Anyone have one or drove around in one? I know they're basically Imprezas, but wondering if anyone has some first hand experience. We are thinking of taking one on a test drive this weekend. I'm still angling for a WRX hatch of course. I do like the raised rally look though. This could possibly replace our WJ Jeep.
Hoping to drive a friends this weekend as he just got. Fuel mileage is supposed to be far better, than previous impreza platform cars, but the engine doesn't exactly get the blood racing like the turbo motors or even the old 2.5 n/a
Updated version of the Outback Sport that was sold previously.
They were raised in the air with 2" longer struts, subframe spacers, longer sway bar brackets, sway bar links, etc. Other than that they were an Impreza. I would expect these to be the same. So just a tall Impreza.
New 2.0L motor makes 148 hp - 25 hp less than the 2.5L they replaced. I hope you are planning on a manual. My mom has a Legacy with a 2.5 and a slushbox, compared to my old Outback with the 2.5 and a manual it is a slug.
In that case, please give me logical arguments for the WRX hatch that I can use to attempt to sway the other half.
I drove one a few months ago. Not impressed. The interior felt cheap and the "MPG" gauge was a laugh.
It can't be any more laughable than the one in my 944 that usually can't decide between 0 or 50+.
redhookfern wrote: In that case, please give me logical arguments for the WRX hatch that I can use to attempt to sway the other half.
The WRX is the same car with MOAR everything except height so is better value for money 
. You could raise the ride height on the WRX to match and have the extra whiz bang fizzle plus ride height.
I 'm leasing the regular Impreza and we love it so far. I can't say much for the engine since it spends all of its time at the same RPM with the CVT. The CVT is nice BTW, you never get caught out of gear any longer than it takes the engine to wind up to peak HP.
Compare insurance with the WRX. For me, the Impreza was one of the cheapest cars I could insure, while the WRX was one of the most expensive.
I actually forgot that the insurance on those is a beast, especially in the NYC area. That could be a very large sticking point for an argument against the WRX. sigh.
I test drove a 2011 WRX hatchback a month ago. It went really fast. It had grip all day long. That's about all it did well.
The interior was extremely dated on that car. The radio was as well. I could never bond my android phone to the bluetooth in the car. This one did not have the touch screen NAV/Radio. With a Ford using Sync it takes about 30 seconds. The car was also a bit smaller inside than I expected. Having kid seats in the back would make occupying it for longer than 20 minutes a claustrophobic proposition. Visibility out of the cabin is good.
All that said..I really liked it's electric blue paint and it's WRC inspired body.
redhookfern wrote: I actually forgot that the insurance on those is a beast, especially in the NYC area. That could be a very large sticking point for an argument against the WRX. sigh.
It depends on the Insurance Co. - my (older - 2002) WRX does not cost me signifcantly more as I carry basic coverage, but newer ones can be $$$, especially due to theft issues and the demographic that WRX's attract.
Get some quotes.
Xceler8x wrote: Having kid seats in the back would make occupying it for longer than 20 minutes a claustrophobic proposition. Visibility out of the cabin is good.
I own a 2013 WRX hatch and am 6' tall. I have 2 children in car seats a 3 year old and an 10 month old. I can place either forward or rear facing seats in this car with significantly more space than I could in any of the competitive cars in the "hot hatch" market. I test drove/looked at all with a rear facing kids seat that I put in the car to check it's space. The WRX rear seat was the largest allowing for the most space in the driver seat with kids in the back. We have taken it on 3-6 hour family trips with no issues.
Otherwise your review is spot on. The interior is not as nice as the competition nor even as nice as the new chassis Imprezza. Gas mileage is poor at 23 combined and there are no "tech" features whatsoever. I love it. It's a simple basic balls out car.
nocones wrote:Xceler8x wrote: Having kid seats in the back would make occupying it for longer than 20 minutes a claustrophobic proposition. Visibility out of the cabin is good.I own a 2013 WRX hatch and am 6' tall. I have 2 children in car seats a 3 year old and an 10 month old. I can place either forward or rear facing seats in this car with significantly more space than I could in any of the competitive cars in the "hot hatch" market. I test drove/looked at all with a rear facing kids seat that I put in the car to check it's space. The WRX rear seat was the largest allowing for the most space in the driver seat with kids in the back. We have taken it on 3-6 hour family trips with no issues. Otherwise your review is spot on. The interior is not as nice as the competition nor even as nice as the new chassis Imprezza. Gas mileage is poor at 23 combined and there are no "tech" features whatsoever. I love it. It's a simple basic balls out car.
I agree with everything you said. The WRX backseat is actually about the same size as my Maxima (judging by my 6'8" buddy who routinely rides in the back). I'm 6' tall and don't sit up close to the wheel either. My FIL just got a new Forester and the back seats don't seem terribly more spacious, IMO.
Interior is pretty basic for sure. Hard plastics, few frills. I care not in a car like this, and it's easy to clean everything. I don't need electronic linkups or gizmos, though I did replace the factory radio with a nice touchscreen Kenwood deck and better speakers, with iPod control and MP3 integrated. Don't use my phone in the car, so don't care about bluetooth, etc.
I love the WRX seats. Manual, cloth, and the most comfortable for long trips of any car I've ever owned, hands-down. Winter package with seat heaters and wiper de-icers is a nice addition, and the SPT package gives a street-legal stainless exhaust that sounds good + a short-shifter.
Overall, I actually love the WRX interior aside from the hard plastics, but I don't touch the dash or door panels often, so aside from looking a bit cheap I have no problem with that. More importantly, after 90k HARD miles on the car I have had exactly ZERO things break on the suspension, chassis, or interior. Not the smallest issue. EDIT: ok, a brake light switch did go bad, but it was a Nissan-branded piece that cost $4 to replace.'
If plush interior is what you want, Subaru isn't the way to go. If best power/all-season performance features for the money is what you want, it is.
23-24mpg is typical mileage for 50-50 hwy/city driving. I think that's reasonable for a 300hp AWD sedan, but YMMV.
That said, you could check out the new Forester. FIL's new one is a "premium" non-turbo model and is pretty nice. I wish he had gotten the turbo+MT though 
^ We just picked up a '14 Forester Premium CVT for our family car. The visibility from the drivers seat is excellent, its comfortable, and the IIHS crash ratings were stellar. Yes, its slow without the M/T and or Turbo, and I really wish you could get HID lighting without being on the top trim level, but otherwise it seemed like the best value for our needs.
Rumor has it that Subaru is working really hard to get its turbo models above 30mpg combine MPG. That'd be like 26/35 or so.
Excited for the next generation of WRX.
PHeller wrote: Rumor has it that Subaru is working really hard to get its turbo models above 30mpg combine MPG. That'd be like 26/35 or so. Excited for the next generation of WRX.
They could do it easily.
If they'd just bring the damn boxer diesels over to this country 
Adrian_Thompson wrote:redhookfern wrote: In that case, please give me logical arguments for the WRX hatch that I can use to attempt to sway the other half.The WRX is the same car with MOAR everything except height so is better value for money
I agree with this guy.
There is so much gear for the WRX that you would have so much more value there as well. If you wanted to you could lift the car for almost nothing.
If they'd just bring the damn boxer diesels over to this country
It would be no where near like a WRX though. Lets face it, Diesels are for fuel economy only and that is not what the WRX or STI is about.
A diesel crosstrek would be excellent
My fiance has a crosstrek. Its a nice car, peppy even with the CVT transmission. It might be the first non-snowmobile CVT that I don't hate actually. Very well put together, quiet on the highway, rides well even on Alaskan roads. She loves it, and I don't mind it. Its a nice all-weather commuter appliance thats decently fun to drive, comfortable to sit in, good to see out of, and can carry a pretty ok amount of stuff.
Between the regular impreza and the Crosstrek, I'd probably get a crosstrek due to the ground clearance because Alaska. Now if only they made a lifted sedan...
CAR magazine hasn't tested the Crosstrek, but really came down hard on it. Why? Because like several folks here pointed out, it's basically an Impreza with more ground clearance and you pay a bit more to get that clearance.
From CAR's GBU review:
Pricey, Not very good really. It really isn't very good. But it is pricey.
In the U.K., the Crosstrek / XV carries about a $3,000-$3,500 premium over a similar Impreza. That gap stretches to nearly $5,000 when compared to a Forester....so, yeah, it's pricey in the U.K.
BTW, this, and the Impreza are the only AWD Subarus NOT available with diesel engines.
nocones wrote:Xceler8x wrote: Having kid seats in the back would make occupying it for longer than 20 minutes a claustrophobic proposition. Visibility out of the cabin is good.I own a 2013 WRX hatch and am 6' tall. I have 2 children in car seats a 3 year old and an 10 month old. I can place either forward or rear facing seats in this car with significantly more space than I could in any of the competitive cars in the "hot hatch" market. I test drove/looked at all with a rear facing kids seat that I put in the car to check it's space. The WRX rear seat was the largest allowing for the most space in the driver seat with kids in the back. We have taken it on 3-6 hour family trips with no issues. Otherwise your review is spot on. The interior is not as nice as the competition nor even as nice as the new chassis Imprezza. Gas mileage is poor at 23 combined and there are no "tech" features whatsoever. I love it. It's a simple basic balls out car.
I call shenanigans on this. My wife who is 5 foot 4 inches tall was up against the dash with a rear facing car seat. She had to sit in the back seat behind me to be comfortable in our WRX. And the stroller to mount that car seat into barely fit in the trunk area.
The interior is dated as well with the exception of the seats which were very comfy.
It was a pretty decent car for us when we didn't have a child but became miserable when having to tote her around.
I'm really hoping the new generation is much better. I loved the performance characteristics of the WRX, I just could live with the crappy interior quality sans the seats and lack of space. I expected more out of a hatch.
In reply to redhookfern:
SWMBO's good friend/coworker bought one brand new up here in Subie country back in Decemberish? It was basically the first one in the area. They have some miles on it now and I've driven it. IIRC, it's a 2.0 flat-4, N/A, with a CVT. It's slower than any car has a right to be. The controls are wired "laggy" for economy and the motor has no torque, so it just kind of slugs along. As a result of this, real world fuel mileage in hill country sucks. Like low-20's sucks.
That said, the 4WD is great, the raised suspension is good for 2-tracks (they really camp like with bags and tents and E36 M3), and the interior is reasonably put together, if cheap in a lot of places. The whiz-bang nav has issues a lot.
Personally I'd buy a WRX wagon and raise it at that price/gas mileage.
Oh, and fun fact: One of the 2 cars to go in the drink when the I5 bridge collapsed up here was new XV in Orange:
So, 5 stars for safety when in bride collapses.
I'll see your shenanigans and call them. Though we usually use the 4Runner for the kid-hauling, I took both seats out (we have a 1-year old and a 6-year old) to fit them in the 2009 WRX sedan, because this argument has come up before.....
My seating position. I'm 6' with long legs. I don't sit anywhere near the dash. Shoulders back I can just grip the top of the wheel with a straight arm. My wife is 5'9 and can't reach the pedals without moving the seat forward:
With baby seat backwards behind. Seat in normal position, not moved at all from my normal DD position with no baby seats in the car. It's a close fit, but doesn't touch the driver's seat.
With the kid seat forward. I'll note it isn't strapped down, so when it is tightened it pulls about 2-3" farther back as it compresses the back seat.
With the kid seat backward.
So IDK what to tell you. Either your wife is actually 6'4 and just slouches a lot when she measures her height, or you have a giant stone-age baby seat of some sort 
I'll also note that the seat clearances in our 4Runner are almost identical.
You'll need to log in to post.
