RE: Goodbye STI - Subaru calls time on the WRX

[rossub]

plenty said:

rossub said:

Disagree. I'm fairly sure I piss quite a few people off with my fast overtakes, so getting sub 20 all the time must mean you're pissing people off on a daily basis.

Ah right, the old "anyone who drives quicker than I do must be a dick" thing.

Most of my Impreza driving is done between 5-8 on a Sunday morning, or in rural Wales or Scotland, or in Europe. I prefer to find times and places where I can enjoy my drives to the fullest. And I'd like to think that I don't piss people off with overtakes.

So what you're saying is that all of your driving in the Impreza is 'fun' driving. Why on earth are you even commenting on mpg when that's what you use it for!!!

A lot of my driving is commuting and overtaking fkwits driving at 40 - hence pissing them off. I get that 24 because most of my driving is not ragging the arse off it on a Sunday morning

[rovermorris999]

So what we've learnt here is that when hooning an Impreza does not many mpg and in normal driving, which for most people is most of the time, it'll return low to mid 20's or more on a long run when cruising. Who knew?

[Justin-xiyf2]

rossub said:

You'd have to be driving like a dick to average sub 20 mpg all the time.

My Spec C RA with the even less fuel efficient twin scroll turbo averages 24 mpg.

Guessing this comment is from someone who’s owned neither a P1 or an Evo X 400. Usually the way. Why on earth would I make this up? I drove the cars as dailies. That’s the mpg I got just pottering about. For comparison, the 2016 Civic Type R I had last year averaged in the late 30s/low 40s doing the same thing. This year’s M2 does mid to late 20s and is 3 litre with much more power. Ive owned a lot of cars. I don’t buy cars to surface them on weekends. They are machines to be used, not preserved. Jeez, you add a comment to contribute and there’s always some ar5ehole hater with a comment.

Edited by Justin-xiyf2 on Sunday 5th November 21:53

[daemon]

rovermorris999 said:

So what we've learnt here is that when hooning an Impreza does not many mpg and in normal driving, which for most people is most of the time, it'll return low to mid 20's or more on a long run when cruising. Who knew?

Agreed.

However the reality is you can get "similar" power with less compromises in a more palatable package with nigh on 50% better fuel economy AND (up until Apr 2017) half the price to tax.

All of that was all very well when you were gaining a distinct power advantage for a significant saving, but you can buy a (discounted) BMW 340i for less and a discounted Golf R, M140i, etc for an awful lot less.

[Justin-xiyf2]

rossub said:

You'd have to be driving like a dick to average sub 20 mpg all the time.

My Spec C RA with the even less fuel efficient twin scroll turbo averages 24 mpg.

Well that is neither a P1 nor an Evo X is it? Relevance = 0. The cars were driven normally, not ranted. Why on earth would I make this up? There’s always some troll with something aggresive to say on forums. Tragic.

[plenty]

rossub said:

So what you're saying is that all of your driving in the Impreza is 'fun' driving. Why on earth are you even commenting on mpg when that's what you use it for!!!

A lot of my driving is commuting and overtaking fkwits driving at 40 - hence pissing them off. I get that 24 because most of my driving is not ragging the arse off it on a Sunday morning

What a strange conversation. I was merely commenting on your assertion that other drivers must drive like dicks because they get lower mpg than you do.

[anonymous-user]

neil1jnr said:

Don't quote me on this but if I remember correctly, I think in the 90's, and up to 2000/01, the Evo at least (not 100% sure on the Impreza), was competing in Group N, not WRC. As such, you could buy a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VI RS (mechanical diff rather than AYC) which I believe is exactly what the Group N cars were based off of, so they really were rally cars for the public road in my eyes and performed very similarly to their Group N counter parts as well as looking the part! The Golf R doesn't resemble a rally car in the slightest, it's just a very competent, fast hatch back that is very good at what it does.

After the Evo VI I think Mitsibishi carried competed in WRC.

I realise VW no longer competes in WRC but they were dominating and they could have taken the opportunity to build a very special rally-esque Polo, unfortunately it never happened.

Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 2nd November 14:51

The Impreza STi has always been homologated and used in Group N, it still is a current Group N car.

The homologation papers are at https://www.sti.jp/en/competitor/n_homologation/

My own car is the homologation version for 2004/5, against common folklore, it was often the normal JDM STi and not the Spec C that was the homologation model, sometimes it was both.

I've owned 4 Impreza's and driven almost all of the models over the years, my current MY05 JDM STi i've owned for 10 years now, its my daily driver i also sprinted very sucessfully. I considered selling it earlier in the year but when i listed the spec and weighed up the alternatives compared to what is out there and what i would have to spend, it's a no brainer to keep it. I paid for a pro valet instead and it still looks great IMHO.

[GravelBen]

daemon said:

However the reality is you can get "similar" power with less compromises in a more palatable package with nigh on 50% better fuel economy...

Are you talking about 50% better 'official figures' or 50% better actual real world fuel economy, because thats a very different thing in some cases. Subaru seem to be more honest and don't 'game' the tests the way VW etc do.

For example, owners figures from sites like fuelly only show a few mpg difference between an Golf R and STI of the same year in real world use. Last time I looked it was something like STI official 26mpg combined > real world average 25mpg, Golf R official 40mpg combined > real world average 28mpg.

And then there is the driver enjoyment angle too, for some of us its not just about quoting a power figure. Performance is similar, real world fuel economy is fairly similar, so I guess the key difference is really whether you prioritise involvement or comfort? Not necessarily less compromises, just different ones.

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 6th November 00:19

[aaron_2000]

jsf said:

The Impreza STi has always been homologated and used in Group N, it still is a current Group N car.

The homologation papers are at https://www.sti.jp/en/competitor/n_homologation/

My own car is the homologation version for 2004/5, against common folklore, it was often the normal JDM STi and not the Spec C that was the homologation model, sometimes it was both.

I've owned 4 Impreza's and driven almost all of the models over the years, my current MY05 JDM STi i've owned for 10 years now, its my daily driver i also sprinted very sucessfully. I considered selling it earlier in the year but when i listed the spec and weighed up the alternatives compared to what is out there and what i would have to spend, it's a no brainer to keep it. I paid for a pro valet instead and it still looks great IMHO.

That might be one of, if not the nicest Blob Eye I've ever seen. It's so well done, thought it was an RB320 on first glance. What a car

[anonymous-user]

aaron_2000 said:

That might be one of, if not the nicest Blob Eye I've ever seen. It's so well done, thought it was an RB320 on first glance. What a car

Thanks. It's the same colour as an the RB320, Obsidian Black Pearl, which was a JDM only colour until the RB320 used it, looks great in sunlight when clean. It's fitted with factory option privacy glass in the rear side windows and back window. Wheels are stock that i had powder coated satin black, it has a carbon infill between the front and rear window glass. Front STi splitter and some subtle mudflaps. Its sitting 20mm lower on some KW Clubsport coilovers.

I've kept it looking relatively stock, so still uses a TMIC but one that is good for the power i run, which is just shy of 500BHP and 540lbft, front radiator is a bespoke unit with integrated oil cooler. I rebuilt the engine as a fully forged high compression 2.1 and it uses a motorsport spec stock position Owen Developments Twin Scroll Turbo, so even though its got lots of power it spools as fast as a stock car, the torque delivery is pretty impressive. Engine is controlled by a Syvecs S6 ECU which i have 12 maps available on the fly that cater for normal SUL or a 20% methanol mix. The ECU is linked to a Toucan display. I've set it up for flat throttle shifting and it has launch control, i don't use any antilag because that stops the brake servo working.

Brake calipers are stock and disks size is standard, but i run performance friction floating front disks and DBA rear disks with some carbon pads that work from cold, brakes really are immense for a stock car with active brake bias from the sports ABS fitted stock. It also has an active centre diff with both G and yaw sensors. For sprinting i run an Alcatek programmable active centre diff controller that i map for the event and modify during the day, but on the road it uses the stock centre diff controller which is active.

I bought it with 28K miles on the clock, it now has 114K miles. It's a great car that does everything you could want, from tootling about to work to 150MPH on a sprint. I've got a nice quiet 3" Milltek exhaust system, so its not intrusive on a journey and doesn't wind up anyone either.

[rossub]

Justin-xiyf2 said:

rossub said:

You'd have to be driving like a dick to average sub 20 mpg all the time.

My Spec C RA with the even less fuel efficient twin scroll turbo averages 24 mpg.

Well that is neither a P1 nor an Evo X is it? Relevance = 0. The cars were driven normally, not ranted. Why on earth would I make this up? There’s always some troll with something aggresive to say on forums. Tragic.

I also have a 93 WRX running 330 (so comparable to the P1) and that gets better mpg than my Spec C.

Where did I say you were making it up? These cars do not get sub 20 mpg driving normally day to day, so you have a heavy right foot - simple as that. Any prospective buyers will be put off by comments about mpg in the teens. I'm stating the fact that they just don't get down to those kind of levels with normal driving.

I've been using internet forums for 15 years and never once been called a troll. Think you need to get a grip mate.

[anonymous-user]

rossub said:

I also have a 93 WRX running 330 (so comparable to the P1) and that gets better mpg than my Spec C.

Where did I say you were making it up? These cars do not get sub 20 mpg driving normally day to day, so you have a heavy right foot - simple as that. Any prospective buyers will be put off by comments about mpg in the teens. I'm stating the fact that they just don't get down to those kind of levels with normal driving.

I've been using internet forums for 15 years and never once been called a troll. Think you need to get a grip mate.

It depends on the type of driving you do and the specific model and its gearing. I would say my average is just below 20MPG when driving it normally to work, 15 minute trip. If i go on a longer run then it improves as you would expect, i might get 24MPG on a run. If i use the full performance then it eats fuel for fun, but what doesn't with 500BHP. The JDM models are lower geared than UK and the later UK models are even higher geared, so its difficult to give a sweeping statement on fuel economy anyway across the range.

If you are worried about fuel economy, don't buy an Impreza of any version, they do eat fuel compared to most cars because of the nature of the engine layout and drivetrain, but anything with this kind of performance on tap is not going to be brilliant, 300BHP and an AWD drivetrain isn't made for fuel economy. If you want MPG buy a less high performance car (and by that i mean overall performance, not just power). There isn't much to match these cars in real world cross country performance irrespective of the weather.

[neil1jnr]

rossub said:

Justin-xiyf2 said:

rossub said:

You'd have to be driving like a dick to average sub 20 mpg all the time.

My Spec C RA with the even less fuel efficient twin scroll turbo averages 24 mpg.

Well that is neither a P1 nor an Evo X is it? Relevance = 0. The cars were driven normally, not ranted. Why on earth would I make this up? There’s always some troll with something aggresive to say on forums. Tragic.

I also have a 93 WRX running 330 (so comparable to the P1) and that gets better mpg than my Spec C.

Where did I say you were making it up? These cars do not get sub 20 mpg driving normally day to day, so you have a heavy right foot - simple as that. Any prospective buyers will be put off by comments about mpg in the teens. I'm stating the fact that they just don't get down to those kind of levels with normal driving.

I've been using internet forums for 15 years and never once been called a troll. Think you need to get a grip mate.

Sound like a troll to me too, he tells you what mpg he gets and you are basically calling him a liar, either a troll or a bit of ...

My P1, albeit modified a fair bit averages approx 15mpg each tank, my Evo VIII MR did about 12mpg and my Makinen, which was only about 370bhp,averaged about 18mpg, am I a liar too? In my experience these cars do average less than 20mpg.

These were all second cars to me but were used for a blast now and again but used for doing normal driving in summer months as I'd try and use them as much as I could afford to. Getting such low mpg on average it was never feasible to drive any of them 90 miles a day to work and back every day

[rossub]

neil1jnr said:

Sound like a troll to me too, he tells you what mpg he gets and you are basically calling him a liar, either a troll or a bit of ...

My P1, albeit modified a fair bit averages approx 15mpg each tank, my Evo VIII MR did about 12mpg and my Makinen, which was only about 370bhp,averaged about 18mpg, am I a liar too? In my experience these cars do average less than 20mpg.

These were all second cars to me but were used for a blast now and again but used for doing normal driving in summer months as I'd try and use them as much as I could afford to. Getting such low mpg on average it was never feasible to drive any of them 90 miles a day to work and back every day

No idea why you felt the need to wade in like that calling me a , but whatever floats your boat. Nowhere have I called the guy a liar - I'm just saying he has a heavy right foot to average sub 20 mpg when most people quote 23-28 on their Imprezas. I've been involved with them for 15 years and it's always been that way.

Everyone knows Evos are worse on fuel and get sub 20 mpg, so they have nothing to do with it - this is a Subaru topic. You've just admitted your P1 is modified a fair bit, so the mpg on that isn't relevant either.

[anonymous-user]

Model for Model EVO's were slightly better on fuel because they don't have the offset fuelling you get due to the uneven inlet tract runners and fuel rail flow which means the flat 4 engines needs a slightly richer mixture overall, if you don't take this into account you get one cylinder running lean. Tune a Subaru engine using EVO AFR's and you will push it towards high cylinder temperatures that can melt pistons due to pre-ignition.

This was one of the issues in the early days of "chocolate" Subaru engines, they were being tuned too lean so shat themselves either by melting the pistons or knocking out the big ends. Once the offset cylinder requirements were understood they moved on quickly so now 500BHP isn't that unusual.

My own ECU can tune each cylinder individually and runs different ignition for each cylinder, with active knock control on each cylinder.

The modern stock ECU's are really clever, together with the higher gearing you can get pretty decent MPG these days.

[rovermorris999]

jsf said:

Model for Model EVO's were slightly better on fuel because they don't have the offset fuelling you get due to the uneven inlet tract runners and fuel rail flow which means the flat 4 engines needs a slightly richer mixture overall, if you don't take this into account you get one cylinder running lean. Tune a Subaru engine using EVO AFR's and you will push it towards high cylinder temperatures that can melt pistons due to pre-ignition.

This was one of the issues in the early days of "chocolate" Subaru engines, they were being tuned too lean so shat themselves either by melting the pistons or knocking out the big ends. Once the offset cylinder requirements were understood they moved on quickly so now 500BHP isn't that unusual.

My own ECU can tune each cylinder individually and runs different ignition for each cylinder, with active knock control on each cylinder.

The modern stock ECU's are really clever, together with the higher gearing you can get pretty decent MPG these days.

That's interesting, thanks for posting.

[C7 JFW]

jsf said:

Model for Model EVO's were slightly better on fuel because they don't have the offset fuelling you get due to the uneven inlet tract runners and fuel rail flow which means the flat 4 engines needs a slightly richer mixture overall, if you don't take this into account you get one cylinder running lean. Tune a Subaru engine using EVO AFR's and you will push it towards high cylinder temperatures that can melt pistons due to pre-ignition.

This was one of the issues in the early days of "chocolate" Subaru engines, they were being tuned too lean so shat themselves either by melting the pistons or knocking out the big ends. Once the offset cylinder requirements were understood they moved on quickly so now 500BHP isn't that unusual.

My own ECU can tune each cylinder individually and runs different ignition for each cylinder, with active knock control on each cylinder.

The modern stock ECU's are really clever, together with the higher gearing you can get pretty decent MPG these days.

Very helpful, thanks. If I were to upgrade my 2016 STI, I'd go for about the 500-550bhp mark and that's good to know.

[TroubledSoul]

C7 JFW said:

Very helpful, thanks. If I were to upgrade my 2016 STI, I'd go for about the 500-550bhp mark and that's good to know.

You'll be looking at a forged build for that on a 2.5 and very possibly a CDB conversion.

[aaron_2000]

C7 JFW said:

Very helpful, thanks. If I were to upgrade my 2016 STI, I'd go for about the 500-550bhp mark and that's good to know.

My uncle had a V5 Type R with a new engine from Roger Clark, that ran 320-350 and it was more than good enough. Obviously that's what a new STI is running stock, I'd think 450-500 would be a better area to go for.

[TartanPaint]

Power numbers are less than half the story. I watched a guy get his car mapped by Andy Forrest and left with 30bhp less than he arrived with on the same rollers. He was a very happy customer. More usable torque = faster car.

At least that's the excuse I keep making for only having 350bhp in a forged CDB 2.5.

Choose the style of car you want, and get good turbo choice advice. Don't aim for numbers, because they don't tell you how the car will drive.