In 2005, Toyota bought around half of GM’s stake in Subaru. As ToMoCo never bought Saab, they never bothered with a Saabaru. Instead, Toyota decided to go for a return on their investment. How? By broadening the WRX’s appeal. That’s right, the WRX, Subaru’s de facto all-wheel drive, turbocharged, deformed-looking halo vehicle was going to bring home the bacon by appealing to moms. Ha ha ha. As such, the 2008 WRX was an abject failure. There’s no better proof/pudding than the fact that I spent a week with an all new 2009 WRX. Not since the 1950s has a redesign happened so fast. But big questions remain. Like just how much better is this new-for-‘09 Rex?
The exterior’s a big mess. Still. Viewed from the side, it’s a Corolla with big wheels. From the front, it’s the ugliest WRX yet, even if it now sports the STI’s grill. That’s truly a remarkable achievement. However, I’m reserving the bulk of my venom for the ghastly rear. Our particular tester is the sedan (as opposed to the much better wagon) and all I see a Toyota Echo with twin pipes. Blech!
The interior is no better. In fact, it’s a big step back compared to the 2005 – 2007 flying-vagina model. Sure, the gauges do an expensive-car sweep when you turn the key. And instead of illegible-in-sunlight orange, everything on the WRX’s dash now glows red. But everything’s made from cheaper stuff, which in my STI review I perspicaciously referred to as “crap.”
I particularly dislike that the doors are no longer (partially) covered in fabric. Instead, your left elbow rests against the type of crummy plastic you’ll find lining a 737. Awful to the touch. The seats have less bolstering (but do have heaters) and the steering wheel doesn’t adjust up far enough to even consider driving tricks like left foot braking. Heel and toe’s more difficult, too. Hey, at least the WRX is now manual-only, right? Sadly, it’s BMW-grade floppy and vague.
But there is a new for 2009 engine. One of the two big downfalls of the 2008 WRX: Subaru carried over the ’07 motor. Brand new car, same 224 hp and 226 lb-ft torques. For 2009, the turbo has been swapped out for the STI’s larger turbo plus some piping and ECU upgrades. But big deal, right? I mean, the resulting numbers are 265 hp and 244 lb-ft. Nice, but… Caution! You’re about to enter the all spin zone! When the WRX’ tachometer crests 4,000 rpm, something miraculous occurs. Oh. My. Lord. It’s fast. Freakishly, worryingly, shockingly fast. Ten years ago I would have sworn it was running nitrous. How fast?
The 2009 WRX hits 60 mph from zero in 4.7 seconds. And here’s the kicker: it costs about $25k. Let’s put that in perspective. In 2002, just six years ago, a Ferrari Maranello 575M (the one with the much-admired HVAC controls) stickered for around $225k. The Fezza hit 60 mph in 4.2 seconds. You want new cars? A Porsche 997 costs $75k0 and hits 60 mph in 4.8 seconds. A Cayman S? $60k/5.1 seconds. BMW 335i? $42k/5.2 seconds (though some claim 4.8– which is still slower). M3 sedan? $53k/4.7 seconds. The new Mustang GT and new 370Z are both well over 300 hp machines that cost $5k more and can “only” hit 60 mph in 5-flat.
Subaru’s own STI costs $38k and manages 60 mph in 5.0. Here’s a biggie: Mitsu’s $39,000 EVO X MR? 4.9 seconds. In fact, 0-60 mph in 4.7 seconds is the exact same time as a Buick GNX, a car that 22 years ago was the fastest accelerating production car in the world. $25k, friends.
The other major downfall of the 2008 Rex was the soft-as-peach-yogurt suspension. Especially when compared to all the other dental appliance loosening WRXs that preceeded it. The new WRX fixes that, to a degree. Gone is the whoa nelly! body roll, replaced by what feels like a highly-tuned Corolla. I happen to own an ’06 Rexer; the 2009 model simply lacks my car’s maybe/kinda/could be a race car feel. It’s just too comfortable, too squishy, too mainstream. Not that the new car has any issues with corners (it doesn’t). But its econo car roots are more apparent. Specifically, understeer happens. One aspect that has been improved over all predecessors is high speed stability. Thank God.
So, do you buy the 2009 WRX? As an owner of both a 2006 and a 2001 would I buy it? The obvious problem: the competition. MazdaSpeed3 anyone? Hell, the Chevy Cobalt SS is just as powerful and can whip the WRX around a track. And the Subaru is really, seriously ugly. But here’s the thing: once that big turbo fully spools and starts puking power into the transmission, you realize how little all the other stuff else matters. My advice? Get the wagon, and start looking for rich guys to humiliate.
83 Comments on “Review: 2009 Subaru WRX...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Excellent review, though I do question whether neck snapping acceleration can really cover for all the things botched.
0-60 in 4.7? Wow, that is quick by any measure. Did your car have the six-speed or the five-speed, or is that even an option anymore? My old and very missed ‘04 Werx had the six in it.
To get those numbers though, it almost sounds like they re-worked some of the gearing ratios in the tranny. That 0-60 number is all the more impressive because you’re giving up some time by manually shifting, at least compared to a lot of the other cars you mentioned that accelerate slower.
Yeah, fast won’t compensate for everything. I sat in a Lancer EVO at a recent auto show and I can tell you that if I was that uncomfortable and in pain when sitting in the hard as plastic seats when just sitting still, being in that kinda of pain AND hitting 60 in 5 seconds would be downright dangerous.
Not fair to compare zippo-60 numbers against RWD cars. By the time the WRX reaches the end of a quarter-mile, a 575 Maranello will be putting on its turn signal for the return lane.
“Sometimes quantity is quality.”
If I’m correct, Joe Stalin’s quote is closer to: “Sometimes, quantity has a quality all of its own” while launching yet another entire ARMY on a hapless Wehrmacht regiment…
A fitting comparison for the WRX’s engine, it seems.
@ Jack: not fair, true. But on the other hand, most WRX owners pride themselves on using their cars in real-life rather than on the track, where low speed acceleration matters more than top speed (although passing speed may well be the ultimate measure).
A) Your obsession with 0-60 times belies the truth about vehicles, the real world, and speed – what does a 0-60 matter except for magazine racers and stoplight racing, which is for douchebags and hooligans (respectively). A more telling figure would be trap speed, which indicates how fast the car really can move. This car’s 1/4 mile trap speed is between 99-101 mph – that’s not very impressive unless your goal is to race Mom’s Camry V6.
B) Where are you getting your 0-60 time data from? The best I could find anywhere on the intarnets is 0-60 in 5.1 from Road and Track, who has notoriously low 0-60 times. Realistically you’re looking at 5.2-5.3, thanks to AWD and good gearing, but as I stated before, the car runs out of steam up top and only traps around 100 mph.
C) Its one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen. This matters, especially if you have to be seen in public.
disclaimer – I am a Subaru owner, and therefore cannot be accused of fanboyism or bias against Subarus themselves – just calling it like I see it.
My advice would have been to do what I did. Pick up a new 2008 STI for 29k with 0% financing for 63 months then add a Cobb accessport for $650. You are looking at 340hp and 345tq (yay 93 octane) at the flywheel with a much smoother pull from 2750 instead of 4k.
Also stats vary, some STI tests show it at 5 for 0-60 but even Edmunds(notorious for slow times) ran one in 4.7 on lame 91 octane.
While I would never have paid 37k for one nor bought any previous year as it looked like a kids car the 08/09 STI fits the bill for me at least.
With about $1,000 in modifications (sways, bushings, accessport and taillight overlays) and the 08 STI finally makes sense.
I agree they do need to fix the interior, cheap for a car in this price range but then I care less that my kids mess it up so maybe it’s for the best.
As another Subaru owner (2008 LGT), I can attest, above 4000RPM, the car flys (even with my smaller Turbo compared to the 2009 WRX)
Also, with the Legacy, you get leather, a nicer soft touch interior, slightly longer wheelbase, and less attention from police.
I love my subie. It’s not perfect, but it’s damn awesome.
I read an article that claims the ‘most expensive’ cars to insure are the STI and EVO. Does the WRX fit into this category as well?
cretinx:
Car & Driver
http://tinyurl.com/9lsv5z
Good enough?
The problem with the 0-60 times on these AWD turbo cars is that you have to side step the clutch at 5000 rpm to get out of the hole with a reasonable time.
A a 5mph-60mph street start will reveal the car to be much slower (as evidenced by its 1/4 mile trap speed as well).
That being said, I still love subies!
Like other here have said, what’s the obsession with 0-60 times? AWD cars with high gearing have an advantage in that area.
Also the M3 Sedan has been timed from 0-60 as fast as 4.1 seconds. Cherry picking numbers to make your point isn’t valid.
You didn’t include 1/4 mile times because that didn’t prove your point.
My attraction to WRX’s over the years is akin to my high school years attraction to slightly chubby girls with great personalities and an openness to “try new things”.
In a nutshell, the spec sheet performance of both can just rock, but the day to day livability, and dare I say looks (I said it) just does not make it.
This review was a constant contradiction of terms, but that pretty much sums up a Subaru – and it’s owners (yours truly included).
If you’re above (below?) blasphemy, the aforementioned Saabaru can be had on the dirt-cheap right now, since they’re all but forgotten. Find yourself an Aero model, and you’ll have an inoffensively-styled (if not almost handsome) previous-gen WRX with the same craptastic interior and 100% of the thrills for a 25% discount over the authentically badged model.
I probably wouldn’t fare so badly in the new gen REX since stupid power crossed with nautical handling is the M.O. of my Outback XT. I’ll just have to feign blissful ignorance that better handling exists
somewhereeverywhere.From back when I bothered to subscribe to both Road and Track and Car & Driver, Road and Track tested acceleration like they owned the car (i.e. they used the clutch, and dropped the clutch an RPM level that would make it last more than a week), while Car & Driver tested acceleration like they stole the car (i.e. speed shifting, dropping the clutch at very high RPM, etc.). So take the results given that.
If someone wants sub 5 second 0-60 times with cheap interior plastic an F-body is the way to go. Getting beaten by the Bandit would be particularly humiliating for rich guys.
Does this thing still have a 5-speed, one less shift might give it an advantage over some of the pricier cars in 0-60.
onerareviper: depends on the frequency with which people total them. Probably fairly expensive to insure.
I was severely disappointed by the 2008 WRX, for the reasons mentioned in this review. Especially the interior (which all of the magazines have raved about–what’s up with that?) and the suspension.
Drove the STI recently. Better, but not loving it. Like the Evo better.
Reliability is a question mark here. 2008 WRX owners have been reporting a fairly high repair rate on TrueDelta’s surveys so far, which is unusual for a Subaru. Most likely they worked the bugs out prior to the 2009 launch. Time will tell. We have updates every three months, with the next one in early February.
http://www.truedelta.com/models/Impreza.php
Sales of the Impreza are up in spite of a down market. The 2008 is right on target, exactly what Subaru needed.
The WRX part is meaningless, as are most “enthusiast” cars.
I see women driving 08 Imprezas now, I never saw that with any of the previous gen cars.
0-60 from Consumer Reports
2008 WRX-MT 6.3
2008 STi MT 5.4
2008 Evo GSR 5.8
Mustang GT 5.5
911 4.4
Of course, no review of the Subaru WRX would be complete without a mention of the freakin’ Mazdaspeed 3. I’m glad that you fit right into the mold there, Mr. Lieberman.
Listen – the Mazdaspeed 3 is a fine car. In many respects, it’s a better car than the WRX. Unfortunately, the fact that it ATTEMPTS to put a fair amount of power through the front wheels is the car’s Achilles heel. Now, here’s the deal: THAT IS ONE HUGE MOTHER EFFING ACHILLES HEEL when it comes to a car that makes Mazdaspeed 3-levels of torque.
I am completely tired of automotive journalists who discount AWD (I’m not saying you do this, Mr. Lieberman; I’m just venting here.) Do they not realize that with AWD, you can actually *use* the power that your car makes in everyday situations (merging onto a four-line high-traffic highway, for instance) WITHOUT screeching and wheelspin? Sorry, but THAT, to me, is a BIG deal.
A) Your obsession with 0-60 times belies the truth about vehicles, the real world, and speed – what does a 0-60 matter except for magazine racers and stoplight racing, which is for douchebags and hooligans (respectively). A more telling figure would be trap speed, which indicates how fast the car really can move. This car’s 1/4 mile trap speed is between 99-101 mph – that’s not very impressive unless your goal is to race Mom’s Camry V6.
I think the quarter mile time is what doesn’t matter in the real world of a daily driver. Acceleration up to highway speed is more important to most people than how quickly the car can cover 1320 ft.
Vorenus: Sounds like someone needs to drive a MazdaSpeed3.
The last turbo Sub I drove was a manual Outback XT, and I thought it was slow compared to the 0-60 claims (under 6, supposedly). I’m guessing that the WRX is a ringer, much like the GNX was (although the GNX was a journalist ringer, with specially prepped cars going to the testers to ensure ridiculous numbers. They were preproduction prototypes, and later tests peg the acceleration at about 1 second slower). It’s always better to underquote power than to overquote it.
Good point Vorenus…I don’t think a lot of people in “non-AWD” locales realize the dry weather advantage. I have a car Mr. Lieberman didn’t exactly love (08 Infiniti G35xS) but the ability to hammer its Nismo 3.5 306hp and put all the power to the pavement is amazing. I’ve had some semi-high power FWDers (2002 Acura TL-S) and torque steer – even if partially controlled – just spoils the festivities…I had a 2006 A4 3.2 Quattro with the true S-line suspension – 30% stiffer springs and lowered 0.8 inches – and that was a serious go-kart (but with heated rear seats)…Even my wife’s 08 Highlander Ltd AWD with it’s Toyo AWD system can smoke almost all the soccer/hockey moms – and dads – in their CUV/SUV buggies…Sure, AWD weight can kill, but I love all 4 wheels putting down the power. PLUS, I like the new “Chrysler” front end on the 2008-2009 Subies…
P.S. Johnny – I’ll also go drive a Mazdaspeed3 ASAP…I just drove a 09 GTI but I know that isn’t in the same hp/lb ft ballpark…
$25k, yeah right. Add ten large for the Canadian price…
Is it really so ugly? Bland – yes, but no less handsome that the last model was to my eyes.
Ambulancechaser is bang on. When the STI first debuted it was pushing $50k up here in the Great White North. Budget supercar my ass.
I haven’t priced the WRX lately, but they started at $40k a few years ago. I’m not sure how well they adjusted the pricing when the Canadian dollar went to par.
As for 0-60: My used ZX-6R, probably worth about $4k, will hit it in less than 4 seconds. Since I’ve had the bike I’ve stopped caring about what my car can do, because everything feels slow next to a sportbike.
Edit: Furthermore, I can cane the bike like an idiot and still get 35mpg all day long.
But here’s the thing: once that big turbo fully spools and starts puking power into the transmission, you realize how little all the other stuff else matters. My advice? Get the wagon, and start looking for rich guys to humiliate.
If the turbo’s the only reason to buy the WRX, you’re better off picking up a used [insert favorite sports compact from the past 20 years], slapping on an aftermarket turbo and getting the same effect for a lot less money.
quasimondo: Nuh uh.
Especially as the WRX will 100,000+ miles with no problems and strapping a turbo to most cars will kill said engine.
Bench racing aisde, the car looks like it’s much more improved over the 07-08, performance-wise. At the very least, the car didn’t gain much weight, if any, over the previous generation.
JL–the gauge sweep isn’t necessarily confined to fancy cars. I recall Pontiac doing the sweep on startup, although it may have been a recurring electrical glitch. Is the pedal placement still as good as the 06?
Areitu: Stupidly, no!
Now, I’ve talked with engineers that say proper pedal placement is one of the most expensive things to design into a car.
i.e. I smell Toyota.
Or so we hope. My old scooby blew it’s engine after only 75K.
You’d be amazed at what engines could laugh off a good boosting.
> I recall Pontiac doing the sweep on startup, although it may have been a recurring electrical glitch.
That’s unfair, but it made me laugh. :)
Please to be resizing the interior pic (it’s verrrrry big).
I’m not a Subie aficionado so what is the aftermarket support like for this vehicle?
Could one change the hood for a less obnoxious look?
“Instead, Toyota decided to go for a return on their investment. How? By broadening the WRX’s appeal. That’s right, the WRX, Subaru’s de facto all-wheel drive, turbocharged, deformed-looking halo vehicle was going to bring home the bacon by appealing to moms.”
Source? I hear a lot of enthusiasts assuming that Toyota is making decisions for Subaru, but I have yet to see any proof. What makes more sense to me is that Subaru was simply trying to sell more cars by extending to other demographics.
All I can say is I love my 06 rex wagon and I think I’ll drive it till my balls drop.
But my question to Jonny: isn’t the 0-60 time for the 09 more like 5.4 seconds?
akirachan: that’s the ‘05 to ‘07
‘08 is slower.
‘09 is insane.
And I agree. Keeping the ‘06 till death do us part
Rex’s are cult cars in Australia that we always wondered why the USA missed out on. The whole Subaru brand in Australia is built on them (well maybe the excellent Outback too).
WRX’s are the wet dream of many an Australian teenager to the detriment of GM Holden and Ford’s performance divisions over the last decade.
IMHO, the 2006 STI 2.5L was the best looking and the most frightening to ride in with someone who could peddle it. The grip and in-gear acceleration is unbelievable. V8? Bah! Turbo AWD in-gear feels like it’s in another league.
We wound up picking up one of the last 2008 WRXs they had. A super cheap MFGR subsidized lease payment can get you a sub $275 / month payment (this includes taxes and accessories, etc.)! It has some body roll issues and its brake suck – as evidence by its last track day in stock form at Gateway Int Raceway (Fall ‘08). But now with EBC Yellows, Pink STI springs, and a set of front/rear sway bars it can brake and corner very nicely and flat – even still rides nicely. Next up is a Legacy GT turbo and upgraded intercooler, intake and turbo back exhaust and it’ll have more than enough power for our family car!
What is the nice thing about it is when it snows. The car is so sure footed and controllable it is definitely a great car.
Silly power is entertaining, but the awful, awful looks really make the Scooby a non-starter for me. I’m not a big fan of the new Lancer/Evo, but it at least has presence. The Scooby looks like a migraine.
While I love power as much as the next guy, there is more to driving than acceleration. My brother loves hot Imprezzas and has a bunch of them over the years – mostly hotted up STi and WRXs. We have taken them on the track as well as twisty back roads and while the power and grip have never failed to entertain, I have never seriously contemplated buying one. I simply can’t beyond the cheap interior, the terrible clutch and rubbery shifter. It just kills the deal for me.
Subaru should poach some of the designers from the Miata team and learn something about attention to detail and driver involvement.
Carguy: The clutch is same as it ever was — i.e. pretty good.
Jonny – does the clutch still have that late uptake that used to make WRXs so difficult to launch?
I’ve seen much uglier Subarus than this one. I mean, considering that they wrote the book on bug-eyed ugliness, this one is actually not too bad in that relative way. I used to always hold up Subaru as the example of the automaker who had to really try to make something any worse looking. I know looks are usually subjective, but, short of Vermonters, you weren’t going to find many argue with you on their complete lack of any redeemable exterior aesthetic. Sorry to waste a paragraph on what you already knew.
I have driven only a couple of Subarus over the years. Hard plastics, cheap interiors, flimsy tin can feel, etc. were what I remember. I’ve always wondered what it was that drew those to the WRX as a performance vehicle. To be able to swallow those gold wheels, I’m from Mars front-end and such was something that I could never understand. There have been cars that are quicker for the same money that you don’t have to rev to the moon to milk power from. I just never got it. I guess there are guys who appreciate torque and guys who want to wail like banshees in order to get their grins.
no_slushbox, Car and Driver doesn’t speed shift in their testing. See http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/how_does_c_d_test_cars_feature+t-acceleration_and_braking+page-2.html
0-60 testing is a de-facto standard among car magazines and has been that way for many years. I thought that went without saying. If you’re reading Car and Driver, at least you know they have consistently wrung about the most you can out of the vehicle. That consistency allows you to compare two vehicles properly.
cretinx, You seem pretty harsh on your description of magazine racers and stoplight racers. I think most of us over the years have dreamt about owning or at least driving the fast cars in them. I have fond memories of talking numbers from the testing of these sexy beasts before I could actually experience some of them firsthand. I don’t consider myself or those I talked with to be “douchebags” as you refer to us.
I might not do much in the way of stoplight racing, simply due to ticket aversion, but I know that I rev the hell out of all sports cars I’ve owned as often as possible. I have no respect for those who don’t take a car to the redline once in a while. For me, it was and still is a frequent exercise. I long to be first at a stoplight – not to be a racing hooligan, but to wring out and enjoy the performance of the vehicle at hand. Life’s too short to not talk car numbers and drive like you mean it.
0-60 best represents that fun. Trap speed in the quarter mile is indicative of HP. Both are good tests, but it is a much less frequent occurrence in the real world to hit 120 MPH. 0-60 is going to tell you about gearing and traction and what you can expect from each stoplight. Or, more accurately, what I can expect. You don’t have to race someone to go fast.
Puking?
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1648372
Here is a thread about ‘09 WRX owners having major engine problems.
Have any of you TTAC folks heard anything of this??
I’d really like to buy this car but these posts make me nervous… I thought that half the reason you bought a Subie was for strong reliability…
The other car I’m considering is an A4 Avant and that car’s reliability is obviously nothing to write home about either…
Any thoughts??
I know they had problems on the 2008 STI and those were addressed with the 09 models. The major flaws with the current WRXs are the paint which is very thin and chips easily. The stereo is mediocre and new looks are much more conservative over the previous generations. We have 7k miles on ours and have some small problems like the heater control is either fully on even down to 66 degrees it is hot – til you turn it to 65 degrees then no heat (no scale of heat control).
As for the engine failures I’ve not had them nor been aware this was a major problem on the 08/09 WRX. With the WRX crowd a lot of people modify cars – get a problem then put it back to stock and claim 100% innocence – they will even note that they never even drove it hard. So I’d be skeptical as to most claims (that’s not to say that there’s been problems).
I read in a GTO forum recently about an encounter between a GTO and a STi on a mountain road. Of course the GTO had its butt handed to him and the consensus on the forum was you would have to be out of your mind to tangle hair with a Subie in the twisty’s. I just got out of my 06 WRX its 15 degrees and the roads are snow and ice covered here in the UP of Michigan. Not a Ferrari or Lambo in sight. Super cars shouldn’t hide in the garage when the weather gets interesting.
I have an ‘02 with about 60k miles on it. No serious problems but the paint is thin and the windshield likes to chip. Also, the OEM tires are garbage and wear out at about 12k miles. Still, put some decent tires of any brand on and you will have a budget all-weather supercar. The only thing I could wish for would be an improved clutchless manual system like those on an Audi.
C’mon, Jonny. 5.0 seconds to 60 mph for the STI? In /your/ review of the STI on this site, you say 4.8:
“Light the fuse and the STI’s carryover (but remapped) 305 horsepower boxer mill will rocket you to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds. The STI doesn’t feel nearly that slow. If not for the fussy gearing that forces an up-shift to third, you could hit 60 mph a lot faster.”
I read in a GTO forum recently about an encounter between a GTO and a STi on a mountain road. Of course the GTO had its butt handed to him and the consensus on the forum was you would have to be out of your mind to tangle hair with a Subie in the twisty’s.
I was just watching an old Top Gear where they tested the Vauxhall Monaro and it put up an identical lap time to the STi. That’s not a big track, and it has plenty of bends. The Vauxhall actually looked really tidy around the corners.
In all but the worst driving conditions, I think it would come down to the driver.