WRX vs 1.8TQ

[Larry C Leung]

The reality is, even though they aren't so refined (the Mustang's seem to
be better in that respect, they just aren't quite as fast, though still
almost as blindingly fast (at least vision impaired). The handling of
either is actually exceedingly capable, able to generate huge skidpad
(and within reason given their performance, braking) and very good slalom
numbers, but they are more by way of wielding a broadsword (or even an
axe) rather than a sabre. To put it this way, Mustang/Camaro/Firebird, in
stock form are grouped in a class (FS) who's performance is VERY similar
to early Miata/MR2's (CS) in SCCA Solo2 Autocrossing, in spite of their
great size and bulk. It's all capability by brute force, but they can get
the job done, and quite cheaply if you are thinking used. Of them, the
one that most closely resembles the refinement of our Audis (mAC) would
be the IRS SVT Cobra's. On the track it'll actually outrun most of them,
on the Autocross circuit it'll decimate them. And the Camaro SS is
slightly faster, but crude. Neither is directly my cup of tea, and both
lack a lot of room as well as refinement, but when it comes to cheap
speed, used they are right there with the WRX.

LL - NY

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:12:55 -0700 Brad Wilson <dotnetguy at pobox.com>
writes:
>josh Wyte wrote:
>
>> That's alot of money!  I'd rather own the S4, but the
>> same performance for $10k less definately makes me
>> pause...
>
>If all you want is power, why not a late 90s Camaro/Firebird w/ 5.7L
>V8?
>They're cheap and hellaciously fast w/ the 6-speed.
>
>Best regards,
>Brad
>
>2000 A6 2.7 biturbo quattro   http://www.quality.nu/bradw/audi/
>2 turbos, 1 driver ... no limits
>