2014 WRX?
 

Is this what it's going to look like?

http://www.motortrend.com/future/con...u_wrx_concept/

Sort of, but not exactly. Which is what can be said about every new concept, even the ones for refreshes of current cars.

That said, it looks good.

Uh, WTF is that?

Is that what they meant a while back when they said "the 2014 STi won't be based on the Impreza"? I assumed that meant they were going to ditch the Impreza WRX STi and make a BRZ STi instead. Not that they were going to make the WRX into its own model separate from the Impreza!

That said... it looks pretty sweet. Kinda like they took a refreshed Impreza from the belt-line down and slapped a sports car roof on top of it. But I'd be pretty torn picking between something like this and a turbo-BRZ. Frankly, I think I'd rather have the BRZ, especially if it's cheaper than the WRX.

It kind of looks like a mix between the BRZ and an Audi to me. Looks like it could be pretty cool.

No hatch option? I'm glad I'm getting a '13.

http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d...07_610x457.jpg

The NYAS display looks like a Scion TC. :unamused:

I'm totally in for one of these. I don't think the head lights, brake lights, and turn signals will make it to production but I really like the body style of it.

I like the first rendering, but the actual photograph ruined it. The front looks like a Dodge, and I have no idea what they're thinking with those rear arches. It looks like a shelf on the rear fenders.

It looks like a beefed up scion!

I'm hoping it's just a side effect of the distortion from a guy standing close to the car with a wide-angle lens. Because yeah, that thing has a bulbous front-end and odd rear belt-line in that picture.

Here's to hoping it looks better in person.

On the other hand... when was the last time there was an Impreza made that wasn't ugly at first sight that required growing on you to become nice looking 3 years later? :lol:

Green exhaust tips? The new hotness, I guess.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18iw.../ku-xlarge.jpg

More photos here: http://jalopnik.com/the-subaru-wrx-c...eyeb-461441647

I actually like where they are headed with their design. The tail lights are weird, but the rest of it I'm liking. I'm kinda liking some of the new weird lines on new MY cars, like the Mercedes Benz AMG CLA45, it's bulbous looking but it works...Owning a MINI has obviously distorted my viw of what looks normal...

I'm a fan. If I had the money, I'd be waiting for the waiting list. If it comes with the brakes and BBS. And Recaros.

I actually like it as well. I want to see a version with a wing maybe. It almost seems like a two door from the angles the pictures were taken from.

From someone who hated the 08' Hatch redesign (and still does)

I really like that new design.

I really hope all 4 wheel bearings are bolt off, and that it has McPherson all around. Supposedly it was a from the ground up redesign for auto sport ... so they better not have "trunk space boosting - rear suspension)

hopefully they move back to beefier rear stuff. , the change in 08 caused a lot of Bent and broken rear suspension parts compared to an 07 ...

stiffer chassis , and its < 3000# curb weight...

I think i can hear someone linking me to Lead Zeplin dream on , already ...

The current rear-end is better than a McStrut, geometry-wise. And the current cars all have unit-hubs. That doesn't stop the hubs from failing more often than the press-in hubs did.

Ideally, they'd go to double A-arms front and rear with the bolt-on 5x114.3 hubs (not going to happen). But there's no way that car will be under 3k lbs. That's a 3500 lb car... more if it comes with a 6MT.

This car will likely have the same rear-suspension as the BRZ or Impreza, and the same front-suspension as the Impreza.

Bent and broken by whom, doing what?

Also unlikely to drop 200+lbs without deletion of some equipment and/or noticeable increase in price point.

I agree.

I can't believe no one already mentioned the blasphemy you typed, but "Dream On" was Aerosmith, not Led Zeppelin.

Much more important to get that right than details about the car!

This. Although I've gotten into several arguments with people who don't believe that Steven Tyler used to sound like that. :lol:

Broken a lot by SOA Rally team. (and the PWRC team as well) doing Rally!

but to be honest they don't really market it much, and even when they do, it doesn't matter how often they break down as long as they can get a few 5 second clips of a cool looking drift. and they pretty much always win in the US (helps a lot there are no other factory teams in the us competing against them, and they hire the best drivers)

Subaru as a factory effort competes in Rally-America Open championship and they also still compete in P-WRC
and to my knowledge Subaru doesn't have any other official factory race teams in any other motor sport. :?: :?:

so it would seem to be logical that if they are redesigning the WRX "for motor sports" they would focus on what they actively race in ... and the "crap in the back" is worse for durability. Yes it's better on the race track , but that's not where the WRX really belongs (IMO which will be bashed on here quickly)

the BRZ should get the track oriented suspension (which it has, now it just needs HP) , and the WRX should get rally oriented suspension.

But what we will probably see is the wrx getting all fancy (and weaker) in the back, and the BRZ staying low HP.. :~::(:(

googled

First, I haven't seen anywhere that the WRX redesign is "for motorsports". Best I can tell, the redesign is to sell more cars by making it sportier looking. Subaru's involvement in Rally is actually pretty superficial ever since they pulled out of WRC. They *used* to design road cars specifically to succeed in WRC... that's where the STi came from. But now they're essentially just supporting the US rally guys with parts and calling it a "factory team"... I doubt there's any real thought put into the design of their cars with respect to US rally. Which is why the hubs are weaker, suspension is flimsier, cars are larger and heavier, etc. on the Imprezas. They're designing the cars for sales profits, not for wins.

Second, the difference between "track oriented" and "rally oriented" suspension is basically nothing. In both sports, the struts are replaced, the control arms beefed up, etc. The only thing that matters at the factory is the basic suspension layout, and both the Impreza and BRZ fail in that regards. If either were truly meant for motorsports, Subaru would have figured out how to cram some A-arms in there.

And I won't bash you for suggesting the WRX doesn't belong on the track. I think everyone agrees the WRX is a pig at the track. A fast, brute-force kinda pig. But it certainly doesn't have any finesse, and takes some manhandling to get it around a track quickly. Hell, my Miata has about 1/4 the horsepower of my WRX, and it's much, much slower... but it's like twice as much fun as the WRX at the racetrack. But that's because Mazda designed the car with fun handling specifically in mind. Subaru designed the Impreza with cheap build costs in mind... designs that STi (and Prodrive back in the WRC days) had to overcome in order to make the car a winner. Their only saving grace was that all their competition were also starting with econobox cars as their rally platforms as well.

The reason you got bashed about the rally thing is because you used to come off as suggesting that rally is the *only* thing the WRX/STi is good for. The reality is, just because the STi was modified from the Impreza with rally in mind doesn't mean that's the only thing it's good for, nor does it imply that the STi is all that perfect for rally. The STi isn't the best way over a dirt road... it's the best way over a dirt road under the Group-N rules. Setup a GT-R for rally, for example, and it would crush STis with it's better weight distribution, better power, better suspension geometry, better differentials, etc. All the same reasons why the GT-R crushes the STi at the racetrack. Dirt and tarmac aren't that different, from the perspective of car design... sure the extremes are on different ends of the spectrum, but the basic concept is still the same: getting the tires to grip the ground as much as possible, and give the driver the ability to control the car's slip angle easily. The only thing that's very rally-specific is that FWD tends to work a bit better than RWD, where tarmac the opposite is true. But in both sports, AWD (properly implemented) is better than either.

But anyway, I also don't expect the WRX to be anything spectacular in terms of a racing platform. It will likely be similar to the Impreza, since that's likely what will be underneath. The BRZ has a little more hope, because it's designed more in line with the Miata, i.e. as a fun car. It still has crappy suspension geometry when compared to the Miata, but it's much better than the Impreza. Also, there's very likely a turbo version coming, with the same motor that's in the FXT and this new WRX. A turbo and/or STi BRZ may be quite a good platform for racing, though RWD + rally doesn't work so well against AWD cars. But it would probably do well against other RWD cars in the dirt.

Edit: holy crap, I'm long winded. :unamused:

Dude. There is no high volume, low price point, production car on the market that has a suspension purposely designed to hold up for extended periods under the loadings generated during any type of racing.. period.

I guarantee that "Monte Carlo rally stage" is not one of the fatigue load cases that the Subaru design team used to validate the current car, nor will it be for the next design. That would be prohibitively heavy and/or expensive because component durability always carries with it a weight and/or cost penalty. These cars are designed for fairly normal street usage by fairly normal drivers, just like pretty much every other car made in a factory.

Expecting a mass produced vehicle to be an awesome rally car right off the assembly line is just a flat out unrealistic expectation.

http://rimrocksubarukia.wordpress.co...it-until-2014/
http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2011/7/2...-More-7703925/

http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...o_its_own_way/


Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...#ixzz2PbkQYjsF

http://www.worldcarfans.com/111071534963/


Uhm the phrase "suck it trebek" comes to mind. :)



I'm not expecting a car that comes off the assembly line with coilovers ready to handle stage events, or 24 hours of a track. (Nor did i say or imply that)

I'm saying a known geometry design of the suspension that causes a lot of failures should be avoided.
And some cars are designed to go racing (Ferrari , Miatas, Porsche)
http://carsnewstoday.com/porsche/tra...previewed.html

http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...a/viewall.html

you know the whole mazda "zoom zoom" and "more mazdas are raced on any given weekend than any other car"
the car designers are embracing the fact that their cars get raced. they are not designing race cars, but they are keeping motorsports in mind.

Am i saying that you pick up the keys from the dealership and your car is race ready? NO people, quite being ass holes to me


What i'm saying is certain cars have motorsports in mind when they are designed. you still have to swap out the dampers, springs, tires, brake pads, and add a roll cage. but some cars have thought put into them , so that its Easier to get into racing.

SINCE EVERYONE IS TRYING SO HARD TO READ INTO MY POSTS.. ARG!!! LET ME SPELL IT OUT

I WANT SUBARU TO THINK ABOUT MOTORSPORTS AND TRY TO MAKE IT LIGHTER, EASIER TO WORK ON, AND SUSPENSION GEOMETRY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR WHAT THEY RACE IN.

I'm not changing my mind, and obviously i'm not going to change anyone else's.

:) its fine to not agree with me (ever) but its pretty lame when you come across as disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing with me. :p

:p

I stand corrected... it appears that back in 2011 the WRX redesign was intended to to make the car more competitive. Whether or not that's the reality, we'll see when the car is out because there are hints that things have changed. For example:

I can easily imagine a scenario where they tell the design team "go and make a new WRX for rally!" Then after they come up with something like this:

http://rimrocksubarukia.files.wordpr...lustration.jpg

Subaru goes back to the designers and says "okay, now use an off-the-shelf drivetrain, and make it comfortable and large enough for us to sell it to more than 1000 people". It's just the nature of being a car manufacturer that isn't selling niche cars. And that's how that tiny yellow coupe with the roof scoop and rally wing becomes the prototype shown at the NYAS.

If you look at the prototype car, it's not a rally car any longer. Maybe it looks a bit like something that can go racing in the WTCC... but if it's got AWD, and a 2.5L boxer motor, it's not exactly a touring car. No Subaru is going to fit into a Super 2000 based series, which currently both WRC and WTCC are based on, which is why Subaru got out of WRC in the first place. Current rally and touring cars are cars like the Ford Fiesta, the Peugot 207, the Seat Leon, Chevy Cruze, Honda Civic.... all cars that are in market segments smaller than the Impreza. So, the new WRX will need to be a sub-compact instead of a compact car, and the prototype just doesn't seem that much smaller than the compact Impreza. 2.3" shorter isn't the difference between a Focus and a Fiesta, for example, which are more like 8" different in length. I'll be very surprised to see this WRX in the WTCC or the WRC. I won't be surprised if it runs rally in the US under Group-N, but that's simply because the existing Impreza-based WRX is going away... rally teams will *have* to use this car, or find something else entirely.

So, you can want Subaru to really build a motorsports targeted car... we all sorta want that... but the reality is that Subaru has been pushing for more mainstream marketshare rather than for more race wins over the last 5 years or so. Hopefully they'll surprise us with something raw and race-ready. But it seems highly unlikely. The BRZ is already closer to "track-ready" than I expected, and I can't see Subaru believing they need 2 enthusiast models. The new WRX feels more like Subaru trying keep a car like the current WRX in the lineup, while the Impreza becomes more and more like a boring family car. So, it might be a bit better than the latest WRX revisions, but I highly doubt it's going to swing drastically the other way and be specifically designed around motorsports the way the transition from the old Legacy to the 1st Impreza was.

And I'm honestly not arguing just for the sake of arguing. My points are based on my observations of Subaru's cars over the last few years and the known details about the WRX prototype. And I'm trying to be explicit about how I'm coming to my conclusions. If you disagree with me, feel free to point out the mistakes in my logic.

Either way, I don't really know how this new WRX is going to turn out. I know it looks pretty nice, for once, compared to Subaru's normal new car designs... so maybe they're turning a corner. I'm just pessimistic based on the trend from Subaru since about 2008.

Yes subaru has had a very bad track record as of late of "improving" their cars.

that's why i referenced Dream on, when i said i would like to see it lighter, shorter wheel base, etc, etc. it was a wish list, not what i expect to see.

at this point i do expect they will Botch the competitiveness , things like their 108" wheel base on the WRX sounds like they are off to a bad start. or leaking false stories of how they are motorsports focused to get people like me excited, and then drop an other ugly disappointing cluster of a car on us that's really just aimed at get the largest market share possible by designing it by committee.

design by committee Ie bigger interior but shorter outside, turbo but heavier. suspension that gives more trunk room and less durability. suspension that holds the camber better on the track but no RWD only option .

ya the BRZ will probably be their only "good" motorsports offering for a while. SOA Rally team will continue to win because they are the only factory team (and they influence the rule book) but that's for an other thread.


Still i want to remain optimistic for a while until the car is more finalized and breaks my heart again.

:mad:

WRX got divorced with the impreza and I predict future new stepmom will be the BRZ. Can be seen in the concept drawing on a page prior.

Any simple, or greater, machine will be stronger with less moving parts. Ya mac fear son struts are nice and strong too. Active Steering Axis Inclination sucks and it would be nice to be unseen in this neighborhood. Feeble mcpheason parts are easy to change (consumer maintenance) and easier to mass produce accurately (Subaru o'mighty themselves)

What the hell are you even talking about? If you think the suspension geometry/kinematics are responsible for fatigue failures under off road racing conditions you clearly don't know the first thing about suspension design in particular or machine design in general. Stop whining out of your ass about a vehicle that does exactly what it was designed to do, namely cart people around public roads in a fun, safe and 'sporty' manner.

If previous gens happened to hold up better on rally stages that is because their parts were overdesigned for the intended (street) usage, which by the way carries a cost & weight penalty along with it. Welcome to engineering - where products are gradually optimized over time to meet design targets (which rally stages are not part of), and have gradually less safety margin as real world loadings during intended usage are better understood.

Alex is using the apparent weakness of the dual A arm setup as compared to the previous macpherson strut setup as an example of the direction he doesn't want to see these cars going. And he clearly tells you why. You get it, but you genuinely enjoy being dick on the internet...and we get that.

There is no gradual optimization/safety reduction occurring. They simply chose to replace one technology for another to save space and improve road handling.

I've learned some cool things from your posts throughout the years, since you have a background in some very interesting automotive technologies, but I'm kind of sick of weeding through your douchery to get to that part. Carry on as you will.

Cody Nailed it!!!


labmonkey you are missing the fact that Subaru does have 2 factory backed rally efforts, and no road racing efforts.
You are also missing the fact that I'm saying what i would like to see in their new car where motorsports are a thought of in the design.

How the F is saying what i would Like to see in the new 2014 car whining? Subaru didn't change the double A arm to save money (it costs more) they did it to enlarge the trunk and passenger areas. which they did that to try and increase market share ..

In divorcing the WRX from the Impreza, you will get the grocery buyers & point A to B drivers buying Impreza, and the performance oriented buyers going WRX, the new WRX buyers won't be the type who care so much about trunk space / back seat leg room, that they will end up going with a Honda to fit in that extra sack of groceries.


So what exactly are you truly disagreeing with?

Do you Think someone looking at a WRX IS going to turn away because they lost 2 Cubic feet of trunk space?
do you think someone looking at the WRX will go Honda to give their 3rd and 4th passengers more leg room?

Really?

Obviously you seem to disagree strongly the 08-12 dual A Arm is weaker than the 93-07 macpherson . How many off road races with subarus have you been too? how many of your close friends have been to these races to notice which cars break and where?


Am i claiming to be a master of suspension geometry? NO! am i saying I've seen an increase in failure on parts in a car after a design change. YES.

So just who is talking with out any knowledge here? is it Really me? or is it you?

Maybe have a quick look at my results to see if Maybe, just maybe i have some clue of what i'm talking about... :?:
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...=article&id=56 CRS P-stock champion
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...v%208_2011.htm CRS GT champion
http://www.californiarallyseries.com...gsOct32012.htm CRS GT champion
http://www.rally-america.com/champ_s...hamp=5&yr=2010 rally america south west 2wd production champion
http://www.rally-america.com/champ_s...hamp=5&yr=2011 rally america south west open light
http://www.unitedstatesrallychampion...dingsfinal.pdf West coast champion
http://www.unitedstatesrallychampion...Cstandings.pdf 3rd for the nation in open (in a stock NA car)


How about you Enter and compete in a few off road races, in your subaru, then get back to me. ;)
-------------------------------------
to sum it up :
you want subaru to build an optimized passenger car with no thought for off road (and you hate me)
I want subaru to make Slight changes to help off road (and i'm starting to hate you)

I think everyone is clear, thanks

Well, this thread ceased to be fun.

LabMonkey builds off-road suspensions designed to be literally bomb-proof, so I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about with regards to what decisions Subaru may or may not make that would actually improve suspension strength. Which is to say, the geometry has very little to do with strength. The thing he's missing is tact.

The fact is the rally guys are breaking parts because the *aftermarket* parts designed to work with the newer suspension designs aren't as strong as the older aftermarkets parts designed to work with the older suspension. Without the WRC and actual factory racing efforts to develop the racing parts (Subaru's current US rally support is *not* an actual factory team... it's just the factory giving parts to privateers), it takes a while to figure out how to make them strong enough to survive rally. Plus, without factory money involved, it's up to the much poorer race teams to fund this development. So, it's not at all surprising that newer cars break stuff more than the older, better developed cars. Christ, just typing that makes it seem obvious.

Wanting a better suspension design for racing should be about wanting the car to handle better. Because that's what the geometry can improve. Wanting the suspension to be stronger is a request better made to the folks at DMS or Ohlin, or to the FIA to allow people to swap out more factory parts in the rules. There's no reason you can't build a bomb-proof current gen Impreza rally car within the current car's geometry. The only thing Subaru can do is beef up factory parts so there are less things that need to be swapped on a rally car... which Subaru will never do because a) it doesn't help their bottom line and b) the more parts that need to be swapped, the more replacement parts they sell to privateers. If the current gen cars are failing, it's not Subaru's fault... it's the fault of whatever suspension parts have or haven't been put on the car. If you rally guys want to break less often, swap in better/stronger parts... you know, like every other rally team ever. ;) You're just spoiled because the WRX used to be a factory homologation car.

Again, Subaru's "factory" effort here is just with the supply of cheap/free replacement OEM parts. They *are not* building factory race cars... you can't fault them for designing perfectly road-capable suspension parts and then not uprating them to survive rally. There is no incentive for them to do so like there was when they were actually building WRC cars. It's a shame, but like I said earlier, there's no real evidence that Subaru's policy is going to change with the new WRX. It's just a sportier looking version of the current WRX. It's not being built for a factory racing effort, despite that one comment made back in June 2011.

Also, what's with the talk of dual a-arm suspension? I *wish* the Impreza had dual a-arms. AFAIK, the Impreza still has a multi-link suspension of sorts. The MacStrut has been replaced with an upper control arm, but there is still a trailing link:

http://image.modified.com/f/17368921...suspension.jpg

If the car had a true A-arm suspension (like the Miata for example) that would be ideal for motorsports, since it means the camber change coupled to the vehicle roll can be totally controlled:

http://www.miata.net/garage/alignment/23.gif

The wrap: I blame the flat brims.

Yes i'm definitely missing some tact, and suspension geometry knowledge. (Sorry)

I do have a flat brim hat and ... oh wait .. :p

but ya, i've seen what works with cheap bolt ons, and what hasn't been working. and i guess there's more to the puzzle too. older gen cars were lighter which makes it easier to not break stuff with just replacing a coilover. where as the newer ones are heavier, slap in a new coil over (or spring + damper) and stuff seems to break more often.

maybe we can all agree we want it to be lighter (no matter what we want to use the car for) ? :)

also what just occurred to me is how people like me, Need people like LabMonkey (Who actually know a lot about suspension design) . and how people like him need people like me (who break anything remotely close to stock, demand better stuff and need someone to step in and design said suspension)

hi chicken meet egg? (there's a joke in there somewhere)

I'm not involved in rally racing, and don't know first hand which design iteration is more durable under those conditions nor do I care.

If you want to clearly break it down (as above) into 'car A held up better than car B, under X circumstances', that is a perfectly valid observation. You were however making very generalized statements about geometry somehow being responsible for parts failures, which is completely baseless and demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding on the topic.

There is nothing inherently stronger or weaker about the general suspension layouts of dual A-arms, multi links, mcstruts, or any combination thereof. Durability is purely a function of a variety of other factors ranging from parts design (shape), materials used, & loads applied. Vehicle design is a game of trade offs, most notably between cost, weight, packaging space used, durability, performance requirements, and allotted design time (schedule). There's no telling what was involved in the decisions which produced the current design, but I guarantee it was done in an effort to entice buyers in their target market, which is clearly not you.

In other words,

Subaru *could* make the current multi-link suspension as durable as the mcstruts of old. There is nothing inherent in the geometry (in general) that makes the suspension more prone to failures.

Now, what we can now argue about is Subaru's specific implementation and manufacturing processes. Subaru took trade offs to gain cargo space, save weight, and still perform well under normal (street driving) circumstances. And from your experience Alex, you show that the WRX multi-link rear suspension is weaker, but that doesn't necessarily mean going back to mcstruts will make things stronger or more durable for racing. It could, but that really depends more on the specific mcstrut and all the other considerations and trade-offs Subaru would make for the new part.

So anyway...this happened.

Link to more pics and article

Wait, isn't this supposed to be MY 2014 WRX? Motor Trend is calling it 2015. :confused:

So will that paint scheme be available from the factory ? (J/K) lol

has anyone heard any word if they will be putting a LSD back into the wrx? or are they staying with that lame apply the brakes to the spinning wheel work around ? :(

It looks like a legacy/evo to me.

Well... that's actually not surprising. Way to keep the bar low Subaru!

Oh, hey, I'm not disappointed enough. How about announcing the hatchback is discontinued, red and green will be the only 2 colors for the STi, the stereo will be a non-DIN 6-CD changer w/ no satellite/AUX/bluetooth, the front seats will be the new "sport bench" configuration, hubs are 4x100, and enabling Sport# mode now voids your warranty?

Here's to hoping to god that's just the new "Impreza Sport" or "Impreza GT" that inherits the STi's old bodywork, while the WRX really is the car they showed in NY.