Subaru Impreza WRX

19899101103104224

Comments

  • rex_ruthorrex_ruthor Member Posts: 140
    http://www.nadreview.org/nad99/0401.asp


    or, just browse the results in this Google search:


    http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22castrol+syntec%22+synthetic+mobil


    Basically, the API definitions of "sythetic" are vague enough to be twisted to say that just because a particular compound is not found is nature, means its synthetic. Like for example, if you took human blood, and put it in a centrifuge, you could separate out the plasma from the red and stem cells. Then, by the logic used by the court that ruled on the Mobil v. Castrol case, any of those 3 things is now a "synthetic" material.


    Go figure.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Either CNN or that e-mail are wrong. Automotive News listed which companies gave what, and FHI had donated a cool million. It was the smallest make to give that much, and if you look at $ per sales, they gave the most.

    So, they are proportionally the MOST generous, and certainly did not give nothing.

    -juice
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    My dad uses Castrol GTX in his pick-up. He now has over 200k miles on it and tows with it in the SC heat. Hasn't had any engine issues at all.

    Anyway, here's a re-print of the Lubricants World article on an Amsoil web site:
    http://www.1st-in-synthetics.com/articles7.htm

    Castrol has reformulated Syntec once (if not more) since then.

    "Degraded?
    The NAD determined that though Mobil presented clear evidence that Castrol has made a major change to Syntec's formulation, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that Syntec has been "degraded.""

    -Dennis
  • rex_ruthorrex_ruthor Member Posts: 140
    So, according to an industry that benefits from lowering costs of production, replacing one material with another that costs half as much to produce, while selling the product for the same price, is not degradation?

    So, when Castrol "reformulated" their "synthetic" oil, they passed that savings onto consumers, in the form of a 50% price cut, right?

    :)

    Consumers are entitled to know what they are buying. And you are entitled to throw your money away as you see fit. But there are a lot of people to whom it makes a big difference. Its a matter of prinicple, not semantics.

    And paying twice to three times as much to buy hydrocracked dino oil is not a good consumer experience.
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    (quote) My dad uses Castrol GTX in his pick-up. He now has over 200k miles on it and tows with it in the SC heat. Hasn't had any engine issues at all.
    (/quote)

    To my point: I've used GTX in my '79 Accord, '86 Jetta, '93 LeSabre and the Forester. All but the Forester did time in SC heat.

    rex: To your point: given my driving and maintenance habits the cost/benefit ratio is such that the additional cost of using "synthetics" of any variety isn't worth it.

    Ed
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    never happened.

    This is a hoax that surfaced soon after Sept. 11th and has just recently been revived. Check this out: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/cars.htm.

    Pat
    Host
    Sedans Message Board
  • stupideaglesstupideagles Member Posts: 9
    I knew it's a WRX board but I don't know where to ask my question.

    I saw an old Subaru sedan with a silver "4.0 liter" tag at the rear right hand side. It's liked a Legacy. The drive drove liked crazy and the car seemed to be powerful.

    Have Subaru even made/import a 4.0L sedan to North America ?

    Thanks.
  • ssoto1ssoto1 Member Posts: 66
    Thanks for all the info, did try the wagon did not like it at all wanted to check out the back seat of the WRX sedan but the dealer did not have one. are the back seats alot smaller than the RAV4 both cars are about the same price.
  • twrxtwrx Member Posts: 647
    It is sad that some one who has a beef about people buying japanese and german cars can spew internet rumour crap suggeting that American car companies are the only generous ones when it comes to 9/11 relief.
    twrx
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    The biggest motor I'm aware of is the 3.3 liter in the SVX. Maybe someone stole the badge from a Jeep Cherokee ;-)

    Cheers,
    -wdb
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Biggest production engine was the 3.3L H6 in the SVX, then the 3.0L H6 in the VDC/LL Bean/Outbacks, then the 2.7L H6 in the XT6, 2.5L H4 in the RS, 2.2LTurbo in the Legacy, 2.2L in Legacy/Imprezas, 2.0LTurbo in the WRX, 1.8LTurbo in various cars in the 80s, 1.8L Various cars in the 80s/70s, and I believe 1.3 3cylinder in the justy. They did make an H12 for Formula 1 racing one year in the 80s IIRC.

    -mike
  • wrxguywrxguy Member Posts: 51
    The backseat of the Sedan has the same space that the wagon does. I have a Sedan and almost bought a wagon but liked the flared fenders and the styling a bit more. There is a space between the rear seats(armrest area) that folds down so a person could put their skis in it(opens into the trunk). Or smuggle a cadaver(laugh)

    I have not looked closely at the backseat of the RAVA. They are neat small vehicles. Toyota oughta install a 220 hp powerplant in one of those. That would be a comparison!
  • tdi90hptdi90hp Member Posts: 20
    Just drove a new 2002 wrx!!! Oh my god!!1 i will do anything possible to get one of these beauties. Dont care about the goofy styling or the choppy ride!! Thes babies are the max stealth car. Absolutely nobody in Ontario except a few enthusiasts know about the car. WOW!!! They really hang on the off ramps and it was a dry day!! Very fast... Drive like a bimmer should!!!
    Claude
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    has a nice little blurb about the WRX on it's front page. It was nice to see since they seem to have lost the 1st installment of their long term review. Subaru = Rodney Dangerfield.

    Hutch
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Could you please provide a source that shows the price that Castrol pays for it's Syntec base stocks?

    I would also like to see proof of why hydrocracked base stocks are not as good as PAO's, etc. And do different base stocks make that much of a difference to the average driver anyway? Even the parrafin base stocks in the GTX seem to do fine in my dad's underpowered V6 pickup towing in SC.

    People can go on and on about what they've heard or read, but I want to see definitive info. Just trying to learn all I can. :-)

    -Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    wrxguy: I read that the wagon has an extra half inch of leg room, and more head room, too. It may be hard to notice, but it's a little bit roomier than the sedan.

    -juice
  • barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    I've sat in both and had folks comment the same. A few tenths mean a lot when there's not a whole lot to begin with. There is a hair more rear headroom (pardon the pun) and rear seat legroom in the wagon as Juice pointed out.

    Stephen
  • dop50dop50 Member Posts: 162
    Is it true that all Subies use the same oil filter???

    Unlike domestics???

    I can't find a listing for 2002 in the books at the stores, that's why I wonder. :) I want to change my own oil in my WRX and the owners manual don't list the oil filter number either.

    Thanks,

    Ken
  • cinosweivecinosweive Member Posts: 166
    I visited the Mobil 1 website and asked the following question:

    > I read recently that ExxonMobil has reformulated Mobil 1 so that it is no longer a true 100% synthetic oil. I read that it now uses conventional oil as a base stock. Is this true?

    This is the response I received from ExxonMobil:

    "This rumor is not true. Mobil 1 is not made from hydrocracking
    petroleum, it is made from converting a gas in the form of Decene, converting
    it to a PAO synthetic
    (group 4)."
  • rex_ruthorrex_ruthor Member Posts: 140
    Unfortunately that information is unknowable, since Castrol refuses to even identify what their base stocks are, officially. You would think that a company so proud of its reformulation would at least describe the product in order to gain back the confidence of consumers. Obviously, there isnt as much glamour in hydrocracked petroleum products as synthesized PAO's so they dont want to even get into the topic.

    It is true that regular base stocks cost about half the price of PAO synthetics such as those used by Redline, Amsoil, et cetera.

    How you want to verify that is up to you. Im not in the lubrication industry, dont know anyone in it, and have no interest in delving into the matter myself. It certainly stands to reason that it should be so, obviously it is more expensive to to synthesize PAO than to refine Group III base.

    But the overall point is not that one is necessarily better for the average driver or not. Although I think its fairly evident that its not, Syntec sells for 2-3 times the cost of regular dino oil.

    Are you a Castrol shareholder or employee? It certainly seems like you go to a lot of trouble to defend their questionable marketing practices and record of product misrepresentation.
  • rex_ruthorrex_ruthor Member Posts: 140
    Who knows. Im skeptical of any response from a $10/hour customer service rep. They have a script provided by the company. The same type of person at Castrol sent me a lengthy message that summed up to "No comment. Now keep paying exorbitant prices for our dino oil."


    http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/Mobil1.htm


    Although, the response you got sounds a bit moer genuine. The Decene gas process you said they mentioned is an actual polymerization process. I found this online:

      

    "While AOs can be used directly as lubricants in the higher ranges, the largest lubricant market is as a precursor to polyalphaolefin (PAO). It represents a larger portion of the synthetic lubricant market in Europe than in North America (NA) and the rest of the world, although consumption in NA is increasing.


    The demand for higher performing lubricants continues to increase. The shortage of 1-decene due to a lack of selective production has encouraged substitutes. For some PAO production, 1-octene and 1-dodecene have been used. Additionally, high viscosity index petroleum-based stocks have been substituted where synthetic lubricants previously were used. This reduces the effective demand for C10 AOs."


    Note the comment about petrol-based stocks being substituted for synthetic lubricants. This is the category that Syntec at least falls into. If Mobil sent you a claim that their product uses the decene gas process its a likely guess they are using a GTL (gas to liquid) process for their basestock production. This is not the same as a PAO basestock, by definition, and lags it in performance by a bit.

  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    No, I don't own stock in Castrol or know anyone personally that's in the oil industry. Although there is someone here in the Subaru Crew that works in the industry and an i-clubber that lives in NJ works for Mobil. A funny thing about Mobil is that they are/were anti-blend a while ago, and now offer a blend of their own (Drive Clean Blend).

    Oil is always one of the most talked about internet topics on-line, right up there with manual vs. automatic. I just love a good debate I guess. :-)

    -Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No, there are different filters. I know for a fact that the H6 and the 2.5l engine use different oil filters, so make sure you're buying the right one. I'm not sure of the part # for the 2.0l Turbo engines' filter.

    -juice
  • narenjinarenji Member Posts: 161
    1990bonneville, I'd say that that an IS300 auto may beat the average 5 spd WRX driver because it takes some skill to shift a manual fast. An Auto WRX would probably beat an IS300 because it has AWD and that's an advantage. I believe the IS300 is around 7.5 secs 0-60, and the WRX is around 6.8-7.0 secs with the auto.


    The IS300 and the WRX really aren't in the same league because they appeal to different people. The IS300 was made to compete with BMW 3 series, and it's pretty good as far as that comparison goes. The WRX is only $25k, and the IS300 starts around $30k, and has near-luxury features. I've always driven front-wheel drive cars, and an AWD car is an easier transition than a rear-wheel drive car, which would oversteer more. The WRX is mostly neutral, but can be pushed into oversteer. The WRX has so much more than good straight line acceleration, IMHO.


    Dop50, The part number for the WRX filter is PN 1528 AA060 as per scoobymods.com. They talk about the fumotovalve installation and its benefits. http://www.scoobymods.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=169&referrerid=0

  • rex_ruthorrex_ruthor Member Posts: 140
    You'd have to be a pretty piss poor driver to do 7.5 sec 0-60 in a manual WRX.

    Thats two seconds off the potential time!
  • corkfishcorkfish Member Posts: 537
    Gee, I never thought that driving a manual was that difficult. Real rocket science.
  • armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    to driving a MT quickly is to remember to stop chewing your gum just before shifting. This frees up extra neurons for the complex combination of working with both hands and feet at the same time.

    Ross
  • dbreauxdbreaux Member Posts: 23
    I run a full serve carwash lubecenter and I use the pennzoil pz33. With that you can cross reference any brand you like. Its a fram which is not the greatest but the point is to change it often anyway. I use mobil one and got 15hp on the dyno. (just kidding) I change the filter every 2500 or so and the oil every 5000. I drive very hard. You could go longer with the oil. Just change the filter to keep the impurities out of the motor. BTW i did line up tonight with a mustang GT with exhaust and all lowered. I had my wife and son in the car. I gassed mine which is quiet and he gased his. I launched my complicated manual wagon and by the end of first gear I jumped ahead like only a REX can do and by second it was all over but the Ill never tell my friends i got stomped by a family station wagon. I slowed and he went by and weaved through traffic as not to have to line up again. There are many faster cars but the stealth blue wagon does make me proud to be a member. Yeah baby yeah
  • tetsujintetsujin Member Posts: 9
    ...was how fast the 0-60 time was...enough sarcasm from the MT guys already! =p

    Back to the point, that's actually something I want to know too, but haven't really found out much about, other than the 8.7 sec on Edmunds for the Wagon...which seems kinda slow.
    6.8 to 7 sec...can anyone second this? AH? I remember you had a lotta posts about AT - tho that was mostly about the AWD!
    If it's 6.8 to 7...that's not too shabby for my preferences at all...not the 5.7 with MT but still decent. Plus the convenience/laziness of driving AT.
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    Edmunds lists the Auto-wagon WRX 0-60 time at 6.7secs not 8.7secs. Like all times recorded by Magazines, these times are obtained by aggressive driving with brake-torqueing. I believe Edmunds should be able to obtain 6.2secs or so with abusive driving with a manual transmissioned WRX. Essentially, the Auto-WRX is slower than the manual-WRX by about 0.5secs. If a magazine like Motortrend were to test the Auto-WRX, the time should drop to 6.0secs (or a bit less) or so. I am basing this on the times Edmunds has been able to get from my other car, versus the time Motortrend has been able to obtain. Edmunds consistently is about 0.7-0.9 seconds off the time obtained by other magazines and unfortunately, no other premier magazine has done a test on the Auto-WRX, for us to have a reliable comparison between the manual and the Auto-WRX 0-60 times. So if a magazine obtained 5.2secs with the manual-WRX, they should be able to obtain 5.7secs with the Auto-WRX on the same day, same time, under the same driving conditions. If a magazine obtained 5.7secs 0-60 for the manual-WRX, they should be able to obtain 6.2secs 0-60 for the Auto-WRX, under the same conditions and so on. You should not cross-compare timings across magazines (which are done by totally different drivers under totally different conditions) for a reliable comparison.

    Check out the following link (by clicking on "Specs" and scrolling down to "Performance Data"):

    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/subaru/impreza/wrxawd4drsportwagon20l4cylturbo4a/

    Later...AH

    PS: I just found that the above link does not work. So go to "New Cars" and then click on "Subaru" and then scroll down to "2002 Subaru Impreza WRX AWD 4dr Sport Wagon (2.0L 4cyl Turbo 4A)", and you will find the 6.7secs listed as the 0-60 time for the Auto-WRX-Sportwagon.
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    Check out the following link - then choose "2002 Subaru Impreza WRX AWD 4dr Sport Wagon (2.0L 4cyl Turbo 4A)" by scrolling down and then click on "Specs and Safety" and then scroll down to "performance data"):


    http://www.edmunds.com/new/subaru/index.html


    Later...AH

  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    tetsujin was right. 8.7 secs in a regular launch, 6.7 with a brake stand.

    You're missing out on what makes a Subaru fun if you're only concerned about 0-60 times. What does SubieGal say? Any fool can go fast in a straight line. :-) [p.c. mode] the preceding was a general statement and not directed at any one individual [/p.c. mode]

    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/48462/article.html

    "...From a standing start, the automatic amplifies the engine's sluggish low-end response. Step on the throttle after coming off the brake, and the WRX dribbles forward. In our first acceleration run, we recorded an unimpressive 0-to-30-mph time of 4.0 seconds on the way to an 8.7-second 0-to-60. Better results can be obtained by using a brake torque launch technique ... Done this way, the WRX winds up to about 3,000 rpm and then shoots forward vigorously once the brakes are released. Our best acceleration run gave us a 0-to-60 time of 6.7 seconds with the quarter-mile occurring in 15.1 seconds at 89.0 mph..."

    -Dennis
  • sameers1sameers1 Member Posts: 1
    I am very interested in the WRX and wanted to get some sense of what dealers are asking in terms of price vis-a-vis invoice/MSRP. Also, I looked through the optional equipment, and am not sure I need any of these. What are your thoughts on options? Has anyone purchased a pure base model car? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

    (BTW, I live in Tampa, Florida, if anyone has some local dealer info, please pass it on.)
  • 1subydown1togo1subydown1togo Member Posts: 348
    The place to go to in Tampa is Mastro Subaru..very WRX friendly. If you can't find a good deal there, try Fitzgerald in Clearwater; but I would try Mastro first
  • scoobybluscoobyblu Member Posts: 4
    Just bought my blue Wrx!!! God this car is fun!! I'm hating the break in period though ;) Anyway just wanted to say hello. I'm looking forward to getting some great advice from you more experienced Subaru owners. Happy Motoring everyone ;)
  • 1subydown1togo1subydown1togo Member Posts: 348
    Congrats! Enjoy the Wrx...guess it's blue?...tell us about it...

    Welcome to the board!
  • scoobybluscoobyblu Member Posts: 4
    I just bought it 3 weeks ago after drooling for 8 months hahaha. I did get the blue. M/t, upgraded stereo system (which I keep to a whisper so I can hear the turbo do its thing ;)), spoiler, and a few other options. Now I know what all the rave is about. hahaha I may be looking in the future to beef up the performance (like it needs it) but will wait until I get some sound advice. Anyway I'm just glad to be here.
  • narenjinarenji Member Posts: 161
    You'll end up abusing your manual transmission/clutch by trying to do a really good launch and try to get close to 6-6.5 secs with an MT, but I'd think that with an Auto WRX, it's probably easier to do a brake stand and accelerate it fast, because the car is shifting for you. You may still be abusing the automatic even if you do a standing start without a brake stand, but to me, I think an automatic would suffer less abuse in my hands than a manual if I tried to accelerate fast. Maybe I do suck as a MT driver, but I've never really shifted very fast, my shifts are usually relatively slow, even if I want to accelerate fast. I guess I'm too sensitive to hurting my car. Sorry I'm not as good as you pros.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Just make sure to get an extended warranty so when the Torque Converter goes... :) I've been doing brake stand-launches on my '88 XT6 for 2 years of auto-x and no ill effects except a broken tranny mount bushing.

    -mike
  • dop50dop50 Member Posts: 162
    I was in St. Louis the other day, and went to the Subaru parts counter, the guy there told me most of the current models use the same filter. We have the WRX and a Legacy GT wagon, both use the same filter.

    A note about options.... I suppose a person could order one with the options he wants, but it just seems easier (and there's no waiting) to buy one off the lot, as is, if they have what you like. Mine came with the upgraded speakers, turbo gauge, rear spoiler, upgraded security system, and short throw shifter. I am quite happy with it! :) I highly recommend the security system, it will keep most people honest, although if somebody really wants your car, you don't really have much choice anyway, they will just load it on a flatbed and go. The rest of the stuff is just for [non-permissible content removed] and grins! BTW, the security system will lower your insurance costs about $10-$20 per year, depending on your carrier.

    As for quick starts, I learned my lesson a long time ago, (in an old '50 Chevy with a 3 speed on the column) when I went from a quick stop to reverse and popped the clutch, I broke an axle. I don't pop the clutch anymore. :)

    Now, what I do is, I start the car rolling, then nail the accelerator. I may not get the lowest ET, but I don't have to buy parts either. :)

    One other note: When I was at the Subaru dealership, I was talking to the manager about the possibility of the STI version. He said they are due to come to the USA early in 2003 to see if they can pass the emissions, "IF" they do, they will likely bring in 1700 the first year. Now, what that means, is, there is no guarantee they will pass, and if they do, they will be very hard to come by. The only differences the way I understand it, is, the STI will come with a 6 speed tranny, 17" wheels, a little bit larger turbo, (same engine), an STI exhaust system, and a water cooled intercooler, that's about it. They don't know for sure what the HP will be yet, because they may have to change a few things to pass emissions. Anyway, what I'm saying is, if you are waiting for it to come out, you may have a long wait. :) You can vertually make your own STI, with after market parts if you are so inclined, that is, everything except for the 6 spd. tranny. And they'll probably have one of those you can buy before long.

    Happy driving! :)

    Ken
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Brake Stands - I wonder what impact they would have on a turbo since it's spinning and not being cooled.


    WRX>STi - Ken, the STi has just a few more things than you mentioned. Take a look at the engine improvements alone:


    The Active Valve Control System electronically adjusts the intake valve timing through a range of 35 crankshaft degrees. This produces optimum power and torque while minimizing fuel consumption and emissions.


    The high strength engine block features:


    Semi closed deck design, providing reinforcement around cylinder tops, while maintaining the cooling advantage of a full open deck design.


    Forged pistons, for heightened durability and strength under high thermal loads.


    Connecting rod construction draws on new design and manufacturing processes introduced in Subaru’s highly successful H6-3.0 engine, used in the Outback H6.


    Hollow inlet valves reduce valve train inertia, enabling the valves to follow the camshaft profile even at high engine speeds.


    Sodium-filled exhaust valves dissipate heat from the exhaust valve head.


    An engine oil cooler is located between the oil filter and engine block.


    A large diameter STi exhaust system completes the powerful engine package"

    http://www.autoweb.com.au/start_/showall_/id_SUB/doc_sub0112171/article.html


    Getting up to 260-280 isn't that difficult or expensive. Doing it reliably is another story. :-)


    -Dennis

  • 1990bonnievile1990bonnievile Member Posts: 14
    I have both questions and ansewers.
    Q: Is there a chip out to modify the comp on the WRX?
    Q: is the auto WRX geared in a similer fasion to the manual or vastly different.

    A: the turbo wouldent be hurt by break standing cause it only takes a few seconds...it wouldent get warm even by then. Infact I break stand in my bonniville all the time though only to about 1000 rpm (idle is usually 600-700), and iv had it for over 200k miles, it just gives it a little extra pep.

    --6.7 is very good for an auto car of that weight. I would gladly trade the 1 sec difference for the daily commute through traffic...It gets dangerous shifting every second in the rediculous 65-35 back to 65 style driving we have around here. I love the wagon/hatchback version. I bet the STI version would be 6.2 sec if it had auto.
  • dop50dop50 Member Posts: 162
    I guess maybe the Subaru manager didn't want to talk to me long enough to explain (all) the little details. :) Or, maybe he isn't aware of everything. Whatever the case may be.

    Anyway, my point is, that the difference between the two, plus the very limited (proposed) availability (if they in fact become available at all), may not be worth the wait. On the other hand, maybe it would be. But why not buy one now?, enjoy it, and if they improve on it later, trade up, if you get the chance. Why miss out on a good thing? Waiting on a better thing!
    Look how long it took to get the WRX in the states! You could almost wear one out waiting for the STi. (Possibly!) Of course, that's just MY opinion. Hehe!

    Thanks anyway, Dennis.

    This is why I like this board so much, it's amazing how quick someone will give you the facts. All you have to do is ask, or make an uninformed statement. Hehe! I love it!

    Ken
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    I know exactly what the reviewer in Edmunds wrote. In fact, what he forgot to mention was that, in every single testing of cars, they either brake-torque (Automatics) or Dump the clutch (Manuals) to get the times they get. Not a single one of the published acceleration times are non-brake-torqued timings in case of an Automatic car and non-clutch-dumped timing in case of a manual-equipped car.

    So, I did not see the point in the reviewer mentioning about the non-brake-torqued time for the Auto-WRX (other than to make it look bad - maybe he is a stick-shift afficionado ??), since nowhere do they publish the times of cars, when driven without clutch-dumping (manuals) or brake-torquing (Automatics). So that 8.7 secs time was meaningless from the point of doing a comparison, was my point. From the way he has written the review, it almost seemed as if he was ticked off at being asked to drive an Auto-WRX.

    From the way you posted this excerpt, it seems as if you genuinely believed that a manual-WRX's 0-60 time is honestly a 5.7 or 6.0 or whatever it is, with no clutch-dumping !!!! Hell, I would predict if you drive the manual-WRX normally, you would get an 8.2secs 0-60, if the Auto gets 8.7secs. So does anyone publish this 8.2secs 0-60 for the manual-WRX ?? Hell no !

    Of course, as I always say, 0-60 or any such acceleration numbers are entertaining but nothing more. I would any day of the week take a better handling Miata to a crude handling (fast in a straight line) but more powerful Chevy Camaro.

    Later...AH
  • thecatthecat Member Posts: 535
    Okay, I've been keeping my mouth shut but not anymore.

    If you prefer an auto to a manual fine, but don't argue that the auto is faster(or even close) in the case of any small displacement engine with very limited low rpm torque. NO, power braking an auto is not going to give you anywhere near the launch you can get with the 5spd.

    I don't know what the specific gearing of the auto is but I do know that the final gearing is very close to 5th gear in the manual. That means the manual has 1 extra gear with which to make use of the maximum power band.

    This is a silly discussion.

    - Hutch
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    AH - From the way I posted the excerpt? Now you're at the point of assuming what I'm thinking when I make a post. LOL!

    I know how the manual times are achieved. In the mags they say they drop the clutch at around 4,000 rpms.

    Someone asked about the auto's 0-60 times and you said that they were wrong, but in fact they were right.

    I've said it before. I am not an automatic tranny basher. You need to chill and go for a drive. :-)

    -Dennis
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    What are the chances that the 30 minute limit on editing can be unlimited instead?

    I wanted to clean up my post above (#5040), but had connection problems.

    -Dennis
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'm not sure what 300rpms does for you in a brake stand. When I do em I bring my XT6 up to about 2200-2500rpms before letting go. On a WRX I'd bring it up to close to 3300-3400RPMs before dropping the hammer.

    In a street race though, wouldn't less gears be better? Because there is time lost in shifts, even on a MT? Just curious about that.

    -mike
  • barresa62barresa62 Member Posts: 1,379
    to 60 mph w/my manual wagon by slipping (not clutch dropping) the clutch around 4k rpms. I think the manual wagon will average around 6 secs w/a clutch slip. It's all about the skill of launching, read: driver's consistency w/o tearing up one's car. I think w/o slipping the clutch it will be mid to high 6's possibly touching 7 secs. For those that have never launched a manual tranny WRX (AH are you listening?) you need to be careful about stating erroneous facts! :-)

    Stephen
  • djbrookdjbrook Member Posts: 4
    I am 6'5" tall. I test drove the 5 speed WRX and fell in love with it. Only problem (and for me this isn't minor) was that I was a little cramped as far as driver's legroom goes. Has any owner tried to move their seat back to get extra room? If you have, I would appreciate hearing your experience.

    Thanks
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.