SilverFleet wrote: Also, there's no hatch/wagon variant slated for the US. DUMB. No wagon/hatch, no sale for this guy.
T.J. wrote: I agree, that the hatchback is a more appealing car, and that it seems dumb to not bring it here.
I couldn't agree more. As someone currently shopping for another hatchback to replace my 2007 Mazda3, the new WRX is now dead to me. Hopefully Subaru will see the error of their ways and bring us a WRX hatchback again in the future.
they always make a hatchback version but it was only the previous generation where the hatchback was a focus.
It's a 2015. You can still get the current wrx hatch for a long while yet.
HiTempguy wrote:mazdeuce wrote: If there's anything wrong with the WRX it's that it's not terribly exciting.That's the point of the wrx... always has been!
Really? Someone at Subaru looks at the concepts and says, "Whoa! Tame that E36 M3 down! WRX buyers hate good looking cars. They really want a faster Camry and that's what we're gong to give them!" The bugeye cars were fantastic. It's been a slow slide into mediocrity since then. I guess it could be on purpose, but that seems like a weird way to make cars.
mazdeuce wrote:HiTempguy wrote:Really? Someone at Subaru looks at the concepts and says, "Whoa! Tame that E36 M3 down! WRX buyers hate good looking cars. They really want a faster Camry and that's what we're gong to give them!" The bugeye cars were fantastic. It's been a slow slide into mediocrity since then. I guess it could be on purpose, but that seems like a weird way to make cars.mazdeuce wrote: If there's anything wrong with the WRX it's that it's not terribly exciting.That's the point of the wrx... always has been!
No. They looked at that concept and said "Whoa! Tame that E36 M3 down! WRX buyers want something $25k not $35k"
Rufledt wrote:yamaha wrote: I still think it looks like a civic and legacy had a bit too much fun at a drunken party.....Thanks for putting my exact feelings about the looks into words. Also, get out of my head!!!
NEEEEEVVVVAAAAARRRRRRRRR.......
irish44j wrote:SilverFleet wrote: One of the biggest complaints I had about my 2009 WRX is that it needed an extra gear on the highway.what? The final drive on the 6MT is the same as the 5MT, so your highway cruising will be at the exact same RPMs with the current 5MT and 6MT. The 6MT just has shorter gearing. Personally, I much prefer the 5MT to a 6speed. The 2.5 has more than enough power/torque to not need the extra gear. I love shifting, but not that much. There's a reason that the current WRX is a hair quicker than the current STi in the 1/4 mile: 1 less shift to get there.SilverFleet wrote: One big improvement (at least on paper) is that they may have finally found a way to increase the mediocre gas mileage. The new car is rated for 28mpg highway with the 6mt (the CVT is actually only rated for 25mpg highway, another reason not to click that box). If this is an achievable number, that is pretty decent for a 260+hp AWD turbo performance car.I routinely get 27-28mpg in my 09 when cruising at around 70mph on long trips. And that's been the case for 90k miles now, on many long, long road trips, with mileage measured at the pump, not on the trip computer. I average 24mpg on mixed tank in DC traffic, and I have a very heavy foot. 6mt again has nothing to do with it though, since its the same final-drive as the 5MT (assuming its the same ratios as the current one) The smaller engine probably gives the mild economy increase. Totally agree with you on the half-assed "styling" though.....it's totally "meh."....looks like a weird mini-legacy with a body kit.
My 2009 always felt like a dog on the highway. Around town, it was a rocket, but as soon as it hit the highway, it fell flat on its face. Compared to my friend's 2008 MS3 (and we did compare them a few times
), it was embarrassing. The extra cog may help with that, even if the final drive ratio is the same.
I could only muster 22-23mpg out of my WRX. A few times I was able to get around 25mpg, but that was rare. And my commute is all highway. Then again, my car was a POS and was having some pretty major issues before I ditched it, so YMMV.
Honestly, the only thing the WRX offers over it's competition is AWD. The rest of the segment has moved on and offered more competitive offerings, much better styling, and (mostly) lower prices. If you are hell bent on having AWD, then the WRX is the only game in town. Although AWD is nice, it really isn't necessary, even in the winter. A set of snows on a FWD car works just fine.
That is one bad-ass looking Corolla.
Have they fixed the lean # 4 cylinder issue that causes ringland failure yet? 
yamaha wrote: Have they fixed the lean # 4 cylinder issue that causes ringland failure yet?
Why would they? The same people will continue to buy them either way.
Swank Force One wrote:yamaha wrote: Have they fixed the lean # 4 cylinder issue that causes ringland failure yet?Why would they? The same people will continue to buy them either way.
That is true.....I'm more impressed a few have vowed to never buy them again after SOA refused their claims.
I always laugh about threads like this since I know 100% that in 10 years everyone who ragged on the current gen WRX and this new gen WRX will be talking about how great of performance bargain they are and how great they are.
Everything New is big/fat/heavy/slow/ugly until its cheap used then suddenly awesome.
The current bodystyle WRX does give up some things that previous WRX's and some of it's competitors have. Mine has yet to have any issues, was $25,800, has solid performance, Fits my family comfortably (2 kids under 3 Infant in rear facing seat), weighs <3000lbs (Verified on scale at nationals) and when equipped with Koni shocks and RFP-1's got 3rd at Autox nationals.
mazdeuce wrote:HiTempguy wrote:Really? Someone at Subaru looks at the concepts and says, "Whoa! Tame that E36 M3 down! WRX buyers hate good looking cars. They really want a faster Camry and that's what we're gong to give them!" The bugeye cars were fantastic. It's been a slow slide into mediocrity since then. I guess it could be on purpose, but that seems like a weird way to make cars.mazdeuce wrote: If there's anything wrong with the WRX it's that it's not terribly exciting.That's the point of the wrx... always has been!
Different strokes I guess. I am a GF owner since 1997 and have always been happy that they keep making uglier WRXs. The bugeye was BY FAR the fugliest vehicle produced by Subaru. They even made the Forester look good.
SilverFleet wrote: Meh.A bunch of 2015 WRX pics A lot of people are complaining about the CVT being available. Who cares? You can get a manual too. They are also FINALLY offering a 6MT. One of the biggest complaints I had about my 2009 WRX is that it needed an extra gear on the highway. They fixed that problem. Also, the interior looks like a big improvement over the cheap previous generation interior. That old interior was creaky, crappy, and fall-aparty. One big improvement (at least on paper) is that they may have finally found a way to increase the mediocre gas mileage. The new car is rated for 28mpg highway with the 6mt (the CVT is actually only rated for 25mpg highway, another reason not to click that box). If this is an achievable number, that is pretty decent for a 260+hp AWD turbo performance car. Also, there's no hatch/wagon variant slated for the US. DUMB. No wagon/hatch, no sale for this guy.
Looks like a Corolla with a body kit.
Completely different. No scoop!
nocones wrote: I always laugh about threads like this since I know 100% that in 10 years everyone who ragged on the current gen WRX and this new gen WRX will be talking about how great of performance bargain they are and how great they are. Everything New is big/fat/heavy/slow/ugly until its cheap used then suddenly awesome. The current bodystyle WRX does give up some things that previous WRX's and some of it's competitors have. Mine has yet to have any issues, was $25,800, has solid performance, Fits my family comfortably (2 kids under 3 Infant in rear facing seat), weighs <3000lbs (Verified on scale at nationals) and when equipped with Koni shocks and RFP-1's got 3rd at Autox nationals.
Amen Brother. Amazing no (except for a few) Subie lovers here, of all places. The WRX/STi and Evo are the only game in town for this type of car at this price point and everyone is bitching about them. Simply amazing.
jstein77 wrote:
Now take those two to the drag strip and line 'em up. Enough said.
I like this better...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/subarus-levorg-prototype-is-the-2015-wrx-wagon-of-your-dreams-2013-tokyo-auto-show/?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1458_32122056
I, for one, am not bitching about what the car is, but what it looks like. They're fantastic as far as power and handling and usability. Subaru has that locked down and it's wonderful. The problem is that the design sucks from a visual standpoint.
bravenrace wrote: I like this better... http://blog.caranddriver.com/subarus-levorg-prototype-is-the-2015-wrx-wagon-of-your-dreams-2013-tokyo-auto-show/?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1458_32122056
Yes. A LOT BETTER!!!! And they won't let us have one. 
And I can complain all I want.
I've owned two WRX's and lived with the good and bad when it comes to these cars. Every generation of WRX has its own issues, like spinning bearings, cracking ringlands, unfinished crankshafts, pre-cats being sucked back into the engine, etc. I wonder what the next "trend" will be...
mazdeuce wrote: I, for one, am not bitching about what the car is, but what it looks like. They're fantastic as far as power and handling and usability. Subaru has that locked down and it's wonderful. The problem is that the design sucks from a visual standpoint.
It's no beauty queen but it's in the smaller sedan segment so it's got the Civic/Corolla/Accord/Camry/Hyundai/Kia/Buick/etc thing going on. They do all basically look alike for the most part. Subaru has a history of releasing a car and then refining it over the next few years as evidenced by the 2008 WRX to the 2014 WRX. Much better in every possible way. I am not defending it's looks although frankly I don't think it's too bad. Should look more like the concept. And of course the biggest mistake is no hatch being offered as I think those always looked better than the sedans.
jstein77 wrote:
No one argues about how well the Scoobie goes, but as said before it just isn't pretty.
And it really is scary how Toyota that new one looks
Feedyurhed wrote: It's no beauty queen but it's in the smaller sedan segment so it's got the Civic/Corolla/Accord/Camry/Hyundai/Kia/Buick/etc thing going on. They do all basically look alike for the most part. Subaru has a history of releasing a car and then refining it over the next few years as evidenced by the 2008 WRX to the 2014 WRX. Much better in every possible way. I am not defending it's looks although frankly I don't think it's too bad. Should look more like the concept. And of course the biggest mistake is no hatch being offered as I think those always looked better than the sedans.
They obviously refined into the ringland failure........
Why are people complaining about the looks of the new WRX? Looks have never been the point of the WRX or STI. They are ordinary looking sedans / hatches that have tremendous bang for the buck. The "ordinary-ness" makes them super-practical and easy to live with. I thought that was the point......a standard car that is way more fun to drive than it appears to be.
I find this new one no uglier, and no more attractive than any WRX. Looks just aren't the point with this car--- it's the drive. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but with my eyes, none of them look awesome...mean sorta sometimes, but a great looking car? Nah, never.
flame on
In reply to Joe Gearin:
I don't think it is so much that it isn't pretty, but the fact that it looks like they uglied a Toyota.
i.e. it now looks like the ugly ducking in a non-descript sort of way.
You'll need to log in to post.
