[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: WRX vs URq
I have driven several WRXs including the Sti-R which has 205kw (about 270hp)
and is significantly lighter than my 195hp A4. 3 friends own them and are
continually ribbing me about how much faster their WRXs are compared to the
No argument - they are bl***y fast and handle superbly - and that's the only
area they are superior (oh and also value for money in New Zealand too -
they are NZD $55000 for the Sti and $46000 for the standard WRX - that's
about UKP 19000 and UKP 15000. UK prices are HUGE in comparison - UKP 30000
for the Sti !!!!!!!
So why haven't I traded my A4 on a WRX and banked some money??
1- they are pig ugly
2- their build quality is from a different planet
3- their safety is distinctly a cause for concern
4- every day driving/ownership enjoyment factor is way below
5- they are not an Audi (bias here!!)
Would I own one as a third car - absolutely but only if I couldn't find a
good RR or MB and only if I had the money to indulge myself (which I don't)
But make no bones about it - for a fast Sunday fang on twisty back roads
nothing comes close except a well setup 20V URq.
'96 A4 1.8Tq 5sp mtm 187hp, K&N, Remus, 17x8 Ronals
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 17:05:13 GMT
From: email@example.com (Phil Payne)
Subject: WRX v. UrQ
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org> "Bruce Aukerman" writes:
> Problem with a comparison between the two cars above is this: America
> never saw the RS2, S2, or the 20vUrQ. Instead, we have some 14 year
> old UrQ's to compare to it. So, if the WRX comes over it will not be
> a pick and choose situation--short of maybe the A4 which, well, you
> get my point.
America didn't even get the MB.