Notices
The Loft / EvoM Car Talk Corner The landing pad for automotive discussions, news, articles, and opinions. A place for the community to kick back and chat.

'03 Impreza WRX vs '03 O-Z Lancer

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 01:17 PM
  #1  
BOOYAH1369's Avatar
Thread Starter
In Timeout
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
From: CalSLAM STAGE III Sky Londa - 08/02/03
Unhappy '03 Impreza WRX vs '03 O-Z Lancer

'03 Impreza WRX Sedan '03 O-Z Lancer
MSRP $24,195 $15,747

All-Wheel Drive
All-Wheel Drive (AWD) All-Wheel Drive (Standard) Not Available

4 Wheel Drive Not Available Not Available

Limited-Slip Differential Viscous Limited-Slip Rear Differential (Standard) Not Available
Engine
Type 2.0-Liter, High Output, H4, 16-Valve, DOHC, SEFI, Turbocharged Engine, Front/Longitudinal Mounted With Horsepower Of 227@6000, Torque Of 217@4000, Aluminum-Alloy Block and Aluminum-Alloy Cylinder Heads (Standard) 2.0-Liter, I4, 16-Valve, SOHC, MPFI Engine, Front/Transverse Mounted With Horsepower Of 120@5500, Torque Of 130@4250, Aluminum Block and Aluminum Cylinder Heads (Standard)

Displacement (CC) 1994 1999

Horsepower 227@6000 120@5500

Torque (lbs.-ft.) 217@4000 130@4250

Valves 16 16

Valves Configuration DOHC SOHC

Fuel System SEFI MPFI

Fuel Tank Capacity (gal.) 15.9 13.2

Fuel Economy City (mpg) 20 26

Fuel Economy Highway (mpg) 27 33
Drivetrain
Manual Transmission 5-Speed Manual Transmission With Overdrive (Standard) 5-Speed Manual Transmission With Overdrive and Floor Mounted Shifter (Standard)

Automatic Transmission 4-Speed Automatic Transmission | Electronically Controlled Transmission With Overdrive and Gated Floor Shifter 420-CCA Battery (Optional) 4-Speed Automatic Transmission With Overdrive | Electronically Controlled Automatic Transmission With Floor Mounted Shifter Adaptive Automatic Transmission (Optional)

All-Wheel Drive (AWD) All-Wheel Drive (Standard) Not Available
Chassis
Front Suspension Independent Wide Track MacPherson-Type Strut and Lower L-Arm Front Suspension With Coil Springs and Sport Ride Type (Standard) Independent MacPherson Strut Front Suspension With Coil Springs (Standard)

Rear Suspension Independent MacPherson-Type Strut and Parallel Link Rear Suspension With Coil Springs and Sport Ride Type (Standard) Independent Multi-Link Rear Suspension With Gas-Filled Shock Absorbers and Coil Springs | 13-mm Rear Stabilizer Bar (Standard)

Brakes 4-Wheel Anti-Lock Brakes With 4 Channels and 4 Sensors | Front Power 290-mm X 24-mm Ventilated Disc and Rear Power 262-mm X 10-mm Solid Disc Brakes (Standard) Front Power 256-mm Ventilated Disc and Rear Power 203-mm Drum Brakes (Standard)

Anti-Lock Braking System 4-Wheel Anti-Lock Brakes With 4 Channels and 4 Sensors (Standard) Not Available

Steering Power, Engine Speed Sensitive, Load Sensitive, Variable Assisted Rack and Pinion Steering | Tilt Steering Column (Standard) Power Rack and Pinion Steering | Tilt Steering Column (Standard)

Variable Assisted Steering Standard Not Available

Turning Circle, curb-to-curb 35.4 33.5

Wheels Aluminum Alloy Wheels, 16-In. X 6.5-In. (Standard) Aluminum Alloy Wheels, 15-In. X 6-In. (Standard)

Tires 205/55R16 195/60R15
Dimensions
Wheelbase (inches) 99.4 102.4

Length (inches) 173.4 177.6

Width (inches) 68.1 66.7

Height (inches) 56.7 54.9

Track (Front) 58.5 57.9

Track (Rear) 58.3 57.9

Minimum Road Clearance (inches) 6.1 5.5

Headroom (Front) 38.6 38.8

Headroom (Rear) 36.7 36.7

Legroom (Front) 42.9 43.2

Legroom (Rear) 33.0 36.6

Shoulder Room (Front) 52.7 54.1

Shoulder Room (Rear) 52.9 53.3

Curb Weight (pounds) Manual Transmission 3085 2701

Curb Weight (pounds) Automatic Transmission 3140 2745

EPA Passenger Volume (cubic feet) 88 94

EPA Cargo Volume (cubic feet) 11 11

Towing Capacity (pounds) 2000 Not Listed
Safety Features
All-Wheel Drive (AWD) All-Wheel Drive (Standard) Not Available

Anti-Lock Braking System 4-Wheel Anti-Lock Brakes With 4 Channels and 4 Sensors (Standard) Not Available

Limited-Slip Rear Differential Viscous Limited-Slip Rear Differential (Standard) Not Available

Dual Front Air Bags (SRS) Standard Standard

Front-Seat Side-Impact Air Bags Standard Not Available

Daytime Running Lights Standard Not Available

3-Point Center Seatbelts Rear 3-Point Center Seatbelt (Standard) Rear 3-Point Center Seatbelt (Standard)

Seatbelt Pretensioner Standard Standard

Child Safety Rear Door Locks Standard Standard

Side Guard Door Beams Standard Standard
Exterior Features
Wheels Aluminum Alloy Wheels, 16-In. X 6.5-In. (Standard) Aluminum Alloy Wheels, 15-In. X 6-In. (Standard)

Intermittent Windshield Wipers Standard Standard

Rear Window Wiper Not Available Not Available

Power Side Mirrors Dual Body Color Foldable Power Exterior Rearview Mirrors (Standard) Dual Color-Keyed Power Adjustable Folding Exterior Rearview Mirrors (Standard)

Splash Guards Not Available Optional

Fog Lights Halogen Foglights (Standard) Not Available

Roof Rack Not Available Optional
Interior Features
Front Bucket Seats Front Dual Reclining Bucket Seats With Driver Adjustable Seat Height and Height Adjustable Headrests (Standard) Front Dual Lowback Reclining Bucket Seats With Manually Adjustable Headrest and Driver Adjustable Seat Height (Standard)

Rear Seat Headrests Standard Not Available

Adjustable Lumbar Support Not Available Not Available

Power Driver's Seat Not Available Not Available

Fold-Down Rear Center Armrest Standard Standard

Trunk Pass-Through Standard Not Available

Fold-Down Rear Seatback Not Available Rear 60/40 Split Folding Bench Seat With Fold Down Center Armrest and Integral Headrests (Standard)

Leather-Trimmed Upholstery Not Available Not Available

Leather Wrapped Steering Wheel Standard Not Available

Tilt-Adjustable Steering Column Standard Standard

Overhead Console Not Available Not Available

Glove Box Illuminated and Locking Glovebox (Standard) Glovebox (Standard)

Cargo Area/Trunk Light Standard Standard

Power Door Locks Standard Standard

Power Moonroof Not Available Power Glass Tilting Sunroof | Sunshade Located On Sunroof (Optional)

Power Windows Power Windows With Driver One-Touch Down (Standard) Power Windows With Driver One Touch Down (Standard)

Remote Keyless Entry System Standard Standard

Cruise Control Standard Standard

Cupholders 1 Cupholder Located In Front Center Console and 1 Retractable Front Dash-Mounted Cupholder, 2 Cupholders Total (Standard) 2 Front Cupholders Located In Lower Console, 2 Rear Cupholders Located In Center Armrest, 4 Cupholders Total (Standard)

Air Conditioning Standard Standard

Rear Seat Heater Ducts Standard Not Available

Rear Window Defogger Rear Window Defroster (Standard) Rear Window Defroster (Standard)

Cassette AM/FM Stereo With 80 Watts, 6 Speakers Total; Logic Control Cassette Player; 6-Disc In-Dash CD Changer (Standard) Not Available

CD Player Standard Standard

Cargo Area Cover Not Available Not Available

Rear Power Outlet Not Available Not Available

Heated Seats Not Available Not Available
Warranty
Basic Warranty Time (Months) 36 36

Basic Warranty Miles 36000 36000

Powertrain Warranty Time (Months) 60 60

Powertrain Warranty Miles 60000 60000

Rust Perforation Warranty Time (Months) 60 84

Rust Perforation Warranty Miles Unlimited 100000
Attached Thumbnails '03 Impreza WRX vs '03 O-Z Lancer-evoiscoming.gif  
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 01:44 PM
  #2  
StreetLancer's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
From: Lewisville, Tx
I'm sorry, but this is comparing apples to oranges. A turbo charged, AWD performance based sedan versus an Econobox? No offense, but why don't we compare a Metro and an RSX Type S?

Secondly, let me say that an almost 10,000 dollar difference in MSRP is not an insignificant difference. Might as well compare a ZX3 Focus and a SVT Focus.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 02:05 PM
  #3  
BOOYAH1369's Avatar
Thread Starter
In Timeout
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
From: CalSLAM STAGE III Sky Londa - 08/02/03
Yeah, you're right. Still, bummed out a bit.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 02:10 PM
  #4  
StreetLancer's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
From: Lewisville, Tx
Look, I'll be the first to admit that while this is a "sporty" econobox, it's not in the same category or price range as the WRX. Hell, it's barely in the same category with the 2.5RS. You compare two cars that aren't in the same class, you're always gonna end up coming out bummed. Better to compare the Lancer to say, a Civic, a Sentra, A Neon... sorry, but, that's the class we're in. I'd like to think we're pretty damn close to the best in said class... but.

On the brightside, compare a WRX to a 350Z. I think they're in the same price range.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 07:09 PM
  #5  
lifeisdeath's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: taneytown, md
i dont understand... what was the point in comparing them? i think everybody knows the wrx is alot better in almost every way stock.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 07:12 PM
  #6  
pjal84's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
From: Up to 80 miles north of Gilroy
For 10k more at the base, I would certainly hope the Rex came with a lot more features and goodies. Kind of a moot point of comparison.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 07:19 PM
  #7  
StreetLancer's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
From: Lewisville, Tx
I'm inclined to agree, 10K for 100 extra ponies isn't very awe inspiring. Especially when 10K for 155 is around for a bit more.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 07:39 PM
  #8  
sblvro's Avatar
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 6
From: chicago, michigan, arkansas
what now?
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 08:58 PM
  #9  
StreetLancer's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 0
From: Lewisville, Tx
The 350Z... I think the base model is around 25 or so, and it's hp is 275. That's 155 more than the lancer, at a similar price to the WRX.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 09:22 PM
  #10  
HobieKopek's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
20 Year Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,701
Likes: 0
From: Long Island
Well that was a headache and waste of a read. The WRX costs far more in the long run with insurance as well. I don't know what prompted this comparison, but you may as well be comparing a Civic EX to an Evo.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 10:09 PM
  #11  
BOOYAH1369's Avatar
Thread Starter
In Timeout
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
From: CalSLAM STAGE III Sky Londa - 08/02/03
Exclamation This is what prompted it...

Originally posted by HobieKopek
Well that was a headache and waste of a read. The WRX costs far more in the long run with insurance as well. I don't know what prompted this comparison, but you may as well be comparing a Civic EX to an Evo.
I surfed Subaru's site.
Then they had this ASP page
where you could toggle any
comparison and the database
spits out the found set.

Just for the heck of it, Hobie,
I select OZ Lancer from the
drop-down menus and hit enter.


The comparison, yeah, it's retarded.
The pic that comes up is of an ES.

That pissed me off a bit.

Nuff Said
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 10:47 PM
  #12  
BurnOutz's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Herktown, Cali
Originally posted by StreetLancer
Better to compare the Lancer to say, a Civic, a Sentra, A Neon... sorry, but, that's the class we're in. I'd like to think we're pretty damn close to the best in said class... but.
Just for kicks, check this site out comparing the Lancer OZ to the rest of "its class".

Econosport Sedan Roadtest

According to this site, the Lancer's "class" consists of the

Dodge Neon R/T, Volkswagen Jetta GLS 1.8T, Mazda Protoge MP3, Nissan Sentra SE-R V-Spec, Subura Impreza 2.5 RS.

Comes out to be

Sixth: Neon R/T
Fifth: Lancer O-Z Rally
Fourth: Impreza 2.5 RS
Third: Protoge MP3
Second: Jetta GLS 1.8T
First: Sentra SE-R V-Spec
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 10:51 PM
  #13  
HobieKopek's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
20 Year Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,701
Likes: 0
From: Long Island
Funny thing is the R/T's a better all around performer and technically none of those cars should be in the same class as the Lancer. They all have some semblance of sportiness to them.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 11:06 PM
  #14  
3K's Avatar
3K
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
From: 808HI
Well when you take into account build quality, reliability, and fun to drive factor I'm not surprised with the results. Although in my opinion I would probably rank the 1.8T and the MP3 higher thatn the Sentra for fun to drive.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2002 | 11:18 PM
  #15  
BOOYAH1369's Avatar
Thread Starter
In Timeout
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
From: CalSLAM STAGE III Sky Londa - 08/02/03
All in all. I think I like the Lancer's styling the best.
I always have. Man, I used to check out my buds
Lancer in Japan, with the blow-off valve, and just
shake my head, thinking, "This car has got to be a fun ride..."
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 PM.