By on April 4, 2014

2015-Subaru-WRX-blue-tree_rdax_646x396

Strong sales of the WRX hatchback in America have led Subaru to re-consider their “sedan only” policy for the current generation WRX.

An Australian enthusiast site spoke to WRX Project General Manager Masuo Takatsu, who said that strong demand for the hatch in America (where it accounted for half of WRX sales) has led them to re-consider their plans

“We have received strong interest from the US, where the hatchback was 50 per cent (of previous-generation WRX sales), so we’re now considering. The main target for WRX is the US…Japan is number two, Australia number three. Basically, we target these three markets.”

Takatsu said that limited resources were behind the lack of a hatch at launch, and interestingly, a two-pedal variant of the STi. Subaru’s Australian arm eventually expects the CVT powered WRX to account for as much as 50 percent of WRX sales, though the hatch has always been a much weaker play.

Oddly, the 90+ percent take rate for the sedan in Australia runs counter to its competitors like the VW Golf GTI, Ford Focus ST and Renaultsport Megane, which are all hatches. On the other hand, Americans are notoriously fond of sedans, but are the biggers buyers of WRX hatchbacks.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

82 Comments on “Subaru May Revive The WRX Hatchback...”


  • avatar
    Kenmore

    “Americans are notoriously fond of sedans”

    Not no more. CUVs, please.

    But every hatch is good as a sort of training bra for eventual CUV owners.

    • 0 avatar
      FractureCritical

      Funny.
      I often think of CUV’s as ‘beards’ for those unwilling to accept their own vehicular orientation.

      IT’s OK to come out of the closet, we all know you actually prefer a hatch but want to act like a rough-and-tuble off roader. Just know that you can be proud of who you are, we will love you, regardless.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Well, if hatch = effeminate I guess I’ve been swishing all my life.

        So… what’re you up to later?

        • 0 avatar
          FractureCritical

          I’m rolling in my hatch, baby.

          really meant it more as a jab against those putting on silly airs “I have a CUV!”

          no you don’t. you have a hatch, and you have it becuase you wanted it. there’s nothing wrong with admitting to yourself that decades of SUV marketing haven’t worked on you and you realize real UTILITY and got the practical choice.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        ” OK to come out of the closet, we all know you actually prefer a hatch but want to act like a rough-and-tuble off roader. ”

        Which is kind of funny because most CUVs don’t even feign the pretense of off-roadability or ruggedness anymore. Nothing more than space compromised minivans, really.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          CUVs are tall hatches with higher hip points and more upright (comfortable) seating. Of course they are more popular.

          • 0 avatar
            Les

            And have ride-heights in-common with road-going family cars from 40 years ago that were not designed in any way to go off-road.

            (Seriously, on a whim I went and checked ground clearance numbers of some modern cars with a car from the 70s.)

            2014 Mazda 3 sedan, under five-inches ground-clearance.

            2014 Mazda CX-5, a CUV, just over eight inches ground clearance.

            1970 Pontiac GTO Judge, about Ten inches ground clearance. TEN Inches! From a ‘sporty’ car of the day. Holy Crap!

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Les, that is unreal!

            Ground clearance is important to me and I realize we’ve slowly been conditioned to accept less and less (as roads only get worse) but I had no idea how pathetic the situation really is.

          • 0 avatar
            Les

            @Kenmore

            I suspect it’s a result of too many car designers finding their inspiration from custom and hot-rod cars and trying to carry that over into mainstream designs.

            That, and aerodynamics and handling, all push cars lower and the designers and manufacturers think this is all whiz-bang wizzer and everyone will love.

            Sales of SUVs/CUVs/Pickup-Trucks would suggest, NOPE.

    • 0 avatar

      > Not no more. CUVs, please.

      Subaru should start a new trend by making reverse-Outback’s.

    • 0 avatar
      montethepoodle

      I just ordered a 15 WRX and had to wait two weeks for placing an order that will take 12 weeks for delivery. I am paying MSRP, but was able to get it in the base model. I wanted a sedan am am actually not to happy that sedan has fold down rear seats. Wanted a locked trunk for better security while traveling . Have to see if it is better than my 03 WRX> that went 156k being run hard always. Problems with 03 — gear box, head gaskets and blowing through tires religiously. And 21 MPG. New should be better.

      • 0 avatar

        Can you not lock those seats in the upright position?

      • 0 avatar
        Synchromesh

        That has to be the silliest thing I heard all day. Lol, extra security seats. I drove my WRX hatch with seats down and stuff in the back covered by a big cloth across the entire USA (MA to CA) and had absolutely no problems. The non-folding seats is one of the reasons why I didn’t want to get an ’06-07 sedan. Any sedan that doesn’t have folding rear seats is simply pathetic in my book.

        Btw, I’m one of those last gen WRX hatch buyers. And I won’t even consider the new one until they come out with a proper hatch.

  • avatar

    I’ll just bet that that 5th door (and it’s promised utility) make rationalizing the performance easier for the “life partnered,” animal-owning and/or outdoor sports enthusiast would-be WRX/STi buyers out there – especially considering the accompanying insurance premiums and having no Legacy GT Spec. B wagon as an alternative. Me? I just like the old World Rally Euro Hot Hatch look. And I hope this isn’t just a late April Fools story.

  • avatar
    MichaelD_Utah

    “Weak sales of the WRX sedan in America have led Subaru to re-consider their “sedan only” policy for the current generation WRX.”

    There. Fixed that first sentence for you.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      haha, well done. TTAPR

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      The WRX just hit lots around 2 weeks ago. It is impossible to make a claim one way or the other this early. From what I’ve seen, this new WRX will have no trouble selling despite dropping the hatch. I think a large portion of the hatch buyers will be willing to give up the hatch for the 6MT, torquier 2.0T, and MUCH better handling. Plus, the Evo is dead, so the WRX/STI will pick up some sales there.

      I think we might see a hatch return when the sales start dipping after the 2nd model year. People seem to forget that the hatch-only ’08 STIs had $5k or so on the hood to move them back when they first came out and the sedan STI was reintroduced after a few years.

      The other point of note is that the twins sold better than the WRX did last year. Does a hatch and sedan version really have a business case with only 30k or so units a year? They might be better off selling 25k units of just the sedan from a dollars and cents perspective.

      • 0 avatar

        Well said. And, while I would MUCH rather the hatch, unless there is going to be a Spec. B Legacy within the next 14 or so months, I’ll be I’ll be buying one of those 4-door Impreza derivatives.

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          The ’15 WRX is definitely on my radar. They have done a lot of good with the new model.

          My wife has one of those devil CUVs that are just THE WORST*, so I don’t need to have absolute cargo carrying in my daily driver. The terrible mileage and uninspiring handling of the ’08-’14 WRXs is what kept me disinterested in them for so long. I’d buy a hatch if offered, but I’m not against a sedan. Ecohitch offers a hitch that is completely hidden for the Imprezas. Hopefully it fits on the WRX for bike racks or a small platform for some added versatility.

          *I actually love our CUV. They really are excellent family vehicles. AWD capability for when you need it, easy on gas, and TONS of space.

          • 0 avatar

            “*I actually love our CUV. They really are excellent family vehicles. AWD capability for when you need it, easy on gas, and TONS of space.”

            ??? Like a Subaru.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            We ended up with a Rav4, but I do like the Foresters. But I think that the capability of Subarus has a lot to do with their sales boom over the past 4 years.

          • 0 avatar
            koreancowboy

            Same here, I was thinking about a five-door GTI for my next ride, but if they come out with the hatch…well, I’d rather get that.

            Also, I would be interested in that Ecohitch as well, I’ll need a bike rack for our bikes.

          • 0 avatar

            Guys, there are too many fools out there playing with their iPhones instead of driving. Put your bikes on the roof where they won’t get crushed if you get rear-ended (said the bike guy).

      • 0 avatar
        djsyndrome

        It’s not impossible at all.

        People walk in, drive the WRX, say ‘great, but I need a hatchback’, and walk down to the VW lot to try out a GTI. Those complaints make it directly to Subaru USA, which then forwards them to Japan.

        (of course, actually *looking* at the near 50/50 sales split for the last twelve years would have been helpful for Subaru, too :)

        • 0 avatar
          Quentin

          Yet, VW doesn’t offer an AWD GTI despite people hypothetically driving a GTI and saying, “but I need AWD for under $36k” and they go to the Subaru dealership. It goes both ways and depends on someone’s priorities. With these cars just hitting the lots, it is too early to say if they will be a sales success or not despite anecdotes of why someone didn’t buy a car.

          Like I said, the gamble that Subaru is taking is how many potential WRX hatch owners would settle for a sedan. It has been a 50/50 split the for the previous generation (was not the case on the GD/GG). If out of 100 buyers, 50 choose the sedan anyway and 25 would still buy the WRX despite being sedan only, they probably made a decent gamble. The improved gas mileage, modern engine, and much improved handling might bring in enough to keep sales flat or improve them over the outgoing version. By not building two versions, they’d saved R&D money, federalizing money, advertising money, floorplanning money, logistics money, etc. The raw sales numbers aren’t the big deal. Investment versus return on X vehicles is what matters. Cutting down options, trims, and body styles reduces investment without forcing you to cut cost elsewhere (interior materials, technology, etc.) Considering how small this market is anyway, I’m not shocked that they are consolidating to a single body style. The GTI, Focus ST, and MS3 are/were hatch only. The Evo was sedan only.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            It’s called the Golf R. And it’s hatch-only. Just FYI. :)

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Quentin’s point stands. The 2013 Golf R started at $35K (that is for the 2 door too), and the new one will probably be more. I don’t have pricing handy.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Doesn’t quite stand, the Golf R is the AWD GTI, and it does come in (just) under that mark. Admittedly there’s little room for niceties, but a dedicated VW person isn’t going to care anyway, they’ll fork it over if they really want a VW. And VW knows it. It’s not there to necessarily compete with the WRX, it’s there primarily as a GTI upsell.

          • 0 avatar
            hubcap

            If one of the main reasons you’re buying a WRX is its all weather AWD capability you’ll be disappointed with the Golf R. Not that the R isn’t a nice car, it most certainly is, but the AWD system isn’t as capable.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I specifically said $36k because of the Golf R. I was pretty certain that was the starting price. Off by $1k for the old version. As said above, the new one will probably crest $36k. My point stands; I could have said $30k as a GTI is easily available for $25k. The MKVII Golf R will make 296hp. It isn’t just an AWD GTI. $10k is quite the jump when you walk into the dealership shopping the $20k-$30k arena.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            And $35K was for the 2-door. The four door started just over $36K. VW is trying to make the price close to that. I wouldn’t be suprised if the starting price on the 2015s are around $37K, and get well above $40K with options.

            Thats dangerous territory when a Mustang GT Premium starts under $36K too. Not that everyone cross shops the GT and sport compacts. I just hope Ford can keep the starting price of the Focus RS around $30K.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            We should also note that the WRX now offers an auto shifting option that wasn’t available on the last gen. That will most definitely broaden the appeal of the new one. I don’t think sales will suffer at all by dropping the hatch.

          • 0 avatar

            @Quentin,

            Good point. I hope that makes the Rex appeal to the smarter middle managers of life looking for something more fun, flexible and higher performance than the 3 (now, likely 4 series) that their colleagues lease. Of course, that will require Subaru NA to start a leasing and a Certified Pre-Owned WRX program. Hmmmm.

        • 0 avatar
          JD23

          How many people who think they “need” AWD actually need it? FWD and snow tires would be more than adequate for the vast majority of people, even in snowy areas, and actually safer than AWD with crappy OEM all-seasons.

          • 0 avatar

            Meh! That requires a level of engagement and planning that most folks don’t have. Besides, with all the globull warming b.s. being spread, it is even more difficult for many to assess the real value of snow tires and wheels…and the hassle of getting it done BEFORE the snow hits. People simply are not engaged at that level. WRX with V-rated all seasons would be a good thing – I think.

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    Pretty hard to compete in the hot-hatch segment when you don’t even offer a hatch.

  • avatar
    FractureCritical

    It’s hard to go back to a sedan on a small car footprint afer having a hatch. the loss of utility is staggering and would otherwise require a rather large sedan to make up the difference.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      That depends on what type of utility your after. For example, you can put four people in a GLI and still have plenty of cargo space courtesy of the rather large trunk. A GTI doesn’t offer that same utility.

      If you’re not carrying four people on a somewhat consistent basis the GTI is more accommodating but I know for me and what I needed the sedan was a better fit. It couldn’t carry bulky items like the GTI but it could carry a lot of stuff and four people in comfort.

      I used it for moves to various Air Stations when I was in the service. You’d be surprised how many bags, boxes and various other sundry items could fit.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      So true. I went from a ’83 Accord hatch to a ’90 Accord sedan, and the utility of putting down the rear seats and carrying more than the trunk could ever carry was gone, along with that extremely useful rear wiper. Even with a fairly large trunk opening by today’s standards, there were furniture items small enough for the trunk space but too big or odd-shaped to fit through the opening.

  • avatar
    tedward

    So Subaru has been getting an earful at their corporate offices, dealer meetings and display booths apparently. Here’s hoping Audi is planning a similar course correction for the auto-only decision on their S3.

    As to why hatch…I really have only two reasons for my preference. 1. I have dogs and a kid, and I will not give my money to companies who can’t accommodate both with a good handling vehicle that satisfies my next reason. 2. I think they look better. The proportions of a modern hatch/wagon usually appeal to me more so than sedans, and I think the CUV alternatives are a little ugly duckling in comparison. The ride height thing really is a problem, and the big wheel sizes they spec to provide wagon like handling drive running costs through the roof.

  • avatar

    Pretty please????!!!!

    http://www.2015subaruwrx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2015-Subaru-WRX-Advanced-Tourer.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      Macca

      Subaru pulled off one of the worst bait-and-switch tricks with the last WRX concept – and it shared design similarities with that Advanced Tourer concept. They apparently employ at least one talented designer.

      Unfortunately everyone else in the company must really lack imagination. To bring out such a frumpy, slab-sided bland-mobile as the new WRX after teasing the awesome (and relatively conceivably production-ready) concept should be a crime.

      I think they’re missing out on a significant number of potential buyers who would rather not drive a car that looks like a Corolla with Pep Boys parts glued to it, performance cred notwithstanding.

      • 0 avatar

        Well, regardless of what may have been promised, the reality is that you’re simply not going to deliver a vehicle capable of super car-like performance for under $40k without some economy of scale (ie, using a shared platform) and that brings limitations – like A and C pillar placement…

        • 0 avatar
          Macca

          Don’t get me wrong – I hear what you’re saying.

          ‘Super car-like performance’ is a bit of a stretch, though, especially with the latest gen. Motor Trend achieved 5.5 sec 0-60 MPH and 14.0 sec @ 98.1 mph in a 2015 WRX (manual). CVT cersions are closer to 6 seconds. Still, that’s impressive for a car that checks in at $27k MSRP (w/ dest). The 2015 STI is estimated to get to 60 MPH in 5.2 seconds with a quarter-mile time in the low 13s. Also impressive, but now you’re in a $35k MSRP vehicle that can escalate to $41k in Limited+Nav trim. All this in a world where an Accord V6 gets to 60 in the mid-5s (I know, insert handling comment here).

          I’m more in general just lamenting Subaru’s overall regression in design language. They used to make some really handsome cars – now they’re just bland & awkward. Plus – you were the one pining for a concept car that we already know to be just a design study. I’m with you, though, I’d buy one of those Advanced Tourers in a hurry!

          • 0 avatar

            When Ole Jonny Lieberman compares an Accord with a 911 – as he did a new STi, call me. Until then, my argument that the STi is the only car to offer super car-like performance for under $40k stands.

            Also, if you haven’t seen the Dominic Infante video about the new STi, you can’t really appreciate how special it is. Goodness knows that no-one would by its looks…and that’s part of Subaru’s problem. But, at the price, I’ll take awesome, under-the-sheet metal engineering over swoopy looks all day long…and I hope that the dealers are offering a “wing delete” package.

          • 0 avatar
            Power6

            If you are comparing 0-60 with a V6 Accord, buy the Honda, because you are completely missing the point of the WRX.

            Also your feelings may be genuine right now, but this is the same styling discussion with every gen of Subaru. Ugly when new (see: all the “looks like a Neon” hate of 2002), accepted as “handsome” just as it goes out of production…

            The ’15 STI is impressive despite a carryover motor with just 300hp, that is saying something…

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Subarus only look good as they leave production because they’re each better than the next.

        • 0 avatar
          hubcap

          “When Ole Jonny Lieberman compares an Accord with a 911 – as he did a new STi, call me.”

          You’re saying the STI has super car-esque performance based on a buff-book, Johnny Lieberman comparison?

          Is it too much to use objective performance data? The WRX/STI are great performing cars for the price. Before you attach super car like to their performance metrics it would help if you clarified exactly what you mean.

      • 0 avatar
        npaladin2000

        “relatively conceivably production-ready”

        Man, you either never got near that concept or you really have no clue. That “production ready” concept had no engine, no vents, and no interior. It was a design study, stuck on a pre-fab “blank slate” chassis they use for…wait for it…non-production design studies.

        Trust me, I got real close to the thing. It was never going to be built, nor could it be. It was just there to test the reaction to some of the styling elements they were playing with.

        • 0 avatar
          Macca

          You’re right – I never ‘got near’ that concept. I trust your assessment that you couldn’t hop in a drive away.

          The spirit of my comment, however, was in reference to the design elements of the car. Compare it to a crazy concept like Mazda’s Nagare design study from a few years back. Unlike the Nagare, the WRX concept didn’t have any ridiculously complex surfaces, it had ‘real’ pillars, real-enough shaped/placed lighting elements, and an overall appearance of a body/design that could be put into production. The tumblehome was a bit exaggerated, and it’s the complete lack of any on the ’14 that makes it so ugly.

          About the only ‘design elements’ they maintained on the production version were the grille shape and hood scoop, grafted onto a frumpy, awkward sedan.

          Heck, even publications like Car & Driver treated it as a realistic indicator of future design:

          http://www.caranddriver.com/news/subaru-wrx-concept-auto-shows

          I’m not suggesting that particular concept was ready for a rally race after the auto show – merely that it wasn’t so outlandish as to scream “we’ll never build this”.

          There seems to be a level of “production readiness” that some concepts portray that serve to be misleading, with negative consequences when the real clunker is revealed. Had they exaggerated some more ridiculousness on the concept perhaps many folks wouldn’t have been so disappointed in the real thing. The reaction to the production WRX seems to indicate a lot of folks were thinking the concept was fairly close to reality.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Ok. We should probably accept that, like always, the WRX was going to be Impreza-based. Clearly that is the case, even though it’s no longer the “Impreza WRX.” That being said, there’s only so much they can do with the styling. They did keep the exhaust treatment, some elements of the lighting treatments, and a few other things.

            And yes, you’re right, a lot of concepts look like they might be production ready from far away, or to the non-technical eye. It’s unfortunate, but some people can’t tell the difference anymore, and some automakers make it hard to tell. Look for things like wipers, like air vents, functional door handles, the little things, and then you can tell.

            Most of all, if you see the word “concept” then it’s a concept. Not a “production preview” and not even really a “prototype.” It’s an idea. I never take concepts at any more than loose face value. Ever.

          • 0 avatar
            Macca

            Look, just because a concept doesn’t have air vents or wipers doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not the shape and general design will make it to production, technical eye or not.

            You’re describing “drivable today” and I’m describing “conceivably able to be produced”.

            Also, as to your guidance on ‘concept’ syntax, you might notice there’s at least one major exception. Acura ‘concepts’ are essentially “production previews” they tend to be thinly veiled versions of the production car.

            http://www.caranddriver.com/news/acura-tlx-concept-photos-and-info-news

            Similarly, the Lexus LF-CC ‘concept’ was also very close to the RC, serving more as a preview.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Actually, yes, it does have everything to do with it. Concepts are put together by designers as design studies. “Capable of being produced” requires engineering of all the necessary components. So yeah, if they didn’t bother to include those small things, then they didn’t bother engineering the car, which means no, it really can’t be produced, and is not production-ready, or even conceivably able to be produced, unless a LOT of dumb luck is involved. You DID notice the wheelbase on the concept blank was different from any other platform Subaru is producing right? And as I recall the wheels were too far forward to allow for an AWD boxer setup? Engineering again.

            And since you describe Acura as an “exception” you already know the rule, why are you surprised Subaru abides by it?

            Look, just admit it, you, along with most of the rest of the world, got caught up in the noise from the Internet Hype Machine(TM) and thereby generated for yourselves a set of very unrealistic expectations based off of a completely non-engineered art project and the fact that the WRX would no longer have the word “Impreza” in the name. There’s no shame in this, probably about half the Internet is in the same boat. ;)

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    I trust everyone knows that in these CAFE/styling-denuded days “hatch” no longer means a vehicle that can be visually distinguished at any distance from a sedan.

    It just means the rear window lifts with the midget trunk lid.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    Hmmm, if they actually DO do this, whatever shall I do? I love my 2014 Mazda3, but I’m in the Northeast, so a WRX would be both fun AND useful. Except for the part where it’s got a CVT anyway….

    • 0 avatar
      Ubermensch

      WRX can be had with a CVT or 6sp manual.

      • 0 avatar
        npaladin2000

        My commute is not stick-friendly, and my left knee isn’t in the greatest of shape. So we’re back to having a CVT.

        • 0 avatar

          You know, when Audi came out with the DSG, everyone said: “not a transmission for real men.” Now, those are much the rage. If you look at what Subaru have done, though, they have engineered a lighter, more durable, less expensive and more efficient transmission that arguably performs as well and costs less. I don’t know what’s unmanly about that – especially if you have a manual un-friendly drive and a game knee, old boy!

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            It’s still a relatively mushy transmission, particularly compared to Mazda’s SkyActiv automatic, which I may just marry one day. :)

            I’d love to see Subaru do a DSG one of these days but I don’t think it’s likely. Subie’s doing their best with that CVT, but that’s mostly because they’re too small to do too many transmissions, and so they’re trying to get the most out of that one that they can. Makes sense from a business perspective, I just wish it were otherwise. ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Heir Cooled

            The wife just got a ’14 Forester XT with the 2.0T and CVT. In Intelligent and “Sport” mode it’s a bit dull, but my wife is fine with it and she gets 28mpg hwy, not bad for a very roomy CUV. (I acknowledge that the turbo was 100% for me.) However, hit “Sport #” and the FXT is very lively, and the CVT mimics a good sport-automatic.

            I was CVT-dubious, but now I’m a fan. I think the CVT is actually pretty economical and efficient when schlepping around, but eager to stay on boost when you want some fun. CVT or no, the FXT is a lot quicker and sharper than the other compact CUVs (including the Escape 2.0T), so if you need a utilitarian road-box that can haul a$$ and everything else, the FXT is a good choice.

            I imagine this powertrain (including CVT) is a hoot in the WRX, with its lower center of gravity and additional 20hp.

            Note to Subaru though: ohmigod does the harman/kardon GPS/stereo suck. Suck suck suck suck suck.

  • avatar
    rustyra24

    I own a Subaru and I still do not understand how they have such great customer loyalty. Each generation has problems not associated with normal maintenance but people keep buying them.

  • avatar
    The Heisenberg Cartel

    Another car for all of the E3 and E4s on base! Of course the officers will stick with their outbacks and foresters … maybe bring back the Forester XT for the officers who still wish they were junior enlisted?*

    *all of the above stereotypes are pretty damn close to being true, at least on Air Force bases

  • avatar
    iganpo

    Please build this! In a couple years I will replace my aging sporty coupe with a newer sporty/sports car. WRX could have been high my list, but the small sedan form factor, or any sedan for that matter, doesn’t do it for me. Either give me all-out utility (wagons and pickups) or all-out style (coupes) or a nice blend of both (hatch). And sporty precludes FWD and autos in my book.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    A WRX hatch?

    To me it seems as logical as a Comaro station wagon.

    If you want a hot hatch, buy Euro.

    But if they offer it, they will sell.

    • 0 avatar
      hubcap

      Are you serious? I ask because the WRX, at least here in the States was pretty popular in hatch form. Why must you buy Euro if you want a hot hatch?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @hubcap
        Because here in Australia most every WRX we see are sedans. The WRX hatches are much rarer. We had the Forester with the WRX engine, why buy a WRX hatch?

        You generally buy a hatch for utility.

        The WRX lost it’s way with styling and the worst looking of the WRX’s is the hatch. The original WRX’s looked the part, the newer ones look quite ‘hair dresser’ like, especially the WRX hatch.

        The WRX hatches appeared to be an after thought.

        As you can see I do admit I personally (along with many others in Australia) have a negative bias towards WRX hatches.

        Sorry, but they don’t look the part.

        • 0 avatar
          hubcap

          “Sorry, but they don’t look the part.”

          No reason to be sorry;-) I don’t agree and like it’s been said “there’s an ass for every seat!” I’ll assume it’d be a cold day in Brisbane before yours is in a WRX hatch.

  • avatar
    krayzie

    Just bring over the Levorg. Problem solved!


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

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States