There are not many Japanese cars with cachet. The Subaru WRX is one of them. For years both Subaru and Mitsubishi have successfully raced high-powered all-wheel-drive versions of their subcompacts in brutal rallies over lengthy unpaved roads. In Japan and Europe, they have successfully sold detuned yet still very powerful versions of these cars to the public. With about 275 horsepower in 3200 lb. cars, they are very fast. With all-wheel-drive, they are very secure. And at about $35,000 they are quite expensive for Japanese subcompacts, but quite cheap for quasi-race cars. To the chagrin of a good number of American enthusiasts, these cars for years were not available in the U.S. Instead, we had to settle for Subaru’s 165-horsepower 2.5 RS. While the RS had the looks of the rally car, it didn’t have the power to go with them. This was at least better than Mitsubishi, which continued to offer only underpowered front-wheel-drive powertrains in its subcompacts.
For 2002, Subaru moved a bit closer to offering Americans what everyone else is getting by introducing a WRX version of its redesigned Impreza. Though still not the WRX STi available elsewhere, the WRX did include a 2.0-liter DOHC turbocharged four good for 227 horsepower at 6000 RPM. A viscous limited-slip rear differential was also been thrown into the mix to help transfer this power to the road, paved or otherwise. Best of all, the WRX cost only $24,500. Seen one way, this was a bit steep. It was nearly five grand more than the RS, which other than the engine, slightly larger front rotors, limited-slip differential, fog lights, and in-dash CD changer was virtually the same car. Since the additional content costs at most one-third that increment, Subaru is making some money here. On the other hand, the only other car offering similar performance was the $40,000 Audi S4. (Click on the hyperlinks to read my reviews of related vehicles.) If you wanted an ultra-high-performance all-wheel-drive compact, the WRX was bargain. It turned out that many people did want such a car, and sales exceeded everyone’s expectations.
I drove the WRX soon after its introduction. My review can be found here. My main issue with the car was its awkward exterior styling. The round headlights simply did not fit the angular body. For the 2004 model year (which began in the summer of 2003) Subaru has freshened the Impreza, and the WRX with it. Notably, the front end has been entirely redesigned.
The success of the WRX prodded Mitsubishi to begin offering its WRX competitor, the Lancer-based Evo VIII, in the U.S. in the summer of 2003. Not to be upstaged, Subaru finally introduced its WRX STi to the American market at about the same time. To one-up the Mitsubishi’s 271-horsepower, 2-liter engine, the U.S. version of the STi is powered by a 300-horsepower 2.5-liter. Sadly, I have yet to drive either. I have a policy of not lying about my purchase intent, and the dealers around me won’t let these out on a test drive unless you say you’re likely to buy one that day.
Thus, you’re stuck with my impressions of the regular WRX. During a visit to my closest Subaru dealer to check out the also new Forester turbo I took a second test drive in the WRX. This time around the salesperson did not come along, so I got a better feel for the car. I’ve also had a chance to drive the Evo’s little brother, the Lancer Ralliart. Unlike my original review of the 2004 Impreza, this one includes comparisons with the Ralliart.
With the 2004 redesign the Subaru Impreza (and WRX with it) largely regains the undistinguished, purposeful appearance of pre-2002 Imprezas. The sedan retains the odd trunklid styling of the 2002, but somehow it offends much less now that the round headlights are gone. Many will find the sedan boxy and boring, but I personally find the stealth nature of the car a major draw. The wagon remains rounder and smoother in appearance, as it lacks the sedan’s sharply defined fender flares. On the downside, the wagon’s slabbier sides make the 16-inch wheels appear on the small side, The same wheels look better on the sedan. Much better-looking larger wheels are available as dealer-installed options, but these are so expensive that aftermarket wheels make more sense. Subaru should offer 17s as a factory option.
The Lancer in non-Evo form is larger than the Subaru, but somehow looks more downscale and pedestrian. A totally blah design.
Inside the Subaru WRX, no stylist tried to do anything wacky. The interior is very cleanly and efficiently designed. Unlike that of the VW Jetta, it is clearly the interior of an economy car, but aside from the lightweight doors that have long blessed many Japanese small cars the materials seem solid and of good quality. Or at least this was what I thought the last time around. Since driving the Impreza-based Forester, I have wondered why the Impreza can’t have a similarly stylish, premium quality interior.
The Ralliart’s interior is much the same, maybe a bit more stylish but nothing to make you forget you’re in a modified economy car. Especially since the materials don't seem quite as good as the Subaru's.
For 2004, the instruments of the WRX have been redesigned. The tach and speedometer swap spots, putting the former directly ahead of the driver. Nice. Stylistically, the instruments now have thicker silver bezels. They take the interior a bit closer to that of the Forester.
Two parts of the WRX’s interior deserve special mention: the steering wheel and the seats. The shape and texture of the leather Momo wheel feels wonderful, both sitting still and in action. In the 2002 and 2003, the seats were very firm but provided excellent support, both while cruising and tackling the curves. For 2004 the WRX gets new seats with integrated headrests. Why integrate the headrests? I suppose because this way the seats look more like those in a true rally car.
The new seats feel neither as supportive nor as comfortable as those I recall in the 2002. However, the car I drove had aftermarket leather, and this undoubtedly affected my evaluation. (Although it looks nice, the leather is slipperier than the standard cloth and affects the seats’ shape.) Sitting in a cloth-trimmed car, the seat bolsters feel firm and effective.
When I reviewed the 2002 I criticized Subaru’s decision to offer only a black cloth interior with blue seat inserts, since the inserts clashed with some exterior colors. For 2004 this problem is gone. Now the only interior is black with web-like woven gray cloth on the seat faces. Unlike the blue inserts, the gray cloth extends beyond the seats’ center panels to the faces of the bolsters. The effect is sportier, but less upscale. It also robs the interior of the only bit of color it had.
The Ralliart’s seats similarly offer good lateral support. The driving position is lower relative to the instrument panel, such that from the driver’s seat the car feels significantly larger than the WRX.
Room in the WRX’s front seats is just right based on my tastes, tight enough to make you feel connected to the car but not so tight as to feel cramped. A high driving position coupled with a fairly low dash conveys excellent visibility. The rear seat is pretty good considering the small size of the car. The seat cushion is fairly high, providing better thigh support than many larger cars. The weakest area of the rear seat is knee room. If the person in the front seat is over six feet, the rear seat passenger will have to sit with their knees to each side of the front seatback. Since I’m 5Í”, my rear passengers would not have this problem.
The Mitsubishi’s rear seat in larger in some dimensions, especially legroom, but its cushion provides less thigh support.
Trunk space in the sedan is about average for this size car. Ditto the wagon’s cargo space, which is a bit on the small side as long as the rear seats are up. The sedan’s versatility is limited by a rear seat that does not fold down (though a pass-through is provided behind the fold-down armrest). Though I suspect they did this to enhance the body’s rigidity, I have used the fold-down seat in my current sedan many times. If you desire more versatility, then look at the wagon. That the wagon for some reason costs $500 LESS than the sedan might make this choice easier to swallow.
I have not looked closely at the Ralliart wagon, but at a glance it appears both less attractive and more practical than the WRX. Frankly, it looks like a 1990s Volvo.
On the Road
Since the styling isn’t going to sell the Subaru WRX, it had better perform well. And it does. As expected, it is very fast. Pop the clutch at high RPM and the WRX will hit 60 in about five-and-a-half seconds. Drive as if it’s got to last and it’ll take just another second. Still very fast.
In my 2002 review I had the following to say about the engine:
“Less expected is the smoothness of the engine. I tend to prefer the sound and feel of sixes. Fours tend to be buzzy and a bit rough. The WRX’s engine, aided by the flat configuration it shares with all Subaru engines, is smoother than nearly every four I’ve ever driven. Even lugged at 1500 RPM it’s smooth. It also somehow lacks the strange sounds of some past Subaru engines. I still prefer the sound and feel of a six, but this is a four I could live with. It never sounds raucous or strained. For such a high-performance engine, it’s not even particularly loud. The turbo’s whoosh is audible, but just enough to help you sense the arrival of boost (a boost gauge is a dealer installed option).”
Well, this time I drove the WRX after driving the Forester with Subaru’s new mildly turbocharged 2.5-liter (good for 210 horsepower). That engine is considerably smoother and quieter than the WRX’s 2.0. In comparison, the WRX engine sounds high strung and even raucous when pushed. I noted far more mechanical noises than I did the last time around. I suppose this underhood symphony contributes to the car’s fun character for some people, but it left me wanting an engine in between the two in refinement if this was to be a daily driver and not just a weekend toy. Perhaps a 250-horsepower 2.5-liter. (A 300-horsepower version of the 2.5 powers the STi, while a detuned 210-horsepower version of this engine powers turbo models of the Forester and Baja.)
Ah, but what about boost lag? The magazines have mildly complained about it. However, I didn’t really notice any unless I lugged the engine below 2500 RPM or so. The lower gears are fairly steep, and the engine revs easily and quickly. Boost lag in the WRX is certainly far less than that in the 1988 Celica All-trac I once owned. In general I found it easy to get the amount of boost I needed when I needed it; boost lag did not hinder my ability to drive the WRX quickly along winding roads that call for precise modulation of horsepower (as it does some turbocharged cars).
The Ralliart engine is more comparable to the non-turbo 2.5-liter four in the Impreza RS than the 2.0-liter turbo four in the WRX. I have not driven the RS, so I cannot comment on its performance. Although the Ralliart is not as quick as the WRX, and lacking all-wheel-drive cannot blast as strongly out of corners, it felt plenty strong for at least 95 percent of the driving I’d do on public roads. And without a turbo, there’s never any lag.
The WRX’s shifter feels precise, with just the right amount of notchiness as it goes into each gear. I never missed a shift, even when pushing the car hard. A dealer-installed kit is available for shorter throws.
The Ralliart shifter comes with much shorter, firmer throws straight from the factory. It’s perhaps the best I’ve sampled in a front-drive car, but if you prefer your shifters ultra-light this one might rub you the wrong way. The knob is a leather-wrapped ball that I find more comfortable than many of the trendy knows on the market today. For one thing you can grab it and not just flick it with your fingertips. I’m not big on the fingertip jobs (as seen in many Acuras).
One reason I wouldn’t buy the Ralliart: you can’t get a manual transmission in the wagon.
Though a bit lighter in effort and slower to react than I prefer, the WRX’s steering is precise and provides decent if not great feedback. The wonderful Momo wheel helps.
The Ralliart’s steering is firmer than the WRX’s, and has a direct feel I’ve otherwise only found in small sports cars (like the Miata and MR2). Very nice. Between the shifter and the steering, I’m thinking I might really like the Evo.
The WRX maintains its composure even if you do crazy stuff. In the 2002 I floored the car from a stop with the wheel turned fairly hard to the left. The rear end stepped out a bit, just as you’d want it to, but remained well under control. I detected no torque steer. This time around I drove the WRX hard along some winding roads. Due to the all-wheel-drive and conservative tuning, the WRX’s chassis feels very stable and safe even as it approaches its limits. Unlike some other high-performance cars (such as the Honda S2000), never could I provoke it to suddenly give way. When thrown too fast into a turn the WRX reacts with moderate lean, mild understeer, and some numbness. Lift off the throttle and it safely scrubs speed. I never felt as if the tail was about to break loose, even when provoked. Very safe. But safe is not often fun. I did not mind the amount of lean in turns, but I would personally appreciate a chassis with a bit more edginess to it. Designing a rearward bias into the all-wheel-drive system, as Jaguar did with the X-Type, would help.
Although front-wheel-drive, the Ralliart feels very balanced in hard turns. It leans less than the WRX, and generally has a tighter feel. Again more to my liking.
Ride quality is a pleasant surprise. For a high-performance car the WRX rides well. Perhaps because the tires have a decent amount of sidewall, they lack the jitteriness of the tires on many performance cars. Large road imperfections upset the car a bit, likely due to the Impreza’s relatively short wheelbase, but the small and medium stuff tends to be absorbed well.
The Ralliart does not ride as well, but is still far from punishing.
Road and wind noise are about average for a current Japanese compact, which is to say hardly luxury car territory but much better than small cars of years past. The WRX is certainly quiet enough for extended drives. It helps that the engine spins at 2500 RPM at 60. In top gear it is much more relaxed than the engine in, say, a Toyota Celica or Acura RSX. That said, a slightly more powerful version of the Forester XT’s 2.5-liter would considerably boost the level of refinement.
Subaru WRX Pricing and Price Comparisons
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The base WRX wagon lists for $24,545, the sedan for $500 more. A number of port and/or dealer installed trim and audio accessories are available. A few of these tend to be tacked onto any WRX you’ll find on a dealer’s lot, but I’ll ignore them (like the $1,100 aftermarket leather in the car I test drove) for now.
Those willing to sacrifice handling for a more luxurious interior and altogether more upscale character should check out the VW Jetta, which undercuts the WRX by a grand or two even in six-cylinder form (sedan only; for wagons the top engine is a 180-horspower 1.8-liter turbo). Other alternatives undercut the Subaru by several thousand dollars. A less powerful but still fun-to-drive front-wheel-drive compact worth considering is the Ford Focus SVT. For sheer thrust in this price range, the Dodge Neon SRT-4 is hard to beat. But I could not live with its obnoxious exhaust note.
The Ralliart is much less expensive. After a $1,500 rebate and dealer discount the price falls to about $16,000—less than the RS, much less the WRX. Add about $1,200 for the sunroof/sound system option package.
Ultimately, I guess it matters how much all-wheel-drive stability is worth to you. If it’s a requirement, the WRX is by far the least expensive all-wheel-drive high-performance car you can buy. Mitsubishi’s Evo comes closest, and after that you’re looking at a far more expensive Audi.
Last Words
The bottom line is that if you want a ton of bang for the buck, the WRX will not disappoint. Especially not if you want your fun to be safe. I said I would boost my rating from four to five stars if Subaru fixed the styling. They did, so I have. Still, my more extended test drive this time around left me with a new wish list. Namely, I’d like a 2.5-liter engine that falls between the Forester XT and WRX STi in tuning, sharper and quicker steering, some rearward bias in the all-wheel-drive system, a more solid feel to the doors, and an interior more like that in the Forester. Maybe in 2006?
This is assuming you need as much power as the WRX offers. If you can afford to spend between seven and eight seconds to get to sixty, the Ralliart costs a lot less while handling a bit better and including fantastic steering and shift feel. A shame it looks so terribly uncool, even compared to the dorky Impreza. For less steering sharpness and less verve from the engine but a more upscale look and feel, check out the Mazda3. And if you must have WRX-level power, a Mazdaspeed version of the 3 should be on the way.
Ultimately, I'm in between four and five stars on this car. My original review of the 2004 gave it five stars, in part because I said I would if they fixed the front end styling. But after driving the Lancer Ralliart I'd like crisper steering and shifting in the WRX, so this time I'm back down to four.
A Note on Subaru Impreza Reliability
I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.
Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an Impreza WRX rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Subaru Impreza reliability comparisons.
Before I can report results, I need reliability data on all cars--not just the Impreza--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.
For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.
A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.