Mr Invisible
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 47
In the words of Phil Gould "no no no no no".
The Aurion spends more time spinning the tyres struggling for traction than actually launching. In the wet it's a massive pain in the arse of a car because it just torque steers.
WRX takes off fine from a standing start (no idea where you get this "bogged down" rubbish from). Only issue is the auto box was rubbish in them. I know quite a few of the eras very well on both tarmac and dirt.
Your numbers are wrong.
SUPERCHARGED Aurion will go 0-100kph in 6 seconds (once the tyres stop spinning and it stops torque steering).
Stock 2017 Aurion is mid 7's (which is actually slower than my 2.2L Astra).
Stock 2018 Camry is 6.5. STILL slower than a bog standard WRX.
AWD system gives you more instant drive than a FWD struggling for traction and torque steering.
I've already proven that the WRX has had significant performance increases over the years, and your comparison to a Camry in the same era is hilarious.
The 95 Camry was a boat, a solid mass of shit with 4 wheels. It was released for craigan wearing pensioners to get from A to B.
The WRX from the get go was a quick car (in it's heyday one of the quickest around). Originally designed as a road going rally car. Recent models have shyed away from that though.
Since it's creation to now it's dropped 0.2-1 second off its already brisk 0-100 time.
Maybe they simply don't NEED to go much faster.
Put simply the WRX is already at the next intersection before the Aurion/Camry's got traction from it's like 205/65/16 tyres.
Next thing you'll be trying to tell us a Camry / Aurion is faster than an EVO.
@rexest thoughts?
.. Bad billy summed it up pretty well with "anyone who would rather a front drive, auto only bore box like an Aurion, over any focused drivers car is clearly not a fan of driving". Just quoting 0-100 times, the guy is clearly missing the point of driving a quick manual AWD.
