Who's Looking Forward to the Release of the 2022 Subaru WRX?
- Thread starter john_pifer
- Start date
What’s your point?
Enthusiast drivers want a manual gearbox, and quite a few enthusiast buyers would tick both the “manual” and “Recaro sport seats” options, if that were possible.
But it’s not.
Huge blunder by Subaru.
Other than that, I don’t mind the styling. I find it to be rugged and industrial, and the plastic cladding on the wheel wells and bumpers may even equal better durability for those who are actually hustling this thing down gravel country roads.
It has a bigger engine, which is less stressed at its specific output, and can probably be tuned to make a lot more power, reliably.
Just about everything on the car has been improved.
If weight doesn’t jump up too much, and they don’t raise the price by too much, it’s a win for me.
Frankly I hope people hate the styling so much that it’s a lousy seller. That way I can get a great deal on one
I agree the Recaros would be preferable, but they should be standard. Considering the thousands of WRXs that will be sold, Subaru will not offer the option unless it's bundled with other expensive extras(adjustable dampers, CVT). "GT" is such ubiquitous nomenclature that it can mean anything these days(and the past fifty years). Do you remember the STI Limited? A lip spoiler on the trunklid, leather instead of Alcantara on the seats, and some other frippery to instill a hint of luxury. I believe that is the idea behind the GT. It's not going to be the best performing version so Subaru gives it the GT moniker.What’s your point?
Enthusiast drivers want a manual gearbox, and quite a few enthusiast buyers would tick both the “manual” and “Recaro sport seats” options, if that were possible.
But it’s not.
Huge blunder by Subaru.
Other than that, I don’t mind the styling. I find it to be rugged and industrial, and the plastic cladding on the wheel wells and bumpers may even equal better durability for those who are actually hustling this thing down gravel country roads.
It has a bigger engine, which is less stressed at its specific output, and can probably be tuned to make a lot more power, reliably.
Just about everything on the car has been improved.
If weight doesn’t jump up too much, and they don’t raise the price by too much, it’s a win for me.
Frankly I hope people hate the styling so much that it’s a lousy seller. That way I can get a great deal on one
I had one of those. Fun 3-Cyl commuter. Ancient TBI fueling. V6 sound. Not as good as an early gen Geo Metro, but not bad for low, low bucks.I lost interest in Subaru when they stopped offering the "Justy" for the US market.
Cars like this - new- don't and cannot exist in the U.S.. anymore. I miss scrappy and sub one-tonne little Ecoboxes with willing engines, good MANUAL steering and a 5 speed.
Like the Old Ford Fiesta:
or The Mid 80s Chevy Sprint:
Last edited:
We had a very underpowered 1.3 liter Honda Civic 5-speed for awhile. It really truly couldn't keep up with traffic! Leaving a tollbooth, for example, it always felt like Russian Roulette whether or not the semi behind me would run me over! It was a much better car if just used on city streets and not the highway.
wow ancient 2nd gen Cvic! Even the Accord 3 door CVCC stick was terribly slow. The Chevy and Fiesta at least "felt" peppy.
It'll be interesting to watch if the new WRX cultivates an enthusiast community that foregoes chin spoilers and lips, coilovers and lowering springs and 19-inch rims poked all the way out to the fenderwells in favor of aggressize mud- or off-road-terrain tires and raised suspension. Maybe in Europe or elsewhere it's a different story, but in the U.S. at least it seems most owners who mod their cars do so in ways that would make them less off-road capable.
True that! I might be exaggerating a bit about how slow it was, but one feature I do remember quite clearly: The gas mileage. In the days of the 55-mph speed limit, that car could do 60 MPG on the highway. With no radio, no armrests, no center console, no sound deadening, etc it probably only weighed 1800 pounds. A real stripper.
Personally I would keep sport tires and stock ride height. This is definitely not made for anything more than very mild gravel/dirt roads, and I’m sure even minor potholes and washboard would have it contacting the bump stops.
We’ll see, but my 2016 WRX definitely didn’t have anything about the suspension that differentiated it from a similar sporty car.
In other words, there was nothing about the suspension that made it “rally car” suspension.
Now, Subaru does say the new car has a bit more ride height (.5”). But, a dedicated rally racing suspension? Nah. It won’t be that.
I do look forward to getting to see and drive one.
Whether I get one will depend on the supply and demand, I suppose. I simply will not play along with this new “no negotiation on price” foolishness from dealers that so many people are acquiescing to.
I got about $2500 off list on my 2016, if I’m remembering right (about $25,500 pre-tax).
Last edited:
Most probably had more suspension travel than other vehicles in that segment. Maybe you didn't feel it, but it was there.
This was more noticeable in STis in comparison to the discontinued Mitsubishi Evo. The Evo having sharper reflexes coming from an econobox built soley for road use than the STi of the same era.
Subarus come from an agrarian background of humble vehicles. How much of that still carries through in today's vehicles is a good question.
Quick edit before someone takes offense: yes the previous WRX/STi were econobox based too.
Last edited:
i am not sure thats how Subaru was utilizing the CVT in the WRX though. They made it act like a regular automatic with shifts and everything to make the engine rev and sound sporty.
I agree. A CVT could be great if utilized correctly but it also just ruins the fun that everyone on here is talking about. You floor it and it just sits at 5500 rpm until you’re going 150 mph.
The HP thing is what it is, but why is the torque so low? The HP/Torque numbers are like an NA V6 instead of Direct injected turbo motor. Im trying to think of one GDTI that has more HP than torque in a more common vehicle(not a high end audi or merc making 400+ hp out of a 2.0).
It seems to me that they may be trying to protect the driveline. The STI 6 speed and diffs are stouter than the wrx, or at least they were. The Sti was running the R180 rear diff while the wrx used to run the R160 I believe. So wonder if they are worried about grenading stuff.
It seems to me that they may be trying to protect the driveline. The STI 6 speed and diffs are stouter than the wrx, or at least they were. The Sti was running the R180 rear diff while the wrx used to run the R160 I believe. So wonder if they are worried about grenading stuff.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
@john_pifer you bring up a great point about demand. If this thing is hard to get rid of, maybe we’ll see a fire sale a la 08 STI’s (7k off). I could get over the looks pretty quickly for that much of a discount.
I believe it’s marketing prescience by Subaru.
It’s clear that this version of the FA24DIT is in quite a low state of tune.
Introducing it with only a +3HP bump, and same torque, gives them something in reserve for power/torque increases for future model years in order to boost sales.
As I’ve also repeated several times, the output numbers ARE COMPETITIVE with its 2 main peers, the Si & GTI.
The current 2.0L car’s performance is quite good (0-60 in 5.5 seconds, conservatively, 140 mph+ top speed, low 14-sec quarter-mile), and the 2.4L car’s numbers will be even better.
I myself was disappointed in the quoted output also, but I get why they did it.
And, again, COBB is licking their lips with all the Accessport sales they’re gonna make, with all the headroom for power increases this engine has.
They could have a higher torque peak and make more power under the curve while staying at 271 hp or whatever. By the numbers, the engine is making 258 torque at 5500 rpm where the HP peak is. So they artificially capped torque across the whole rpm range.
271/300 wouldnt have been weird or out of question and is similar to what the 2.3L Ecoboost in the Ranger makes on 87 octane in truck tune.
Later, bump it to 300/300 or 300/330. Literally, if this is just about marketing and not physical part durability issue, then they suck. I’d be pissed if I bought one and 2 years from now it gets a 30 hp/30 tq bump from a tune change.
I find it hard to believe its not a durablity issue because of how the engines and transmissions handle aftermarket tuning. Thats always been a problem for the wrx.
Last edited:
Personally, I was expecting something like 285 HP and 300 FT-LBS.
I think you do have a point - they know a lot of these cars do get flogged. Obviously they want it to be durable. And obviously durability goes down as state of tune goes up.
I expect power and torque to be bumped incrementally over the 5-6 year model life. They could do 5 HP/year and in 5 years be close to 300 HP, and more torque too.
They’re gambling that the power was already adequate and a significant increase wasn’t needed. I think they’re right, and this thing will sell plenty.
Ive heard it oft-repeated lately that every new model these days gets piled on in social media when it’s released, and then the vehicle goes on to meet or exceed sales targets.
Just look at the thread here about the new Tundra. Everyone’s trashing it, but I can almost guarantee you that it’ll go on to break sales records.
It’s just how it goes these days. OEMs are having to go more and more radical and different with their designs in order to distinguish themselves from the competition. Folks go, “whoa”, when they see it. Then they get used to it and buy one!
Only slightly worse than my Toyota SUV in every way but top speed, there. What, exactly, is Subaru waiting for to "boost future sales"? They are doing the same mess that killed the S2000. Created a wonderful car, and made meaningless changes for the next forever, and wonder why it's not so hot.
Oh...and COBB has been doing FA24DIT engines for years. They get something like 10% more hp out of them on a 93 octane tune.
The FA24DIT is okay. So far the most I've seen one with is a bit over 500whp on a stock long block.
Mod list:
- FP XR Blue 73HTZ twin scroll ball bearing turbo
- Killer B IWG twin scroll header
- Invidia J pipe w/ 3" catback
- Cobb intake
- Cobb FMIC
- IBR BRZ intake manifold conversion w/ complete TGV deletes
- Stock WRX ecu w/ Cobb AP & SD tuning software
- Cobb EBCS
- Cobb Flex Fuel kit
- Hardwired fuel pump
- Nostrum HPFP
- Stock injectors
- IAG AOS
If you'd like to know how lame this is, go look at the EVO forums, lol
Last edited:
Is this why the Integra Type R and S2000 engines were so unreliable?
