The WRX I drove was very quiet at idle - almost silent, in fact. However, as the revs rise, you notice a rather coarse, growly engine sound. It isn't out of character with the car, but it might put off some folks used to more refined powerplants.
Just heard some positive comments about the WRX from a body shop owner. I had to drop off my Forester for some body work at Carmat Collision in Santa Cruz (had a small spin out in the snow) and the owner just recently picked up his white WRX wagon.
He's owned a NSX as well as a Porsche before and all he could say was that the WRX gave him equal driving excitment. He noted the shifter felt very good, the chassis was very stiff and that it handled extremely well. He said that it was the perfect ride for the twisty roads around Santa Cruz.
I was all set to trade in my 1993 Sentra SE-R for the new WRX. It was just what I was looking for. A conservative sleeper with 14 second quarter mile times. I have to say my test drive was not as impressive as I thought it would be. I expected Mustang neck breaking performance and found the turbo lag so severe that after I returned to my SE-R, it actually seemed faster than the WRX. On the highway I pushed the pedal to the floor at about 65 mph in 4th gear and the car did nothing. It felt like a Ford Escort. After about two seconds the turbo finally kicked in and the car began accelerating ( My Sentra would have been off in a shot!). I guess numbers don't lie and everybody seems to be getting sub 15 second quarter miles, but I swear this thing felt only slightly quicker than my SE-R. The dealer wanted $2000 down and $425 a month with a 12,000 mile a year cap for leasing. I almost fell over laughing. I suspect that they will import the Sti version next year, so I'm waiting.
Well, even when you buy that STi for $1,000 down and $350 a month for 20,000 miles/year, it may still want you to downshift. Or perhaps you are getting the STi automatic...
I know what he is talking about. Turbo lag on the WRX is severe under 3000 rpms. Above that, it's a rocket. Below that, it's a dog. You really have to keep the engine spinning to get good power out of it without a downshift. Lots of other cars can pull off good highway passing power without downshifting (the A4 1.8T comes to mind - another 4 cyl. turbo). And if you think $2k down and $425 a month is a good deal for a lease on the WRX, I've got some land I want to sell you...
Why do so many of you take it personally when someone posts their opinion that they don't like the WRX? It's just a car.
Not me. You are correct. It's just a car. I'm prone to teasing, so you probably did a better job of making the point with "...under 3000 rpms. Above that, it's a rocket. Below that, it's a dog. You really have to keep the engine spinning to get good power out of it without a downshift".
There are cars that are both superior and inferior on a number of factors. The lag and sub-3000 RPM power have been noted in any review of the WRX that I've seen. It's a trade-off or deficiency that I guess I'll deal with by downshifting. There are cars that are both more and less expensive, but I tend to think of this as the cost of the car to dealers in general (and cost to operate), not the price that one dealer tries to exact or the price of some out-of-whack lease terms that I might fall victim to.
Have you driven one yet? The reason I ask is that I had read about the sub-3000 lack of performance, too, but that didn't prepare me for it. It is really bad. It feels like you are in too high of a gear, even though you're at 3k rpms. Since I was on a test drive, I told the salesguy I would keep it under 5k, so the lag was apparent every time I shifted in normal driving (accelerating briskly to 5k fixed it). Maybe it is better if you own the car and can continually wind it out, but I didn't like that.
I drove one last week and I know what you mean. I *do* wish that power spooled up in a more linear fashion. On the other hand, once it kicks in, it is so much fun I couldn't resist. Also, seriously, I would not have a big problem with downshifting on the highway in a passing situation -- to me it's part of the fun. My point earlier is that STi will not necessarily fix turbo lag issues or make dealers any less predatory.
Years ago, I bought my GTI at the same time that a friend bought an Alfa Romeo Milano (75). His Alfa with the V6 had a lot more low-end grunt, but I got used to keeping my GTI's RPMs up and the performance of the 2 cars overall was a wash.
With the WRX, the torture is going to be getting it through break-in. After that, I expect my brain will adjust to the turbo lag just the way my brain has adapted (I don't notice them anymore) to bifocals. Plus, if I'm feeling lazy, I'll have a 227-HP car that might just get 27MPG on long trips. If I win Lotto before May I will definitely bail on the WRX and get an S4 Avant!
Believe it or not, the day after I brought home my WRX from Van Bortel, I had to go on a trip to Tampa. Having been here driving around for a couple of days now, (and with my new WRX back home constantly on my mind) I've come to realize a few things.
I wouldn't have been very impressed if I'd driven a WRX here in Tampa, where there's no snow, the roads are all perpendicular, and there are the smoothest roads I've ever seen. Why would anyone be impressed with a car that has turbo lag, stiff suspension, a relatively cheap interior and road and engine noise? I wouldn't. In fact, for the same amount of money, I'd be able to get a slightly used 2000 Maxima GLE with the works and a great engine, right?
But I don't. NYC streets are riddled with potholes, filled with mad cabdrivers, and the freeways as challenging as any rally course. I like to have every advantage I can get out there, and the WRX give me that. The low torque in the low RPM range allows me to drive with more precision in slower, tighter traffic, and still the engine can roar with a downshift. The WRX soaks up potholes and bumps like a sponge, can corner in those tight city street corners, has room for four and is still small enough to park easily.
My point is, peoples' impressions of the WRX are going to be as influenced by personal preferences as their road needs. In short, I think arm chair racers are missing the point. Whether the car is great or not is entirely subjective.
Silver_Bullet: The RS seats are identicle to the WRX seats exept the blue cloth is gray/black. Where are you at? I know of some RS's around this area... (sacramento)
Beanboy: RS vs. WRX vs. TS. The RS has the same rear brakes as the WRX, but the front brakes are .5 inch's smaller. The TS has the same front brakes as the RS but drums in the back. The tranny is different in the RS and TS compaired to the WRX. Different gear ratio's, but I dont know about the clutch or shifter since I cant drive stick :P The steering is the same on all of the models. The RS has an identicle Suspension to the WRX. The TS is not "Sport Tuned" ie probably softer springs and stuff. Its also got a smaller turn radius for some reason (at least thats what it shows in the brocure)?
mmcbride: Get the Audi. Its clear you care more about the prestige factor and leather than anything else. But Personally, I drove an S4 and an A4 (brand new) 2 weeks before the WRX, and I have to say I just cant get comfortable in Audi's seats! And the S4 and WRX are VERY simular in performance after driving them (and its backed up by the numbers). The A4 cant compete with the WRX in performance stock (or even moded its going to have trouble! But if you want to compair mods, you have to compair mod vs. mod, not mod vs. stock!) Your call...
lcd1: The WRX is one of the quietest cars ive been in... If you want to get a really good sense for how quiet it is, go test drive a 2001 Civic and then a WRX and tell me what you think
Corkfish: "Feel" is the key word there. The WRX has a very linear power curve, and as a result, its very smooth. You dont get as much of that "throw you back" feeling, but I was amazed how quickly it got up to 80mph!!! As for that crazy lease, try another dealer and see what they say... It always helps to shop around!
I guess these is some misperception here. WRX was originally sold as a homologation model for WRC, in which low rpm range torque do not mean anything. WRX is exciting because it keeps this raw motor sports charactors. If you really want to enjoy sprots driving, who would use low rpm range anyway? All the qualified sports engines are dead if you drop rpm below 5000 or so(I mean Europian type, not V8 OHV please). It is really fun to keep the engine in a tight power zone where engine response is sharp, acceralation is maximam, and engine brake is most efficient, while rowing and selecting proper gears and pumping and kicking brake and accel peduls busily. It's tough and tricky, requires a lot of practice, and is FUN!!.
Yes, there are more civilized sports sedans out there. For example, big 6s are great. If you do not care about all the fun associated with the busy hand-foot coordination and just want relaxed 'oh-nice-power!' experience, I am sure you would be disappointed with WRX (you might want to try Camaro, instead). For those who know that 4-cylinder + turbo is one of the ultimate forms in the motor sports, WRX should be something drooling of.
just curious if anyone has any information on how the wagon handles in comparison to the sedan. i am definately getting a wrx, the only question is if i should get the wagon or the sedan. also, what is the difference in the acceleration times of the two. thanks. oh and p.s., does anyone know of any good dealers in california
mikemajesty- if it's not too far try Irivine Subaru or www.irvinesubaru.com. They have there own Mod division www.flatlinemotorsports.com and do not mark up above MSRP. Try contacting Charles over there.
The Owner Desiree got one of the Yellow sedans with an Australian Exhaust Mod and some timing mod also. Her dealership also got in an order of 62 WRX plus 10 automatics for the month of March. They may get an order of similar size if not more for April. Meaning they can probably get you what you want at a fair deal.
I think the 1.8T has a bit of lag, too. I drove a manual Passat and it was OK because you could keep the engine high in the rev range, but the auto wagon my friend owns is a dog.
Maybe the Audis are light enough that it's less on an issue.
I don't buy their flat torque curve peak. I'd be interested to see torque curves stock and chipped - I'm sure it's not flat.
But what do you expect? It's a turbo! If that's not what you want, the RS is available and makes good low-end torque.
When I first got my 1.8T passat, I was bogging it a lot. Once I leaarned to keep the revs above 2k I was all set. The car hits' peak torque at 1875 RPM and stays there untill it starts to rdop off a bit at 5k rpm.
I expect that WRX drivers just need to learn thier new car.
bedabi, excellent post! I had a ride in an Audi S4 in downtown Washington DC, and my impressions of the car were definitely modified by the surroundings. I've also driven on widely varying roads and regions; I too would choose a different car if I lived in, say, San Antonio Texas, than if I lived where I do now (northeast US). Well said, thank you!
As to turbo lag and WRX vs. A4 1.8T responsiveness, I have a couple of observations. First, please realize that turbos can be used for many purposes. Good heavens, most diesel semis are turbocharged, and it isn't done to make them into race trucks. The Audi has a very small turbo designed to spin up very quickly and deliver power low in the RPM band. It does this very well, but at the expense of the turbo "whoosh" of power higher up in the revs. The WRX turbo does just the opposite, spinning up later but with a more pronounced kick in the pants and more power in the second half of the RPM range. These two turbo systems were designed from the start to produce different results. Comparing the two is not exactly fair to either one. (Also note that both manufacturers offer twin-turbo engines; those turbos are different sizes, a small one offering low end boost and another other kicking in later. The best of both worlds!)
Second, something I've observed about Subies is that the motors, transmissions and other mechanical bits are notorious for being very "tight" when new and for changing noticeably with time. The fun part is that the cars just keep getting better and better as they loosen up. For example, it is not at all unusual to hear about Subarus averaging 2-5 MPG better after 10K miles than they did when new. I wonder what a fully broken-in WRX will feel like? I don't know, but I'd bet money that it will be markedly different than it was when it was brand new - and probably better too.
Does anyone know anything about the dealer-available upgraded suspension and muffler? How stiff is the ride with this suspension? How much impact on the hp do you think you would see from the muffler?
That's what I've been trying to say. Different stokes for different folks. Both cars excel at something, but they are just different. I was just responding to feeling like I got jumped on because I didn't really like the WRX as much as I wanted to.
kostamojen - The A4 1.8 does not have leather, but leatherette (which looks like leather). That's not the only thing I like about the A4's interior. It's that, in combination with the other stuff (like the BOSE stereo, moonroof, heated seats and mirrors, and high-quality feel of the interior) that separate it from the WRX. And I never said the A4 performed like the WRX, I fully realize that it doesn't come close, but the A4 is fast enough for me. I'm willing to give up a little performance for a little luxury. I'm in my car every day for at least an hour (in stop and go traffic). I want it to be a place I can relax until the traffic opens up. I just don't feel comfortable in the Subie. It reminded me way too much of my wife's old Civic. To me, it just looks and feels cheap (and it's not cheap).
It's not about prestige or panache (two words you like to throw around), it's about buying the car you like best. For you, that would be the WRX. For me, it's the A4. That doesn't make either one of us wrong, just different.
You're are clearly not the targeted buyer for the WRX. They are aiming at 25-34 year olds that could car less about a luxurious interior. The ads coming out soon ought to make that very clear.
Audi targets a more sophisticated (read: affluent and older) buyer.
Well, I'm 26...and I wouldn't call myself affluent(not yet, at least). The A4 1.8T has no wood trim, either.
I think you need to amend your prior post. Instead of "it just matters MUCH less than acceleration", you need to add "to me" to the end. Those are your opinions, they are not facts.
Re: post #928 about "dealer offered" suspension and muffler upgrades. The only ones that I am aware of are the STI upgrades for both. They are not supposed to be "offered" through the dealership. These are specifically not warranted by Subaru nor are any Subaru dealers allowed to install. To see the disclaimer in full and more detail about the upgrades check out www.new-impreza.com.
Given the choice between a bump to 232 HP and wood trim (or some improvement in interior appointments) I would take the wood trim. The cheapness of some of the interior bits is the only thing that really bugs me about the WRX (But, hey, it didn't cost $40K, so I'll get over it).
All of the target market stuff aside, there's a limit to what what you can generalize about car preferences. After 12 years in my buzzy GTI, I was certain I would buy another VW/Audi, but swore that this time it would: be bigger and quieter, but as fast or faster; have 4 doors, AWD and a 6. Well, the day arrived and VW just never managed to produce a twin-turbo AWD V6 Passat with a stick for ~$25,000, so a compromise was in order. After a test drive, I decided that the 4-banger in the WRX was "smooth enough". I'm 48, fall way outside of Sub's target demographic (No, this is *NOT* a mid-life crisis!) and I'd really like heated leather seats, but I figure I'll save that for my next car somewhere around 2011.
Agreed. Why can't anyone come out with a fully loaded sport sedan with ~250 hp, AWD, 5 speed, leather, etc. for about $25k? They sure would sell a lot of them (even though they'd be losing money on each one).
I was just offering an example. If you ask 10 Audi customers, maybe 7 would pick the wood. If you ask 10 WRX owners, I bet 8 would want the horsepower.
And BTW I didn't mean "to me", I meant "to the targeted WRX buyer". It's a bit small for my needs.
Francophile, I'm actually surprised to know that my experience with Impreza broken-in period is a common thing. For me it took almost exactly 1 year (10 - 11K) until MPG almost suddenly jumped by more than 15 % (now it's about 25). As a matter of fact, it could barely make 20 when it's new! My jetta's MPG improved also in the first year, but it was not as drastical as the Impreza.
Heya, I had a look at the WRX up close and personal... and I took a bunch of photographs too for a wall of photos they look to be wanting to feature on their website, and thought I might do them a favor and email them to the webpeople there 'cause I had my trusty digital with me. There are WRXes in every color there with all sorta of extras, some with back spoiler, some without. But, their Sales Manager Desiree told me they actually had 80 of these WRXes and they are now the number one WRX dealership in the country. I guess she can get all she wants, in any color etc. Man, wish I could get every single Sequoia I needed, LOL! ;>
You guys mention that yellow WRX and I saw a few photos of it looking bright and a few with it looking pale beigy-yellow, but I saw one in person and although it isn't as banana-yellow as the MRSpyder is, it's definitely yellow and not pale! There's a special grand opening thing at their store that features the WRX on the 25th of March, free food, hehehe. But, there will be a lot of neat things there it looks like. I think I will have to stop by.
Perhaps in some respects, sure. But previous to the WRX Subaru was clearly NOT a member of two classes: performance sedans and near-luxury sedans.
For $23,995 the WRX can only belong to one of those, and I have no doubt they picked the right one. Do a little research-- the first generation Impreza WRX as seen in Europe and Asia was never a near-luxury car either. The new car gets some refinement but that won't be enough for some... Me? I'm pissed that it gained so much weight and don't care about the interior!
-Colin lunatic fringe 2.5RS owner NOT 'upgrading' to a WRX
O.K.- almost a week old, and still learning about this thing.
I love to drive it- still. I could go on and on, but I'll tell you what I don't like, as that may be more helpful to those deciding on whether to consider this vehicle.
1. Looks- actually, not nearly as ugly as many believe, certainly not like an AMC Pacer, but not nearly as attractive as the Audi.
2. Interior materials- generally cheap, particularly compared to other Japanese cars like Toyotas.
3. Doors- require some force to shut.
4. Fold down arm rest/trunk access- the trunk carpet is cheap and buckles when the arm rest is down.
5. Tires- traction is o.k., but clearly too narrow.
6. My above-mentioned complaints are nothing compared to my praises. So far I love it. I'm a pretty modest guy, and this is a modest car. However, like my car, I pack a mean punch.
When dreaming for a 250+ hp WRX competitor, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII. It is targeted directly at the WRX and is supposed to come with 276HP. I don't know if it has a leather option, but wow. Mitsubishi says its going to bring it to North America for the 2002 or 2003 model year.
Yes, Reagger. I read about it in the latest issue of Automobile mag. Price tag is set at $25k! Although, the article did say that Mitsu engineers are having some trouble packaging the intercooler behind the bumper to meet US regulation. Subaru better sent the STi over soon!
I think you understand I was being facetious about the $25K. Problem was, when the new millenium arrived, the car I idealized was *way* to expensive for the use I'd get out of it. An A6 2.7T or S4? I wish. Even a Passat 4Motion V6? No stick and still too many $$$.
I've met leather seats I could be happy with. Drove my friend's TT roadster for a day -- nice side bolsters enough to overcome any slippery effect. For what it is worth, I thought the WRX seats were pretty nice for what they were -- good support and adjustability, especially for thigh support for long-legged 27.8 year-old members of the target demographic (and their older, 6'1" counterparts).
While I do not contest all of this "target market" stuff, I try to remember that it is probabilistic and that mass-production cars are always a compromise. Subaru may have lost some sales because the WRX is now "too heavy" but they probably widened the bell curve of it's appeal/market by including such things as a stereo, carpets, soundproofing, etc. while keeping to *only* 227 as-delivered HP and a possible 27MPG. For most of us, one car is all we get, so I was really concerned with daily driver characteristics.
Interested in Intrigue3's observations. Yes, when I first sat in one and closed the driver's door, I was surprised at the amount of effort required and it sounded like somebody popping the top of an empty 55-gallon oil drum -- Boink! Not an Audi, thunk-wise.
I read Automobile, but frankly I'll believe the Lancer Evolution stateside when I see it. DCX-Mitsubishi is REDUCING models to get profitability back, remember?
And with active differentials, I can't imagine how it could be less than $30k.
What BMW really needs to do it put AWD on the M3! Of course we'll have to wait and see if Jag comes out with a high-horsepower X-Type with AWD!
Back to reality, though ... since my wife drives what basically amounts to a monster truck I don't need anything that can haul or serves for much in the way of utility. I just want something that's quickn (well, more than quick), handles well, but can also serve as a daily commuter that won't break down much.
My guess is I'll have more luck with repairs over the long-term than I would with an Audi. I think the resale of the Audi would be a little better, but won't make much of a difference for me since I drive 25,000 miles per year. (My high mileage will pretty much eat away any higher resale value!)
EVO sounds sweet. Realistically I doubt it would cost $25k. Under $30k would be a surprise, even. Don't believe everything you read in those magazines - they are wrong as often as they are right.
The WRX is here now and represents the biggest peformance bargain in the market, period. Noone would argue that.
This is one design detail I really question on Imprezas. It sure seems that designing frameless door windows is asking for trouble with wind and water sealing, and necessitates a hard to close door. First generation Neons had tons of problems with this type of design, and abandoned it with the redesign - but this is Chrysler, after all Any opinions?
Subaru has been using them for a handful of years now and there hasn't been any problems that I've heard of. Several expensive makes of automobiles use this design too. Juice...help me here with their names :-). On a personal note, I was a little put off w/the sound of the door closing when the frameless window is down (same as in my 00'OB Ltd) but once I got use to it ....no biggie. I actually like the frameless glass from an asthetic point better.
I know BMW uses them in their 3 series coupes, and also used them on the 8 series, but those applications also have a complex mechanism to slightly lower the glass when you open the door, and raise the glass when you shut it - allowing the glass to seal properly. How many other four door sedans are currently in production with frameless door glass?
over the weekend and they were praising the frameless windows of some high priced cars. I was chuckling at that when I remembered some of the discussions that we are having about frameless windows on the Subaru.
I commend Sube for bringing us the WRX and thought hard about buying one. But, I've decided to buy a '97-98 BMW M3/4 instead. Reasons:
1. Looks: As a "car guy," I pride myself on an ability to put substance over form. But, come on, it looks like a Kia. Too bad because the previous Impreza was a rather attractive car.
2. Rumors of higher power: In two years, when I'm "bored" with the M3, we may have an STi and a Lancer Evo IX, not to mention the blown Jag X-Type R (hee hee). I don't want to feel like I bought the proverbial '82 Z28 with "Cross-Fire Injection."
3. Price: While I don't think the WRX is overpriced, at $25g, it's very close to a good '97 M3. The M3 is a better car in every respect except warranty and driveablity in the winter. I'll pay the extra grand and take my chances.
Oh well, I respect the Sube at least. Owners have fun. See you at the stoplight ;-)
Comments
He's owned a NSX as well as a Porsche before and all he could say was that the WRX gave him equal driving excitment. He noted the shifter felt very good, the chassis was very stiff and that it handled extremely well. He said that it was the perfect ride for the twisty roads around Santa Cruz.
Ken
-Colin
BDT
Why do so many of you take it personally when someone posts their opinion that they don't like the WRX? It's just a car.
There are cars that are both superior and inferior on a number of factors. The lag and sub-3000 RPM power have been noted in any review of the WRX that I've seen. It's a trade-off or deficiency that I guess I'll deal with by downshifting. There are cars that are both more and less expensive, but I tend to think of this as the cost of the car to dealers in general (and cost to operate), not the price that one dealer tries to exact or the price of some out-of-whack lease terms that I might fall victim to.
BDT
Years ago, I bought my GTI at the same time that a friend bought an Alfa Romeo Milano (75). His Alfa with the V6 had a lot more low-end grunt, but I got used to keeping my GTI's RPMs up and the performance of the 2 cars overall was a wash.
With the WRX, the torture is going to be getting it through break-in. After that, I expect my brain will adjust to the turbo lag just the way my brain has adapted (I don't notice them anymore) to bifocals. Plus, if I'm feeling lazy, I'll have a 227-HP car that might just get 27MPG on long trips. If I win Lotto before May I will definitely bail on the WRX and get an S4 Avant!
BDT
I wouldn't have been very impressed if I'd driven a WRX here in Tampa, where there's no snow, the roads are all perpendicular, and there are the smoothest roads I've ever seen. Why would anyone be impressed with a car that has turbo lag, stiff suspension, a relatively cheap interior and road and engine noise? I wouldn't. In fact, for the same amount of money, I'd be able to get a slightly used 2000 Maxima GLE with the works and a great engine, right?
But I don't. NYC streets are riddled with potholes, filled with mad cabdrivers, and the freeways as challenging as any rally course. I like to have every advantage I can get out there, and the WRX give me that. The low torque in the low RPM range allows me to drive with more precision in slower, tighter traffic, and still the engine can roar with a downshift. The WRX soaks up potholes and bumps like a sponge, can corner in those tight city street corners, has room for four and is still small enough to park easily.
My point is, peoples' impressions of the WRX are going to be as influenced by personal preferences as their road needs. In short, I think arm chair racers are missing the point. Whether the car is great or not is entirely subjective.
-Colin
Where are you at? I know of some RS's around this area... (sacramento)
Beanboy: RS vs. WRX vs. TS.
The RS has the same rear brakes as the WRX, but the front brakes are .5 inch's smaller. The TS has the same front brakes as the RS but drums in the back.
The tranny is different in the RS and TS compaired to the WRX. Different gear ratio's, but I dont know about the clutch or shifter since I cant drive stick :P
The steering is the same on all of the models.
The RS has an identicle Suspension to the WRX. The TS is not "Sport Tuned" ie probably softer springs and stuff. Its also got a smaller turn radius for some reason (at least thats what it shows in the brocure)?
mmcbride: Get the Audi. Its clear you care more about the prestige factor and leather than anything else.
But Personally, I drove an S4 and an A4 (brand new) 2 weeks before the WRX, and I have to say I just cant get comfortable in Audi's seats! And the S4 and WRX are VERY simular in performance after driving them (and its backed up by the numbers). The A4 cant compete with the WRX in performance stock (or even moded its going to have trouble! But if you want to compair mods, you have to compair mod vs. mod, not mod vs. stock!)
Your call...
lcd1: The WRX is one of the quietest cars ive been in... If you want to get a really good sense for how quiet it is, go test drive a 2001 Civic and then a WRX and tell me what you think
Corkfish: "Feel" is the key word there. The WRX has a very linear power curve, and as a result, its very smooth. You dont get as much of that "throw you back" feeling, but I was amazed how quickly it got up to 80mph!!!
As for that crazy lease, try another dealer and see what they say... It always helps to shop around!
Yes, there are more civilized sports sedans out there. For example, big 6s are great. If you do not care about all the fun associated with the busy hand-foot coordination and just want relaxed 'oh-nice-power!' experience, I am sure you would be disappointed with WRX (you might want to try Camaro, instead). For those who know that 4-cylinder + turbo is one of the ultimate forms in the motor sports, WRX should be something drooling of.
if it's not too far try Irivine Subaru or www.irvinesubaru.com. They have there own Mod division www.flatlinemotorsports.com and do not mark up above MSRP. Try contacting Charles over there.
The Owner Desiree got one of the Yellow sedans with an Australian Exhaust Mod and some timing mod also. Her dealership also got in an order of 62 WRX plus 10 automatics for the month of March. They may get an order of similar size if not more for April. Meaning they can probably get you what you want at a fair deal.
Maybe the Audis are light enough that it's less on an issue.
I don't buy their flat torque curve peak. I'd be interested to see torque curves stock and chipped - I'm sure it's not flat.
But what do you expect? It's a turbo! If that's not what you want, the RS is available and makes good low-end torque.
-juice
I expect that WRX drivers just need to learn thier new car.
As to turbo lag and WRX vs. A4 1.8T responsiveness, I have a couple of observations. First, please realize that turbos can be used for many purposes. Good heavens, most diesel semis are turbocharged, and it isn't done to make them into race trucks. The Audi has a very small turbo designed to spin up very quickly and deliver power low in the RPM band. It does this very well, but at the expense of the turbo "whoosh" of power higher up in the revs. The WRX turbo does just the opposite, spinning up later but with a more pronounced kick in the pants and more power in the second half of the RPM range. These two turbo systems were designed from the start to produce different results. Comparing the two is not exactly fair to either one. (Also note that both manufacturers offer twin-turbo engines; those turbos are different sizes, a small one offering low end boost and another other kicking in later. The best of both worlds!)
Second, something I've observed about Subies is that the motors, transmissions and other mechanical bits are notorious for being very "tight" when new and for changing noticeably with time. The fun part is that the cars just keep getting better and better as they loosen up. For example, it is not at all unusual to hear about Subarus averaging 2-5 MPG better after 10K miles than they did when new. I wonder what a fully broken-in WRX will feel like? I don't know, but I'd bet money that it will be markedly different than it was when it was brand new - and probably better too.
Cheers,
-wdb
Thanks
Kevin
227hp is just a starting point. I bet half of all owners at least do some mods. The internals are all in place, so it's a nice palette to start with.
Kevin: probably 3-5hp from the exhaust, depending upon what else you do.
-juice
kostamojen - The A4 1.8 does not have leather, but leatherette (which looks like leather). That's not the only thing I like about the A4's interior. It's that, in combination with the other stuff (like the BOSE stereo, moonroof, heated seats and mirrors, and high-quality feel of the interior) that separate it from the WRX. And I never said the A4 performed like the WRX, I fully realize that it doesn't come close, but the A4 is fast enough for me. I'm willing to give up a little performance for a little luxury. I'm in my car every day for at least an hour (in stop and go traffic). I want it to be a place I can relax until the traffic opens up. I just don't feel comfortable in the Subie. It reminded me way too much of my wife's old Civic. To me, it just looks and feels cheap (and it's not cheap).
It's not about prestige or panache (two words you like to throw around), it's about buying the car you like best. For you, that would be the WRX. For me, it's the A4. That doesn't make either one of us wrong, just different.
Audi targets a more sophisticated (read: affluent and older) buyer.
-juice
Ask a WRX owner if he'd pick real wood trim or an extra 5 horsepower.
-juice
I think you need to amend your prior post. Instead of "it just matters MUCH less than acceleration", you need to add "to me" to the end. Those are your opinions, they are not facts.
Stephen
Given the choice between a bump to 232 HP and wood trim (or some improvement in interior appointments) I would take the wood trim. The cheapness of some of the interior bits is the only thing that really bugs me about the WRX (But, hey, it didn't cost $40K, so I'll get over it).
All of the target market stuff aside, there's a limit to what what you can generalize about car preferences. After 12 years in my buzzy GTI, I was certain I would buy another VW/Audi, but swore that this time it would: be bigger and quieter, but as fast or faster; have 4 doors, AWD and a 6. Well, the day arrived and VW just never managed to produce a twin-turbo AWD V6 Passat with a stick for ~$25,000, so a compromise was in order. After a test drive, I decided that the 4-banger in the WRX was "smooth enough". I'm 48, fall way outside of Sub's target demographic (No, this is *NOT* a mid-life crisis!) and I'd really like heated leather seats, but I figure I'll save that for my next car somewhere around 2011.
"Matters to me" is the correct usage.
BDT
And BTW I didn't mean "to me", I meant "to the targeted WRX buyer". It's a bit small for my needs.
-juice
You guys mention that yellow WRX and I saw a few photos of it looking bright and a few with it looking pale beigy-yellow, but I saw one in person and although it isn't as banana-yellow as the MRSpyder is, it's definitely yellow and not pale! There's a special grand opening thing at their store that features the WRX on the 25th of March, free food, hehehe. But, there will be a lot of neat things there it looks like. I think I will have to stop by.
Dianne
It's perfectly reasonable for you to want a nicer interior mmcbride, but like Juice says you're not at all the target consumer for the WRX.
-Colin
For $23,995 the WRX can only belong to one of those, and I have no doubt they picked the right one. Do a little research-- the first generation Impreza WRX as seen in Europe and Asia was never a near-luxury car either. The new car gets some refinement but that won't be enough for some... Me? I'm pissed that it gained so much weight and don't care about the interior!
-Colin
lunatic fringe 2.5RS owner NOT 'upgrading' to a WRX
We have 3 cars, 2 with leather. Neither heated, and that really stinks. They are cold in winter, hot in summer, and slippery all the time.
Without a doubt I'd swap for cloth. In a second.
-juice
PS Would I swap? Yes. You got a Miata with cloth and interested? E-mail me.
I love to drive it- still. I could go on and on, but I'll tell you what I don't like, as that may be more helpful to those deciding on whether to consider this vehicle.
1. Looks- actually, not nearly as ugly as many believe, certainly not like an AMC Pacer, but not nearly as attractive as the Audi.
2. Interior materials- generally cheap, particularly compared to other Japanese cars like Toyotas.
3. Doors- require some force to shut.
4. Fold down arm rest/trunk access- the trunk carpet is cheap and buckles when the arm rest is down.
5. Tires- traction is o.k., but clearly too narrow.
6. My above-mentioned complaints are nothing compared to my praises. So far I love it. I'm a pretty modest guy, and this is a modest car. However, like my car, I pack a mean punch.
Thanks.
I've met leather seats I could be happy with. Drove my friend's TT roadster for a day -- nice side bolsters enough to overcome any slippery effect. For what it is worth, I thought the WRX seats were pretty nice for what they were -- good support and adjustability, especially for thigh support for long-legged 27.8 year-old members of the target demographic (and their older, 6'1" counterparts).
While I do not contest all of this "target market" stuff, I try to remember that it is probabilistic and that mass-production cars are always a compromise. Subaru may have lost some sales because the WRX is now "too heavy" but they probably widened the bell curve of it's appeal/market by including such things as a stereo, carpets, soundproofing, etc. while keeping to *only* 227 as-delivered HP and a possible 27MPG. For most of us, one car is all we get, so I was really concerned with daily driver characteristics.
Interested in Intrigue3's observations. Yes, when I first sat in one and closed the driver's door, I was surprised at the amount of effort required and it sounded like somebody popping the top of an empty 55-gallon oil drum -- Boink! Not an Audi, thunk-wise.
BDT
And with active differentials, I can't imagine how it could be less than $30k.
-Colin
Back to reality, though ... since my wife drives what basically amounts to a monster truck I don't need anything that can haul or serves for much in the way of utility. I just want something that's quickn (well, more than quick), handles well, but can also serve as a daily commuter that won't break down much.
My guess is I'll have more luck with repairs over the long-term than I would with an Audi. I think the resale of the Audi would be a little better, but won't make much of a difference for me since I drive 25,000 miles per year. (My high mileage will pretty much eat away any higher resale value!)
That EVO sure sounds interesting, though!
The WRX is here now and represents the biggest peformance bargain in the market, period. Noone would argue that.
-juice
Stephen
Bob
1. Looks: As a "car guy," I pride myself on an ability to put substance over form. But, come on, it looks like a Kia. Too bad because the previous Impreza was a rather attractive car.
2. Rumors of higher power: In two years, when I'm "bored" with the M3, we may have an STi and a Lancer Evo IX, not to mention the blown Jag X-Type R (hee hee). I don't want to feel like I bought the proverbial '82 Z28 with "Cross-Fire Injection."
3. Price: While I don't think the WRX is overpriced, at $25g, it's very close to a good '97 M3. The M3 is a better car in every respect except warranty and driveablity in the winter. I'll pay the extra grand and take my chances.
Oh well, I respect the Sube at least. Owners have fun. See you at the stoplight ;-)