Bill In SoCal

post on the S4 forum. I would just wanted to know what you guys thought about the wrx engine vs. our 1.8T.

<a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/501370.phtml">Da Link</a>

Kirath ¾-B0§t0n

ITs not a POS engine.. That was stoopid on his part to say that..

But the subie engine being better, I personaly like the horizontialy opposed engine.. Its a really nice design, a lot lower center of gravity. I can go on to list a lot of things.. But they are both good engines..

But the subie engine is better in terms of rally cross, and racing.. So word it how you want

Jay 4R

He can say that it's an extremely cost-cut car wrapped around a decent engine... Interior quality looks cheap, and tolerable at best. The ride quality is not that great... Soobie has been doing the AWD thing for a while, so seems to reason that the AWD drivetrain of the WRX has some merits... lotsa "tinny" engine noise in the cabin, that sounds no differnt from theold soobie wagon we had when i was little... (I think it was an 1981)

AndrewM (azdaspeed3)

if you measure its merit solely on how much power it produces, the wrx has the 1.8T easily. personally, i go on more than that. the 1.8T has a nicer torque curve, but pays the price in overall hp punch. the boxer-4 is an inherently smoother design, but the 1.8T seems to have the edge in this department also (mainly because audi had the development funds to be able to do so). both engines are extremely strong and capable of holding far more hp than they come with from the factory. i like the character of the boxer-4 also, i like the offbeat thrum it gives off at idle and the midrange growl. the 1.8T is a bit subdued and 4-cylindery for my liking.

also, personally, i like a car with a turbo-attitude, if you know what i mean. i actually like a little bit of lag, its sort of fun. the wrx is obviously not as lag-free, which bodes better for mommy-mobiles, but for me, i like the upper end punch.

really, its personal choice, but in no way is the wrx engine a piece. that is a tried and tested drivetrain, nobody can argue that.

Stang Guy

and this is probably a direct result of the aftermarket simply not devoting resources to the A4 in the same way they have devoted them to the WRX over the years. You go overseas and you'll see WRX's pushing 375hp flying around, and for most folks it's more affordable than the A4, thus the greater number of aftermarket options.

Can the 1.8T be tuned to 350hp? Probably, I don't know for sure. Can it be done without dropping $10K on a race motor? Haven't seen it on this forum yet. The WRX puts a powerful, tuneable motor in the hands of people who up until now had to drop another $7K or so to get that kind of performance in a new car. For that alone I take my hat off to Subie. Power to the people!!!

AWOT extra 23052

If you compare apples to apples (apples being psi pushed through the engine) IMO the 1.8T has a slight edge.

Stats-

EJ-20T
2 liters
227hp *
217ft lbs*
*@ 1 bar

1.8T(sorry don't know the engine code)
1.8 liters
210hp*
245ft lbs*
*@ 1 bar (chipped)

So its pretty safe to say, if the 1.8T was bored to 2.0, and running the same psi, it would easily pass the 227 set by the EJ-20T. Before someone writes in 'yeah but your chipping the 1.8T', I understand, my comparison is based on the engines running the same psi.

I test drove a WRX before I bought my A4 and was not that impressed with the turbo lag. In fact that was the first thing I noticed driving the A4, ALOT more low end grunt.

Besides, the WRX looks like a Neon with a wing, no thanks, I like my A4.

AndrewM (azdaspeed3)

the power produced has alot more to do with the relation of air flow to fuel flow than it does sheer boost numbers. a friend of mine has a neon (true story, swear to god) with a hahn racecraft stage 2 turbo kit on it. its the stock neon 2 liter dohc, which produces 150 hp stock. in modified form, it produces 250-275 flywheel from only 6 psi of boost. does this mean the neon is a better engine? obviously not, we dont take into account other characteristics, like temperature, swirl characteristics, etc.