# Low-end torque on WRX (or non-WRX impreza)



## BitterDave (Nov 27, 2007)

For those with a Subie WRX, how is the low end torque? I'm considering a WRX with an auto tranny, but I'm concerned about the low end torque. I admit that the auto tranny kinda sucks, but this would be a daily driver that the girlfriend also needs to be able to drive. I test drove a 2002 WRX on flat roads and the turbo lag kinda sucked. Is the 2006+ WRX any better? Am I better off getting a non-WRX impreza instead?

I would like something with decent torque when driving up mountain roads, such as those 15-20mph switchback roads. I don't plan to tow anything, but will be hauling 2-3 people + gear. Am I expecting too much from a 4 cylinder?


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

BitterDave said:


> For those with a Subie WRX, how is the low end torque? I'm considering a WRX with an auto tranny, but I'm concerned about the low end torque. I admit that the auto tranny kinda sucks, but this would be a daily driver that the girlfriend also needs to be able to drive. I test drove a 2002 WRX on flat roads and the turbo lag kinda sucked. Is the 2006+ WRX any better? Am I better off getting a non-WRX impreza instead?
> 
> I would like something with decent torque when driving up mountain roads, such as those 15-20mph switchback roads. I don't plan to tow anything, but will be hauling 2-3 people + gear. Am I expecting too much from a 4 cylinder?


well, its gonna be better then an NA 4cylinder, but its not gonna be anywhere close to the torque of a V6/V8 unless you modify it.

That lag you're feeling is probably from the tq of that engine being split on 4 wheels. So its gonna lag on the low rpms


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BitterDave said:


> For those with a Subie WRX, how is the low end torque? I'm considering a WRX with an auto tranny, but I'm concerned about the low end torque. I admit that the auto tranny kinda sucks, but this would be a daily driver that the girlfriend also needs to be able to drive. I test drove a 2002 WRX on flat roads and the turbo lag kinda sucked. Is the 2006+ WRX any better? Am I better off getting a non-WRX impreza instead?
> 
> I would like something with decent torque when driving up mountain roads, such as those 15-20mph switchback roads. I don't plan to tow anything, but will be hauling 2-3 people + gear. Am I expecting too much from a 4 cylinder?


If you're getting that much lag you're not driving it correctly. Did you test an auto or a manual? That could also be part of the problem. Cars like the WRX aren't really meant to be equipped with the auto tranny. They have that option, but it's not what the car is meant to have. With the auto you'll likely have issues with it not being in the correct gear and having to spool more often. Whereas you could downshift and add a little gas before the turn with the manual, the auto won't do this, not to mention that the auto isn't a 5spd, so it's not going to be extremely usefull in using the car's powerband. You could teach your girlfrield? It's simply not meant to perform like an "WRX" with the auto.

Otherwise, in 1st gear you are going to get some lag before enough pressure builds up from the exhaust to spin the turbo. The guys that do the 0-60 dashes in 5 seconds do so by reving the engine up as they are releasing the clutch, it puts a lot of wear on the transmission obviously and isn't the best thing to do, although with practice you can do it so that it doesn't kill the car each time.

One way to counter this is to make some fairly minimal modifications to the car. A turbo up-pipe and down-pipe do a lot to cut down on lag, as well as some sort of tuning. Having the turbo spool up faster will cost you more gas obviously, so it's not the way the car comes tuned from the factory, but again as a fairly minor modification you can have a tuner (or there are ways to do it yourself with devices and software) make it spool up faster.

You "can" shift into 3rd at about 20mph, you can do 4th at about 32mph and you can shift into 5th at about 45mph. Just because you "can" doesn't mean you should. When you do this, it starts spinning in the new gear at about 1800rpm. That is NOT going to cause the necessary pressure to spin the turbo fast enough. You should upshift to 3rd around 30mph in the mountains, and 4th probably around 40-45mph. Also the faster you are going, the more pressure is being created, so you can usually make full-boost pressure at lower RPMs in the higher gears, but the effect is not dramatic. If you can create just a few PSI of positive pressure though you can usually climb out of most situations. I have the factory-optional turbo-gauge on mine, so it gives me a good idea of what's going on. With those 15-20mph switchbacks you should be in 2nd going into the turn, but during some turns yesterday I had to downshift to first due to slow traffic nearly stopping in the turns, maybe that's because I understand the RPMs that are needed though? This is with a 5spd tranny obviously.

I just went over a nice tight and twisty mountain range twice yeterday, the 4cyl doesn't lack power, it will leap up those twistys like crazy, especially with the 2009 now having 265hp stock.

Traditionally turbo engines don't make a whole lot of torque on the low end, this is why twin turbos or more advanced turbo setups are out there on some autos. On the other hand, they tend to make a LOT of torque as the RPMs rise, due to the fact that you're putting compressed air and gas in the cylinder, so when it fires it has a lot of force behind it being put out to the crankshaft. The low end-response is yet another thing that a tune(r) could help with.

Off the line from first gear, the NA impreza would go faster for the first 30 feet or so due to the NA aspect of it and slightly greater torque and HP at lower RPM, but that's only in 1st gear, if you're shifting somewhat decently then in any other gear at any other speed the wrx owns it many times over.


----------



## BlackCanoeDog (Jul 26, 2003)

I agree with Jayem. I don't see the point of buying a WRX (or any sporty car for that matter) with a slush box. Although some people buy them more for the show rather than the go.The manual tranny lets the driver keep the revs in the boost zone. That being said, the 06 will be better low end torque than an 02 by virtue of 2.5L engine vs 2.0. I know a fellow who had same '02 as mine, but with the Auto tranny. I never drove it, but he claims it "goes like stink". If low rpm torque is what your after, get a diesel


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> I agree with Jayem. I don't see the point of buying a WRX (or any sporty car for that matter) with a slush box. Although some people buy them more for the show rather than the go.The manual tranny lets the driver keep the revs in the boost zone. That being said, the 06 will be better low end torque than an 02 by virtue of 2.5L engine vs 2.0. I know a fellow who had same '02 as mine, but with the Auto tranny. I never drove it, but he claims it "goes like stink". If low rpm torque is what your after, get a diesel


Good point about the 2.5 vs 2.0.

I was out driving earlier and if he's doing turns at 15mph or below, definitely needs to downshift to 1st, that's almost like stopping in the middle of the turn. :thumbsup:


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> I agree with Jayem. I don't see the point of buying a WRX (or any sporty car for that matter) with a slush box.


Well, honestly there ARE some highly advanced auto-type tranmissions that do just fine in sportscars. Subaru doesn't use these though, so it doesn't apply.


----------



## BlackCanoeDog (Jul 26, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Well, honestly there ARE some highly advanced auto-type tranmissions that do just fine in sportscars. Subaru doesn't use these though, so it doesn't apply.


Agreed. the recent dual clutch transmission designs seem to be pretty sweet. those are not your typical automatic though, having actual clutch(s) instead of torque converter


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> I agree with Jayem. I don't see the point of buying a WRX (or any sporty car for that matter) with a slush box. Although some people buy them more for the show rather than the go.The manual tranny lets the driver keep the revs in the boost zone. That being said, the 06 will be better low end torque than an 02 by virtue of 2.5L engine vs 2.0. I know a fellow who had same '02 as mine, but with the Auto tranny. I never drove it, but he claims it "goes like stink". If low rpm torque is what your after, get a diesel


I agree for the most part, but i'd like to point out that the last time i had to looked at WRX's(been awhile) the fastest street legal one was an auto.

Have you considered a Mazda 3 Mazdaspeed? Its msrp is 23k, it comes with a turbo 4cyl with 280tq, and it beat out the S2000(junk) on a track.


----------



## jeebus (May 1, 2006)

For low end torque and a fun driving experience on twisty steep roads, you can consider something with a low-pressure turbo like the Volvo C30 T5. The turbo starts spooling at 1800 rpm and hits a nice torque plateau at 2500 rpm through to 5500 rpm. Gives good power in everyday driving conditions... without having to keep the engine revs at 4000rpm to feel the power. The torque is almost always available without having to rev high to find it.

The C30 is built on the euro ford focus chassis... the euro ford focus RS is no slouch like it's US counterpart. It has Volvo's T5 turbocharged 5 cylinder engine (227hp, 236TQ) which is fun to drive.

All that said... no AWD yet.


----------



## BlackCanoeDog (Jul 26, 2003)

ZQ8Dude said:


> I agree for the most part, but i'd like to point out that the last time i had to looked at WRX's(been awhile) the fastest street legal one was an auto.


I have no idea when that was! Top Gun in the Subaru lineup is the Impreza WRX-STI, which doesn't even come with an auto tranny option!
That aside, the auto vs manual question is not about drag race speed. Its more to do with fun factor, driving pleasure of a dialed-in, responsive vehicle.
The auto tranny just doesn't fit the equation imo.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ZQ8Dude said:


> I agree for the most part, but i'd like to point out that the last time i had to looked at WRX's(been awhile) the fastest street legal one was an auto.
> 
> Have you considered a Mazda 3 Mazdaspeed? Its msrp is 23k, it comes with a turbo 4cyl with 280tq, and it beat out the S2000(junk) on a track.


Strange. Back when auto mags tested the auto wrx they found it to be far slower than the manual, they had to resort to holding the brake while reving the engine (bad for the car) to launch in first, and it was still a lot slower in all situations. It doesn't really make any sense that it could be faster.

The 2009 WRX has 265hp (nice bump up in power).


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

Jayem said:


> Strange. Back when auto mags tested the auto wrx they found it to be far slower than the manual, they had to resort to holding the brake while reving the engine (bad for the car) to launch in first, and it was still a lot slower in all situations. It doesn't really make any sense that it could be faster.
> 
> The 2009 WRX has 265hp (nice bump up in power).


I'm not talking stock by any means. In just about every vehicle. The manual w/ the same powerplant will be faster stock. However, you can beef up an auto and make it shifter better then a manual. I have a tuner for my truck that will adjust transmission shift points and whatnot that i've used to tune other trucks. I've ridden in a similar truck to mine, but on 20s w/ a really agressive transmission tune...it felt quicker then my truck.

The problem with the 2009 WRX is that it is puke ugly.

Thats also something no one has brought up and just occured to me, OP, you might wanna be a little cautious if you're gonna buy used. WRX's/EVOs/SRT's all fit in the category of cars that people buy and abuse the living piss out of. I've seen people with these cars at the track doing things i wouldnt do to any car. One incident that stands out in my mind is when a guy had an SRT running 100 shot of nitrous plus slicks, plus a tuner to up the boost. It ran low 11s, he abused the hell of out it, and then said he was gonna bring it back to stock and sell it the week after.

Then many idiots with WRX's will try and do AWD burnouts(as if they really need to heat up the tires if they were using good race tires.)


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Comparing a truck to a WRX? Completely different engine types, weight, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things you "can do", but most people don't want to take a huge hit in some other area, such as reliability or huge hit in milege under normal conditions, etc. 

AWD burnouts? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do a burnout with AWD? There are a lot of bad things you can do to a car, but burnouts aren't very common with most AWD platforms. I have never been able to burn out my WRX, it simply "goes forward" instead, and that is during the full-on launch. In fact, it's the tendancy to not burnout that leads to the problem of 5K clutch-slip/drops.


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

Jayem said:


> Comparing a truck to a WRX? Completely different engine types, weight, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things you "can do", but most people don't want to take a huge hit in some other area, such as reliability or huge hit in milege under normal conditions, etc.
> 
> AWD burnouts? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do a burnout with AWD? There are a lot of bad things you can do to a car, but burnouts aren't very common with most AWD platforms. I have never been able to burn out my WRX, it simply "goes forward" instead, and that is during the full-on launch. In fact, it's the tendancy to not burnout that leads to the problem of 5K clutch-slip/drops.


I was comparing transmissions and most transmissions have a pretty decent tune setup where the computer can differentiate from WOT vs. regular driving. So mileage really doesnt get hurt that much if any at all. Even the primitive TH350 has that ability, just without computers.

I'm wondering if you read my post or just glossed over it? :skep: Yes i know how hard it is to do an AWD burnout, but people do them w/ modified WRXs and its extremely abusive to do. And its not all that uncommon to have vehicles put back to stock before they trade them since dealers usually don't give you your money's worth

I'm curious have you been to a racetrack during their local fun runs?? You might wanna try it just for a good laugh. You'll find people doing shockingly stupid things. Last time i was out there i saw 2 muscle cars burnout(bouncing off the redline), and then lose control on the 1-2 shift.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ZQ8Dude said:


> I'm wondering if you read my post or just glossed over it? :skep: Yes i know how hard it is to do an AWD burnout, but people do them w/ modified WRXs and its extremely abusive to do. And its not all that uncommon to have vehicles put back to stock before they trade them since dealers usually don't give you your money's worth


Even with a few modifications it doesn't happen. I'd imagine you have to be pushing 350-400hp or so to get close, with the way turbos spool it doesn't really work.

Are you sure you're not talking about modified STIs? With the adjustable torque split it would be far more likely to see something like that.

The thing with putting vehicles back to stock or whatever is that if you are really doing things at the competition levels that you've suggested (running 11s in a neon), you really can't make it work with stock driveshafts, transmissions, clutches, pistons, headers, turbos, and even the engine block itself in many cases. I'd be concerned if they were running the stock stuff, but at the numbers you suggested it's highly unlikely.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Not sure what awd has to do with torque*



ZQ8Dude said:


> well, its gonna be better then an NA 4cylinder, but its not gonna be anywhere close to the torque of a V6/V8 unless you modify it.
> 
> That lag you're feeling is probably from the tq of that engine being split on 4 wheels. So its gonna lag on the low rpms


My Audi A4 kicks in pretty quickly. I do feel some turbo lag compared to my NA 2.0 4 cyl GTi, but that is probably a good thing so it doesn't use too much gas at low speed. Really, its not too bad.

Torque is torque. It all gets used up in the system regardless of how many wheels are being driven. 150 ft/pounds on two wheels will give the exact same acceleration (if weight, rolling resistance and driveline friction are the same) with 150 ft/pounds of torque on 4 wheels, providing the wheels aren't slipping. Of course, more drivetrain equipment will give more drag and weight, but it won't be that much.

Then again, my A4 isn't exactly overflowing in horsepower vs weight (3300 pounds!). It kicks off the line pretty well because of the heavy flywheel and AWD (no slip!), but you have to wind the engine up to really get the turbo spinning and the 5 valves per cylinder to flow... and get big pull out of it (not that its that big, especially compared to a WRX). I don't think the AWD is slowing it down much, other than adding a couple hundred pounds to the car vs the FWD version. Since Subies are all AWD, you can't really compare against non AWD.


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

Jayem said:


> Even with a few modifications it doesn't happen. I'd imagine you have to be pushing 350-400hp or so to get close, with the way turbos spool it doesn't really work.
> 
> Are you sure you're not talking about modified STIs? With the adjustable torque split it would be far more likely to see something like that.
> 
> The thing with putting vehicles back to stock or whatever is that if you are really doing things at the competition levels that you've suggested (running 11s in a neon), you really can't make it work with stock driveshafts, transmissions, clutches, pistons, headers, turbos, and even the engine block itself in many cases. I'd be concerned if they were running the stock stuff, but at the numbers you suggested it's highly unlikely.


You seem to be completely negating the most important part of this. TIRES. Bad tires will make all the difference. And i have seen both regular and STI's do them. Turbo spooling is irrelevant if you're like those dumb people. They are attempting to do staging burnouts, so they revv the engine(which spools the turbo) and let the clutch go, or stall the converter to try and make it burnout.

The STI TQ split would just make for an FWD/RWD burnout, not all 4.

pimpbot- you're comparing a 2.0 NA GTI...which doesnt have lag, its just slow. And yes having extra wheels for the engine to drive will reduce its tq when compared to an identicle vehicle w/ two drive wheels and it will be noticable.

As for your A4, its a 1.8T, or newer? My brother is a VW/Audi nut and had a 1.8t passat(same thing). The Turbos in those cars spool at a very low rpm. I think its something like 1500rpm when it kicks in.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ZQ8Dude said:


> so they revv the engine(which spools the turbo)


Um, no, it doesn't built any pressure by doing that.

Not only do the cars make this impossible, as any pressure is dumped by the BOV when you push the clutch in, but it also doesn't take much power to rev the engine to high rpm without having the car in gear, so it lacks the exhaust pressure necessary to build any real boost (if for some reason it was rigged to not dispose of excess pressure before being put into gear).

You might be mistaking clutch slipping for "revving the engine", in any case revving the engine does not build boost. Pressure is supplied very quickly when you clutch slip, because the car is moving and the RPMs are high, you instantly get a lot of exhaust pressure, but this is after you've started moving.


----------



## ZQ8Dude (Oct 20, 2008)

Jayem said:


> Um, no, it doesn't built any pressure by doing that.
> 
> Not only do the cars make this impossible, as any pressure is dumped by the BOV when you push the clutch in, but it also doesn't take much power to rev the engine to high rpm without having the car in gear, so it lacks the exhaust pressure necessary to build any real boost (if for some reason it was rigged to not dispose of excess pressure before being put into gear).
> 
> You might be mistaking clutch slipping for "revving the engine", in any case revving the engine does not build boost. Pressure is supplied very quickly when you clutch slip, because the car is moving and the RPMs are high, you instantly get a lot of exhaust pressure, but this is after you've started moving.


really?? must be an oem subaru thing. Sounds like yet another reason i wont own one. I'd imagine changing that would be step 1 in modifying one of these cars so you could actually spool the turbo for a decent launch.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

FYI if you are going new/newer the new 09 wrx non STI is getting rave reviews. Upped the horsepower abit, toned down the styling. Check out the new car and driver. I autocrossed a friends wrx the second year they came out. Low end torque was fine, steady state grip was nice. The old ones had a little initial understeer, but this was supposedly easy to tune out. The advantage of a manual tranny is you can keep the car in its power band so low end torque is not quite as important as with an auto. In the switch back you mentioned you as a driver can read the road ahead and put the car in the appropriate gear for max power if you like. The auto transmission will just respond after the fact. That really over simplfies it and does a disservice to some of the great autobox cars but manual is a ton more fun to drive.


----------



## BitterDave (Nov 27, 2007)

Thanks everyone for the replies. I admit that a manual would be better, but I don't think it's going to happen if my girlfriend is going to drive the car. I don't really need a sporty/fast car (I have a M3 for that), but one that would make a good daily driver, fun to drive, hold some gear and be decent in the snow.

From my impression of driving a 2002 WRX (auto tranny), the torque doesn't really pick up until at least 3k rpm, probably more like 3500. Without doing any real research here, my guess is that for a 20mph uphill curve at light-to-moderate throttle, the WRX will be in the mid 2000s rpm (plus a little for torque converter slip) in second gear, which really isn't in the powerband. This is why I was thinking that a non-turbo Impreza might be a better choice. I haven't driven one yet, so I'm only guessing here.

While I'm sure that I can change my driving style to reduce the lag, brake torque and carrying more speed into a turn isn't something I consider doing for a daily driver.  My girlfriend gets car sick pretty easily, so I usually find myself going pretty slow in the corners. One thing I didn't think of trying with the auto tranny was to blip the throttle if I wanted to speed up for a little bit. One of the things that really annoyed me about the auto WRX was when I was cruising on the freeway at 50 and wanted to speed up to 60 "briskly". I would step on the gas and the car would barely accelerate. I would then slowly increase the throttle, the tranny would downshift, build boost, and begin to take off, at which point I would already be at 57mph. So I would accelerate quickly from 57mph to 60, at which point I would reduce the throttle and engine brake for a while until the auto shifted back into 4th. This was my first time driving a turbo engine, so I'm sure that it takes a while to get use to, but I found it pretty annoying. I didn't have this problem with the A3 and GTI that I test drove.

Ideally what I would like is an 2009 Audi A3/4 (2.0T FSI engine, DSG, AWD), but I'm not going to spend that kind of money. Maybe a GTI, but it's still little low on cargo room. This car would be a daily driver/beater, so I didn't want something too nice. I haven't really decided on a budget yet, since it kinda depends on where the "sweet spot" is for price vs. value, but I'd like to keep it to the mid teens.

I do like the way the new Impreza looks, but I haven't driven a non-WRX version yet. I'm also starting to think about a RAV4/CRV, but need to do more research into that, along with some of the other cars suggested.

Sorry for straying away from my original question, which was: Given an auto tranny and "normal" driving (no racing stuff, no red line shifts, WOT...), is the 2006+ WRX with the 2.5L engine noticeably better down low? How about the non-turbo Impreza with the 2.5? I'm guessing that if I'm not building boost, then the NA engine will have more torque.

Just curious, has anyone driven the new (non WRX) Impreza? How does the engine compare to the last generation (2002 to 2007)?

Thanks


----------



## newaccount (Jan 3, 2007)

Driving a 2005 Impreza Sport up a hill is not fun. After a while, anymore throttle does nothing to get the car moving, even with the 2.5. A stock M3 is a great daily driver. I sat in my friend's M3 enough to learn that the ride in an Impreza is harsher.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ZQ8Dude said:


> really?? must be an oem subaru thing. Sounds like yet another reason i wont own one. I'd imagine changing that would be step 1 in modifying one of these cars so you could actually spool the turbo for a decent launch.


Good way to screw up the car, clutch slipping provides a fine launch, older stock WRXs are capable of ~5.5 sec 0-60 while the new 09 WRX is doing sub 5 sec due to the power increase, the STI is sub 5 seconds with a good launch, but not faster to 60 than the 09 due to the gearing. I'm not sure any cars let you build up a bunch of boost while in neutral or with the clutch depressed, it's real bad for the engine. They do have devices that keep the manifold pressurized (keep the boost going) in the situations you describe, but they are used for rally races and other racing events. You'd be a fool to put that on a car you're going to drive or that you don't expect to blow the engine out of.

Buying a WRX or WRX STI for drag racing is insanely stupid. The reason people do this is the AWD and the fact that you can punch the hell out of it with no wheelspin, but it's ultimately stupid due to the limiting factor of the engine and components that are meant for street/track driving, not drag racing. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. There are launch-control maps (I have one with my EM), but it's a rediculous thing to do with a WRX.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BitterDave said:


> Thanks everyone for the replies. I admit that a manual would be better, but I don't think it's going to happen if my girlfriend is going to drive the car. I don't really need a sporty/fast car (I have a M3 for that), but one that would make a good daily driver, fun to drive, hold some gear and be decent in the snow.


Realistically, you should forget about the WRX then. As we said, it's not made for the auto. It's an option because people will buy it and it will sell cars, but it's not what the car is meant to have.


> From my impression of driving a 2002 WRX (auto tranny), the torque doesn't really pick up until at least 3k rpm, probably more like 3500. Without doing any real research here, my guess is that for a 20mph uphill curve at light-to-moderate throttle, the WRX will be in the mid 2000s rpm (plus a little for torque converter slip) in second gear, which really isn't in the powerband. This is why I was thinking that a non-turbo Impreza might be a better choice. I haven't driven one yet, so I'm only guessing here.


Remember that you're driving a 2002 here, and not the 2.5L version that came out after that. I'd say that with my stage 2 mods I make full boost around 2800, but it starts picking up before that even. I have a 2.0L engine in my 2004. As I said before, if the turn is really around 15mph, you should probably shift to 1st gear, otherwise you take it faster, cause that's what a WRX will do. 



> While I'm sure that I can change my driving style to reduce the lag, brake torque and carrying more speed into a turn isn't something I consider doing for a daily driver.  My girlfriend gets car sick pretty easily, so I usually find myself going pretty slow in the corners.


Realize that there may not be many cars that suit your fancy then, even high horsepower NA cars may have to get to some high RPMs before they make serious power, the suggestion of a diesel may not be a bad one, although there aren't many options yet. On the other hand, there are a lot of cars (especially with more gears) that may be better suited to that kind of driving.



> One thing I didn't think of trying with the auto tranny was to blip the throttle if I wanted to speed up for a little bit. One of the things that really annoyed me about the auto WRX was when I was cruising on the freeway at 50 and wanted to speed up to 60 "briskly". I would step on the gas and the car would barely accelerate. I would then slowly increase the throttle, the tranny would downshift, build boost, and begin to take off, at which point I would already be at 57mph. So I would accelerate quickly from 57mph to 60, at which point I would reduce the throttle and engine brake for a while until the auto shifted back into 4th. This was my first time driving a turbo engine, so I'm sure that it takes a while to get use to, but I found it pretty annoying. I didn't have this problem with the A3 and GTI that I test drove.


That is almost exactly what some of the testing mags have said about the auto version when they tested it. Realize again that the 2.5L version (especially the 2009) would be an improvement. I'd say you'd have to go demo a 2009 to see if the same thing still applies.



> Sorry for straying away from my original question, which was: Given an auto tranny and "normal" driving (no racing stuff, no red line shifts, WOT...), is the 2006+ WRX with the 2.5L engine noticeably better down low? How about the non-turbo Impreza with the 2.5? I'm guessing that if I'm not building boost, then the NA engine will have more torque.
> 
> Just curious, has anyone driven the new (non WRX) Impreza? How does the engine compare to the last generation (2002 to 2007)?
> 
> Thanks


The problem with your question goes back to the beginning, not many people chose the auto version. That said, the 2.5L was a good improvement. Is .5L of displacement enough to shift the torque curve and overcome the disadvantage of the auto? I'd say based on the numbers it doesn't seem so, but then fast-forward to 2009 with the new 265hp version, in 2008 they did make improvements in the torque and hp curves in terms of where you get max torque/hp. Supposedly one of those figures was 400rpm earlier, I forget which one it was. While that doesn't sound like a lot, those engine tweaks carry over to 2009 and they seriously upped the horsepower (finally).

Bottom line is that you need to drive the 2009, I think that (finally) you can't judge the way the 2009 auto is going to perform by a 2002 2.0L version. You also aren't going to find many people that choose it, so due to the limited feedback (even if you can find some) I wouldn't make a decision based on that, make your decision based on a test drive.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

Look at the Acura RDX. My wife has a CRV and it is a great little family car for us. Dog slow, but very utilitarian. If you are used to the M3 the RDX has alot more horsepower than the CRV and should be a quiter car (less NHV) than the CRV. Also look into the mazda crossovers. CX9? The Mazda 3 is a great car and the mazda speed 3 even better. FWD only though. I would pass on the Subie as a the non WRX will most likely feel like the WRX below 3000 through out the entire range.


----------



## shrpshtr325 (Dec 22, 2008)

i know its not what you want, but if you want alot of low end torque, get a v8 (v6 is possible, but 8 is better) or a diesel, a 4 cyl gas engine is not gonna make much in the low end, i know ALL of my friends w/ 4 cyl i can destroy them off the line, they beat me when they get the rpms up, but my power max is around 4.5-5k rpms,but then i drive a truck it was not meant to go fast it was meant to haul large amounts of **** and do so effectively, which it will do

just my .02


----------



## spazzy (Aug 15, 2004)

my mom drives an outback with the 2.5 NA and its pretty peppy after 3k thru 7.5k, low end torque is ok but nothing like a v6 or v8...but has more top end power than my 4.3 v6 (both sitting around 200ish hp) the v6 comes to almost full power at 1500-2000rpm but is done at around 4k and then moms subie is kinda flat to 2500-3000 but then takes off (ive never been in the turbo wrx or sti but after driving the regular 2.5 id imagine it would be very very fun/alittle scary)


----------



## pinkrobe (Jan 30, 2004)

What about the Jetta TDI wagon? Killer mileage, more torque than you can shake a stick at, geared for city driving, etc. It's available with a 6-spd DSG auto with Tiptronic, which is a pretty decent gearbox. http://www.vw.com/vwfeatures/jetta/en/us/

Normally I would have just said "get the Subie", but the WRX with an automatic is just wrong. You can update the software to allow for launch control in the 2.5L models, but it just isn't the same as a manual. I've updated the uppipe and downpipe on my 2.0L, so I can get the turbo to spool ~2750. The wastegate duty cycle has been modified to start building boost earlier, which makes a helluva difference around town [Airboy FTW!].


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

Low end torque isn't all that great. I raced a couple of WRX's in my stock '94 z28 Camaro and was easily able to out take them. But then again its a v8 so maybe that's not the best comparison.


----------



## traffic002 (Dec 16, 2008)

I've driven my friend's WRX a couple times in stock form and then with an up pipe and chip. I also own 1.8T A4 Avant (chipped). And have a '91 MR2 turbo...slightly modified.

The turbo requires pressure from the exhaust. It also is running lower compression to deal with the boost pressures.

You may like the driveability of a 2.5RS. The extra displacement may help off idle torque. It just won't have to mid-range hit as the turbo cars. But auto trannys work better with cars that have lots of low-end grunt. Unfortunately, low compression 4cyl motors have none.

Our Audi is 3600lbs, and having a 1800cc low comp motor push it off the line sucks. But once the turbo spools up, things are quite interesting. In daily driving mode, you will not go full boost very often, if ever.

I blieve the 2.5RS can also use regular unleaded instead of premium. Another advantage. And the RS has the same suspension and brakes which are quite good for an econobox. I passed on the WRX a while back because under 3000rpms, it just feels like a econobox with good suspension and brakes.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

Don't forget that the extra .5L of displacement will spool the turbo faster and sooner bringing torque in much sooner.


----------



## dman_mb1 (Jan 19, 2007)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Forester XT. 2.5 liter and much more low-end than the earlier WRX's (I haven't driven an '08 or '09). My '04 XT is fast and torquey ... it's a 5 speed but although I'm not an auto-box fan, the automatic demo I drove was quite nice. The Forester also has more room for bikes inside.

-dman_mb1


----------



## coop3422 (Jul 12, 2006)

I drove an 05 Forester XLT auto and it was an effin blast, put a huge smile on my face ( i drive a 5spd N/A civic, lol). I would also recomend a Jetta TDI w/ DSG, wagon or sedan. Think it may be one of your better options


----------



## AC/BC (Jun 22, 2006)

05 Forester XLT? You really need to take out a GTO or Challenger sometime!


----------



## SG333e (Feb 7, 2009)

I had an STI until I was rear ended/totaled a year ago. Loved it but even that car didn't make much torque until 3000+. A friend had a WRX with the 227hp turbo and a 5 speed, I really liked that car also. The STI is too rough around the edges but I only drive about 6K miles/year for work. Between rediscovering biking and getting a dog part of me wishes I had made the choice for another STI. The new hatchback would look cool with my dog in the hatch and my mtb on top! 

No offense, but if you have an E46 M3 then any turbo car will feel like a top fueler since you have so little torque today. Not picking on BMW, I now have 335 with 6MT, and it was a tough call between the 335 and E46 M3. Daily Driver torque was a major factor in the decision.


----------



## protocol_droid (Jul 7, 2004)

I had an 03 wrx (from stock to fully modded engine and susp). Stock, ;ow end is fine. Obviously if you had a 2.5 there'd be more torque down below. The little td04 turbo in the wrx is made to spool faster down low for quick get up and not make much power on the top end, in fact dynographs show a massive drop off in torque up top and you really feel it. It's a great little car that handles well and can be had for little money these days. Oh yeah, the boxer engine rumbles very nice too.

Not to start a war, I'd much rather have a used evo, but those are a bit more cashola even for an 03.


----------



## bustamove (Aug 12, 2004)

*dual-clutch automatic transmissions*



BlackCanoeDog said:


> Agreed. the recent dual clutch transmission designs seem to be pretty sweet. those are not your typical automatic though, having actual clutch(s) instead of torque converter


I've tested VW's DSG in the R32 and most recently the 6-speed twin-clutch automatic in the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo MR. The R32's DSG was smooth, but I would have preferred a manual for the track testing I did at Laguna Seca. LS is a fast track and the power band of the VR2 wasn't big enough. Just not a good match up for that situation.

The Lancer's Getrag 6-speed TC-SST was a perfect match to its 291 hp turbocharged engine. Upshifts AND downshifts were seamlessly smooth and lightning quick. I couldn't ask for a better combo.

The Subies can definitely benefit if it was outfitted with a better tranny, but I suspect costs would increase as well.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 17, 2009)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> I know a fellow who had same '02 as mine, but with the Auto tranny. I never drove it, but he claims it "goes like stink". If low rpm torque is what your after, get a diesel


As an owner of an auto wrx, I can say that your friend is full of it. The auto sucks 1 to 1.5 secs off the WRX's times to 60 and the quarter suffers miserably. The 2.5L motor helps but again with the stock 4eat auto, it still sucks.

However, with lots of cash you can fix this. I've got a 2.5L motor, modified v37 twinscroll setup with a tuned 4eat. It ended up being stupid cost wise but it will rip off the line with very little effort. In hindsight it was probably a waste of money. Guess I'm stuck with this car now. :lol:


----------



## queevil (Feb 17, 2009)

I've driven my sister's WRX quite a bit and it seems to me that in order for it to really just blast off the line you really have to know how to use the clutch. You have to find that sweet spot. Of course none of my experience comes from driving on a track, just on the street. With that being said I can't imagine a car as fun as the WRX with an auto tranny. I know their out there but it seems like it would talke all the fun out of it.

Here's the thing about women and manual transmissions. They only think that they don't want to drive one. I've had two former girlfriends that were the same way. I spent about an hour with them in a parking lot and then had them do some driving in a low traffic residential area. Once they were comfortable I had them drive in some light traffic and so on. Once they got the hang of it they had a blast. I'll bet your girlfriend would too.


----------



## Ansible (Jan 30, 2004)

I've got a 2002 WRX with the auto transmission, and its not so bad. Sure, if you stick it in 'D' and go it will not be too exciting a ride. Move the selector to '3' instead and its still auto mode, but it will be a little more aggressive in delivering the power. If you want to have fun on a twisty road, you can just move the selector to 1 or 2, and it works pretty well I think. Certainly the manual is superior for sporty driving, but the auto can be driven hard too, and you can keep the engine in the turbo zone with the gear selector. People seem to think you're stuck with the wimpy 'D' mode at all times, but this is not the case. The gear selector is there for a reason! In '1' and '2' you can wind the engine out to whatever RPM you like. 

Also, with the 02 auto you get a smart center differential, unlike with the manual. Can't say I've noticed any benefit from that, but its there.

One quirk I've heard of with the auto is that if you are wanting to autocross on a frozen lake (for instance), then there's a certain fuse that you want to remove to prevent automatic upshifting when the wheels are spinning under power. Its not an issue on the street, and I've had plenty of fun getting sideways in the snow without noticing any upshifts. YMMV. 

Anyway, regarding torque and power for the mountains, its mostly not an issue. Once you get going over 15 mph or so you've got plenty of go in '1'. Up to then its, well, not fast. I think there's a technique with auto transmissions where you can put one foot on the brake and one on the gas to 'wind up' the transmission for a quick launch. Haven't done a lot of that, but it may be worth mentioning.


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

BitterDave said:


> From my impression of driving a 2002 WRX (auto tranny), the torque doesn't really pick up until at least 3k rpm, probably more like 3500. Without doing any real research here, my guess is that for a 20mph uphill curve at light-to-moderate throttle, the WRX will be in the mid 2000s rpm (plus a little for torque converter slip) in second gear, which really isn't in the powerband. This is why I was thinking that a non-turbo Impreza might be a better choice. I haven't driven one yet, so I'm only guessing here.
> 
> While I'm sure that I can change my driving style to reduce the lag, brake torque and carrying more speed into a turn isn't something I consider doing for a daily driver.  My girlfriend gets car sick pretty easily, so I usually find myself going pretty slow in the corners. One thing I didn't think of trying with the auto tranny was to blip the throttle if I wanted to speed up for a little bit. One of the things that really annoyed me about the auto WRX was when I was cruising on the freeway at 50 and wanted to speed up to 60 "briskly". I would step on the gas and the car would barely accelerate. I would then slowly increase the throttle, the tranny would downshift, build boost, and begin to take off, at which point I would already be at 57mph. So I would accelerate quickly from 57mph to 60, at which point I would reduce the throttle and engine brake for a while until the auto shifted back into 4th.


That's when you select a lower gear...

2nd works past 60.

Same for the 20mph situation, stick it in first.


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

shrpshtr325 said:


> i know its not what you want, but if you want alot of low end torque, get a v8 (v6 is possible, but 8 is better) or a diesel, a 4 cyl gas engine is not gonna make much in the low end


Even better is a 4 cyl 2.0 turbo diesel subie.

147 HP at 3600 RPM and 258 lb.ft. at 1800 RPM with ~40 mpg.


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

there is no torque.

it's a four banger.

and turbos don't generate low end torque.

superchargers do that.

you need to whip that four banger to keep the turbo spinning at high revs to get any power out of it.


----------



## BitterDave (Nov 27, 2007)

eat_dirt said:


> and turbos don't generate low end torque.


That's an assumption that I wouldn't make. Take a look at the VW/Audi turbo cars and see what they can do. It's pretty impressive. It's too bad that Subie uses older (and cheaper) turbo technology and a so-so four speed auto transmission on the Impreza.


----------



## PCC (Sep 5, 2005)

eat_dirt said:


> there is no torque.
> 
> it's a four banger.
> 
> ...


VW/Audi has a 2 liter turbo engine that makes most of its 207 ft/lbs of torque at 1800 RPMs. They use a smaller turbo to generate boost at lower RPMs combined with direct injection, gives plenty of torque from low RPMs. It still makes 200 crank HP.


----------



## Straz85 (Mar 20, 2009)

eat_dirt said:


> there is no torque.
> 
> it's a four banger.
> 
> ...


Haha...false statement of the month. Most turbo engines nowadays make great low end torque. Here's a few examples.

VW 2.0T (many models) - 207 ft-lbs/[email protected] RPMs
Volvo C30 - 236 ft-lbs/[email protected] RPMs
Acura RDX - 230 ft-lbs/[email protected] RPMs ([email protected])


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

eat_dirt said:


> and turbos don't generate low end torque.


You're an idiot.


----------

