Talk:Subaru Impreza WRX

Getaway car
"Indeed, it gained a reputation as a popular getaway car for robberies because the car's precise, yet forgiving, handling meant that even inexperienced drivers were able to handle it at high speeds."

Where does this information come from? I've never heard this before. While it certainly sounds interesting, it probably shouldn't be in the article unless it can be corroborated. Any thoughts? -- wonko 19:24, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * no doubt some claptrap from "scoobynet". everyone knows real robbers use mitsubishi evos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.99.31 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I read it an article in The Age newspaper. I'll see if I can dig up the reference. --Robert Merkel


 * Searching Lexis-Nexis Asia-Pacific lists hundreds of articles on the topic, including a number of articles on "WRX gangs" in the Daily Telegraph in 2007. --Robert Merkel 11:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Minor stuff. Wonko, the filenames of the images of the 03 and 04 wrxs are switched right?

Ericd, although Gordon Murray did design the McLaren, F1 Peter Stevens styled the car. Maybe you would like put a more accurate mention of his involvment back into the article. 999 21:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Class, etc.
I changed the class of this car to Compact, because it seems quite a stretch to call an Impreza WRX a "sports car," notwithstanding the debate over the definition of "sports car" itself.

Also, I removed the mention of the Impreza 2.5RS as the predecessor to the WRX&mdash;as far as I can tell, the WRX was released in many parts of the world well before the 2.5RS was a gleam in Subaru North America's eye (i.e., the WRX came out in Japan by at least the first half of the 1990's, vs. the 1998ish release of the RS in the USA). Moreover, the 2.5RS continues to be sold here in America, making the "predecessor/successor" description more tenuous still. --Ryanaxp 00:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Seems strange to me
The now famous instructions given by Prodrive boss David Richards were to make a car that "looked like it was doing 100 mph, even when it was standing still in a car park".

Well... IMO David Richards from Prodrive (an independant company, operating Subaru's racing team) didn't care a lot about what the car was looking like, this was more a marketing concern. And 100mph (around 160 km/h I think) is honestly "peanuts" for such a car. My earlier (and very cheap) 1.4 liter Citroën Visa GT was able to get faster, and my even cheaper 1983 1.8 liter VW Golf GTI was able to run around 190 km/h. On the other side a 1983 Renault 4 GTL is able to run 130 km/h even if it doesn't look like being able to reach 100 km/h... Ericd 23:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Competitors
Surely should not include cars that are not AWD sedans. The Evo is the most obvious competitor. I would suggest removing the Acura and VW and adding the S60R and S4. Well i suggest not to take out vw and acura becasue they both have the engines. They both have the style and both the horsepower. Just because of the drive-trains doesnt mean we should'nt include them. Also im from Club Rsx so im pretty angry at this post!! The Lancer EVO competes with the STi, which has it's own page. The S4 may be AWD but it's a fifty thousand dollar sports-luxury-sedan and not even remotely competitive with the WRX, the S60R is slightly less expensive but is an S4 competitor, not the WRX. There is currently *nothing* else on the market available at this price point with both this level of power *and* all wheel drive. The Jetta GLI is probably it's nearest competitor in terms of price and size, especially as it has 4-doors. The Escort Cosworth is no longer in production, so it needs to be removed as a competitor - Ford's RS and ST versions of the Focus don't have AWD or rear doors. Acura's Type-S and Type-R versions of the RSX/Integra are competitive in terms of performance, as are the Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Saturn Ion Redline, but none of them have AWD or rear doors either. --69.237.151.26 21:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I double checked and found that Chevrolet offers a sedan version of the Cobalt SS, so I listed it as a competitor. In addition, I've changed the first competitor to the Dodge Caliber SRT-4 as it is replacing the now offically out-of-production Neon SRT-4. --69.237.151.26 21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, totally nonsense. First, have a look at the infobox. It says "SIMILAR", not "COMPETITORS". Second, look up the World Rally Championship and Group A if you're not already informed enough. I spent many years watching works versions of these beasts flying through stages.
 * The Escort Cosworth was available from 1992 to 1996, and was a WRC Group A homologation special. The Subaru Impreza WRX was introduced in 1992 as well, and for the entire life of the Escort, the Impreza was (alongside the Lancia Integrale and Celica Turbo 4WD) one of the only Group A-based cars available in Europe. It's as close a competitor as the Impreza could have had. I have no compunctions about reverting to User:Pc13's version. --DeLarge 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the Neon SRT-4 doesn't compete in Group A rally, and doesn't have all wheel drive, so it shouldn't even be listed as a "similar" car - if all that's neccesary for a vehicle to qualify for the list are a 4-door body and a turbocharged 4-cylinder engine than the Jetta GLI certainly belongs. Secondly, the street legal equivalent of Subaru's rally vehicle is the WRX STi - the standard WRX is a "bargain" version, if entry into Group A is going to be the standard by which we list similar vehicles, than those listed here surely belong on the STi page, not on this one. Third, the Lancia Delta, Celica GT-Four and Escort Cosworth are all currently out of production. They might be similar to the WRX, but the Subie is the only one you can still go and buy new at a dealer. If we're simply going to list any vehicle that's *similar* to the WRX than every quattro equipped turbocharged Audi 4-door belongs on the list as does the Mitsubishi Galant VR-4, the AWD equipped turbo Volvo sedans, and numerous others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.151.26 (talk • contribs) 22:04, August 6, 2006.

I happen to agree that the SRT-4 shouldn't be listed ~ I don't think "both have a turbo and produce similar 0-400 times" is enough. However, I'm pretty certain I'm in the minority on that issue. I wouldn't revert if you deleted it, but I think many a Neon fan would.

As for the other points... first, the idea that the rally cars were based on a particluar trim level of a car is simply inaccurate - you need to understand the old Group A regulations better. The STI is the basis for Group N, but that's a different matter - greater restrictions on modifications meant customers needed a faster car out of the showroom. Subaru's homologation special was simply the Impreza Turbo (see here). If that wasn't the case, then how could Subaru go rallying with Imprezas in late 1993, when the STI wasn't introduced until 1994 (and therefore wouldn't have been homologated until 1995)?

Second, unlike what this article says, the WRX versions back in the early days came in all kinds of power outputs, not just 211-220. The WRX RA had at 240PS in 1992, and was up to 260PS in the 1994 Type RA version. Need verification? Here's a good source.

Third, I limited my selection of similar rally-based cars to those who were competing at the same time, and whose road-going versions would appeal to the same buyers. Audi quattros hadn't been rallying (officially) since the '80s, had a much higher price tag, and were aimed at a less sporting market. Same with the Volvo. The Galant VR-4 ceased production in 1992 to make way for the first Lancers, so there's no overlap there. I'm trying to keep from having '000s of cars listed, but at the same time, the Cosworth/Celica/Integrale were clearly its closest competitors (although if you want to exorcise the Celica for being a 2-door coupe, I'll be OK with that as well).

Fourth, and I hate to repeat myself, so what if the Cosworth/Celica/Integrale are out of production? This article is about the Impreza WRX from 1992-present, not just the 2006 Impreza WRX. This is an encyclopedia, not a buyers' guide. The idea that you can only include currently-in-production cars is something you've apparently just made up. --DeLarge 22:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WRX picture incorrect
Can someone please correct the photo included in the Subaru Impreza WRX entry, that is a STi, and while it's still a WRX loosely, the body is substantially different compared to a STi.

DONE and DONE! -AyrtonSenna yes thats true someone should change the picture its not a wrx sti my second favorite car. My first favorite is the Acura rsx type S.

auto
At some point the 4eat offered on the wrx started using a VDC AWD system different from the 5 speed & more like the STI. can't seem to find what year, at least 2002 but maybe earlier CHM 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Major update
Like with the WRX STI article formatting I wrote, I've updated this Impreza WRX page and have included the material that was used on the old format. I've written much of it in one sitting and will fill in the technical specifications a little bit later.

Technical specificatons set
Got around to adding the technical specifications of the different years of the GC8 and first few GD chassis.

The JDM version S-GT (2008) model is not mentioned anywhere in this article. The S-GT is a 2.0 litre version with a 4sp sportmatic transmission. Rated at 248bhp, it's sold in Japan obviously and has been shipped to Singapore, Hong Kong and I believe Australia and UK. Definitely worth a mention and some pics... it's sold alongside the regular 5 speed WRX but bhp is rated higher albeit 0-60 times is about .3 seconds slower due to the tranny. The great thing about the 2.0 turbo is it loves to rev, redline is at 7K vs 6.5k for 2.5 litre version.

Strangely enough the hatch space is slightly better in the S-GT due to perfectly flat folding seats (smaller spare wheel).

Type "RA" stands for ??
This article says "Rally Applicant" and the STI article says "[Nürburgring] Record Attempt" (which has the '05+ door decals for support.) I've also heard "Race Altered." Which is accurate and shouldn't there sources? Fubaz 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Type RA Clarification
The RA acronym has more or less had it's meaning changed over the years. Initially, it stood for "Record Attempt", as Subaru of Japan used the Nurburgring to set a new lap record for the Impreza WRX STi. A more recent example seen on the 2005MY WRX STI Spec C Type RA, the usage of "Record Attempt" is apparent. However, not every revision of the Type RA has been used on the Nurburgring. Currently, it is marketting that decides what "RA" means. Here is a response from Subaru of Japan (the makers and sellers of the Impreza WRX STi Type RA and Spec C Type RA) sent on 11/10/2006:

この度はご質問をお寄せいただきまして有難うございました. 日頃はスバル車にご関心をお寄せくださいまして誠に有難うございます.

スバルインプレッサTYPE　RA－Rの「RA」の意味は、 Rがレーシング、AがグループAという意味を持っています.

今後共にどうぞスバルを宜しくお願い申し上げます.

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊ このメールボックスは発信専用です. 改めてのご質問は富士重工業のホームページＦＡＱからお願いします. ＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

It translates to R = Racing, A = Group A for the WRC class the WRC Impreza competes in. The car Subaru of Japan is referring to is the 2007MY WRX STI Spec C Type RA-R.

To date, the official names that have been used are "Record Attempt" and "R = Racing, A = Group A".

Impreza01 23:05, 30 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Some info about performance
It's quite funny that although this model is mainly praised for its performance, there's nothing about acceleration in these articles (including that of the STi's). A lot of technical stuff about chassis/revisions/versions, but even that info can be very confusing for the ordinary visitor (I think that each and every REV. should include some identical info placed in a table, e.g.: Power, Torque, Curb Weight, Accleration - otherwise it is difficult for a reader to understand the differences between them.)

Reply
Straightline acceleration isn't the only thing this car is praised for. It is relatively easy to comfortably drive at the limits of this car and has great corner exit acceleration. The reason performance figures not written is due to variations. Straight line acceleration heavily depends on the driver's ability to launch the car with a good 4.5k to 5k rpm clutch slip. For instance, Road and Track managed to pull a 5.8 s and 14.4 s for 0 to 60 mph and quarter mile times, respectively. Car and Driver manages to pull a 5.4 s and 14.1 s. For skidpad and slalom, the surface matters. For instance, R&T managed to get 0.92 g out of the 2003MY Lancer Evolution on it's first test. A later test yields 0.88 g. Really, to put down arbitrary figures is a bit misleading. Realistically, a range should be given or at least conditions should be given with a time. To compile the facts and data is difficult as the material is hard to find, especially the older years where the Japan-spec WRX was tested only in Japan.

Impreza01 02:48, 16 Dec 2006 (UTC)

WRC
No mention of the Impreza WRx's involvement in the FIA WRC, e.g. Petter Solberg's championship-winning year. Should this be added in here??

Reply
If you look at the Motorsports section, you'll notice a note is included about the connection of the Impreza WRX to the Impreza WRC car. The rest of the WRC information is filed under the Impreza WRX STI article. The reasoning is the WRX STI is the car that has been homologated for FIA motorsport competitions, not the WRX.

Impreza01 03:10, 27 Dec 2006 (UTC)

2.5 WRX
In the opening statement it is said that the WRX is a turbocharged 2.0 flat four however in 2006 Subaru released the WRX with a turbocharged 2.5 flat four motor. This statement should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.229.201 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * only the US market has ever used 2.5L WRXs. the rest of the world stays 2.0.   its worth a mention,  just remember that the US market is only part of the scheme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impreziv (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This isn't true. The 2.5 liter WRX and STI models have become standard in many markets from 2006 onwards (e.g. Singapore). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.2 (talk • contribs).

Negative Reaction to 2008 WRX?
Should we discuss the negative reaction to the look of the 2008 WRX? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.17.150 (talk • contribs).
 * If by discuss you mean add it to the article I would say not unless it can be properly sourced. I guess it is noteworthy considering how controversial the preceding "B9 snout" was.  Styling impact probably belongs in the regular Impreza article, though.  ~ Dusk Knight  05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is not a beefy car but it is sellign wel (I have bought one: http://simon.fearby.com/gallery/cars). A lot of the initial comments is starting to turn as it is still a WRX inside. ~ FearTec  11:17 PM 15/10/2007 (UTC)

Since the 2008 WRX is here, maybe the "will haves" and such should be changed to "does have" 71.58.54.219 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many sub headings
I propose we eliminate the subheadings for minor year to year changes. Currently the important info is too diluted by info on changes in trim details. I suggest merging the subheadings into prose paragraphs that detail important changes over each generation. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Weight and handling
An anon user has removed the fact tag regarding the added weight of the GD chassis hampering handling. This may be true but removing the fact tag claiming that weight always detriments agility is just plain wrong. Try cutting the roof off your car, less weight but obviously worse handling. Often handling is improved by adding weight in the form of chassis bracing as may be the case with the GD chassis. I think the fact tag should remain until someone sources it with an actual source not just a simplistic statement about of physics. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GC8G question
The Article says.. The Impreza GC8G was used a Nissan Silvia Chassis for a few time.

I'm just wondering what is that supposed to mean? GC8G used silvia chasis? any reference about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.25.206 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Run through the article for plagiarism please
There's quite a bit of text that looks to be closely if not exactly the same as text from other sources. Someone needs to go through it and clean it up. One sentence stood out to me as being particularly bad, the beginning of this section.
 * For 2006 the Subaru Impreza WRX received a complete front-end re-design, boldly styled headlights with smoke-tinted lenses, a three-section mesh-type grill, and distinguished new tail lamp clusters.

Not only is that pretty blatantly NPOV ("boldly styled", "distinguished"), but most of the individual clauses, although not the complete sentence, pop up on a Google search. Sucks cause I love this car. Sheep81 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The JDM version S-GT (2008) model is not mentioned anywhere in this article. The S-GT is a 2.0 litre version with a 4sp sportmatic transmission. Rated at 248bhp, it's sold in Japan obviously and has been shipped to Singapore, Hong Kong and I believe Australia and UK. Definitely worth a mention and some pics... it's sold alongside the regular 5 speed WRX but bhp is rated higher albeit 0-60 times is about .3 seconds slower due to the tranny. The great thing about the 2.0 turbo is it loves to rev, redline is at 7K vs 6.5k for 2.5 litre version.

Strangely enough the hatch space is slightly better in the S-GT due to perfectly flat folding seats (smaller spare wheel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.254.74 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

General Review
This article is rated Start Class and High Importance in wikiproject Automobiles. I think this article has a lot of potential, but needs quite a bit of work to read like a good Wikipedia article. There is a ton of information in here, but not a lot that is accessible to the average reader. My recommendation would be to reorganize the article, cutting down on a lot of the technical information that accompanies each section about new versions of the car. The article should focus more on the significance of the particular changes, not just listing the new numbers. For example, what was the critical reaction to the new 2006 styling? How do the engine tweaks bring the car more in line competitively with cars like the EVO? A good example to follow is the article on the Porche 911. That article is significantly longer than this one, and yet is easy to read.

Compare

August 2000 brings the 2001 WRX NB sedan. It has an EJ205 with AVCS coupled with an MHI TD04L turbocharger. The engine produces 250 PS (184 kW) at 6000 rpm with 34 kg·m (246 ft·lbf, 333 N·m) at 3600 rpm. The wheels are 16-inch (410 mm) in diameter. The car uses 2 pot/1 pot front and rear brakes. The front brake rotors are ventilated while the rear are solid disks. It has a Torsen rear LSD and a 4.44 final drive ratio. The transmission has close-ratio gears unique to Subaru of Japan at that point in time. The car has a curb weight of 1,340 kg (2,954 lb).

To this section from the 911 article:

In 1974 Porsche introduced the first production turbocharged 911. Although called simply Porsche 911 Turbo in Europe, it was marketed as Porsche 930 (930 being its internal type number) in North America. The body shape is distinctive thanks to wide wheel-arches to accommodate the wide tires, and a large rear spoiler often known as a "whale tail" on the early cars, and "tea-tray" on the later ones. Starting out with a 3.0 L engine 260 PS (190 kW; 260 hp), these early cars are known for their exhilarating acceleration coupled with challenging handling characteristics and extreme turbo lag. For 1978, capacity rose to 3.3 L 300 PS (220 kW; 300 hp), and an intercooler was added which was placed under the rear spoiler.

This article is a good start, but it can definitely get a lot better. -Bonus Onus (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)