I can't believe all of you are *****ing so hard about the aesthetics of the 08 WRX/STI when there are so many other problems and issues that AREN'T cosmetic. The looks of the 08 hatch are fine; just a Mazda 3 with a hood scoop. The Mazda 3 Mazdaspeed is a really nice-looking car up close, and Subaru copied it note-for-note; fine looking sport compact, no problems here.

What about THESE issues:

1) Same old garbage transmissions. RIDICULOUS. That crap 5-speed still shifts like a truck. The 07 WRX I drove feels like driving a 1-ton pickup compared to the current sport compacts such as Civics, Mazdas and even Scions. Incredibly obsolete, weak and crude. And a four-speed automatic?? Laughable! There are plenty of cars in the 17k to 22k range that come with five-speed, paddle-shifted manual/autos, and VW and Audi have incredible 6-speed dual-clutch trannys at the 25k price point. The manual/autos are getting so good that they actually shave time off 0-60, rather than add it, and power loss is minimal. Subaru is living in the BRAT age when it comes to gearboxes.

2) Tiny TMIC with plastic(!) endtanks, located way back in the engine bay, and no room for a FMIC. Have you seen the 08 WRX engine bay? Stamped aluminum with plastic, you couldn't find a cheaper intercooler in an SRT-4! Aftermarket will have a heck of a time fitting anything bigger in that space.

3) 224 hp??? Holy crap, the Mazdaspeed and Accord are coming with 260hp stock; even the Camry has more HP and Torque. I don't know what Subaru's fascination with that magic number is, but they've been stuck with it for 7 years and it is time to bump up that baseline HP, especially since the WRX isn't getting any lighter.

3) No DCCD? Same old differential split? Again, this is no longer a luxury option; many other AWD models are coming with variable-setting differentials.

These are the REAL problems with the 08 WRX.

 

Cant wait to see the WRC version all done up. Should look bad ***.

 

Wow. Good point. I agree with most of this except that you're comparing several 2wd cars to the awd wrx. In order to have decent gas mileage for an awd (and keep the car sellable) there has to be a HP compromise. Ditto, to keep the price liveable with all the extra awd mechanical gear, they have to cut corners elsewhere. But, hey, that's what the STI is for, right? All the goodies, more power, more pricey.

I guess to me, it's ridiculous that they bothered to redesign the aesthetics only to make it look worse (which, if you ask me, has been the general trend since the GC8, except for 04), but I see your point, which is (if I may paraphrase) it's even more ridiculous that they redesigned the aesthetics while ignoring the real issues. Appended to the original topic: Save the impreza. Stop f-ing up the cosmetics and instead just make it a better machine. Agreed?

It seems like the mainstreaming of the impreza might be the real problem here. More people (who don't know cars) want a WRX, and subaru has been appealing to the masses instead of listening to their base.

 

I am running ~220 to the wheels (298 hp) in my 02 WRX on the stock turbo, and I get BETTER gas mileage than the car got stock. The tune was so rich from the factory that it was just throwing gas out the tailpipe. 260 HP would be a simple software tune, you can do that with the stock exhaust. Either they are keeping the HP artificially low to make the STI seem faster (it, too, needs a HP boost to 330) or they just don't want to put the fragile 5-speed transmission under too much strain. Now that the WRX comes with a 2.5liter from the factory, I suppose they don't want someone to be able to turn the car into an STI by just turning up the boost a bit, but still, the WRX is running in place while a lot of other sport compacts are surging ahead. Luckily the new Lancer is a joke (almost 100 lb/torque less than the WRX), but I just don't see why Subaru would redesign the chassis so radically that now the exhaust exits the right side of the rear, but keep the same aging driveline.

 

Where do you get that the lancer is 100hp less than the wrx. Last I checked it was 152 and the wrx 224 for a diff. of 72. But the lancer is more of a competitor to the base impreza which is 165hp I believe. The lancer is not awd, but is nice looking and has had numerous good reviews (except for maybe more power). I'm waiting for the new lancer ralliart to come out. Rumors are for 240-250hp and awd. If it is priced decent, it should kick the wrx's butt. But, I wish the new wrx was better looking because I like the idea of more torque down low with the 2.5L and the ability to hook up the cobb software for a quick boost in hp. I hope the ralliart will have something like that when they come out. Right now I'm leaning towards the Ralliart, MS6, or Legacy GT for my next car. Too bad the STI is so expensive or that would be at the top of my list...

 

I said torque, not HP; not really a fair comparison, since the Lancer is 2.0l and the WRX is 2.5l, but still, the super-anemic torque of the Lancer makes it a zero-to-sixty in eight seconds car, especially in the CVT version. I doubt a Ralliart version would get to 260 without a turbo, and they're not going to turbo it and AWD it and undercut possible EVO sales.

I don't understand why Subaru even makes the base Impreza; it isn't cheap enough to justify going without the turbo, and no one wants to see those skinny little wheels, lack of hood scoop and total lack of boxer sound. I rarely see an RS of any kind, they seem like a poor attempt by Subaru to make a rental fleet car. Sure, I admit 26-28 MPG sounds great right now (I'm at 22 on the highway, but premium gas is painfully expensive) but man, we're talking about rally car heritage here -- if I wanted a Chevy Lumina, I'd just get one...

 

Over at evolutionm.net, they say its been confirmed that the ralliart will be here sometime in 2008 as a 2009 model. Its gonna have awd and at least 240hp (we can hope for 250-260). But its probly gonna be heavier than the current evo and there are rumors of it costing between 30-35k which doesn't make sence since the evo x is supposed to start around 32k...

 

Gimme!:character00282: but I need sum more money first >.<

 

Yeah, that makes no sense, it is way too expensive. The previous Lancer Ralliart was $10k less than the lowest Evolution.

Anyway, I don't give a rat's *** about the Lancer or the WRX hp/torque level; I am just annoyed that we are stuck with such poor, primitive transmission options. Even Ford garbage is coming with 5- and 6-speed automatics these days, and a freaking Honda Fit has a better auto/manual with paddle shifters than the WRX. Sad and unforgivable.

 

I understand what you're saying. I just saw some "official" pics of the wrx and I don't know whats different about the sedan, but its growing on me. You can always install the cobb access port and an uppipe or downpipe, ect. for some decent power, but it still has the same old 5-speed transmission correct? I wonder if it would last if you put enough upgrades on the car to have around 300hp and don't do the old drop the clutch from a dig very often (maybe once or twice a month)? My freaken sentra has a 6-speed tranny, and although it is pretty notchy at times, that extra gear really helps with the mpg on the highway.

 

"oldschool"


A Subaru made in the 90s or after 2000? Not "oldschool".

The red tail lights on the new wagon make a difference. Now if they could just make the front end less... Mazda and more Subaru I'd be happy.

 

Hmm the STi does look a lot nicer than the base model, but for the price I think I would rather have an AUDI A3. It's hard for me to want to spend 30,000+ on a hatchback. But im a cheap bastard haha