I've been saying this for a while now. Both make close to the same power in stock trim. The STI actually has the older VF48 turbo whereas the WRX has the newer, larger, VF52. If they didn't take the rear LSD out of the WRX in 08 it would completely embarrass the STI, given the price difference.
Unless one plans to go stage 2+ or track their car, there really aren't many good reasons to go with the STI over the WRX. I'd say most people chose to simply out of badge envy.
Yep, I agree completely... if you're planning on tracking or highly modifying the car, then the STI makes sense, but otherwise, if you're just commuting, the STI seems like a waste of cash. Although it's too bad Subaru won't move the WRX into the 21st century and just give it a proper 6-speed (even their newer/cheaper 6-speed in the base Legacy would be nice)... but I fear in doing that, they might cannibalize STI sales to an even greater degree.
For the money, it's fairly hard for me to see why the STI is still so popular... the WRX can be had for substantially less cash, and the STI isn't really any faster (unless you're going around a track)... and if it's track prowess you desire, the Mitsubishi EVO is significantly more suited to turning, braking and accelerating... and if you're just looking for a nicer car to drive than an EVO, that's easier to live with, the Golf R makes a lot more sense to me.
Although I think it's funny that so many automotive journalists knock on the R's performance, but the STI doesn't seem to get the same negative stigma, when in reality, the R has been shown to run virtually the same lap times around tracks like VIR as the STI, and matches the same 1/4 mile trap speeds as the STI in virtually every publication I've read:
Motor Trend:
2011 Subaru STI- 13.8 sec @
97.6 mph
2012 VW Golf R- 14.2 sec @
97.9 mph
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1010_2011_subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_sedan_test/viewall.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/1202_2012_volkswagen_golf_r_first_test/
Edmunds Inside Line:
2011 Subaru STI- 13.8 @
97.4
2012 VW Golf R- 14.4 @
97.2
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/track-tested-2011-subaru-impreza-wrx-sti-sedan.html
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/track-tested-2012-volkswagen-golf-r.html
Car and Driver:
2011 Subaru STI- 13.9 sec @
99 mph
2012 VW Golf R- 14.3 sec @
99 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/subaru-impreza-wrx-review-2011-subaru-wrx-sti-sedan-test
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-volkswagen-golf-r-test-review
^^^It makes me wonder, if the Golf R is "slow" or doesn't perform up to what's expected (despite being within 0.2 seconds of the STI's VIR lap times), what does that make the STI, given both vehicles have the same trap speeds? Especially considering the Golf R at least has an interior worthy of a ~$35k vehicle, which is something I wouldn't consider saying about the STI... Although I will say, the Subaru's seem to get out of the hole pretty hard compared to other models!
I tell you one thing though, I think the VW R would have gotten MUCH better reviews if VW would have at least given it a summer tire optional package, as the all-seasons don't spit out the slalom, skidpad and braking numbers that the car is capable of (i.e. STI levels). The all-season tires on the R make it seem much less capable than it actually is... Although maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way... Maybe I should be happy that so many people don't know about this car, as it enabled me to pick one up for in-voice, without having to deal with the "mad-tyte boy-racers" revving at me at every stop-light.