I can agree with that.

HP does not make the STI. It's the complete package. I think they've made a lot of progress around the motor. But zero on the motor and that's discouraging.

I don't think and extra 40-60hp would do anything but help the car. And showing SOME kind of increase is good for marketing.



I will say this... after seeing that liberty kitted photoshop sedan.... I'd consider one. LOL!

 

Nope. Remember. Marketed hp vs whp is totally different too. STi back when the Evo came out. 300hp vs 276hp. One made 220ish other made 240ish. Use that as an example.

 

Yeah that again.. I spent the last week daily driving my Justy. I drove all over and in every case merging onto the freeway in my car that was rated at 73hp back in 1991, I got to at least 60-65mph before entering the roadway.

My wife and I spent all last weekend, both days, driving all over the bay, backroads and freeways, with my two kids in the back - and sometimes my dog - in this Justy. At no point during those two days did either of us find that this car did not have at least adequate power to get the job done.

I still can't believe people went so far as to say that the BRZ might not have enough power to safely merge onto the freeway.

Regarding more power for the STi, some people seem to look down a list of numbers and think that gives them enough data to talk competently about a car, when in fact, it does not. I just read another article where several journalists commented that the STi has more than adequate power to be dangerously fast on the street, and perfectly fine on the track while it is fairly easy for the owner to add more power. I agree with this, and dis-agree with the internet experts who might not have even driven the car before, or be a competent driver in the first place.

I cannot completely understand why people seem to think that you need to see a larger number progressively for there to have been progress, but I am guessing that it has very little to do with enthusiasm for driving. In fact I am sure of it.

 

what does that have to do with anything?

 

Agreed.

As far as the BRZ goes, it's fine for what it is. I do think they should have an option to get one with more ponies as I firmly believe something in the 250 range would make a lot more sense in that car and be a better starting point for those looking for more. Most people talking crap about the power quite frankly probably couldn't handle 350hp in the BRZ. Hell... 300.

As for the STI. My issue isn't that it's "underpowered." I don't think it is. It's fine. It's plenty of fun for the street. My issue is with the lack of change in a 10 year period. They should be making more power more efficiently. It's essentially the effort that's bugging me.

I still think todays STI should average 3-5mpg more than the 2004 and have at least 30-40 more hp.

The fact that it doesn't do either is b.s.

Fact is... they had a 340hp car in 2004.

 

You can market a number how ever you want it, however..... When you look at that number difference, the Evo was advertised at a way less power but it actually produced more on the same dyno. I don't care what the manufacturers say now. I would rather have something that goes for what it is.

 

We're talking about real HP here. You're talking about theory. Still don't know wtf that has to do with anything that's been discussed thus far?

So you're saying you'd rather have a car that says it has 300hp but only has 220whp than one that says it has 340hp but has 250whp?

I'm talking about real hp gains. Not make believe.

 

You're on the same page as I am. I'm saying I don't care what the manufacturer puts on the label. Just because it says 350hp doesn't mean it's really yielding an appropriate whp on a dyno that's what my comparison was. Everyone though the sti was faster on paper by 24hp. But in reality it wasn't against the Evo.

In short I don't care what the marketed hp is. Give me something that performs for the money. Quite frankly 40k isn't worth it.

 

EDIT: I just realized this sounds snippy, I don't mean it that way I swear! Anyway, carry on...

I think he means the opposite. Not sure. Historically speaking, companies, lets say GM for example, would create an engine that produces say 400hp. The engine would be designed to serve models for several years, being physically identical, yet it would be rated, starting at say 320hp for the first year, incrementally higher each year, to make people happy when they say things like you are saying here.

This was made pretty clear getting several years of the same car, all rated differently together for multiple dyno days, and seeing that these were all the same engine and the HP rating was more or less meaningless - was just a marketing figure. The hot cars to get were the earlier ones, since the engines were the same and they came with less heavy crap.

Personally I would rather see a real HP rating that makes sense for the car/platform, and see it post better performance numbers over the years due to actual, meaningful improvements.

You completely lost me with MPG, because I have owned Subarus for 22 years and buy a Honda or Toyota when I need better MPG, and I would bet most of the comparables people have used here are from looking up the specs. Like my friend who is pretty disappointed that his Audi Q5 that was going to be so awesome gets exactly the same MPG as my Toyota Sequoia.

 

Exactly. Other manufacturers are focused on increasing performance and fuel economy over the past ten years. Many are using weight saving approaches in addition to others to achieve those targets. The reviews of the latest car are quite favorable but better fuel economy as one metric has not kept up.

 

I know how people have marketed cars. 1. I'm in marketing for a living. 2. I own a 60 year old car that was in the middle of the exact same kind of increases your'e talking about. Year to year out of the same motor.

The only deal with my car was that the gains were real because they were improving a brand new type of motor.

But it is known that there are different reasons to say you have more or less hp than you actually have. One of those is on a dual platform car.

WRX... 227 (2004)
STI... 300 (2004)

When you're trying to upsell a car... you have essentially the same platform but it's $12k more. Buyers want to see more than just a 6spd and some wheels. That's all they're really seeing at first because buyers are dumb. So they're saying... what $12k more? Well you get all that and you get an extra
25% hp.

So in those cases you have to do things like downtune or lie. You put out a WRX that says 255hp and an STI that says 280hp... no one is gonna buy the STI.


So essentially... yeah. I get it (and I didn't read it as snippy. LOL!)

I get it.


In reality the 5hp gains you've seen in the STI over the years are more... and more importantly Torque went up.

The platform has improved.



I'm not saying I'd be happy if the next STI came out and it said 340hp on it but in reality it was all a lie... for one that would be bull**** and it would backfire on them in a HUGE way... and for two... it would be bull****.

I'm saying that in a 10 year span it's reasonable to expect them to increase performance say 1% a year on average... and I'm not talking about running the same motor but just upping the HP by 3hp in your brochure. I'm talking about increasing it by 3HP for real.

10 years... 10%. You're talking about 30hp. Reasonable. Appropriate.



EDIT... oh and MPG. Yeah you don't buy an AWD car to get 50mpg. But fact is... we don't expect enough out of auto manufacturers in this regard. Transmission will always limit an AWD compared to a FWD car for MPG... but that doesn't mean it shouldn't improve as time goes by.

Fact is... people are idiots if they think that 30mpg should be the benchmark for an economy FWD vehicle. There's no reason I should be forced to buy a hybrid or some other hippy jerk off stare at the lights to get 50mpg car to get 50mpg.

You can pick up a 70's compact car. Toss a modern motor in it. Get 35mpg. And have a crazy fast car because it's got double the hp it had in the 70's. Hell... that 70's motor... good chance it got over 30mpg.

My 1997 Civic before I started farting around with it was over 30mpg. The HX... I knew guys that were milking it for over 50mpg. That's damn near 20 years ago and the civic is getting??? well... not 50mpg that's for damned sure.


It's a huge flaw. Big business' helping each other out and taking advantage of a naive customer.

Same reason out telecom system is still in 1971 compared to the rest of the civilized world.

 

It's mostly weight. Modern cars have more amenities and safety requirements that makes them heavier. A 1997 ek civic is around 2400 lbs the newer civics probably closer to 2900lbs. 500 lbs is a lot to carry around and expect better mpg. If subaru made the cars lighter they would automatically get better fuel economy without any more or less power.

 

My 1986 Corolla GT-S gets over 30MPG easily, and it's no hybrid. Just further backs up what OneManArmy said.

 

Puss

 

Yup them idiots forget a 2014 corolla has 134 HP