3000ways

I guess they chose the WRX in second place even with it's not so impressive performance numbers because of it's all around package. It may just be a better car to drive than those other faster cars, and on the streets probably has no problem keeping up with any of those cars. I think the numbers that Car and Driver got from the WRX are a good representation of what the car runs. Sure I've seen quicker, but most WRXs are running mid to high 14s in the real world driven by the average driver. In the right conditions with an excellent driver, I can see the car hit better 0-60FT times and 1/4 Mile times, but I think a 94-96MPH Trap Speed is the best you'll see out of that car on most situations.

loj68

isn't the article titled "cheap speed" ???? They even mention cars that they left off due to lack of performance. In light of this the SRT-4 in 3rd is a joke.....it clearly outperforms those other cars in every conceivable "speed" category and is at or near the top in all the rest. The SRT-4 rules that group for cheap speed.........they chose a commuter with pep which IMHO is NOT what an enthusiast with a budget is looking for.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

GTR Forums is run by a friend of KK, who owns this site.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

I agree with the results of the test in the context of the best sporty car under $25k, but if you're looking for pure bang for the buck the SRT-4 is hands down the best.

Mastacheif

That article sucked in my opinion, how are you going to call it cheap speed and give 1rst to the all around slowest car. The wrx and srt have cheaper interiors than the rsx because they are about speed and nothing else. The srt or the wrx should have won. I have driven the wrx and the srt-4 and the srt seemed much faster all around and was more fun to drive. The srt-4 defines cheap speed, it should have won.

aboh6leenz

iTrader: (30)

Honda . I would have chose the wrx or rsx. The srt4 should have won though too bad .

MitsuJDM

iTrader: (6)

SRT-4's just seem too immature where as cars like the WRX and RSX seemed a bit more refined, in a way...

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

"Cheap Speed" doesn't imply they're looking for maturity.

mkg1948

car and driver used to be good, now their writing is just trash... their analysis is usually flawed, and the magazine as a whole isn't edited well. the article was annoying why they left off so many cars- if its "fun" you're after, you should include all the cars, even if it meant testing 10 cars...

Mastacheif

Car and driver dont even use the real 1/4 mile times they pull. They run the time through a filter to get an average based on different weather conditions and temps and use that time.

Mastacheif

The majority of the car loving population think that the wrx, evo and srt are all immature boy racer cars. I love all 3 but they do LOOK (they are not in my opinion) like rice exspecially to the untrained eye. If you didnt know a thing about cars a civic with a huge spoiler and an evo look very similar. If you look at the srt-4 and the evo and sti to most they all look very similar. 1. they all have spoilers that are way to big (the sti spoiler looks like it shoudld be on a plane and the 06 has 2 spoilers!!). 2. They all use the frame of a crapy car (neon, lancer and imprezza). 3. they have strange hood scoops. 4. Sorry to say it but ALL 3 have so so interiors. The interior in the sti is by far the best of the 3 but the evo and the srt both have very low grade interiors. The only thing that the evo interior has the srt doesnt is automatic back windows.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

They use a correction algorithm, which is more common than you think.

GalantT3

iTrader: (1)

I don't think Car and Driver is that biased, they don't seem to be too biased towards the EVO or any of Mitsubishi's new cars for that matter.

It all depends on what editor is involved in the testing, Larry Webster's reviews are pretty much accurate, but there are one or two guys in there that are out of their minds.


Edmunds on the other hand is pure trash.

Evo_Jay

iTrader: (17)

I believe what he ment, mastachief, is that the WRX and RSX seem more refined, as in they have more years of R&D behind them oppossed to the SRT-4. RSX has bout 7 years of R&D from the Integra and the WRX has alot of good R&D behind it.
I might be totally wrong cuz he could of ment something else. also Ill peobably get flamed by SRT-4 lovers, but **** 'em

BlingBling3314

From a level of refinement, the RSX wins hands down. I agree with the results posted in the atricle, even though I would rather have the WRX.