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
|
|
|---|---|
|
I apologize in advance if this is old news to most of you. FYI: Subaru changed their recommended (normal) oil change interval from 7,500 miles to 3,750 miles for all MY2008 Subaru vehicles with turbocharged engines.
|
|
|
Replying to: SubyTrojan (Sep 23, 2007 9:11 pm) Anyways, I was using mineral oil for my '05 Impreza and was changing the oil every 3k miles. Once I did that after 4k miles after a long trip to Yellowstone - the oil level turned out to be close to E and the engine started getting hot. This is the time when I started thinking more seriously of getting a new car and finally ended with the new WRX. My dealer provides free oil and filter changes every about 3750 miles, which looks like a great deal, but I might need to check with them if they could do that with a synthetic oil as well - maybe if I bring my own oil? I have done some research and there are plenty of different opinions here, but I am leaning towards switching to synthetic oil after the initial break-in period of the engine. Oil - Synthetic vs. Mineral There are pros and cons of either of these. Mineral oil is cheaper and should be changed more often - every 3k miles in general. It seems like it breaks down quicker than the synthetic - hence the frequent changes, but that can also be good for a general consumer, since it makes you change the filter and maintain the proper level of oil to keep the engine running. It is also better for the initial break-in of the engine, because it does not protect from wear so well, where wear is important to do the break-in and since the manual recommends 1000miles for the break-in on the WRX - I will not do the switch before that. After then - I might just do that. Some people suggest that moving back to mineral from synthetic is bad, but some sources claim that it is how it was in the past and now there is no problem switching back and forth. Synthetic oil might be leaking in theory if it turns out the engine is not broken-in well. It is also more expensive. On the other side - it lubricates better, improving fuel economy, power and engine life. It breaks down harder, so it is better for performance driving and lasts longer, compensating for the price. The only catch is even if you decide to change it less often than the regular mineral oil (in theory some synthetic oils should last for 15k miles) - you should still be careful about the level and cleanliness of the oil at least as often as you would change the mineral oil. I figure it is worth the try. I think it was also used more often than the mineral one back in Europe... Now, which one to choose?  See also:
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 11:45 pm) I really don't get it, why Subaru of America is not mirroring these policies here. Is it because nobody would follow them, or dealers would put mineral oil anyway (I heard of such instances on other brands), or what?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm) I am almost ready to pull the trigger on a 5-door WRX, but the in town mileage is a little scary. Does your commute have alot of red lights or stop signs? My previous 06 Mini Cooper S was getting 25-26 mpg in the city.
|
|
|
Replying to: rphillips2 (Sep 24, 2007 6:13 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm) Now why is that? And do they mean Impreza Outback, or the regular Outback? What makes the difference? Why would they put info on the regular Outback in the WRX manual? Ground clearance: WRX: 5.9inch I.O.: 6.1inch Outback: 8.4inch '05 I.O.: 6.3inch Does not seem like a big difference (0.2inch) between the two Impreza models - maybe they mean the regular one? 2.5inch makes the difference. Durability Is the Outback or Impreza Outback more sturdy than the WRX? I guess Outback is longer and that could make it worse, but differences in the construction might be the issue here. I do not think there would be a difference between WRX and I.O. here. Unless the I.O. has better water sealing and the WRX with its turbo is more fragile here? Wheels Now the manual says "Do not drive on rough roads or over curbs in a vehicle that has 17 inch or other ultra-low-profile tires". That is exactly what all new Imprezas seem to carry, but so does the Outback (albeit a bit different 17 inch...). The manual also states that tire chains cannot be used on P205/50R17 tires (because of lack of tire/fender clearance) and this is what is carried by both the Impreza models. I have bought the chains for the old Impreza Outback, but have never used them. I wonder if it was right to use it back then or if I could use them now... Legal stuff Probably they are just protecting themselves. Of course the Outbacks might be a little bit better suited for rough roads, but the difference does not seem significant. Now I have driven the '05 Impreza Outback through some rough country roads in Oregon and through some shallow streams without any issues. I guess my new WRX could do as well, but still I am a bit afraid. The 0.4 inch difference might not be much alone, but together with the longer wheelbase (105.1 vs. 99.4) I might just get stuck in places where previously I just made it... Seems like the new care might be just a bit more civilized than the old barbarian...
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 24, 2007 8:55 am) Don't test them. 
|
|
|
Replying to: dino001 (Sep 24, 2007 3:27 am) |
|
|
Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 24, 2007 8:42 am) Forester also has a tiny bit of extra room for bigger tires.
|
|
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
