As Motor Trend (MT) and its buff book brethren hemorrhage readers and cash to the Internet, they’ve reacted in the only way they know how: by kow-towing to their advertisers with even greater ardor and even lower journalistic standards (yes, “special advertising section” readers, it is possible). But what really galls is their continued belief that they’re superior to both Internet websites and those who visit them. MT’s first test review of the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX is a perfect case in point.
”OMGWRXLOL: Subaru's latest rally-bred rocket crash lands on the Internet. We pick up the pieces and set the record straight.”
The headline capping Edward Loh’s review of the WRX immediately exposes both Motor Trend’s superiority complex and their lack of clue. Here on the “internets,” abbreviations like “OMG” and “LOL” haven’t been used by anyone other than Dateline sex predators since 1998. Needless to say, Loh’s lead takes the ignorant arrogance-shaped ball and runs with it.
“Immediately after subscribers received our May issue– the one with our exclusive first look at the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX– the cover and story photos lit up Internet forums and blogs around the world. Auto enthusiasts flocked en masse to their favorite sites to weigh in on the new look.”
The scribe is implying that Motor Trend’s WRX coverage scooped the net, and then inspired it to sound-off. Not so, Loh. Australiancaradvice.com had full WRX pics and specs on March 27. Cars.ign.com covered the WRX on April 4, and Autochannel.com posted on April 5. Even if the magazine’s editor or ad manager had “convinced” Subaru to hide the WRX from the world for MT, the idea that a buff book with a two-month lead time still sets the automotive agenda is simply preposterous.
After quoting Internet posters’ pithiest comments (without paying freelance fees), Loh condescends to set the record straight.
“Amidst the knee-jerk reactionaries were a few cooler heads willing to wait out the hype until they drove the car before rendering final judgment. What a novel idea.”
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the Internet comments slated the WRX for its looks (which are, let’s face it, hideous). After vilifying any such conjecture, Loh immediately concedes that “WRXs have never been lookers,” and attempts to reframe the debate while displaying his [supposed] Internet savvy.
“They've always been drivers, and whether you're sprinting across town or around a mountain pass, the new 2008 WRX should make you LOL. Why? Because under the controversial new sheetmetal is much the same WRX you know and love.”
Well exactly. While the WRX’ competitors have moved on, offering more horsepower and plenty of dynamic fluidity, the “new” Legacy-based WRX offers only two important differences from its predecessor: the horsepower and torque arrive 500rpm earlier and the car gets five percent better fuel economy. And that’s what pissed-off the “forum trolls” [sic].
In this disappointment they are not alone. Even the traditionally gentle mainstream publications have trashed the new WRX. Automobile concluded “we’re not convinced: since when should a Subaru look and drive like a Toyota – and an ugly one at that?” Edmunds’ Inside Line summarized a pile of bad news: “Engine runs out of steam early; soft suspension with lots of body roll; sleepy styling.” Car and Driver: We suspect [the “WRX faithful”] will transfer their affections to the STI or other brands.”
Even though Loh admits that the new WRX turns in identical acceleration and slalom times as the old car, he’s determined to prove the Internet arrivistes are wrong. Or, if you prefer, fellate Subaru by praising handling-oriented changes that don’t actually improve the car's handling. Oh and…
“Gone are the stark silver plastics and restrictive rear legroom; occupants are now treated to more room in every direction, richly textured surfaces, and seats redesigned to support the entire back. Getting in and out is easier, too; the rear doors now open wider by one full stop and close with a satisfying thunk.”
Again, Mr. Loh’s doesn’t understand that the Subie-loving Internet denizens aren’t interested in surface textures or thunking doors; they wanted better looks, more bang-for-the-buck and major handling advances.
Mr. Loh’s cheery assessment of the 2008 WRX finally ends with– get this– an olive branch.
“What's the take-home message for the forum trolls? Give it a chance. With all the content Subaru has managed to cram under its controversial skin, the new WRX should have you laughing out loud.”
We take home a different message. Consumers are expressing themselves in huge numbers on the Internet. Their perspective is just as valid as the “pros.” In fact more so; it’s their money that keeps carmakers afloat. Or not. Meanwhile, so long as the mainstream press perches on its pedestal, it won’t be able to see everyone else sawing away at the base down below.
[Read MT's WRX review here.]
Thank you.
We buy the cars, please listen to what we say.
And as long as you’re sending messages to MT, can you CC Rick Waggoner and Bob Lutz on it?
““OMG” and “LOL” haven’t been used by anyone other than Dateline sex predators since 1998.”
not exactly true, but hilarious nonetheless.
OMGWRXLOL? IDKmyBFF Jill
Anyway, we still use these terms ironically.
Motor Trend, always trying to be “Kalifornia Kool.” Now they’re so passe, it’s pathetic.
I stopped reading the magazine when I was 11, I thought they were crap back then. They wrote like children(this coming from a child at the time), lied A LOT, and there format sucked and was boring to read. But they had good pictures at the time. I see things haven’t changed in 21 years.
After a long hiatus, I found an internet deal a couple years ago to get 12 issues (each) of MT, CD, and Road and Track for $8. About two months in, I started to feel kinda bad that I A. wasted a solid 8 bucks and B. was killing a lot of trees.
As for the WRX, I’m not in the market for an ugly Legacy. Thanks for the “middle-aged” version, Subaru.
I just read the MT piece on the new WRX. The article reeks of MT’s typical sugar-coated reviews. In my opinion, if everything is kosher with basically every reviewed car, you then render your publication irrelevant and just plain boring. The Internet references are laughable at best, but I guess you have to adopt a theme and work it to death.
*Side note* I would have expected better mileage out of a 3100-3200lb, four cylinder turbo. 19/24 What’s up with that?
At first I liked the new skin – saw it from the back, looked different enough for me to do a double-take… we’re shopping for a new second vehicle, so I wandered over to the Soobie dealership – Yuck. Yuckyuckyuck. It reminds me of an Accent or something… the front end is too pointy, the signature bug-eyes are totally gone, the scoop is so passive it’s hardly noticable, there’s definitely less leg room in the back when the front seats are slid back far enough for me (6’1″). They’ve cleaned up teh interior, I’ll give them that – but there’s nothing compelling about it. Their old interiors were so crappy it almost made it compelling.
It’s an enthusiast’s nightmare: Un-quirky, mundane, bland.
I’m in no rush for that second vehicle, so I
ll be keeping my ear to the ground on an older-model WRX.
Aren’t these the guys that voted the Renault Alliance “Car of the Year” in 1984???
The only thing I can disagree with is that OMGWRXLOL is still funny, and still “in,” but would be more so if followed by “!!!!!!!1.” (That period shouldn’t be within the quotation. I hate that rule!)
Great editorial. Motor Rooter is hilarious I had read once that they “aren’t worthy to be kept on the back of my toilet” and laughed. Their COTY and TOTY awards are also hilarious. 1990 Chevrolet “Shamu” Caprice anyone? ;)
Bob is so right that this WRX seems “middle aged” But at least unlike the Eclipse Subaru kept the spirit of the WRX unlike Mitsubishi. The 3rd gen Eclipse concept/prototype debuted with a sexy mid engine style body and the venerable 4G63 Turbo engine and AWD. What we ended up getting here were FWD Elmer Fudd mobiles with heavy V6 n/a engines.
They seem to be coming to their senses with the rumored 2009 Lancer Ralliart Turbo AWD. An Evo “lite” with 220-230bhp.
Strange that my [also turbocharged] 3600 lb 335i has mileage ratings of 19/27. Although it’s missing 4WD, it is carrying another 500 lbs over the WRX. Is this differential related to the efficiency of DI?
The new WRX just doesn’t cut it, not even close, and it’s a shame. The MazdaSpeed 3 is the new benchmark in affordable performance vehicles, and Subaru’s been thoroughly outclassed. MS3 costs something like $3k less and, while FWD, really delivers the goods. I’m hoping Subaru comes to their senses and either a. drops the price a bit or b. ups the power to stay competitive.
That said, the new Imprezas are a far cry from their predecessors, but in my humble opinion it does look better, the old ones had something of a Matchbox car boy-racer feel. The new Impreza looks far better in person with the mesh grille, especially the 5-door (try to ignore the altezza taillights). They’ll sell better, but this marks the end of an era. US WRX awesomeness, 2001-2007 RIP.
Sad that I feel that Toyota has infested them. Subaru WRXs were always ugly, but the performance made up for it. Now with the Lancer Evo available in the US and the Mazdaspeed 3, there is a lot of pressure in the category, so what do they do? They basically make it a sporty Corolla.
I actually think the hatchback Impreza’s look pretty good… In a Saab 900 sort of way…
What dissappoints me is the lack of actual hardware improvement. Would it had killed them to get 250hp out of a 2.5L Turbo? How about a 6-speed? How about a (GASP!) 5-speed auto?
I really hope Subie has an absolute stellar STi on the way.
As far as Motor Trend is concerned… Please. These guys might as well be writing dealer brochures. The special olympics have tougher judges.
Oh… Since nobody posted it yet… WTF?
I haven’t read Motor Trend since the C. Van Tune days, and I can’t think of a reason why anyone would be reading them now. (What ever happened to Van Tune, anyway?)
I’m not a WRX fanboy, but the first thing I thought of when I saw the new one was that it looked a great deal like my fiancee’s Toyota. I thought the previous generation was erring a bit on the Edsel side of “interesting,” but I’d take that any day over the bland new model.
As for the old media vs. new media issue, this is happening everywhere, not just for car rags. Newspapers have no idea how to cope with this Interwebs thingy, and are adopting stupid strategies like The New York Times’ subscription wall. I’d rather see old media adapt than die out, but I’d rather it die out than insult my intelligence as a user of the ‘tubes.
I have some questions for ya’ll about the ’08 WRX? I thought this was a total ground-up redesign and now I am seeing it is based on the Legacy platform. So Subaru is down to 1 platform for all it’s models?
Don’t get me wrong I love our Legacy but I was hoping for a smaller better handling Subaru as our second Subbie not the same puffed up car with a different name. Plus it’s so ugly now I can’t stand it. Guess I will be looking for unsold/used ’07s instead of a new one.
Motor Trend I stopped reading in 1963 when I discovered Car and Driver. MT is utter drivel from beginning to end, always was, always has been. Being from the Canadian East Coast, I assumed then that MT’s airhead ways and Beach Boys music were just “California”. Obviously not true but at the age of 16 I was impressionable.
Recently, I was at the Subaru dealership getting my old GC Impreza serviced when a truck pulled up and disgorged 5 new Beetles and a sedan. They look less ugly in the flesh at least than in photos. Then there is the interior, which to my way of thinking is an utter disaster.
I’m sorry, but every damn review out there says it has higher quality materials. Is everyone blind? For 30 large, I want more than the latest one piece polypropylene door panel, whose surface mightily resembles the “grain” of a Rubbermaid garbage bin. The same can be said of the dash material. Both are hard, unyielding, black and cheap-looking.
The seats are set so low (as in the Legacy) that the car is not easy to get in and out of compared to the old, yet the vehicle is taller. An ideal vehicle, therefore, for those whose daily headwear includes a top hat. The back seat is worse than my old GC and the GD for the simple reason that the hinge for the now folding seatbacks is directly at tailbone height. Great comfort.
I avoided the GD Impreza and am glad I did, as the car might be safer than mine, but rattles like an old bag of bolts. So I was about to treat myself to a new WRX, even up to the point where I opened the door and almost removed my left eye due to the new framed door and car’s great height. Then I gazed upon that crappo interior and my heart sank.
Time to get the old beast painted.
I used to subscribe to Motor Trend until I was reading once about the Ford Five Hundred – an article claiming it was a great vehicle with class leading everything…until I got to the top of the next page and saw “Special Advertising Section”. I then did a double take and dropped the magazine on the floor. I was pissed off that MT would let their advertisers so blatantl trick their readers into thinking that these advertisements were articles.
I let my subscription cancel and only occasionally read older posted articles on their website (but I make sure Java is disabled so I don’t get the plethora of ads). MT sold out their soul long ago and their articles have been so mundane and boring that I’ll never subscribe again.
I picked up a 2006 WRX Limited wagon in February of this year. It was one of two remaining at the dealers lot. The car is actually quite nice for an Impreza, definitely the best of the model years.
However, Subaru has been making some odd decisions lately, starting with the Tribeca, then the ESX limited edition model, followed by the Legacy Spec. B (give me a break, they only changed the damn interior – you get the same engine and 5-speed transmission), and now the new Imprezas.
It makes you wonder if Subaru has been infected by GM refugees.
Actually, “LOL” was used in a TTAC comment today, so it is still used by some.
Anyone who had their doubts about Motor Trend should have been convinced by this year’s “Truck of the Year” test. The Chevy Silverado won against the GMC Sierra, Ford Explorer Sport Trac, Chevy Avalance Z71, and the Cadillac Escalade EXT.
Eighty percent of the vehicles were GM products. That’s a competition??
Yeah KTM you do have to wonder about the market decisions that have been made. They put the STi’s 2.5 Turbo 4 in the Forester IIRC and that was great. Then the B9 had to be rushed into a redesign and it came out looking like a Chrysler. Now we get a bigger, softer WRX when the community seems to want the opposite. I hope the STi is a hit. From the spy video I have seen them testing it looks like it will be sharp. They will have to aim high to best the new Evolution (X).
Partsisparts!
You are so right. I remember thinking back in the late eighties how getting MT Car of the Year was some strange kiss of death for cars. Seems like every car that wins is filling junkyards in less than 5 years. What’s up with that?
To me, the 5-door Impreza looks like a mini-Tribeca. Which begs the question, Justin, how exactly does MT fellate a “Flying Vag’?
Does that mean the Camry, this year’s COTY is doomed?
Motor Trend did their comparo not so long ago between the G35 and the 330i, and the G35 did equal or better in, I think, 7 of the 8 categories. MT then named the Beamer as winner of the comparo.
But here’s what I really don’t get. MT as well as our TTAC reviews talk about extra room in the 08. That’s fine, because one thing really bad from a practical standpoint in the older WRX was rear legroom. MT says that is better now.
And when I go to Edmunds and compare specs between the 07 and 08 this is born out by the 08 improving slightly in room in most dimensions EXCEPT REAR LEGROOM.
According to Edmunds, the 07 has 33.7 inches rear legroom, and the 08 has 33.5. I don’t understand how a decrease in legroom in the 08 over the 07 results in an increase in legroom of the 08 over the 07.
From the practical family sedan standpoint, if these numbers are correct this is very bad for the Impreza.
Dunno but I can’t see spending $30k for a well optioned WRX. Not when you can build a 10 second DSM for about $10k with car included. You will want to own a good set of tools and do your own work but boy are they fun!
Come on. I don’t know how anyone can realistically say Subaru wrought a total failure with the ’08 WRX.
The hatch looks pretty nice in person, and the interior is a vast improvement over previous generations, with the exception of the ’06-’07, perhaps.
The ride is smoother than it ever was with the 99 inch wheelbase, and there’s almost as much back seat leg room as a Legacy, if that’s important to you.
You can’t forget that Subaru actually has to sell this car, a lot of them, to guys like me…30, kids…and as much as I love the old WRX, and as much as I like the EVO, I don’t want to drive some rolling cartoon.
There are disappointments: A 6-speed manual and 5-speed auto would be nice, as someone mentioned. And the car looks good only until you park it next to a Mazdaspeed3.
But the WRX is still a superior car to the Mazdaspeed, which kind-of misses the bus by not coming equipped with AWD.
You want 250 hp? What for? How many WRXs do you think are sold to people who actually put them on a track or racecourse? For the rest of us, what are we going to do with 250hp that we couldn’t do with 220?
-Matt
Drive the 250 first and you wont want to go back to 220bhp. There is a huge difference between to 2 engines in neck snapping performance and grinability.
So I can snap my neck back more quickly and have a wider grin as I run up on the bumper of the car in front of me in traffic?
Are you that guy?…LOL.
-Matt
Redbarchetta: I have some questions for ya’ll about the ‘08 WRX? I thought this was a total ground-up redesign and now I am seeing it is based on the Legacy platform. So Subaru is down to 1 platform for all it’s models?
This is the way it’s always been. It’s called “platform sharing.” Cash-strapped Subaru has shown a lot of creativity in building the Impreza, (Impreza) Outback Sport, Forester, Legacy, (Legacy) Outback, (Legacy) Baja and Tribeca on the same platform. Of course, it means that a comparatively small car like the Impreza ends up weighing a lot. Maybe it’s chassis is a little over-engineered.
Matt,
Why bother with the WRX then? I hear the Toyota Matrix has 130 horses… I kid, I kid.
You’re right to imply that there are many people out there who just want a car that’s relatively fun to drive, rather than the most fun or the most competitive or the absolute best looking or with the newest technology. But whether or not Subaru botched the WRX (and incidentally, I believe they have), what’s even more relevant is that Motor Trend (1) unnecessarily insulted internet enthusiasts who didn’t like the car’s looks or spec sheet and (2) proceeded to give it a glowing write up that no one – including other magazines – agrees with.
Motor Trend played this round nastily and with editorial bias. Those are the more concerning issues.
“…and there’s almost as much back seat leg room as a Legacy, if that’s important to you.”
FWIW- rear seat legroom, per Edmunds:
07 WRX……….33.7
08 WRX……….33.5
08 Legacy…….33.9
08 Mazda Speed3.36.3
I never thought of the Mazda 3 as having much rear legroom, but, by comparison!
….how does one fellate a flying v……..
I’m not going to get into it, but, you’ve got your terms messed up there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I think this iteration of the WRX is certainly better looking that the “bug eye” one. Can you get a sunroof in it now? Used to be you needed to get the “Saabaru” to get the sunroof action.
This seems less a case of a catastrophic blunder than a well-loved model just failing to keep up with the competition for one go-round.
detlef: I haven’t read Motor Trend since the C. Van Tune days, and I can’t think of a reason why anyone would be reading them now. (What ever happened to Van Tune, anyway?)
He’s still around, publishing an article here and there. For a while he was doing obscure TV, “Road Trip” and “Drive” on ESPN, popping up fairly regularly as a guest commentator on issues on automotive on TV chat shows, and endorsing automotive products.
He’s supposed to have a blog somewhere, but I can’t find anything that resembles a semi-regularly published blog, as I understand them to be.
Poor Motor Trend. They sort of jumped the shark back in the 70s with the classic “Make-Out Cars” issue that got banned from libraries across the country. (I think they must have stolen a bunch of writers from MAD magazine for that issue.) And they’ve never been very funny or very good ever since.
“Aren’t these the guys that voted the Renault Alliance “Car of the Year” in 1984???”
…and the 02 Thunderbird, the 97 Malibu, the 95 Cirrus and the 91 Caprice Classic.
The most disappointing thing to me about the new WRX is that the downgraded the front brakes and got rid of the rear limited slip because they were too cheap/lazy to program the stability control to work with it. But the interior is nicer.
I agree, Justin. And I was going to write something about the Motor Trend review, but forgot.
It would be interesting to know how many Motor Trend subscribers read its reviews and say, “Hell, yes. What a great review. I now know everything I really wanted to know about that car.”
The Motor Trend WRX review might as well have told all of the mag’s younger readers not to bother with Motor Trend anymore.
It’s reviews like that that make reviews here and on Top Gear so great. When Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t like a car, he says, “it’s absolute rubbish,” and there you have it.
As for power, I don’t think the Matrix is for me. But in recent years, I think reviewers have been too willing to say that if a lot of power is good, then a lot more power must be better without any consideration for how much of that power is actually usable by folks who actually go and buy cars.
As a result, folks on the internet read some specs and conclude that one car is vastly better than another just because it makes 15, 20, 25bhp more.
I don’t think the new Impreza is a total botch. I will agree that it could be better. But really, what Subaru should have done in the first place was bring the WRX to the states with an update GC8 look.
-Matt
Just as an aside, when did “slated” become a synonym for “trashed?”
I’ve seen the word used in this context with increasing frequency on this site, both by writers and commenters. It has always struck me as and odd use of the word, given its typical meaning of “scheduled” and I finally googled for definitions today. As suspected, no results for the word as used in this article.
Has the word gained this definition (anyone know the etymology?) or is this just an example of an incorrect word useage becoming common through viral use on the internet?
I’m not knocking anyone or being critical here. Just wondering.
*Side note* I would have expected better mileage out of a 3100-3200lb, four cylinder turbo. 19/24 What’s up with that?
It’s tuned for performance, not economy, and the 4 wheel symmetric transmission has its losses due to friction.
MT, C&D and Road & Track tend to feed off each other. I get all three.
C&D might say G37 > 335i. MT says G37 < 335i
One will do a hot hatch comparison, the next month the other will do another with slightly different cars, say performance under $25k, and get similar results.
Thing is, these MT costs next to nothing.
There's specialist mags like Sport Compact Auto, and it's ~$20 a year.
And then there are these British brand specific mags, that are thick and heavy, with minimal advertisement, and are indepth, but they're $110 a year.
http://online.unity-media.com/
It is interesting that Motor Trend pays so much attention to “the forum trolls” in their article. The forum trolls. Sounds like a bunch of straw men lurking in some new section of the mall
But then, I’m not sure why TTAC needs to dignify Motor Trend by talking about it.
wibblywobbly thanks. The 90 COTY was the Lincoln Town Car IIRC. 91 was Shamu.
Motor Trend got sad in the mid 1980s. I think they changed thier format around the time the 1986 Taurus was introduced. Then the “Special Advertising Sections” started to appear. Ick. I could see through that at 12. The writing actually got a bit childish and “all cars are totally awesome” (had to make an ’80s reference).
A lot of the photo shoots were posed with models putting surfboards into the car or whatever added a cheesy Sears Catalogue feel to the whole thing.
And, for some reason, they never published a top speed like RT, CD and Automobile and I thought that was a big ommission.
What DID happen to C Van Tune, anyways?
Yeah BTEFan MT never seemed to have top speed like Car and Driver had. Now I will give them credit for the Top Speed issues in the late 80’s like the one with the Buick Grand National, Camaro, Trans Am, Mustang GT and Corvette. That was nice work. I also liked the 1990 era “Best bang for the buck” issues. The turbo DSMs were always right there.
Also their road testes (lol) were had slower 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I was wondering if they just had worse drivers or their testing equipment was messed up.
A small quibble. I believe that Motor Trend had improved significantly during the past 12-18 months. More objective, willing to criticize when appropriate, willing to pick winners for the first time in a long while.
However, the WRX article jumped right out of the magazine. A giant leap backwards to the Motor Trend of old.
With Car and Driver a shadow of its former self there’s less and less of interest in the traditional mag business.
@Perkins
I’m inclined to agree with you. Ever since Angus MacKenzie came over to Motor Trend from the British mag CAR, MT has been leagues better than it was. But it’s still not fantastic (nor as good as CAR, even if we don’t account for CAR’s astonishing photography) and this article, as you note, was off the deep end.
“OMG” and “LOL” is still being use everyday…Anyways I really don’t know what’s wrong with Subaru, this is their 4th remodel of the WRX in 7 years. And to tell the truth their 2008 model looks ugly.
Hmf. And I thought “OMGWTFWRX” was the collective response to the redesign.
I saw it at the dealership… they were swamped and didn’t have time to give me the keys, but the front end isn’t nearly so ugly in person. The rear though… they need to stop digging through Ford’s scrap heap.
OMG, MT DOA!
wibblywobbly & IronEagle:
I was just a teenager when the 1991 Caprice Classic “Shamu” won the Car of the Year award.
I was crying because I was laughing so hard when I looked at it on the newstand. My friends thought that I was crazy and didn’t understand why it was so funny.
The funniest thing in life is when people believe their own BS. That is where many of the ills in the auto industry start.
Primedia owns both Automobile and Motor Trend. Car & Driver as well as Road & Track are both owned by Hachette Filipacchi Media. Primedia is trying to sell it’s entire lineup of enthusiast magazines while there is still a market. It seems only a matter of time before these big companies merge together their internally competing magazines. There is really no good reason to keep all four operating in a shrinking market. Put the best writers and staff of Automobile and Motor Trend under one mast head and maybe they will have a fighting chance of remaining relevant. Ditto for C&D and R&T.
“Here on the “internets,” abbreviations like “OMG” and “LOL” haven’t been used by anyone other than Dateline sex predators since 1998.”
I take it someone hasn’t been playing World of Warcraft lately. OMG, LOL, and elaborate agglutinations thereof remain quite common across the interwebs: an example of tongue-in-cheek use of l33t can be found at http://www.rofl.name/asciiart when the site is up.
I decided a year or so ago that when my subscription to C&D runs out, I’m done with the big car magazines. There is one that I get and really like, Hemmings Sport & Exotic Cars is a joy, especially as it specializes in affordable older cars, even going so far as to have a regular monthly article on some unrestored, nearly a beater, older sporty car. And since they don’t ever review new cars, there’s no bias towards advertisers. Very refreshing.
let`s not forget , how average the interiors were in those Subaru of late 80ies and beginning of 90ies. now have a look inside the Tribeca. it is a sky above. all subaru needs is to become a notch more luxurious( and unfortunately add weight), to justify the high prices for their turbo imprezas.( subaru have you checked the price of an infiniti m45 with 339 hp and 4wheel steering?) otherwise Subaru interiors look strippers.( not Legacy or Tribeca though) anyway ,I applaud subaru for being brave. I couldn`t say that about german cars, whose designs I can predict already 5 generations ahead. golf versus civic?
I’m interested in the base model Impreza and how it compares to the Mazda 3. All I’ve been hearing about is that the new WRX sucks. Well, I thought the old one sucked, so maybe that means I’ll like the new one. 25k+ is pretty steep though. The base model still seems to offer decent power. It’s too bad they don’t offer a FWD Impreza. I doubt the 2.5l needs help putting the power to the ground, and I’m not worried about winter traction. There would be benefits in acceleration, fuel mileage, and price.
Nemphre: Not that this topic is the best spot to be talking about other model lines, but here are some points of contention I have with the base-model Impreza:
1) Rear drum brakes
2) No scoop. Looks totally dumb, and similar to every other entry-level vehicle
3) PRICE! AWD and 150hp comes at a premium, and imho immediately puts it in a higher league than the Mazda3
I always wanted a WRX, but I thought they where too fugly… So when SAAB had a 5k off promotion, I bought the SAABaru… Now the WRX is not only uglier, but have a bigger car platform, uh NO THANKS.
As for Motor Trend, who cares…
$ 0.02:
My wife drives a 2006 9-2x 2.5L (NA version). Its very fun to drive and it is relatively inexpensive for the package (w/ all the discounts). The car is not that fast but gives great feedback, and is a ton of fun in the snow. LOL!
Subaru knows how to design and manufacture robust great driving economy cars. Why they hide them is ugly exteriors (and interiors) is beyond me. Maybe they should buy Saab (or GM pay them for taking it) and produce “sporty” designs.
P.S. My wife actually feels that a Sti (Black) is a sexy car… Man, am I lucky! OMG!
P.S.S. MT is a joke. Good for pictures only. I only seem to fill my car fix with TTAC and EVO. We need an American EVO!
“Hemmings Sport & Exotic Cars is a joy”
I second that motion. The companion Hemmings Classic Car is outstanding as well. Sport&Exotic is a misleading name as it really is simply dedicated to imported vehicles while Classic Car is dedicated to ‘merican stuff. Neither gives a hoot about new cars, but there is so much interesting to talk about with the older stuff. These are the only car magazines I still subscribe to. Check ’em out!
I owned a 2005 Saab 9-2x Aero w/ heated seats that I bought in June of 05 for 18,600….227 HP, AWD, wagon, heated seats, 5-spd…for 18,600.
I…perhaps foolishly…traded it in 8-9 months later for a 2006 Honda Civic SI.
Subaru definitely needed to get rid of the rattle-box feel, the doors that vibrated and sounded scary-thin when shutting, and add a plusher interior. It did that…but….
The WRX platform was never about those things. It sold well IN SPITE of those things. It wasn’t about looks either. It was about performance.
And it held well to it’s performance roots all the way through 2007….though it was definitely getting aged.
’08 was a chance for Subaru to reset the bar. A tuned up Legacy GT engine with the SI-Drive system…260 HP and 260 torque would’ve been fine. Make the STI short shifter stock because the stock one stinks. Lower the center of gravity and replace those horrid RE92 tires with some decent factory rubber. Stiffen it up. Use the STI steering rack as the Saab 9-2x Aero did (light steering with fantastic feedback) or improve it in someway. Do what ever other manufacturer has done: improve ride AND handling….
What did they do? Power coming on earlier and with less lag is laudable. A softer ride is great, but not at the expense of handling. They cut 10 MM off the width of the tires!
To their credit, it’s the first car in a LONG time I’ve seen that has gotten lighter in the subsequent generation.
I don’t understand who at Subaru thought this was a good idea: The iconic car that put Subaru back on the map in 2002…the WRX….does not perform as well as the old model. Or where it does perform as well, it doesn’t feel as good.
They need to inject it with a heavy dose of Legacy GT drivetrain, stat. And bring back the 4-piston front brake calipers from the 07 model.
And de-uglify the car!
Joe
One look at the subaru lineup is all that is needed to quickly reach the conclusion that they dont ‘get it’…and this comment is coming from a pretty content 08 Legacy owner.
This new WRX is quite pedestrian…in a Kia sort of way.
WTF?
I was a short time MT subscriber in the early ’90’s until I realized that they never met a car they didn’t like. I still take Automobile because I love the car design analysis’ they do, but I don’t plan on renewing.
Much more psychologically damaging, though, to me was I let C&D lapse after 37 years! My parents gave me a subscription when I was 9 because I loved identifying cars and asking lots of questions; my body and mind were trained to expect my issue to arrive in the mailbox every 4 weeks……
The first aggravation was the “more ads than substance” factor. Secondly, in the last few years everytime I went by a newstand there was the new C&D….but I didn’t receive my subscription until up to 10 days later. In my mind, the subscribers should come first.
Anyway, this would all be a moot point if there was no TTAC….or Autoextremist….or Autoblog…..or Jalopnik.
Having not seen th new WRX in person, I can’t say for sure, but the photo used at the top of the article makes it look like every other econobox out there. Oh, with a hood scoop that they tacked on at the last minute.
I liked the WRX’s because they were unique. Most people who had even a passing interest in cars could pick out a WRX. Now, I’m not so sure. What happened to wanting to stand out in a crowd? If I wanted a car that looked (and apparently drives, from what I’ve read) like a Corolla, I would have bought a Corolla.
Way to suck the life out of an icon, Toyota.
ChrisG,
No hood scoop on the base model? Why put a hood scoop on a car that doesn’t use or need it?
Anyway, I remember this same ‘wretch’ factor when the bugeye Impreza replaced the GC-8 chasis. I also remember people having the same reaction with both front end redesigns. Face it, people. Subaru makes ugly cars, always have, always will. From the Brat, to the XT, to the SVX, I’ve yet to meet a Scooby with styling that didn’t need an acquired taste to appreciate. If I can throw my aftermarket goodies on the new WRX and get the performance out of it that it was originally intended to have, then all the better. You guys see an underperforming wheezer, I see a blank canvas. And that’s a beautiful thing.
quasi:
I know, I know, it’s for deco only… (all show no go, etc. etc.). I just think that the scoop is the only redeeming factor of that new front-end, so do like they did: include it on the NA models too… please…
But I digress. You’re right too – they make ugly cars. It’s just that in this particular case it’s ugly because of its pedestrian styling, not because they took a chance…
Yay, Quasimondo gets it. The Impreza has always been pretty ugly. The new one, which I’ve seen in person and have driven, is not as ugly, in my opinion, as the either the bugeye models or the ’06-’07 models, especially the hatch.
But for people to assume that because the ’08 looks tame compared to previous models and other cars on the market it must drive like a Corolla is pure nonsense.
Except for the longer wheelbase, which in my mind is a welcome adjustment, the WRX is basically the same car it’s always been. It’s got essentially the same power and handling. It drives like…a WRX.
Maybe that’s what people are upset about. Maybe they wanted radical styling…but after the ’06-’07 car, what was Subaru going to do? They have to sell these things, you know. Maybe people wanted more power, but if it ain’t broke… Want more power from a WRX…buy the STI.
I’m not saying MT got it right. They didn’t. The new car does alienate the younger set because it does look pedestrian. But my set, I’m just over 30, has the actual money to buy these things…and I like the more conservative styling.
One glaring problem with the new WRX is the price. I’m a Subaru driver, and was looking forward to the new WRX, but the price on the new one is practically driving me to a GTI or a slightly used TSX…
-Matt
Shouldn’t people who wanted a longer wheelbase just have gotten the Legacy like I did for my wife rather than a WRX. Now that I want to get a Subaru for myself the smaller chassis is gone. I am content with the size of my cars I don’t need them constantly growning every 5 years, how much space does ONE person need. If we grew the way these cars grew we would be huge in a few short years, too late for that one I guess.
I wish Subaru would go in the opposite direction and make a smaller car than the last Impreza. With the old 2liter and a slightly lower boost turbo for a tad better milage.
Redbar:
Amen! Imagine if they would reintroduce the Justy, with modern tech? Wow. Pocket rocket material.
Motor Trend merely offered some opinions on the car.
And Justin offered some “hilarious” opinions on the magazine.
Where is the truth about the car?
wsn -“Where is the truth about the car?”
Probably just about where the updated Mini is, a bit bigger, a bit softer, a bit less exciting, a bit more plush…
A lot more BOOORING
In this time when fuel economy is of high important to sedan and station wagon drivers it seems that Fuji/Subaru’s 1998 decision to only offer all wheel drive vehicles (at least in North America) should be revisited. All wheel drive ads weight and driveline complexity which always results in a fuel economy penalty. For those who have a need for all wheel drive the penalty may be worth paying, but for many people it makes no difference and the penalty isn’t worth the cost. All wheel drive also ads inexorably to the cost of the vehicle.
As much as I love compact station wagons, these factors have kept me from buying a Subaru. Now if Subaru took the money they were spending on all wheel drive components and spent it on interior upgrades they might have easily gotten into my wallet. Here in the San Francisco bay area all wheel drive is pretty much irrelevant.
“Here in the San Francisco bay area all wheel drive is pretty much irrelevant.”
And yet, every third car seems to be an Outback or Forester (or Prius, or V70, or…)
It’s an excellent point, though. AWD has lost a fair amount of the fashion cred it had in the late ’90s.
I think there is an obvious flaw in the “but WRXs have always been ugly” argument. The problem isn’t that the new WRX is ugly, it’s that it’s horribly boring.
I mean, the bug-eyed WRX models and the goofy-nosed recent version were ugly, but at least they didn’t look like anything else on the road.
The rear end of the new WRX sedan looks exactly like a 2005 Kia Rio. The front end looks like a Chrysler Sebring mixed with a Toyota Corolla.
The old one, on the other hand, looked like… um… some sort of jetfighter-warthog-alfaromeo mating experiment? Sure, the STi was way overdone (compared to the only slightly overdone Evo). And my dear old mum always said something derogatory about the hood scoop on the normal WRX when I drove one to her place during an extended test drive.
But at least she SAID something.
The new WRX will be a breath of fresh air to Subaru. Folks who used to not be interested are now, folks who were interested have already got one or can buy a pre-owned.
There’s a reason that the mileage is 19/24…folks sprint red light to red light. :) But never fear, if you stay out of the turbo during the commute you’ll easily do better than the posted mileage.
I bought this months MT to read up on the WRX. OMFG what a waste! I had to ROFLMAO. WTF kind of article is that?!
Sadly, their reviews of all the 2008 models are sorely lacking. They give the new Honda Accord a 3.5 star rating, yet admit they haven’t driven it yet! They give the Subaru Legacy 2.5 stars…yet this site raved about it.
I think I’ll stick with TheTruthAboutCars.com…I don’t mind that MT tries to brown nose…but they must be doing a ton of meth/crack/pot before writing those fictional articles…oops…reviews.
Toyota can put WRX out of it’s misery by introducing AWD Corolla with TRD supercharger.
They don’t need to introduce anything, all they have to do is bring over the Caldina. The 3SGTE has enough sporting pedigree to satisfy weekend rally drivers.
Or Mitsu could bring over the Lancer Evolution Wagon, I imagine either one will put a significant damper on Subaru’s success.
wow MT got totally pwnt!!!