Subaru Impreza WRX Wagon

ateixeira

AH's explanation may hint at why Subaru doesn't list the BBS wheels as a factory option - they'd have to be factored in to the EPA gas mileage cycles. That's the trade-off for shorter gearing - more fuel consumption.

Note that the BMW 540 pays a gas guzzler tax when you get the Sport package's tires, but no gas guzzler tax when you don't. It does make a difference.

-juice

locke2c

.5" diameter is not going to affect acceleration in any meaningful way. it's a very small change in gearing...

the TRACTION of the RE92 vs. the RE011 from rest would be far more significant.

face it, stock torque converters suck. they suck period on low-torque engines... and yes I've had a few.

-Colin

rsholland

was trying to keep the vehicles around $25-$26K, as I recall. So yes, the BBS wheel/tire combo would have done them in, cost-wise.

Interestingly, they had a side bar with the sub-$20K Mazda sport wagon (name escapes me at the moment). I wished they had also included the Outback Sport there too.

Bob

ponm

Where did you order your sti grill from?

barresa62

I ordered the STi grille from http://www.vividracing.com
They have good prices and a nice selection of accessories and performance parts for WRXs. I would also check ebay under car parts for Subaru. I think I saw a silver and a blue STi grille for 269.95. I think the one I ordered from Dan @ vividracing was $289.95.

Stephen

markneustadt

Hi all. I just finished my first week with my MY'02 WRX Wagon. :-D We love the grocery getter that is fast.

Pics posted at http://www.neustadts.com/wrx

Anyway... I think the car would look GREAT with some black out lenses for the headlights. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find these? I have found some sort of paint I can apply to the lenses but I'm looking for a less permanent solution. Also, the $800 multi-pod headlight units are too expen$ive for my tastes.

Help!

Mark

hunter001

face it, stock torque converters suck. they suck period on low-torque engines... and yes I've had a few.

217 lbs/ft of torque peaking @ 4000 rpm = low-torque engine ???

Or at least 80% of 217 lbs/ft torque from 2100 rpm to 6000 rpm = low torque engine ?? In my estimation, that is a broad torque band. That there is very little below 2100rpm is a known fact but nevertheless, once the rpms build up, there is a rush of power/torque that continues to build till redline.

You must be having torque-monster engines like the Dodge Viper in mind, I would suppose, when comparing it to the WRX engine.

Later...AH

ateixeira

Colin: funny you mention stock torque converters. My buddy has a big block '72 Camaro SS, and he put in an aftermarket one. The stall speed is much higher so when he lets go of the brakes his speed is limited only by the amount of traction offered by his slicks. It's a huge difference from stock.

AH: if you brake-torque to start a 0-60 run, the engine only allows you to rev to about 1200rpm or so before letting off the brakes, right? I'm sure at that rpm torque is nowhere near 217 fl-lbs, it may even be as low as 100 ft-lbs.

So you don't get the immediate response you would if the stall speed were, say, 3000rpm.

With a manual tranny you can start at 3000rpm, and that's the head start that makes the difference at the end of a quarter mile.

Bob: Protoge5? Or the new Mazda6 wagon?

-juice

paisan

Hmmm When I auto-x an AT like my old XT6 and my dad's Legacy L I rev to at least 2000-3000 RPMS holding it with the brake before I start out. Can't cut the wheels loose, but definitely gives me a bigger jump than if I didn't brake-stand it at all.

-mike

ateixeira

Well then let's ask, what's the stall speed on the WRX's auto tranny?

-juice

paisan

out and testdrive an AT WRX and try to get it into the boost range via brake-standing it and see what kind of acceleration I can get out of it, but haven't had a chance yet.

-mike

hypov

mike-
Just remember to jot down the VIN

-Dave

bluesubie

hunter001

I am not too sure what the stall speed is, on my car, since I have never tried it. But your 1200 rpm figure, is un-usually low.

I believe RiftsWRX in the i-club had done the torque-converter upgrade that allows him a stall speed of 4000 rpm or so.

Later...AH

bluesubie

is 2600-3300 rpm's.

Check 1st post on page 2 of this i-club post:

http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=153828&referrerid=767

-Dennis

ateixeira

Nice post. He hints at a 5 second limit, 'cause you don't want to bake the ATF doing it.

That is higher than I expected, and higher thant he 2.5l models too.

-juice

hunter001

So as per the factory manual, if the WRX stall speed is 2600-3300rpm, it takes it right into the meat of the powerband.

With modifications done to the Torque-converter, RiftsWRX's stall speed was raised to 4400-4700rpm, which makes the response that much more immediate even though longevity is questionable with too many brake-torqued launches at 4700rpm.

A manual driver who launched his manual-WRX at this high an rpm, COMPLETELY STRIPPED his 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears, as I recall. The Planetary gear of the Auto-WRX should be MUCH MORE stronger than that, but too much abuse will result in premature failure.

Later...AH

ateixeira

Then my theory is blown out of the water. Why is the AT slower than the MT?

Closer/more ratios on the MT? Higher than 3000rpm launches? Less weight?

Softer springs? (Had to throw that in for AH)

-juice

lark6

Geez, the gathering evidence is making me believe that an AT WRX wouldn't be such an enormous compromise. Gotta hit that lottery, though, or otherwise convince the missus to take over the Forester from me (she, like many of you, doesn't like black cars either).

Ed

hunter001

Which is why I state that the Auto-WRX should be slower than its manual counterpart by around 0.5secs (0-60) - everything else remaining the same (tires/wheels etc).

Later...AH

ateixeira

I agree (we often do), but then why do the numbers in practice differ by more than that? Are some editors not using that method?

Ed: the solution is something you probably don't want to hear - get her a 2004 Forester turbo, not black.

-juice

lark6

...for any changes that may come in the '03 or '04 models. Forester turbo for her, WRX for me - shoot, maybe even the sedan by that point! Nah, still want the ability to haul stuff, so it's the wagon for me.

As for the numbers with the AT, it's apparent that it's a matter of technique. For all those people who own AT WRXes, I suspect they won't be out there at every traffic light, stop sign or toll plaza itching to rev up and launch, but they can at least take comfort knowing that it's possible.

Ed

hunter001

"Numbers in practice", always have the Auto-WRX in an unfavorable combination of tires/wheels and the manual-WRX is favorably loaded with the lighter, max-performance wheels/tires with a lower diameter with the resultant lower gear ratios, all of which combined, basically makes the difference larger than it truly is. Also, the drivers pathetically complain about "being forced to drive an" AT, which leads me to question whether they truly know the best way of driving the car equipped with an Automatic trans. This 0.5 secs of "real" difference arises due to the slight additional driveline losses with the Auto-tranny and the 50 additional poundage (which is the difference between a heavier driver and lighter driver).

This is why in my previous post, I mentioned "everything else remaining the same (tires/wheels etc).

Later...AH

paisan

Well for one thing I'll bet that 95% of the people who run these performance test rarely drive an AT car, and if they do it isn't driving an AT car on a track or in performance situations. It took me a good season of auto-x to really get my technique for racing an AT car down, and even now I bet there is lots of room for me to improve my AT performance driving skills. It may be AT but the practice required to drive it well in performance situations is not something that comes quickly or easily.

-mike

rsholland

Protoge5

Bob

ateixeira

Actually, you make a good point. I rode with you during the Covered Bridge Tour/Gimmick Rally, and noticed your technique - you would hit the gas slightly before the apex, timing it so that it would down shift and pull you out of the turn just after the apex.

With a manual, you'd be down shifting probably before the turn, so definitely it takes a different technique to drive the auto.

Oh, and noone could keep up with us. :-)

-juice

nixomose

At the dealer they said they wanted $400 for this. I thought it was outrageous, then I found it on sparts...

http://www.subaruparts.com/cart/?partnumber=H5010FE011

and that doesn't include the housing. Is there no cheaper way to get nice useful gauges that fit the decor? Is the installation of this kit a bolt on procedure or do I have to cut hoses and drill holes in the firewall?

Some of the other shops have boost gauges that show you all the parts and installation instructions. I figured since this was a factory accessory it might be as simple as plugging into a wiring harness. Anybody know about this particular toy?

kens

Don't most car magazines try brake-torque launches to achieve the best 0-60 times on automatics?

Ken

barresa62

Yes, you're correct just as they do clutch drop or clutch slips w/the manuals. You beat me to the post. :-)

Of course, there's that adaptive automatic thing again...how the tranny was green etc. I would submit that a new manual tranny WRX would be "green" as well. :-)

Stephen

bluesubie

Ed - Sometimes I think that two wagons are redundant. You just can't beat the flexibility though.
I would be curious to see how an auto-WRX would handle the curves on one of the "PA Backroads Drives". You would definitely have to put it into "2" to keep the boost up. Maybe we'll find out soon.

Ken - I know Edmunds did.
Anyone else know if the Road & Track article mentions brake-torquing?

-Dennis

nixomose

I'm no maven here, I just don't get something. I watched my share of nascar, and spent my teens driving like a loony, even thought about fixing up and racing my GTI, but do people really race automatics? I just got the impression that the kind of person who would be into racing would just I dunno, be born with a silver shifter in their mouth and wouldn't know otherwise. The only time I saw use for an automatic was when I broke my foot. There's an awful lot of talk so I guess people do it, but don't you just lose all the control (and fun?)
This is just an opinion question, really, don't mean to offend anyone.

paisan

<- Races ATs for years. Only competatively now in the past 2 years @ Auto-x. I just started driving MTs a few weeks ago. No reason no to race em. I'm still debating which I like better.

-mike

hondafriek

I love a black car, but I will never own another one, they are just too labour intensive to keep looking good, especially for an OCD nut like me.

You definitely have to be a masochist to own a black car.

Cheers Pat.

lark6

Pat: I think you and I have had this conversation before! There was a very nice steel blue-gray color available on last-gen WRXes and Foresters in Japan that I wish was available here.

Dennis: Two small wagons, like a Forester and Impreza, are by no means redundant. Now if I had a Legacy wagon, then the need for a second wagon would be less likely. Just thinking of situations where the missus would be going to a garden center while I would be going to a swap meet (yeah right, more like both of us going to Sam's Club...).

Ed

armac13

I cross shopped the OBS and the Forester in 2000. The Forester won by a wide margin at that time for my tastes and needs despite the significantly higher price. In choosing between thew 2002's, I would probably take the OBS. Between the 2002 OBS and the 2003 Forester? - probably the Forester based upon what I've heard. They are quite different vehicles IMHO.

Ross

ateixeira

They are not redundant - when the Forester arrived it brought new sales, new customers, to Subaru. Sales have increased every year since.

-juice

hunter001

The "green" comment was pertaining to R&T's comments on how the tranny "upshifted too early" and "downshifted too late". Not about affecting 0-60 times or anything like that. In their final score, even though the Auto-WRX won, it would have won by a wider margin, if the tranny had been well-adapted, since they gave the lowest number of points for the WRX-tranny, when compared to the Auto-trannies of the other competitors. Also, it would have prevented a bunch of their negative comments on the transmission, which stood out in the article.

0-60 and such things are definitely affected by factors like lighter, grippier tires/wheels, lower diametered tire/wheel combo etc., which is what happened with their test of the Auto-WRX wagon with an unfavorable combination, while they did a test on the manual-version, with a combination that was extremely favorable to the manual. This DEFINITELY affected the 0-60 times. Nothing to do with the transmission being "Green".

Later...AH

barresa62

Thanks for the explanation however it was wasted on me since I already understood your post the first time. :-) My last post stands on its own merits, thank you.

Stephen

prayerfor

Just got through reading the R&T article that's been discussed here at length. Very puzzling indeed.

Did anyone notice that the WRX scored at the bottom in all five of the objective and subjective braking categories, yet it was awarded the most points (20 of 20) in the braking section of the scorecard? What gives there?

How about the fact that in the "In My Opinion..." blurbs, each guy picks a different car. That Bornhop guy picked the Saturn! For that he ought to be the laughingstock of the automotive journalism world. I mean really, are we to believe that if we paid a visit to his garage we'd be more likely to find a Saturn wagon than any of the other three? If so then that disclaimer ought to be noted in italics preceeding any piece he authors in the future.

That Saturn finishes in 4th place, but yet they talk of it offering the best bang for the buck... the as-tested prices are within about $600 of each other across the board! Am I missing something?

In the final summary section, they talk as though the Jetta was the winner. And although the WRX emerges on top, you'd never guess it by all the negative comments it receives throughout.

Thinking more broadly now, the WRX is simultaneously:
1) C/D 10Best;
2) Automobile Car of the Year;
3) 2nd (barely) to 330xi and S4 (C/D);
4) add a number of other accolades I'm forgetting; yet
5) 2nd to Toyota Matrix (recent Motor Trend); and
6) barely tops this R&T 4-way comparo against some fairly mild competition.
Anyone else scratching their heads over this?

edcoak2001

Can't disagree with the low shift point on the 'green' auto affecting the 0-60 times, but AH has mentioned several time about the tire & wheel size/weight/diameter affecting the 0-60 times. Haven't all of the recent published 0-60 times for the sedans also been on the standard 16" alloy and RE92 combo? Just curious if I was missing something...

Craig in Seattle

cptplt

The UK Motor magazine had the WRX as one of its Top 10 cars of the 90s.

darthpaul22

I'm having a problem with the right speaker in my wagon. If I set the bass (I have the subwoofer) any higher than 0, the speaker closest to the woofer buzzes and distorts somewhat. I don't think it's a speaker flaw because when I put my hand on the speaker the buzzing stops. Has anyone else had this happen to them and what have you done about? Thanks for the help.

- Paul

P.S. My dad dropped the car off at the dealership on his way to work to have the speaker looked at but they said they couldnt find any problems and hence, nothing was fixed.

hondafriek

I do not put a lot of store in any of the magazine testing, anymore than I put in film critics or art critics.

I think what type of a revue a vehicle gets is dependant on a large part by what sort of goodies the car manufacturers where giving out.

The most subjective test for me is the ones I make myself, anything else is redundant.

Cheers Pat.

rsholland

Each publication tends to offer its own "slant." CR is going to comment on different items than R&T; C&D will have a different perspective than Automobile, which in turn will be different from CAR; etc.

The only way to get a good grip on what vehicle is like is: A) read as many different reviews as you can from a wide range of publications, and if possible, take the car out for a test drive. Then and only then, will you be able to make an objective observation.

Bob

mgreene1

Why weren't those so-called competitors put on the track with the WRX and lap times published? The only comparo to do this was the C&D article vs. BMW and Audi. As C&D noted, comparing the WRX against is price competitors would be a slaughter.
Maybe that's why.

hunter001

No, all the Manual Sedan tests were (from what I recall) done with the Max-performance summer tires and the lightweight BBS alloy wheels, including the comparison test with the BMW and Audi S4.

Edmunds reviewed their manual sedan too, with the BBS alloy + Max perf.tires combo, while the Auto-wagon was unfairly tacked with the 16"s + RE92s, "for a full road-test".

Later...AH

hunter001

Choice comment:


"The attractive, new 17-in. BBS wheels with Bridgestone Potenza RE011 performance rubber our wagon now wears are the only option we chose to add, ....."

Hell, this "only option" lowered the wheel/tire weight and lowered the gear ratios for maximum accelerative punch...which improved the 0-60 to 5.86 secs supplemented by the high-rpm clutch dumping and whatnot.

Why add this $3000 option, thus raising the as-tested price to $27,055, when the competitors (Mazda Protege5 & Toyota Matrix XRS) had as-tested prices of $18,315 and $19,867 respectively ??

My prediction for the reason why they added this expensive option, is the realisation (from Subaru) that without this combo, the WRX-manual-wagon is going to look bad, with a time of 6.4secs or so.

Later...AH

barresa62

you've gone off the deep end. You really are toooo much!

Your quote:"My prediction for the reason why they added this expensive option, is the realisation (from Subaru) that without this combo, the WRX-manual-wagon is going to look bad, with a time of 6.4secs or so."

I have had my wagon professionally stopwatch tested w/a clutch slip (not DROP) launch best of 3x. The avg was 5.975 secs or rounded to 6secs. This was on stock rims/tires. I'm sure if I dropped the clutch it would have been higher but I didn't want to abuse my WRX that much.
Let's recount my post just so you don't miss anything:

I had stock tires/rims.
I did clutch slips not drops.
My time was tested with professional equipment short of being at a dragstrip,

If you don't know of what you speak best to keep silent.

Stephen

stupendousman

...with Stephen. If you look at the Edmunds articles on the WRX they surmise that they might be able to get BETTER times with the stock tires (but that's just their thought). I am just curious how the stocks could make a full .6 secs worse than the the BBS wheels. It's not like there is going to be much tire spin at all on a awd car...

...but I could be way off.

gotwrx

was on stock wheels/tires.

They got 0-60 in 5.7 seconds with "best times recorded with 4000rpm drop clutch launches".

They though the standard wheels and tires provided "plenty of grip for on and off the beaten path" but that "more aggressive tires would help the overall performance...on the track". I think it was a pre-release review so may be a bit puffy.

Consumer Reports reported the 5sp sedan at 6.2 seconds with stock wheels/tires probably without using any special techniques. At least none were mentioned and they don't specialize in pushing the envelope.

Both reviews found the brakes a bit wanting "Suprisingly, WRX felt soft and tires lacked grip during our ABS stops" R&T. CR found the brakes good overall but the pedal felt "a bit mushy".

Anyhooo, there's two reviews with standard tires on a manual.

Tim