Sorry if this has already been seen, and it's kinda old.

I only just worked out how to post the entire large picture in imagestation, lol.

This was a big article comparing (i think 9) cars that was under the $40,000 (Australian) mark. This was in an old "2000" wheels magazine.

The WRX only JUST missed the threshold by about $400. I think it would've won it if it was included. Since it used to win just about every comparison it was up against until the new major changes took place to it. The price of the type r in this article is wrong. It was actually around $39,990.

They calculated the final score by adding the ranks together. The final score for this car was 9, which was the lowest number compared to the other cars. Therefore, the Type R came first.


Once again, sorry if this is another old thing, just wanted to share it with you all.

 

max corner G

 

Nice.

 

great article.....man i love those jdm gunmetal rims

 

Its good to see some scans of Aussie articles, there are heaps of them on the ITR.

Best one I think is the Bang for Your Buck Article, Motor Sep 2000.

 

lol..... another proof that magz shouldnt be considered a bible. How can that Peter dude call himself a track tester if he only got 1:18.4 at Wakefield...? Some of these journos really need a wake up call, especially MOTOR and Wheels.

 

Haha I remember your letter San to Motor bout the Ninja Turtles Article.... copped worse from the Sandwich lady LOL!! its Morley's fault he cant drive for ****, hate that ****. I remember someone posted a while ago, was it Phil who did the testing for Jacob's ITR? I could be very wrong, just trying to find that post... but was pretty unfair that S15 and Rex got tested on the strip while ITR didnt.

 

Yep this one:

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=54388

Any idea what times Jacob's car is running now?

 

I would REALLY REALLY like to have a copy of that bang for your bucks article. I have the jan 2001 article comparing 01wrx,01itr,01200sx but i don't have that bang for your bucks one in 2000. I have bang for your bucks 99, 01, but not 2000.

Does anyone have a scanned copy that they can send to me?

 

his car should have been at least in the mid 13's that day if it was tested at sandown and not a back-road. His setup hasnt changed much so it shouldn't be that much quicker now.

that article was a joke hahahahha..... worse piece of auto journo ive ever read.