Check engine light, (which is basically emission control light) came on at 3457 miles.
The Impreza WRX is the ideal example of form meeting function.
This car is an absolute pocket rocket when the turbo spools up at approximately 2500 RPM. However it is equally comfortable tooling around town.
The handling is close to superb, the AWD makes a noticeable difference as compared to my 2002 Honda Civic SI that I traded in.
The gear ratio, smooth 5 speed manual transmission and 7000 RPM redline do a terrific job enabling the power to be put to the pavement.
I've been getting 30 mpg highway, which is 3 more than the sticker suggested 27. I feel this to be quite an engineering feat in a car that puts out 227 hp, can carry a family of 5 plus some gear, and eat a Mustang GT for lunch.
The only negatives I've experienced are the emission control light coming on recently, and you can hear more exterior noise than in some comparable vehicles. Extremely pleased with my Impreza!
The WRX is a fast car that is great in all weather conditions. However, as far as eating a Mustang GT for lunch... no way. On paper it looks like a good match, but to get the posted numbers for a 0-60 time in a WRX you'd be putting many clutches in the car. Even Car and Driver admits that they severely abuse the cars to get the 5.4 0-60 times out of them. Mustangs pull easy low 5's in a 0-60 sprint. they also would continue to widen the gap after 60 as the Subaru drops off a lot as the speed increases. Don't get me wrong, I love these cars, but they don't match up in the real world to a V-8 powered musclecar. They really were never intended to. If you have beaten a Mustang the owner doesn't know how to drive a 5-speed or he has an automatic. But hey, you'd kill a Mustang in January with 6 inches of snow on the road!!
I coudn't have written a better defense plan for the mustang gt.
The WRX doesn't eat a Mustang for lunch stock because you lose a LOT more power on its way from the crank (227hp) to the wheels (165-170whp) in an AWD car than a RWD car like the mustang. However, they do exceptionally well if launched properly in 0-60 times and 1/4 mile trap time. If you notice, the WRX gets around a 14.1-14.2 1/4 mile time, BUT it is only doing around 93-94mph. On the other hand, a FWD car like an SRT4 traps about the same time, but like 98-100mph in the 1/4.
Translation: this is not a highway racer. You will get beat or 'hung with' by cars that the WRX easily beats 0-60 wise. However, for stoplight wars, a properly launched AWD car can beat a moderately/poor launched FWD/RWD car that has more power. For example, I have a video of a stage 1 WRX (~260crankhp/~190whp) beating a C5 Z06 because he got perfect launches while the Z06 owner didn't have a clue how to launch his better than mediocre. On paper, a Z06 C5 should slaughter a stage 1 WRX if launched properly.
Some very constructive and well put comments. Mustang is muscle so should not be compared in the same league.
Don't forget to mention that you'd be really straining the clutch on the WRX to beat a more powerful car off the line. Most of the acceleration loss is from wheel-spin on the rear drive or front drive cars which you obviously don't get on the WRX. The clutch takes the full brunt of the engine's power in that case and it is really hard on it. To drag these cars against Mustangs and Vette's will get costly if you really launch it as hard as you have to in order to have a chance against them. Most of the time you'd still lose after 2nd gear though unless the other driver can't shift... These cars are just too short on tourge and HP against 300-400 HP cars to make a real good match. I have owned both and can tell you honestly.
The above comments about Mustang vs WRX are laughable.
The WRX is a very quick car in a straight line, but that is not all that it is about. Its fantastic AWD chassis means that it will easily outhandle a mustang as soon as the twisties start and say goodbye when the rain arrives.
I doubt that on a back road there are too many cars that can keep up with the Rex, Mustang included.
At the end of the day, as with any performance car, the driver of such a car should take care. Higher limits it may have, but physics defeats ALL performance cars!
Kapish?
Well I own a uk WRX with the prodrive pack fitted, putting out 261 bhp 257 lb of torqe, not amazing power, but quiker than STI. 0-60 is a claimed 4.8 seconds, but there is no sudden drop in pace past 60, I've stuck with cars with a bit more power running RWD well past 100 mph. 4wd aint that bad at high speed. But yes a big american engine car would be better at speed.
Laughable comments? The 2002-2005 WRX in stock form is far from a great handler. The awful Potenza RE92s the car comes with may very well be the worst OEM tire ever produced.
As for the comment about the rain, I'm guessing you have never driven a WRX with RE92s in the rain. I once lost traction with all 4 tires going straight up a hill doing about 70 on the highway. That has never happened to me in any FWD or RWD car, but then again, none of them had the RE92 series tire on them.
When you start adding suspension mods and decent tires and such, yes, the WRX can be made a rather formidable handling machine. But stock in dry weather, I don't even think a well-driven WRX could keep up with a well-driven Mustang GT in the twisties, never mind out-handle it. The 2005- Mustang GT, despite the anti-domestic bias out there, is a very good handling car.
Well you got some defective tires, so do something about it.
The impreza or any subie for that matter has amazing handling abilities, primarily because of the AWD. The suspension is not as nice on my dads impreza as it is on my jetta, both 98's, but I'd trust his in tight turny stuff.
While the suspension sucks, and I guess the tires suck too (I don't think so though, my dad never had troubles) the AWD system allows any wheelspin to be eliminated through cutting power to that wheel and putting it somewhere else to allow that wheel to regain traction, making it near impossible to break this car loose unless you overcome the traction of all 4 tires. While a RWD car would need to have the power cut to the rear wheels to bring them back in and stop the slide. A subie would just make some chirping noises and continue on at the same speed. Amazing little compact commuter my dad has really...
Loosing traction on a highway going 70 is ridiculous unless it was all ice and snowing out. But then I think ALL the other cars would have a bit of problem there. You also didn't mention the mileage of said tires, for all we know they could be bald.
You are quite wrong... the RE92s are well known for being an awful OEM tire. The tires could not have been defective on two separate cars.
Both me and my father have WRXs, I have an 03 wagon, and he has an 04 sedan. Both cars exhibit the same awful wet road performance. When I replaced my RE92s with ContiExtremeContacts, same size and ratio, the difference was night and day.
I also work with somebody who has different size RE92s on his Maxima, and he prays he won't die before he gets the money to replace them.
And yes, losing traction going up a straight hill at 70 in moderate rain is ridiculous for any car, AWD or otherwise. That's the point I was trying to make.
"While the suspension sucks, and I guess the tires suck too (I don't think so though, my dad never had troubles) the AWD system allows any wheelspin to be eliminated through cutting power to that wheel and putting it somewhere else to allow that wheel to regain traction, making it near impossible to break this car loose unless you overcome the traction of all 4 tires. "
Which, if you had ever driven a stock WRX in wet or dry conditions, is quite easy to do in turns. Hell, even the SpecV (A FWD torque-heavy car) I had before the WRX could take banking cloverleaf on-ramps better than the stock RE92 equipped WRX (my experience with my father's sedan which indeed DID swing the back end out in the turn). The SpecV had ContiSportContacts, a decent summer tire 215/45/17, slightly larger than the WRX all-season RE92s 205/55/16.
I would never drive any car with bald tires. You use the quarter/lincoln's head method to determine when its time to get new tires. My RE92s had 21K miles on them when that incident happened, and my father stupidly got brand new RE92s at his 30K mile service at the dealership. He now has ~36K miles on the odo.
Speaking as somebody who actually owns a WRX and drives it everyday on a 70 mile round-trip commute to work, I think I know my car better than somebody who occasionally drives his fathers (which I also do with my father's sedan on the weekends when I visit).
I agree with the last comment, tyres aren't the biggest problem in the world to solve are they? And it would be knitt-picking to point out anything else negetive about the Impreza's handling, when you compare it to most other cars, it's better. Red hot infact.
Well considering I learned how to drive in the subie... I think I know a few things.
I just don't see how a stock tire can be that bad that it has nothing in the way of traction. Surely more people would have noticed this and complained, but sofar, I've only heard this from you.
Again, I can't get around how these tires can suck so bad that the rear end of your dad's car slides out in corners (being a teen driver, I tried many times to break the subie loose, only succeeding a few times on dirt or offroad, other than that it held the road, and took off around the corner).
The other thing, is if these tires are so horribly bad and dangerous that you slide around during regular driving, WHY haven't you changed them yet?!!??! Anyone with common sense would change them out before crashing.
Never heard of people bashing the RE92s? Please. Go ask how people feel about them in ANY WRX forum. Wrxlinks, NASIOC, wrxforum, etc.
Also, go look at the reviews on tirerack for people's opinions on other cars with that tire. It is an awful tire. If you have never had any problems cornering with them, you either haven't ever pushed the car in turns, or have never driven a WRX with the stock tires and stock 16" wheels. Sorry, but there is no other explanation.
I drive my WRX wagon at least 70 miles every weekday. I think that's a little more experience with the car then you learning on your dads.
Oh, and to that other guy who apparently didn't bother to read my post, it clearly states that my wagon now has ContiExtremeContacts on it. After that incident in the rain and the fact that the tires also suck for cornering in dry weather, I replaced them immediately. These tires are actually considerably cheaper than RE92s, they don't make anywheres near as much noise, and the handling absolutely annhiliates the RE92s in any weather.
However, it isnot only the tires with the stock WRX suspension. Car and Driver tested the 17" rimmed model, and although it did do better (like.86g on the skidpad vs.82 with the base rims/tires), that's still not 2005+ Mustang GT territory of.88-.90g.
Once you start modding the suspension, yes, the WRX becomes an incredible performer in any weather, on any road or off-road. Any experienced WRX owner will tell you the stock suspension is too soft for on-road cornering and racing against cars like the 2005+ Mustang GT. Lets not pile on the inaccurate hype for this car because we are so enthralled with it.
Most of this confusion is being caused by the fact that my dad's car is a 1998, and probably does not have those crappy tires. While maybe they changed the standard ones on newer models.
Hype does'nt come out of thin air. It comes from peoples experience, either owning one or racing one on the track or road. And not many people have any complaints about the handling of the impreza. And I certainly have'nt seen many comparisons between them and a mustang.