Holding out for the STI version of the new Subaru WRX? You might be waiting quite a long time, as Subaru confirmed that there are no current plans to make an STI version of the current WRX model:
As the automotive marketplace continues to move towards electrification, Subaru is focused on how our future sports and performance cars should evolve to meet …
I was really bummed when I saw that a little earlier. That was one of the cars that was going to be on my radar at the end of the year.
Its really getting thin for new performance cars under $60k.
Twins
Miata
Mustang GT
Camaro SS
Supra
New Z
Am I missing anything?
"Incorporating the essence of STI into our next generation of vehicles." The gist of that message is that they'll now slap STI badges on everything in the line for a $5k upcharge, and include gold wheels and an exhaust system. Basically what BMW //M has become., or Ford slapping ST on everything...
IMO the STi has been dead since the 2009 WRX came out and basically outperformed it in most categories for $10k less.
z31maniac said:...Am I missing anything?
Elantra/Veloster N!
Civic Type R!
I better get my STI soon then before prices explode. I have bad bad plans for one.
BlueInGreen - Jon said:z31maniac said:...Am I missing anything?
Elantra/Veloster N!
Civic Type R!
No fail wheel drive for me.
I already had a new 2010 MS3.
Man. This is disappointing news. I was thinking it was likely that the wife's Focus RS would get replaced with an STI next year. Here's hoping the GR Corolla comes with a manual transmission and AWD, because I really don't want to have to work on the Focus RS when the warranty runs out.
z31maniac said:BlueInGreen - Jon said:z31maniac said:...Am I missing anything?
Elantra/Veloster N!
Civic Type R!
No fail wheel drive for me.
I already had a new 2010 MS3.
You should rally try an Audi or Subaru before thinking this way.
This is pretty awful unless you are a truck or Jeep.
This is brilliant.
I think the original poster meant no Front Wheel Drive.
As a preference, I get it, we all have what tickles our fancy. I personally am an "engine should be over the driven wheels" kinda guy.
I'm not sure I get the various 'fail', 'wrong', etc. nicknames for FWD cars, though, given the number of 'faster than a RWD' FWD cars there are.
In reply to BA5 :
After buying and order a new Civic Si, I'm afraid to drive the R. I'd probably buy it on the spot.
z31maniac said:BlueInGreen - Jon said:z31maniac said:...Am I missing anything?
Elantra/Veloster N!
Civic Type R!
No fail wheel drive for me.
I already had a new 2010 MS3.
See, I'd agree with you and that's a valid point for anything build 10 years ago but... the current hot front wheel drivers can do some amazing stuff. Maybe not a replacement for rwd if that's what you like, but definitely worthy of being included in the discussion.
Though it would have been pretty cool if Hyundai could have given us an awd WRX-fighter with the Elantra N.
z31maniac said:I was really bummed when I saw that a little earlier. That was one of the cars that was going to be on my radar at the end of the year.
Its really getting thin for new performance cars under $60k.
Twins
Miata
Mustang GT
Camaro SS
Supra
New Z
Am I missing anything?
golf R?
OHSCrifle said:z31maniac said:I was really bummed when I saw that a little earlier. That was one of the cars that was going to be on my radar at the end of the year.
Its really getting thin for new performance cars under $60k.
Twins
Miata
Mustang GT
Camaro SS
Supra
New Z
Am I missing anything?
golf R?
Ohhh, that's a good one I did forget!
BA5 said:I'm not sure I get the various 'fail', 'wrong', etc. nicknames for FWD cars, though, given the number of 'faster than a RWD' FWD cars there are.
I'm not much of a FWD fan. But for me, it's not about performance, it's about how they drive. For motorsports purposes, I'm actually fine with a good FWD setup. But on the street, I hate it. Especially in snow. The tradeoff between steering traction and drive traction becomes a problem in too many situations on the street, plus torque steer bugs me.
rslifkin said:BA5 said:I'm not sure I get the various 'fail', 'wrong', etc. nicknames for FWD cars, though, given the number of 'faster than a RWD' FWD cars there are.
I'm not much of a FWD fan. But for me, it's not about performance, it's about how they drive. For motorsports purposes, I'm actually fine with a good FWD setup. But on the street, I hate it. Especially in snow. The tradeoff between steering traction and drive traction becomes a problem in too many situations on the street, plus torque steer bugs me.
You hate FWD in the snow? Can you explain?
OHSCrifle said:z31maniac said:I was really bummed when I saw that a little earlier. That was one of the cars that was going to be on my radar at the end of the year.
Its really getting thin for new performance cars under $60k.
Twins
Miata
Mustang GT
Camaro SS
Supra
New Z
Am I missing anything?
golf R?
Not that such a thing exists, but a base 718 Cayman with zero options has an mark of $60.50. Close enough for me.
OHSCrifle said:You hate FWD in the snow? Can you explain?
Apply too much power trying to climb a sufficiently steep and slippery hill and instead of just fighting for traction and losing some directional stability (which is manageable as you still have plenty of steering grip to work with), you lose most of your ability to steer until you back off enough that you're not making it up the hill.
Same issue when accelerating from a stop around a turn at an intersection. FWD, you're limited in how much power you can apply before the front end of the car starts to track too wide and you just can't turn enough. Most snow tires will generate their peak acceleration force with some noticeable amount of slip. So if you try to get maximum acceleration, you've got very little left to make the car actually go around the turn. You end up having to crawl out, then accelerate.
RWD will let you apply more power early in the turn to get moving. The rear end will often be sliding a little as you accelerate, then depending on the situation you can often just back off for a half second as you finish the turn to get the rear end to not overshoot the lane you're turning into. But that bit of wheel slip doesn't impact your ability to direct the car with the front wheels. Plus, if you end up in an understeer situation with enough space around you, you can often get the front end to grab by kicking the tail out a bit with a quick burst of power.
AWD has some of the same limitations of FWD, but generally puts down power well enough that it doesn't really matter (and the limitations aren't as severe anyway).
Basically, I tend to sum it up as FWD is easier to drive in snow, but assuming a decent weight balance in the car rather than something nose heavy like an unloaded pickup, RWD will outperform FWD in most situations once you get good at driving it. The one time FWD holds an advantage over front engine RWD is at crawling slowly in deep snow. The extra weight on the drive wheels helps there, but realistically, I've found that's rarely the biggest concern in snow driving.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to BA5 :
After buying and order a new Civic Si, I'm afraid to drive the R. I'd probably buy it on the spot.
I rented one on Turo for 24 hours. It's a drug. What can I do to get one? Sell what? Steal? Beg?
This is the time I've heard the news "No STI" and was disappointed.
Joking aside, they haven't been that interesting to me since 2009 as well.
Dear Subaru, I'm not mad, just disappointed. I thought you were better than this.
In reply to z31maniac :
Bmw M240
rslifkin said:OHSCrifle said:You hate FWD in the snow? Can you explain?
Apply too much power trying to climb a sufficiently steep and slippery hill and instead of just fighting for traction and losing some directional stability (which is manageable as you still have plenty of steering grip to work with), you lose most of your ability to steer until you back off enough that you're not making it up the hill.
Same issue when accelerating from a stop around a turn at an intersection. FWD, you're limited in how much power you can apply before the front end of the car starts to track too wide and you just can't turn enough. Most snow tires will generate their peak acceleration force with some noticeable amount of slip. So if you try to get maximum acceleration, you've got very little left to make the car actually go around the turn. You end up having to crawl out, then accelerate.
RWD will let you apply more power early in the turn to get moving. The rear end will often be sliding a little as you accelerate, then depending on the situation you can often just back off for a half second as you finish the turn to get the rear end to not overshoot the lane you're turning into. But that bit of wheel slip doesn't impact your ability to direct the car with the front wheels. Plus, if you end up in an understeer situation with enough space around you, you can often get the front end to grab by kicking the tail out a bit with a quick burst of power.
AWD has some of the same limitations of FWD, but generally puts down power well enough that it doesn't really matter (and the limitations aren't as severe anyway).
Basically, I tend to sum it up as FWD is easier to drive in snow, but assuming a decent weight balance in the car rather than something nose heavy like an unloaded pickup, RWD will outperform FWD in most situations once you get good at driving it. The one time FWD holds an advantage over front engine RWD is at crawling slowly in deep snow. The extra weight on the drive wheels helps there, but realistically, I've found that's rarely the biggest concern in snow driving.
I understand that completely - thanks.
You need to maintain speed to make it around the corner but you have no turning ability if the tires are spinning. Fwd can actually have decent capability, but it also requires some driving skill, mainly the handbrake becomes a critical part of the steering system. Tip car into corner, throttle to maintain speed, handbrake to maintain direction change. But all else equal rwd is at least as capable but a bit easier to modulate and control...but it takes a bit more confidence and skill.
Base 718 $60.5k and base C8 $60.9k but I'd hesitate to put those on the list because nobody should ever buy either one of those in no options configuration.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:OHSCrifle said:z31maniac said:I was really bummed when I saw that a little earlier. That was one of the cars that was going to be on my radar at the end of the year.
Its really getting thin for new performance cars under $60k.
Twins
Miata
Mustang GT
Camaro SS
Supra
New Z
Am I missing anything?
golf R?
Not that such a thing exists, but a base 718 Cayman with zero options has an mark of $60.50. Close enough for me.
I'm sure if you wanted to order one and wait you could get one. But Porsche makes it so easy and desirable to want to add a ton of personalized options.
You'll need to log in to post.
