Any previous Subaru Impreza owners?

k757 said:
the tests are bogus as once you add hills, the FWD will fail miserably in comparison. In the real world, go with thte 4WD
Click to expand...
I think the test reflects the reality of many cities. I find the current gen base Impreza slower than a 1.8 Civic going by the feel of the seat, not their official numbers, so it is a trade off more grip on hills and deep snow or faster on regular roads with less than 6 inches of snow. In the summer Civic will be more fun, in the winter not as good as the Impreza but mostly on hills or heavy snow or ice when again the diff won''t be huge since you're not flying on the roads anyways.

The previous base Impreza yes was a better car if the price was the same as a 1.8 Civic but it also had 170 HP and torque and a bigger engine. If they still had that for the base I would have agreed, current gen is disappointing though. Better fuel economy but the fun is just gone they ditched the enthusiasts for the drivers afraid of sliding on snow and ice that want good fuel economy despite a slow emotionless car. If you didn't test one I encourage all to go test one, as sweet as the WRX / STI is just as disappointing the base is.

Add in that in other countries a base Impreza costs 1k less than an Si and situation changes even more. In Canada an Si with some negotiation goes to the same price as a base Impreza (they do not negotiate and have huge rates for financing compared to other brands, almost double)
 
k757 said:
the tests are bogus as once you add hills, the FWD will fail miserably in comparison. In the real world, go with thte 4WD
Click to expand...

that's absolutely false. i have no problem with uphill in my FWD car in the snow (even on all seasons)... RWD is trash uphill, the FWD is fine... as good as AWD? no. failing miserably? not at all.

having said that, the test is stupid for one simple reason:
it's trying to say "can you save a ton of $$ and just get winter tires vs AWD" ... well sort of ... AWD is a 1 time cost up front, plus worse gas mileage vs the FWD versions of the same vehicle (cost over time)
this cost over time is not an insignificant number. the problem here lies in the aspect of winter tires. they aren't 'cheap' and, if you drive a lot in the winter (like anybody with, you know, a JOB) then they wear down rather quickly, especially in areas that arent 100% snow'd in all the time (say a warm/dry winter season happens sometimes)... thus tires are not a 1 time cost either, and will be a general upkeep over time, which must be subtracted from the general fuel change over time...

example i'll use the mazda cx5 which comes in FWD and AWD variants since very few CARS offer FWD vs AWD variants (especially in the sub 30k price range):

2013 cx5 FWD: 26city, 32hwy, 29 combined
2013 cx5 AWD: 25city, 31hwy, 28 combined

average miles per year are 12k for my #'s here.
winter tires are generally put in in early november and removed in mid march, thus giving 18 weeks, or 34.6% of the year with these tires on, equating to roughly 4100 miles per year on the winters, most people say 50k for snowtires used exclusively in snow, but as we know that isn't the case, most people get about 3 years out of them if treated properly, so we'll use that as a #.

FWD: 12000 / 32 = 375 gallons
AWD: 12000 / 31 = 388 gallons

average of 13 gallons per YEAR with that vehicle, at about $4.00 a gallon is roughly $52 in the year in this case, compared to a set of about $800 for snow tires every 3 years, add in another $40-60 a year for the twice a year tire swap if you don't do it yourself.
tires wear faster on AWD vehicles due to the fact that tire rotation doesn't do as much as it does on FWD, but in this case? the mazda is about $1300+tax for AWD vs FWD, so in this case, there is no reason NOT to get the AWD in this vehicle.

comparing an impreza to a civic is diff due to their gas mileage differences:

2012 civic auto mpg: 28/39 with 36 combined
2012 impreza cvt mpg: 27/36 with 33 combined

the 3mpg difference @ 12k miles is about 333 gallons for civic vs 364 for impreza, or 31 gallons equates to about $124 over a YEAR at $4.0 per gallon

in the end, the impreza will win out long term cost wise if you are doing snow tires every 3 years in this case as well, b/c $800+ for snow tires every 3 years is > $375 in gas

these calculations use 12k miles per year, so if you drive more, obviously the impreza gap narrows COST wise, if you drive less, the impreza becomes more valuable. if you drive more highway, the civic gap widens due to the +3mpg on the highway, if you drive more in the city, they are almost identical, thus the impreza narrows the gap again

sorry for the long post. i just wanted to say that i agree that the test is bullsh*t, but not for the reason you said, but for the sheer fact that the cost over TIME is much closer than people realize, b/c the video is predicated on up front cost of AWD vs snow tires, and is not factoring in fuel, which nowadays, on some vehicles AWD vs 2WD is a HUGE fuel diff, and on others (as i showed in the mazda) it is basically a wash :)


i will stand by what i said earlier. impreza 2.0 vs civic 1.8 models, it's pretty much a wash... civic is a little nicer for 2013 interior and amenity wise, impreza has the AWD and isn't far behind in the amenities department. unless you are going WRX/STI vs SI, then it really comes down to personal preference in looks, ergonomics, and how badly you want AWD, b/c on paper cost wise, there isn't much difference in the regular "pedestrian" models !!
 
just an update:
one of my best friends lives in upstate NY (rochester) and has been driving a previous gen focus ST for a few years no (06 i think?).
he loves the car, and is one of those guys who wants a quick, fun to drive manual vehicle, that still returns good fuel economy, and won't break the bank to buy
he's test drove a myriad of vehicles, because he's considered switching to AWD (he had his heart set before the test drives) due to the rochester weather, everything from base model civic's and fits, up to loaded out wrx, sti, and even some small SUV's (mazda cx5, etc)
the list of cars he told me he's driven in the last 6 months (he has gone back and re-driven every vehicle at least a second time after driving others in between)
-acura TSX
-acura ILX (2.4L and base model)
-ford focus hatch
-ford focus sedan
-ford focus ST (base and with the seat upgrades)
-mazda3 sedan and hatch
-mazdaspeed3
-jetta base
-jetta GLI
-GTI 2dr and 4dr
-civic LX and EX
-civic SI
-impreza sedan and hatch (stick and CVT)
-WRX base and premium
-STI sedan
-subaru legacy (base and GT)
-mazda cx5 and cx7
-honda CRV
-ford escape
-honda accord (sedan and coupe, v6 in the cope with 6sp)
-toyota matrix
-toyota corolla
-toyota rav4
-hyundai elantra
-hyundai accent
-hyundai tucson
-mini cooper (base and S)
-nissan juke
-nissan sentra
-nissan altima v6
-audi a3
-dodge dart
-dodge charger RT AWD
-fiat 500 (base and abarth)
-subaru forester (base and XT)
-subaru outback

he drove the SI back in august, and loved it, but didn't pull the trigger. months later, he has driven everything on that list at least twice, and came to this conclusion:

favorite vehicle to drive - 3way tie: Focus ST, Civic SI, WRX

he just put a down payment on a new SI that is arriving from the factory soon. his reasons were as i stated earlier in this thread, he felt it was the most "complete" of the bunch in terms of what it offers for the price for what he needed (he deemed the WRX overkill for his spirited driving habits, and he deemed the Focus ST too much $$ b/c you have to buy the interior seat package as the base sucks, and he is not a HUGE fan of hatches, prefers sedans, he said if the ST came in a sedan it would have been a much closer choice)

he couldn't stand the base impreza (or civic), although he preferred the civic's engine and shifter to the base impreza (which he described as painfully slow), he actually REALLY liked the legacy GT overall, but thought it was a little pricy and a little large for his tastes
 
I currently have an 09 Impreza and a 2012 SI, duhh, no comparison. The Impreza is the base model with the 2.5 w/5mt. We get a combined 27.1 in the last 30,000 miles. This is the wifes car as she has to drive to work in the snow for the 4 weeks out of the year that we get bad weather. This came after having a 2004 Pilot, so anything was going to be better on fuel mileage. She loves the car and was thinking of getting a new Impreza, but the new cars are dog slow and not very appealing to look at. Plus she has the 09 in Paprika Red Pearl, which they no longer have. This is about what she has, although with the little wrx spoiler and aftermarket wheels. Overall the car is a great commuter and has decent performance, ohh and the AWD really allows for AWESOME AWD figure 8's in the snow.
 

Attachments

  • 31588052.jpg
    31588052.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 2
None2Slow said:
I currently have an 09 Impreza and a 2012 SI, duhh, no comparison. The Impreza is the base model with the 2.5 w/5mt. We get a combined 27.1 in the last 30,000 miles. This is the wifes car as she has to drive to work in the snow for the 4 weeks out of the year that we get bad weather. This came after having a 2004 Pilot, so anything was going to be better on fuel mileage. She loves the car and was thinking of getting a new Impreza, but the new cars are dog slow and not very appealing to look at. Plus she has the 09 in Paprika Red Pearl, which they no longer have. This is about what she has, although with the little wrx spoiler and aftermarket wheels. Overall the car is a great commuter and has decent performance, ohh and the AWD really allows for AWESOME AWD figure 8's in the snow.
Click to expand...
I would hold on to the prev gen Impreza, as you say new gens are very disappointing. More fuel efficient maybe but super bland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top