Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Future Vehicles 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX
1480 messages, Last post on Jul 06, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
We recently did a 2200 mile trip from MN to TX and back in the WRX, using the Garmin 660 portable NAV. On the way to Dallas, after a while, it took us through a weird set of back country roads, when the whole 1000 mile distance could be covered by just sticking to I-35S. I was disappointed in the NAV engine, since the Odyssey's system would never have done that. On the way back, it tried to do the same but I deliberately ignored the direction to take the back-road hwy route and stuck to I-35N, and from then on, the Garmin then re-directed through I-35N. That was certainly weird, especially since it was set at "Fastest time". In other words, if I did not know about the I-35N situation and relied on the NAV's direction, it would have given me a guided tour of all the backroads from Dallas to MN. Also, unlike other sophisticated NAV engines, there is no option to avoid a certain road/hwy, unless you "detour" once the trip is underway or deliberately ignore the NAV's direction (as I did). You will have to stick to whatever the NAV engine comes up with....I think this is a serious shortcoming in the Garmin 660.
|
|
|
Replying to: aaykay (Sep 20, 2007 9:25 am) I see what you mean, though. If I have a pet peeve, it's that mine (for whatever reason) simply doesn't accept the fact that the 404 bypass around Bridgeville is quicker than driving through downtown at 25mph. I deliberately miss the turn, it wants me to make a U-turn, then a left, then another left. It doesn't want me to take the bypass until I'm within a mile of the bypass. Very strange because I also have fastest time selected. I'd rather go 55 then 45, vs. 25 the whole way with 2 stop lights and speed traps all over the place. |
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 18, 2007 10:33 pm) |
|
| Hi all, I am from Canada ... I am thinking of getting a wrx, never driven a Subaru before but like the all wheel drive because of the weather here. Any one from BC here can advise the gas mileage and insurance of this car ??? (it is the ICBC ), my two major concerns of this car. Thanks | |
Oh by the way, assuming the car insurance has no discount... and also what is the maintenance cost, approx is fine
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 18, 2007 10:33 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: flamb (Sep 20, 2007 5:13 pm) It's not that you can't afford it, per se, it's that the Impreza 2.5i is going to be a lot more economical to own and operate. The engine uses less fuel, and by using lower octane the fuel itself costs less. Insurance will be cheaper, and without a turbo the oil change intervals are less critical. Figure about 20% extra in ownership costs for a WRX, if you're lucky.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 21, 2007 6:52 am) What?! No way... My WRX and Dave's (my son) Outback Sport cost the same for maintance. Insurance is higher for the WRX, and gas mileage is slightly less using premium, but no way is my WRX 20% more expensive to own and operate. I'd say maybe (?) 10% more, if that. Bob
|
|
|
Replying to: rsholland (Sep 21, 2007 7:41 am) If you're saying it's same maintenance you're either neglecting WRX or overkilling on Outback Sport. I would not put mineral oil into WRX, but synthetic is unnecessary in Outback Sport. Also certain fluid exchanges are much more critical on WRX than Outback Sport. If you are getting better mileage on WRX it means you're not driving it the way it was "meant to". How about tires? WRX's RE92A, aka junk need to be replaced at 25K, 30 it you drive it gently. How long Outback's will last? The new tires would cost more, as they need to be V-rated to make sense on car like WRX. You could put lower rated, but what's the point? Oh - how about dpereciation. Even if WRX has lower rate by couple percentage points, it starts 30% higher (25K vs 19K) - so in terms of dollars, yes it will still be more. Loss of value is single highest position in ownership cost. Yes, 20% is abosolutely reasonable figure. However, if one drives it the way it is "meant" be driven - one should be be prepared for more than that. |
|
|
Replying to: dino001 (Sep 21, 2007 8:04 am) I've got 26K on the original tires, and they are fine. And not I don't pussy-foot through corners. Not driving it as it's "meant to be?" Give me a break... Bob
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Subaru Impreza
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
