That WRX must have been a 2.0, not the 2.5. Our Forester when it had the stock turbo, had no lack of torque and turbo lag was very small. With the new turbo, it has a bit more lag, but not that bad that you have to keep the revs up for it to pass people.<br>
<br>Eric Waterman<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Wayne <<a href="mailto:wc701lists@bellsouth.net">wc701lists@bellsouth.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><a href="mailto:blitzmr2@insightbb.com">blitzmr2@insightbb.com</a> wrote:<br>
> Plain-ol WRX is extremely well-proportioned performance-wise. Perfect performance/daily IMHO.<br>
> Safer than an Evo to boot. : )<br>
<br>
</div>I was given a WRX for an "over night test drive" in May 2006 when I was<br>
looking for a new car. I ran the SHIT out of in in the 24 hours. I was<br>
fun off the line, but torqueless in around town driving. It was<br>
torqueless at highway speed, too. I bought the RSX-S instead. It's<br>
also a slug. Now considering V6 Accord, Miata or BMW 1.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">+----------------------------------------------------------------------+<br>
The mailing list home page is <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/" target="_blank">http://www.se-r-list.org/</a><br>
To modify your subscription, go to <a href="http://lists.deskmedia.com/se-r/" target="_blank">http://lists.deskmedia.com/se-r/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>