Humble, standard and original Impreza Turbo 2000
Discussion
Carlson W6 said:
This is my one.
Bought new by me.
Full main dealer history currently looked after by Bell and Colville.
Upgraded to WR Prodrive spec before delivery.
Currently on 70K
Never used a drop of oil.
Standard apart from Prodrive upgrades.
Very nice mate, very rare with the genuine prodrive spoiler Bought new by me.
Full main dealer history currently looked after by Bell and Colville.
Upgraded to WR Prodrive spec before delivery.
Currently on 70K
Never used a drop of oil.
Standard apart from Prodrive upgrades.
Here's my old RB5 #287
Prohibiting said:
rb5er said:
Headlights aint standard, neither are the foglight covers or alloys. Nice car though.
Yes, they're factory upgrades. WR Sport- extremely rare and worth a lot to people in the know! http://www.subaru-impreza.org/downloads/WR%20SPORT...
Carlson W6 said:
This is my one.
Bought new by me.
Full main dealer history currently looked after by Bell and Colville.
Upgraded to WR Prodrive spec before delivery.
Currently on 70K
Never used a drop of oil.
Standard apart from Prodrive upgrades.
Stunning. Will you swap me your Bilstein shocks and Eibach springs? Bought new by me.
Full main dealer history currently looked after by Bell and Colville.
Upgraded to WR Prodrive spec before delivery.
Currently on 70K
Never used a drop of oil.
Standard apart from Prodrive upgrades.
Your Turbo 2000 is the "creme de la creme". Most people don't know what the WR Sport (Prodrive upgrades are).
Please post some more pictures
Edited by Prohibiting on Tuesday 21st June 20:44
Prohibiting said:
rb5er said:
Headlights aint standard, neither are the foglight covers or alloys. Nice car though.
Yes, they're factory upgrades. WR Sport- extremely rare and worth a lot to people in the know! http://www.subaru-impreza.org/downloads/WR%20SPORT...
The driving lights are indeed optionsl but I didn't think they would come with white PIAA covers from new? Obviously mine were painted bodycolour and logo'd.
The headlights are certainly not standard though, replacements or modded?
daniel-5zjw7 said:
tonyb1968 said:
rb5er said:
Joey Deacon said:
Then the Civic Type R and Clio 172 came along with similar performance in a much cheaper package.
They really aren't comparable to either of those cars in anything other than 0-60 times (and even then only for a standard UK turbo). With 240bhp they are doing it in 5 seconds.I had the same, a honda civic vti, all 160bhp of it gave my MY00 turbo (standard v standard) a very hard time, I couldnt gain on the vti and that was a 215bhp car, one of the reasons I went PPP was for the extra grunt.
Unless you had a JDM import or a 22b/P1, hot hatches had you fair and square on the performance front.
Then you had the slightly wooly steering on the UK turbo's, going from my PPP'd turbo to a JDM STI Spec C, night and day, total beast in comparison.
The turbo 2000 was great when it came out in 1994 but it only ever gained 7bhp between then and 2000, by that time hot hatches were getting 30+ bhp hikes and being more focused (with better brakes and handling).
Its an iconic classic in the making but its not THAT good as cars of that era go.
Also it's worth remembering the turbocharged Impreza (240bhp off the bat) hit the streets in Japan back in late 1992, cars came a long way between it's launch and eventual replacement in the UK circa 2001.
With the mix of a turbocharged boxer, permanent 4wd and saloon body it was and remained a pretty unique package, and what mustn't be under estimated was it's any weather capability, yes in stock UK form it's 200 odd bhp wasn't earth shattering, but the beauty of it was that in almost any condition and any gear, you could use all of it.
The jump from 250ps STI to the version 2 STI was 25ps, up to 275ps, the version 3, 4, 5 & 6 all had 280ps but differing torque outputs, it didn't really go anywhere power wise from there, except they went from CDB (on certain models, most early cars were CDB but only the STI retained that for a short time) to ODB from phase 1 to phase 1.5 (97/98)/phase 2 engines (99/00).
UK cars had that 7bhp increase on the phase 2 engines (99/00).
The all weather grip was good, but still, hot hatches were getting better and better, even over damp/wet roads they would have kept up with a turbo 2000, you have to remember that the turbo 2000 was pushing 1300kg and those hot hatches were just over 1000kg and didnt have the transmission losses the Subaru did (or the thirst).
What the japs got was a far better deal, more power and better specced cars, this is why in the late 90's the importers had a great time, Subaru UK came back with the P1 to counter the type R (we wont mention the 16 22B type UK's), they sort of hashed a wrx type R and gave it the running gear of an STI (no DCCD) so it was a bit of a 1 off, sold all 500 in the first batch, decided they were on to a winner and then put 500 more out, which took them a year to sell (hence you get the odd 51 plate one knocking around).
That wasnt a bad car, 30k and 280ps, not much else on the market for that sort of money but it was a little bit too late (not many people had 40+k for a 22B) but that is the sort of car that the turbo 2000 should have been (may be not as powerful, 250bhp would have been nice so PPP time on super unleaded).
On the competition front you had the Ford Cosworths, even back in the 1980's they were the car to have, then the Escort cossies in the 90's, the Impreza was an affordable alternative, oh and we cannot forget the Lancia's, Nissan Sunny GTiR's or the Audi Quattro's too
My point being that the Impreza turbo 2000 was good but it definitely not the best, by that time the gap had closed and even on the torque front, those hot hatches were more than a match.
If I had to rate in any order the 4 Subaru's ive owned, it would be 4th, the Turbo 2000, 3rd V5 STI type R, Joint 1st, MY03 STI Spec C and MY03 Spec C Limited. The joint 1st by a considerable margin over the other 2, they were just much nicer places to be and its a car we should have had over here (or at least the twin scroll units) as they are a fantastic engine and the quick rack makes it a very direct car with great feedback
You can write an essay if you like but your opinion that a clio 172 is as fast as a standard impreza 2000 turbo is simply wrong.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
rb5er said:
You can write an essay if you like but your opinion that a clio 172 is as fast as a standard impreza 2000 turbo is simply wrong.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
Let look at said clio v said turbo 2000, 1/4 mile time for the subaru 14.1, for the clio 14.78, take into consideration the 0-60 times and its virtually 0 difference in time, so ON THE ROAD, the difference will be like nothing, same for in gear, in real life the difference is negligable, you need considerably more HP to make any BIG difference and the Impreza didnt have that, hence the hot hatches of the day gave it more than a run for its money.Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
tonyb1968 said:
rb5er said:
You can write an essay if you like but your opinion that a clio 172 is as fast as a standard impreza 2000 turbo is simply wrong.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
Let look at said clio v said turbo 2000, 1/4 mile time for the subaru 14.1, for the clio 14.78, take into consideration the 0-60 times and its virtually 0 difference in time, so ON THE ROAD, the difference will be like nothing, same for in gear, in real life the difference is negligable, you need considerably more HP to make any BIG difference and the Impreza didnt have that, hence the hot hatches of the day gave it more than a run for its money.Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
The in gear times are also very much different even with awd drivetrain losses.
Similar story with the CTR. All good cars but not really comparable in any performance comparison other than braking and anything which has ppp, a remap or is a wrx or STi is many leagues above.
My friend with an ep3 CTR couldn't keep up with another in a 2000 turbo wagon despite several rolling and stationary tests which backs these statistics up. Wet weather and the gulf is even greater.
rb5er said:
My RB5 is also a WR sport, I didn't realise those wheels were an option in that pack.
The driving lights are indeed optionsl but I didn't think they would come with white PIAA covers from new? Obviously mine were painted bodycolour and logo'd.
The headlights are certainly not standard though, replacements or modded?
Hi,everything on my car is as standard as the day it arrived from Banbury.The driving lights are indeed optionsl but I didn't think they would come with white PIAA covers from new? Obviously mine were painted bodycolour and logo'd.
The headlights are certainly not standard though, replacements or modded?
The headlights have optional protective covers on them to protect them from stones,as do the PIAA driving lights.
Edited by Carlson W6 on Wednesday 22 June 03:03
Edited by Carlson W6 on Wednesday 22 June 03:16
Edited by Carlson W6 on Wednesday 22 June 03:22
tonyb1968 said:
rb5er said:
.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
Let look at said clio v said turbo 2000, 1/4 mile time for the subaru 14.1, for the clio 14.78, take into consideration the 0-60 times and its virtually 0 difference in time, so ON THE ROAD, the difference will be like nothing, same for in gear, in real life the difference is negligable, you need considerably more HP to make any BIG difference and the Impreza didnt have that, hence the hot hatches of the day gave it more than a run for its money.Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=230
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=44
http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/c46e16ptncnd
rb5er said:
tonyb1968 said:
rb5er said:
.
Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
Let look at said clio v said turbo 2000, 1/4 mile time for the subaru 14.1, for the clio 14.78, take into consideration the 0-60 times and its virtually 0 difference in time, so ON THE ROAD, the difference will be like nothing, same for in gear, in real life the difference is negligable, you need considerably more HP to make any BIG difference and the Impreza didnt have that, hence the hot hatches of the day gave it more than a run for its money.Look at the stats:
0-60 7 vs 6,
0-100 18 vs 16,
1/4 mile 16 vs 14.5
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=230
http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=44
http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/c46e16ptncnd
I owned one from new, I also owned an STI Spec C from new, plus throw a version 5 type R in there and another STI Spec C limited in for good measures, I think I know how quick a STANDARD turbo 2000 is, and in the real world/real world situations, its not that fast and yes, your bog standard 172 could keep up, even honda civics which is the reason I went for the PPP.
If you are going to start throwing in traffic light gp's then add a clio cup to the fray, most people were mechanically sympathetic to their subaru's and didnt want to drop the clutch to get a sub 6 0-60 out of the car and on the road the torque of a STANDARD turbo 2000 wasnt that good, neither was the handling (they gripped well though).
Edited by tonyb1968 on Wednesday 22 June 16:49
I owned a standard 1997 Turbo 2000 for 4 years, I have owned my standard ish 172 Cup for 6 years. The Clio is not as quick, may not be FAR behind but it would be noticeable.
What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
Tony. I have quoted statistics from a source. You are showing us nothing but random figures plucked from the sky.
And these statistics are for standard cars and yes as I said a friend had a 2000 turbo and another had an ep3 alongside it as I said if you bother to read my post.
Find a source to back up your claims (both cars from the same source) or just admit you are incorrect.
If you can't provide statistics or a source then your argument has no foundation.
And these statistics are for standard cars and yes as I said a friend had a 2000 turbo and another had an ep3 alongside it as I said if you bother to read my post.
Find a source to back up your claims (both cars from the same source) or just admit you are incorrect.
If you can't provide statistics or a source then your argument has no foundation.
rb5er said:
Tony. I have quoted statistics from a source. You are showing us nothing but random figures plucked from the sky.
And these statistics are for standard cars and yes as I said a friend had a 2000 turbo and another had an ep3 alongside it as I said if you bother to read my post.
Find a source to back up your claims (both cars from the same source) or just admit you are incorrect.
If you can't provide statistics or a source then your argument has no foundation.
You really are not reading this are you? I owned a fAnd these statistics are for standard cars and yes as I said a friend had a 2000 turbo and another had an ep3 alongside it as I said if you bother to read my post.
Find a source to back up your claims (both cars from the same source) or just admit you are incorrect.
If you can't provide statistics or a source then your argument has no foundation.
king UK turbo for 4 fking years, from NEW, stop quoting figures and start listening, ON THE ROAD there is naff all in it, are you understanding yet?Its the reason I went PPP, I've had numerous attempts with "Boy racers" in standard cars v a standard turbo 2000, the difference is minimal, I even gave a WRX (new shape bug) more than a run for its money in a 306 GTI-6 and I wasnt losing him.
Just because its a turbo does NOT mean its quick, and no, the Turbo 2000 in standard form ISNT quick.
(The Spec C on the other hand was a total beast, put my PPP to shame)
rb5er said:
No need to get shirty mate. All the statistics are wrong and you are right if you're going to get all pissy about it. 
you are not listening, have you ever driven a standard turbo 2000? so far you have not answered that question.Secondly, give the the location, time of year, weather conditions, time of day of each of those timed runs you put up, oh and the drivers too, that's how much those times come into it.
In (I repeat myself again) REAL WORLD conditions, the gap is none existent.
Let me demonstrate.
In 1998 BMW stated that they had the fastest production Saloon car in the world, note that it was the M5.
Now on paper it was the fastest, 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile times, all on paper.
Subaru said we can beat that, BMW said time and place so Subaru agreed and put forward a proposal.
South Africa, 4000+ft up, the M5 had a good performance advantage yet the V4 STI beat it on a 1/4 mile (just).
Real world figures, both in the same location, same conditions etc.
Now back to where we were, ever driven a standard turbo 2000 with the good old pea shooter exhaust?
LordHaveMurci said:
I owned a standard 1997 Turbo 2000 for 4 years, I have owned my standard ish 172 Cup for 6 years. The Clio is not as quick, may not be FAR behind but it would be noticeable.
What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
I have owned a RB5 for 7 years, I also owned a CTR for 4 years and have driven a Clio for 3 months. What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
I can see both sides of this discussion and I think there is some truth in both sides of the argument however if the Impreza is driven hard, its a reasonable amount quicker than both the CTR and the Clio in most give or take situations.
Off the line its a no contest, the Impreza will wipe the floor with both a CTR and the Clio. I loved my CTR but it was extremely difficult to get it off the line cleanly and although its quoted time is 6.6 to 60 my best (timed) time was 7.1's where as the Impreza has such a huge traction advantage I can and have got it off the line brilliantly many times.
On the road the Impreza also has a significant torque advantage but there will undoubtedly be situations where the CTR/172 can hold on to a UK turbo because in my experience you need a LOT more power to truly leave another car behind that is being driven hard.
AntiLagGC8 said:
LordHaveMurci said:
I owned a standard 1997 Turbo 2000 for 4 years, I have owned my standard ish 172 Cup for 6 years. The Clio is not as quick, may not be FAR behind but it would be noticeable.
What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
I have owned a RB5 for 7 years, I also owned a CTR for 4 years and have driven a Clio for 3 months. What does a classic scooby weigh, 1200kg? & has 208bhp, 172 Cup is just under 1100 with 172bhp (most make less they reckon). Then there's torque...
I can see both sides of this discussion and I think there is some truth in both sides of the argument however if the Impreza is driven hard, its a reasonable amount quicker than both the CTR and the Clio in most give or take situations.
Off the line its a no contest, the Impreza will wipe the floor with both a CTR and the Clio. I loved my CTR but it was extremely difficult to get it off the line cleanly and although its quoted time is 6.6 to 60 my best (timed) time was 7.1's where as the Impreza has such a huge traction advantage I can and have got it off the line brilliantly many times.
On the road the Impreza also has a significant torque advantage but there will undoubtedly be situations where the CTR/172 can hold on to a UK turbo because in my experience you need a LOT more power to truly leave another car behind that is being driven hard.
The trouble with the Impreza is that its an aero dynamic brick, its not designed for high speed runs, its a fast A-B car (this sort of changed with the newer models which were much better at putting air onto the intercooler), and your average scoob lost around 20-22% to transmission losses, less with dccd, around 15-17%, and your average fwd car loses 10%, so your power advantage needs to be considerably higher than 215bhp to happily outpace a 172bhp car that's lighter with a better drag coefficient.
This in standard form was a bit of a letdown
On the other hand, after upgrading the brakes to a Brembo 305mm kit, PD7 wheels (in antracite) a/c, Defi gauges and PPP, it was far more enjoyable to drive
the standard exhaust was very restrictive (plus 2 cats) and it didn't feel like it had 218lbs of torque (yet with the PPP ran a 249bhp run on a rolling road day with the Late Harvey Smith ).This on the other hand was just a total sleeper and had stupid amounts of torque....
I had a new age wrx going through the gears try keep up with me going up hill whilst I was in 6th and not gaining, and this had the standard JDM map but she was pumping out around about 316bhp and 330ish lbs of torque
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff