Last post on Nov 07, 2006 at 12:41 PM
You are in the Subaru Impreza
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Impreza, Sedan
#8853 of 11554 Michael, declansdad
Apr 05, 2003 (9:34 pm)
The All Weather Package (AWP) was standard on CDN WRX since 2002 model year.
Yeah, it sucks that you guys don't get the AWP and moonroof for the WRX wagon. If it's any consolation, the WRX Sti in Canada won't get HID headlights (self-leveling is req'd for HID sold in Canada)
Also, Subaru of Canada makes some odd marketing choices too.
If you want a WRX sedan w/ 4EAT, you have to purchase the moonroof.
If you want a WRX wagon w/ 4EAT and a moonroof, sorry, not offered.
This is gleaned from the official CDN price list for 2004 Imprezas missing the following:
- A WRX sedan with 4EAT w/o a moonroof
- A WRX wagon with 4EAT with a moonroof
(who's really enjoying his car and can't wait for the break-in period to end)
#8854 of 11554 For The Record
Apr 05, 2003 (11:19 pm)
This is called Subaru Impreza WRX room. Not Impreza WRX meet the members ok.
So "legaly" speaking I can post anything I want that deals with S.I. WRX ok?
And with that don't criticize me if you are just an arrogant car fanatic
Apr 06, 2003 (7:36 am)
if it's within Edmunds code of conduct, which you agreed to when you joined this forum. Perhaps one of the Edmunds hosts might care to elaborate?
Apr 06, 2003 (9:53 am)
I agree with the oval lights having a British look, sort'a like a classic Aston Martin. I don't object to the new look too much, though I think the new fog lights look lost in the oversized bumper. I think playing with the bug eyes might have been a better idea, perhaps elongating them or something. So much for the interior (which look like old, cheap Datsun touches to me, anyway) reflecting the shape and contours of the headlights. As for the wagon, I would have preferred more straight, sweeping lines where the metal meets the glass, instead of that flying added on SUV look. While the lowered lip of the wagon back may be practical, it sure isn't flattering. Wheels that better fill wheel wells would help. While they are at it perhaps moving the wheels to extreme corners would help the looks and performance. Some one kindly posted an explanation why the front wheels are so far back due to the front tranny/drive configuration. Perhaps Subaru should look at how Lamborgini solved this problem for future designs. Windows that could be fully rolled down would be welcome. How about enough room in the back for a full sized spare, or at least enough to put the flat regular runner in. Perhaps enough room to stow the roof rack in the sub floor. The new "show" Subaru's look promising, but I hope they don't forget all the loyal Subaru Wagon buyers down the road. As it is I'm frustrated as all hell that there is no STi wagon. I keep hoping they will remedy that situation.
#8857 of 11554 Edmunds code of conduct
Apr 06, 2003 (10:12 am)
The host will remove posts that do not comply with the Membership Agreement - that is a given.
If you see a message that you feel is in violation of that agreement, please email the host of the discussion.
If you feel like someone is hanging out in a discussion for the sole purpose of instigating, please just ignore the person. As I say, if the person's messages are in violation of our community standards, ask the host to handle the situation. Otherwise responses to that person only encourage his or her continuing presence.
Email me with any comments or questions.
Apr 06, 2003 (11:31 am)
Merrycynic: I agree w/ just about every point you made. The wagon's tail could use some help. A more traditional wagonesque rear - more like an A4's would be more flattering and likely make more efficient use of space. And why Subaru sells the wagon short, I don't know (narrower track, no STI, etc) - I always thought wagons were Subaru's strong suit.
Regarding the wheels though, my impression was that the larger wheel wells allowed for greater suspension travel. That, to me, is more important than style. I also figured the shorter wheelbase offered more nimble handling. It never occurred to me that it might be due to more of a design limitation.
#8860 of 11554 That said...
Apr 06, 2003 (11:47 am)
... vegoen, as I have reminded you several times, you are bound by the Membership Agreement just as we all are.
If you don't like what people are saying to you, you have two choices: email me to ask me to handle it, or just ignore it. In either case, you are not free to dictate who can say what here.
I have repeatedly asked you to email me with any questions or concerns. I have tried in many ways to help you understand how to get along in our community. Since you will not communicate with me off-line as I have asked, I am posting this publicly.
Again -- our Town Hall community prides itself in the civil and respectful way that we conduct our conversations. If you are unable to contribute in a way that meets our community standards, do not be surprised when you find yourself not welcome here.
Again, my email address is patedmunds.com. Please address me off-line if you wish to pursue this.
Apr 06, 2003 (3:54 pm)
Anyone think the back seating in the WRX is kind of tight with 2 adults?
Apr 06, 2003 (4:03 pm)
Downs: Unflattering exterior design, cheap interior pieces, tight rear quarters.
Thats what the Edmunds Review gave it. So thats why I dont like that Im paying 25 grand for cheap interior