***** I guess it's preference. I was just saying that a stock EJ25 wrx can pull really hard just granny shifting. The video I linked shows a stage 2 WRX hit 0-60 in 4.1 seconds without launching his car. The proof is out there, the EJ25 motor eventually will fail. Most people say at 100K miles the engine will blow up. I have friends that say the same thing. You probably traded your 2011 after putting 100K miles on it. haha. So completely respect your opinion. Hopefully the issues with reliability are fixed with the FA engine. If not... there will be other brands to choose from soon. Same price and maybe more power: MazdaSpeed3, Dart SRT (I'd never get this car),
Jondy Tuico How are you counting 4.1 seconds? In the video you linked, he hooks up at about 24 seconds, and hits 60 at 29 seconds. That's an estimation using the videos times, but there is no way you can count that as 4.1 I owned a 2014 WRX for 8 months and traded for a '15 for the handling alone, to each their own I guess. But almost every test done by reputable car reviewers put the previous gen and the '15 within .2-.3 of each other.
Dustin, I was just going off the time the video creator put up on his video. Honestly, I didn't time it, but my subjective observations show the EJ25 noticeably faster than the FA. C&D and MT show the new WRX .5 to .7 seconds slower to 0-60 and half a second slower on the quarter mile (car weighs 200 more lbs). Now the 2015 STI is putting down the quarter mile in 13.1... well, that's because it still runs the EJ25. So I'm curious,.... if you can trade in a car after 8 months that must mean you have money to burn. If you have money to burn, why didn't you just get the 2015 STI? (for the handling) There's nothing you can ever do to a WRX to make its handling match an STI. I'm personally going to wait to see what cars will be on the market in 2017. Subaru will actually have competition via Mazdaspeed3/Focus RS. This should pressure Subaru into getting more power out of the FA engine series of engines, they might even bump the displacement on the FA motor to 2.5liter (a Subaru Exec. said this wouldn't be hard to do), we shall see.
Trust me, I want to like the new WRX, but I'm waiting to see if they'll give it more power and make a hatch version. Back in 2013 I bought a 2013 nissan juke awd. It's a 1.6liter small turbo. The sticker said 30mpg highway and I never got better than 24mpg hwy (driving at 70mph, normal open california highway speeds). I blame the CVT and small turbo. The transmission is all over the place activating boost and it gave me crapping MPG's. I drove on a flat highway, no traffic, took my roof racks off, I was at sea level, totally ideal conditions and my mpg avg was 23. On the way back, 22mpg. I hear the CVT WRX suffers from the same problem. I will never ever buy a cvt turbo ever again, and I urge anyone else that reads this that might be considering a CVT WRX to stay away! I had a bad experience with a small displacement small turbo car. I think having the 2.5 liter take care of the cruising driving and then the big turbo for big power is the way to go. No crappy mpg surprises. Driving slower in California isn't feasible, I'd get shot, HAHAHAHAHA. I get 27mpg hwy with my WRX with 3 people, snowboards racked up top and driving up Mammoth mountain. On the way down I avg 40mpg, and at the end of a 330 mile drive average was 35mpg. So I guess displacement doesn't always give you better MPG's. I'm curious what the 2015 WRX would get on the highway averaging 70mph. higher highway speeds might mean the car is in always in boost. In retrospect, the Nissan Juke probably could have acheived 30mpg highway if I kept my speed slow, but in realworld driving, it blowed, literally.
Jondy Tuico Regarding 0-60 times of the previous gen WRX vs. the '15 WRX, one of the reasons the previous gen is quicker is due to the new 6 spd in the '15. A shift to 3rd gear is required to reach 60 that wasn't required in the previous gen with a 5 spd. With a 200 lb weight difference, the additional shift certainly isn't the only factor, but considering both will run the 1/4 in about 14 flat, I'd say it's probably the major one.
"that doesn't help at all dude"
The AC automatically shuts itself off when going WOT in these cars.
My 14 forester XT is doing 4.91 0-60 with Cobb APort. All I have is a SPT exhaust and drop in KN filter
dude turn that music off when making a 0-60 vid
5.4 with AC pretty good
My 2007 STI shifts just like this, I can hi 60 in 2nd gear but its redlined
stock 2009 to 2014 wrx is faster, even when granny shifting
***** I guess it's preference. I was just saying that a stock EJ25 wrx can pull really hard just granny shifting. The video I linked shows a stage 2 WRX hit 0-60 in 4.1 seconds without launching his car.
The proof is out there, the EJ25 motor eventually will fail. Most people say at 100K miles the engine will blow up. I have friends that say the same thing. You probably traded your 2011 after putting 100K miles on it. haha. So completely respect your opinion.
Hopefully the issues with reliability are fixed with the FA engine. If not... there will be other brands to choose from soon. Same price and maybe more power: MazdaSpeed3, Dart SRT (I'd never get this car),
Jondy Tuico How are you counting 4.1 seconds? In the video you linked, he hooks up at about 24 seconds, and hits 60 at 29 seconds. That's an estimation using the videos times, but there is no way you can count that as 4.1 I owned a 2014 WRX for 8 months and traded for a '15 for the handling alone, to each their own I guess. But almost every test done by reputable car reviewers put the previous gen and the '15 within .2-.3 of each other.
Dustin, I was just going off the time the video creator put up on his video. Honestly, I didn't time it, but my subjective observations show the EJ25 noticeably faster than the FA. C&D and MT show the new WRX .5 to .7 seconds slower to 0-60 and half a second slower on the quarter mile (car weighs 200 more lbs). Now the 2015 STI is putting down the quarter mile in 13.1... well, that's because it still runs the EJ25.
So I'm curious,.... if you can trade in a car after 8 months that must mean you have money to burn. If you have money to burn, why didn't you just get the 2015 STI? (for the handling)
There's nothing you can ever do to a WRX to make its handling match an STI.
I'm personally going to wait to see what cars will be on the market in 2017. Subaru will actually have competition via Mazdaspeed3/Focus RS. This should pressure Subaru into getting more power out of the FA engine series of engines, they might even bump the displacement on the FA motor to 2.5liter (a Subaru Exec. said this wouldn't be hard to do), we shall see.
Trust me, I want to like the new WRX, but I'm waiting to see if they'll give it more power and make a hatch version.
Back in 2013 I bought a 2013 nissan juke awd. It's a 1.6liter small turbo. The sticker said 30mpg highway and I never got better than 24mpg hwy (driving at 70mph, normal open california highway speeds). I blame the CVT and small turbo. The transmission is all over the place activating boost and it gave me crapping MPG's. I drove on a flat highway, no traffic, took my roof racks off, I was at sea level, totally ideal conditions and my mpg avg was 23. On the way back, 22mpg. I hear the CVT WRX suffers from the same problem. I will never ever buy a cvt turbo ever again, and I urge anyone else that reads this that might be considering a CVT WRX to stay away!
I had a bad experience with a small displacement small turbo car. I think having the 2.5 liter take care of the cruising driving and then the big turbo for big power is the way to go. No crappy mpg surprises. Driving slower in California isn't feasible, I'd get shot, HAHAHAHAHA. I get 27mpg hwy with my WRX with 3 people, snowboards racked up top and driving up Mammoth mountain. On the way down I avg 40mpg, and at the end of a 330 mile drive average was 35mpg.
So I guess displacement doesn't always give you better MPG's. I'm curious what the 2015 WRX would get on the highway averaging 70mph. higher highway speeds might mean the car is in always in boost.
In retrospect, the Nissan Juke probably could have acheived 30mpg highway if I kept my speed slow, but in realworld driving, it blowed, literally.
Jondy Tuico Regarding 0-60 times of the previous gen WRX vs. the '15 WRX, one of the reasons the previous gen is quicker is due to the new 6 spd in the '15. A shift to 3rd gear is required to reach 60 that wasn't required in the previous gen with a 5 spd. With a 200 lb weight difference, the additional shift certainly isn't the only factor, but considering both will run the 1/4 in about 14 flat, I'd say it's probably the major one.
Should use Launch control next time. Also, u have a CVT? Times are a little slower with a CVT.
+xuimod when i filmed this, cobb didn't have launch control released yet. I use it now..
No I don't have a CVT, I have a 6 speed manual. I would never buy a CVT, especially on a rally car
xuimod might wanna google that... 😂
So I guess the AP eliminated the rev hang.
Benjamin Lee yeah it did