"Official" 2008 WRX pics from Subaru

I admit that after the first shock I started to think "that is not too bad" (but that was more about the 4-door model). But anyway, it is ugly.

Top Gear (the UK magazine) had this headline about the new Impreza: "Impreza: 15 years of ugly", and they stressed that each generation is uglier than the previous.

Note that the pictures on that web page are chosen to be the best angle (this is of course, the normal thing to do). In particular all the front angles are shot from a low viewpoint. From an higher viewpoint it would look uglier.

Strongly disagree with that. Its styling seem influenced by Chris Bangle's BMWs, particulary the BMW series 1 (this is a _bad_ thing). The present epoch seems to be a low point for car styling (a number of recent restylings seem to be uglier than the original), but I am sure a number of current cars are better looking. For instance:

Honda Civic Type R Ford Focus Opel Astra VW Golf

Still doesn't have a turbo boost dial. I don't understand why car makers don't have that, even when they sell mostly turbos(-diesel).

That is surprising. Are you comparing the 4-door versions fro the old and the new ? Because if the 5 door is lighter than the old 4-door, that is not surprising.

Given that the average driver wouldn't have a clue what a turbo boost gauge does, I can understand why Subaru (and others) don't put them in.

AVERAGE DRIVER:

"Ooooooo, the turbo boost thingy says 12.5 - I must be going really fast"

ENTHUSIAST:

"Damn, boost is only 12.5 psi - at this RPM it should be 14.0 psi, better check the tune"

Of course, looks are subjective. Having said that, I'm no fan of the Bangle-ized Beeemers, either, but the only feature on the new WRX that resembles them from what I can see are the scalloped sides, which I have no issue with. The ugliest aspects of the Bangle-B's(IMHO) are the clamshell trunks and the light treatments. I don't see that here. Sure, I'd prefer red tail lights, but it's still a huge leap forward. Let's face it, the old car was fugly.

I like most of the lines of the Civic, but think it has waaaay too much windshield rake. I get hot (not in a good way) just looking at it.

Agree WRT the Golf, not so sure with the others. We don't get that version of the Focus or any Opels in the states, although I've rented a couple in Europe and was neither offended or excited by their styling.

It's an (overpriced) option here in the states. Not sure why it isn't standard, but in a stock car, the boost is what it is.

One thing I just noticed in the new car that I dislike is the swath of what appears to be more fake aluminum across the dash. I hate that stuff. My Legacy GT has it. If a little anodized aluminum is too expensive, just use more vinyl. At least it's not pretending to be something it isn't.

Supposedly, it's a few pounds less in the same (4 door) guise.

One last nit: No horsepower increase, according to the specs! Supposedly, there was going to be a big jump in HP. Not surprising, given Mazda's 263hp 2.3 motor in the 3. It would be trivial for Subaru to dial in more boost and more revs to at least come close to matching that, if not beating it. I understand they don't want to crowd the STi sales, but they could be shooting that much higher there...at least

Oh well, I guess that's what chips are for.

Yeah, I can't figure why Subaru doesn't bump up the HP either. The 2.5L in the WRX is horribly undertuned and could easily make 250-260 (probably more) and the STi is also undertuned by a similar amount.

Are you sure?

I am a bit under the impression that boxer engines are by nature somewhat "sedate," that is not of the ultra high reving type and that is why many in sports cars have either larger displacements (six or more cylinders- like the boxers in Porshe's, Lamborghinis) or are complimented by turbos, or have both.

Not sure here but Alpha Romeo may have had a few smaller four cylinder boxer engines without turbo (?). Alpha Romeo is known to produce very lively engines so maybe it is possible to tune a boxer for high rpms.

Of course I am talking here about revs only, adding boost to get more power is not a problem as you mentioned in your post.

Its a dissapoint for me that there will be no coupe/three door hatch Impreza and no new 2.5l non-turbo engine.

M.J.

I'll explain my point further. My 05 WRX has the 2.0L engine, which stock is 227HP. That works out to 113.5 HP per liter.

The 06 and up WRX has the 2.5L engine, and is rated stock at 230 HP. There is something wrong with this picture when an engine capable of

Subaru has emasculated the engine for some reason. Good thing that tuners know how to make up for it.

I think the turbo is borderline too small. Also, isn't the peak torque increased AND shifted to a lower rpm?

Carl

What may be wrong with the picture is that this engine has a too big displacement for block size and that is why it is de-tuned. The 2.5l non-turbo is known to have had serious head gasket issues; supposedly resolved by new super strong head gaskets.

Subaru might have not wanted to risk making this engine as good/efficient as the 2.0L for a reason.

M.J.

Same size block as the STi (2.5L) and it makes power.

The non-turbo is a different block, heads, and pistons than the turbo. Head gaskets are a non-player in this comparison.

Meh

Have you looked at the specific output of the latest 911 GT3 lately?

If there were some inherent limitation of the boxer design, Porsche would have abandoned it long ago. I'd say the major reason it's not more popular is cost and packaging, especially in 4 cylinder fwd guise, compared to an in-line motor. Twice as many heads and cams, not as compact, etc. OTOH, it has natural balance and a lower CG.

If anything, the inherent balance and shorter crankshaft of the boxer should lend itself to higher revving better than an inline, all other things being equal. The above-mentioned 911 GT3 has an 8,000 rpm redline from some pretty large cylinders...1.2 liters each. I don't know any other stock engine that revs that high from cylinders that large.

I think the main reason Subaru didn't give us the expected power boost is simply cost and fuel economy. They could have boosted output at little cost, but it would have hurt fuel economy. To improve both, they'd need expensive items like direct injection and similar variable valve timing gear like they have in the Sti and naturally aspirated 2.5L.

One issue the boxer presents Subaru with is engine width. In order to keep the 2.5L narrow enough to fit between the front wheels of the Impreza, it has to be very oversquare (large bore, short stroke), which also effects fuel efficiency (although it does allow for higher revving)

Supposedly the 2.0 had much higher emissions than the 2.5 (turbo motors).

I disagree. The only version I find really ugly is the current one because of it's front end. The rest hasn't changed much since 2002, that's two 'generations' ago. One of the nicest Impreza version IMO is the 2004-2005.

OTOH it might look better in real than in photo...

Looks more like a Mazda influence to me: the Mazda 3 and even more like the Protege 5. Very popular models...

I completely agree. I totally dislike many of the new models of cars in recent years.

but I am sure

True but that's like comparing apples and oranges. The Impreza has always been a 4 door thing...

I can see some influence from this car in the new WRX

Wouldn't know, Opels aren't very common in N.A. It looks to me like a Focus clone...

You like that? This car has barely changed in 15 years.

It is... which is why there is not a significant increase in HP. Horsepower is calculated as a function of torque and RPM.

It has all kinds of goody-bits to make power and it is a lot harder on gas. If one isn't concerned with gas mileage and you want the power, get an STi. The WRX has always been a good compromise between performance and economy. Also because peak torque is so much lower, that even the increase does not result in much of an increase in HP since it is calculated as a function of torque and RPM.

Lamborghini has never used boxer engines, IIRC. Only V-12s, V8s and now V-10. BTW, Porsches' boxers can't be considered large displacement (in the context of their market segment). The biggest is 3.8l, IIRC.

Quite.

They sort of tried (Porsche 928 V8), but the buyers didn't follow.

Agreed.

Hmm, you may be right. I was thinking of the Honda S2000 that in some markets has a 2.2l engine with a 8200 redline, or the latest Lamborghini Murciélago that has 6.5l from a V12, but both are 0.55l/cylinder.

I had assumed that the reason that the transition to 2.5l didn't make a significant increase in power was simply because the intention was simply to improve low-end torque. When the Evo X is on sale, maybe Subaru will make a more powerful version of the STI.

Of course. Although there are some things which are reasonably consensual.

This might be a bit of a Pavlovian response on my part. I see the sides, I think Chris Bangle, and I get negatively predisposed to the whole of the car. But there are other bits I don't like. The top of the pavilion (correct word?) has a bit of a too-pronounced curve near the windshield, which bothers me. I also don't like the rear lights.

The 4-door looks better to me (but that might be because only 2 photos are available in the site). Also the colour disguises a bit the sides.

BTW, more photos at:

Ford Focus ST:

Opel Astra GTC:

Not quite: it depends on the RPMs. Also, if you feel a lack of power you can see immediately if it is due to lack of boost pressure. A friend of mine had that problem in his car (other make). The manifold had cracked, he felt the lack of power but didn't know the cause until he went to the mechanic.

The operating words being "f*ck up the low end and add a few flatspots" ?

Not in my experience. You just picked a bad tuner.

He was probably thinking of Ferrari's boxer 12 cylinder from years ago.

Oops...basic arithmetic gaff! :-/

Probably, but I'm driving an 05 Legacy GT with the 250hp turbo motor now, after driving a 2.0 WRX before, and I cannot see any lack of low end or mid range grunt. There's almost no turbo lag. In fact, you really have to short-shift it most of the time, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.

I'm not pining for turbo lag, but motors that like to rev are more fun. It's not impossible to have a much wider powerband without a turbo lag penalty. It just requires technologies that Subaru appears to be unwilling to pony up for in this price range. If the MazdaSpeed 3 had AWD, there would be little reason to consider the WRX, objectively.