EVO: Subaru BRZ vs Subaru Impreza 2000 Turbo review

[st162celica]

The impreza is sold as a standard car as well. It's purpose was for volume sales also.

I didn't really want a car that has multiple models.

It is weird seeing 2 different impreza's at my work. Same year, 1 base model (white and old black bumpers) and one ultra clean stock wrx. The wrx is cool and I love it but my mind keeps wandering back to the base model

[Deslock]

Originally Posted by ssteer

I've wondered about the weight myself. Sitting across from the Subaru salesman at his desk, with him going on about light weight, I saw his all model cheat sheet. We looked at the weight specs. BRZ limited auto, 1276 kg. Impreza Limited auto, 1324 kg. (I'm in Canada, hence kilograms)

The point is this: a new Impreza with AWD, a real back seat, power rear windows etc. weighs only 110 lbs more than the BRZ.

Did you look at the correct values on the chart? In the USA, 1324 kg is the mass of the base 5MT Impreza (the CVT Impreza is ~230 pounds more than the 6AT BRZ).

To be fair to the Impreza, if you compare the base 6MT BRZ to the base 5MT Impreza, the difference drops to ~150 pounds. So the new Impreza's weight loss is impressive, but (as switchlanez pointed out) it doesn't have the same level of chassis stiffness.

If you compare the 2013 Civic Si to the base Civic, the difference in curb weight is ~250 pounds (due to amenities, chassis reinforcements, and 2.4L vs 1.8L). Before anyone assumes most of that was due to displacement, note that in 2011, that difference was ~300 pounds even though it was only a 2.0L vs 1.8L.

Originally Posted by ft_sjo

My old MY99 UK Impreza Turbo would absolutely shit over my GT86 on any track or public road in every situation. It was completely stock apart from a thicker rear bar and some poly bushes in the right places to reduce understeer. A Type RA (JDM) or whatever with DCCD is even better.

However, the Impreza is not as cool, which is why I have a GT86 now. It's quirky and fun. It's not an all-out performance car.

But for £2k'ish for the Impreza, it's a LOT of car for the money. Pointless comparing to a low-power n/a rwd sports car though.

I can't comment on the '99 Impreza turbo as I've not driven one, but when I moved from the WRX to the RX8, I gave up performance because the RX8 was more fun to drive (likewise when I later moved to an old NB MX5). My MT BRZ isn't nearly as fast in a straight line or even around many tracks as a lot of powerful RWD/FWD/AWD cars, yet it's more rewarding/fun to drive.

Getting back to the article, I'm still dumfounded that EVO compared the AT BRZ to a bunch of MT cars. Scores of other reviews found the BRZ engaging and agile (and could get the rear end to play).

But hey, this thread about a recycled 10-month-old EVO article has almost 4000 views in less than 24 hours, and I imagine many of us clicked through to their website. So if EVO's objective was to troll the piss out of us, then mission accomplished.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by Deslock

And EVO continues to strain their already diminished credibility in an attempt to increase hits. This is a reprint of an article from the June 2012 issue released last April. Notice the multiple references about a 1997 Impreza being a 15 years old car and the line "by 2012 standards the interior is a horror show..." (as opposed to 16 years old, and 2013).

Rereading it almost a year later made me wonder: How do you write a comparison like this without bringing up the transmissions? Though the little "Extra Info" box (on the right-side margin) lists 5MT for the Impreza and 6AT for the BRZ, they aren't even mentioned in the article (beyond a brief note about the "five-speed gearbox" having a "satisfying and distinctive mechanical feel" and the AT adding 60kg). That's almost as laughable as when EVO complained they couldn't get the rear-end to play.

BTW, in the same June 2012 issue, EVO compared an AT BRZ (presumably the same one) to an MX5, 370z, and Mégane 265 all with MTs. As someone pointed out, that's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

On a related note, here's a tweet from Richard Meaden (the author) at about that time:
https://twitter.com/grumpy_farmer/st...41006326341632

that explains it a lot.

I was wondering why he was complaining about the none responsive power of the BRZ and the low torque response.

then the article makes more sense when he said the impreza's torque hits 2.5K rpm earlier. which tells me that he was probably driving the BRZ below 5K RPM.

then when you mention he is driving an AT which further proof my theory that majority of his ride, he is in the cruzing power band.

[Acree]

Originally Posted by dammitcubs

Since coming from the beloved EVO 9 (i used to have a EVO 8 and currently, own an EVO X). Your opinion does truly matter to me. How do you like this car compared to the EVO?

This is the thread that you would be interested in.

-Acree

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Can't let that one slide. The cheapest WRX here is over $3k more.

BRZ Sport-tech (U.S.: Limited): $29,295 CAD
WRX base 4 door: $32, 495 CAD

Guess I shoulda been more specific. The BRZ out the door taxes in fully loaded is $34k which is where the WRX hatch begins. Realistically, my price range would be anything under $40k out the door (if I were to be strict but I have room for more but I dislike straying from the 'way').

The friggin' MX-5 PRHT is $40k+ I think... that's ludicrous! That's why the Toybaru twins are so appealing...

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Deslock

Getting back to the article, I'm still dumfounded that EVO compared the AT BRZ to a bunch of MT cars. Scores of other reviews found the BRZ engaging and agile (and could get the rear end to play).

I'm wondering about this too. Haven't they learned since that first review when they compared the AT BRZ to other MT cars?

Evo's credibility is taking a hit here.

[edward]

DMDA - Doesn't Matter, Drove Automatic

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

I'm wondering about this too. Haven't they learned since that first review when they compared the AT BRZ to other MT cars?

Evo's credibility is taking a hit here.

its probably all they could get. i dont think thats what should be the thing that discredits them.

i think its pretty clear that this guy just likes turbos. it doesnt mean that he doesnt "get it." one of my peeves is when people assume people dont understand simply because they disagree. i think it mostly happens on slow car forums. you should see the people with miatas talk shit on the gtr and other supercar. its ridiculous.

[Metabrz]

How many miles did the car have on it?

A friend had his dyno'd on delivery and then after 5000. The car had and additional +20KW at the wheels.

I was disappointed at first in the lack of grunt coming from a V7 JDM STi. The torque dip doesn't even bother me now.

[ftc~brz]

I understand it was an AT, he must have left the nanny's on and driven like it was a corolla in rush hour. I have not had the pleasure of driving an AT nor do I feel it was a fair comparison. But I'm bias.

I hadn't had the pleasure of even seeing a brz never mind test driving one when I made my decision. I knew 200hp wasn't "crazy" but it's enough to make you smile on a rainy day or any other day for that matter. I had my test drive to the gas station AFTER I took delivery with my sales person. From those few minutes I felt in tune with all the key elements I had only read about and knew this would be the most fun car I've had since the 90's.
To wake up knowing you will enjoy every run to the market or drive to work on the back roads is something only us 86 owners will ever understand. We chased that dream and park it with a smile. I'm sorry the writer didn't get it. When you do get it you understand the brotherhood.

Or I could just be bitter since I drove a tc today and felt like I was riding a snail to work. My other half got to have all the smiles today.