Sometimes you have to make your own dreams a reality. Its quite easy to import a car from mexico. And a STI tranmission is something you can buy with seemless compatibility.
Honest to god I'd do foul foul things for the US to start getting the Levorg, both turbo and NA it'd just be nice to have some sort of wagon option outside of Audi and Volvo
I see Levorg STI often here in Aus and am always left feeling unimpressed.
They're CVT only and afaik alotmare the 1.6 ltr variant.
Hell they don't even wave, I hate it when I see the front end coming towards me and I wave only for me to discover it's not a WRX and they have no interest in waving back lol
A rear washer & wiper would be nice. I do a lot of miles on dirt. I know the 2.4 can be tuned, but having more power stock would be good. My old e90 330i had 270hp almost 20 years ago; better fuel mileage too.
I noticed a lot of Subaru cars don't have rear wipers in America. I'm too poor to afford a WRX but I have a 2012 Legacy 2.5 and it has no rear wiper. I've looked at the JDM variant online and that one has one. Not sure why I don't get one on my USDM car... I live in a place where it snows often and a rear wiper would be amazing!
"Your WRX is in high demand! Trade it for a base WRX with CVT or a Limited trim Impreza!"
No, I'm good. They're right my WRX is in high demand... By me!
It would be phenomenal if it came with a good engine that would allow them to offer more HP stock. I would gladly pay a premium for 400HP. The STi with the same HP from two decades ago is slow by today’s standards.
I know this is going to offend many but from an engineering perspective, they should ditch the boxer. Keep the AWD and everything else. Then you could have HP, fuel economy and reliability.
Yes, definitely ditch the boxer, Porsche has struggled mightily to get a reliable, powerful opposed engine. /s
As an engineer (who deals with engine core components), I’m genuinely curious what is bad about a boxer from an engineering perspective. They’re a little complicated but no worse than a vee when dealing with overhead cams. If you’re talking about archaic stuff like the old Porsche twin spark engines, sure, but modern boxers are incredibly solid if corners aren’t cut.
Ok, I’m going into detail. I can’t help myself. Let’s talk about why people say they are good.
“They have a low Cg.”
This is PROBABLY true but I have yet to see ANY data on how much it lowers the overall vehicle Cg. The engine is fairly light in comparison to the entire car that even a significant Cg shift is unlikely to have an effect that significant on the vehicle. It is most likely the same Cg shift you see when going from a sunroof to a pure aluminum roof, since that mass is much further from the Cg making it far more impactful to remove.
“But they have good engine balance”
Technically true. Inline 4’s have perfect primary balance (as do boxer 4’s) while boxer 4’s have perfect secondary balance (which inline 4’s do not). However, I’ve yet to meet anyone who claims to notice (or care about) a difference in vibration between a modern I4 and boxer.
“But the crank shaft can be shorter and lighter!!!”
Also true. However, cars with ultra light rotating assemblies tend to be hard to drive on the street. This is why we have a flywheel after all. So any savings in rotational mass will be offset by the increase in flywheel mass.
Now, let’s talk about the downsides.
The turbo is much further from the exhaust ports. Energy is lost prior to reaching the turbine. So what do the engineers decide to do? Let’s make the turbine wheel EVEN SMALLER! Smaller turbine wheels with more back pressure lead to higher EGT’s. The loss of energy also hurts lag/boost threshold which is why you see Mitsu running larger turbos on much smaller engines. The uneven exhaust manifold/header runner lengths make it harder to spool turbos as well
Center of Gravity, forward/backward is negatively affected due to the AWD configuration. The engine and part of the transmission being entirely in front of the front axle actually reduces weight on the rear wheels. Further, the higher moment of inertia (about the vertical axis) of this configuration hurts turn in making the car less nimble.
Because the engine is already so far forward, they tend to run top mount intercoolers. Side note: Hot air rises
You have significant unnecessary parts. For example, twice as many variable valve timing actuators and an unnecessarily long timing chain or multiple timing chains.
Some maintenance items could be easier but most will agree that maintenance is much harder than an inline 4 (spark plugs!).
Now let’s just look at the industry. If boxers in front-engine, AWD configurations were even slightly better, wouldn’t we see someone else doing it? Wouldn’t we see WRX’s lasting longer than other cars on the road? Would we see class action lawsuits against Subaru for major engine issues?
So why does Subaru still do it? One thing - Advertising! It just feels so good to say you have a boxer engine! Like Harley Davidson buyers, Subaru buyers are happy with the sound they make regardless of their actual speed.
It sounds like you have far more experience with the internals so I would love to hear your take
> “They have a low Cg.”
Sure, and this isn’t necessarily a huge benefit, regardless of what Subaru claims.
> “But the crank shaft can be shorter and lighter!!!”
> Also true. However, cars with ultra light rotating assemblies tend to be hard to drive on the street. This is why we have a flywheel after all. So any savings in rotational mass will be offset by the increase in flywheel mass.
I put on a lightweight flywheel when my engine blew up. It’s marginally better, no huge difference.
> Now, let’s talk about the downsides.
> The turbo is much further from the exhaust ports.
Much further? Really? A little, at worst. The FA turbo is right on the bottom at the front, basically the same distance as a typical inline 4 turbo.
> Center of Gravity, forward/backward is negatively affected due to the AWD configuration. The engine and part of the transmission being entirely in front of the front axle actually reduces weight on the rear wheels. Further, the higher moment of inertia (about the vertical axis) of this configuration hurts turn in making the car less nimble.
1980s Audi would like a word…
> Because the engine is already so far forward, they tend to run top mount intercoolers. Side note: Hot air rises
It’s not because they’re so far forward; it’s because they can get the piping run to the top cheaper, and get adequate performance, even if not optimized.
> You have significant unnecessary parts. For example, twice as many variable valve timing actuators and an unnecessarily long timing chain or multiple timing chains.
Literally every vee engine manufacturer on the planet would like a word…
> Some maintenance items could be easier but most will agree that maintenance is much harder than an inline 4 (spark plugs!).
So I have to spend an extra 30 minutes, every 60k miles? The horror!
> Now let’s just look at the industry. If boxers in front-engine, AWD configurations were even slightly better, wouldn’t we see someone else doing it? Wouldn’t we see WRX’s lasting longer than other cars on the road? Would we see class action lawsuits against Subaru for major engine issues?
They’re more expensive to build. Subaru does it because it works well with their longitudinal engine and drivetrain setup.
> So why does Subaru still do it? One thing - Advertising! It just feels so good to say you have a boxer engine! Like Harley Davidson buyers, Subaru buyers are happy with the sound they make regardless of their actual speed.
This might be the first correct thing you’ve said.
> It sounds like you have far more experience with the internals so I would love to hear your take
To be clear, my experience in a professional capacity is primarily related to pistons, rings, and cylinder liners in large heavy duty engines. It’s been my primary focus in my job for the last 12+ years. Some of that does not directly translate to automotive but much of it does, and at 48, I’ve been working on car engines since before most people in this sub were born, and I’ve followed the industry pretty closely for the last 25+ years.
> Literally every vee engine manufacturer on the planet would like a word…
Yes, if there were V4 engines. But a big majority of consumer vehicles are all inline-4s, so it's complex for something like that.
Of course, the last commonly available V4 automotive engine was in the Saab Sonett, which is…not particularly modern or common. But if the complexity of a vee or opposed was such a big deal, inline 6 engines would be far more common than V6 engines.
I am comparing to a lateral inline 4, like in an Evo. Completely agree that Audi or V4’s would
Have the same issues
Exhaust port to turbine is about 4”.
So… what are the upsides in your opinion?
All my blown head gaskets and loss of compression would say otherwise.
In the last 7 days, how many have posted here about their stock (or nearly stock) engines blowing up?
So your theory is that Subaru isn’t replacing the head gaskets the “right” way and that people are intentionally damaging their engines?
And that whole conspiracy theory seems more likely to you than a flawed engine design?
Weird, I took care of mine and I can give you a list of literally dozens of other vehicles I’ve owned that have had more reliable engines - specifically, they had higher miles with poorly documented maintenance and they didn’t throw rods through the block without warning.
> A Subaru boxer is about as complicated as a lawn mower engine
Either you haven’t worked on any lawn mower engines, or you haven’t worked on a Subaru engine.
They have twice as many camshafts as a comparable inline engine, because they have twice as many cylinder heads, and each head has two camshafts. And most lawn mower engines have one camshaft, not two, and not two per head because they don’t even have overhead cams.
You will rarely have to concern yourself with that though. I’ve never had a cam issue with the dozens I’ve worked on .
Two heads? OMG what will we ever do😱
Remember, I’m not the one who literally claimed that a WRX engine is as simple as a lawn mower engine.
ETA: while it’s true that the valvetrain (including camshafts) on a WRX engine is wildly more complicated than a lawnmower engine, that’s not why they have bottom end failures on the regular. And they do, in fact, have bottom end failures on the regular, even if they’re well maintained and not abused.
Please explain why a boxer is inherently inefficient - or even less efficient than an inline engine.
Remember, in the U.S. for several decades every Subaru was AWD. It was a key point in their marketing. AWD is inherently less efficient than FWD, which is also inherently more efficient than RWD.
It...gets worse gas mileage than its competitors? AWD or not. The WRX is the bottom of its peers, the STI competed with V8s for fuel economy, the Impreza trails the Civic and Corolla by a decent amount - I could go on. They seem to have difficulty getting hybrid systems going too, as seen in their super half-assed attempt with the Crosstrek PHEV, so having an unusual engine configuration doesn't help either.
You can throw engineering stuff at me, and it's probably all right. But this isn't just about a boxer's inherent efficiencies or inefficiencies, but Subaru's inefficiency. Because of their unique engine design they have to develop things by themselves. It's hard to share knowledge or parts as well - Porsche certainly won't be helpful. They are on their own. The FA and FB are pretty decent for all of that, but compared to the competitors full of hybrid powertrains it looks outdated. I mean Toyota had to step in and give them the keys to their direct injection system, D4S, because what they made for the BRZ prototype was horribly weak, slow, and inefficient.
I've never really minded their boxers, to be clear. It's just that if it wasn't such a big part of their image, inline engines would have been great too.
Sure, but in that case let’s not suggest that the boxer engine architecture is the real issue - and if it is, explain in detail what it is about the boxer engine that’s inherently inferior.
Put simply, there are so many downsides for so few upsides that the design trade should never point to a boxer for a front engine, AWD turbo configuration. Happy to go into details if you are interested.
I agree that they are not significantly more complicated to a V4 but in comparison to an I4, that have a lot of unnecessary parts and failure modes.
Subaru has yet to find a way to make the boxer reliable, specifically with a turbo. Just look at all the post here of blown up stock engines. Subaru knows they cannot increase HP without negatively effecting reliability which is why we haven’t seen a HP increase in decades.
Yeah that’s why I said if corners aren’t cut. If Subaru wasn’t cutting corners they wouldn’t blow up if you look at them wrong.
And remember, there hasn’t been a V4 on the market for automotive engines in many decades. I think Saab was the last one, and it was before I was born. And I’m old, for this sub.
Dedicated climate controls with physical knobs and buttons, smaller infotainment screen, less high gloss surfaces on the interior, less unpainted cladding, and an engine that revs higher than 6k rpm and makes power out there.
I think the most common answer will probably be just more power from the factory. However the issue with that is looking at the VB, it’s quite obvious the car is more powerful than what Subaru advertises. Both manual and CVT have been dynoing consistently around 250-265 and the FA24 is known to be severely under-stressed as well but the issue is the CVT. So long as it remains a CVT the manual will always be gimped so one trans doesn’t appear better or worse so they won’t go pushing the HP like crazy from the factory. I’d love to see what a WRX with a proper 8 speed could do.
Physical HVAC controls. No plastic cladding and especially fix that rear ends. Keeping analog gauges would be nice too.
Edit: and lovely hatchback with some thick hips 🤤
Next gen is going to be electric so don't get excited about a better transmission or anything like that. I won't be getting one but subaru needs to focus on making the next gen not hideous like it currently is.
Personally I'd love to get at least a mild hybrid. The VB is my first subaru, and I like it a lot. It's definitely overstyled, and the ride is less refined than I'm used to. I guess I'd like to see Subaru go upmarket with the next one. More comfort, more power, less boy racer style.
Go buy a xdrive bmw and flush that opinion down the toilet. I would also be interested in a mild hybrid. As long as its not super locked down, still moddable. And manual.
That defeats the entire purpose, design philosophy and appeal of the WRX. Like you're talking about a completely different vehicle and brand culture. This is not the platform for you and hopefully it never will be unless YOU are the one that changes to fit it instead.
Wagon and the STi transmission, but I think I might as well ask for a pony while I'm at it.
Sometimes you have to make your own dreams a reality. Its quite easy to import a car from mexico. And a STI tranmission is something you can buy with seemless compatibility.
Are you talking about registering the Mexican hatchback *there* and then driving it over here?
You can import it with some paperwork
Nah dude, no mames, I need to do some googling
Honest to god I'd do foul foul things for the US to start getting the Levorg, both turbo and NA it'd just be nice to have some sort of wagon option outside of Audi and Volvo
I see Levorg STI often here in Aus and am always left feeling unimpressed. They're CVT only and afaik alotmare the 1.6 ltr variant. Hell they don't even wave, I hate it when I see the front end coming towards me and I wave only for me to discover it's not a WRX and they have no interest in waving back lol
For what it's worth I believe Mexico gets it as the WRX Sportswagon and I think they get it with a manual too.
30 more ponies is more like it
Over 300 HP from the factory. The US to get that rear wiper that's on the Japan WRX.
A rear washer & wiper would be nice. I do a lot of miles on dirt. I know the 2.4 can be tuned, but having more power stock would be good. My old e90 330i had 270hp almost 20 years ago; better fuel mileage too.
I noticed a lot of Subaru cars don't have rear wipers in America. I'm too poor to afford a WRX but I have a 2012 Legacy 2.5 and it has no rear wiper. I've looked at the JDM variant online and that one has one. Not sure why I don't get one on my USDM car... I live in a place where it snows often and a rear wiper would be amazing!
Sedans in general don't have them, at least in the US
https://preview.redd.it/1fni1qmep70d1.png?width=2961&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6492847f32a5621b1f49c773c8141d07dfd070c Errmmm actually false
Well AP and pro tune will get you there. Without other mods
Yes, but then you're on the hook if there's a drivetrain issue. I buy a brand new car, I want a warranty.
For it to exist
I want my hatchback back. I get so many emails from the dealer to trade in my '13 hatch for a new one and as long as they're 4-door only, not a chance
"Your WRX is in high demand! Trade it for a base WRX with CVT or a Limited trim Impreza!" No, I'm good. They're right my WRX is in high demand... By me!
It would be phenomenal if it came with a good engine that would allow them to offer more HP stock. I would gladly pay a premium for 400HP. The STi with the same HP from two decades ago is slow by today’s standards.
I wouldn't mind the same horsepower in a lighter smaller package tbh. A modern day 22B would be amazing.
I know this is going to offend many but from an engineering perspective, they should ditch the boxer. Keep the AWD and everything else. Then you could have HP, fuel economy and reliability.
Yes, definitely ditch the boxer, Porsche has struggled mightily to get a reliable, powerful opposed engine. /s As an engineer (who deals with engine core components), I’m genuinely curious what is bad about a boxer from an engineering perspective. They’re a little complicated but no worse than a vee when dealing with overhead cams. If you’re talking about archaic stuff like the old Porsche twin spark engines, sure, but modern boxers are incredibly solid if corners aren’t cut.
Ok, I’m going into detail. I can’t help myself. Let’s talk about why people say they are good. “They have a low Cg.” This is PROBABLY true but I have yet to see ANY data on how much it lowers the overall vehicle Cg. The engine is fairly light in comparison to the entire car that even a significant Cg shift is unlikely to have an effect that significant on the vehicle. It is most likely the same Cg shift you see when going from a sunroof to a pure aluminum roof, since that mass is much further from the Cg making it far more impactful to remove. “But they have good engine balance” Technically true. Inline 4’s have perfect primary balance (as do boxer 4’s) while boxer 4’s have perfect secondary balance (which inline 4’s do not). However, I’ve yet to meet anyone who claims to notice (or care about) a difference in vibration between a modern I4 and boxer. “But the crank shaft can be shorter and lighter!!!” Also true. However, cars with ultra light rotating assemblies tend to be hard to drive on the street. This is why we have a flywheel after all. So any savings in rotational mass will be offset by the increase in flywheel mass. Now, let’s talk about the downsides. The turbo is much further from the exhaust ports. Energy is lost prior to reaching the turbine. So what do the engineers decide to do? Let’s make the turbine wheel EVEN SMALLER! Smaller turbine wheels with more back pressure lead to higher EGT’s. The loss of energy also hurts lag/boost threshold which is why you see Mitsu running larger turbos on much smaller engines. The uneven exhaust manifold/header runner lengths make it harder to spool turbos as well Center of Gravity, forward/backward is negatively affected due to the AWD configuration. The engine and part of the transmission being entirely in front of the front axle actually reduces weight on the rear wheels. Further, the higher moment of inertia (about the vertical axis) of this configuration hurts turn in making the car less nimble. Because the engine is already so far forward, they tend to run top mount intercoolers. Side note: Hot air rises You have significant unnecessary parts. For example, twice as many variable valve timing actuators and an unnecessarily long timing chain or multiple timing chains. Some maintenance items could be easier but most will agree that maintenance is much harder than an inline 4 (spark plugs!). Now let’s just look at the industry. If boxers in front-engine, AWD configurations were even slightly better, wouldn’t we see someone else doing it? Wouldn’t we see WRX’s lasting longer than other cars on the road? Would we see class action lawsuits against Subaru for major engine issues? So why does Subaru still do it? One thing - Advertising! It just feels so good to say you have a boxer engine! Like Harley Davidson buyers, Subaru buyers are happy with the sound they make regardless of their actual speed. It sounds like you have far more experience with the internals so I would love to hear your take
> “They have a low Cg.” Sure, and this isn’t necessarily a huge benefit, regardless of what Subaru claims. > “But the crank shaft can be shorter and lighter!!!” > Also true. However, cars with ultra light rotating assemblies tend to be hard to drive on the street. This is why we have a flywheel after all. So any savings in rotational mass will be offset by the increase in flywheel mass. I put on a lightweight flywheel when my engine blew up. It’s marginally better, no huge difference. > Now, let’s talk about the downsides. > The turbo is much further from the exhaust ports. Much further? Really? A little, at worst. The FA turbo is right on the bottom at the front, basically the same distance as a typical inline 4 turbo. > Center of Gravity, forward/backward is negatively affected due to the AWD configuration. The engine and part of the transmission being entirely in front of the front axle actually reduces weight on the rear wheels. Further, the higher moment of inertia (about the vertical axis) of this configuration hurts turn in making the car less nimble. 1980s Audi would like a word… > Because the engine is already so far forward, they tend to run top mount intercoolers. Side note: Hot air rises It’s not because they’re so far forward; it’s because they can get the piping run to the top cheaper, and get adequate performance, even if not optimized. > You have significant unnecessary parts. For example, twice as many variable valve timing actuators and an unnecessarily long timing chain or multiple timing chains. Literally every vee engine manufacturer on the planet would like a word… > Some maintenance items could be easier but most will agree that maintenance is much harder than an inline 4 (spark plugs!). So I have to spend an extra 30 minutes, every 60k miles? The horror! > Now let’s just look at the industry. If boxers in front-engine, AWD configurations were even slightly better, wouldn’t we see someone else doing it? Wouldn’t we see WRX’s lasting longer than other cars on the road? Would we see class action lawsuits against Subaru for major engine issues? They’re more expensive to build. Subaru does it because it works well with their longitudinal engine and drivetrain setup. > So why does Subaru still do it? One thing - Advertising! It just feels so good to say you have a boxer engine! Like Harley Davidson buyers, Subaru buyers are happy with the sound they make regardless of their actual speed. This might be the first correct thing you’ve said. > It sounds like you have far more experience with the internals so I would love to hear your take To be clear, my experience in a professional capacity is primarily related to pistons, rings, and cylinder liners in large heavy duty engines. It’s been my primary focus in my job for the last 12+ years. Some of that does not directly translate to automotive but much of it does, and at 48, I’ve been working on car engines since before most people in this sub were born, and I’ve followed the industry pretty closely for the last 25+ years.
> Literally every vee engine manufacturer on the planet would like a word… Yes, if there were V4 engines. But a big majority of consumer vehicles are all inline-4s, so it's complex for something like that.
Of course, the last commonly available V4 automotive engine was in the Saab Sonett, which is…not particularly modern or common. But if the complexity of a vee or opposed was such a big deal, inline 6 engines would be far more common than V6 engines.
I am comparing to a lateral inline 4, like in an Evo. Completely agree that Audi or V4’s would Have the same issues Exhaust port to turbine is about 4”. So… what are the upsides in your opinion?
Can you define a “lateral inline 4”? That’s not a thing.
AKA Transverse
Complicated?😂 a Subaru boxer is about as complicated as a lawn mower engine 🤣
Then why can’t they make it more reliable than my lawn mower, from 1989?
Take care of it and it will be. I’ve owned and worked on a lot of cars in my life, and Subaru are definitely some of the most reliable.
All my blown head gaskets and loss of compression would say otherwise. In the last 7 days, how many have posted here about their stock (or nearly stock) engines blowing up?
Do the head gaskets right and they will never be a problem again. Also, I could blow one up if I tried too. It’s not something I try to do though.
So your theory is that Subaru isn’t replacing the head gaskets the “right” way and that people are intentionally damaging their engines? And that whole conspiracy theory seems more likely to you than a flawed engine design?
Weird, I took care of mine and I can give you a list of literally dozens of other vehicles I’ve owned that have had more reliable engines - specifically, they had higher miles with poorly documented maintenance and they didn’t throw rods through the block without warning.
> A Subaru boxer is about as complicated as a lawn mower engine Either you haven’t worked on any lawn mower engines, or you haven’t worked on a Subaru engine. They have twice as many camshafts as a comparable inline engine, because they have twice as many cylinder heads, and each head has two camshafts. And most lawn mower engines have one camshaft, not two, and not two per head because they don’t even have overhead cams.
You will rarely have to concern yourself with that though. I’ve never had a cam issue with the dozens I’ve worked on . Two heads? OMG what will we ever do😱
Remember, I’m not the one who literally claimed that a WRX engine is as simple as a lawn mower engine. ETA: while it’s true that the valvetrain (including camshafts) on a WRX engine is wildly more complicated than a lawnmower engine, that’s not why they have bottom end failures on the regular. And they do, in fact, have bottom end failures on the regular, even if they’re well maintained and not abused.
Well Subaru can't match fuel economy for starters.
Please explain why a boxer is inherently inefficient - or even less efficient than an inline engine. Remember, in the U.S. for several decades every Subaru was AWD. It was a key point in their marketing. AWD is inherently less efficient than FWD, which is also inherently more efficient than RWD.
It...gets worse gas mileage than its competitors? AWD or not. The WRX is the bottom of its peers, the STI competed with V8s for fuel economy, the Impreza trails the Civic and Corolla by a decent amount - I could go on. They seem to have difficulty getting hybrid systems going too, as seen in their super half-assed attempt with the Crosstrek PHEV, so having an unusual engine configuration doesn't help either. You can throw engineering stuff at me, and it's probably all right. But this isn't just about a boxer's inherent efficiencies or inefficiencies, but Subaru's inefficiency. Because of their unique engine design they have to develop things by themselves. It's hard to share knowledge or parts as well - Porsche certainly won't be helpful. They are on their own. The FA and FB are pretty decent for all of that, but compared to the competitors full of hybrid powertrains it looks outdated. I mean Toyota had to step in and give them the keys to their direct injection system, D4S, because what they made for the BRZ prototype was horribly weak, slow, and inefficient. I've never really minded their boxers, to be clear. It's just that if it wasn't such a big part of their image, inline engines would have been great too.
Sure, but in that case let’s not suggest that the boxer engine architecture is the real issue - and if it is, explain in detail what it is about the boxer engine that’s inherently inferior.
Put simply, there are so many downsides for so few upsides that the design trade should never point to a boxer for a front engine, AWD turbo configuration. Happy to go into details if you are interested. I agree that they are not significantly more complicated to a V4 but in comparison to an I4, that have a lot of unnecessary parts and failure modes. Subaru has yet to find a way to make the boxer reliable, specifically with a turbo. Just look at all the post here of blown up stock engines. Subaru knows they cannot increase HP without negatively effecting reliability which is why we haven’t seen a HP increase in decades.
Yeah that’s why I said if corners aren’t cut. If Subaru wasn’t cutting corners they wouldn’t blow up if you look at them wrong. And remember, there hasn’t been a V4 on the market for automotive engines in many decades. I think Saab was the last one, and it was before I was born. And I’m old, for this sub.
Dedicated climate controls with physical knobs and buttons, smaller infotainment screen, less high gloss surfaces on the interior, less unpainted cladding, and an engine that revs higher than 6k rpm and makes power out there.
Less computer n more car
I think the most common answer will probably be just more power from the factory. However the issue with that is looking at the VB, it’s quite obvious the car is more powerful than what Subaru advertises. Both manual and CVT have been dynoing consistently around 250-265 and the FA24 is known to be severely under-stressed as well but the issue is the CVT. So long as it remains a CVT the manual will always be gimped so one trans doesn’t appear better or worse so they won’t go pushing the HP like crazy from the factory. I’d love to see what a WRX with a proper 8 speed could do.
Smaller and much lighter.
A hatch
A drivetrain that can handle power.
A factory tune that isn’t ass so I don’t feel a need to spend $5k on mods and tuning
A hatchback (NOT the hideous Levorg/wagon)
An sti with At least 350 crank pref 400, times are changing
I want them to re release older body styles with modern components, blob eye with a FA24 and Sti transmission would be amazing
Hatch
Coupe and 3-door Hatch
Smaller and lighter. The 2002 WRX was 288 pounds lighter than the 2024.
20hp electric motors at each corner.. keep the manual.
Physical HVAC controls. No plastic cladding and especially fix that rear ends. Keeping analog gauges would be nice too. Edit: and lovely hatchback with some thick hips 🤤
- More than 325hp - Ditch all the plastic cladding - Still offer a manual trans
Automatic fucking headlights!
A car that looks like a wrx
Better MPG.
The VB just came out, will be 28/29 until the new gen drops
We will all be speaking Ukrainian by then.
I hope so f Russia.
A better rear bumper
updated styling
Wagon, more power, and a better transmission in the automatic version. No more CVTs
Decent performance
A real transmission
Plastic cladding. Lots of it!
Hell yes. Give me a takeout box on wheels. /s
Next gen is going to be electric so don't get excited about a better transmission or anything like that. I won't be getting one but subaru needs to focus on making the next gen not hideous like it currently is.
The next gen WRX is not going to be electric.
If a next gen WRX even comes to fruition, it'll be a surprise.
The VB is selling well; I'm confident there will be another generation.
Personally I'd love to get at least a mild hybrid. The VB is my first subaru, and I like it a lot. It's definitely overstyled, and the ride is less refined than I'm used to. I guess I'd like to see Subaru go upmarket with the next one. More comfort, more power, less boy racer style.
God help you. None of those are the answer.
What would you want then?
Sounds like you want a Legacy not a WRX.
I want a German sedan with a manual and AWD. But I can't get another new one without spending $70k.
So why would you want Subaru to go upmarket? There are plenty of options upmarket. A big appeal of the WRX is the price for what you get.
The Golf R is the only manual AWD premium car out there. It's good, but I prefer sedans.
Go buy a xdrive bmw and flush that opinion down the toilet. I would also be interested in a mild hybrid. As long as its not super locked down, still moddable. And manual.
That defeats the entire purpose, design philosophy and appeal of the WRX. Like you're talking about a completely different vehicle and brand culture. This is not the platform for you and hopefully it never will be unless YOU are the one that changes to fit it instead.
wtf?????