I have run a 2004 WRX from new. For the first 18 months of its life I did a 100 mile daily commute from Denham to Romford around the M25. My experience was considerably different to those above:
1. Tyres - replaced after 31K miles still with 3.0mm on. Sticking to the original Bridgestone RE050s. And this was not dawdling round the bends either. If you're changing tyres at 5 to 10K either your tracking's out or you're doing doughnuts at Maccy D's.
2. Ride and noise. On the motorway? Fine. Some of the concrete sections can be a bit noisy (tyre noise) but otherwise fine. Engine's doing about 3000 rpm at 80. I preferred the firmer suspension on the motorway - when hitting some of the dips on the northern section the car always felt in control and didn't pitch for ages afterwards.
3. Fuel consumption - 29-31mpg on the motorway, no matter how fast you went. Range 310 miles.
4. Servicing - every 10000 miles. I've had one set of brake pads in 50K miles....no discs, clutches.
5. Reliability - nothing has gone wrong....not even a bulb...in 3.5 years and 50K
My previous car for that journey was a Merc E240. Certainly a little quieter on the motorway but very unreliable and a bit of a wallowy boat. The journey, even on the M25, was always something to look forward to in the WRX.....go for it!
Paul
|
PST
With all due respect (from tyre, clutch and brake life) it sounds like you drove your Impreza in straight lines. They are not as bad as some make out, but they are fairly heavy on tyres and brakes. Obviously clutch wear is proportional to use, but there's not much power low down (pre-boost) so Impreza turbo owners tend to gun the engine a bit when pulling out of junction etc. and so clutch life tends to shortened a bit.
"Fuel consumption - 29-31mpg on the motorway, no matter how fast you went. Range 310 miles."
Do you really mean that?
I think I could get 30mpg out of a WRX on cruise, but only by driving fairly gingerly.
"Engine's doing about 3000 rpm at 80".
Gearing is approx 23mph/1000rpm, so 3000rpm = 70mph approx. IME Impreza speedo always read 5-10% fast when compared against a GPS.
Road noise is a bit of a problem. The suspension bushes are pretty hard and so (esp. with 17" wheels) a fair bit of noise comes through into the cabin. Wind noise is modest. You can hear the motor, but it makes a distinctive thrum, which I personally like to hear although I agree some people would find it tiresome on a longish journey.
I agree that they are very reliable cars though, and that can offset the higher than average daily running costs.
|
Aprilia,
I just took it out for a spin to confirm the engine speed :) ...2600 rpm at an indicated 70 and 3100 rpm at an indicated 80 - nearly an 11% speedo error on your figures.
But you're correct - for the first 40K miles it was mostly straight lines on the M25. But this is what the OP indicated his car was going to be used for. So to say a new set of 4 tyres every 5K is a bit misleading with this application (I know that wasn't you). In addition, I have done 18K on the latest tyres which is a relatively little motorway and mostly rural A & B roads and they're still at 4mm.
I can see clutch wear being a potential issue. Again as you say it does tend to "bog" down from a standing start. Around town you do find yourself having to ride the clutch in 2nd as you pull away from junctions so it's not as nippy as your average hatch in that respect. But mines feels fine after 50K and with the OPs motorway use I wouldn't have thought wear to be any worse than any other car.
29-31mpg on motorways, yes. It improved for some reason at 10,000 miles but that's what I get. In France on a long autoroute run it's slightly better. Around town I haven't managed to get worse than 26mpg. If the OP goes for a PPP then this might suffer.
Road noise - I agree it's very subjective but personally I've not found it much worse than some other cars I've driven but then I'm quite happy listening to the environment and rarely have the radio on.
I find the major expense on this car is insurance - I'm paying about £60 per month with full ncb and over 40 etc etc.
Paul
|
I would check your speedo against a GPS. On the latest (2.5) WRX the final drive is definitely 23-and-a-bit mph/1000rpm. A true 70mph comes up pretty much dead on 3000rpm. Yours will be a 2.0, but IIRC the final drive ratio is much the same. A 10% speedo error on a Subaru would not be exceptional - this would also account for your 'good' mpg since the odo would be out by the same amount.
I take your point about tyres etc - if these cars are gently driven then good tyre and brake life etc is entirely possible. The snag is that if the power is there then there's a temptation to use it! Tyres at 5k would be unlikely, but tyres at 12-15k not... You would not believe how some people drive these cars.
Satisfaction with a car like this is very much a personal thing - some love the noise and 'sound and fury' and others not. I'm a big fan of Subaru's because I think the whole range is well engineered and I like the way they have taken a single engine/drivetrain concept and run with it and refined it. I'm definitely a fan, but the turbo models should be approached with caution by those who just want 'a car'. For various reasons I am not a great fan of turbo's in general, so I think it a pity they didn't give us the option of the 2.5 non-turbo engine sold in Aus and US, that would have been a very well-rounded car with broader appeal than the turbo.
|
Interesting! So I should be safe on the speed cameras but I'm increasing my depreciation by showing more miles than I've actually done.
But I agree on the satisfaction front. It's not the most attractive car but it seems to do most things well and some things very well. It'll be a sad day when it has to go. It'll be interesting too to see Subaru's diesel boxer engine which I read about somewhere!
As an aside does anyone know why all Subarus have frameless doors? I've had two answers from Subaru dealers - one was to save weight. The second was that because Australia is one of Subarus biggest markets, if you're in the outback on your own and turn the car over, it's relatively easy for you to climb out whereas a door frame would make it harder.
I like the sound of the last explanation even if it isn't true.
|
|
I'd just like to make the point that the M62 (ok depends which bit), or most of the m62 is not steady cruising - its stop start, fast slow, quick quick slow, foxtrot or tango
|
|
|
I suspect the reason for the pillarless doors is styling. Years back a lot of cars (particularly in the US) had pillarless doors because it was considered 'sporting'.
Incidentally, I had a new-model Impreza as a rental car in Tokyo earlier this month (the new hatch - based on a shortened version of new Legacy platform) and that had door frames.
|
|
The new version was tested on Fifth Gear last week. Dreadfully bland looking.
|
im interested in the tax situation.
Fuel is on a card, so company pays? BIK on that would might make it make sense, but i assume the car is not a company car coz the bik on one of those (especially a 2nd hand one) would be nuts (guestimate of nearly 3k a year for higher rate payer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
PST,
29-31 mpg from an Impreza? Do you ever go above 65mph?
31k miles from a set of tyres? Does the car ever see a B-road, or even a roundabout?
I owned mine for four years and over 60k miles, and averaged 24-26 mpg in mixed driving. Fuel consumption is a popular topic of discussion among Impreza owners and, with respect, I have NEVER encountered anyone claiming these sort of figures before. Either your car was an entirely atypical example, or you are the lightest-footed Impreza driver in the world, or you need a new calculator!!
As for the tyre life, I suppose this is feasible, but only if the car is seldom, if ever, driven as it was designed to be.
I agree about the reliability, though. These cars are built to the highest standards.
|
I do go above 65 in the right time and place, yes, round bends and all sorts! I've regularly bounced it off the limiter through the gears (bad driving technique rather than on purpose) and have had the inside of the car filled with clutch smoke on more than one occasion.
My 29-31mpg claim is motorway driving. Mixed driving it's never been less than 26 but it's near that mark. So if you add on the speedo/odo discrepancy talked about earlier we're not too far apart. But I will go out soon with a GPS and double check the discrepancy.
I've seen similar figures for tyre life from the scoobynet forum. I've also seen much lower. Brand of tyre, compound, driving style will all give rise to variations. Not least of which is the model of WRX. Again I've heard that "bug-eye" and classic models had a greater appetite for tyres than later models.
But my original point remains, I don't think a WRX is a ridiculous choice for a regular motorway commute. (Plus it does have aircon and the servicing would be every 22 weeks, not 15)
|
The OP posts regularly on here with a wide range of weird choices for cars for his wife (?) to commute from Yorkshire to Manchester city centre. This is the latest in a long line of posts where the same comment comes up - the firm pays the fuel bill.
The fuel bill is the least of your worries! Try depreciation, servicing costs, insurance and....Sitting in traffic on the M62 is a nightmare. I would want an economical, comfortable automatic, not a gas guzzling, hard riding noise machine. Golf Tdi with DSG, older Merc C200CDi with auto. Not an Imprezza and that comes from a Subaru lover.
Rubber - get your priorities right, or I'll start to think you are a wind up merchant and troll.
|
or I'll start to think you are a wind up merchant and troll.
And the star prize goes to Espada.
|
|
|
|
1. Tyres - replaced after 31K miles still with 3.0mm on. Sticking to the original Bridgestone RE050s. And this was not dawdling round the bends either. If you're changing tyres at 5 to 10K either your tracking's out or you're doing doughnuts at Maccy D's.
It's probably more due to hanging the back end out for a quarter mile stretch on a fairly regular basis. What's the point of owning a car like this if you're not going to drive the car as it was designed to be driven.
Mind you, I've got through a set of caterham rear tyres in 800 miles, though at £45 a corner and replaceable in pairs rather than fours its a lot cheaper fun.
Aprilas comments that clutch and tyre life have both improved on more recent cars are good to hear. I'd consider another scooby now, though I suspect it'll be a while before I get bored of the Boxster I distractedly bought last week.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
|
|
|
