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.
Comments
Most, if not all, car reviews I read indicate that the engine is a bit rough down low but smooths out as the rpm climb - my experience exactly.
-mike
For me i havent owned anything since the days of motorcycling that had anykind of performance. But as far as owning a unique vehicle ID have to say the WRX is more of a specailty car set apart for its $$$$. Luxury, handling, acceleration, interior space, FWD vs AWD
reliabilty. ennie meanie mini moe how do you like that for reasoning? I suggest go over to the WRX vs RSX board and ponder those conversations over there!!!!! twenty something thousand is a few buckaroos. and if you are a two door japanese fan then maybe consider the Celica because the RSX is closer in comparision. Toyota 180 hps Acura 200 hps. two questions gives away to other ones !
It's $4.50 a quart, but you will be providing the best protection possible for the turbo and also many more miles out of the engine before having to do a rebuild, which more than pays for the extra cost in the long run.
When we first got our Forester, it had a rough idle and was unusually noisy, and it was amazing how much it quieted down after the Mobil 1. Now, it really purrs like a kitten.
Don't quote me on this, but IMO, the Mobil 1 would also provide an additional 3-5 horsepower for a WRX engine, just from allowing all the internal parts to work better and faster.
-mike
Dennis
I'm assuming the engine on your XT6 is already broken in and probably as loose as it's going to get, with normal wear and tear after a bunch of miles. In that case, it sounds reasonable that an oil of thicker viscosity might help cushion the valve tap and quiet it down.
On a new engine like a 4-week old WRX, it's more likely that the tap is resulting from the very tight tolerances of parts that haven't really broken in yet.
In that case, you would need to get lubrication into tighter spaces, and the more slippery 5W-30 Mobil 1 might do the trick.
I'm not an engine mechanic, tho, so this is really just an educated guess.
Bob
The Honda S2000 is the same way. Actually it's worse. With that engine, you need to spin it up to 6000 rpm before you hit the sweet spot. If you grew up with high-performance, multi-cylinder, mid-displacement motorcycles, as I did; it's not a problem.
Speaking of motorcycles: The trickest bike (to drive safely) I ever owned was a 1970 Kawasaki 500 triple (Mach III) two stroke. 60 HP out of a 390 pound bike. At 4000 rpm the power came on like somebody turned on a light switch. You had better be leaning over the front handlebars, or the bike was lible to wheel over backwards. It was was especially interesting when you had a passenger on the back!
I agree, a low-boost turbo, hooked up to the 2.5L H-4 would be easier to drive, and still give excellent performance.
Bob
If played properly, GM can expoit the sports car market here without major investment to everybodys, and especially driving public advantage.
I agree with you regarding the 5-speed automatic and 6-speed manual. The WRX-STi already has a 6-speed manual, and it's rumored to come over here in a couple of years.
I also agree with you that I would like to see a 3.0L turbo. I don't think the WRX's engine will grow. If it does, it will lose it's (marketing) link to the rally cars.
Bob
Also, on manual: they must not only give it the 6th, but work on how it works - it is rubbery feeling now, and very undefined, comparing to Bimmer, Honda and Mazda. Though it feel better than on the previous 2.5 RS.
I think the WRX achieves as good a balance of fuel economy and power as anything else does. 20/27 and 227hp? I mean, c'mon. Look at each along and they're sweet, but combined that is fantastic, especially for a real 4 seater with AWD.
Remember Subaru is tip-toeing at the limit of CAFE right now. Who knows how they'll avoid fines in the future.
I have a feeling that a light-pressure 2.5l turbo would please many folks, though. Economy minded folks could keep it stock (save the earth!), while folks hungry for more power can just chip them or crank up the boost (gas is cheap, right?).
But the stocker is going to fall somewhere inbetween gas miser and supercar. At least the WRX does a fair impression of both.
-juice
-mike
Start looking for spare trannys. I'm sure you know that's a weak spot on that car, and with your driving style—well... you know what I mean.
Bob
-mike
logical. So why wait a 1000 miles? Why not
use it from day one? It would seem like the
break in period is the most critical time for
better protection.
A Doctor, looking at a guy's cold body, is asking nurse - "Did he sweat, before he died?"
She -"Yes!"
Doctor - "Good!"
I had cooler on the tranny, and it did approx. that much good as sweating in the above story.
This is all predicated on my memories of macroeconomics in college, and reading articles online, in mags like Industry Standard (no more printed version!) & the Sunday NYTimes. If I'm wrong, somebody correct me so I don't continue being wrong.
DjB
My WRX now has about 8900 miles on it, and it drives entirely differently from the first day I got it. The turbo lag has definitely been reduced and it pulls much more effortlessly now. The stick is much easier to work, and I'm finally acclimated to it's AWD quirks. I'm still in love with this car!
Qualityguy, sounds to me like you're looking for a Camaro or Mustang that was built in Japan for under $25,000. Hell, if it existed, I'd take a closer look too. But if that, or a luxury, front-wheel drive, auto tranny only "sports" sedan like the TL is what you want, then it's no surprise you are disappointed by the WRX. I know that my passengers (especially the more genteel types) are disappointed by the "rawness" of the WRX' ride. Ahem, of course, it has nothing to do with my driving. ;-}
-mike
-mike
No replacement for displacement? Not necessarily. Honda won F1 with a 1.5l turbo making over 1000 horsepower, while V12s twice the size gasped for air and sucked its fumes. The RX7 was a 1.3 liter, and could outrun several engines 4 times its size with its twin turbos.
You do need a balance, though, to have some low end torque. Twin turbos help a lot. That's what makes the Legacy Blitzen so sweet.
But we're likely to get something less exotic here.
The $:Y ratio is working in our favor. Subaru is adding content every year. 5-6 small things are added each year or so, really.
-juice
-mike
I say follow Colin Chapman's theory of "adding lightness". That's how my Miata can outrun a Durango V8.
Lots of quick cars with tiny engines, though there are trade-offs there too. Someone said VTEC stands for Vanishing Torque in the Engine Compartment, and that cracked me up.
But combined with about 3 liters of displacement it performs well.
-juice
If you ask Mobil, they will tell you it's OK to put it in as soon as you pick the car up from the dealer. I put mine in at 640 miles and it's been doing great and not using any oil, so it looks like the rings are doing fine.
IMO,using Mobil 1 is the finest single thing you can do for a high-performance motor like the WRX, for performance and engine/turbo longevity. If you ask members of professional race car teams, many of them would probably tell you the same thing.
The Impreza is Subaru's price leader here in North America, much like the Civic is to Honda, and the Corolla is to Toyota. It's sized and "contented" like those vehicles too. Yet it has a 2.5L engine, whereas the Honda and Toyota have engines in the 1.6L range.
Bob
-juice
Is the year/year rise in car prices (Japanese, Euro, US etc) due simply to inflation? But then car companies often release a new model that improves on the previous-gen, while holding the same $ amount price. How is it that they can make a profit making a better car for the same price? Do they improve production efficiency or something?
Can anybody explain this in words of, at most, 3 syllables? TIA
DjB
-mike
I used to see textile piece goods imported into the US by a then major brand @ say US$15/doz. and they retail at US$30 each (hehe, even if they had a sale it is too much to pay).
Of cause, that's one factor I have knowledge of. There are others as you've mentioned "improve production efficiency".
Ed
My buddy scott has the WRX in a 5-speed. It's a speedy car, but as posted before, launching @ higher RPMs isn't a real way to overcome the turbo-lag. Yeah if you nail it out of the box every time. How do you explain my XT6 being within 2 seconds of all the Stock WRXs @ auto-x? And beating all the ones in GStock at the last one (except for the one with R-compounds) with just R-compounds on my XT6? It's because in Auto-x you need low end power to get out of the turns. The WRX in stock form just doesn't have it out of the hole like that.
The other reason I switched over is that I finally got to drive my aunt's car, and it is totally sweet. A true luxury car w/AWD, and plenty of power, drive one for yourself and you'll see.
-mike
As for your autocross successes, yes, I know, it's well documented, you saw fit to that! ; } (Joke!) But would AllFriedEggs agree? Bwaahahahaha! Speaking of fools. Sorry, inside humor.
Let's say you drive your WRX a 100,000 miles, changing with conventional oil every 3,000 mi.
At $1.25 a quart times 5 qts. for each change, this comes to $6.25 each time. In 100K miles you'll do 33 changes which comes to $206.25.
OK, for the synthetic, 5 qts. runs you $4.50 X 5 = $22.50. Times 33 changes is a total of $742.50
which means over a 100K mi. running the synthetic costs $536.25 more than the conventional oil.
(You could actually leave the synthetic in for 6,000 miles and still get the same protection, but to keep things simple, we'll assume the same 3,000 mi. for each oil.)
Now here's the kicker. At 100,000 mi. using the conventional oil you are probably going to need a rebuild on both the turbo and engine. Let's say rebuilt turbo costs $500 and engine for $2500 (ballpark figures).
But if you've used the synthetic religiously those 100K mi., you can probably go another 100K before needing the rebuild.
You've just pocketed yourself $2500, and of course this assumes you've babied the engine a little and not driven like Barney Oldfield the whole time.
This is the dirty little secret you never hear about--the synthetics will make your engine last much, much longer given the same driving habits.
Everybody's different and some guys might need a rebuild at 60,000, but the principle here is the same. You are always better off using the synthetic and assuming you are going to keep the car a long time and not trade in after just a couple years. (And that you also take care of any oil leaks you might get along the way
-mike
I suggest that everyone here go take a look at it at least, you dont have to buy it :P
(BTW, 2 of the WRX's in there ive seen in person, Alex's and the M2 performance car)
P.S. RE SVX/WRX performance - Car and Driver Sept 1991 test of a 1992 SVX, 0-60 mph 7.8 secs, QM 15.7 @91 mph, April 2001 test of a 2002 WRX, 0-60 mph 5.8 secs, QM 14.7 @ 93 mph. Both cars top out at 140 mph.
-mike
I'm wondering what people think of the differences between stick and automatic transmission, in terms of performance, wear and tear, etc. The automatic has the Variable Torque Distribution (VTD) system. Does this make an automatic perform or handle better? Is an automatic likely to last longer?
Thanks for your opinions.
< 250 hp doing 155 mph at the top end. As for the North American WRX's top speed, it is definitely > 140 mph. The car is electronically speed limited to 130 mph according to SOA BUT, in the October 2000 version of the UK magazine AutoCar, their WRX (which is 10 fewer HP than the North American version and no limiter) the car topped out at 141 mph. Remove the limiter on your WRX and 140 mph+ is a layup. Personally, I plan to test my Canadian WRX after an oil change next weekend and will give a report!