Sign In Join 



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

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


Messages Page 95 of 148
1
...
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
...
148
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#941 of 1480
Re: Mineral vs. Synthetic [xyzzer] by dino001
Sep 24, 2007 (3:27 am)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 11:45 pm)

Rest of the developed world pretty much departed from mineral oils completely. Tha maintenance recommendations are synthetic even for vehicles like Corolla, or Focus, let alone WRX. Admittedly, their intervals are 15 to even 30 thousand km. High-performance engines (like WRX): NOBODY would even think there that your could use mineral oil. They would cut the interval on them, probably to 10K km, or so. I don't have any booklet, but it could be checked. General trend is rare but thorough and putting good stuff. And don't think our driving conditions are worse than theirs.
 
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?
#942 of 1480
Re: 300 mile review [xyzzer] by rphillips2
Sep 24, 2007 (6:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm)

Thanks for the detailed review!
 
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.
#943 of 1480
Re: 300 mile review [rphillips2] by xyzzer
Sep 24, 2007 (7:12 am)
Reply

Replying to: rphillips2 (Sep 24, 2007 6:13 am)

I think the initial mpg had a lot to do with the break-in period. The traffic around here is horrible and my morning commute is usually less than a mile, which adds up to a really low mpg, especially with my foot (lead at times), but that depends on the driver and location a lot. I believe the city mpg will increase the next time anyways. In my '05 Impreza Outback I was getting around 20mpg in the city.
#944 of 1480
Offroad: WRX vs Outback? by xyzzer
Sep 24, 2007 (8:42 am)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm)

I just read in the manual of my new WRX, that all models except OUTBACK are not supposed to be driven offroad.
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...
#945 of 1480
Re: 300 mile review [xyzzer] by xyzzer
Sep 24, 2007 (8:55 am)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 23, 2007 6:12 pm)

Hmmm... forgot to add that I like the additional airbags in the new WRX...
#946 of 1480
Re: 300 mile review [xyzzer] by lilengineerboy
Sep 24, 2007 (9:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 24, 2007 8:55 am)

Hmmm... forgot to add that I like the additional airbags in the new WRX...
 
Don't test them.
#947 of 1480
Re: Mineral vs. Synthetic [dino001] by ateixeira
Sep 24, 2007 (2:28 pm)
Reply

Replying to: dino001 (Sep 24, 2007 3:27 am)

My guess is Subaru will follow the rest of the industry - recommend synthetic will increase their TCO (maintenance costs) compared to other manufacturers.
#948 of 1480
Re: Offroad: WRX vs Outback? [xyzzer] by ateixeira
Sep 24, 2007 (2:29 pm)
Reply

Replying to: xyzzer (Sep 24, 2007 8:42 am)

I wouldn't take either one too far. Get a Forester (and some skid plates) if you want to do that.
 
Forester also has a tiny bit of extra room for bigger tires.
#949 of 1480
additions by jeffmc
Sep 24, 2007 (7:56 pm)
Reply
couple things to add to the conversation:
 
1. My Subaru dealer always uses synthetic... I didn't have to ask for it.
 
2. I bet the approach/departure angles on the '08 Impreza are a smidge better than the previous gen Outback Sport... especially at the rear. Also, are they saying not to be driven "off road" or "off pavement"? WRX should be fine off pavement, gravel roads & whatnot... just watch the clearance, right? Off road, though? ... nah.
#950 of 1480
Re: additions [jeffmc] by paisan
Sep 24, 2007 (8:11 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jeffmc (Sep 24, 2007 7:56 pm)

Yeah it's a grey area. Having done lots of different types of "off-roading", I can say that for the general public, I wouldn't suggest taking any of the cars with low-profile tires offroad, even on gravel roads and whatnot. Why? Cause most folks will drive them improperly in those situations, especially totally off-road.
 
During the 48hrs of Tri-state we hit up the pine barrens in NJ and an un-improved road in upstate NY. We were going at a rather slow pace that someone who is used to driving on-road would say is too slow. Anything faster and we would have had dented rims, flat tires, and undercarriages that were scraped up.
 
So as with everything in the manual, take it with a grain of salt, mostly it's there to cover themselves from the general public's lack of knowledge.
 
-mike

Messages Page 95 of 148
1
...
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
...
148
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement