it would be nice if people like you guys worked at the dealerships cause everyone that work there are morons that know nothing about the cars they sell

 

If you want a DD that is comfortable, and has some umph, get the WRX;
1) softer suspension (more forgiving), better suited to imperfect surfaces
2) better low end torque (w/o having to crank the boost)
3) auto-dimming rear view mirror (that one still bugs the crap out of me; I had a subie before the RA)
If you want a more performance driven machine get the RA;
1) stiffer suspension better suited to smooth roads (keep the wheels planted at the expense of comfort, just the way I like it, haha); the harder you push the more it digs in
2) bullet proof engine for any reasonable amount of power (can't say that about 2 in 10 subies)
3) transmission is designed for performance (the #1 reason I left my scooby, but I loved her just the same)
Despite what others say, mod for mod Mitsubishi's respond better; is it because the engines are so well designed that they are more forgiving

 

I think the new WRX has a beefed up suspension. Still way too soft though but not nearly as bad as previous generations. Based on evidence that's available, namely an Edmunds comparison, they handle more or less the same in terms of slalom and skid pad numbers with the same tires. So it's not like one car will run circles around the other.

The WRX motor is bulletproof for moderate builds. You just have to be smart about it. If you're shooting for 300 WHP/WTQ, both cars are over-engineered. Realistically, you're more likely to run into transmission issues on both cars before you run into engine problems.

The transmission thing is disputable. I was really impressed by a friend's MR in terms of shift speed and behaviour, it just seemed to know what to do, but at the same time, if you like driving stick, some flappy paddles just won't cut it. I would argue that the TC-SST is better for a daily than the 5-speed in the WRX. Moreover, the transmission in the RA is a known limiting factor as far as mods go. For a daily, I'd almost prefer a sportback RA.

There's no evidence to support the notion that the RA responds better to mods, it really is a draw in that respect. If you're going to do the basic bolt-ons, you'll be happy with the power you get from either car. Once you get into the world of bigger turbos, etc., both cars have their ups and downs.

I think it really is a draw between em. I will say I like the styling of the RA, at least the way the front end looks and the seats are really nice if you get the Recaros.

 

A few of us do...

 

unless the 08+ wrx had some major development from the 06-07, I can't agree with this. My friend had a very well tuned wrx motor, with stock STi vf39 turbo and roughly 280whp when he blew his motor. Not just some ricer/forum browser who was strapping on parts, a well researched car, which got built afterward at TiC.

Also know many guys with stock stis (ej257?) who at even stock power levels have that concern in the back of their mind.

 

I think the current WRX has some improvements. Anyways, there are horror stories out there for every car. I can say I do not know of any local WRX owners that have popped motors on the kind of power levels at question here. For the most part, they've all been tuned by the same guy. The only cars I personally know that run into engine issues are ones running big power, extensive mods (like a standalone for a stage 2 "build" ) or bad tunes. Subaru motors absolutely hate knock. By contrast, Mitsubishi motors seem to be pretty knock resistant. However, if done right, Subaru motors are fine.

Edit: An example of a stock block WRX.



This particular car has around 100,000 miles on it without problems. It has an aftermarket turbo, stock STI intercooler, TBE, headers and water/meth injection. The stock ECU is used for tuning and as you can see, it's running 91 octane. The owner has gone through 2 5-speed transmissions but the motor is still fine .

A RA will hit the same power levels with ease. I suspect it too would have transmission problems before the motor went boom given how many people have reported issues around the 300 WTQ level.

 

OP, it REALLY depends on what you are looking to get out of the car.

Most of the little foibles associated with the RA transmission are being worked out. There are a number of people on this board and beyond who have dedicated a significant amount of time to figuring out how to clamp down this transmission in order to make some real power.

The Subaru game is a different one. If you feel more comfortable with that type of car, then that is what you should get. It boils down to consumer confidence. It sounds like you are leaning that way, anyhow.

However, Amby is right. The glass-ceiling in the RA continues to be this transmission. As far as I can tell, the only real difference in power-handling capability between the RA and MR/SE is a set of computer parameters. Sure, the gearing is different. Be that as it may, once the computer is cracked, and many claim to be very close to this, it will be anyone's game.

Personally, I like the feel of a manual transmission, better. Therefore, I went with something different (X GSR). BUT, I still loved my RA. I maintain that that is a truly great car.

The choice is yours.

 

Another thing to bear in mind is the rear differential. The S-AYC (or AYC, I can't keep up with the acronyms) on the Evo X is wonky. If you are looking for straight-line performance, DO NOT GET the Evo X. You will eat the rear differential. The differential in the RA is golden. I can't comment on the Subaru setup, because I simply have no experience in that department.

 

I don't know about that unless you're talking about extreme drag racing, in which case I would not get the RA either. RA's rear diff is a carry over from the Evo 9, which wasn't assembled properly from the factory to begin with - wouldn't exactly call it "golden". Subaru's are a bit stouter in terms of launching, esp the STIs. Not comfortable with the brake launching on RAs unless they got a launch control system programmed in recently

 

The Evo IX rear differential does not have the same kinds of restrictions that the electronically controlled X differential does. It isn't a question of "extreme drag racing". I have heard tell of Evolution X's blowing rear differentials under circumstances that do not fit this characterization. I am a big proponent of updating the IX rear differential and had plans to pursue this upgrade in the Ralliart. I call it "golden", because the feel was completely different. I liked it much better.

Launch control for the RA is just a matter of swapping in MR TCU tables (supposedly). I am actually surprised that no one has accomplished this yet. Even so, the knowledge pool for this platform is growing by the day. I have faith.

 

As am I, just look at my sig - started the rear diff mod thread. Just saying, S-AYC isnt THAT weak, unless you're looking at drag racing/launching. Of course a simpler mechanical has less to break and is stouter, more reliable, consistent etc. I just don't think AYC is gonna break on you. In terms of launching, the WRX has been a beast - most reviews are under 5 second solid, handling fairly violent launches reliably.

 

Not sure how many hard launches the WRX would take though . I haven't heard of anyone breaking the current 5-speed but the car hasn't been out that long.

 

I know. I have seen that thread, before. I really like that there are so many options out there for that particular part.

The Evolution X differential isn't that weak, I agree. However, the MR is equipped with launch control. A decent amount of power and driver with a lead foot can cause problems. I have seen it happen.

 

This is bound to happen. If anything can go wrong, it eventually will.

 

That was an issue in 2009-10. There are MANY SST equipped Mitsu's with +350WTQ (not many RA's, because the stock turbo can't effectively create that much torque; but multiple X-Swapped RA's are managing it with out any problems.). It was a matter of figuring out the relative parts of the ECU (and eventually TCU for FULL CONTROL). Your comment is the equivalent of saying "the X can't do direct-boost control" (which it can); that WAS true in 2009, but it is no longer relevant.