Hi everyone,

I recently sold my skyline and as i got engaged i decided i needed something a bit less modded and high maintainence so i can do grown up things

I'm interested in the Hawkeye shape WRX but put off by engine troubles. I've done plenty of research and it seems mainly the hatchback sti is the 2.5 that suffers the most from engine failure??
I also heard the engine differences between the WRX and STI aren't much.

So do the Hawkeye WRXs suffer the same engine problems as the STis?
Or if you keep them standard will they run on with no issues?

Here's a couple i've been looking at so tell me what you all think:

https://www.gumtree.com/p/subaru/sub...rx-/1141168502

http://www.usedcarsni.com/2006-Subar...-WRX-154334144

Blobeye:

https://www.gumtree.com/p/subaru/sub...wrx/1141422308

Any Info or knowledge welcome!

Cheers

 

Out of the 3 i'd go for the blob, they'll do 100k plus without issues as long as they have a good history hawks are a gamble, so if you have a spare £3k then go for the hawk but be prepared to rebuild it.

 

My 2005 Hawkeye WRX has now done 150,000 and still running sweet on original engine and internals.

 

2.0 JDM hawk or blob as they have a few more goodies, stronger engines and AVCS, 2004 V-limited comes with STI looks, but if one doesn't pop up a UK Hawk or Blob will still be better than a UK STI imo. Faster, lighter, better MPG, better gear ratios for going past 300bhp, lower running costs/repair bills and considerably less transmission losses. Probably less prone to vandalism and theft too!!!!

The STI 2.5 engine holds the quickest drag time record for a Subaru with an OE stock bottom end! Innovative Tuning in the US say they can take big power over time if the tune is right and the engine has good tolerances from the factory etc. My guess is if you get one past 40,000 miles, don't hold back!

 

You will most likely find a WRX a bit underwhelming if you're used to a Skyline, The standard brakes are absolutely shocking for a start.

 

Uprated pads, 5.1 fluid and braided hoses make them a lot more livable.

 

That's the trouble with the WRX, you need to uprate a lot of things, in standard form they aren't really anything special.

 

Here we go again!
Calling Tubbs and ditchy

Personal opinion having driven both but owned neither - STi by a country mile.
The WRX may be slower or may be faster but the simple fact is that the STi feels way quicker!

 

The WRX has to be continually detuned by Subaru such is it's performance advantage over the track-focused STI. The Transmission loss and weight difference is so substantial Subaru constantly knock circa 40bhp off the WRX and even added a 3rd cat to the Newage in a bid to curb the WRX's quicker turbo spool.

This Impreza WRX muting started many moons ago in Japan when 280bhp WRX's were constantly embarrassing 280bhp STI's at the lights.

The Newage with a £70 TD05 turbo, £50 STI up-pipe, £80 STI injectors, £80 walbro and map is an absolute animal. I'd love to know the average transmission losses of the WRX and STI. I'm guessing around 20% for the WRX and 25% for the STI. Does anyone know what both the stock Imprezas make at the wheels?

 

Why would the transmission losses be any higher in the STi?

 

They are not, having put a couple of STI's on rolling roads, they lost around 17-18% in transmission losses, which is less than the wrx

 

Makes little to no difference that trust me. I've been there and still ended up ditching the steel WRX brakes for brembos. Just go down the brembo route, FAR FAR better. Not worth wasting any money upgrading parts on the WRX brakes to be honest.

To the OP. I've owned a Hawkeye WRX as my daily now since 2007 when it was nearly new. The WRX is easier to live with as a daily car than the STI. Mine is still on the standard engine and gearbox now at 71k miles and has been running 340bhp and 381lb/ft for most of it's life with absolutely no issues whatsoever. Fantastic fun car to use and enjoy every day and the higher torque from the 2.5 over the older 2.0 engine makes for great easy driving and power delivery.

Make sure you find one with good service history. You seem to have done your research very well having read your 1st post.

Good luck!

 

The WRX is OK if looking to keep it O.E,but if you are looking for a more focused model with more tuning potential and uprated parts as standard for example:6 speed box,Brembo brakes etc...The STI is the model to go for.Anyone who thinks differently needs to think harder.SJ.

 

Talk to "ANY" Subaru specialist and see what model they would start with,especially if it is going to be modified.Have a look at this video its old but the fella knows what he is talking about...

.SJ.

 

Completely agree 100%. All depends what the OP wants from the car.

 

The price point between similar condition WRX/STi is far greater than the sum of their parts. If you are only looking to run power up to the limit of the 5 speed box, then a WRX will be cheaper; even factoring brakes, exhaust, turbo, supporting mods etc.

The STi transmission is it's real USP. If both cars had the same 'box, they'd be a lot closer in price IMHO (lightweight, wide-track etc models exluded).

 

Swings and roundabouts. I was getting severe brake fade with 240bhp and the standard brakes. The car is now accelerating faster than any production Subaru and never gets any braking issues. TBH I'm only running OE pads, cross drilled fronts, 5.1 fluid and braided hoses at the moment.

At the end of the day if the OP wants a WRX for the road then it's just as good a choice as picking an STI as the WRX has the STI licked in many departments and vice versa.

The STI can go to 400-450bhp before serious money is needed and the WRX to just 350bhp but in my experience, for a variety of reasons, a sorted 350bhp WRX will match a sorted 450bhp STI. So imo it's just getting a good Scoob at a good price tbh.

I could have spent 11k on a nice spec C and spent a couple of grand on exhaust and map etc getting it up to 350bhp and it still wouldn't touch my 3k 330bhp WRX's acceleration.

 

That's very funny, exactly how can a sorted 350bhp WRX match a sorted 450bhp Sti? In acceleration? How could it? In handling? Unlikely! Braking? Not a chance! The word 'sorted' suggests each model is reaching its full potential, so this smacks of serious delusion!

 

Just going by certified drag times. WRX consistently achieves faster times with less power, and I've seen 1000's of runs/timeslips now. For a plethora of reasons I'd say a 300bhp WRX will be 20-25% faster than a 300bhp STI.

Obviously both cars at max will have similar handling upgrades, wider track negated by lighter weight, the WRX is 180lbs lighter so uprated pads, disks, oil and lines will be adequate.

I'd love to know the hp readings at the wheels of a standard STI, EVO and WRX, there's definitely something pointing towards the WRX being extremely efficient at getting power down.
I noticed this efficiency first 7 years ago when my pretty much stock PPP was keeping up with my Mates 380bhp EVO 5 to 90ish. I've also matched/beat quite a few SN members 700bhp+ STI's 0-60 foot times on a damp track with budget tyres full of wet mud! The lighter clutch, gearbox, gearbox oil pump, brake disks, coupled with ratios and shorter track must be a factor. Or something I'm missing.

I know the WRX flywheel is heavier than the STI's so this might help with getting away.

I know there's only a handful of people interested in the marque who have made the realisation and face ridicule for stating it but I'd still like answers as to why the WRX is so damn rapid.

 

Put it this way, I WILL run 11's next year with just 307lbft in a Newage WRX. Most Spec C's fail to break into the 13's with 316lbft.

 

No offense Matt, but you are deluded. I own a WRX and am very pleased with it but am under no illusion that it's better than an STI. As I said above, if you want a user friendly every day car then personally I'd buy the WRX. If you want to eventually modify it and want fun then buy an STI every time.

If you're running steel WRX brakes on a 330bhp car then we have nothing more to discuss. This is dangerous. Full stop. I've been there with grooved WRX discs all round, unrated pads, braided lines, race fluid, brake stopper etc and when my car got to 340bhp it was quite frankly still not safe to drive. I upgraded to Brembos the week after my remap and should have done it sooner.

You're only saying WRX brakes are OK for one of 2 reasons, 1. You have never driven a car with better brakes and have no idea or 2. You can't afford to upgrade your car so you are making excuses.

 

So physics being physics how do you explain your phenomenal results, where lower power apparently equals greater performance? Have you considered further reducing power to go even quicker? It defies common sense and perhaps explains why nearly everyone else except me seems to have abandoned this thread, instead just pointing and giggling

 

It looks like the OP isn't bothered to reply because only jebi se has answered his question


Why the hell does every thread turn into a wrx vs sti debate?

the OP said he wanted a wrx, so why can't people just give civilized answers?

I'd probably go for the blobeye



Paben - what is faster -
a - 331bhp sti
b - 330bhp wrx
c - 300bhp ariel atom
d - 180bhp R1?

according to paben the bike will be considerably slower due to less bhp!!!!

 

If you read post 12 I've actually replied to the OP and answered his question.

 

in post 12 I can't see where you say which one out of the 3 you would choose

 

I haven't driven any of them and don't know the history so can't comment on that sorry. If I say buy number 1 and the engine blows up then I'll be the ****. The OP seems to have done his research and seems sensible and level headed. I advised him to buy one with good history which I still stand by in my experience as a very happy WRX owner.

I hope that's OK with you Dave?

 

you stated that you had answered his question, you didn't. You did give him good advice though (which is more than most of the other replies)

I'm a very happy wrx owner too

 

Now you're talking as daft as RSM! With Sti v WRX on same power we're talking the same power to weight ratio, how can a much lighter Ariel Atom or even lighter R1 get in on that act? Or are you under the same physics delusion?

 

Had a Hawkeye WRX as a daily drive for the last 3 years - super car, easy to drive (the "lazy" 2.5l suits me much better than the 2.0l in my 2000 GT did) - other than the knocking suspension (easy to change) I've had no issues - if you want to drive everywhere screaming its nuts off then a 2.0l STi is probably a better choice tbh - local French roads are 90kph "minimum" for sustained distances with naff all on them and ideally suited to the 2.5l WRX IMHO.

 

you never mentioned power to weight, you just stated that lower bhp can't equal better performance. I just replied justifying lower bhp can equal better performance