• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Alternatives to WRX

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Someone else mentioned it, but the Impreza GT is the same car as the 2008 WRX, they just changed the name. Not as cool as the latest version of the WRX, but probably a lot cheaper to insure. Also look at other turbo Subies like the Forester.
 
I didn't see if you are only looking at new cars, or if they can be "new to you." The Saab 9-2x is a rebadged Impreza Wagon. Look for an 06 with Aero package for the turbo. Insurance might be less with the Saab branding.
 
No compromise! Get a RS6. Oh yeah, don't forget about those $10k+ ceramic brakes. Make sure yours has it. 😉

Anyways, if the above is too much OP, (obviously), try 335ix sedan. Might be a little more expensive than the Subaru, but its fcukin fast. And for insurance rates, it should be cheaper than the EVO and WRX.
 
wiretap said:
Umm.. no. I work and pay for the car myself. I make enough money in the summer to pay for my Fall & Winter college semesters, for my car payments, and for my other expenses such as cell/xm and random outings. I still live at home and commute to campus since it's a short drive.

Here's how it works.. I put $10k down from selling my old car, then the payments come to roughly $350/month for the Evo. That's around $4200/yr plus insurance, so a little over $6k per year. I make over $14k working in the summer (May to August) at DTE Fermi 2. It leaves plenty of cash left.
Click to expand...

Ok so you're not paying rent, which explains your situation. If you were paying for housing, I don't think you'd be able to swing it. But I digress.
 
thomsbrain said:
Someone else mentioned it, but the Impreza GT is the same car as the 2008 WRX, they just changed the name. Not as cool as the latest version of the WRX, but probably a lot cheaper to insure. Also look at other turbo Subies like the Forester.
Click to expand...

One guy I use to work with looked at an Impreza & told me it was very expensive to insure (vs. other compact cars like the Honda Civic). I'm not sure if the car was for him or his college aged son, though.
 
Knavish said:
One guy I use to work with looked at an Impreza & told me it was very expensive to insure (vs. other compact cars like the Honda Civic). I'm not sure if the car was for him or his college aged son, though.
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you that Civic's are not cheap to insure either. My wife's 2004 Civic LX 2DR (paid 14.5K new) with ~105K+ miles on it cost more to insure than her brand new 2010 Audi A4 Premium Plus (stickered at 39K). So if the impreza is even more...that's quite ridiculous and would greatly factor into buying one of these vehicles.
 
wiretap said:
DSM's are the problem.. and a lot has changed in 10+ years. If you don't recognize 'added value' of all wheel drive on all surfaces, you aren't a very avid driver.
Click to expand...

AWD is not a value add on all surfaces. Really the only AWD vehicle that really impresses me is the rather spectacular GT-R.

A proper FR layout such as in the Viper ACR, ZR1, Enzo, etc, seems to always lay down the best track times. AWD adds weight to a vehicle.

I can totally understand the value of AWD on poor surfaces, rally conditions, snow/ice, etc. These are all very valid things up in your part of the woods (Michigan). So for Washington State and the North/Northeast in general, I can't fault them for being a practical solution.

That's a totally different ballgame when you consider the track times on dry surfaces though. AWD seems to add very little. Even the FF Cobalt SS dominates a lot of AWD vehicles, and the reason to me seems like weight.

That same Cobalt SS finished within .03 seconds of the Evo X MR on the Laguna Seca Hot Lap, even with a lack of AWD and considerably lower power at 260hp vs. the 291hp/300tq in the X. The 'compact' Evo porks in at 3500+lbs, heavier than a 2010 Mustang GT, while the lowly Cobalt tips the scales at under 3,000!

http://www.motortrend.com/features/...008_chevrolet_cobalt_ss_laguna_lap/index.html

1:47.75

vs.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/...subishi_lancer_evo_x_mr_laguna_lap/index.html

1:47.71

The top 4 finishers, and 7 of the top 10, are RWD vehicles.
 
wiretap said:
I was going to get a WRX as well, but the Evo X turned out to be quite a bit cheaper--surprisingly. I got 0&#37; financing on it, and paid under invoice for it. I am stretching the payments out over 5 years, but that's no big deal to me since I'm in college and only work in the summers. It helps me afford a more expensive car on cheap payments. Insurance also turned out to be pretty low.. much cheaper than my old Volkswagen GTI. I'm paying <$2000/yr for full coverage with a $500 deductible.

Seriously, once you go with AWD + turbo, you'll not even want to waste your time with FWD, RWD, and N/A cars ever again.
Click to expand...

I love the Evo X as much as most people, but AWD and Turbo are not always better. I would much rather have a N/A LS1 than many Turbos, and I really could care less about AWD. You get better traction with AWD initially, but it eventually becomes a drag on the drivetrain. Also factor in increased complexity, weight, and other issues. I like to drop the clutch in a RWD car, but that can toast many AWD cars.

AWD is better in off-road, bad conditions, etc. but many people just don't care about those positives.
 
lol @ comparing a $30k affordable car to cars that cost in excess of $55k, $100k, etc.

My buddy has a 2010 Mustang GT, and I can beat him in a straight line, and in corners EASILY. 0-60 we are close (unless I launch), and once I hit around 80mph, I start pulling away pretty good. We've competed several times on the back roads and in parking lot autocross events. Autocross, he has a much harder time with and the car is a pig in the turns.

I've autocrossed with a Cobalt SS, and the thing feels horrible.. floaty rear end suspension, it feels like driving in a cardboard box.. it has terrible understeer when trying to power through corners, etc. After about a year of ownership on Michigan roads, the thing rattles apart. Two of my friends who owned them had to get rid of them after about 2 years because they literally fall apart. Lower control arms, ball joints, steering gear, random stalling, transmission grinding, etc. I would never own one. Don't get me wrong, they are one of the best handling FWD cars I've driven.. but that doesn't make up for much.
 
No, not comparing the Evo to the high end FR cars, just saying that pretty much ALL of the top end cars are not AWD. The mighty Veyron is ungodly fast in a straight line, but apparently isn't very good around a track.

Your car has approximately the same weight and power as the '10 Mustang GT. When the '11 hits though, it will absolutely blow the Evo X away, live axle and all. They are apparently hitting track circuit times on the same pace as the current M3.

The poor quality of the Cobalt SS (assembly, interior, etc) is sort of irrelevant to the point. A ~3000lb 260HP FF car putting down the same track times as a considerably more expensive and high-tech 300HP 3,500 AWD Evo X. It's just a fact. That pretty much proves that AWD isn't that relevant outside of where it really helps : off-road and bad weather.

I call SERIOUS shens on the 80mph pull though. That just doesn't make any damned sense at all, unless you've modded your Evo or the guy driving the Mustang doesn't know how to press a pedal to the floor. The traps speeds at the 1/4 show a pretty big difference :

2010 Mustang GT :

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0902_2010_ford_mustang_gt_first_drive/index.html

0-60 in 5.2, 1/4 in 13.7@103.7mph

Evo X :

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...olution_comparison/acceleration_features.html

5.4 0-60, 1/4 in 14.0@96.9mph
 
lol, motortrend times.. Visit EvoM if you want to see the actual times. You'll find most stock Evo X's run in the 13's at around 10x.xxMPH. For most of the magazine times, they never launch the car off the start. With a few simple bolt-ons and a tune, low 12's and 11's are easily obtainable. Also, the MR edition doesn't do as well in the quarter due to not being able to launch as good as the 5-speed. I couldn't stand the MR's SST transmission.. it's great for various circuit track type races, but otherwise it can't hold as much power and it gets confused/delayed if you try to do certain turns in autocross environments.

And if you call serious 'shens' on me, come to Trenton Michigan with a 2010 Mustang GT and I'll prove you wrong.
 
Last edited:
wiretap said:
lol, motortrend times.. Visit EvoM if you want to see the actual times. You'll find most stock Evo X's run in the 13's at around 10x.xxMPH. For most of the magazine times, they never launch the car off the start. With a few simple bolt-ons and a tune, low 12's and 11's are easily obtainable. Also, the MR edition doesn't do as well in the quarter due to not being able to launch as good as the 5-speed. I couldn't stand the MR's SST transmission.. it's great for various circuit track type races, but otherwise it can't hold as much power and it gets confused/delayed if you try to do certain turns in autocross environments.

And if you call serious 'shens' on me, come to Trenton Michigan with a 2010 Mustang GT and I'll prove you wrong.
Click to expand...

Um...I don't think I'm going to a EVO forum to get unbiased numbers regarding how fast an EVO is. People claim all kinds of crap on car forums about how fast their car is. You can go to a Mustang forum and get crazy numbers as well. A semi-unbiased car magazine is a much more "fair" comparison. Maybe you can coax better numbers out of the EVO...but likely you can as well out of the Mustang. And once the 5.0 Mustang comes out...this is all a mute point as it will smack the EVO.
 
I trust forums where people honestly post what their mods (if any) are, and their time slips and videos proving it. I'd trust the same from Mustang forums where people do the same. I don't trust magazine journalists, because most of the time they have no idea what they're doing.

I also don't care 'what car is coming out' ... holy shit guize omg liek wait until the 7.4L quad turbo mustang is out, it's so gonna own.

That's like me going to a magazine like PC Shopper looking for gaming computer specs. I'd rather come to a forum like this and talk with people who own them..
 
I have no problem believing an even lightly modded Evo could take down a stock Mustang GT, but pulling at 80+ doesn't make sense stock. The Evo, like most of the turbo'd 4-bangers, starts to lose the edge at higher speeds. The difference in 1/4 trap speeds is pretty stark, and that's not attributable to a launch, that's terminal velocity after traveling 1/4 mile.
 
60 foot time makes quite a difference.. and I can't explain why I started to pull on my friend multiple times once hitting over 80mph. That's just what happened.
 
I know this may seem like a strange alternative but have you looked into a used C6 Vette? A year ago I was cross-shopping an Evo, a WRX/STi, and a C5 or C6. It was MUCH cheaper to insure the Vette when I called my insurance company. I think they quoted me at ~$275 every 6 months for the Vette and ~$600 for the Evo and STi.

You can find modded C6s in the mid to high 20's if you look on the Vette forums. With basic mods those cars are putting down 400+hp to the wheels. I've even seen some forced induction examples selling in the mid 30s (probably more than you're looking to spend though).

You'd lose the rear seats but if those aren't a priority you'd have a very fast and agile car with relatively inexpensive insurance. Just a thought.
 
wiretap said:
I've autocrossed with a Cobalt SS, and the thing feels horrible.. floaty rear end suspension, it feels like driving in a cardboard box.. it has terrible understeer when trying to power through corners, etc. After about a year of ownership on Michigan roads, the thing rattles apart. Two of my friends who owned them had to get rid of them after about 2 years because they literally fall apart. Lower control arms, ball joints, steering gear, random stalling, transmission grinding, etc. I would never own one. Don't get me wrong, they are one of the best handling FWD cars I've driven.. but that doesn't make up for much.
Click to expand...

I doubt you've Auto-X'd with the new Cobalt SS's. The old ones were not that good but the new ones spank much more expensive cars and are totally different.

Oh and I can believe you that probably some people can pull 13's with a stock Evo X but they are high 13's and I bet there's not many people getting those numbers. It's just a fact that the Evo X is a fat pig and got slower than it's predecessor which is sad.
 
Driving both, I'd take the X over a VIII or IX.. ask the same question on EvoM, especially in the X forums where people have switched and you'll see the majority with the same response. It is rather heavy, but it handles better, responds better to mods, and fairs much better in crashes due to added safety equipment.

The Cobalt I autocrossed with was a 2006. To me, it just felt like a regular cobalt with a lot more power. It's a good car for the money, no doubt. It's just something I'd never buy because it doesn't seem like any engineering went into the thing. It has the same quirks as any other front wheel drive forced induction vehicle.. I've owned several, so it's nothing new to me.
 
C & D did 4.9 in a 2010 Mustang GT recently...13.6/105 in the 1/4...it was all over the new Camaro SS, despite being short more than 100hp. Brakes just as good, handling way better...

The 2010 Mustang GT is great, so I would be careful about underestimating the 2011 version...
 
My WRX can walk a mustang at the speed, but I'm running a VF43 and all the hardware.

No way a stock EVO X will do the same, NO WAY.
 
Since this thread is turning into a Mustang vs. Evo battle, here's some R&T numbers for comparison:

Mustang GT (tested 10-09, $34k)
0-60 = 5.3
0-100 = 12.7
1/4 = 13.8@104.0

Mustang Bullitt (tested 7-08, $35k)
0-60 = 5.1
0-100 = 12.6
1/4 = 13.7@103.2

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution GSR (tested 3/08, $34k)
0-60 = 4.9
0-100 = 13.3
1/4 = 13.6@100.9

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Touring (tested 12-09, $44k)
0-60 = 4.6
0-100 = 12.1
1/4 = 13.2@103.6

Edit..oh why not just include the Camaro:
Chevrolet Camaro SS (tested 6/09, $32k)
0-60 = 4.6
0-100 = 10.5
1/4 = 12.9@110.2
 
Last edited:
wiretap said:
Driving both, I'd take the X over a VIII or IX.. ask the same question on EvoM, especially in the X forums where people have switched and you'll see the majority with the same response. It is rather heavy, but it handles better, responds better to mods, and fairs much better in crashes due to added safety equipment.

The Cobalt I autocrossed with was a 2006. To me, it just felt like a regular cobalt with a lot more power. It's a good car for the money, no doubt. It's just something I'd never buy because it doesn't seem like any engineering went into the thing. It has the same quirks as any other front wheel drive forced induction vehicle.. I've owned several, so it's nothing new to me.
Click to expand...

Well then see the new Cobalt SS is worlds different and much faster than an Evo X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top