I think I read in the manual that chains are not recommended on the optional 7 inch wheels. They also come with "summer" tires.
I'm thinking of getting them as a summer set and keeping the 16 inchers for winter or trips to the mountains but its $1500+ toy so other things might preempt it - like that kitchen re-model or clothes for the kids or some such nonsense.
On the sway bar thing, I'm not an expert but since I'm spouting, the plushier sway bar is probably a performance/ride trade off. The wagon is slightly heavier, has different weight distribution and is expected to carry more load being a wagon and all. Given this, the lighter sway bar probably provides a more comfortable ride. Also, from what I've read here and elsewhere, the heavier sedan rear sway bar changes the steering of the car (I think they said it increases the understeer) and needs to be balanced out with a heavier front sway bar. Most likely this stiffens the ride beyond what the Subaru engineers considered acceptable to the general buyer not to mention increasing the cost of manufacture since they would then need a unique part for the front suspension of the US WRX wagon, a car they expected to sell less of than the sedan. (I think the Wagon has the same front sway bar as the sedan.) May not be right but it seems a very reasonable explanation to me.
Be interesting to know if foreign market spec WRX Wagons have the same suspension setup. They get differnt brakes so they may get differnt suspension too. Probably a good place to look before messing with anything.
No offense, but you do realize that rim width is going to effect even the calcs by the manufacturer right? Narrower rim will yield a smaller overall diamter tire, wider rim will yield a higher diameter.
No offense, but you do realise that there is something called as a "measuring rim width", that is common across manufacturers ??
So regardless of the tire manufacturer, for arriving at the specs, the tire is put onto a rim that fits the "measuring rim width" to arrive at the overall diameter/width etc. If the "measuring rim width" is 6.5" (say for the 205/55R16 size), all 205/55-16 tires, regardless of the manufacturer, would be measured on a 6.5" wide rim to arrive at its specs. Incidentally, the "measuring rim width" for a 215/45R17 tire is 7" and that for a 225/45R17 tire is 7.5".
But I agree about everything else you stated, about changing all 4 tires at one time in an AWD vehicle, especially if 3 of them have worn out a bit.
Also, from what I've read here and elsewhere, the heavier sedan rear sway bar changes the steering of the car (I think they said it increases the understeer) and needs to be balanced out with a heavier front sway bar.
If anything, the heavier/stiffer rear sway bar, would increase the over-steer or reduce the under-steer of the car. But in the hands of the general public, an under-steering car is a bit safer than a car that is at or near the over-steering stage.
Why then do most manufacturers give a range of rim widths? Every manufacturer that I've seen gives a range usually 1-2" in range. Someone who mounts a tire on the narrowest of those rims is going to have a different diameter than someone who mounts them on the widest, of course it won't make a HUGE difference but since we were talking about minute details figured we should get it right.
wielgus: let the dealer reset the light and check the code. It's usually nothing, a loose gas cap or bad gas, but they can tell your for sure. It's under warranty so it should cost you nothing.
Sorry for the cross-post, but did any one here read the latest edition of Road & Track? They compared four wagons $26K and under -- WRX, Volvo V40, Saturn and Jetta GLX. All four models had auto trannies.
The WRX Wagon took 1st place but the writers complained about: - The auto tranny slowing down the WRX - The crappy tires
Why then do most manufacturers give a range of rim widths? Every manufacturer that I've seen gives a range usually 1-2" in range. Someone who mounts a tire on the narrowest of those rims is going to have a different diameter than someone who mounts them on the widest, of course it won't make a HUGE difference but since we were talking about minute details figured we should get it right.
The "range of rim widths" represent the range of rim widths onto which a particular tire can fit. But for their specs, they fit it on a standard "measuring rim" with a specific width. As stated earlier, the measuring rim width of the 205/55R16 tires is 6.5", while that of the 215/45R17 is 7" and that of the 225/45R17 is 7.5". This is constant in a specific tire size, across manufacturers.
Of course, any of these sizes would definitely fit on a slightly wider/narrower rim too. But the manufacturers does not put out specs by fitting it on all the rim widths in the range...they put out specs with the tire fitted on the standard "measuring rim width". If fitted onto a wider/narrower rim (when compared to the "measuring rim"), the tire specs will obviously differ and thus cannot be considered as "standard specs".
Another nugget is that, the range of rim-widths are dependent on the carcass on which the tire is based on. For example, if a 205/55R16 tire is based on the carcass of a larger 235mm tire, then the rim width range would be skewed to a wider rim, while if it were based on the carcass of a 195mm tire, then the rim width range would be skewed to a narrower rim.
Please find below a quote from the tirerack, explaining the "measuring rim width":
Measuring Rim Width
The measuring rim width is the industry standardized rim width upon which the tire must be mounted in order to confirm it meets its dimensional targets. Because the width of the rim will influence the width of the tire, a standard rim width for every tire size is assigned and must be used. This standardized measuring rim width allows all of the tires produced around the world to meet the same dimensional standards and therefore, be equivalent with regards to their physical size. The measuring rim width is sometimes referred to as the tire's "design rim width".
I've had numerous CEL light issues with my 5 spd silver wgn. It now has almost 7000 mi and finally rid of all the issues. My first light came on around 900 mi, and my dealer attempted without success to fix it three times. The first time he just reset it thinking the gas cap was loose. Next he thought there was a short in the computer, and he replaced that. It came back on again, and this time they replaced a fuel pressure sensor in the gas tank (now that's a complicated repair). It came back on again, and this time I called Subaru of America and requested a company rep inspect the car before I gave the car into service at my inept dealer. The regional rep checked my car out, kept it at Irvine Subaru for three days, fixed the car, got me a good rental, and threw in a 6yr/100k mi warranty "for my troubles."
If you use premium fuel all the time, you shouldn't get a CEL, not cooling down the car for 30 secs shouldn't cause a CEL, cause Subaru doesn't even require a cool down with this turbo. They should be able to get some codes with the OBD scanner. I hope your problem is fleeting, cause it was truly a pain in the rear with my wagon.
Kens, I read the article, but I think that was a flawed test. The WRX is really not in the same class as those cars. The auto tranny would definitely have an impact- it doesn't adapt to driving style that quickly. The others are more of a touring type, not so much sport like the WRX.
The article isn't very kind to the WRX w/AT but the fact that they prefer it over the others still speaks in its favor. I'll have to drive one myself to know if I could live with it.
I have to admit that I like the big Saturn wagon except for its FWD handling (i.e. torque steer). When my Forester had its rear wheel bearings replaced for the first time the dealer gave me a big Saturn sedan with V6 as a loaner. Decent power, reasonably comfortable, odd switchgear and that bland GM rental-car feeling dash - room for improvement but a good base from which to start.
Basically, they were referring to the WRX upshifting too quickly etc., but anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of "Adaptive automatics" know that the tranny can be re-trained to hold the gear till redline in every gear. So they basically got a "Green" WRX, whose tranny had not adapted to holding the gear (for acceleration) and was basically programmed from the factory for upshifting too quickly (for fuel efficiency).
Another thing that stood out, is that they test Manual-Sedans with the lightweight 17" optional BBS wheels with light and sticky summer-only RE011 tires, while they test the Auto-Wagon with the heavier, sloppier 16" wheels with the pathetic all-season RE92 tires.
In addition to the above, the 17" wheels with the RE011 tires have an overall diameter that is 1/2 an inch less than the RE92-equipped 16" rims, with a resultant "effective gear ratio reduction" which will enable it to accelerate like a mofo, even excluding the lightweight nature of the rims/wheels. This would affect every statistic, including acceleration, braking and also handling. So I was kind of pissed off at those folks, even though they positioned the WRX at #1.
Ed: the "base from which to start" you hint at is the Opel Vectra. Saturn made it bigger and heavier, tuned it to be less sporting, and used the Opel Omega's V6 engine (only good point). But they ended up with a worse product than they started with.
My brother has a Chevy Vectra in Brazil. There is no Opel there.
I recall a GM honcho bragging that all the parts shared with the Vectra fit inside a bag (never mind the whole engine came from the Omega). Question is, WHY? The Vectra was a great car, why change it? Why does Europe get all the good stuff, and when we're finally lucky enough to copy them, why change it?
One neat styling cue was the creases on the hood led back to the side view mirrors. For its time it was a sleek design. The Saturn was frumpy, and looks even worse after the face lift shown at NY.
With everyone complaining about the stock WRX tires, I wonder if Subaru will change them in the future. That change, combined with the sport-shift transmission we've seen with the 2003 Legacy GT should pretty much eliminate the negatives listed by R&T.
Cause I believe that I read in an article that bob posted somewhere that Lutz doesn't want to annoy the UAW by bringing in Holdens and Opels to be sold here....
gotwrx - I'm also looking at the Thule and Yakima cargo boxes. I have a Kanga roof pouch now, but it will be useless with a WRX.
Pros of the Yakima Space Cadet IMO are: More cargo room, side loading. Cons are: More weight and higher price. The Thule looks a little more aerodynamic (from their site) and is about 12 lbs. less.
Don't forget with a heavier box, you're going to take up more of the maximum allowable load.
Keep us posted on what you decide.
Ken - That's the $60,000 question. Will the '03 US WRX get the sport-shift? Hey, maybe the WRX will also get the JDM steering wheel shift buttons!
It's no fun when Patti is locked up in the SoA dungeon. ;-)
Lutz is bringing the Holden Monaro to the US as a Pontiac GTO in the near future as a 2003 or 2004 model. It has a 300hp/340ft-lbs V8 from the f-body/vette parts bin. The Monaro is a 2 door version of the Omega/Catera and the pictures from the aussie Holden website look pretty good.
Art, good post in #1460. you covered all aspects of rim & tire width very well.
KenS, I would expect Subaru to change the original equipment tire on the WRX, yes. I think they're in a bit of a quandry-- for most consumers, the car will benefit most from dedicated summer tires. BUT it seems silly to have a stock AWD vehicle that can't function (safely) in snow/ice, so perhaps they will stick to "performance" all seasons. There is definitely room to improve over the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 though, like the RE950 or the Dunlop SP5000.
is a HR speed rated tire. I believe the stock RE92 (which I recently replaced with BF Goodrich gForce KDWS) are V-rated. You can't legally put HR rubber on a VR spec car.
Yes, in the article it was basically about the GTO coming here from Australia. They asked if Lutz would bring over more Holdens and his response was that they didn't want to bring over too many holdens due to the UAW.
I've been campaigning for YEARS that they should have brought over the Commodore SS as the Impala SS. I may very well get the GTO if it is any good when it gets here.
I've hit 140mph in my 5spd sedan. Don't tell the New Mexico troopers. However I have more fun in the twisties. The WRX with upgraded tires negotiates curves as if they were straight lines. I'm originally from Queens, NY and it would be insane to drive at double the legal speed limit on the East Coast for hours at a time because of traffic and cops. Still, I might get a ticket this X-mas on the Interboro/Jackie Robinson Parkway when I pickup some cider in Oyster Bay from my mom's current home in Brooklyn.
with Colin. Even the best all-season tires are a compromise. I want the most good handling performance within a relatively limited budget. I found a good summer tire (albeit in a 17"size w/my 17" wheels)in the Toyo T1-S and a good winter tire in the stock size (Dunlop Wintersports) mounted on the stock rims. I just switch them between summer and winter seasons. Another reasonably priced and good winter performance tire is the Blizzak LM-22s. Basically, you pay for the convenience of having only all-season tires with less than optimal performance.
The first S4s came with Y-rated summer tires (Bridgestone RE040s) which are supposed to be decent but many folks had problems with them developing bubbles. I believe later S4s came with something else. The stock Avus 17" wheels, while looking really good, are quite heavy at 28 lbs. For the WRX, an excellent compromise is the Y-rated Pilot Sport A/S (205/55/16) on those fairly light stock wheels (only 16.5 lbs). Granted, good summer tires on lightweight 17" rims may be a marginal improvement but I can use my 16" setup all year round and don't have to worry about some nimrod stealing my expensive 17" wheels. This "compromise" probably maximizes the "area under the curve" as far as handling, considering "in between" months and that most winter roads aren't usually covered with snow and ice. This setup won't win autoX events (I'm not a racer) or help rescue stranded skiers (I'm not a Saint Bernard), but works fine for me.
I have an Auto WRX Wagon and I used to own a 1996 Audi A4. Their Quattro system claimed that even if only one wheel has traction, you can still had the ability to move. I was wondering if this latest system from Subaru offers similar (if not better) performance. I remember putting Blizzaks on my A4 and the car was actually like a snowmobile. It would NEVER slide (no ESP on that model at the time) and the tires would NEVER spin in the snow. Do you think I can get the same type of performance from this system with Blizzaks? Thanks... I bet AH is the best person to answer this question!
I'll let AH fill you in on the details between the Subaru AWD differences, but regardless of which type you get with the WRX, you will theoretically be able to move as long as either rear tire has traction or both front tires have traction. Only the VDC system from Subaru will theoretically let you pull forward with traction from just one tire.
With a set of snow tires, your Auto WRX should do just as well as your Audi.
Without ESP, it would have been a challenge for the A4 to move with just one wheel having traction. The Blizzaks would have ensured that more than one wheel had traction at all times. The ESP would permit the side-to-side transfer of power by the use of brakes on the slipping side, thus enabling the car to move out, a function that is met in the WRX by the rear-LSD. Theoretically, the WRX can get stuck if both the rear-wheels and one of the front wheels lose traction completely, which is a very very rare occurrence (if it ever happens), especially if you have the appropriate tire for the weather.
If you fit Blizzaks on the Auto-WRX, it would be well-nigh impossible to make it slide. It would power out of nearly anything with absolutely no sliding. The system in the WRX would definitely exceed the ability of the Quattro in the A4 that is not equipped with ESP.
If you were to fit something like the Quaife mechanical torque-biasing differentials or KAAZ differentials (both of which are custom made for the WRX) in the front/rear of your Auto-WRX ($850 for either end), nothing whatsoever can stop your car and it would be way superior to any Audi Quattro, both in pure handling (in everyday and/or aggressive driving) and also in bad-weather capability.
With the Sedans, I probably might go with the 225s but for the wagons, I would most probably stick with the 215s, regardless of what tirerack says. There was a person on i-club, who, based on tirerack's recommendations, fitted a certain sized tire on his Forester and had to take those off, due to severe rubbing. Their next recommendation also faced the same problem and he had to take those off too. Almost came across as if, the tirerack makes "recommendations" without doing adequate testing under all kinds of conditions.
Subaru, elsewhere in the world, have equipped some STi Sedan models with the 225/45/17 tires but even in those markets, they have resolutely stuck with 215/45R17s for the STi wagons. Why not go with the same size for both sedans and wagons ?? Is there anything that Subaru knows about their cars (Sedans and wagons), that we are not aware of (other than the track-width differences and slight differences in the suspension) ? Maybe, the tuning of the wagon is optimized for the 215s ??
Stephen has fitted 225s onto his wagon and it seems to be working perfectly fine. But I am a bit cautious in these things and might stick with the 215s when the time comes to change my stock tires.
If you ever have 3 wheels on ice or what not, you can spin them til you get enough traction to get going. The chance of 3 wheels being w/o traction is rare. I mean of course if you drive into a snow bank and your wheels aren't on the ground then yep you are screwed but that is the case wtih any vehicle.
Checked out the Thule Excursion, Yakima Space Cadet and Thule Evolution 1600.
The Thule Excursion is the tallest. Not convinced it has better aero dynamics than the Space cadet but I didn't have my pocket wind tunnel on me at the time. Main difficulty I had was the rear opening seemed exceptionally small and inconvenient. The advertised "three side loading" didn't work for me. I was almost convinced to get it until I played with it and was disheartened.
The Yakima "SpaceCadet" says so on the side. I guess you could take the sticker off. Amusing enough to be almost a feature from my perspective but not enough to buy it. Side opening is definately more useable and it is weather stripped. I like the shape a bit more than the Excursion.
Since Thule was on sale at REI, the Evolution 1600 was a similar price to the SpaceCadet and has the advantage of being shiny and silver (like our WRX) and long (skis up to 180) and opens from both sides and is 2lbs lighter than the Excursion. Wife saw it and decided that was the one; its shiny and silver! We wanted to try on the car to see how it fit but REI said we had to buy it first (and bring it back if it doesn't work) so we did.
The main issue with it is that you can't position it on the car and still open the rear hatch all the way, at least not with the wing. I have to play with it some more to minimize this. After market cross rails would probably help here since they would raise it up some and allow it to be moved forward an addition inch or so. Another $150 I don't need to spend right now.
Found the quick snap mechanism a bit of a fiddle the first time and I don't like that that the "U" connectors are not plastic coated. They fall out onto your roof! Fixable but...! Still, with a bit of practice this feature should make it easy to take on and off which mitigates the length problem a bit. You can take it off when you get there!
Looks super cool - like a radome or a long range fuel pod. The silver is a bit yellower than the WRX silver but its only really noticeable in late afternoon sun. Driving with it empty I didn't notice it was there until there was a bit of crosswind. The lid rattles a bit a slow speed over bumps but this should be fixable with some weather striping.
We have a long trip comming up soon so I'll let you know how it goes.
225's both in wagon and sedan. With the wagon it is important to pay attention to the rear camber if you decide to lower even a little bit due to less wheelwell clearance vs the sedan. Rear camber should be at least a negative 1 if one lowers a wagon w/225's. The advantages of 225's over the 215 is better sidewall protection and almost no speed error vs stock 16" wheels. The 225's also fill out the wheel area better than the 215's look-wise. They also work better w/a 7.5"rim width.
I did a lot of research before upgrading to 17"wheels/tires and going w/the 225's. I appreciate what Subaru recommends but I don't accept it at face value w/o researching. Subaru is great but like any other company in the US of A, they are protecting themselves first, customers second. The tow ratings are a good example. I don't have a problem with this from a business standpoint and I don't hold it against Subaru. Just my .02. :-)
AH: That was me you're referring to. The issue in my case was not tire width but wheel offset. I purchased a set of wheels designed to be Subaru specfic, but the wheel offset was appropriate for Imprezas and Legacies, not Foresters. I wouldn't say the rubbing was severe but it was significant enough that I did not want to risk any warranty issues. I have the extended warranty and if a Subaru technician even hinted that the setup had something to do with, say, a wheel bearing failure, I do not want to be held liable. Subaru's wheel bearings are suspect enough that I don't need to give them any information on which they can possibly deny that.
There are Foresters successfully running 17" wheel/tire combos in the UK and Europe. I have been in touch with Subaru dealerships in the UK as well as with representatives from Subaru tuning house Prodrive to determine what those fitments are. (BTW, the wheels that I bought, which did not have the proper offset, were Prodrive wheels.)
I have recouped my losses from buying the "wrong" wheels and am still working out a solution, which I still believe is possible.
I have a 99 A4. I'm pretty sure I've never gotten to the point where only one wheel has traction (though I have gotten to the point where no wheels have traction), but for what it's worth, Audi very specifically states that it will still move even if only one wheel has traction. The car doesn't have ESP. I don't know how it works, but that's what they claim.
That's interesting. We went to the BMW Ultimate Driving experience, and they put the previous generation A4 to the test. They put it on one of those ramps where only one wheel at a time has traction, and...
...it could not climb it. Different tires would spin and you could see power transfering from some wheels to others, but not enough to climb the relatively steep ramp. It may have been enough on a flat surface, I don't know.
I'm not sure if it was "rigged", but BMW claimed that their traction control did not shift sufficient power to the one wheel to climb that ramp.
Same with a Lexus RX300. But a BMW X5 and a 330xi did climb the ramp.
I was a bit sceptical, given they set it up. I'm sure a WRX would not make it (unmanaged front differential), but a VDC likely would. The new A4 may have different tuning, who knows.
And most WRXs with 17's had 225/45r17s, I don't remember even seeing one with 215/45r17. Even people with 18s had 225/40r18. The only people who had rubbing problems were the ones who didn't get a wheel with a high enough offset- I believe the correct fit for our cars in 17in wheel is a 48-52mm offset. Am I correct on the offset?
Yes, you're correct. You could even add 53mm offset to the mix. Thanks for chiming in about tire size. I experience the same thing when going to meets or seeing other WRXs on the road w/17"tires; 225/45 seem to be the norm and it doesn't matter whether it's a wagon or sedan. Even seen the 18's like you said. :-)
I have 215/45R17's which is a good fit for my 7 inch wide wheels. Speedometer only reads 1 km/h faster than the stock wheels at 130 km/h (about 3/4's of a percent) as verified by my handheld GPS and speedometer reading. With 225's, your speed will read lower by the same amount.
I did not know that it was you !! So did you return your tires back to tirerack ? What about your wheels ?
Basically, the reason why I pointed out the above, was to show that tirerack's recommendations don't always work out well.
In spite of the above, 215/45R17 is a Subaru recommended size (along with the stock 205/55R16). 225/45R17 will definitely fit (and so will quite a few other sizes) especially when outfitted on a 7.5" wide wheel in the right offset. But for the wagon, I would stick to Subaru's recommendation (JMHO).
Comments
I'm thinking of getting them as a summer set and keeping the 16 inchers for winter or trips to the mountains but its $1500+ toy so other things might preempt it - like that kitchen re-model or clothes for the kids or some such nonsense.
On the sway bar thing, I'm not an expert but since I'm spouting, the plushier sway bar is probably a performance/ride trade off. The wagon is slightly heavier, has different weight distribution and is expected to carry more load being a wagon and all. Given this, the lighter sway bar probably provides a more comfortable ride. Also, from what I've read here and elsewhere, the heavier sedan rear sway bar changes the steering of the car (I think they said it increases the understeer) and needs to be balanced out with a heavier front sway bar. Most likely this stiffens the ride beyond what the Subaru engineers considered acceptable to the general buyer not to mention increasing the cost of manufacture since they would then need a unique part for the front suspension of the US WRX wagon, a car they expected to sell less of than the sedan. (I think the Wagon has the same front sway bar as the sedan.) May not be right but it seems a very reasonable explanation to me.
Be interesting to know if foreign market spec WRX Wagons have the same suspension setup. They get differnt brakes so they may get differnt suspension too. Probably a good place to look before messing with anything.
Tim
-mike
No offense, but you do realise that there is something called as a "measuring rim width", that is common across manufacturers ??
So regardless of the tire manufacturer, for arriving at the specs, the tire is put onto a rim that fits the "measuring rim width" to arrive at the overall diameter/width etc. If the "measuring rim width" is 6.5" (say for the 205/55R16 size), all 205/55-16 tires, regardless of the manufacturer, would be measured on a 6.5" wide rim to arrive at its specs. Incidentally, the "measuring rim width" for a 215/45R17 tire is 7" and that for a 225/45R17 tire is 7.5".
But I agree about everything else you stated, about changing all 4 tires at one time in an AWD vehicle, especially if 3 of them have worn out a bit.
Later...AH
If anything, the heavier/stiffer rear sway bar, would increase the over-steer or reduce the under-steer of the car. But in the hands of the general public, an under-steering car is a bit safer than a car that is at or near the over-steering stage.
Later...AH
-mike
-juice
The WRX Wagon took 1st place but the writers complained about:
- The auto tranny slowing down the WRX
- The crappy tires
Anyone here read it?
Ken
The "range of rim widths" represent the range of rim widths onto which a particular tire can fit. But for their specs, they fit it on a standard "measuring rim" with a specific width. As stated earlier, the measuring rim width of the 205/55R16 tires is 6.5", while that of the 215/45R17 is 7" and that of the 225/45R17 is 7.5". This is constant in a specific tire size, across manufacturers.
Of course, any of these sizes would definitely fit on a slightly wider/narrower rim too. But the manufacturers does not put out specs by fitting it on all the rim widths in the range...they put out specs with the tire fitted on the standard "measuring rim width". If fitted onto a wider/narrower rim (when compared to the "measuring rim"), the tire specs will obviously differ and thus cannot be considered as "standard specs".
Another nugget is that, the range of rim-widths are dependent on the carcass on which the tire is based on. For example, if a 205/55R16 tire is based on the carcass of a larger 235mm tire, then the rim width range would be skewed to a wider rim, while if it were based on the carcass of a 195mm tire, then the rim width range would be skewed to a narrower rim.
Later...AH
Measuring Rim Width
The measuring rim width is the industry standardized rim width upon which the tire must be mounted in order to confirm it meets its dimensional targets. Because the width of the rim will influence the width of the tire, a standard rim width for every tire size is assigned and must be used. This standardized measuring rim width allows all of the tires produced around the world to meet the same dimensional standards and therefore, be equivalent with regards to their physical size. The measuring rim width is sometimes referred to as the tire's "design rim width".
Hope this helps.
Later...AH
If you use premium fuel all the time, you shouldn't get a CEL, not cooling down the car for 30 secs shouldn't cause a CEL, cause Subaru doesn't even require a cool down with this turbo. They should be able to get some codes with the OBD scanner. I hope your problem is fleeting, cause it was truly a pain in the rear with my wagon.
Kens, I read the article, but I think that was a flawed test. The WRX is really not in the same class as those cars. The auto tranny would definitely have an impact- it doesn't adapt to driving style that quickly. The others are more of a touring type, not so much sport like the WRX.
I have to admit that I like the big Saturn wagon except for its FWD handling (i.e. torque steer). When my Forester had its rear wheel bearings replaced for the first time the dealer gave me a big Saturn sedan with V6 as a loaner. Decent power, reasonably comfortable, odd switchgear and that bland GM rental-car feeling dash - room for improvement but a good base from which to start.
Ed
Basically, they were referring to the WRX upshifting too quickly etc., but anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of "Adaptive automatics" know that the tranny can be re-trained to hold the gear till redline in every gear. So they basically got a "Green" WRX, whose tranny had not adapted to holding the gear (for acceleration) and was basically programmed from the factory for upshifting too quickly (for fuel efficiency).
Another thing that stood out, is that they test Manual-Sedans with the lightweight 17" optional BBS wheels with light and sticky summer-only RE011 tires, while they test the Auto-Wagon with the heavier, sloppier 16" wheels with the pathetic all-season RE92 tires.
In addition to the above, the 17" wheels with the RE011 tires have an overall diameter that is 1/2 an inch less than the RE92-equipped 16" rims, with a resultant "effective gear ratio reduction" which will enable it to accelerate like a mofo, even excluding the lightweight nature of the rims/wheels. This would affect every statistic, including acceleration, braking and also handling. So I was kind of pissed off at those folks, even though they positioned the WRX at #1.
Later...AH
My brother has a Chevy Vectra in Brazil. There is no Opel there.
-juice
Ed
I recall a GM honcho bragging that all the parts shared with the Vectra fit inside a bag (never mind the whole engine came from the Omega). Question is, WHY? The Vectra was a great car, why change it? Why does Europe get all the good stuff, and when we're finally lucky enough to copy them, why change it?
One neat styling cue was the creases on the hood led back to the side view mirrors. For its time it was a sleek design. The Saturn was frumpy, and looks even worse after the face lift shown at NY.
-juice
Ken
-mike
Pros of the Yakima Space Cadet IMO are:
More cargo room, side loading.
Cons are:
More weight and higher price.
The Thule looks a little more aerodynamic (from their site) and is about 12 lbs. less.
Don't forget with a heavier box, you're going to take up more of the maximum allowable load.
Keep us posted on what you decide.
Ken - That's the $60,000 question. Will the '03 US WRX get the sport-shift? Hey, maybe the WRX will also get the JDM steering wheel shift buttons!
It's no fun when Patti is locked up in the SoA dungeon. ;-)
-Dennis
-juice
KenS, I would expect Subaru to change the original equipment tire on the WRX, yes. I think they're in a bit of a quandry-- for most consumers, the car will benefit most from dedicated summer tires. BUT it seems silly to have a stock AWD vehicle that can't function (safely) in snow/ice, so perhaps they will stick to "performance" all seasons. There is definitely room to improve over the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 though, like the RE950 or the Dunlop SP5000.
-Colin
I've been campaigning for YEARS that they should have brought over the Commodore SS as the Impala SS.
-mike
-mike
-juice
I'm originally from Queens, NY and it would be insane to drive at double the legal speed limit
on the East Coast for hours at a time because of traffic and cops. Still, I might get a ticket this X-mas on the Interboro/Jackie Robinson Parkway when I pickup some cider in Oyster Bay from my mom's current home in Brooklyn.
Stephen
At any rate, humoring you still gives the RE940, BFG gForce KDWS, Yokohama AVS dB and the aforementioned SP5000 as "good" alternatives.
Facing the music and installing summer tires is a better idea IMO. What's the S4 come with?
-Colin
Stephen
-mike
For the WRX, an excellent compromise is the Y-rated Pilot Sport A/S (205/55/16) on those fairly light stock wheels (only 16.5 lbs). Granted, good summer tires on lightweight 17" rims may be a marginal improvement but I can use my 16" setup all year round and don't have to worry about some nimrod stealing my expensive 17" wheels. This "compromise" probably maximizes the "area under the curve" as far as handling, considering "in between" months and that most winter roads aren't usually covered with snow and ice. This setup won't win autoX events (I'm not a racer) or help rescue stranded skiers (I'm not a Saint Bernard), but works fine for me.
With a set of snow tires, your Auto WRX should do just as well as your Audi.
Ken
If you fit Blizzaks on the Auto-WRX, it would be well-nigh impossible to make it slide. It would power out of nearly anything with absolutely no sliding. The system in the WRX would definitely exceed the ability of the Quattro in the A4 that is not equipped with ESP.
If you were to fit something like the Quaife mechanical torque-biasing differentials or KAAZ differentials (both of which are custom made for the WRX) in the front/rear of your Auto-WRX ($850 for either end), nothing whatsoever can stop your car and it would be way superior to any Audi Quattro, both in pure handling (in everyday and/or aggressive driving) and also in bad-weather capability.
Later...AH
Subaru, elsewhere in the world, have equipped some STi Sedan models with the 225/45/17 tires but even in those markets, they have resolutely stuck with 215/45R17s for the STi wagons. Why not go with the same size for both sedans and wagons ?? Is there anything that Subaru knows about their cars (Sedans and wagons), that we are not aware of (other than the track-width differences and slight differences in the suspension) ? Maybe, the tuning of the wagon is optimized for the 215s ??
Stephen has fitted 225s onto his wagon and it seems to be working perfectly fine. But I am a bit cautious in these things and might stick with the 215s when the time comes to change my stock tires.
Later...AH
-mike
The Thule Excursion is the tallest. Not convinced it has better aero dynamics than the Space cadet but I didn't have my pocket wind tunnel on me at the time. Main difficulty I had was the rear opening seemed exceptionally small and inconvenient. The advertised "three side loading" didn't work for me. I was almost convinced to get it until I played with it and was disheartened.
The Yakima "SpaceCadet" says so on the side. I guess you could take the sticker off. Amusing enough to be almost a feature from my perspective but not enough to buy it. Side opening is definately more useable and it is weather stripped. I like the shape a bit more than the Excursion.
Since Thule was on sale at REI, the Evolution 1600 was a similar price to the SpaceCadet and has the advantage of being shiny and silver (like our WRX) and long (skis up to 180) and opens from both sides and is 2lbs lighter than the Excursion. Wife saw it and decided that was the one; its shiny and silver! We wanted to try on the car to see how it fit but REI said we had to buy it first (and bring it back if it doesn't work) so we did.
The main issue with it is that you can't position it on the car and still open the rear hatch all the way, at least not with the wing. I have to play with it some more to minimize this. After market cross rails would probably help here since they would raise it up some and allow it to be moved forward an addition inch or so. Another $150 I don't need to spend right now.
Found the quick snap mechanism a bit of a fiddle the first time and I don't like that that the "U" connectors are not plastic coated. They fall out onto your roof! Fixable but...! Still, with a bit of practice this feature should make it easy to take on and off which mitigates the length problem a bit. You can take it off when you get there!
Looks super cool - like a radome or a long range fuel pod. The silver is a bit yellower than the WRX silver but its only really noticeable in late afternoon sun. Driving with it empty I didn't notice it was there until there was a bit of crosswind. The lid rattles a bit a slow speed over bumps but this should be fixable with some weather striping.
We have a long trip comming up soon so I'll let you know how it goes.
Tim
PS: Did I mention its shiny and silver.
I did a lot of research before upgrading to 17"wheels/tires and going w/the 225's. I appreciate what Subaru recommends but I don't accept it at face value w/o researching. Subaru is great but like any other company in the US of A, they are protecting themselves first, customers second. The tow ratings are a good example. I don't have a problem with this from a business standpoint and I don't hold it against Subaru. Just my .02. :-)
Stephen
Stephen
There are Foresters successfully running 17" wheel/tire combos in the UK and Europe. I have been in touch with Subaru dealerships in the UK as well as with representatives from Subaru tuning house Prodrive to determine what those fitments are. (BTW, the wheels that I bought, which did not have the proper offset, were Prodrive wheels.)
I have recouped my losses from buying the "wrong" wheels and am still working out a solution, which I still believe is possible.
Ed
I'm not sure how convenient it is to remove the rear spoiler, but it would help in opening the hatch.
-Dennis
...it could not climb it. Different tires would spin and you could see power transfering from some wheels to others, but not enough to climb the relatively steep ramp. It may have been enough on a flat surface, I don't know.
I'm not sure if it was "rigged", but BMW claimed that their traction control did not shift sufficient power to the one wheel to climb that ramp.
Same with a Lexus RX300. But a BMW X5 and a 330xi did climb the ramp.
I was a bit sceptical, given they set it up. I'm sure a WRX would not make it (unmanaged front differential), but a VDC likely would. The new A4 may have different tuning, who knows.
-juice
Stephen
Basically, the reason why I pointed out the above, was to show that tirerack's recommendations don't always work out well.
In spite of the above, 215/45R17 is a Subaru recommended size (along with the stock 205/55R16). 225/45R17 will definitely fit (and so will quite a few other sizes) especially when outfitted on a 7.5" wide wheel in the right offset. But for the wagon, I would stick to Subaru's recommendation (JMHO).
Later...AH