Opinions wanted on Subaru Impreza TS 1.6

Nephew

I'm buying a car after the summer and the Impreza ts 1.6 is one that has caught eye and made it onto the potential list. I think it's a nice looking car without the gimped up boy racer air vent, spoiler and associated boy racer plastic tack.For the sake of argument I'll say the exact model below is the one I am interested in.

http://carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=667445

I'd appreciate your opinions and experiences of the car.

Thanks

C_Breeze

"Nice looking car" ...are u joking ?! ..its an absolutely hideous thing, most poeple will agree.

the only thing that saves that car is the turbo engine (the "tacky boy racer" or decent one)

but since your not even lookin at that , i'd say look elsewhere for a smarter lookin classier 1.6 car (which I would assume your after) .. In the 1.6 impreza even without the air vents and 'plastic tack' ... you still be tarred with the same brush of boyracer ...just without all the ooomph . its lose-lose imho

colm_mcm

an Impreza without the performance. great

C_Breeze

Kind of like alcohol free Dutch Gold

alias no.9

Classy it ain't, but that's just my opinion. The power and handling of the wrx versions make them somewhat desirable. The cooking models have very little to offer. For every generation of impreza, I've always thought the styling was a bad copy of the previous generation toyota corrolla.

Nephew

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I also really like the look of the Chrysler PT Cruiser:D but I have no intention of buying one. Yeah I'm after a 1.6 or 1.8 with a max budget of e16,000 and I'd prefer if it had 45,000 miles or less.

colm_mcm

At least when VW's are overpriced you can say something about the nice dash plastics. the Subaru doesn't even have this. it's all very low budget, and he only desirability it has is the reputation of the turbo morels.

unkel

Ridiculous money for a horrible looking car with no redeeming features whatsoever. It's not even bloody got 4WD! In most countries Subaru only sell 4WD cars...

A new model (even uglier) brand spanking new 4WD Impreza lists at €23k minus a good discount for a cash sale

Nephew wrote:

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Indeed

bazz26

unkel wrote:

Ridiculous money for a horrible looking car with no redeeming features whatsoever. It's not even bloody got 4WD! In most countries Subaru only sell 4WD cars...

Can you imagine the performance of the 1.6 litre engine with the extra weight of a 4WD power train.

OP, personally I think an Impreza with a 1.6 litre engine is pointless just like a BMW 316i, Audi A4 1.6 litre and the likes. There are much better cars out there for €15k if your willing to go back a few years.

zilog_jones

unkel wrote:

It's not even bloody got 4WD! In most countries Subaru only sell 4WD cars...

Really? I thought Subaru stopped making 2WD versions in the '90s, but I guess I was only looking at the UK market.

Can you imagine the performance of the 1.6 litre engine with the extra weight of a 4WD power train.

If you think that will be bad, there was also the Subaru Vivio - a 660cc kei car - with 4WD! Actually, there's a helluva lot of small cars with 4WD versions available in Japan. I don't know how they move at all.

JHMEG

This is a "family saloon", and with than in mind it's certainly more "individual" than a 316, A3 1.6, Golf or Focus etc.

Not a bad price imho for a 2 yo car. New that would have been around 23k or so.

My father had three 1.6 Legacys down thru the years. Depsite having blue interiors (:eek:, which Merc have since copied in the E-class :eek:), he never had a spot of trouble with them.

The horizontally opposed engine (it's not really a boxer) looks mad, but isn't that hard to work on.

colm_mcm

isn't a horizontally opposed engine also called a boxer?

zilog_jones

Yeah, that's what I thought a boxer was, and the Wikipedia suggests this too.

cancan

If 4WD go for it - subaru's unlike VW's don't break.

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote:

isn't a horizontally opposed engine also called a boxer?

A boxer is only a boxer if two opposing pistons reach the top of their respective cylinders simultaneously. Like a boxer thumping his fists together, hence the name.

Doesn't happen too much in the real word (not with 4 cyl anyway), but it's academic, as it's only a name.

colm_mcm

can't boxers also use one fist at a time?

Nephew

So I take it the consensus is to avoid:D It's one of many cars on my ever increasing list, damn you carzone.

On a more serious note what is the general opinion on the 1.8L Saab 9-3 and Volvo S40, most likely the 2003 model for both.

Stephen

One of the guys where I work has a 2003 1.8 turbo Saab 9-3. Great feel of acceleration, and rubbish leg room in the back I like it. it does look a bit Opel Vectra though.

peasant

I'm pretty sure the "1.8" Saab is actually a 2 liter, just in a lower state of turbo bosst (or possibly even without0 then the other models ...too lazy to look it up now.

Stephen

According to Wikipedia you're correct - it says the 1.8t is in fact a 2.0 with low turbo boost.

The second-generation model was launched at the Detroit Auto Show in early 2003. All U.S. market gas-powered variants featured a 2.0 L straight-4 engine derived from General Motors' Ecotec family. There are three different versions of the turbocharged I4, with the amount of turbo boost determining the power output. The 150 HP version (though two litre, it is called 1.8t) was standard in the Linear form (trim-level). The 175 horsepower version (2.0t) was standard in Linear or Vector form, mated with a 5-speed manual transmission or a 5-speed Sentronic automatic, which allowed for shifting without a clutch pedal. The 210 horsepower 2.0T was available in both the Arc and Vector forms, and the same Sentronic transmission was available, though in the Vector, paddle shifters mounted on the steering wheel were added. In 2003 Arcs and Vectors the manual transmission was a 6-speed.

Never knew that! Kinda sucks for tax, since you'd easily get 150bhp out of a 1.8 with a turbo. ffs, my naturally aspirated 1.8 generates 140bhp.

JHMEG

Any decent 2.0 NA engine will do 150bhp.

colm_mcm

My 2.0 NA is rated at 197bhp (or at least it was when it was new!)

unkel

colm_mcm wrote:

My 2.0 NA is rated at 197bhp (or at least it was when it was new!)

You don't drive what you sell?

JHMEG

colm_mcm wrote:

My 2.0 NA is rated at 197bhp (or at least it was when it was new!)

Mmm. 2.0 NA, close to 100bhp/litre = high redline = variable valve timing. CTR or FTO GPX maybe? Or a something with a Beams (tho I think they're closer to 210bhp)?

bazz26

JHMEG wrote:

Mmm. 2.0 NA, close to 100bhp/litre = high redline = variable valve timing. CTR or FTO GPX maybe? Or a something with a Beams (tho I think they're closer to 210bhp)?

I think Colm recently bought an FTO.

bazz26

Stephen wrote:

One of the guys where I work has a 2003 1.8 turbo Saab 9-3. Great feel of acceleration, and rubbish leg room in the back I like it. it does look a bit Opel Vectra though.

The 9-3 shares it's platform with the Vectra as GM own SAAB. The 1.8t badged 9-3 is actually a 2.0 litre engine which I think has a smallere turbo than the 2.0t version. 1.8t has around 150bhp compared to the 2.0t which has around 197bhp afaik. The only 1.8 litre 9-3 is the entry level model 1.8 Linear.

colm_mcm

unkel wrote:

You don't drive what you sell?

I do when I'm feeling sensible!