Driving Experience with WRX Wagon
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge, MA
Driving Experience with WRX Wagon
Just posting my experiences with having to trade in my beloved S for something more flexible,
WRX wagon.
Since I just bought a motorcycle, and since my girl friend needs to share the drive on my vehicle,
I had to trade in my S.
Well, as for the driving experience with WRX:
o Power Delivery : there is a turbo dead zone between idle to ~2500 rpm. Rollling from a complete stop
requires the driver to set the roll-on rpm above 2500 rpm & feeding it real nicely with the clutch.
Otherwise, the car goes through the dead zone & step up in acceleration which is VERY annoying &
dangerous.
From the power delivery standpoint, this car requires more involvement from the driver than an
average car.
o Handling : mid-corner stability & low tracktion handling are very good, but turn initiation is rather slow
and vague.
o Insurance : it's $300 more / per than S2000!!!! My guess is that this may be linked to the turbo
dead zone. Imagine driving this car with automatic!
o Overall : You can have fun with with some practicality, but it's not recommended as a family
vehicle. I am actually considering trading this again for something with more linear power
delivery & less insurance.
WRX wagon.
Since I just bought a motorcycle, and since my girl friend needs to share the drive on my vehicle,
I had to trade in my S.
Well, as for the driving experience with WRX:
o Power Delivery : there is a turbo dead zone between idle to ~2500 rpm. Rollling from a complete stop
requires the driver to set the roll-on rpm above 2500 rpm & feeding it real nicely with the clutch.
Otherwise, the car goes through the dead zone & step up in acceleration which is VERY annoying &
dangerous.
From the power delivery standpoint, this car requires more involvement from the driver than an
average car.
o Handling : mid-corner stability & low tracktion handling are very good, but turn initiation is rather slow
and vague.
o Insurance : it's $300 more / per than S2000!!!! My guess is that this may be linked to the turbo
dead zone. Imagine driving this car with automatic!
o Overall : You can have fun with with some practicality, but it's not recommended as a family
vehicle. I am actually considering trading this again for something with more linear power
delivery & less insurance.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 0
From: Sterling, MA
My wife test drove 2 WRX's including a wagon. She liked the way the car responed and handled but she had been driving a VW Jetta so thats gotta be factored in. In the end we decided it wasnt practical for our needs as the back seat wasnt all that roomy and her car is the only practical car we have as I have the S and a 2 seat pickup.
The insurance may be tied to repair costs? When we traded her 99 Jetta for an 04 CRV the insurance was $20 more for the same coverage. Apparently VWs cost a fortune to repair?
The insurance may be tied to repair costs? When we traded her 99 Jetta for an 04 CRV the insurance was $20 more for the same coverage. Apparently VWs cost a fortune to repair?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Aviate,Jun 9 2005, 07:50 PM
...... I am actually considering trading this again for something with more linear power
delivery & less insurance.
delivery & less insurance.
It is not that bad, trading in that that soon will actually cost you more money than you can save.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
From: Barre, Vermont
Trading my "S" in today for for a Saab 9-3 turbo.
Nice car, roomy, luxurious, but definitely needs the turbo to get out of it's own way, as it's very heavy.
So many safety features that in order to have any fun with the car you have to make sure to turn them all off.
Couldn't beat the deal with the GM employee discount and rebate.
Josh
Nice car, roomy, luxurious, but definitely needs the turbo to get out of it's own way, as it's very heavy.
So many safety features that in order to have any fun with the car you have to make sure to turn them all off.
Couldn't beat the deal with the GM employee discount and rebate.
Josh
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,372
Likes: 1
From: Central CT
If you want more pickup in the WRX get it chipped and add a full exhaust system (up pide, down pipe/ catback) acompanied by a K&N drop in filter. You're going to get around 40 more hp through the entire range and pick up a little bit better mpg. Sounds funny I know but it's the truth. As for steering you can buy steering bushings and a larger rear swaybar. My dad has the sedan as his winter car. This makes a night and day difference. You'll think you bought a new car. All this will cost you around $2k. A lot yes, but much less than buying a new car.
Community Organizer
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,112
Likes: 4
From: Mass
Originally Posted by Aviate,Jun 9 2005, 07:50 PM
o Power Delivery : there is a turbo dead zone between idle to ~2500 rpm. Rollling from a complete stop
requires the driver to set the roll-on rpm above 2500 rpm & feeding it real nicely with the clutch.
Otherwise, the car goes through the dead zone & step up in acceleration which is VERY annoying &
dangerous.
From the power delivery standpoint, this car requires more involvement from the driver than an
average car.
I understand that some chip tuners have altered some engine management parameters so that power is more linear. This may be cheaper than trading for something else.
I think turbo lag is fun though! My family had an '84.5 and '86 SVO Mustang w/ a turbo 2.3....nothing until 3000 rpm.....then BAM 18PSI and hold on!
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge, MA
Thanks for the input, guys.
I'll have to look into engine computer reprogramming.
At least, I got used to it by being "more aggressive" at roll-on.
A part of the reason for doing this trade was to lower the
insurance cost & to be less agressive while driving, but these
goals are not met unfortunately.
I was initially interested in the 2.5 NA model, but the ergo
of the clutch on that car was just way off. Anyhow, I'll have to
see how my girl friend adjusts to driving this car. She
has a tendency to lug the engine.....
I'll have to look into engine computer reprogramming.
At least, I got used to it by being "more aggressive" at roll-on.
A part of the reason for doing this trade was to lower the
insurance cost & to be less agressive while driving, but these
goals are not met unfortunately.
I was initially interested in the 2.5 NA model, but the ergo
of the clutch on that car was just way off. Anyhow, I'll have to
see how my girl friend adjusts to driving this car. She
has a tendency to lug the engine.....
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Cubs2k,Jun 11 2005, 09:24 AM
The automotive press has made mention of WRX turbo lag for years! You probably would have been better off with the 2.5 NA motor and saved a few thousand.
I understand that some chip tuners have altered some engine management parameters so that power is more linear. This may be cheaper than trading for something else.
I think turbo lag is fun though! My family had an '84.5 and '86 SVO Mustang w/ a turbo 2.3....nothing until 3000 rpm.....then BAM 18PSI and hold on!
I understand that some chip tuners have altered some engine management parameters so that power is more linear. This may be cheaper than trading for something else.
I think turbo lag is fun though! My family had an '84.5 and '86 SVO Mustang w/ a turbo 2.3....nothing until 3000 rpm.....then BAM 18PSI and hold on!
Just treat it as a different sort of VTEC with a 3,000 rpm engagement point.
You can't buy a turbo car and not happy with the turbo lag.
It is like dating Linsey Lohan and complaining about her red hair.....or blonde hair....dayum!
