By on February 20, 2009

Not a WRX

Last year, Toyota bought 16 percent of Fuji Heavy Industries, Subaru’s parent company. Those who care about such things immediately began speculating about Subaru’s influence on Toyota. Rumors of all kinds of wonderful sporting Toyobarus emerged, from a replacement for the Scion tC to a resurrected rear wheel-drive Celica using just the rear half of the Subie AWD drivetrain. The highly-anticipated (in some quarters) cross-pollination is well underway. Unfortunately, the result turns pistonheads’ dreams into a nightmare. With the arrival of the Impreza 2.5GT, the Toyotization of Subaru has begun.

Outside, it’s the Impreza we all know and love (or hate). The kyphotic mouse profile has been around long enough that children no longer stare and point as you drive by. The 2.5GT is differentiated visually from lesser Imprezas by handsome 10-spoke alloy wheels and the gaping (functional) hood scoop from the WRX feeding the intercooler. Our pre-production tester’s Newport Blue Pearl paint set it off nicely from the usual silver/gray/beige/white blandness of most small cars, and garnered several positive comments in parking lot conversations.

Inside, though, it’s a Goth’s paradise. Everything is black save the headliner and a bit of faux aluminum trim scattered around. When I say black, I mean deep black. Suck-the-very-light-out-of-the-sky black. Take-it-or-leave-it Carbon Black (yes, that’s what Subaru calls it). The seats are covered with sturdy-feeling fabric that wouldn’t look out of place in a taxi.

The headliner looks and feels like the mouse fur that GM is finally exorcising from their cars, and the carpet’s pile is as plush as the felt on a pool table. The simulated rhinoceros hide covering the dashboard and doors doesn’t do anything to help alleviate the sensation that you had to sacrifice something to get the goodness under the hood. At least the part you touch the most, the steering wheel, is wrapped with leather.

The GT uses last-year’s WRX engine. It churns out 224 turbocharged intercooled horsepower and 226 ft·lb of torque on premium fuel—enough to propel the five-door’s 3,240 lbs to 60 mph in just under 7 seconds. Once the turbo spools up, the power seems endless. The sprint from 80-100 is just as effortless as from 40-60. The GT’s engine always seems willing to do more than you ask, but, alas, it’s held back by the four-speed automatic transmission.

Normally, this is where I’d say something about how much better the car would be with the manual transmission. Unfortunately, the 2.5GT isn’t available with one. Yes, the slushbox does have “SPORTSHIFT manual control” where you rock the shifter back and forth (no paddle shifters here) to change gears. But a four-speed automatic with manual controls is still a four-speed time warp back to the eighties.

The Subaru Impreza 2.5GT’s “sport-tuned” suspension redefines “sport” as “comfort.” If you drive into a corner expecting “WRX-lite,” you’ll readjust your expectations in a hurry. The standard Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC) and Traction Control System (TCS) conspire to make sure you don’t do anything stupid. Or fun. You can turn the VDC off and improve the tossability, but you always feel like you and the engine want more than the chassis can deliver.

So, where does all of this leave us? The schizophrenic Impreza lineup now ranges from low-cost AWD grocery haulers to the Colin McRae-wannabes’ dream machine, the WRX STI. The 2.5GT tries to slot between those extremes by combining all the luxury of the base Impreza with the performance of a three-year old WRX. It leaves you scratching your head, wondering what the product planners were thinking. It’s as if they had a bunch of last-gen WRX engines laying around and had to figure out something to do with them.

The 2.5GT hatchback five-door lists for $27,690 (get the less-attractive four-door model and save $500). That puts it at the top of the Impreza 2.5i lineup and solidly into WRX territory. The $7k upcharge from the Impreza 2.5i Premium gives you an extra 54hp, automatic climate control and an automatic transmission.

On the other hand, if you can give up a few amenities, you can save $3k by going for the anything-but-base WRX which has 40 more ponies. Oddly, while the 2.5GT comes fairly well-equipped, including sunroof and seat heaters, you can’t get it with the sat-nav available on the cheaper 2.5i Premium. In case you were wondering.

As for the 2.5GT, it’s the first car I’ve driven in a long time that didn’t stir anything in my soul. Yes, it’s a competent automobile. If it weren’t for the 19/24 EPA rating, it would make a perfect commuter car. But that’s just it—there are tons of competent cars out there, many of which cost less than $27K and get much better gas mileage. And many of them wear a Toyota badge. Let’s pray the 2.5GT is just an aberration in Subaru’s product plan.  If not, it signals the beginning of the end of Subaru as we know it and indicates what we can expect from Toyobaru.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “Review: 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5GT...”


  • avatar
    carguy622

    Why did they decide to force you to take an automatic transmission only in the GT? Better yet, as the author points out, why even offer it at all?

    A friend of mine bought a used base model ’09 and it has a nice ride, with an OK interior. The headliner is indeed very cheap, worse than that of my ’99 Escort. The base model is very much like a Corolla, only with AWD, and it sounds like the GT is an AWD Corolla with extra HP.

    The revised WRX does look like a winner though.

  • avatar
    paradigm_shift

    This should be a spiritual successor to my ’99 Impreza 2.5 RS, but alas it isn’t. For 10 years I’ve been waiting for Subaru to improve, but they refuse to make the Impreza better, lighter, good looking, etc

    The damned thing is I love my Impreza, the thing is still a blast and refuses to die, but I can’t see myself buying another Subaru in the future…

  • avatar

    This review missed the mark completely on one critical aspect.

    The Impreza GT was formerly called the WRX!!

    There is no longer an automatic available on the WRX at any price, they simply renamed the WRX automatic.

    Yes, this car isn’t as good as a WRX from a performance perspective, then go learn stick and drive a WRX. The point of this car is for the driver who wants an normal automatic Impreza, but wants more horsepower. Keep in mind, more horsepower here is for highway merges, not tackling corners.

    Also, I honestly doubt that Toyota had any influence in this decision, as the Impreza GT is a US marque, and all US marketing is driven by Subaru of America. In all likelihood, someone at SOA decided that WRX was a performance brand, and was un-befitting of an auto, so they took the auto out. Another point here is I doubt Subaru intends to sell many of these. It’s part of the classic teiring strategy, you have a low end for price, mid grade volume, and high end for those who want to spend money. Now they have the base Impreza which they can advertise as low cost, the volume Impreza (non-turbo) that most people buy, and the high end that allows there to be a volume product. Many people when confronted with three choices, will pick the middle. By having the Impreza GT, Subaru of America allows the average Impreza buyer to feel good picking the non-turbo with options as the “sensible” choice.

    I would think that we should be proud, there is now a car marque out there that HAS NO AUTO, and that is the WRX.

  • avatar
    Quentin

    Frank, as a Subaru fanatic, I have to say that Toyota had NOTHING to do with this car. Everything is carryover from last year’s automatic WRX. It really is just a faster version of the 2.5i, which is what the automatic driving WRX owner of 2008 wanted anyway. This is the same lame-duck that Subaru sold last year. The performance variant has been considerably improved for the performance driver. Subaru just removed the WRX name from an undeserving car.

  • avatar

    Quentin:

    You nailed it.

    EDIT: Disclaimer – I love my Legacy GT

  • avatar
    Travis

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost certain that the new WRX I drove a month ago listed for a hair under 27 grand. What kind of sense does it make that the WRX lists for near the same price as the 2.5GT?

  • avatar

    Travis, the reason for this is simple.

    The base Impreza is 17.5k
    The Impreza “Premium” is 20k
    The Impreza GT is 27k

    An average Impreza buyer is going to walk in, try things, and in all likelihood, the vast majority will pick the center choice. If the GT wasn’t there, A number of people who would have purchased the “Premium” will now purchase base, at less profit for Subaru.

    This is pretty standard across many products, having three, with the center being a high volume mainstream.

    All numbers slightly rounded, but attained from subaru.com

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Bit of a coincidence that this car is reviewed the same day Saab’s bankruptcy is announced.

    This version of the Impreza might suck (particularly with the lack of stickshift), but the WRX is the Saab 900 turbo hatchback for this generation.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    “Inside, though, it’s a Goth’s paradise. Everything is black save the headliner and a bit of faux aluminum trim scattered around.”

    Other than the faux aluminum that sounds like a driver’s paradise, not a goth’s paradise.

    Goths may dress in black, but I’m sure that they prefer grey car interiors. Nothing is more depressing than a grey car interior.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    Is this really the 2008 WRX? 0-60 in 7 sounds INCREDIBLY…un WRX’ish. Is this due to gearing?

    Is there really no automatic option on the 09 WRX?? I know when I bought my STI in 05 there wasn’t an auto for the STi, but there was for the regular wrx.

    Does no auto option also = more profit for subaru?

  • avatar
    Justin Berkowitz

    Here’s the story.

    Last year’s WRX, people complained, was too soft. Subaru had gone too far in making it comfortable and adding creature comforts. The 224 hp engine was no longer “enough.”

    So Subaru has gone in two directions.

    That softened car is still available, automatic only, as the 2.5 GT we see here. It’s not supposed to be particularly sporty, but rather a cushier, more powerful Impreza with some “luxury” features. This is why it has standard automatic climate control, heated seats, sunroof.

    As for the WRX, they took it harder core because that’s what the WRX people wanted. So it’s manual-transmission only now, has more power, harder suspension, and so on.

  • avatar

    Justin Berkowitz:

    What a foreign concept, a car company listening to what their customers wanted? And delivering it?

    /Yes, this is a dig at GM

  • avatar
    V6

    i think the Impreza really only needs a facelift at the front and some toned down tail lights to look decent. and an entirely new interior

    the 2.0R Sport model sold here has a nice stance on it’s 17′s, nice low & wide stance.

    i find the old and new Mazda3 hatch to be equally hard on the eye tbh, if not more

  • avatar
    wmba

    In Japan and most other markets outside NA, there was no 2008 WRX — it was called the Impreza GT. So this automatic model is now properly named here.

    The interior is awful, I said that back in August 2007 when they rolled into the dealer lot. Far worse than my 99 Impreza, and not even TTAC got that right:

    “After you whack your head on the unexpected window frame, you enter a not-so-markedly improved cabin. The new dash offers reasonably subdued chrome accents and a flying-V design theme (an encore performance of the fallopian Tribeca). The materials boast higher quality than the old WRX’s “we-spent-the-budget-on-the-drivetrain” PVC wonderland. Fine-vision gauges with STI-style startup sweep and center-mounted tach complete the updated look.”

    I was not impressed with this aspect of the old review at all. This new one today nails it. The interior is crap.

    Just over a year ago, when Subaru started flogging Legacy GT Limiteds for $500 less than this new “WRX”, I got one. Great car, nice interior.

    But then who can anticipate the public’s taste? The new Forester has upholstery not a million miles different from Sears bargain basement drape material, a ride like a cloud on its spindly legs, and sells like crazy. So what do I know?

    The next Legacy will no doubt be that incredibly ugly concept car they showed a couple months ago,and that’ll be the end of my affair with these guys.

  • avatar
    Detroit-Iron

    Good god that is expensive.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    With the arrival of the Impreza 2.5GT, the Toyotization of Subaru has begun.

    I think this started well before Toyota got involved. Subaru (and Mazda) is possibly making the same kind of mistake the killed Saab, saw Volvo bleeding badly and now threatens Honda/Acura: chasing the the fat of the market and abandoning your core.

    There’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to be damn sure you can succeed. Honda more or less has (with the big, fat exception that is Acura), Mazda and Nissan tried and it nearly killed them. Saab tried to chase BMW with a product that was both not as good as the 3-Series and unappealing to their core market.

    Subaru has to be very, very careful here, or they could end up with no customers. The spread of AWD across other brands will negate a big advantage, and without a base to fall back on, where will they be?

  • avatar
    Vorenus

    What kills me is that for the past three or four months, you could’ve had this car as a leftover ’08 WRX for $19K-$21K +tax, title & reg.

    That said, let me ask you this: If you could have this car for $19,900, would it appeal to you THEN?

    At that price point, there’s nothing better, IMHO. ($27K is over the top though.)

  • avatar
    dgduris

    Well, as one of two manufacturers showing increased sales in 2008, who can argue that Subaru don’t know what they are doing?

    So long as Toyota doesn’t do things to make Subaru less fun to drive or less dependable all will be well, I think.

    Hell, maybe congress will look at Subaru, declare them the best of all automotive averages (mileage, crash rating, awd and dependability) and give Subaru a National Defense-sized contract to put GIANT HEADLIGHTS on them and sell them as Pelosi’s.

    Seriously, though, the 2.5 GT sounds great market-segment wise. I bet if they changed out the 4EAT for a 5EAT (transmission) the mileage might increase enough to make the car even more competitive.

    OH! And while you’re listening, Cherry Hill, there are plenty of us Legacy GT and Spec. B drivers (I love my Spec. B) who would buy a Spec. B Wagon in about a half of a heartbeat. Savvy?

  • avatar
    carguy622

    Vorenus:

    I think I would rather take a leftover GTI 4 door for around $20.

    For what it’s worth; I think Subaru makes a great car… but they have softened the Forester way too much, and unless it’s a WRX or STi, the new base Imprezas are very underwhelming.

    I pray they don’t soften the non-performace model Legacys as well.

  • avatar
    Patrickj

    Subarus have significant gas mileage issues.

    A Chevy Impala gets better gas mileage, city or highway, than any Subaru in the US market.

    Quality cars, but hard to justify without compelling need for AWD.

  • avatar
    MrDot

    19/24 EPA rating

    Yikes. If gas prices rebound with the economy, Subaru is going to be in trouble.

  • avatar
    srogers

    Patrickj;

    Wrong!
    Subaru Impreza:
    20-22-27 city-combined-highway mpg
    Impala 3.5L:
    18-22-29
    Impala 5.3L:
    16-19-24.

    So the Impreza has a 10% better city mileage rating than the most economical Impala. (The Subaru highway rating DOES suck).
    Even if the Subaru did burn as much gas, I’d still rather drive/’be seen in’ the Subaru than an Impala. At least until I start wearing my pants hiked up to my armpits and a Bing Crosby hat.

  • avatar
    MBella

    What I don’t get is why Subaru doesn’t put a higher final gear into their cars. I get around 25mpg in the city, driving pretty hard, but on the freeway at 70mph, the engine is spinning at over 3000rpm. I can’t get it over 28mpg on long trips. If 5th gear would put the engine at about 2300-2500rpm at 70mph, I’m sure it would go up greatly.

  • avatar
    rochskier

    Agree about the gas mileage issues.

    I used to own a 1998 Subaru Forester S. Very practical car, wasn’t awful to drive for what it was, and its 2.5L flat-4 got 24-25ish on the highway.

    I now own a 2006 Dodge Magnum R/T AWD. Almost as practical as the Forester, much more fun to drive, and significantly better looking. I have the 5.7L HEMI with the variable displacement option, and I still get 24-25ish in normal highway driving.

    I was shocked when I calculated these numbers. I think the Subaru’s smaller displacement is offset by a far worse Cd. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.

  • avatar
    sillyp

    Why has no one mentioned the obvious: this car is beyond hideous.

    There I said it.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Cars like this exemplify the fact that most Subarus are far better values as stripper models.

    Unfortunately, at that point they sacrifice personality for price. Even with this model being heavily discounted, it’s still a piss poor offering that would only appeal to the most hardcore and stickshift averse Subaru clientele.

  • avatar
    ctoan

    Supposedly yanking a fuse can disconnect the rear driveshaft. Combined with automatic hubs Subaru might be able to solve their mileage problem.

  • avatar
    tankd0g

    Subaru interiors are still pretty bad, they are really laughable when you look at the price tag of one of these things in Canada. I shouldn’t let out an involuntary laugh when I slip into a $35,000 car. Unfortunately there is no inexpensive Subaru in Canada anymore, except for used ones. So no matter how you look at it you’re getting the fisher price interior, but I could live with it in something like a 2006 STI. Not in this ugly 2009 jellybean.

  • avatar

    I don’t think we can blame Toyota for this one–the 2008 WRX (which is essentially what this is) was engineered before Toyota bought its stake.

    I was thoroughly unimpressed by this car even with a stick. Way too soft.

    The real question is why they’ve addressed the shortcomings with the manual transmission, but not with the automatic. Maybe because just about everyone interested in a taut suspension will want the stick anyway? Not likely. But they wouldn’t want a four-speed automatic, either.

    On the reliability front, responses to TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey indicate a worse than average repair rate for the 2008–unusual for a Subaru. Not enough data for a result on the 2009 yet.

    Results for the Impreza and WRX:

    http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Subaru&mc=252&email=Guest

  • avatar
    jaje

    I think the review glossed over the obvious point of the 2.5GT’s existence. History tells us that the 2008 WRX was lambasted by its core customers for being too soft and “Camryish”. Subaru addressed this with the 2009 WRX and went back to the original formula (thankfully).

    However, Subaru found there was a soft spot of those who wanted for those who wanted WRX power, lots of creature comforts but not the rough and power junky ride the 2009 WRX went back to. That gap was filled quickly with the 2.5 GT. It does sell to those who don’t want the STI’s baby brother but a decent family car that is still quite fun to drive. I still think they should have offered a 5 speed option as I’m sure those people may want to row their own gears in search of gas mileage.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    tankd0g> My interior is fine (everything works, going on 4 years old) on 05 STi. What problems are you having with the interior?

    The gas mileage on the other hand……

    I have been doing an experiment and with all city driving keeping the STi between 2000 & 25000rpm I am getting about 17-18mpg. Keeping it between 1600-2000 puts me probably around 20…

  • avatar

    I saw an Impreza STI in the parking lot today actually and it really is very eye-catching and unique looking. And cool! I think they evolved this look very well.

    Licenseplate had CYAAAA on it too. :)

  • avatar
    golf4me

    But that’s just it–there are tons of competent cars out there, many of which cost less than $27K and get much better gas mileage. And many of them wear a Toyota badge.

    Oop, there it is!

  • avatar
    Macca

    Gotta agree with the sentiment of the review and many of the previous comments. Really, the lack of some pretty obvious options in Subarus turned me away on multiple purchases. C’mon, a 4-speed auto? GM and ChryCo get (justly) derided for similar decisions, and Subaru needs to reconsider this transmission – fast. The gas mileage for a car in this size class is also a major turnoff.

    Those two aforementioned reasons, plus the lack of a leather option lead me to purchase a new Mazda3 GT (5AT) last year. Sure, it’s a ‘fun-killing’ auto, but after 7 years of driving a 5MT, I was ready to let an auto take over during my commute. And yes, it makes nowhere near the power of the Impreza 2.5GT. But heck, a 2.3L-equipped Mazda3 (with the 5MT) is capable of 7.3 seconds 0-60. The auto probably adds nearly a second to that, I suppose, but it’s still a ‘peppy’ car with excellent handling.

    The 3 also ‘boasts’ an all-black interior with abundant felt carpet and a mouse-fur headliner, but the leather spruces things up nicely. Fuel efficiency isn’t stellar, either, but the EPA rating is 22/29, and I manage 25 in town with spirited driving (and as high as 33 on the highway).

    My point is, why buy the Impreza 2.5GT at $27k versus a Mazda3 GT at $24k? The 3 has niceties not available on the Impreza (Xenons, leather, rain-sensing wipers, 5AT OR 5MT) where the Impreza boasts a far-more powerful, turbo’ed engine. Given the automatic and fairly soft suspension on the Impreza, I don’t see the acceleration gain a huge selling point for a $3k difference in MSRP. At least it isn’t enough to sway me.

  • avatar
    Theodore

    Moving to the snowbelt induced a temporary fit of “do I need AWD in my winter car?” so last weekend I test-drove a couple of Subarus – an Impreza 2.5i and a Legacy 2.5i. Great handling in the snow and pretty good on the street, but they wanted for power (and I have a Miata and a V-6 Thunderbird, so if I thought they needed power…) and the interiors – particularly the seats – left something to be desired. Upgrading those parts gets mighty expensive in a Subaru. I left wishing for an AWD or RWD version of the Mazda3 I had tested earlier that day.

  • avatar
    NICKNICK

    I know that a lot of people question the need for AWD, especially in terms of fuel mileage.

    My Legacy GT returns 28mpg on the highway. My GTI returns 32mpg. That works out to about a difference of $300 per year. No problem there.

    I live in the snow belt, so there’s simply no comparison in the winter. Yes, the GTI can propel itself forward, and I know that all cars have all-wheel brakes, but a Subaru on four winter tires is a marvel.

    Even when the roads are dry, my GTI likes to do the one-wheel-peel if there’s any gravel left over from the winter. And uphill on-ramp merges in the rain…it’s simply too much torque for the front wheels.

    I really do love to drive my GTI, but the next car I crash or wear out will be replaced by a WRX. that way i get plenty of power, AWD, and the practicality of the GTI’s hatch.

    also, boxers sound better than I4s. that’s well worth any additional cost.

  • avatar
    puppyknuckles

    God that thing is ugly.

  • avatar
    michaelfrankie

    I’m sure there are better cars out there but I like the Impreza. I like how they take a hit from any side. I like em in the snow. I like the fact I have 87000 miles on my wrx and have not put one dime into repairs (really really). I like the idea of a 91 Legacy 2.2 Liter engine fitting right into my 2003 and vice verse.
    I don’t like the insurance, gas mileage or insurance.

  • avatar
    rodster205

    I’ll take a Mazdaspeed3 for 25K over this anyday. All I’ll lose is the AWD, and in reality I don’t need it since I live in the deep south.

  • avatar
    Cooper Subaru

    The Impreza GT is exactly what I was looking for. I have ordered a Dark Metallic Gray with some accessories including side body molding, front/rear underguards, satellite radio and splash guards. Compared to the premium, the GT provides a stronger engine (HP), better suspension, better interior, 17″ wheels and climate control. Chicago traffic is insane which is why the automatic works best for me. Many of you are correct that the WRX offers more from an engine standpoint, but I do not want to deal with summer sport tires in Chicago. The GT comes with all season tires which works great for our 4 seasons.

    Although the interior quality on the GT is better than the premium, it is still not what it should be for the price. Many of you have mentioned this and I agree, but ultimately I am purchasing the Impreza GT because its a Subaru with AWD. The quality ride (as opposed to the sporty ride of the WRX) along with the extra HP is what I truly enjoy!

  • avatar
    bryanska

    At the risk of being repetitive, I second the disgust with the all-black. Like a funeral. Or the inside of a costume. Luxury was once defined as the absence of vulgarity. Black is plenty vulgar in its own look-at-me-I’m-serious way.

    When did it become a “car guy” color? Isn’t leather naturally brown? Shouldn’t that be the ideal to which we all aspire?

  • avatar
    BEAT

    No Comment I am Lancer fanatic.

    WRX or GT it’s still Subaru to me. I hate them!
    why because they are just fast.

  • avatar
    wsn

    For those of you suggesting Mazda 3′s, didn’t you notice that the Impreza is much much larger inside? Especially front head room.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    “rochskier :
    February 20th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Agree about the gas mileage issues…. I think the Subaru’s smaller displacement is offset by a far worse Cd. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.”

    How about having to turn the extra rotating parts of the 4wd, and carry them?

    Also, the Magnum may have a better Cd than the Subie, but it must have a higher frontal area. So I think they might cancel out.

  • avatar
    iganpo

    The proportions on this car just don’t do it for me. Large front overhang isn’t so bad if the rear ends in something similar, but the truncated end of a hatchback really makes it feel too asymmetrical fore to aft. Looks like a humongous baseball cap.

  • avatar
    konaforever

    No Comment I am Lancer fanatic.

    WRX or GT it’s still Subaru to me. I hate them!
    why because they are just fast.

    But I heard that make a lot of noise and don’t go anywhere.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Yes the new Subie has been Toyotafied or blandified as I prefer to call it. Too bad they forgot to consult Toyota when it came to gas mileage or carpet material.

  • avatar
    mf

    Independent of how it looks, is this a good car? I live in Canada and do a good deal of driving in moderately rough slush, snow, and general winter crap for what seems like 6 months of the year. I’m really not a fan of SUVs at all, and would like an AWD car, so I’m contemplating an Impreza. Seems that my options would be the MB C-Class, BMW 3, Audi A4, or Lexus IS — all great cars, but with price tags to match. Any thoughts?

  • avatar
    Cooper Subaru

    The car is excellent. I have had mine since March and I cannot say enough about it. I purchased the GT in Gray Metallic with a few extras including the following: extended arm rest, amplifier, front and rear bumper guards, satellite radio, body colored side molding (makes a huge difference), splash guards and the rear view mirror with compass. I live in Chicago and the car is perfect. If you would like some pictures and more details let me know and I will send them to you electronically.

  • avatar

    You all are missing a very crazy fact. Go to Subaru.com, click build your own. Base 2010 WRX comes out to $25,690. The 2010 Impreza GT comes out to $27,690. For $2,000 less, you get 60+ HP and a 5-spd Manual transmission. Are people idiots?

  • avatar
    night_flight

    One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is the crazy low rear view mirror height.  I’ve never seen a mirror so low.  I’m 6’2″ so I’m used to low mirrors.  My wife at 5’4″ and hated the mirror.  The mirror blocks a lot of the view out the front.  We had the car for 6 weeks and got rid of it due to the mirror and other reasons.  Before anyone buys one of these, spend some time with the mirror.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India