EVO: Subaru BRZ vs Subaru Impreza 2000 Turbo review

[grodenglaive]

BRZ costs 25,000 pounds in England? That's about $38,000 bucks!

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by Zaku

Need @ichitaka05 to give his opinion. On this since he owns one and drove the other, not sure how much I trust this writing

LOL yes, I've driven both NA & turbo Impreza (GC/GM). I kinda wished he would of give better review than that.

My view for this, I see his point of BRZ lack hp... but we all knew that.

Also I'm not sure what kind of test comparison he did. Drove around in city & canyon? Track? AutoX? Rally? IDK... so I think, you can't really compare either one... til you tried all of em.

Now, here's some comparison he didn't stated (or maybe he didn't know? IDK).

Chassis: GC/GM/GF weak point is chassis rigidity. They're called "watermelon" due to weak chassis. Subaru fix that when they changed it to GD model. vs BRZ, I think most of owners know, it's pretty... correction, damn stiff solid.

Interior: Both Impreza & BRZ lack that point. author's Impreza was sedan (GC8), but back seat sucks. Maybe you can fit 4 skinny ppl... so they're tie on that part.

Suspension & Brake: Not sure which spec he got to drive, if he claim it's Impreza 2000 Turbo that should be Impreza WRX GT (which is pretty much same as STi). Brakes should feel about the same. 4/2 vs 2/1 calipers but F&R weight ratio on BRZ should help with that one. BUT on suspension due to weak chassis on Impreza, suspension gotta go through extra work vs BRZ, less effort on suspension.

Handling: Impreza have awesome power... but it hit understeer. It's AWD, so that's given. BUT computer on this car, try really hard to keep the tail from going tail happy, so it'll understeer more when you hit at the limit at the corner, yes you can overcome that by changing the power ratio (DCCD). vs BRZ, Subaru made a bit of understeer feel when you're at the limit... but not as bad as Impreza. You can kill that understeer by how you drive.

Hope that give you some feedback on these 2 comparison

Originally Posted by Turbowned

Well, you can't get a turbo GC8 Impreza in the U.S. without building your own. And apparently you can't get it in Britain, either, so what's the point in comparing a car that you can own with one that you can't??

I just drove a very "tidy" 2002 WRX with only 37,000 miles and it was not nearly as nice as the BRZ. It's a quick economy sedan that's fun to drive and the BRZ is a less-quick purpose-built sports car that's very fun to drive. So suck it, Evo magazine!

You're correct, you can't get GM/GC/GF chassis turbo here in US. Also you're forgetting that, GB/GD chassis were A LOT heavier
GC/GM/GF = 2,600lbs~2,850lbs
GB/GD = 2,965lbs~3065lbs

Originally Posted by LeeMaster

The GD Impreza has a 300 lb weight handicap over the older GC Impreza. So naturally you will not have as much fun in it as the older ones.....

It's all depend. '02~'03 had EJ207 which a lot of owner complain it lack tq... but '04 they brought over EJ257 gave em decent push.

[LeeMaster]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

It's all depend. '02~'03 had EJ207 which a lot of owner complain it lack tq... but '04 they brought over EJ257 gave em decent push.

No doubt about it, but the extra 300 lb does put a toll on the handling. Which is why the car review guy gave so much props to the older Impreza for it's agile and perks.

[DaveH]

Waste of time article lol, his impreza is so amazing, he should stick to driving it for another 20 years. Comparing a 90s car with way less safety features and thus less weight, with slightly more HP and far more torque and that older car is more agile? Feel more powerful, Really? Say it ain't so... I put this article with all the other bs articles that these so called "automotive journalists" write about where they compare 10-15 year cars with present day cars and say how cars from 10-20 years ago are far more superior because of these points:

1. The older car is so much better because you can buy it today for X amount
(really an older car is better value because it is cheaper? Wow, just wow, welcome to a Brave New World, also you can use this argument with just about any other car comparison between older and newer cars)
2. If you bought an older car and just put in X amount of upgrades into it and it will be faster around the track than your brand new car
3. Let's forget all the advancements in chassis design, materials, computer aided design and safety etc etc, the list can be a mile long. Let's declare the car from 20 years ago the winner

You can do this with any Car X and compare to any used Car y and you can get write the exact same article, follow the formula above.

[chulooz]

Opinionated. But it gives credence to the claim that some of our best cars were being made around the 90's.

Once you start accepting modifications the BRZ cant hold a match.

[ducatichick]

Maybe the author has a small penis?

[Dorb]

We need those rims as an option.

[iLuveKetchup]

Originally Posted by robo_robb

This guy obviously values power over dynamics. He just doesn't "get" it. It's understandable.

Because he wants more power he doesn't "get" it (whatever that means)?

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Another factory 50 hp/50 lb ft will detract from its lightweight and handling characteristics (it'd be another GenCoupe) and price (into a segment with better performing cars for the same money).

How does have another 50hp/tq detract from it's characteristics. The BRZ is far from a lightweight car, especially relative to its small size. I still don't see where all the weight is coming from. The twins hide it well.

[WingsofWar]

some reason it was a bit difficult to read the article. maybe my eyes are going bad or my reading comprehension is deteriorating. But I couldn't point out a good moment in the entire read. All i heard in my head was "wah wah", even when he was praising either two cars.

[shawnperolis]

I was going to buy a WRX as my first new car... I wanted a WRX for several years. I test drove one and it felt kind of heavy and slopped compared to the 06 Civic Si I was currently driving. It was obviously faster, but it wasn't that much faster for me to think it was a worthy upgrade, considering I thought my Civic had a much better driving feel. I drove the FR-S and instantly fell in love. It is probably slower than my old Civic, but doesn't really matter much to me. More power would be nice, but it's not like it is that hard to make ANY car faster in a straight line, so I'm not really concerned about it.

I don't know how the new WRX stacks up with the oldschool Impreza he is talking about though, so maybe my opinion is moot.

[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:
[ame]https://twitter.com/grumpy_farmer/status/193741006326341632[/ame]

[ST185RC]

Oh how I miss AWD Turbo.

[robo_robb]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

Because he wants more power he doesn't "get" it (whatever that means)?


How does have another 50hp/tq detract from it's characteristics. The BRZ is far from a lightweight car, especially relative to its small size. I still don't see where all the weight is coming from. The twins hide it well.

To your first point: He doesn't derive the same pleasure from the twins as does someone who values balance and feel. He just wants more power because that's what he's told makes a good sports car. That's how he doesn't "get" it.

To your second point: The added weight comes from modern advances in safety as well as the fact that cars are bigger today on average than they were 10 or 20 years ago. The Twins are light-weight by today's standards. We can't fairly compare the weights of today's cars to weights of cars from 10 or 20 years ago.

[ft_sjo]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

And apparently you can't get it in Britain, either

You most definitely could buy them in England. Some editions were UK only, some were Japan only (STI). Notable UK editions were the RB5 and possibly the P1.