The May 1998 C&D magazine talks about the last WRC Impreza. Much of it still applies to the current one as the rules haven't changed that much. Since I had a lot of time today....I'll type some of the more interesting points about the WRC car.
- WRC cars have stock unibody structure, basic suspension design and engine block, cylinder heads, engine position, and outer body shape. - minimum weight is 2700 lbs. - 55% percent of weight on front wheels. - a restrictor plate 0.2" thick with 1.4 inch hole sits between the airbox and turbo choking the flow. Cars are limited to 300HP but not dyno'ed meaning the teams are allowed to try to squeeze more than 300HP out of the engine (which is very difficult with the restrictor plate in place and the limitations of a 2.0L engine) - stock pistons, rods and cams are swapped out - anti-lag system keeps the 36 psi IHI turbo spinning when driver's foot is off the gas. It retards the ignition timing, dumps extra fuel into the cylinder and keeps the throttle partly open. There's always at least 14psi boost available. - A racing catalylic convertor is required and that limits the amount of anti-lag used. Also, too much anti-lag is not desirable as it makes the car jumpy. - oversized radiator is used, and water is injected into the intake manifold to cool the engine. - every joint in the body sheel is seam welded and the safety cage is welded in. Body is now 4 times stiffer than stock. Takes 300 hours to prepare the body. - springs, shocks and control arms are race specification. Suspension mounting points can be moved within a 1 inch sphere. Uprights are steel and hubs are titanium - suspension travel is same as stock - MacRae preferred manual steering and no ABS - transmission is six speed box with straight cut gears. - three differentials, front and center electronic, rear is limited slip. Front and center units use hydraulic pressure to control a clutch pack (driver can control the amount of lock using a knob) - four piston vented discs used (14.4x1.3 and 12.0x1 rear), but sometimes swapped for six-piston liquid cooled units for more demanding road stages - 8x18 magnesium wheels used for tarmac, and 7x16 used on gravel, 5.5x15 studded on snow. A single rally will go through 48 tires. - replacement costs: new WRC engine costs $50,000. Right front suspension costs $10,000.00, 1 of the six gas discharge headlights cost $1500. New tranny $17,000. - In the rain, C&D tested the car...0-60 in 4.1 seconds, 1/4 mile in 12.8 seconds. A wet skipad shows 0.85 g - In the gravel with gravel tires, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. - fuel economy: 3 (three) MPG
So you can see how these WRC cars cost half a million dollars or more.
My comment: one thing that is noticeable on the new WRC cars is that they seem to have adopted a F1 style auto-manual. The clutch pedal is only used to launch the car. As long as the car is moving, their foot don't have to touch the pedal, the computer does all the rest.
Also, there was an article (December or November 2001 issue) in "Racecar Engineering", which is a UK magazine, about the WRC race-cars (specifically about the Subaru WRC) and their engineering. There was a detailed interview with David Lapworth from Prodrive (Top guy in the group who prepare the Subaru Rally cars), who was asked a lot of pointed questions. The article was more of a question and answer kind.
Also, in the above post, the driver adjustable lock (by means of a knob) on the Electronically controlled hydraulic multi-plate clutch-pack, is achieved by varying the pitch of the torque sensing planetary gear of the center differential. The knob is able to vary the pitch of the planetary gear thus varying the torque splits front/back. The Auto-WRX on the other hand (which uses a system with a similar design) does not have the capability to manually adjust the pitch of the planetary gear, and has a fixed split that allows a steady 45/55 front/back split in power/torque in normal driving.
I have a video preview of this past season (US Rally), and they show both the Group N (recognizable) and the Open class cars (heavily modified). The Open cars is done by ProDrive and is very close to the WRC cars.
Indeed, Mark Lovell's car had a paddle shifter aft of the steering wheel, very neat. Karl Schieble's Group N car was basically a WRX with a roll cage.
The year end review of SCCA Rally was on last night and was quite good, as was the British WRC after it. The WRC year end review is next Monday, also on Speedvision.
It is interesting to see that the N class cars really aren't that much slower than the open class cars. Open class allows for faster stuff than WRC even, as the heavily modified Hyundai Tiburon they profiled was claimed to achieve 375hp (perhaps no restrictor or a bigger one?). That car needs a lot of mods, to go from 140hp FWD to 375hp AWD. They mentioned that the bigger teams, which I assume is Subaru, spend 5 times as much as Hyundai, which I can certainly believe.
It sounds like some of the i-clubbers could use those roll cages. Standard feature for 2003? ;-)
That's one amazing piece of machinery. Sounds like driving one of those babies just might take care of those pesky SUVs beating me off the line--although hard to say how long my wallet would hold out with the 3 miles per gallon. But it sure would be a fun time while it lasted !! --RA
Both have exactly the same displacement, but aside from the 3 cats on the WRX, there must be other differences--forged pistons and specially hardened connecting rods on the WRC, maybe? Also, the WRX redlines at 7000 (although I've read it's actually good for 7500 because it uses the same valvetrain as the Japanese 247 hp version)--it would seem the WRC must top out much higher than that to squeeze out 300 horses. --RA
There are no rules about what the engine parts are made of. Just the block and heads are stock. The previous WRC car had a 7000 redline. C&D mentioned that Subaru would not divulge the true secrets of the engine to the magazine.
I finally got to road test the WRX wagon (auto) on the freeway. SADLY, I was disappointed with the acceleration from say, 60-80 mph. "Seat of the pants" and watching the speedo, it did not feel any faster than my '90 Legend (V6-161 hp). It was certainly slower off the line too. I was wondering where the 227 horses were. Did they get lost in the front and rear differentials (since the Acura is a transverse, front (wrong) wheel drive car)?
One suggestion (at the risk of igniting the auto vs manual WRX war again), try the 5spd. I have the 5spd wagon and when I shift out of 5th gear between 60 and 80mph I shoot out like a rocket. BTW, I have the WRX wagon.
Hi Stephan, I did "floor it" and it downshifted to third.....but did not feel faster than what I'm use to. As a comparison, before I drove the WRX, I drove the TS because it has similar hp/torque at similar rpms to my 2.7 sohc v6, and was disappointed enough to want to try the WRX. I WILL drive one again just to be sure of what I experienced. I just really don't want a manual trans after being spoiled by a pretty good automatic and actually drove a manual WRX in town and was "annoyed" at first.
Don't forget even with similar power curves you are going to loose a lot more power driving 4 wheels than the 2 of the FWD car. Handling and dynamics are different. And try to do the same accelerations in snow/rain/dirt/curvy roads and you'll see the AWD makes a difference.
It is gratifying how you can take a stock WRX, put in a roll-cage and a few thousand bucks in engine mods, install some 4-piston Brembos and 17"ers and do a couple suspension tweaks and you have a very competitive 300+hp rally car, probably for under $45 grand total. As Warpdrive says, Subaru spends 10 times that much to prepare a WRC car (although it has a six-speed semi-auto,a limited slip diff on the front and maybe some other goodies we don't know about.) To me, that's a indication of how good a value we're really getting in our stock WRX's (and the STi when it finally arrives.) --RA
If you are disappointed with the WRX-Auto's performance on the highway, I would guarantee that you would be disappointed with the WRX-manual's performance too. On the highway, there would be absolutely no difference whatsoever. 60-100 is near instantaneous in my Auto-WRX. Maybe off the line (starting from a stop), you may have some advantages with the manual, if you indulge in vehicle abuse by revving the car and dropping the clutch. If you were to brake-torque the Auto-WRX, you would get the same result. Otherwise, they would be very similar with normal driving. I drove a manual-WRX after putting on >2000 miles on my Auto-WRX, and I found the same lag from a dead stop as my Auto and the same rocketing feel once the turbo kicks in. Of course, I consciously refrained from abusing the new WRX-manual vehicle from the dealership by dropping the clutch at a high rpm or any such antics. Very similar in feel to my well broken in Auto-WRX (incidentally, the WRX-Auto transmission is an adaptive transmission and will modify the shift points by adapting to your driving style over a few hundred miles of driving).
I personally feel that my WRX-Auto is comparable to my Acura 3.2TL on the highway (6.7Secs 0-60 with Automatic). A literal kamikaze. The 3.2TL should be way faster than your car. I would estimate that you drove a defective WRX-Auto car.
I just went to fill up my WRX, and I'm so used to my old car that before I realized it, I put in a couple of gallons of 87 octane. I stopped and then filled up the rest(a bit over 9 gallons) with 93 octane. will there be any short term (CEL) or long term effects?
All modern cars are equipped with knock sensors that retard the timing with lower octane gas. You only put in a few gallons. You might lose a few HP until the tank is empty.
Don't worry too much if you put a little regular in your tank instead of premium. Per the owners manual: "If premium unleaded gasoline is not available, regular unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 87 AKI or higher may be temporarily used.".
Your weighted octane average would be (assuming you put in 12 gallons total):
2x87=174 10x93=930 930+174=1104 1104/12=92
So, 92 octane. I think 91 is the minimum recommended and you'll be more than fine. Even with less the knock sensor would basically retard the timing and cost you maybe 5 horsepower or so.
I took a WRX wagon automatic for another test drive. Still feel it is only about as fast as my Legend. That's okay. More fun to stear! Lots more road noise though. Anybody take a 6 hour drive yet? Does the noise "get to you"? I'm thinking of NOT upgrading the stereo for this reason. Thanks
The noise is not even close to being an issue. Yes, there is some noise, and it is louder than a real luxury car. But I was actually surprised (and still am) that the car is as quiet as it is.
Just came back from a five hour drive myself. Still grinning, must be a good sign!
When I drove my wagon back from picking it up, it was a 5 hour drive...the noise level was quite unobtrusive...the ride was very pleasant...now, I have only 99 miles left to reach the magic 1,000 miles...
depends very much on the road surface. We have some highways around here that are so smooth, driving the Rex feels like your flying on a magic carpet. Other roads can be much more noisy. It's what car mags refer to as "feel of the road" and is supposed to be a good thing, as opposed to cars that insulate you too much from what is going on under the wheels. I agree 100% that the WRX is not all that noisy, in fact really very pleasant for a high-performance car.
The 2000 RS I drove was close to my Miata in terms of road noise, but the WRX is closer to my Forester. That's what I mean, it may be too isolated, too refined, for some.
But I'm sure the folks that think so are the same folks that go to the aftermarket for more aggressive tire treads.
I think it's a bit too quiet too. I want to hear that wonderful Boxer burble sometimes. It's very quiet on the Freeway, even on some of these crapped out LA concrete freeways. But I don't know when and if I'd change the exhaust, because when the exhaust on my MX6 rusted, I replaced it with a 'performance' exhaust and the sound was too droning on freeway speeds.
The only thing that isn't so quiet is the exhaust sound..I drive with the windows open (South Florida in the winter is the only time we can do that!) and love the slight burbling sound. Susan said that when I start the car, it makes the pictures on the living room wall vibrate!
Thanks for the opinions on noise levels. I did not find mechanical noise an issue, only road noise. It's a trade off. Now to make the deal. How "rare" will a white wagon automatic be? Should I expect to be able to deal on this model?
I chose silver, it hardly looks dirty- that may not be a good thing either, cause now I have to remember when I washed it last. But the Sedona Red and WR Blue are some good looking colors for the WRX wagon. But with Subaru's paint quality, I'll stick with silver.
....that car picture in their article is caked with mud and dirt. But in Silver it really doesn't look as dirty as it probably is. I originally wanted that lovely WR Blue, but the practical side of me won out in a more practical silver color which tends to hide dirt/scratches/dings.
Juice- IMO white cars are almost as good as silver ones when it comes to hiding dirt. Yes they will show dirt up close but from a distance they still appear clean.
Perhaps. I guess I'm looking at my Miata up close, it always has black spots, it seems. Maybe because it's fall and leaves are all over it. It does hide pollen well.
show dirt the least are mid-tone, neutral colors. Colors that are neither dark or light, and that are muted rather than bright. They are often referred to as "earthtones."
anything in the *gray* family, be it warm grays (with some red in it) or cool grays (with some blue in it) are good in hiding dirt. Beiges, silvers, and Subaru's "Wintergreen" all fall into that category.
That's new this year, right? Still haven't seen one in person. I imagine the Titanium is a good color for hiding dirt, too. The Slate cladding is another.
Someone wondered why don't older folks buy WRXs. I'm 62 (going on 18) and purchased a black WRX 5-speed wagon last month. Can't wipe the smile off my face! Keep hunting for blue highways and excuses to go somewhere. Hope the Suby holds up, because if it does, it will be the best $$ I've spent on an automobile.
Comments
- WRC cars have stock unibody structure, basic suspension design and engine block, cylinder heads, engine position, and outer body shape.
- minimum weight is 2700 lbs.
- 55% percent of weight on front wheels.
- a restrictor plate 0.2" thick with 1.4 inch hole sits between the airbox and turbo choking the flow. Cars are limited to 300HP but not dyno'ed meaning the teams are allowed to try to squeeze more than 300HP out of the engine (which is very difficult with the restrictor plate in place and the limitations of a 2.0L engine)
- stock pistons, rods and cams are swapped out
- anti-lag system keeps the 36 psi IHI turbo spinning when driver's foot is off the gas. It retards the ignition timing, dumps extra fuel into the cylinder and keeps the throttle partly open. There's always at least 14psi boost available.
- A racing catalylic convertor is required and that limits the amount of anti-lag used. Also, too much anti-lag is not desirable as it makes the car jumpy.
- oversized radiator is used, and water is injected into the intake manifold to cool the engine.
- every joint in the body sheel is seam welded and the safety cage is welded in. Body is now 4 times stiffer than stock. Takes 300 hours to prepare the body.
- springs, shocks and control arms are race specification. Suspension mounting points can be moved within a 1 inch sphere. Uprights are steel and hubs are titanium
- suspension travel is same as stock
- MacRae preferred manual steering and no ABS
- transmission is six speed box with straight cut gears.
- three differentials, front and center electronic, rear is limited slip. Front and center units use hydraulic pressure to control a clutch pack (driver can control the amount of lock using a knob)
- four piston vented discs used (14.4x1.3 and 12.0x1 rear), but sometimes swapped for six-piston liquid cooled units for more demanding road stages
- 8x18 magnesium wheels used for tarmac, and 7x16 used on gravel, 5.5x15 studded on snow. A single rally will go through 48 tires.
- replacement costs: new WRC engine costs $50,000. Right front suspension costs $10,000.00, 1 of the six gas discharge headlights cost $1500. New tranny $17,000.
- In the rain, C&D tested the car...0-60 in 4.1 seconds, 1/4 mile in 12.8 seconds. A wet skipad shows 0.85 g
- In the gravel with gravel tires, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds.
- fuel economy: 3 (three) MPG
So you can see how these WRC cars cost half a million dollars or more.
My comment: one thing that is noticeable on the new WRC cars is that they seem to have adopted a F1 style auto-manual. The clutch pedal is only used to launch the car. As long as the car is moving, their foot don't have to touch the pedal, the computer does all the rest.
Also, in the above post, the driver adjustable lock (by means of a knob) on the Electronically controlled hydraulic multi-plate clutch-pack, is achieved by varying the pitch of the torque sensing planetary gear of the center differential. The knob is able to vary the pitch of the planetary gear thus varying the torque splits front/back. The Auto-WRX on the other hand (which uses a system with a similar design) does not have the capability to manually adjust the pitch of the planetary gear, and has a fixed split that allows a steady 45/55 front/back split in power/torque in normal driving.
Later...AH
Indeed, Mark Lovell's car had a paddle shifter aft of the steering wheel, very neat. Karl Schieble's Group N car was basically a WRX with a roll cage.
-juice
It is interesting to see that the N class cars really aren't that much slower than the open class cars. Open class allows for faster stuff than WRC even, as the heavily modified Hyundai Tiburon they profiled was claimed to achieve 375hp (perhaps no restrictor or a bigger one?). That car needs a lot of mods, to go from 140hp FWD to 375hp AWD. They mentioned that the bigger teams, which I assume is Subaru, spend 5 times as much as Hyundai, which I can certainly believe.
It sounds like some of the i-clubbers could use those roll cages. Standard feature for 2003? ;-)
--RA
--RA
Stephen
-mike
-juice
As Warpdrive says, Subaru spends 10 times that much to prepare a WRC car (although it has a six-speed semi-auto,a limited slip diff on the front and maybe some other goodies we don't know about.)
To me, that's a indication of how good a value we're really getting in our stock WRX's (and the STi when it finally arrives.)
--RA
I personally feel that my WRX-Auto is comparable to my Acura 3.2TL on the highway (6.7Secs 0-60 with Automatic). A literal kamikaze. The 3.2TL should be way faster than your car. I would estimate that you drove a defective WRX-Auto car.
Later...AH
First fifteen people in the chat door get a free Swix Knitted Ski Hat from Subaru!
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
an octane rating of 87 AKI or higher may be temporarily used.".
Phil
2x87=174
10x93=930
930+174=1104
1104/12=92
So, 92 octane. I think 91 is the minimum recommended and you'll be more than fine. Even with less the knock sensor would basically retard the timing and cost you maybe 5 horsepower or so.
-juice
Just came back from a five hour drive myself. Still grinning, must be a good sign!
-juice
-Frank P.
Other roads can be much more noisy. It's what car mags refer to as "feel of the road" and is supposed to be a good thing, as opposed to cars that insulate you too much from what is going on under the wheels.
I agree 100% that the WRX is not all that noisy, in fact really very pleasant for a high-performance car.
But I'm sure the folks that think so are the same folks that go to the aftermarket for more aggressive tire treads.
-juice
It's easier to get louder, much harder to make it more quiet.
-juice
TWRX
-mike
In fact, white is usually not a high-demand color, so you should be able to deal as much as any other color.
-juice
-juice
-Frank P.
-juice
Bob
-juice
Bob
-juice
Bob
-juice (not at all the color expert)