No STI for current-gen Subraru WRX

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.

Just out of sheer curiosity, do you think that Mitsubishi's decision to stop selling the Evo had an effect on the WRX–for better or for worse?

In reply to Colin Wood :

I don't think so. They had competition from VW and Ford with the Golf R and RS to keep driving them forward. IMHO they are more focused on the Outback/Forester/Crosstek than Impreza. With that, there would have been a significant development cost to build the new STI. They milked the old platform for all it was worth and now the cost to move to a new generation just doesn't make sense. 

When I took delivery of my BRZ, There wasn't a single sign/ad for the WRX or BRZ. They stopped BRZ orders to prioritize the resources to the core models.

I just think we are approaching the end of the road of the entry level ICE performance car and the manufactures are not willing to spend the development dollars on them and are diverting those dollars to EV development. 

Colin Wood said:

Just out of sheer curiosity, do you think that Mitsubishi's decision to stop selling the Evo had an effect on the WRX–for better or for worse?

I think it probably has more to do with Subaru leaving WRC years ago and not wanting to spend money on new development for what amounts to a trim level of an entry level car. 

The Subaru brand has grown quite a bit in the last decade, but most of the growth has been in appliance level consumer cars. It makes business sense that that's where they'd focus their money.

Wonder if they'll sell a normal WRX with the STi transmission and driver controlled center diff.  That would have been the main reason for me to get one, and otherwise, I'd rather have the softer suspension and smaller wheels of a WRX.

In reply to eastsideTim :

I very much doubt it.  Those are the expensive bits that they no longer have to spend money on developing and putting into (low scale = expensive) production by getting rid of STi as an aspirational model.  Body kits, badges, interior splashes and logos.  Those are cheap and easy to disperse around your range.

In reply to eastsideTim :

I don't even need the center diff, I just want a stronger manual. 

At least as a consolation prize for no STi, Subaru bumped the horespower of the WRX up, you know, a whole 3 horsepower. I swear, Subaru is like the anti-Chrysler. Mopar goes "You guys want more horsepower?" and people go "I think we're good" and Mopar goes "Don't care, have a Challenger that pulls wheelies and a Ram with 700hp." Meanwhile Subaru fans go "Can we get some more power? 268hp for the WRX and 305hp for the STi really isn't that impressive anymore," and Subaru goes "Best I can do is 271hp for the WRX, and, oh, no more STi."

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

I don't even need the center diff, I just want a stronger manual. 

Agreed, that, and the better gear ratios.  I really disliked the gap between 1 and 2 in my 2018 WRX.

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the base Mustang runs a high 13 and base Camaro runs a low 14.

I mean a TRD Camry is a "performance" car compared to what I thought was a performance car 20 years ago. I'm not trying to be provocative, I just wonder if our definition has changed. Then again...
 

I agree that it does seem like manufacturers are moving away from the lower cost fun cars, but I'm not sure if that's just my perception. Thinking out loud...In the early to mid 90s there were quite a few fun small cars that were hot versions of regular cars. Like Mazdaspeed 3, Cobalt SS, matrix XRS, neon SRT, focus svt, wrx, contour svt, and maybe more, along with the Miata, Solstice, MR-S.
 

Aside from the Miata, those are all gone. The only replacement is the Veloster N, oh and Civic type R and Golf R but they are spendy.

But you CAN get a base Mustang that will smoke most fox bodies. Same with that Camry. It's complex.

In reply to ProDarwin :

Yeah, I just don't think I could bring myself to buy the 4 cylinder version of the car that comes with a V8.

For fun I went to Ford.com. If you start with the Ecoboost Premium, add the premium package, Handling Package and Performance Package, and the B&O stereo...........you have a $46k 4 cylinder Mustang!

I am just trying to figure out how how Subaru guys will talk E36 M3 if they can't say "aT lEaSt ThEy StIlL mAkE iT"?

Jk, RIP friend. Welcome back. 

z31maniac said:

For fun I went to Ford.com. If you start with the Ecoboost Premium, add the premium package, Handling Package and Performance Package, and the B&O stereo...........you have a $46k 4 cylinder Mustang!

Last year I was considering ordering a 2.0T 1LE Camaro and found that I could get one, with no other options, for under $30k. I was also tinkering with the Ford configurator for the EcoBoost Mustang to build something comparable, and found that the Mustang ended up quite a bit pricier. Then GM cancelled the 1LE option on non-SS Camaros, and I bought a house, and that put an end to that whole mental exercise.

Translation for the press release: "It's not worth spending the money to develop a dedicated low-volume drivetrain and get it to meet the latest emissions standards".

Keith Tanner said:

Translation for the press release: "It's not worth spending the money to develop a dedicated low-volume drivetrain and get it to meet the latest emissions standards".

This, and I expect to see more of it with niche models. I think that may have been one of the reasons why the Supra is a result of a Toyota/BMW colab.

In reply to BoxheadTim :

Yeah, and people bitched. Like it was this, or nothing? Especially as a Mitsubishi guy I was like wow, just count your blessings. 

BoxheadTim said:

Keith Tanner said:

Translation for the press release: "It's not worth spending the money to develop a dedicated low-volume drivetrain and get it to meet the latest emissions standards".

This, and I expect to see more of it with niche models. I think that may have been one of the reasons why the Supra is a result of a Toyota/BMW colab.

Yeah, the Toyota exec in charge of the Supra project said if they had been forced to develop their own powertrain the car would be closer to $100k instead of starting just over $50k. 

I think we need more factory hot rod versions of normal cars. Take the little car and drop in the engine from the bigger car.

Give me a Corolla with the big Camry engine, no new engine development needed 

Just noticed that autocorrect must have added an accent to "CAFE" in the press release, making it the Corporate Average Fuel Économy.

In reply to BlueInGreen - Jon :

I agree to both. I always wanted a hotter version of my Fit, and putting the 300-horsepower V6 in the Corrolla would be an absolute riot. Even more so if it's kept front-wheel drive.

Keith Tanner said:

Translation for the press release: "It's not worth spending the money to develop a dedicated low-volume drivetrain and get it to meet the latest emissions standards".

 

The 2.4 is already in production, but based on what you and others in the business have said about certification and the like when things are changed to add power, I can see how that's a non-trivial undertaking.