7th May 2010, 11:54
I've never seen a WRX on the Top Gear track, they have only ever tested STI's haven't they? But as for acceleration, I can only go on my own experience, and there is no way the 172 was catching me before or after 60, and also the Civic Type R never caught up.
8th May 2010, 20:11
I should explain, my WRX does have the PPP, but the normal one is more than a match for the 172, why would anyone think otherwise?
9th May 2010, 07:28
Because the PPP pack gives you more power obviously. The bottom spec WRX is slower than the Clio Sports and Civic Type R's once initial traction is done with, because they have more or the same power for the weight, and don't have a 4wd system for bigger drivetrain losses.
10th May 2010, 05:00
I'm sorry but that's just not true, there are plenty of other factors involved; torque, gear ratios etc, you can't turn a race into a simple power to weight maths lesson. The simple fact is the WRX is faster in all aspects.
11th May 2010, 05:16
BHP is torque multiplied by RPM, so it's not like power to weight ratio's ignore it. You are just adamant because of prejudice against cheap hot hatches. But the fact remains that Civic Type R's and Clio Sports are faster from 60-100mph than WRX's if all the cars are going as fast as they can.
You asked why the Impreza is slower, and someone responded that power to weight and drivetrain losses put the WRX at a disadvantage, which is a perfectly reasonable response, and a much more comprehensive view of a cars performance than a list of factors which you haven't bothered to compare for the cars concerned.
If torque and gear ratio's were such a huge factor, then surely diesels would be the fastest cars on the road? However they are only quick in real world performance tests like foot down in fifth (which nobody will deny the WRX beats nasp hot hatches at), in a flat out drag power to weight rules the day (with drivetrain playing a big part on initial traction and power losses).