# Driving a Subaru Impreza WRX



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

For all of you who like sports cars (probably the majority of folks on this board), do yourself a favor and go drive a Subaru Impreza WRX. 

We just got one in, and I took it for a nice drive down one of our many mountain twisty roads and OMG! I don't think I've ever giggled out loud before while driving a car. It's even relatively refined to drive in a normal fashion, but hammering it around corners littered with sand and dirt was so cool. 

And this was in a plain old WRX wagon, I can't imagine what the STi feels like.

BTW, I tried the automatic version of this car a few years ago and left dissapointed, it is one of those cars (mostly because of the aggresive turbo) that has to had in a stick.


----------



## ttgxc (Dec 22, 2006)

I have ridden in a WRX and have driven the STi. The STi is amazing, esp with that short throw shifter! What a fun and fast car!!


----------



## 1love (Nov 10, 2007)

It may not be a sports car, but it can be very nice to drive, especially in the rain and snow.


----------



## Rugged Racer (Apr 22, 2007)

cjwheeling said:


> For all of you who like sports cars (probably the majority of folks on this board), do yourself a favor and go drive a Subaru Impreza WRX.
> 
> We just got one in, and I took it for a nice drive down one of our many mountain twisty roads and OMG! I don't think I've ever giggled out loud before while driving a car. It's even relatively refined to drive in a normal fashion, but hammering it around corners littered with sand and dirt was so cool.
> 
> ...


pt. joker said he torqued one in his new civic si


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Rugged Racer said:


> pt. joker said he torqued one in his new civic si


Probably the WRX engine was cold, so he wasn't trying.


----------



## WileECoyote (May 7, 2003)

The new WRX is butt-ugly. They lost this round to the Lancer Evolution.


----------



## abracc (Apr 15, 2006)

How does it compare with the VW R32?


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

I like the old body style WRX STi over that new hatchback abomination from hell.


----------



## Pvt. Joker (Dec 20, 2001)

Chris90 said:


> Probably the WRX engine was cold, so he wasn't trying.


No, he was trying. Had it been an STi, I would have gotten embarrassed.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

I used to own a highly modified 02 WRX wagon - probably around 450 - 500 hp. I didn't like putting the car on the dyno because it tended to detonate due to poor air flow. Fans just don't cut it in my opinion.

The WRX is fun in stock form and is probably one of the best tuner platforms ever sold. Subaru is trying to get away from the boy racer image because of all the warranty claims and has changed the WRX into a more appealing car for an older crowd.


----------



## Pvt. Joker (Dec 20, 2001)

da geez said:


> I used to own a highly modified 02 WRX wagon - probably around 450 - 500 hp. I didn't like putting the car on the dyno because it tended to detonate due to poor air flow. Fans just don't cut it in my opinion.
> 
> The WRX is fun in stock form and is probably one of the best tuner platforms ever sold. Subaru is trying to get away from the boy racer image because of all the warranty claims and has changed the WRX into a more appealing car for an older crowd.


That a lot of power!!!! How did you get it?


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

Like this.



> POWER
> 
> Asis Power Stage 4 Block - 2.35L
> Axis Power Stage 1 Valvetrain
> ...


I started and owned Crucial Racing Systems. It was the shop car. Suspension and brake mods were equally extensive.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

Just saw a new STI today in SD. Nice. Very nice. It doesn't look like a boy-racer car - especially in black. Pretty understated, yet still a bit aggressive. For the money though I'd rather an ED 335i sedan.


----------



## trueX5 (Feb 3, 2007)

The old (2007) WRX was nice, nothing wrong with it. But now it's bloated and boring. I agree, Mitsu won this round.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

blueguydotcom said:


> Just saw a new STI today in SD. Nice. Very nice. It doesn't look like a boy-racer car - especially in black. Pretty understated, yet still a bit aggressive. For the money though I'd rather an ED 335i sedan.


You would be the very first person I know of who has written such a positive statement about the appearance of the new model Impreza. Everyone else has stated the car is just plain pug ugly. There is no criticism of your taste intended by my statement.

In terms of discussions elsewhere on this board as to which is the better between the EVO and STI; EVO has always been a better car. Subaru is forced to mount its turbo too far away from the exhaust ports to make the kind of power a Mitusu in-line four can make. Add to that the quicker and much more neutral steering in the Mitsu, and it's a better all around package.

The price of the WRX and STi is where the car is particularly bloated. For the price, I believe most who would consider a Subaru would do well to look at any of the 3 or 1 series cars.

The best thing Subaru has going for it is reliability. When my car was in stock (or even vaguely resembling stock) form, it absorbed heaps of abuse without a complaint. Driven responsibly, I believe a WRX would enjoy the same longevity as a BMW.


----------



## ed325i (Dec 20, 2001)

da geez said:


> ...The price of the WRX and STi is where the car is particularly bloated. For the price, I believe most who would consider a Subaru would do well to look at any of the 3 or 1 series cars.
> 
> The best thing Subaru has going for it is reliability. When my car was in stock (or even vaguely resembling stock) form, it absorbed heaps of abuse without a complaint. Driven responsibly, I believe a WRX would enjoy the same longevity as a BMW.


One Series perhaps. The 3 would cost at least 10,000 more, with an average options package, unless you are going with a 328 or 323.


----------



## jetter2 (May 28, 2007)

WileECoyote said:


> The new WRX is butt-ugly. They lost this round to the Lancer Evolution.


The new Lancer looks like ballsack too, who are you kidding?

I HATE HATE HATE what they did to the WRX and lancer, they both look gay.


----------



## Pvt. Joker (Dec 20, 2001)

da geez said:


> Like this.
> 
> I started and owned Crucial Racing Systems. It was the shop car. Suspension and brake mods were equally extensive.


That explains it.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

Pvt. Joker said:


> That explains it.


The car was a monster - _easily_ the fastest street car I've ever driven. The exhaust attracted plenty of attention as it was 3" straight through. It was a really great sleeper, otherwise. Except for really young guys, nobody knew the car was so fast.

I did play with an 02 M Coupe once in some twisties and got a :thumbup: from the driver.

I sold the car and the company a few years ago when I took a job on a project in West Africa.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

da geez said:


> You would be the very first person I know of who has written such a positive statement about the appearance of the new model Impreza. Everyone else has stated the car is just plain pug ugly. There is no criticism of your taste intended by my statement.


Shrug. No offense taken. The Sti is one of the few decent looking new cars. It's all very subjective.



> In terms of discussions elsewhere on this board as to which is the better between the EVO and STI; EVO has always been a better car. Subaru is forced to mount its turbo too far away from the exhaust ports to make the kind of power a Mitusu in-line four can make. Add to that the quicker and much more neutral steering in the Mitsu, and it's a better all around package...
> 
> The best thing Subaru has going for it is reliability. When my car was in stock (or even vaguely resembling stock) form, it absorbed heaps of abuse without a complaint. Driven responsibly, I believe a WRX would enjoy the same longevity as a BMW.


Every owner of a WRX/STI I know has had great luck and finds the cars bulletproof. Every Evo owner I know has had constant problems and tons of fights with Mitsubishi. One company is barely hanging on, the other is only getting bigger and better. I wouldn't take an Evo priced at 20k, let alone the crazy high prices the Titanic...oops, Mitsubishi wants to charge.

In my experience with BMW products - they're constantly in need of repair. But they have great warranties and BMW tends to treat you well when you bring your car in (often) for repairs.

ed325, saying the 3 would cost 10k more than an STI...uh, no. An ED 335i (as I would outfit it) with sport package, comfort access, metallic paint would run about 37500 including shipping and 1k dealer profit. Add in BMWCCA and it's a 37k car. An STI is 35640 and it doesn't come with 4 years free maintenance. Maintenance on an STI over 4 years will easily run you 1k. So to me it's a wash. A 328i sedan via ED would be about 32-33k as I would outfit one. And the flight to Europe would be free for me. As for the rest of the cost...it's a vacation.

The STI against a 3 series looks loads better to my eyes too. The 3 sedan's just bland (the 3 coupe qualifies as one of the ugliest cars built today). But the STI lacks a 6 cylinder and more importantly it doesn't have RWD (cheeseball AWD instead - blech).


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

da geez said:


> Driven responsibly, I believe a WRX would enjoy the same longevity as a BMW.


In your experience, I might add. My experience is drive your BMW conservatively or normally, and see your BMW 3-4 times a year in the shop instead of more.


----------



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

da geez said:


> The best thing Subaru has going for it is reliability. When my car was in stock (or even vaguely resembling stock) form, it absorbed heaps of abuse without a complaint. Driven responsibly, I believe a WRX would enjoy the same longevity as a BMW.


Heck, in the midwest, they usually rust apart before they break down. I know lots of folks on the East Coast and midwest that have over 300,000 miles on their Subaru.

I agree, the new model is ugly, the one I picked up is a 2002, and I love the car. I'd keep it, but I can't afford the tickets!


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

The last time I drove one extensively was in 2003, when I was comparing it against a 330i ZHP (the car I eventually got). The STi was out then but dealers were still marking it up $10k, so I focused on the regular WRX sedan.

I was impressed by the drivertrain even then, and it was clear that was where the money was spent. Yes, it was pretty flat down low but that was part of the appeal--driving that car in such a manner to maximize its performance envelope. But as nice as that was, it was also pretty clear where they skimped: 

1) Suspension was disconcertingly soft given the engine's capabilities. Body roll was quite evident and the ride still managed to be choppy on the freeway. Not a confidence-inspiring chassis set-up. 
2) Woefully under-tired. All-season 16s did not do that car any favors. Understeered moderately to heavily, and grip limits were quickly reached (and exceeded). 
3) An interior and amenities befitting a $15k car. Thankfully they did step up with a nice, fat, small MOMO steering wheel, and respectably supportive seats.

In the end, I decided I could get the WRX and dump $5-$7k into it to 'fix' it, or just get the ZHP and be very pleased right out of the box.

No big surprise I took the ZHP, but the WRX was and is a very compelling bang-for-the-buck value proposition. I think I've missed my chance to own one though; I could not see myself ever going back to that well.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

blueguydotcom said:


> Maintenance on an STI over 4 years will easily run you 1k.


Brakes alone would cost you $1k...I think total maintenance for an STi for 4 years would be 2-3 times that.


----------



## Pvt. Joker (Dec 20, 2001)

blueguydotcom said:


> The STI against a 3 series looks loads better to my eyes too. The 3 sedan's just bland (the 3 coupe qualifies as one of the ugliest cars built today). But the STI lacks a 6 cylinder and more importantly it doesn't have RWD (cheeseball AWD instead - blech).


Does the BMW have a LSD? IF not, it's worthless in the snow, even with TC and DSC. Hell, even my FWD civic Si has a LSD.


----------



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

blueguydotcom said:


> But the STI lacks a 6 cylinder and more importantly it doesn't have RWD (cheeseball AWD instead - blech).


Are you kidding? Ripping a WRX (STi or regular) around a tight corner is one of the most satisfying driving I've ever done. In real world driving with dirt, sand, leaves, etc on the road, I'll take a WRX in the twisties over any other car out there. AWD allows the driver to punch the gas in every corner, and when you start to slide, you punch in harder.  On a closed circuit course with a clean road, I have no doubt that an M3 or 335 would spank the WRX, but how many of us get to drive on a closed course all that often?

That being said, I'd much rather have a Bimmer for normal sporty driving, but drifting through every corner is not something I'd do in a BMW normally.

BTW, I sold my M3 last month, and drove the WRX on the same road... there is no comparison on this particular road. Blind, tight corners with crap in the road was no challenge at all in the WRX, where I was sliding both the front and the back in the M3.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

I wish this wasn't getting into the Subaru V. BMW thing. I like cars too much to critically dissect either to point out faults in a comparison as the cars were designed to different concepts and both _are_ good cars. If others want to compare the automobiles, at least use the STi as the Subaru basis and you still end up with apples and oranges. Modified automobiles should not be considered at all. A RWD NA six cylinder compared to a AWD FI car makes little sense to me.

Were I to buy an STi now, I would wager the car could be driven for four years (48,000 miles) without making a trip to the shop except for scheduled maintenance and _perhaps_ the replacement of wear parts.


----------



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

da geez said:


> I wish this wasn't getting into the Subaru V. BMW thing. I like cars too much to critically dissect either to point out faults in a comparison as the cars were designed to different concepts and both _are_ good cars. If others want to compare the automobiles, at least use the STi as the Subaru basis and you still end up with apples and oranges. Modified automobiles should not be considered at all. A RWD NA six cylinder compared to a AWD FI car makes little sense to me.
> 
> Were I to buy an STi now, I would wager the car could be driven for four years (48,000 miles) without making a trip to the shop except for scheduled maintenance and _perhaps_ the replacement of wear parts.


I agree that the two are apple vs oranges, I originally posted it as a comment on another great sports car. They definetely don't compare head to head, they have completely different focuses.


----------



## SmoothCruise (Jul 23, 2005)

cjwheeling said:


> I agree that the two are apple vs oranges, I originally posted it as a comment on another great sports car. They definetely don't compare head to head, they have completely different focuses.


Why is it certain people cannot compare apples to oranges?

Apples:
Cuticle like skin
Relatively sweet tasting.
A white pulpy fruiting body.

Oranges:
Spongy skin
A more bitter taste.
An orange more liquid like fruiting body.

In fact, I would contend that comparing apples to oranges is essential to survival of nearly all vertebrates that ever lived or will live, except for certain people. So back in the cave days:

Son: Dad, I'm not in the mood to spear hunt another lion. Let's look for some watering holes.
Dad: Well son that's bad reasoning skills. You're comparing apples to oranges, and you can't do that.


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

cjwheeling said:


> I agree that the two are apple vs oranges, I originally posted it as a comment on another great sports car. They definetely don't compare head to head, they have completely different focuses.


True but I do believe people cross-shop them. I know I have in the past and I will going forward. :dunno:


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Our two cars are a 330 and a WRX.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

I owned an 02 WRX and presently own an 04 325i which my daughter drives. I believe I have a fair basis for comparison and there is little. While the WRX was raw and unrefined, the 325i is just the opposite. I have stated before and I'll state it again; the 325i is the most nicely balanced small sedan I've ever driven. In my opinion, it offers a perfect balance of power, comfort, handling and braking. I could go on, but everyone has the idea.

The WRX was exceptionally fun to drive. Its power and handling made it a real blast. Ask owners of what others may consider to be high performance cars who attend HPDEs about the WRX, and you may hear a story of how a WRX blasted past in some corner or another. Add just two or three thousand dollars in modifications, and very few cars can keep up with the WRX. They can be scary fast cars.


----------



## Just Bryce (Sep 23, 2005)

da geez said:


> I owned an 02 WRX and presently own an 04 325i which my daughter drives. I believe I have a fair basis for comparison and there is little. While the WRX was raw and unrefined, the 325i is just the opposite. I have stated before and I'll state it again; the 325i is the most nicely balanced small sedan I've ever driven. In my opinion, it offers a perfect balance of power, comfort, handling and braking. I could go on, but everyone has the idea.
> 
> The WRX was exceptionally fun to drive. Its power and handling made it a real blast. Ask owners of what others may consider to be high performance cars who attend HPDEs about the WRX, and you may hear a story of how a WRX blasted past in some corner or another. Add just two or three thousand dollars in modifications, and very few cars can keep up with the WRX. They can be scary fast cars.


Scary Fast, right here


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

If you want to go fast, the first thing you need is money. I have no idea how much money it would take to make my 325i (add a 328 or 330 as you wish) go as fast as a mildly tuned WRX. I'll guess it would cost many thousands more than it would to tune the Subaru.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

da geez said:


> If you want to go fast, the first thing you need is money. I have no idea how much money it would take to make my 325i (add a 328 or 330 as you wish) go as fast as a mildly tuned WRX. I'll guess it would cost many thousands more than it would to tune the Subaru.


$5k - supercharger and R compound tires.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

Chris90 said:


> $5k - supercharger and R compound tires.


Nope, not even close. For $5K, you could put _more_ than 300 hp at the (AWD) _wheels_ of a WRX and upgrade suspension components and brakes. I simply can't think of a more tunable car than the WRX. Power comes cheap in the car - it is a tuner's paradise.

Have you ever been on the track with one? How about an AutoX? A tuned WRX/Sti will flat drive _away_ from an M5.

From a Roll





From a Dig





My WRX was much faster than my M Coupe.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

da geez said:


> Nope, not even close. For $5K, you could put _more_ than 300 hp at the (AWD) _wheels_ of a WRX and upgrade suspension components and brakes. I simply can't think of a more tunable car than the WRX. Power comes cheap in the car - it is a tuner's paradise.
> 
> Have you ever been on the track with one? How about an AutoX? A tuned WRX/Sti will flat drive _away_ from an M5.
> 
> My WRX was much faster than my M Coupe.


Well I wouldn't consider that a mildly tuned WRX, if you change tires, suspension, brakes, and run 300 hp on the stock motor. I've seen several at track days, but haven't driven one there. I know they're fast, I'm just not a huge fan of track cars that drive themselves - I'd rather have something with less power that requires more skill to go fast - just a personal preference.


----------



## da geez (Nov 27, 2007)

My point is, the WRX can go stupid fast for less money.


----------



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

Here's the real crime: I just sold the first of two WRXs. I sold the one 2002 WRX for $4400 more than I'm selling a beautiful 2001 BMW 525. Sad...

I've had nonstop phone calls and emails on the WRX that sold for almost $13,400, I can't give away the 525 for $8999. Anyone want to steal a 525?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

cjwheeling said:


> Here's the real crime: I just sold the first of two WRXs. I sold the one 2002 WRX for $4400 more than I'm selling a beautiful 2001 BMW 525. Sad...
> 
> I've had nonstop phone calls and emails on the WRX that sold for almost $13,400, I can't give away the 525 for $8999. Anyone want to steal a 525?


how much do you think our 2002 WRX w/ 105k miles is worth?


----------

