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

1…1617192122…30

Comments

  • aaykayaaykay Member Posts: 539
    Yes, that is true of all the built-in OEM units. That is because the NAV is integrated into the car's controls and thus has "Dead Reckoning". It records the last obtained satellite signal, then in the absence of signal, will estimate your position based on the direction/speed/altitude of the car, until it obtains the next signal.

    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.
  • aaykayaaykay Member Posts: 539
    We recently did a 2200 mile trip from MN to TX and back in the WRX, using the Garmin 660 portable NAV. On the way to Dallas, after a while, it took us through a weird set of back country roads, when the whole 1000 mile distance could be covered by just sticking to I-35S. I was disappointed in the NAV engine, since the Odyssey's system would never have done that.

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think you can actually have more flexibility if you plan the trip on your PC using MapSource.

    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.
  • flambflamb Member Posts: 7
    Hi all, I am from Canada ... I am thinking of getting a wrx, never driven a Subaru before but like the all wheel drive because of the weather here. Any one from BC here can advise the gas mileage and insurance of this car ??? (it is the ICBC ), my two major concerns of this car. Thanks
  • flambflamb Member Posts: 7
    Hi all, I am from Canada ... I am thinking of getting a wrx, never driven a Subaru before but like the all wheel drive because of the weather here. Any one from BC here can advise the gas mileage and insurance of this car ??? (it is the ICBC ), my two major concerns of this car. Thanks
  • flambflamb Member Posts: 7
    Oh by the way, assuming the car insurance has no discount... and also what is the maintenance cost, approx is fine
  • flambflamb Member Posts: 7
    did you add the side molding ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The old saying goes, "if you have to ask...".

    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.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    "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
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,165
    My WRX and Dave's (my son) Outback Sport cost the same for maintance.

    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

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'm following the maintanence as outlined in the owners manual, and having it done at a Subaru dealer. Guess what? It costs the same as does the Outback Sport.

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Let's check Edmunds' TCO just as a reference...

    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.
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,165
    So I gather you don't use synthetic in your turbo, do you? I put meant into quotation on purpose. I don't drive mine hard, either - just wanted to alert people if they race it from intersections and get their revs above 5k on regular basis, they should expect more maintenance that people driving regular way (like you or me).

    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

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I use whatever the dealer puts in, and it goes in every 7500 miles for service, which is what the owners manual calls for.

    Don't drive it hard? Talk to my wife, as she regularly has hold of the grab handle on the roof. ;)

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Things are just proportionally more expensive. A little more up front, a little more in finance costs, a little more gas (and premium), perhaps a little extra maintenance (though not in Bob's case).

    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.
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Don't know the flat icbc rate for the WRX, but I do know that when I was shopping there was no significant difference between WRX and Honda CR-V. I am up north though and understand the rates are higher for the Lower Mainland due to many young drivers' bad habits. Where are you? Unlikely Van given the reference to AWD needs? Phone any broker and they will give you a quote.
    I love mine BTW.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, a compact SUV should cost more than a compact hatch/wagon. It's bigger.

    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.
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    However, if one drives it the way it is "meant" be driven - one should be be prepared for more than that.

    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.
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Actually the CR-V was cheaper, so insurance as % of purchase price was lower for the WRX.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    LOL! I guess I must be a "wuss driver" then, as no tickets—so far...

    Bob
  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    No tickets here either, but that is partly more luck than anything. For the most part I stay off boost - saves on gas and prevents rear-ending the guy in front of me. Still, my hesitation in moving up to the STi is that I have a hard enough time behaving in the WRX and I don't have access to a local track. What I do have is hundreds of miles of nearby gravel and logging roads - better suited for the WRX and lots of legal fun.
  • flambflamb Member Posts: 7
    Expect everything will be more, premium gas, maintenance,and insurance... I am from Vancouver, insurance is very very high, it's a reap off here. I am driving a Acura EL 1998, every year the car insurance is CAD1600,even with the 40 percent discount, never gone down, it is just ridiculous ! So what is the rate up North. Regular maintenance is 8000 km or 10000 ? (Sorry guys we use km here) Thanks for all the infos
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,165
    Sporty cars cost more, that's fair. WRX is a compact with ownership costs on par with mainstream mid-sizers

    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

  • volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Mine is about 1500 for the WRX here. I have the Roadstar discount. Regular maintenance beyond oil change is not that frequent. I'd have to check my manual for the actual numbers.
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,165
    Local salesman called me about GTP, checking if I wanted something. I told him I didn't plan to, but "since you called..." ;) . So I went yesterady and drove new WRX. Of course this dealeship is so fussy about driving any turbos that I can see why they can't sell too many, but it's another issue. All I could see was oboviously increadible pickup at lower gears. Hard to gage an actual turbo lag, but it probably was small. Suspension and steering feedback feels OK, but I'd rather have mine.

    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

  • xyzzerxyzzer Member Posts: 14
    I don't know, but with the satellite navigation and full climate control it feels as good or better than my friend's BMW (without the GPS). :) Sure, mine is missing the Bluetooth mic and maybe the remote engine start, but probably these could be fixed.
    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...
  • subytrojansubytrojan Member Posts: 120
    Good news for you and others with the nav/sat pkg!

    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.
  • subytrojansubytrojan Member Posts: 120
    I apologize in advance if this is old news to most of you.

    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.
  • xyzzerxyzzer Member Posts: 14
    Isn't that because of the type of oil used?

    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
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,165
    Rest of the developed world pretty much departed from mineral oils completely. Tha maintenance recommendations are synthetic even for vehicles like Corolla, or Focus, let alone WRX. Admittedly, their intervals are 15 to even 30 thousand km. High-performance engines (like WRX): NOBODY would even think there that your could use mineral oil. They would cut the interval on them, probably to 10K km, or so. I don't have any booklet, but it could be checked. General trend is rare but thorough and putting good stuff. And don't think our driving conditions are worse than theirs.

    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

  • rphillips2rphillips2 Member Posts: 40
    Thanks for the detailed review!

    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.
  • xyzzerxyzzer Member Posts: 14
    I think the initial mpg had a lot to do with the break-in period. The traffic around here is horrible and my morning commute is usually less than a mile, which adds up to a really low mpg, especially with my foot (lead at times), but that depends on the driver and location a lot. I believe the city mpg will increase the next time anyways. In my '05 Impreza Outback I was getting around 20mpg in the city.
  • xyzzerxyzzer Member Posts: 14
    I just read in the manual of my new WRX, that all models except OUTBACK are not supposed to be driven offroad.
    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...
  • xyzzerxyzzer Member Posts: 14
    Hmmm... forgot to add that I like the additional airbags in the new WRX...
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Hmmm... forgot to add that I like the additional airbags in the new WRX...

    Don't test them. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My guess is Subaru will follow the rest of the industry - recommend synthetic will increase their TCO (maintenance costs) compared to other manufacturers.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I wouldn't take either one too far. Get a Forester (and some skid plates) if you want to do that.

    Forester also has a tiny bit of extra room for bigger tires.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    couple things to add to the conversation:

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Yeah it's a grey area. Having done lots of different types of "off-roading", I can say that for the general public, I wouldn't suggest taking any of the cars with low-profile tires offroad, even on gravel roads and whatnot. Why? Cause most folks will drive them improperly in those situations, especially totally off-road.

    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
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    Considering it was an Impreza manual, I would assume they were referring specifically to the Impreza Outback. Why mention the regular Outback as offroad capable and not the Forester? That wouldn't make sense.

    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
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    I wouldn't take either one too far. Get a Forester (and some skid plates) if you want to do that.

    Primitive skid plates FTW :D

    image
    (sorry, shameless off-topic plug; however I'm sure Paul Eklund at Primitive will be making skid plates for the 08 Impreza as well)
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    JAPRIX has taken a new WRX on as a project car. Interesting in that it has been fitted with huge 255/40x17 tires (Falken Azenis RT-615) mounted on Enkei RC-T4 17x8 rims with a +48 offset, and there has been no fender rubbing (that I'm aware of).

    http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1345177

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Looks good. In fact the stockers seem small in comparison.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    They look tiny, which is a big problem from an image standpoint. The WRX NEEDS big rubber!

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Very Nice. Love those tires.

    -mike
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    What is the MPG? My 7 passenger FWD '05 Ford Freestyle as my standard, which gets 20 city and 26 highway in my real-world use and old EPA standards, so if I'm buying a compact, I expect at least mid to upper 20s city and mid 30s highway estimated MPG.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    WRX is geared for performance, not economy. Those two vehicles just have opposite missions, is all.

    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.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Are there any Subaru small hatches with good mpg?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Look at the Impreza 2.5i and the Outback Sport.

    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.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    As has been stated, it's a loaded question, the AWD will take away gas milage, but if you crash, you won't be getting good milage either.

    -mike
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles