Thoughts on 2015 WRX vs 13/14 BRZ

[tacoss23]

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

Lol, optioned with stuff people actually want to buy these with - they will be well over $35k.
The old whine "same performance figures" is getting old. Subaru doesn't have to make an entrance any more, no reason to bump the specs w/o market pressure. I'm happy they haven't axed the STI at all.
All those CLA/A3s at the same price point are vastly underpowered.

You and I, of all people (this forum in general) should know that an extra few tenths of a second in 0-60 time DOESN'T mean jack when it comes to judging a car for it's value, quality and fun nature. So does extra few hp/torque.

I mean we own BRZ/FRSs don't we?

So in that note, your argument that the performance numbers of the CLA are underpowered, well, sure it takes the car 6.5 secs to get to 60mph, that's a whole second more than the upcoming WRX. But...is that the whole story?? we both know it isn't.

The WRX selling point was its performance, for that reason we were willing to ignore the fact that a roman chariot has a better quality interior and a Russian WW2 tank had less rattles and cabin noise than a Subaru...right? that was the trade off.

Not any longer. That's why I say, for the WRX to keep the same performance numbers than 10 years ago, it's a categorical failure.

[chulooz]

... Someone hasnt been in newer imperzas. Also their sales figures are telling your 'failure' conclusion to shove it.

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by tacoss23

You and I, of all people (this forum in general) should know that an extra few tenths of a second in 0-60 time DOESN'T mean jack when it comes to judging a car for it's value, quality and fun nature. So does extra few hp/torque.

It doesn't mean squat if there is something else to make the car special. Cars you cited are glorified refrigerators on wheels. So is WRX. With the only difference being the amount of punch they have and the amount of bells and whistles. And it's a fair trade off at the same price (if it were the same, which it won't be), punch vs amenities. Wanna judge STI - compare it to CLA AMG, S3, new Golf R. Most of these will probably cost north of $40k with similar performance to STI, meaning the trade-off will still look in STI's favor for someone budget-minded. The same it did in the past few years.

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by tacoss23

for the WRX

I thought we were talking STIs
Jeez, look it up. 10 years ago WRX had 220hp.

[ronboogieon]

Funny that the Levorg looks better and more like the WRX concept than the actual WRX.

[tacoss23]

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

It doesn't mean squat if there is something else to make the car special. Cars you cited are glorified refrigerators on wheels. So is WRX. With the only difference being the amount of punch they have and the amount of bells and whistles. And it's a fair trade off at the same price (if it were the same, which it won't be), punch vs amenities. Wanna judge STI - compare it to CLA AMG, S3, new Golf R. Most of these will probably cost north of $40k with similar performance to STI, meaning the trade-off will still look in STI's favor for someone budget-minded. The same it did in the past few years.

You are right, if you compare it to the STI. In the case of the CLA, you could because optioned out, the CLA does come to cost $38k.

The CLA45 AMG will cost $48k, $52k with the common sense options. However, you are talking another category there. We are talking 0-60 times in 4.2-4.4 with pseudo-AWD. That would be a pipe dream for an STI.

You are right though, a STI premium could make an argument at $35k.

But the WRX alone....it can't. The big difference is that in the current generation we didn't have this sub-entry level class of luxury sedans, the CLA, A3 and 2 series. Now that we do, the argument of the WRX becomes a failure, because it targets semi-main stream market looking for "sporty" into their practical 4-door sedan. In that category, it fails.

The STI on the other hand, does not. Because it's still a good value, considering the performance does give him the plus points it loses in absolutely everything else related to a be a "modern car" (not just quality interior, electronics, tech, etc).

I love Subaru, the old Subaru. I hate what Subaru is becoming, and I fear it follows the path of Honda. I do own a BRZ and Crosstrek and the reason I get so upset about the new WRX is because I was actually planning to buy it for my daily driver, and now I won't.

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by tacoss23

We are talking 0-60 times in 4.2-4.4 with pseudo-AWD.

And GR WRX is 4.7, so?
CLA250/A3 are gonna be $33-$35k ish FWD cars with 0-60 in mid-6s at best. New WRX will be slower to 60 than GR, on paper (say 5-ish), but faster in most other stats and have half-decent AWD. I don't see you point at all. It's still gonna hold its niche well.

[SirBrass]

Sales of the WRX contradict your assertion entirely. Failure the WRX decidedly is not.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[maverickar15]

Originally Posted by ronboogieon

Funny that the Levorg looks better and more like the WRX concept than the actual WRX.

Me too, if they make Levorg turbo 300 HP with a manual I will buy that over sedan WRX any day of the week. I might even trade in the STi for it.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

All those CLA/A3s at the same price point are vastly underpowered.

Since when is a ~200hp sedan anywhere close to "vastly underpowered"? It's a perfectly adequate amount of power, for people who think interior quality, a quiet comfortable ride, and the other benefits of a German luxury brand are more important than hoonability, and even so, even the most basic model in the Audi/BMW/Mercedes line will still happily cruise at 100+mph all day long without the slightest complaint. If you want a car to drive like a hooligan, get something else, yes, but that doesn't make those cars underpowered.

[dsgerbc]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Since when is a ~200hp sedan anywhere close to "vastly underpowered"? It's a perfectly adequate amount of power, for people who think interior quality, a quiet comfortable ride, and the other benefits of a German luxury brand are more important than hoonability, and even so, even the most basic model in the Audi/BMW/Mercedes line will still happily cruise at 100+mph all day long without the slightest complaint. If you want a car to drive like a hooligan, get something else, yes, but that doesn't make those cars underpowered.

Did you read what I wrote? It's relative to WRX. Hence the trade off: power vs. refinement/amenities+higher price. The equation won't change with new A3/whatever and the new WRX.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by dsgerbc

Did you read what I wrote? It's relative to WRX. Hence the trade off: power vs. refinement/amenities+higher price. The equation won't change with new A3/whatever and the new WRX.

Of course, but the fact that there is a tradeoff between power/performance vs refinement/amenities doesn't make the A3/A4/2 series/320i/328i/CLA/etc underpowered. Underpowered implies that they have inadequate power for their task as luxury cars, and the fact of the matter is, 200hp is plenty adequate for passing, accelerating on onramps, merging, crusing at high speed, and the like. Most of them have gone to small turbocharged engines which deliver a lot of torque at low rpm too, which makes them feel (relatively) more powerful in day to day driving.

Are they less powerful than a WRX/STi? Absolutely, but that doesn't make them underpowered. An old VW beetle is underpowered. A Smart ForTwo Diesel is underpowered. A brand new 320i with 180hp is not underpowered.

[brzadrian]

looks kinda dorky

[Antheezy]

http://jalopnik.com/heres-the-2015-s...ent-1467695137

Here is another pic, this one makes it seem more appealing. I think it looks more refined and better, but 2.0l for that size when it should be 2.5... This car needs to look more sporty to me or atleast shed some pounds