Ask the Car People.SM


2008 Subaru Impreza WRX - READ ONLY

1480 messages,  Last post on Jul 06, 2009 at 5:52 PM

You are in the Future Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Future Vehicles Host for Directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Subaru Impreza, Future Vehicle, Sedan

Messages Page 62 of 149

#604 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [ateixeira] by SubyTrojan

Jul 23, 2007 (2:37 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 23, 2007 12:21 pm)
Body roll felt about the same as my 2004 WRX when it was stock with stock wheels and tires.
 
The replacement of the rear LSD with an open diff didn't adversely affect the handling of the vehicle on a twisty mountain road (Glendora Mountain Road). I'm guessing perhaps only autocrossers would really notice the difference. I'm more of a road course guy and would have loved to take the new car on to the track like Motor Trend did.

#605 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [stevecebu] by SubyTrojan

Jul 23, 2007 (2:41 pm)

Replying to: stevecebu (Jul 23, 2007 12:35 pm)
Who wrote the first review? You should see Josh Jacquot's name clearly at the beginning of the article. :shrug: He's our Senior Road Test Editor. He used to write for Sport Compact Car before coming here a couple of years ago(?).
 
Please see the reply to ateixeira a few minutes ago. Overall, the stock 2008 WRX is better than a stock 2002-2007 WRX.

#606 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [SubyTrojan] by aaykay

Jul 23, 2007 (3:14 pm)

Replying to: SubyTrojan (Jul 23, 2007 2:41 pm)
You keep mentioning stock 2002-2007 WRX. I think you need to separate out the stock 2002-2005 from the stock 2006-2007, since the 2.5L engine makes a WORLD of difference. Bottomline, the power/torque comes on slightly sooner in the new model but fades away quicker than the 2006-2007 model, which accounts for the slower quarter mile and identical 0-60 (when compared to the 2006-2007 - NOT 2002-2005).
 
Your 2004 with the 2.0L was a pure rubberband in the power delivery department and I am not surprised that you are thrilled with the 2008.
 
You need to post your impressions (if any) after comparing it to the outgoing model (2006-2007) and compare it with the incoming model (2008)....which was what the "First Impressions" were all about and I believe he was right on the money. Comparing your 2004 to the 2008 from a PERFORMANCE standpoint, is not valid, since there is a world of difference between the real outgoing model (2006-2007) and your 2.0L model.

#607 of 1480 The review was harsh by aaykay

Jul 23, 2007 (3:21 pm)

The review was certainly harsh and mirrors my thoughts on the new 2008 model, even though I have not driven it. Seems like they also messed up the steering feel, which is a biggie for me.

#608 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [aaykay] by SubyTrojan

Jul 23, 2007 (3:22 pm)

Replying to: aaykay (Jul 23, 2007 3:14 pm)
I drove a stock 2006 WRX before I submitted my final piece. Perhaps you should read what I posted in the link I provided earlier.
 
As far as I know, the handling and interior of the 2006-2007 WRX is the same as the 2005 WRX. The 2005 WRX is pretty much the same as the 2002-2004 WRX save for the updated interior.

#609 of 1480 Re: LSD [ateixeira] by aaykay

Jul 23, 2007 (3:48 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 23, 2007 12:06 pm)
I would not assume the rear suspension was lighter duty. The old one was a plain old strut, nothing special. The new one may be more compact, but it's more complex and advanced by a long shot. You imply it's lighter duty but note that Subaru used the struts on its smaller cars and now uses a design derived from its heavier duty models.

 
Actually, Honda also uses the term "compact" to describe the Double Wishbone employed in their bottom-feeder Civic (the Civic incidentally, has had the design similar to the 08 WRX with the struts in the front and "compact" Double Wishbones in the rear, for a couple of generations but I don't recall anybody praising the Civic's handling and dissing the Impreza's handling till date ), while they don't use the term "compact" to describe the Double-wishbone in their Accord based brethren like the TSX or even the Accord itself.
 
Thus when they stated that the Impreza rear suspension is a "compact" double wishbone, I tend to think it is a lighter duty version when compared to their strut-based design or even the heavier duty multi-link suspension in the Legacy-based models. Obviously, there is no comparison with the huge Double-wishbones employed in the Tribeca, from a lighter/heavier duty perspective, other than the term "Double Wishbone".
 
This is one strike against the "modding" crowd, since they will not be able to replace their DB based suspension as readily/cheaply as they could replace their struts.

#610 of 1480 Re: LSD [aaykay] by paisan

Jul 23, 2007 (4:31 pm)

Replying to: aaykay (Jul 23, 2007 3:48 pm)
Actually, Honda also uses the term "compact" to describe the Double Wishbone employed in their bottom-feeder Civic (the Civic incidentally, has had the design similar to the 08 WRX with the struts in the front and "compact" Double Wishbones in the rear, for a couple of generations but I don't recall anybody praising the Civic's handling and dissing the Impreza's handling till date ), while they don't use the term "compact" to describe the Double-wishbone in their Accord based brethren like the TSX or even the Accord itself.
 
The civic which the Acura Integra Type R is based off of is highly regarded as one of the best, if not THE best handling sports compact car ever produced. It has double rear wishbone suspension, so I guess that's a bad thing! haaaaaa
 
-mike

#611 of 1480 Re: LSD [paisan] by aaykay

Jul 23, 2007 (6:26 pm)

Replying to: paisan (Jul 23, 2007 4:31 pm)
Mike, the Acura Integra (the basis for the Type-R), was the LAST generation of the Civic platform, which did not have the "compact" designation for the Double Wishbones and had Double Wishbones in the Front AND the rear.
 
I used to have a GSR (Type-R's little brother with slightly less HP and without the LSD) and used to love the handling of that car.

#612 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [SubyTrojan] by aaykay

Jul 23, 2007 (8:33 pm)

Replying to: SubyTrojan (Jul 23, 2007 3:22 pm)
One question that raised quite a bit of ruckus here in the past, was over the WRX brakes. Based on your observation, are these the GT's larger front brake discs (with the 2-piston calipers) or are these the slightly smaller brake discs from the 2002+ WRX ?
 
Thanks.

#613 of 1480 Re: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX Second Opinion [rsholland] by stevecebu

Jul 23, 2007 (8:52 pm)

Replying to: rsholland (Jul 23, 2007 1:19 pm)
You seem to think your opinion is of more value than others here simply because you're putting money where your mouth is—as you've told us a bunch of times.
I can't think of anything more arrogant!
 
Really Bob, well you should look back at what you said previously about Subaru wanting to sell more cars then. After all you and others have pointed out more than a few times Subaru is in the business to make money.
my point was and is that in 6 months i will HAVE to buy a car. You have a 2006 and are not looking to buy one. So in 1,2 or 3 years or whenever it is you will buy a car then. This car is out now. You won't be buying it so it's not arrogant for me as a buyer to like or not like a car that I will actually be paying money for.
Hardly arrogance. But you and a few others really want to argue with me. I am done discussing this with you as I have pointed out in the past that you have some valid points and yet not once had you acknowledged that I have any valid points yet the reviews from various magazines,tend to lean more towards what I was saying.
Arrogance is bragging that Subaru listens to you. They don't listen to me, that's ok, I can decide whether or not to buy their car after I drive one.
You have totally missed every point I have ever made.
And since i'm sure nothing will make you happier that us not conversing any more then just don't reply and I won't reply to you any more either.

Messages Page 62 of 149

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement