTP_T13R
Im not a VW-lover. I really like the WRX even if some ppl dont like its looks and all. If I had the money I would go buy myself an STi now. Although I prefer an M3, the STi is some 30 000$ less ( canadian ) and its a pretty damn good car, even when comparing with an M3. So no, i am not biased. Its only you who has very poor judgement. I almost pity your ignorance. One as dumb as you is hard to find, but found you I have.
Hey, T13R - I love your personal insults. In my opinion, though, your signature is wrong. You say 'if anybody wants to see how dumb M5Power is, read this thread,' then you link to a specific post (which, of course, happens to be one of yours - irony, folks). Use this link instead:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26935&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
