Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2008 Subaru Impreza WRX
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The Garmin type systems (I have a Garmin 660 with the newer Sirf Star III chip) does not do as well in such situations. My point of comparison is with my Garmin and my Honda Odyssey's built-in NAV. Garmin does have a model with dead reckoning (one of their 7-series model ??) but then that has to be professionally installed into the car's controls and I assume you lose some of the portability.
On the way back, it tried to do the same but I deliberately ignored the direction to take the back-road hwy route and stuck to I-35N, and from then on, the Garmin then re-directed through I-35N. That was certainly weird, especially since it was set at "Fastest time". In other words, if I did not know about the I-35N situation and relied on the NAV's direction, it would have given me a guided tour of all the backroads from Dallas to MN. Also, unlike other sophisticated NAV engines, there is no option to avoid a certain road/hwy, unless you "detour" once the trip is underway or deliberately ignore the NAV's direction (as I did). You will have to stick to whatever the NAV engine comes up with....I think this is a serious shortcoming in the Garmin 660.
I see what you mean, though.
If I have a pet peeve, it's that mine (for whatever reason) simply doesn't accept the fact that the 404 bypass around Bridgeville is quicker than driving through downtown at 25mph.
I deliberately miss the turn, it wants me to make a U-turn, then a left, then another left. It doesn't want me to take the bypass until I'm within a mile of the bypass.
Very strange because I also have fastest time selected. I'd rather go 55 then 45, vs. 25 the whole way with 2 stop lights and speed traps all over the place.
It's not that you can't afford it, per se, it's that the Impreza 2.5i is going to be a lot more economical to own and operate. The engine uses less fuel, and by using lower octane the fuel itself costs less. Insurance will be cheaper, and without a turbo the oil change intervals are less critical.
Figure about 20% extra in ownership costs for a WRX, if you're lucky.
What?! No way... My WRX and Dave's (my son) Outback Sport cost the same for maintance. Insurance is higher for the WRX, and gas mileage is slightly less using premium, but no way is my WRX 20% more expensive to own and operate. I'd say maybe (?) 10% more, if that.
Bob
If you're saying it's same maintenance you're either neglecting WRX or overkilling on Outback Sport. I would not put mineral oil into WRX, but synthetic is unnecessary in Outback Sport. Also certain fluid exchanges are much more critical on WRX than Outback Sport.
If you are getting better mileage on WRX it means you're not driving it the way it was "meant to".
How about tires? WRX's RE92A, aka junk need to be replaced at 25K, 30 it you drive it gently. How long Outback's will last? The new tires would cost more, as they need to be V-rated to make sense on car like WRX. You could put lower rated, but what's the point?
Oh - how about dpereciation. Even if WRX has lower rate by couple percentage points, it starts 30% higher (25K vs 19K) - so in terms of dollars, yes it will still be more. Loss of value is single highest position in ownership cost.
Yes, 20% is abosolutely reasonable figure. However, if one drives it the way it is "meant" be driven - one should be be prepared for more than that.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I've got 26K on the original tires, and they are fine. And not I don't [non-permissible content removed]-foot through corners.
Not driving it as it's "meant to be?" Give me a break...
Bob
They don't have 2008 data yet, but for a 2007 WRX TR it was 60 cents per mile, total of $44,895 over 5 years.
For an OBS they say 51 cents per mile, $37,907 over 5 years.
The actual numbers will vary of course but I was close.
Juice quoted Edmunds' TCO 51 vs 60c/mile, which includes depreciation, largest and most ignored cost in most peoples' estimations. Sounds awfully close to 20%. So if you add synthetic oil and more frequent changes, it pretty much hits the mark, doesn't it?
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Don't drive it hard? Talk to my wife, as she regularly has hold of the grab handle on the roof.
Bob
Any how, going back to the original post that brought this up, if cost of ownership is a big concern I recommend the Impreza 2.5i Premium, which is well equipped, and ought to cost very little to own and operate.
I love mine BTW.
Sporty cars cost more, that's fair. WRX is a compact with ownership costs on par with mainstream mid-sizers.
You gotta pay to play.
Yes, driving it the way "it's meant to be driven" on public roads means you are breaking the law. Legal costs and traffic fines are significantly higher.
Bob
That's something I can finally agree with. As long as it's used in similar way and pattern, it can be compared to the midsize crowd.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
But the rest, hm... How to put it mildly. Oh, I know - the word is "unimpressive". The "sebring" grill is not as horrible as on pictures, rear clear lights are. Beauty it is not - that's for sure. Interior is a few years behind - AGAIN. It's a freaking new model and it looks old already :lemon: . Radio looks like built in 1998, climate control dials are recycled from '05+ (or at least similar), color scheme is depressing. It would be a blast on my 2003, but in 2007 it is just sad. I don't get it - they obviously know how to do nice interiors (Outback, Tribeca) - so why oh why would that get us such a bore - AGAIN?
The car simply doesn't deliver. It may be fine for what it wants to be, although I doubt it will stay at the sticker for very long. It is just not for me - I want more - not in horsepower - I want more features and I want nicer interior. A3 or MS3 are coming in mind for this class. Not enough features, not enough size, not enough refinement and styling -well, we already said what we think.
So - compared to my '03 it certainly is and improvement, but even 2.5 grand GTP overallowance on my trade did not make me think (let alone make) a switch. I admit, large part of it had less to do with the actual vehicle, as I simply am not very thrilled about idea of an Impreza-sized car for my replacement. However, with Legacy gone and Outback being too far off what I look for, it was next almost last hope for Subaru to sell me something. The hope is nearly gone. Never say never, but if couple of grand can't sway me, I don't know what can. STI, perhaps? Resurection of Legacy wagon? Real Ltd. trim on WRX? Who knows. I a tree fell on my car today and I had buy a new car now, Subaru has no vehicle for me.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I think the A3 is more expensive for the same features and MS3 is not AWD. I also think Subie has higher ground clearance - better when driving through some mountain roads.
My review after a couple more miles...
Driving experience: awesome
Fuel economy: 17.7mpg in the first 280 miles (mostly in the city), about 26mpg in the recent 40 miles mostly on highway
Annoyances:
Driver's mirror remote is far away under the steering wheel (to make place for the bottle holder?)
Can't raise the passanger's seat, so my wife can barely look out the window when I'm driving
Looks like Mazdaspeed 3
Missing Bluetooth mic (maybe could be added as accessory some day?)
Missing remote engine start (could be added as accessory today?)
The navigation system seems to react slowly at times when you tab the screen/press buttons or even sometimes seems to hang
The navigation system is setup to not allow typing in addresses (or watching movies?) while driving
The navigation system is missing plenty of important places around here (IKEA and the nearest Whole Foods from what I noticed already)
Has more power than You need - result - less mpg, requires a feather foot (you won't even notice when you are well above the speed limit with a lead one)
Great improvements (over my '05 Impreza Outback):
Bottle holders and wide pockets in the doors
Pockets in the backs of the front seats
More space in the (hatch)back
Looks great in Lightning Red (the dark grey I test drove looked nice too and so does the black on the pictures)
Looks better IMHO than MS3 - not worse than a BMW
Unlimited power
The navigation system is great even despite some quirks - has a lot of popular local locations
The climate control works great
Power and audio connectors for the Zune under the armrest
Front seats are more comfortable
I like the new interior
Will think of adding more stuff later...
Bluetooth will be available as an accessory add-on. Search the News & Rumors forum of NASIOC.com for the thread about it. You can also IM "crazywrxdriver" (he's the Internet salesman at a Subaru dealer on the east coast) through AOL Instant Messenger for more information.
FYI: Subaru changed their recommended (normal) oil change interval from 7,500 miles to 3,750 miles for all MY2008 Subaru vehicles with turbocharged engines.
Anyways, I was using mineral oil for my '05 Impreza and was changing the oil every 3k miles. Once I did that after 4k miles after a long trip to Yellowstone - the oil level turned out to be close to E and the engine started getting hot. This is the time when I started thinking more seriously of getting a new car and finally ended with the new WRX.
My dealer provides free oil and filter changes every about 3750 miles, which looks like a great deal, but I might need to check with them if they could do that with a synthetic oil as well - maybe if I bring my own oil?
I have done some research and there are plenty of different opinions here, but I am leaning towards switching to synthetic oil after the initial break-in period of the engine.
Oil - Synthetic vs. Mineral
There are pros and cons of either of these. Mineral oil is cheaper and should be changed more often - every 3k miles in general. It seems like it breaks down quicker than the synthetic - hence the frequent changes, but that can also be good for a general consumer, since it makes you change the filter and maintain the proper level of oil to keep the engine running. It is also better for the initial break-in of the engine, because it does not protect from wear so well, where wear is important to do the break-in and since the manual recommends 1000miles for the break-in on the WRX - I will not do the switch before that. After then - I might just do that.
Some people suggest that moving back to mineral from synthetic is bad, but some sources claim that it is how it was in the past and now there is no problem switching back and forth. Synthetic oil might be leaking in theory if it turns out the engine is not broken-in well. It is also more expensive.
On the other side - it lubricates better, improving fuel economy, power and engine life. It breaks down harder, so it is better for performance driving and lasts longer, compensating for the price. The only catch is even if you decide to change it less often than the regular mineral oil (in theory some synthetic oils should last for 15k miles) - you should still be careful about the level and cleanliness of the oil at least as often as you would change the mineral oil. I figure it is worth the try. I think it was also used more often than the mineral one back in Europe...
Now, which one to choose?
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4213451.html
http://www.4x4extremesports.com/index.php?http://www.4x4extremesports.com/synthe- tic_oil.php
http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/Vehicle_Chooser/VehicleChoos- er.aspx?option=2
I really don't get it, why Subaru of America is not mirroring these policies here. Is it because nobody would follow them, or dealers would put mineral oil anyway (I heard of such instances on other brands), or what?
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I am almost ready to pull the trigger on a 5-door WRX, but the in town mileage is a little scary. Does your commute have alot of red lights or stop signs? My previous 06 Mini Cooper S was getting 25-26 mpg in the city.
Now why is that? And do they mean Impreza Outback, or the regular Outback? What makes the difference? Why would they put info on the regular Outback in the WRX manual?
Ground clearance:
WRX: 5.9inch
I.O.: 6.1inch
Outback: 8.4inch
'05 I.O.: 6.3inch
Does not seem like a big difference (0.2inch) between the two Impreza models - maybe they mean the regular one? 2.5inch makes the difference.
Durability
Is the Outback or Impreza Outback more sturdy than the WRX? I guess Outback is longer and that could make it worse, but differences in the construction might be the issue here. I do not think there would be a difference between WRX and I.O. here. Unless the I.O. has better water sealing and the WRX with its turbo is more fragile here?
Wheels
Now the manual says "Do not drive on rough roads or over curbs in a vehicle that has 17 inch or other ultra-low-profile tires". That is exactly what all new Imprezas seem to carry, but so does the Outback (albeit a bit different 17 inch...). The manual also states that tire chains cannot be used on P205/50R17 tires (because of lack of tire/fender clearance) and this is what is carried by both the Impreza models. I have bought the chains for the old Impreza Outback, but have never used them. I wonder if it was right to use it back then or if I could use them now...
Legal stuff
Probably they are just protecting themselves. Of course the Outbacks might be a little bit better suited for rough roads, but the difference does not seem significant.
Now I have driven the '05 Impreza Outback through some rough country roads in Oregon and through some shallow streams without any issues. I guess my new WRX could do as well, but still I am a bit afraid. The 0.4 inch difference might not be much alone, but together with the longer wheelbase (105.1 vs. 99.4) I might just get stuck in places where previously I just made it...
Seems like the new care might be just a bit more civilized than the old barbarian...
Don't test them. :P
Forester also has a tiny bit of extra room for bigger tires.
1. My Subaru dealer always uses synthetic... I didn't have to ask for it.
2. I bet the approach/departure angles on the '08 Impreza are a smidge better than the previous gen Outback Sport... especially at the rear. Also, are they saying not to be driven "off road" or "off pavement"? WRX should be fine off pavement, gravel roads & whatnot... just watch the clearance, right? Off road, though? ... nah.
During the 48hrs of Tri-state we hit up the pine barrens in NJ and an un-improved road in upstate NY. We were going at a rather slow pace that someone who is used to driving on-road would say is too slow. Anything faster and we would have had dented rims, flat tires, and undercarriages that were scraped up.
So as with everything in the manual, take it with a grain of salt, mostly it's there to cover themselves from the general public's lack of knowledge.
-mike
And it may be more of a suspension issue than a ground clearance issue. The I.O. is probably set up to deliver a more tolerable ride off-pavement, and probably allows for more vertical suspension travel.
Doug
Primitive skid plates FTW
(sorry, shameless off-topic plug; however I'm sure Paul Eklund at Primitive will be making skid plates for the 08 Impreza as well)
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1345177
Bob
Bob
-mike
If you want a fuel efficient sporty compact, the Mini Cooper is a good choice. Even in the hands of Car & Driver's lead foots it got 30mpg.
Subaru won't win any efficiency medals because AWD is standard, but they compare well to other compact AWD hatches. The smaller Suzuki SX4 isn't any more efficient, for instance, and you give up power.
-mike