Modified 2003 Subaru Impreza Wrx Sedan 4-door 2.0l Jdm on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2018 Subaru WRX Drivers' Notes | Turbo traditionalist

Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore: The Subaru Impreza WRX is one of my favorite enthusiast sedans. It's invigorating, just a bit raw and makes you want to drive it more and more. Our tester has subtle blue paint and aggressive black wheels, which strike the right tone. It's sporty without being stupid. Inside is black leather, red stitching, and plastics that are decent, or at least non-offensive. Good looking car, overall. I was excited for my one-night stint in the WRX. I blitzed home, dashing in and out of traffic in the lower gears. This thing is like a hovercraft, and with the windows down and the engine growling and buzzing, I made record time. The steering is tight, the clutch engagement is heavy, and the brakes have just the right amount of pedal depth. I felt focused and in control. I've always felt the WRX is the right Impreza for me. The STI is awesome, but unusable for many everyday driving experiences. I could live with the WRX longterm, and love it. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Associate Editor Joel Stocksdale: If you've ever lamented that turbo cars don't feel like turbo cars anymore, you should check out a WRX. Its 2.0-liter turbocharged flat-four definitely takes a page from the peaky boosted beasts of the past. Driven at low rpms and gently enough that boost still builds, the turbo is laggy and takes a while to hit peak boost. This means that in mild driving, you'll be just shy of the speed limit when the turbo whacks you in the back, and you'll have to jump back off the accelerator just a moment later. But the rush of the turbo kicking in is still pretty entertaining, and a unique feeling that has been engineered out of a lot of other turbo cars. If you drive the WRX hard, though, the turbo engine becomes much easier to work with. The lag disappears, and the turbo spools right up. But you do have to be running the boxer right up close to redline to keep it responsive. These characteristics aren't something I personally enjoy. But the way the rest of the WRX drives is spot on for me. The steering is weighted nicely, and the car is very responsive. It also feels quite neutral, much more so than even good front-drive and front-biased all-wheel-drive cars. There's a bit of lean, but the chassis is always composed and communicative. And the benefit of the slightly roll-y suspension is that the WRX has impressive ride quality.

Subaru Outback Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

I'm reporting to you from my home in Portland, Ore., which is pretty much ground zero for Subaru Outback ownership. They're absolutely everywhere, challenged only by its little Crosstrek brother for new-car ubiquity. A big reason for that is owners (of which I know many) actually take them on outdoorsy weekend adventures. Ground clearance, all-wheel drive, copious space for gear and actually useful roof racks make an actual difference — it's not just for show, as is often the case with crossover ownership.   Well, the ground clearance (8.7 inches) and all-wheel drive (standard) are a given, but just how much space are we talking about in the Outback? The specs say there's 32.5 cubic feet behind the raised back seat, which is comparable to most compact crossovers. The rare ones that run bigger include the Honda CR-V (39.2 cu-ft) and Subaru's own Forester (35.4 without the panoramic sunroof), but remember that much of their volume is up high in the greenhouse since they are taller vehicles. By contrast, the Outback is deeper, which can not only be seen with the back seat raised, but when lowered, it's a few inches longer. If this test involved a trip to Ikea, I'm pretty confident the Outback would do better than those compact SUVs as a result. But, this is about luggage, not boxes of Bjorgorfen parts, so let's pack up the Outback for a hypothetical Pacific Northwest outdoorsy weekend adventure. So here is what you're working with. Note that rubber trunk tray and cargo cover are actually standard on all but the base Outback trim level.  As for that cargo cover ... Upper left: Here it is in place. Duh. Upper right: Like many other vehicles, especially wagons, there's a channel that runs up the D pillar that lets you quickly raise the cover without fully retracting it.  Bottom left: Here's a better look at that channel. Bottom right: Because the back seat reclines, you could end up with a gap between seatback and cover. This little filler piece is attached to a tension rod that easily adjusts by hand.  OK, onto the bags. As usual, I'll start by keeping the cargo cover in place. And as always, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D).

Lexus tops JD Power Vehicle Dependability Study again, Buick bests Toyota

It shouldn't surprise anyone, but Lexus has once again taken the top spot in JD Power's Vehicle Dependability Study. That'd be the Japanese luxury brand's fourth straight year at the top of table. The big news, though, is the rise of Buick. General Motor's near-premium brand beat out Toyota to take second place, with 110 problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota's 111 problems. Lexus owners only reported 89 problems per 100 vehicles. Besides Buick's three-position jump, Scion enjoyed a major improvement, jumping 13 positions from 2014. Ram and Mitsubishi made big gains, as well, moving up 11 and 10 positions, respectively. In terms of individual segments, GM and Toyota both excelled, taking home seven segment awards each. The study wasn't good news for all involved, though. A number of popular automakers finished below the industry average of 147 problems per 100 vehicles, including Subaru, (157PP100), Volkswagen (165PP100), Ford/Hyundai (188PP100 each) and Mini (193PP100). The biggest losers (by a tremendous margin, we might add) were Land Rover and Fiat, recording 258 and 273 problems per 100 vehicles. The next closest brand was Jeep, with 197PP100. While the Vehicle Dependability Study uses the same measurement system as the Initial Quality Survey, the two metrics analyze very different things. The VDS looks at problems experienced by original owners of model year 2012 vehicles over the past 12 months, while the oft-quoted IQS focuses on problems in the first 90 days of new-vehicle ownership. Like the IQS, though, the VDS has a rather broad definition of what a problem is. Because of that, a low score from JD Power is no guarantee of extreme unreliability, so much as just poor design. In this most recent study, the two most reported problems focused on Bluetooth connectivity and the voice-command systems. The former leaves plenty of room for user error due to poor design (particularly true of the Bluetooth systems on the low-scoring Fords, Volkswagens and Subarus), while the second is something JD Power has already confirmed as being universally terrible. That makes means that while these studies are important, they shouldn't be taken as gospel when it comes to automotive reliability. News Source: JD PowerImage Credit: Copyright 2015 Jeremy Korzeniewski / AOL Buick Fiat Ford GM Hyundai Jeep Land Rover Lexus MINI Mitsubishi RAM Scion Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Auto Repair Ownership study