First Drive: 2006 WRX

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:05 am

Today, I drove a 2006 WRX Limited Sedan. Let me first say, that the leather heated seats, heated mirrors, and sunroof ad a scant 40 pounds to the listed curb weight over the non-limited.

I have a few impressions.

First, goddamn is that car smooth now. Drive by wire, which I was hesitant about at first, was much nicer and allowed left-foot-braking and heel-toeing like it's mechanical predecessor, but it seemed smoother, faster, nicer. Pedal feel is fairly similar to the 05 WRX.

Clutch was nice, felt smoother to engage than the 05. Noise was down significantly in the cabin.

The brakes (The fronts are 11.5", and the rears are LGT sized 11.3". I'd be willing to bet the caliper brackets from the LGT would swap over, but I can't confirm) were amazing. I was hard on them, and they felt great.

The power difference. WHAT a difference. It feels like a completely different car! So smooth, so powerful. It feels faster than the LGT, it feels like it's simply got a larger motor and no turbo. Kind of interesting. It really owns the EJ20.

Overall, the leather seats were awesome, the drivetrain feels more burly, and with the windows down, you can hear the gears whine a little more (RA width/pitch gearset? Definately not RA ratios). It was smooth and quiet on the highway, and the suspension feels much more sure footed than the 03-05's.

Overall, Subaru did a good job. The exact model I wanted (WRB with Black Leather, Short Shifter, Security System Upgrade, Sub/Amp, and wheel locks) had an MSRP of $28,7xx with a "no haggle" price of like $27,158 or something like that.

For that kind of scrill, I'd consider an STi ($4,500 more for an 06 STi), but that's not a horrible price.

The "TR" is a total peice of shit. $22,881 or something was the "no haggle" price, and it has some junky seats (like the 02 WRX seats), a radio more ghetto than the one in our Nissan Tusuro we rented in Mexico, and a few other things that made me cringe (I'd rather have an SRT-4 over the "TR" model).

One thing I really liked about the car was the steering. As most of you guys know, for 2005 the WRX got the 2004 STi steering rack (and the STi got an even faster steering rack). 2.25 turns lock to lock in the 06, and with the lower profile tires, it felt really connected (but not easily deflected). It's not razor sharp or harsh like the STi or EVO, but it's pretty nice. Very communicative. I took some harsh bumpy roads, and it didn't really flinch or want to bump steer into the other lane. I dug it.

Other than that, I give it a thumbs up. The vagina front end is far less offensive than I originally thought, and I'd sport one of these if I was seriously in the market for a $28,000 car. I'd say it's a tough car to beat, but then again the EVOIX-RS comes in at almost the same price...

FG!! · Post by **FG!!** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:22 am

I had a fairly similar experience, so i bought one. Smoother and I really liked the quicker rack. The one i'll be getting is a black wagon, no limited.

tris91ricer · Post by **tris91ricer** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:30 am

Whoa! You're getting a new one? Congrats, Alan!

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:42 am

Yes, congrats!

I know Phil, I totally fell in love with the one they had at W&L. I want one really bad.

AWD_addict · Post by **AWD_addict** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:56 am

Sounds good.

Was there anything shitty about the TR that wouldn't be replaced by owners anyway? (like interior materials)

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:56 pm

My problem with the TR is that you would eventually be spending MORE than you would for a regular trim WRX. Figure $1300 for JDM STi seats, or potentially MORE for other types of seats. Spending $500 + on a radio that doesn't sound like 2 cans and some yarn. Overall, it was just Ghetto. Oh, and vacuum operated HVAC controls.

91White-T · Post by **91White-T** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:45 pm

BAC5.2 wrote: a radio that doesn't sound like 2 cans and some yarn.

LOL

Post by **Legacy777** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:13 pm

The brakes (The fronts are 11.5", and the rears are LGT sized 11.3". I'd be willing to bet the caliper brackets from the LGT would swap over, but I can't confirm) were amazing. I was hard on them, and they felt great.

Aren't 06 brakes fixed caliper (4-pot/2-pot)? The 2-pot rears require a different backing plate, and are not compatible with the sliding style calipers (ie LGT rear rotors).

...and it has some junky seats (like the 02 WRX seats)

Are the newer WRX seats that good? I've sat in 02 WRX seats and liked them. Maybe it's because my seats have absolutely zero bolstering.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:17 pm

Doh! I was confused. I'm used to 4-pots and such while working on my friends cars (and how the RacingBrake 4-pot brackets are set up). Yea, the LGT brackets won't work. I'm sure there's someone who will make a bracket that will work.

Yea, the newer WRX seats are that good. They kick ass compared to the 02 WRX seats.

Even the 06 Leather seats held infinitely better, and were infinitely more comfortable than the 02's. I've never found a USDM seat that's been as snug as my V4 STi seat though.

greg donovan · Post by **greg donovan** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:17 pm

BAC5.2 wrote:My problem with the TR is that you would eventually be spending MORE than you would for a regular trim WRX. Figure $1300 for JDM STi seats, or potentially MORE for other types of seats. Spending $500 + on a radio that doesn't sound like 2 cans and some yarn. Overall, it was just Ghetto. Oh, and vacuum operated HVAC controls.

as a guy who doesnt care one bit about the stereo and only uses the heater and rarely the a/c and has never had seats better than the ones in a 94 SS would i probably like the TR?

the 5 grand difference between the TR and the limited doesnt sound worth it to me. especially if everything else is the same. ie struts, springs, and drivetrain. those are why i buy a subaru. however, paying 10grand more for the STi makes total sense to me if i could afford it. that is a no brainer.

but if you compare a TR to a "regular" WRX then the price difference isnt as big i guess, and i too would go w/a regular WRX and pass on the TR.

too bad TR doesnt mean Track Ready.

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:52 pm

BAC5.2 wrote:
Yea, the newer WRX seats are that good. They kick ass compared to the 02 WRX seats.

.

I totally agree. One of the biggest things I noticed was the new seats, they're phat. Ask Vikash, I was geeking out about them.

scottzg · Post by **scottzg** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:43 pm

weird, i really don't like the 04-05 seats and like the earlier ones. The fixed headrests drive me batty, can't relax. Although i use my knees to brace myself far more than the bolsters.

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:58 pm

I honestly could give a rat's ass about leather. It's too much maintenance for something that really doesn't seem all that luxurious.

While I'm sure the new WRX will put down better times with the torque curve of the new 2.5 turbo, I think it's further dilution of a race car into a fast poseur car. The 2.0 was good because it made you a better driver; you learned how to keep the revs up while you were racing.

And it still looks like an Edsel.

legacy92ej22t · Post by **legacy92ej22t** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:11 am

Uhh, is it hard to keep the revs up when racing?

So higher displacement with a better block, valvetrain, brakes, wheels, tires and interior is a dilution from being a race car?? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

scottzg · Post by **scottzg** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:56 am

subyluvr2212 wrote: I think it's further dilution of a race car into a fast poseur car. The 2.0 was good because it made you a better driver; you learned how to keep the revs up while you were racing.

I really disagree with this. Firstly, the wrx has always been a fast poseur car. But mostly, a driver with a dual purpose car like a wrx is probably using it on public roads. The wider powerband allows them to focus more on the turn ahead and potential obstacles rather than matching revs and heel-toe'ing. This means they'll be faster and safer. Sure, up in the higher gears the peakiness is a good teacher, but higher gears is not really safe or legal speed. Autox in a peaky car sucks. Hell, i often never take it out of 2nd.

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:37 am

I figured I'd ruffle some feathers with that.

What is the S2000? Don't you dare tell me it's not a sports car. If there is any car for sale to the general public that needs to have its revs kept up, the S2000 is it.

Now... if Honda decided to squeeze the 240-hp V6 from the Accord in the S2000, it would not only have the 240-hp that the S2000 4cyl has, but it would have the extra displacement and all that for some more low-down torque. The car would be much more useable on public roads, since you wouldn't have to downshift and rev the shit out of it to get it to go anywhere.

Great.

But... it wouldn't be the same.

Don't get me wrong, I love my torque pigs. Both the Legacies in the family can really take off hard from a stop, and the XT is the biggest torque pig of all 3 of them (8-valve design helps). But... I still vouch for the peaky, high-end cars like the S2000 and also the previous WRX, because they made you keep the revs up in order to go fast.

I'm not a big fan of autocross. Seriously. Now before I get flamed like crazy, I didn't say that autocross is stupid, or it's not really racing, or anyone can do it. I agree with anyone that says autocross is the hardest motorsport there is because it takes more driving skill than car capability to win. But... I still don't like autocross, because I just don't find it fun. I don't get a thrill out of never leaving 2nd gear or getting past 50mph. If I were to get into motorsports, I would definitely be a road racer. I would get 100 times more excited about doing 140 on a road course straight than I would about doing 25 in a 180º on an autocross course. Road racing, needless to say, requires you to keep the revs up. So that's why I can vouch for peaky engines as much as torquey engines.

If I were going to autocross, I'd get a 1st-gen 2.5RS. If I were going to road race, I'd get a 2.0 WRX.

I was also wrong in calling the WRX a race car. It never really was a race car, only a mimic of the real WRC race cars. You're right about that Scott. But at least we had a lesser variant of the 2.0 engine the WRC cars used. Now we don't even have that

*subyluvr gets ready for more flaming*

Post by **Legacy777** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:37 am

I drove my ex's s2000, and I really just wasn't overly impressed. It, like the wrx is a pig at lower rpms.

You can say that the revs need to be kept up, and that's what racers do.....but where do most people drive those cars 99% of the time....on the street....so why not have a car that gives you performance with running around at 6 grand all the time.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:49 am

subyluvr2212 wrote:While I'm sure the new WRX will put down better times with the torque curve of the new 2.5 turbo, I think it's further dilution of a race car into a fast poseur car. The 2.0 was good because it made you a better driver; you learned how to keep the revs up while you were racing.

The 2 liter didn't make you a better driver. The 2.5 won't make you a worse driver. If you want to go fast, you will learn to go fast. I'll say that again. You will LEARN. Nothing will MAKE you a better driver. If someone thinks they are fast in the 2.5 and stick adamatly to a gear higher than they SHOULD. I will be faster. The 2.0 didn't make me that way, because I'm faster in the 2.5, because I KNOW how to be a better driver, and a car didn't MAKE me that way.

Poser car or not, the speed is in the driver. I bet I could be a LOT faster in an 05 WRX than someone in an 06. I bet I could be faster than myself in the 2.5 than the 2.0. Mechanical potential only goes so far as personal development.

scottzg · Post by **scottzg** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:20 am

I figure the size of the engine is a trade off between the weight penalty it imposes on the chassis versus the power output. So, a 2.5 that produces more power band out of the same size block is preferable to a 2.0 of the same weight that produces less power band. The civic si engine of yesteryear is inferior to the gs-r power band not because it produces less power, but because the power is less from an engine that weighs the same amount.

The only reason to deviate from that is if you are racing and the rules dictate the displacement. So the rally wrx is a 2.0... i would say then that it's at an inherent disadvantage to the usdm wrx's 2.5.

the 2.2 s2k is better than the 2.0, although the 2.0 gets more neato factor.

I only mentioned autox because it simulates the speeds that one can drive on the street and really work the car while still having a decent envelope of safety.

AWD_addict · Post by **AWD_addict** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:56 am

scottzg wrote: The only reason to deviate from that is if you are racing and the rules dictate the displacement. So the rally wrx is a 2.0... i would say then that it's at an inherent disadvantage to the usdm wrx's 2.5.

The WRC rules do dictate displacement, hence the Impreza remaining a 2.0 since the first model in 1993. Inherent disadvantage? Probably, but it's not holding it back from making 300 hp and 434 lb ft.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:30 am

subyluvr2212 wrote:

I honestly could give a rat's ass about leather. It's too much maintenance for something that really doesn't seem all that luxurious.

IMHO leather is way easier to take care of than cloth. With a decent leather protector, the dirt will stay on top. As long as you use something like armor-all every couple months, it won't crack. It also contributes to a higher resale value. Dumped soda? Rolls right off. Bad side - hot buns when parked in the sun.

Cloth - bust out the carpet cleaning machine and a vacuum every time you want to clean it. Dirt becomes imbedded and the cloth turns stiff whenever you add water/soap to the mix. Dumped soda? Soaks right in. Good side? Let me know.

ozymandius · Post by **ozymandius** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:51 am

Bad side - hot buns when parked in the sun.

It also sucks bad in the cold- it takes forever to heat up.

Good side? Let me know.

It's definately not as "slick" as leather. I've driven a lot in a Audi A4 with a leather interior, and I have never wanted to take that car to its limit because I'd slide right out of the seat. I don't have that problem with my stock Legacy, but that may be part of the inherent Subaru excellence.

rallysam · Post by **rallysam** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:51 pm

I test drove the TR addition. Personally, I don't really care about all that interior crap so I would save $1k by going with the TR.

1) Very smooth. All the controls are perfect IMO. This car fits like a glove.

2) Damn it's fast. Seriously, it is not subtle. This car pulls much harder than my cars.

3) Lag is still apparent, worse than my SS, but still not bad.

4) Feels boring. Everything is so smooth and silent.

5) Too heavy!!!! Goddamn. Why do they just get bigger and bigger? C'mon Subaru get on Weight Watchers!

6) Too expensive. Prices just keep going up. Car companies need to remember that the whole import scene was fueld by kids with $14k cars.

This is the car I would get if I was trying to take a wife a kids on long trips but still wanted to goose it on an entrance ramp once in a while.

FG!! · Post by **FG!!** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:48 am

I picked mine up on Tuesday. I couldn't be any happier.

Let me just say, my priorities changed alot when buying a new car. I coulda bought a s2000 or new miata, but i didn't.

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

First Drive: 2006 WRX

First Drive: 2006 WRX