Was about to comment on that. . . . makes a pretty big difference not having DOHC.gforced said:Plus the RS is only a single overhead cam engine. Not really even close to the WRX let alone the STi. About the only thing it does have is AWD and a Subaru Impreza badge.
I've seen such a car, I believe it's quite common... it's called 2.5RS-T
The one I've seen used a GT35 ball-bearing, FMIC, heltec piggy back, and other goodies...
No chance against the STi.. I think that if the car had 6spd tranny, might do much better just my $0.02I can say you are wrong about the fact that the RST is not as fast as the STi. Having owned a damn fast RST and now the STi, I'd day donw low, my RST would eat my STi. Up top no chance. MyRST was running 12 psi of boost and put down more torque to the wheels than the stock STi. About 30 lbs feet more at about the same RPM. Where things change is how the STi holds the torque closer to the redline. Plus a higher rev limit to match. My old RST was a beast. The only down side was the fact I was limited on power and hard launches with the stock tranny. I also spent a friggin mint in engine internals to make damn sure it did't blow up. Forged pistons, rods, o-ringed deck, the best engine management etc. The RST I owned would tick of a 12.8 in the quarter no problem, and that's with pump gas and 12 psi of boost and a crappy 60 ft time and granny shifting. Power to wieght ratio was awsome. This was with the GC body platform too. The car was just lighter than the STi. WHP was 212 and 240 tq. Tuned by Shiv on his dyno in Pleasanton. Three times and over 14 miles of dyno miles. There isn't a STi out there that laid down that much torque to the wheels on Shiv's dyno in stock form. But the STi is a MUCH more refined drive. Better brakes by far and as far as handling, I liked the GC better. The STi feels larger and less tossable than the RST. That may be me just getting used to the heavier body of the STi. All in all both were/are awsome cars. I will miss her and at least she has a loving home.