Tag Archives: CarandDriver.com

C&D – New vs. Old: 2013 Porsche Boxster vs. 2005 Acura NSX-T



I like car magazine articles such as this one, because I can relate to the older cars very well, and older cars such as the 2005 NSX are still desirable, even if they’re no longer made.  An excerpt from the article:

Driving a new Acura NSX in 2005 was a bit like trying to text on a Motorola StarTAC. Yes, that was the best mobile phone of the 1990s, but it was hardly the best tool for the job. And yes, Acura had updated the NSX over its life, but by 2005 this aluminum supercar was past its sell-by date. Its V-6 still sounded as good as it did when it arrived in 1990; it was just that the 290-hp NSX couldn’t compete in a streetscape filled with400-hp Corvettes911 Turbos, and AMGs. And certainly not with its $90,000 sticker.

The 2013 Porsche Boxster is a good car to compare the 2005 NSX against, and, surprisingly, the NSX holds it’s own when comparing handling characteristic between the two (and engine comparisons give the NSX the edge, as it appears to have a torque advantage).

The rest of the article is linked below.  I enjoyed this read.


Car and Driver – New (2015 WRX) vs Old (2010 Audi S4)

I have not read the article yet, although I’ve read the Facebook comments (embedded into this blog below):


What’s throwing me for a loop is that none of the magazines have compared the old 2011-2014 WRX with the new 2015 WRX.  Also strange is the fact that all of them have compared the new WRX against the new STI (or at least discussed them against each other).

It’s almost like the car magazine industry is purposely not comparing the old with the new in a direct comparison, which is weird because that’s the sure-fire way of determining what the better changes are, without doing paper-stat comparing.

Once I’ve had time to read the article, I’ll add my 2 cents to the bottom of this post.

2015 WRX Vs. 2015 STI – Motor Authority

Read more @ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090558_2015-subaru-wrx-vs-2015-subaru-wrx-sti-which-is-best-for-you


This wasn’t a bad article, but to be honest, there have been so many that state the same things that I get a bit bored when reading them.

The few sentences/phrases that jumped out at me (I’ll state why):


As for the STI, it starts about $8k higher than the WRX, but it adds more standard equipment, and becomes a considerably more serious performance car.


This statement is golden, as it states exactly why there’s a price difference between the two models. They are NOT the same and were never meant to be competitors, yet mags keep comparing them instead of comparing them to the competition. This is a big peeve of mine, because articles such as this just stir arguments that are already heated into fire soup. The mags should be comparing the WRX to previous WRX models and it’s old and new competitors. They should be doing the same with the STI…comparing it with the previous models of STI, and also comparing it to it’s competition.

If you like the pricing of the WRX and consider it the best performance car for the money, get the WRX — just don’t think that you’re getting a cheaper STI, because you aren’t…you’re getting a faster and quicker WRX. If you want even more performance, get the STI.


Vast differences in performance—and WRX holds an edge in drivability


This above was actually a caption, but it deserves to be so. There is indeed a vast difference between the performance of the two. As was in years past, the WRX will (and probably always will) be the best at daily drivability. That’s not saying that the STI is extra-harsh, but it can be if all you’ve ever driven are cars that have plush and cushy rides. I drive my 2011 STI daily and don’t consider it to be a harsh ride, but I’m a car nut…my wife is not. She reminds me constantly that the car is low, that the car is stiff, and that the car has a harsh ride, but she drives a Honda Odyssey daily.


The gearboxes for both models might look the same at a very quick glance, but the WRX gets a cable-shift linkage for its lighter-duty six-speed transmission while the STI gets a heavier-duty gearbox as well as a more precise (and expensive) close-ratio unit with parallel-rod shift linkage


This is another ringer, IMO. There are way too many people out there thinking that the 2015 WRX got the same transmission that the STI has. NO, no, no, no, no…..and no again. It basically has the same transmission that it had in prior years, just with an extra cog. It is cable-actuated. It will not stand up to the same abuse as the STI gearbox. Just because you read that C&D did 14 high-RPM clutch dumps doesn’t mean that the transmission is bullet-proof, and most consumers won’t be treating their car with such abuse…if anything breaks, SOA will deny any associated warranty claims.

I’d suggest that anyone that has questions about the differences of the two cars should read this article, because they’ve done a good job of highlighting the cars’ differences.

Read more @ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090558_2015-subaru-wrx-vs-2015-subaru-wrx-sti-which-is-best-for-you

VW Attempting to Fill the Void Left By the Mitsubishi Evolution?

I’ve posted a similar article before, but Car and Driver magazine actually thinks a revised STI hatch might compete well with this Golf R Evo. I’m not sure Subaru would be willing to build that expensive of an STI. And pay particular attention to that last paragraph within the article, especially the availability and pricing bit.

The FB comments are quite sane for the most part, with only the spattering of “go home, Subaru, you’re drunk”-like comments (they are there, but there are only a few of whiners posting, so far).

1987 Toyota Supra Turbo – Car and Driver Review

1987 Toyota Supra Turbo – Car and Driver Review

A car has to have the goods before it can play in the sports-coupe major leagues. The combatants in this arena include such potent performers as the Corvette, the Porsche 944 Turbo, the Mazda RX-7 Turbo, and the Camaro IROC-Z—cars fully equipped to devour any competitor that dares to enter the field of battle unprepared. In this fiercely contested market segment, superlative performance is essential to survival.

More @ http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1987-toyota-supra-turbo-road-test-review

2015 Subaru WRX Reviews




All of the reviews are pretty good, considering that these are still pre-production cars.  At least one magazine said that a full review would be done relatively soon, so we should have an in-depth review to read, “relatively soon.”

At least one mag also tested the car in the 0-60 and quarter mile:

In straight-line testing, our 3330-pound tester, a top-of-the-line Limited with the six-speed manual, proved slower than the 2013 WRX Special Edition (4.7 seconds, 13.5 seconds at 100.0 mph) and the 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR (5.1 seconds, 13.8 seconds at 100.0 mph), with 0 to 60 mph coming in 5.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.0 seconds at 98.1 mph. Quick, for sure, and quicker than the 3193-pound 252-horsepower Ford Focus ST (5.9 seconds, 14.6 seconds at 95.9 mph), but well off the times of the 3195-pound WRX SE and the 3631-pound Evo MR. What’s with the weight gain? Chalk it up to additional safety structures and new equipment such as a power moonroof and harman/kardon audio. The silver lining: road test editor Scott Mortara noted that a better launch could easily drop the times a couple tenths, and in our handling and braking tests, the WRX flat-out exceled. Max lateral acceleration registered at 0.96 g, a level of adhesion that matches the Evo MR and easily outgrips the WRX SE (0.92). Figure eight? A speedy run of 25.3 seconds – 0.2 second behind the Evo but 0.3 ahead of the SE.

There’s only a 60-lb weight gain between the old and new WRX…that does not account for the huge discrepancy in the 0-60 and quarter mile, though.  The 2015 will never be as fast as that 2013 WRX SE they tested, mainly because the 2013 was equipped with a 5-sp manual, while all 2015s will be equipped with either a CVT or a 6-sp manual.  Yes, that means the 2015 now has an extra shift point, just as the GR/GV STIs did…remember everyone stating that the WRX was quicker like it was some magic sauce that Subaru had applied to their go-fast concoction?  Well, the reason why it was faster was because the STI has closer-ratio gears…a driver has to shift the STI before the end of the 0-60 and quarter mile, which means it’s going to finish both events slower than the 2013 WRX.

Also, look at the other data…the max lateral acceleration and figure eight results…ahead of the 2013 SE  in both cases and ahead of the Evo in one.  That’s not bad at all.