"Official" 2008 WRX pics from Subaru

[wrx]

http://www.subaru.com/sub/misc/2008/autoshow/ny0311/wrx/index.html

The more I see, the more I like. I still don't understand why so many
other Americans don't like hatchbacks. The 5 door is probably the best
looking Subaru ever (IMHO), not that that's saying much.

Almost all of my wishlist made it:

1) More attractive/contemporary/tasteful styling - next best thing to an
A3.
2) framed the doors -- tired of those rattles
3) much nicer interior -- as befits a car in this price range
4) more interior space, especially in back
5) less weight! The last new car of any make that I can remember coming
in lighter was the Legacy GT. Yet it's stiffer.
6) longer wheelbase and wider track should help both handling and ride
7) Control arm rear suspension. Bye-bye struts, hello more cargo space
and BMW handling.

Misses:

1) What? No 6 speed on standard WRX? See Mazda 3, VW GTI, Civic Si and
get with it, Subaru! I've had both a 2002 WRX and 05 Legacy GT and this
motor revs too high at 79mph, my normal cruising speed, and gas mileage
suffers.

2) No direct injection? Maybe this will come later, but it's becoming a
must have for turbo motors. They could run 10:1 with the same boost, or
more boost or a little of both. Kinda like Mazda and VW do. Mileage
and/or performance would be that much better.

Minor nits:

1) 2 piston brake calipers. The rotors are bigger, which is supposed to
make up the difference...I think the reason most people object is more
cosmetic than substantive. Obviously, Subaru has to keep costs down
somewhere. Well worth trading for the new rear suspension. Besides,
there will likely be brake kits if you just gotta have those red
calipers.

2) Interior colors. I really wish there were more bright interior
options. I am so sick of charcoal and black interiors, especially when
it's 95 degrees and sunny. I got over black interiors supposedly
looking more "sporty" years ago.

Questions:

1) Will there be a decent interface for an I-Pod that doesn't cost and
arm and a leg?

2) Will the shifting effort be notably improved? I have the short-throw
kit on my Legacy GT, and while it definitely is shorter and more
precise, it takes serious effort (which my wife doesn't like) and slows
shifts. The standard shifter is slightly easier, but is much longer
throw and not much fun.

3) Clutch operation: Tired of that smell...ok, I've learned to avoid it,
but you have to baby the clutch to avoid the stink, and presumably the
wear that comes with it.

 

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

http://www.subaru.com/sub/misc/2008/autoshow/ny0311/wrx/index.html

The more I see, the more I like.

I admit that after the first shock I started to think "that is not too bad"
(but that was more about the 4-door model). But anyway, it is ugly.

Top Gear (the UK magazine) had this headline about the new Impreza:
"Impreza: 15 years of ugly", and they stressed that each generation
is uglier than the previous.

Note that the pictures on that web page are chosen to be the best angle
(this is of course, the normal thing to do). In particular all the front
angles are shot from a low viewpoint. From an higher viewpoint it would
look uglier.

Almost all of my wishlist made it:

1) More attractive/contemporary/tasteful styling - next best thing to an A3.

Strongly disagree with that. Its styling seem influenced by Chris
Bangle's BMWs, particulary the BMW series 1 (this is a _bad_ thing).
The present epoch seems to be a low point for car styling (a number of
recent restylings seem to be uglier than the original), but I am sure
a number of current cars are better looking. For instance:

Honda Civic Type R
Ford Focus
Opel Astra
VW Golf

3) much nicer interior -- as befits a car in this price range

Still doesn't have a turbo boost dial. I don't understand why car makers
don't have that, even when they sell mostly turbos(-diesel).

5) less weight! The last new car of any make that I can remember coming
in lighter was the Legacy GT. Yet it's stiffer.

That is surprising. Are you comparing the 4-door versions fro the old and
the new ? Because if the 5 door is lighter than the old 4-door, that is
not surprising.

 

[Ragnar]

Still doesn't have a turbo boost dial. I don't understand why car makers
don't have that, even when they sell mostly turbos(-diesel).

Given that the average driver wouldn't have a clue what a turbo boost
gauge does, I can understand why Subaru (and others) don't put them in.

AVERAGE DRIVER:

"Ooooooo, the turbo boost thingy says 12.5 - I must be going really fast"


ENTHUSIAST:

"Damn, boost is only 12.5 psi - at this RPM it should be 14.0 psi,
better check the tune"

 

[wrx]

I admit that after the first shock I started to think "that is not too bad"
(but that was more about the 4-door model). But anyway, it is ugly.

Top Gear (the UK magazine) had this headline about the new Impreza:
"Impreza: 15 years of ugly", and they stressed that each generation
is uglier than the previous.

Note that the pictures on that web page are chosen to be the best angle
(this is of course, the normal thing to do). In particular all the front
angles are shot from a low viewpoint. From an higher viewpoint it would
look uglier.



Strongly disagree with that. Its styling seem influenced by Chris
Bangle's BMWs, particulary the BMW series 1 (this is a _bad_ thing).
The present epoch seems to be a low point for car styling (a number of
recent restylings seem to be uglier than the original), but I am sure
a number of current cars are better looking. For instance:

Of course, looks are subjective. Having said that, I'm no fan of the
Bangle-ized Beeemers, either, but the only feature on the new WRX that
resembles them from what I can see are the scalloped sides, which I have
no issue with. The ugliest aspects of the Bangle-B's(IMHO) are the
clamshell trunks and the light treatments. I don't see that here.
Sure, I'd prefer red tail lights, but it's still a huge leap forward.
Let's face it, the old car was fugly.

Honda Civic Type R

I like most of the lines of the Civic, but think it has waaaay too much
windshield rake. I get hot (not in a good way) just looking at it.

Ford Focus
Opel Astra
VW Golf

Agree WRT the Golf, not so sure with the others. We don't get that
version of the Focus or any Opels in the states, although I've rented a
couple in Europe and was neither offended or excited by their styling.

Still doesn't have a turbo boost dial. I don't understand why car makers
don't have that, even when they sell mostly turbos(-diesel).

It's an (overpriced) option here in the states. Not sure why it isn't
standard, but in a stock car, the boost is what it is.

One thing I just noticed in the new car that I dislike is the swath of
what appears to be more fake aluminum across the dash. I hate that
stuff. My Legacy GT has it. If a little anodized aluminum is too
expensive, just use more vinyl. At least it's not pretending to be
something it isn't.

That is surprising. Are you comparing the 4-door versions fro the old and
the new ? Because if the 5 door is lighter than the old 4-door, that is
not surprising.

Supposedly, it's a few pounds less in the same (4 door) guise.

One last nit: No horsepower increase, according to the specs!
Supposedly, there was going to be a big jump in HP. Not surprising,
given Mazda's 263hp 2.3 motor in the 3. It would be trivial for Subaru
to dial in more boost and more revs to at least come close to matching
that, if not beating it. I understand they don't want to crowd the STi
sales, but they could be shooting that much higher there...at least
340hp, had they splurged for direct injection, like Mazda did in the
cheaper 3.

Oh well, I guess that's what chips are for.

 

[Ragnar]

One last nit: No horsepower increase, according to the specs!
Supposedly, there was going to be a big jump in HP. Not surprising,
given Mazda's 263hp 2.3 motor in the 3. It would be trivial for Subaru
to dial in more boost and more revs to at least come close to matching
that, if not beating it. I understand they don't want to crowd the STi
sales, but they could be shooting that much higher there...at least
340hp, had they splurged for direct injection, like Mazda did in the
cheaper 3.

Yeah, I can't figure why Subaru doesn't bump up the HP either. The 2.5L
in the WRX is horribly undertuned and could easily make 250-260
(probably more) and the STi is also undertuned by a similar amount.

 

[M.J.]

Yeah, I can't figure why Subaru doesn't bump up the HP either. The 2.5L
in the WRX is horribly undertuned and could easily make 250-260 (probably
more) and the STi is also undertuned by a similar amount.

Are you sure?

I am a bit under the impression that boxer engines are by nature
somewhat "sedate," that is not of the ultra high reving type and
that is why many in sports cars have either larger displacements
(six or more cylinders- like the boxers in Porshe's, Lamborghinis)
or are complimented by turbos, or have both.

Not sure here but Alpha Romeo may have had a few smaller
four cylinder boxer engines without turbo (?). Alpha Romeo
is known to produce very lively engines so maybe it is possible
to tune a boxer for high rpms.

Of course I am talking here about revs only, adding boost
to get more power is not a problem as you mentioned in
your post.

Its a dissapoint for me that there will be no coupe/three door
hatch Impreza and no new 2.5l non-turbo engine.

M.J.

 

[Ragnar]

Are you sure?

I am a bit under the impression that boxer engines are by nature
somewhat "sedate," that is not of the ultra high reving type and
that is why many in sports cars have either larger displacements
(six or more cylinders- like the boxers in Porshe's, Lamborghinis)
or are complimented by turbos, or have both.

Not sure here but Alpha Romeo may have had a few smaller
four cylinder boxer engines without turbo (?). Alpha Romeo
is known to produce very lively engines so maybe it is possible
to tune a boxer for high rpms.

Of course I am talking here about revs only, adding boost
to get more power is not a problem as you mentioned in
your post.

Its a dissapoint for me that there will be no coupe/three door
hatch Impreza and no new 2.5l non-turbo engine.

I'll explain my point further. My 05 WRX has the 2.0L engine, which
stock is 227HP. That works out to 113.5 HP per liter.

The 06 and up WRX has the 2.5L engine, and is rated stock at 230 HP.
There is something wrong with this picture when an engine capable of
113.5 HP per liter is only making 92 HP per liter.

Subaru has emasculated the engine for some reason. Good thing that
tuners know how to make up for it.

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

I'll explain my point further. My 05 WRX has the 2.0L engine, which
stock is 227HP. That works out to 113.5 HP per liter.

The 06 and up WRX has the 2.5L engine, and is rated stock at 230 HP.
There is something wrong with this picture when an engine capable of
113.5 HP per liter is only making 92 HP per liter.

Subaru has emasculated the engine for some reason. Good thing that
tuners know how to make up for it.

I think the turbo is borderline too small.
Also, isn't the peak torque increased AND shifted to a lower rpm?

Carl

 

[M.J.]

I'll explain my point further. My 05 WRX has the 2.0L engine, which stock
is 227HP. That works out to 113.5 HP per liter.

The 06 and up WRX has the 2.5L engine, and is rated stock at 230 HP. There
is something wrong with this picture when an engine capable of 113.5 HP
per liter is only making 92 HP per liter.

Subaru has emasculated the engine for some reason. Good thing that tuners
know how to make up for it.

What may be wrong with the picture is that this engine
has a too big displacement for block size and that is why
it is de-tuned. The 2.5l non-turbo is known to have had
serious head gasket issues; supposedly resolved by new
super strong head gaskets.

Subaru might have not wanted to risk making this engine
as good/efficient as the 2.0L for a reason.

M.J.

 

[Ragnar]

What may be wrong with the picture is that this engine
has a too big displacement for block size and that is why
it is de-tuned.

Same size block as the STi (2.5L) and it makes power.

The 2.5l non-turbo is known to have had
serious head gasket issues; supposedly resolved by new
super strong head gaskets.

The non-turbo is a different block, heads, and pistons than the turbo.
Head gaskets are a non-player in this comparison.

Subaru might have not wanted to risk making this engine
as good/efficient as the 2.0L for a reason.

Meh

 

[wrx]

Are you sure?

I am a bit under the impression that boxer engines are by nature
somewhat "sedate," that is not of the ultra high reving type and
that is why many in sports cars have either larger displacements
(six or more cylinders- like the boxers in Porshe's, Lamborghinis)
or are complimented by turbos, or have both.

Have you looked at the specific output of the latest 911 GT3 lately?
3.6 liters, 415bhp, no turbo. I can't think of many less "sedate" stock
engines.

If there were some inherent limitation of the boxer design, Porsche
would have abandoned it long ago. I'd say the major reason it's not
more popular is cost and packaging, especially in 4 cylinder fwd guise,
compared to an in-line motor. Twice as many heads and cams, not as
compact, etc. OTOH, it has natural balance and a lower CG.

Not sure here but Alpha Romeo may have had a few smaller
four cylinder boxer engines without turbo (?). Alpha Romeo
is known to produce very lively engines so maybe it is possible
to tune a boxer for high rpms.

Of course I am talking here about revs only, adding boost
to get more power is not a problem as you mentioned in
your post.

If anything, the inherent balance and shorter crankshaft of the boxer
should lend itself to higher revving better than an inline, all other
things being equal. The above-mentioned 911 GT3 has an 8,000 rpm
redline from some pretty large cylinders...1.2 liters each. I don't
know any other stock engine that revs that high from cylinders that
large.

I think the main reason Subaru didn't give us the expected power boost
is simply cost and fuel economy. They could have boosted output at
little cost, but it would have hurt fuel economy. To improve both,
they'd need expensive items like direct injection and similar variable
valve timing gear like they have in the Sti and naturally aspirated 2.5L.

One issue the boxer presents Subaru with is engine width. In order to
keep the 2.5L narrow enough to fit between the front wheels of the
Impreza, it has to be very oversquare (large bore, short stroke), which
also effects fuel efficiency (although it does allow for higher revving)

 

[wrx]

I'll explain my point further. My 05 WRX has the 2.0L engine, which
stock is 227HP. That works out to 113.5 HP per liter.

The 06 and up WRX has the 2.5L engine, and is rated stock at 230 HP.
There is something wrong with this picture when an engine capable of
113.5 HP per liter is only making 92 HP per liter.

Subaru has emasculated the engine for some reason. Good thing that
tuners know how to make up for it.

Supposedly the 2.0 had much higher emissions than the 2.5 (turbo motors).

 

[Mk IV]

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro scribbled:

I admit that after the first shock I started to think "that is not too bad"
(but that was more about the 4-door model). But anyway, it is ugly.

Top Gear (the UK magazine) had this headline about the new Impreza:
"Impreza: 15 years of ugly", and they stressed that each generation
is uglier than the previous.

I disagree. The only version I find really ugly is the current one
because of it's front end. The rest hasn't changed much since 2002,
that's two 'generations' ago. One of the nicest Impreza version IMO is
the 2004-2005.

Note that the pictures on that web page are chosen to be the best angle
(this is of course, the normal thing to do). In particular all the front
angles are shot from a low viewpoint. From an higher viewpoint it would
look uglier.

OTOH it might look better in real than in photo...

Strongly disagree with that. Its styling seem influenced by Chris
Bangle's BMWs, particulary the BMW series 1 (this is a _bad_ thing).

Looks more like a Mazda influence to me: the Mazda 3 and even more like
the Protege 5. Very popular models...

The present epoch seems to be a low point for car styling (a number of
recent restylings seem to be uglier than the original),

I completely agree. I totally dislike many of the new models of cars in
recent years.

but I am sure

a number of current cars are better looking. For instance:

Honda Civic Type R

True but that's like comparing apples and oranges. The Impreza has
always been a 4 door thing...

Ford Focus

I can see some influence from this car in the new WRX

Opel Astra

Wouldn't know, Opels aren't very common in N.A. It looks to me like a
Focus clone...

VW Golf

You like that? This car has barely changed in 15 years.

 

[JD]

I think the turbo is borderline too small.
Also, isn't the peak torque increased AND shifted to a lower rpm?

Carl

It is... which is why there is not a significant increase in HP. Horsepower
is calculated as a function of torque and RPM.

 

[JD]

Same size block as the STi (2.5L) and it makes power.

It has all kinds of goody-bits to make power and it is a lot harder on gas.
If one isn't concerned with gas mileage and you want the power, get an STi.
The WRX has always been a good compromise between performance and economy.
Also because peak torque is so much lower, that even the increase does not
result in much of an increase in HP since it is calculated as a function of
torque and RPM.

 

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

Lamborghini has never used boxer engines, IIRC. Only V-12s, V8s and
now V-10. BTW, Porsches' boxers can't be considered large displacement
(in the context of their market segment). The biggest is 3.8l, IIRC.

Have you looked at the specific output of the latest 911 GT3 lately?
3.6 liters, 415bhp, no turbo. I can't think of many less "sedate" stock
engines.
Quite.

If there were some inherent limitation of the boxer design, Porsche
would have abandoned it long ago.

They sort of tried (Porsche 928 V8), but the buyers didn't follow.

I'd say the major reason it's not
more popular is cost and packaging, especially in 4 cylinder fwd guise,
compared to an in-line motor. Twice as many heads and cams, not as
compact, etc. OTOH, it has natural balance and a lower CG.
Agreed.

If anything, the inherent balance and shorter crankshaft of the boxer
should lend itself to higher revving better than an inline, all other
things being equal. The above-mentioned 911 GT3 has an 8,000 rpm
redline from some pretty large cylinders...1.2 liters each.

0.6 liters, actually.

I don't know any other stock engine that revs that high from cylinders
that large.

Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking of the Honda S2000 that in some
markets has a 2.2l engine with a 8200 redline, or the latest Lamborghini
Murciélago that has 6.5l from a V12, but both are 0.55l/cylinder.

I think the main reason Subaru didn't give us the expected power boost
is simply cost and fuel economy.

I had assumed that the reason that the transition to 2.5l didn't make a
significant increase in power was simply because the intention was simply
to improve low-end torque. When the Evo X is on sale, maybe Subaru will
make a more powerful version of the STI.

 

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

Of course, looks are subjective.

Of course. Although there are some things which are reasonably consensual.

Having said that, I'm no fan of the
Bangle-ized Beeemers, either, but the only feature on the new WRX that
resembles them from what I can see are the scalloped sides, which I have
no issue with.

This might be a bit of a Pavlovian response on my part. I see the sides,
I think Chris Bangle, and I get negatively predisposed to the whole of
the car. But there are other bits I don't like. The top of the pavilion
(correct word?) has a bit of a too-pronounced curve near the windshield,
which bothers me. I also don't like the rear lights.

The 4-door looks better to me (but that might be because only 2 photos
are available in the site). Also the colour disguises a bit the sides.

BTW, more photos at:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.d...photofoldermultisearchand=1&Execute=1&Count=1

I like most of the lines of the Civic, but think it has waaaay too much
windshield rake. I get hot (not in a good way) just looking at it.

Agree WRT the Golf, not so sure with the others. We don't get that
version of the Focus or any Opels in the states, although I've rented a
couple in Europe and was neither offended or excited by their styling.

Ford Focus ST:
http://www.pistonheads.com/pics/news/11855/ford_focus_st_2005-L.jpg
http://www.digitalcarwallpapers.com/wallpapers/ford_wallpapers/2006_Ford_Focus_ST_1024x768_03.jpg
http://www.eberlein-family.com/lennart/Bilder/ford_focus_st_2005_01_b_01.jpg

BTW, the Ford Focus RS (if it ever appears) will be the only European
car competing with the Impreza STI / Mitsubishi Evo X.

http://www.lemonlawvehicle.com/wordpress/date/2006/10/page/2/
(scroll down to: "Ford Focus RS Spy Photos" (bottom))

It would be nice if Fiat reversed the stupid marketing direction of
Lancia and made a new Delta Integrale, but even if that happens it will
not be short-term. The new Delta is expected only at the end of 2008 !

Opel Astra GTC:
http://www.in.gr/auto/parousiaseis/foto_big/Opel_Astra_GTC_01.jpg
http://www.abcars.13tka.com/samochody/opel-astra-gtc.php

It's an (overpriced) option here in the states.

Not sure why it isn't standard, but in a stock car, the boost is what it is.

Not quite: it depends on the RPMs. Also, if you feel a lack of power you
can see immediately if it is due to lack of boost pressure. A friend of
mine had that problem in his car (other make). The manifold had cracked,
he felt the lack of power but didn't know the cause until he went to the
mechanic.

 

[isquat]

Good thing that tuners know how to make up for it.

The operating words being "**** up the low end and add a few
flatspots" ?

 

[Ragnar]

The operating words being "**** up the low end and add a few
flatspots" ?

Not in my experience. You just picked a bad tuner.

 

[wrx]

Lamborghini has never used boxer engines, IIRC. Only V-12s, V8s and
now V-10. BTW, Porsches' boxers can't be considered large displacement
(in the context of their market segment). The biggest is 3.8l, IIRC.

He was probably thinking of Ferrari's boxer 12 cylinder from years ago.

0.6 liters, actually.

Oops...basic arithmetic gaff! :-/

Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking of the Honda S2000 that in some
markets has a 2.2l engine with a 8200 redline, or the latest Lamborghini
Murciélago that has 6.5l from a V12, but both are 0.55l/cylinder.


I had assumed that the reason that the transition to 2.5l didn't make a
significant increase in power was simply because the intention was simply
to improve low-end torque. When the Evo X is on sale, maybe Subaru will
make a more powerful version of the STI.

Probably, but I'm driving an 05 Legacy GT with the 250hp turbo motor
now, after driving a 2.0 WRX before, and I cannot see any lack of low
end or mid range grunt. There's almost no turbo lag. In fact, you
really have to short-shift it most of the time, which takes a lot of the
fun out of it.

I'm not pining for turbo lag, but motors that like to rev are more fun.
It's not impossible to have a much wider powerband without a turbo lag
penalty. It just requires technologies that Subaru appears to be
unwilling to pony up for in this price range. If the MazdaSpeed 3 had
AWD, there would be little reason to consider the WRX, objectively.