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
Tim
Basically 2 reasons:
a) Tire/wheel weight reduction by 3.5lbs per tire/wheel. Reduces rotational inertia, since rotational mass has a much greater impact than static mass on raw acceleration. Someone estimated that rotational mass of 1 lb = 12 lbs static mass. Which is why you find some people trying to lower the weight of the wheels, to reduce this rotational mass. But sometimes some folks lower the weight of the wheels and fit on large and heavy tires that invariably takes the overall tire/wheel weight above that of the combo that they replaced, thus negating any gains from the lighter wheels. But in the BBS/RE011 17"s case, the overall combo is 3.5 lbs/tire-wheel lighter than the stock 16"s with the RE92 All-season tires.
The more important reason is:
b) Gear ratio reduction due to 1/2" lower diameter of the 17" tire/wheel combo, which helps in better accelerative punch in every gear. In case of the Automatic-WRX, the 2nd gear would take the car to 74mph thus 0-60 is acheived in the 1st and the 2nd gears. Thus a reduction in ratio would give additional thrust throughout the 0-60 run, even if we ignore the effect from the lighter wheels/tires.
So if someone "estimates" that the 16s would be faster than the BBS/RE011 combo, they are talking without any logical basis or making blanket statements out of ignorance.
Later...AH
Even Edmunds missed about half a dozen or so changes on the Forester that are important to any enthusiast (I listed them in Future Models).
-juice
Also,is armor-all a good thing to use on the interior of the wagon?
-mike
-juice
-mike
Traction is important, but with AWD even the RE92s have a decent bit of it in a straight line.
The $3000 wheels are just plain stupidity. Marketing guys hoping that consumers would spring for something wild... it would've been far smarter to offer a more affordable cast 17" wheel. The 215/45-17 is chosen over 225/45-17 to ensure that no rubbing occurs even on heavily loaded wagons.
-Colin
-mike
Stephen
Besides, he'll just bring out the stiffer springs and VTD argument again! ;-)
-juicr
I'm no physicist but I could buy that... the car requires more power to spin the wheels *on* the car than it does to tow the wheels *in* the car.
Now let's create another case with a set of 4 short wheels/tires and a set of 4 tall wheels/tires (this time weight and all else beside diameter is identical). If I understand correctly, AH is saying that we will again see different 1/4 mile times when we swap sets, with the advantage going to the short set *on* and the tall set *in*.
This is where it gets real hazy for me... something to do with changing effective gear ratios. I can certainly see how the car's speedo will read differently from one set to the next, but in terms of the car's true velocity at any point in time, I don't see how one set is different than the other. If AH or someone else can explain why this would be I'd appreciate it.
-juice
Anyone seen these new 17" rims offered by Subaru?
http://www.subaru.com/shop/IMPREZA/WRXSEDAN/accessories/17in_5_spoke_alloy.html
They're a lot cheaper than the 3K multi-spokes.
Ken
-juice
[no, not talking to myself]
(a) 4 light tires on and 4 heavy tires in trunk weighs the same as (b) 4 heavy tires on and 4 light in trunk?...
Not my forte, that's why I'm lost
OK, gross weight will be the same either configuration (a) or (b). But say light tires = 20 lbs and heavy tires = 30 lbs, won't (a) have to lug/move 40lbs more than (b)?
Is there a Physicist in the house?
-Dave
That's from the Subaru.com website. It comes up as one of the options for the WRX.
Perhaps it was in reaction to the criticism about the $3K 17" wheel option.
Ken
Ross
-mike
As paisan and juice stated above, basically your manufacturer published gear ratios are dependent on the stock tire/wheel diameter. If you change the stock diameter to a lower size, it would reduce the effective gear ratios and vice versa if you increased the diameter. Reduction in gear ratios would aid in acceleration but the downside to a lower diametered tire/wheel is inaccurate speedometer and also phantom miles in your odometer.
Later...AH
But if it's close to stock (I'd say less than 5% difference) you aren't going to notice an appreciable difference.
-mike
The Only Serge
-Colin
However, for those into detailing, nothing beats the feeling of washing and waxing a black vehicle into a lustrous shine.
After two black cars, I'm going with a metallic dirt color next.
Ken
:-)
Does this confession mean that I have to turn in my OCD certificate?
TheOneAndOnly Ross
Shorter gearing can hurt 0-60 because it may require an extra shift. Shifts take 0.3-0.4 seconds and hurt your momentum.
Having said that, the Forester needs 3rd to hit 60. I think it redlines around 58mph. So 0-60 times are slightly artificially low.
Colin: white isn't much better. Next one will be either silver or champagne. Though I prefer beer, usually. ;-)
-juice
Like Colin I had four black cars before swearing off black forever, after almost driving my poor wife insane with the last black car, she swore she would divorce me if I ever showed up with another one.
She does not have to worry I am cured forever, The titanium is a great colour for hiding the dirt, am I ever glad I chose this colour.
Cheers Pat.
This leaves the wagon itself and the automatic transmission as the primary suspects. Others have reported 0-60 ~ 5.8 for the stock manual wagon which would appear to leave the transmission.
It is speculated that either driving technique and/or an "untrained" transmission is to blame.
As I understand it, to achieve the best 0-60 you redline through each gear which means in the 5sp you should get to 60 in second gear (ie in one change)
Not sure on the automatic's gear ratios but it would seem to me that you would get the best 0-60 results doing a break launch and manually changing up on the redline. This should work regardless of any adaptive aspects the transmission may have. It seems just as legitimate as a drop clutch launch.
If this is so (it seems obvious to my non automatic brain but what do I know) wouldn't R&T do this? They drive a heck of a lot of cars and I can't believe they don't know all the tricks of driving an auto.
I'm can believe the adaptive bit makes the auto perform better in regular driving which could account for other negative comments but perhaps not for the 0to60.
Tim
From what I can infere since they do not say, it appears that they did not use any special techniques to do the 0 to 60 measurements. My main evidence for thinking this is the statement in the text, "Only under constant full throttle use or manual shifting can the WRX really strut its stuff". If so then comparison with the sedan's time may be a little unfair and the adaptive thing may be a factor after all.
But, like was said above somewhere, still won though!
Tim
Put the car in the "3" setting, pre-load up the revs to about 2500-3000RPMS and let her fly with the gas fully depressed. You will hit 60mph in 2nd gear because the gearing on an AT only has 3 gears plus overdrive 1st and 2nd are longer than in an MT. If you try to shift it "manually" from 1->2 it will slow you down and if you put it in "2" the car will start in 2nd gear to prevent slippage on ice. I recently tried these various methods out while racing my dad's '97 Legacy L at auto-x where I took 2nd place in my class I might add
My older XT6 with AT allows you to put it in "2" and this will allow you to start in 1st and shifts to 2nd but not beyond 2nd gear. Too bad you can't do that on the AT WRXs cause that would be even better for the AT.
-mike
The 2nd gear of the Auto-WRX is good until 74mph, due to which, shorter gearing would work perfectly here. But the 2nd gear of the manual-WRX is I believe good until 64mph or so, due to which shorter gearing might necessitate an additional shift, depending on how much shorter the gearing becomes. Similarly the 2nd gear of the other Auto-Subarus (non-WRX) also peak around 62mph or so.
Later...AH
With all the talk of acceleration times going round, I thought I'd mention the handling portion of the MT comparison test. The WRX, even with its expensive wheel/tire upgrade, finished last (3rd) in the handling ranking, behind the Matrix and the Mazda P5. They certainly didn't say the WRX handled poorly. But its 3rd place finish was still surprising to me.
I know that some folks over at i-Club (maybe here as well) have commented that the "type" of handling evaluations used by the the magazine (slalom tests) didn't favor a suspension set-up like the WRX uses. Maybe this is true. I don't have the expertise to know one way or the other. I'd have thought that a magazine handling ranking would (or certainly should)include actual "real world" road/track impressions as well as formal slalom tests, but maybe not. As some have mentioned, MT is not the magazine of choice for many folks.
However, I was still frankly disappointed that the AWD WRX, with top notch (and expensive) wheels and tires, still finished behind the FWD Toyota Matrix and Mazda P5 in the handling evaluation. To me, this seems to indicate that, at least on well-maintained, dry roads, AWD does not necessarily provide the all-conquering advantage many folks think it does. Of course, in poor traction conditions, or on poor/unpaved road surfaces, the AWD advantages would certainly become more clear.
-mike
Additionally, I agree w/Mike, in the real world you would see quite different test results! :-)
Stephen
-jucie
The Vishnu pkg should be here sometime next week.
Stephen
-juice
ECU chip
Uppipe
Sparkplugs
Underdrive pulley
MBC
Stephen
-juice
Stephen
-Colin
Stephen
Ken
Ivar
Ivar
There's limits obviously. Too cold of plugs and they'll foul when idling.
-Colin