They are heavier using more fuel and sapping performance. They cost more to replace, and tires are more expensive. I wish the WRX came with smaller wheels myself.
Hmm...I applauded a noob - a good start to your life in the forum. Hear that, Jeffer?!
I agree, 17" are the largest I ever want to see on my vehicles. The RX400h has 18"ers OEM, but our winter tires are now 17"ers and we saved about $250 between the tires and rims. In fact, the 17"ers for the RX were about $80 more overall than the 15"ers we put on the Corolla. Cars coming out with larger tires are actually contrary to our vision of seeing winter tires on every car (in locations that should have them) - my father was vehemently against buying winter tires because he thought he had to pay for 18"ers. When I told him he could get the 17"ers for not a heck of a lot more than the Corolla's 15"ers, he got 'em the next day. I can only imagine how people feel when they buy a Venza or CX-5 with 19"ers and then get a quote for winter tires of the same size...or "downsizing" to 18". Sheesh.
It makes no sense that you can buy a Forester with a turbo but not a BRZ. And the turbo Forester only comes with a CVT... WTF? If you want the 6 speed manual you have to get the non-turbo with the five spoke wheels.
They could have came out with an "Impreza XT" two years ago with the same power train instead of waisting everyone's time with the WRX concept that they showed last year..
Oddly enough the Impreza and the Forester are built on the same platform, so what is the point of the Crosstreck? Oh right, it's for people who don't want power seats—is it still 1975? And do we really need two high-performance Impreza models, one that now has less horsepower than a V6 Camry? I see they got rid of the hatchback—good work Subaru! Given that I see the hatchback model is far more popular than the sedan in my area... sigh.
I'm going to try and remain calm while I respond to your rant. I'll start by indicating that it's a little harsh on Subaru, a relatively small player with limited resources when compared to the likes of Toyota/Honda/VW.
We know that the BRZ does not have the turbo because the FA20 turbo set-up placed the turbo under the engine. To maintain the BRZ's low centre of gravity to have the Cayman as its benchmark, they cannot raise the engine to fit a turbo onto it. Beyond that, slapping more power into the chassis will change the driving dynamics - you need to do more than just give a car more power, and that all takes time and costs a bundle to design. The BRZ was not meant to be a huge seller for Subaru - it was a way to partner technologies with Toyota to make some amazing stuff, like the FA20 engine. Note that the EJ engine block is a 25+ year old design - Subaru doesn't just produce engines for sh!ts and giggles.
As for your qualm about the turbo being CVT-only, numbers speak louder than your prissy-pants words. Neither Canadians, nor Americans, buy manuals. For example, there's an article that states:
"Most estimates put the market share of manual transmission cars in the United States at
less than 10 percent. Whether it’s a lowly Nissan Sentra or the mighty Porsche 911 GT3, it seems that Americans just do not want to drive a three pedal transmission. The die hard manual crowd, as vocal as they may be, can’t seem to get anyone to listen to them, for love or money. If only they knew that just a few hours north of Boston, there existed a land where automotive purity was considered as the full contact lap dance.
One of the quirks of the Canadian marketplace is the abundance of “Quebec specials”; stripped out models with no air-conditioning, a manual transmission and little else. It would be unfair to compare these cars to the Nissan Versa S because these are often variants of good cars, like the Honda Fit or the Kia Rio, but other crappier examples are out there as well. Nissan, for example, makes a Sentra with a 6-speed manual and no A/C
for sale in Canada and not the United States, solely as a concession to the Quebec market."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/quebecs-obsession-with-no-frills-cars/#more-492087I think the WRX is an icon and I'd love for it to be better than it is - especially stylistically. I also think you're correct that an Impreza XT would be a smarter move
in addition to the WRX. Many folks find the Impreza to be too weak, but don't want a $35k boy-racer toy.
As for the deletion (those pesky Cybermen...) of the Hatchback, there simply wasn't enough funding to redesign both the sedan and the hatch for WRX and for STi. It takes a lot more than simply changing sheet metal to produce both. Based on consumer demand, they stuck with the sedan, stating that 70% of all WRX/STis were sedans. It's possible they'll reintroduce it if the sedan sales go way up - start buying.
The Crosstrek makes a lot of sense - some find the Forester too large, uses more fuel than they need, and can be too expensive. There are priorities that create certain niche markets, and minor tweeks to existing models is an economical way to enter those niches.
Peak horsepower numbers also mean very little. The Forester XT with the 2.5T outperformed the Legacy Wagon with the 3.6L H6 for pretty much every category, even with less power and torque. The Forester also outperforms the Camry V6 in every way as well, including 0-60 times, and did even with the 224hp 2.5T.
This is long enough - if you don't like Subaru, then move along, but don't spew out hatred based on incorrect facts.
