The WRX could very much have some serious competition soon!
“[...] with the launch of the Mitsubishi Lancer EvoX and the continued availability of the Mitsubishi Lancer EX, what’s the Lancer EX Ralliart’s reason for being? We’ve got three words for you: Subaru Impreza WRX. Subaru’s proven success with the WRX line has prompted one of its chief rivals to test the waters as well.
[...] The segment of the car-buying market that’s caught hook, line and sinker by Subaru’s WRX will soon have an alternative to consider. It’s an alternative that’s got a very unique personality as well.”
Read more
If the WRX is a slip-sliding rally machine, the Speed3 is a point-and-shoot race car. The Mazda simply feels way more dialed in, ready to consume apexes for breakfast and checkered flags for lunch. There’s no slop or slack on the Speed’s menu. Sure the suspenders are discernibly tauter — the downside is a more jarring ride — but the reward is 0.90 g of lateral grip (best of the group) and a chassis that always feels alive. The body exhibits just a smidge of roll entering a turn, so steering inputs prompt instantaneous response. On-center steering feel is firm and precise, making the Subaru’s feel loose and vague in comparison.
Read more
We may get a watered-down version of the global performance hatch to meet our lower price points, or Ford may bite the bullet and offer a $30,000+ Focus. But to compete with the likes of the Mazdaspeed3, Volkswagen GTI, and Subaru WRX, it’ll need to find a sweet spot of performance (over 250 horsepower), price (likely well under $30,000) and features. That’s a tough mix to match, but at this point, anything is possible–there are even reports that the next RS will be an all-wheel-drive hybrid.
Read more
Car and Driver reviews the 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart and compares it against the Subaru WRX. They write:
“Compared with the similarly situated Subaru Impreza WRX five-door, the Sportback sits on almost the same wheelbase but is nearly seven inches longer than the WRX, giving it heavier front and rear overhangs in side profile. There’s less cargo room behind the seats in the Sportback, 14 cubic feet versus 19 in the WRX, but more space if you fold the seats: 47 cubic feet against the Subaru’s 44.”
“At 237 hp, it’s notably down on power compared with the 265-hp WRX and feels it, partly because of the Sportback’s higher curb weight.”
“Running a mountain twisty, the Sportback proved it’s a good balance of ride comfort and handling, even better than the WRX, which skews to rather soft and roll prone.”
IGN has a review of the 2006 WRX STI. They tend to compare the WRX to the EVO a lot, because they absolutely love the Mitsubishi EVO.
Many have said that the EVO is the more “precise” machine of the two. We’d have to agree with that statement, as the Subaru just doesn’t have that razor sharp feeling. However, the EVO is the most sensitive car we’ve ever driven, so it would be hard to find a car that just feels that telepathic… The STI has a lot of power and is more than capable of holding its own against the EVO, so one can only claim one car to be the winner when it comes to small personal preferences. Personally, we love both cars, but we happen to like the interior of the STI a lot more. It’s not as plastic-y feeling as the EVO’s cockpit, so if we had to choose between the two cars, we’d go with the STI.
Echo Online recommends three cars as post-graduation vehicles:
- Honda Civic Si
- Volkswagen GTI
- Subaru WRX
Here’s their take on the Subaru WRX 2006:
Subaru Impreza WRX TR: When you need all four wheels driven look no further than the Subaru Impreza WRX TR, TR stands for tuner ready.
New for 2006 the TR is an entry level WRX sedan that cuts out some little things that are not needed for the driving enjoyment, keeping only performance and technology features, according to Subaru.
Subaru’s Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive is what allows equal amounts of power to reach all four wheels, unless there is wheel slippage and then power is diverted from the slipping wheel and sent to a tire with more grip.
All WRX models, except the STI, receive new engines for 2006. A 2.5-liter flat four that replaces the 2.0-liter that had previously powered the rally inspired car. This increase in engine size also translates to an increase in power and torque, 3 hp and 18 lb-ft of torque have been added to make a total of 230 hp and 235 lb-ft of torque. Subaru says that this increase in torque will help the WRX perform at lower to mid range engine speeds. 17 inch wheels are now standard for all WRXs, up from 16 inch.
Subaru made changes to the Impreza’s exterior this year as well. They adapted the “three-section mesh-type grill inspired by the company’s aircraft heritage” for the 2006 Impreza.
According to the EPA the WRX gets 20 miles to the gallon of gasoline in the city and 26 on the highway, if you go with a manual transmission.
The guys at motoring.iafrica.com have compared 4 high performance cars together: the BMW M5, the Chrysler 300C, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and the Subaru WRX STI. Here’s what they have to say on the Subaru WRX STI versus the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo:
The Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and the newly faced Subaru STi proved too difficult to split without the assistance of our score sheets. It was Subaru that initially introduced the ‘giant-killing-performance’ genre cars with prices to make you smile. In fact the automotive world was turned on its head when the even hotter STi and Lancer Evos arrived.
You’ll notice that the STi just gets the better of the Evo – our schedule well indicating the few points difference. However the all-new 2.5 engine does not offer that blinding Subaru performance we’re used to. This time around it produces more torque and more power in a more docile manner and in the process has turned from the blindingly quick 2-litre cult-car to a softer feel yuppies would seek. The tornado-like response of the 2-litre engine is no longer there. In performance terms it’s just fractionally short of its banshee-like smaller-engined progenitor too.
The Evo matches the STi in almost every sphere except acceleration, tractability (due to its 2.5 litre engine) and engine refinement. The latter two areas of comparison are better due to the symmetrical layout the flat-four boxer engine offers via its centrally mounted gearbox resulting in equal length front and rear side-shafts respectively for better power distribution. Instead the Evo’s engine is a conventional 4-cyl twin-cam engine with an offset gearbox resulting in unequal length side shafts. But in all other aspects the two are equal and to choose the better would come down to personal preference.
In terms of hooligan-performance the Japanese twins have no peers in their segment – and almost totally so above them. To drive either for the first time is an indelible experience. The adjustable 4×4 set-ups in both are technologies not found in any other car, allowing adjustments to the front and rear diffs to suit personal competition requirements.