There are not many Japanese cars with cachet. The Subaru WRX is one of them. For years both Subaru and Mitsubishi have successfully raced high-powered all-wheel-drive versions of their subcompacts in brutal rallies over lengthy unpaved roads. In Japan and Europe, they have successfully sold detuned yet still very powerful versions of these cars to the public. With about 275 horsepower in 3200 lb. cars, they are very fast. With all-wheel-drive, they are very secure. And at about $40,000 they are quite expensive for Japanese subcompacts, but quite cheap for quasi-race cars. To the chagrin of a good number of American enthusiasts, these cars have not been available in the U.S. Instead, we have had to settle for Subaru’s 165 horsepower 2.5 RS. While the RS had the looks of the rally car, it didn’t have the power to go with them. This was at least better than Mitsubishi, which continues to offer only underpowered front-wheel-drive powertrains in its subcompacts.

For 2002, Subaru moves a bit closer to offering Americans what everyone else is getting in a WRX version of its redesigned Impreza. Though still not the WRX STi available elsewhere, the WRX does include a 2.0 liter DOHC turbocharged four good for 227 horsepower at 6000 RPM. A viscous limited-slip rear differential has also been thrown into the mix to help transfer this power to the road, paved or otherwise. Best of all, the WRX costs only $24,500. Seen one way, this is a bit steep. It is nearly five grand more than the RS, which other than the engine, limited-slip differential, fog lights, and in-dash CD changer is virtually the same car. Since the additional content costs at most one-third that increment, Subaru is making some money here. On the other hand, the only other car offering similar performance is the $40,000 Audi S4. (Click on the hyperlinks to read my reviews of related vehicles.) If you want an ultra-high-performance all-wheel-drive compact, the WRX is a bargain.

Update: In the summer of 2003 Mitsubishi introduced its own WRX-like car, and Subaru introduced an STi version of its own car. Both cost around $30,000. I hope to review them in the future, along with the recently introduced turbocharged Subaru Forester.

I approached my test drive of the WRX with certain expectations. I have driven many all-wheel-drive cars, and even owned one, a Celica All-trac Turbo, a decade ago. From this experience, I knew that all-wheel-drive cars can feel so firmly planted on paved roads that they verge on boring. Since power goes to both axles, getting on and off the gas doesn’t do much to affect the attitude of the chassis. The Celica was like that. It was only truly fun to drive on slick or unpaved roads. This was partly the fault of boost lag. The Celica’s turbo sometimes took a few blinks to spool up. Since the WRX is also turbocharged, and with a single large turbo, I suspected that it might similarly suffer. Does it? I’ll get to that. But first, a word or two needs to be said about the exterior and interior of the car.

Subaru Impreza WRX Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to more clearly know what difference it will make if you buy a WRX rather than something else? My website, truedelta.com, will be providing this information in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats.

From these stats you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.3 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision than you can today.

I aim to provide the highest quality information to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, these goals conflict. If I simply give the information away, few will help provide it. So I'm doing the next best thing: those who have been active participants for at least six months will receive free access to this site's reliability information; otherwise this access will cost $24.95. The average time commitment for someone reporting on two cars will be (at most) 15 minutes a year, so you'll essentially receive $100 an hour for doing your share to help everyone make better decisions.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

Styling and Accommodations

Somehow you cannot have everything, and by that I do not mean the STi. The WRX finally makes it to the U.S. along with a thorough redesign of the Impreza. The new car might be more solid and refined, but it is also considerably uglier. The RS of past years had a nicely purposeful look to it, not beautiful, but somehow well-integrated and simply correct. In contrast, the styling of the new car contains an excessive number of elements, some of which are just plain wrong—such as the tail light shape and the raised outer edges of the trunk—and none of which go together. The round headlights particularly clash with the otherwise angular design. If only the new car had the styling of the old one…

The wagon, which I drove, actually looks a bit better despite its stumpy proportions. It does without the strange trunk lid of the sedan and its curvier styling better matches the front end. On the downside, its slabbier sides make the 16” wheels actually look on the small side, The same wheels look better on the sedan.

Thankfully, the situation is better inside. No stylist tried to do anything wacky here. The interior is very cleanly and efficiently designed. Though far from luxurious, it seems well-suited to the character of the car. It has that purposeful quality the exterior only used to have. The general quality of materials successfully rides the surprisingly thin line between cheap and luxurious.

Update: The interior of the 2003 Forester is so stylish and high in quality that I must wonder why that of the WRX isn't as nice. Some consolation in both directions: A Forester with the WRX engine should be arriving in about a year.

Two parts of the interior deserve special mention: the steering wheel and the seats. The shape and texture of the leather Momo wheel feels wonderful, both sitting still and in action. The seats are very firm but provide excellent support, both while cruising and tackling the curves.

The WRX seats are covered with durable feeling black cloth with blue accents. Since these blue accents appear to be present whatever the exterior color, I suggest going with blue on the outside as well, like the car I drove, or maybe the Silver. In my mind, the white is just too boring, black and yellow don’t work well with the already questionable exterior, and red just doesn’t mix with a bluish interior.

Room in the front seats is just right based on my tastes, tight enough to make you feel connected to the car but not so tight as to feel cramped. A high driving position coupled with a fairly low dash conveys excellent visibility. The rear seat is pretty good considering the small size of the car. The seat cushion is fairly high, providing better thigh support than many larger cars. The weakest area of the rear seat is knee room. If the person in the front seat is over six feet, the rear seat passenger will have to sit with their knees to each side of the front seatback. Since I’m 5ֽ”, my rear passengers would not have this problem.

Trunk space in the sedan is about average for this size car. Ditto the wagon’s cargo space, which is a bit on the small side as long as the rear seats are up. The sedan’s versatility is limited by a rear seat that does not fold down. Only the armrest does, to provide a small pass through. Though I suspect they did this to enhance the body’s rigidity, I have used the fold-down seat in my current sedan many times. If you desire more versatility, then look at the wagon. That the wagon for some reason costs $500 LESS than the sedan might make this choice easier to swallow.

On the Road

Since the styling isn’t going to sell this car, it had better perform well. And it does. As expected, it is very fast. Pop the clutch at high RPM and the WRX will hit 60 in about five-and-a-half seconds. Drive as if it’s got to last and it’ll take just another second. Still very fast. Less expected is the smoothness of the engine. I tend to prefer the sound and feel of sixes. Fours tend to be buzzy and a bit rough. The WRX’s engine, aided by the flat configuration it shares with all Subaru engines, is smoother than nearly every four I’ve ever driven. Even lugged at 1500 RPM it’s smooth. It also somehow lacks the strange sounds of some past Subaru engines. I still prefer the sound and feel of a six, but this is a four I could live with. It never sounds raucous or strained. For such a high-performance engine, it’s not even particularly loud. The turbo’s whoosh is audible, but just enough to help you sense the arrival of boost (a boost gauge is a dealer installed option).

Ah, but what about boost lag? The magazines have mildly complained about some. However, unless I lugged the engine below 2500 RPM or so, I didn’t really notice any. Since the lower gears are fairly steep, and the engine revs easily and quickly, I do not feel boost lag is nearly the issue some articles have portrayed it to be. It’s certainly far better than my Celica. Sure, the S4 has even less lag, but this is to be expected from a large six fed by two smaller, lighter turbos. Overall, the WRX’s engine gives up little to the engine in the far more powerful S4, despite it’s disadvantages on paper.

Not only that, but the shifter is far superior to that in the Audi. It feels extremely precise, with just the right amount of notchiness as it goes into each gear. Though unfamiliar with the car, I never missed a shift, even when pushing the car hard. A dealer-installed kit is available for an even shorter throw.

Handling was about what I expected given a lot of power and all-wheel-drive. Though a bit lighter in effort than I prefer, the steering is precise and provides decent if not great feedback. The wonderful Momo wheel helps. The WRX’s chassis feels very planted unless you do crazy stuff. I even floored the car from a stop with the wheel turned fairly hard to the left. The rear end stepped out a bit, just as you’d want it to, but remained well under control. I detected no torque steer. In hard turns, there’s a touch of understeer, but it never approaches the “plow” of a front-driver. Even this bit of understeer can be banished with a bit of help from the throttle and wheel. Best of all, the chassis and powertrain feel tightly integrated, as if they were meant for one another. Overall, the WRX is a significantly more enjoyable car to drive than my Celica or a non-turbo Audi as long as you’re willing to ignore speed limits. The dynamics are quite similar to the much more expensive S4.

The ride was a bigger surprise. For a high-performance car the WRX rides very well. Perhaps because the tires have a decent amount of sidewall, they lack the jitteriness of the tires on many performance cars. Large road imperfections upset the car a bit, but the small and medium stuff is barely noticeable. Larger wheels would help the looks, but the standard tires handle well enough, and I’d personally hate to lose this ride quality. Going down the road, the WRX simply feels like a larger, more substantial car.

Road and wind noise were about average for a current Japanese compact, which is to say pretty good. Hardly luxury car territory—for this performance with luxury find the extra $15,000 for the Audi—but better than I expected. The WRX is certainly quiet enough to make extended drives comfortably. It helps that the engine spins at 2500 RPM at 60. In top gear it is much more relaxed than the engine in, say, a recent Celica or Integra.

If there’s any complaint I have about the experience of driving this car, it’s that it can be hard to enjoy it legally. Not only is it powerful, but the engine just wants to spin. Even at part throttle it easily jumps ahead faster than you initially intended. Yes, the powertrain feels smooth and almost at-home when driving in traffic. But doing this takes a bit of concentration. The engine, abetted by the gearing, always wants to go faster. In my review of the 2.5 and 3.0 BMW Z3s, I ended up recommending the less powerful car because with it you had to work the gears a bit in regular driving. If you let yourself have any fun in the 3.0, you saw 80 (or more) awfully fast. It’s the same here, only more so since the WRX’s all-wheel-drive chassis is far more stable than that of the Z3.

To really have fun driving the WRX, you have to do things that might not go over well with other drivers, or the law. I drove my Celica up Pike’s Peak once. That’s what these cars are really designed for, and it was a blast. Ditto the many fairly smooth unpaved roads in the western U.S. I suspect the WRX would be even more of a blast up Pike’s Peak, or when traversing smooth unpaved roads in general. But I also suspect that, like SUVs, few will be used in the environment for which they were originally intended. Some people are still screaming for the full-blown WRX STi, and it seems Subaru will offer it next year for around $32,000, but I find it hard to see how another fifty horses would be of any use on paved public roads in the U.S.

I have not driven the 165 horsepower RS sedan. For many people it might be the better choice, since it has the same basic suspension and interior as the WRX, just coupled with less power. Once its lower price is considered, the RS begins to look especially appealing (I might have to drive one). For those interested in a wagon, however, this route is not available. The 2.5 TS wagon has the same engine as the 2.5 RS sedan, but otherwise is not really tuned for performance. It lacks the “sport style” buckets, sport suspension, rear disc brakes, alloy wheels, and 16” lower profile tires of the TS and WRX. These performance features are not even available as options. Subaru is a leading seller of wagons. You might think this would lead it to make its wagons equal to its sedans. In the WRX it has, but in the RS/TS it has not. If you want a wagon with a great chassis from Subaru, the WRX is the only choice.

A less powerful but still fun-to-drive front-wheel-drive compact worth considering is the Ford Focus SVT. Those willing to sacrifice handling a bit for a better ride and more luxurious interior should check out the quick six-cylinder VW Jetta GLI. For sheer thrust in this price range, the Dodge Neon SRT-4 is hard to beat.

Last Words

The bottom line is that if you want a ton of bang for the buck, the WRX will not disappoint as long as you can live with the styling. As long as you do not require great styling or an elegant interior, the WRX is just about as good as the much more expensive Audi S4. On the other hand, if you want a car that’s fun to drive at posted speeds, another choice, maybe even (ironically) the less expensive RS, would be better. I’m not knocking the WRX for this—it’s all about extremely high limits and driving at them—but it’s best to have your priorities straight going in. Straighten out the styling, or simply bring back the old styling, and this would be a five-star car.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough, up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Amount Paid (US$): 23000
Model Year: 2002
Model and Options: WRX manual