Took a "Blobeye" Impreza STI PPP out today

MikeHiow · 16 Oct 2010 at 23:37

I've spotted this at the local Honda dealer several times over the last few weeks and couldn't resist taking it for a test drive.

Quite surprisingly I found myself left quite underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, 4WD offers some awesome traction out of corners and I was quite surprised that even with DCCD set to auto - it was quite tail happy, but there was no real sense of speed, which I guess isn't helped by the fact that I'm not a huge fan of 4WD anyway, but with 300BHP it didn't feel as fast as the ST, in fact I'm confident that the in gear times of the ST are significantly faster.

Then there are the brakes; 4 pot Brembo items but they felt terrible, spongy and lifeless.

I guess I expected the newer Impreza to be a bit more impressive, as I've always found half the problem with the classics is most have been abused and aren't nearly as 'tight' as they once were.

Beyond that, when you're not going fast it is a terrible car - the ride is far too harsh, cabin noise is almost unbearable - even compared to a Focus, and the controls felt like something out of an early 90s Jap Coupé.

The only thing that truly impressed me was the launch - I'm not sure if it was the trick diff, better tyres or what, but no other 4WD car has managed to launch quite as brutally as this managed.

A friend of mine, who was in the passenger seat thought I was crazy - apart from agreeing me on the ride/noise point he was amazed by it. Is it just me and my odd driving preferences? Have hot hatches warped my automotive brain?

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 00:11

Yes, you can get decent speeds over here, but most of it is B roads.

The thing with the Impreza is there is a lot more turbo lag evident, and it doesn't seem very torquey, especially not until the higher revs. Where as the ST will pick up and go hard, pretty much anywhere in the rev range.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 00:44

Impressive Googling. I had no timing gear, but this only goes to show how much the Impreza actually numbs the feeling of speed. Assuming mine is somewhere in the middle of those two at 5.1 seconds, for a car that is 1.2 seconds quicker 30-70 to feel slower is quite a feat.

My Focus just has a Stage 1 Bluefin remap, Fett.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 01:07

Just a thought, those who replied that have had one, how much do these cars back off on 95? Would it be significantly slower? (like "night and day" slower, not just "is this placebo?" slower)

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 01:14

I decided it wasn't really relevant as it didn't really show what our local roads are like when it's in the pitch black. It's in the Youtube thread if you really want it

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 01:41

Gibbo: You're clearly a 4WD man, but I completely disagree. I didn't think it handled that great - although not bad either, I was impressed at how controllable it was once things got a little out of hand, but the steering was far too light, ride was crashy the only other thing it really had was traction.

When you're comparing how fast they feel, are you talking about off the line? If so, I completely agree - there is no way I could even dream of getting the ST off the line even close to that quick, but once moving the scoob lost its edge for me.

I'd love to compare my experience in the scoob to something like a FQ300.

Clarkey said:
LOL. Focus ST quicker than an STi Impreza. Now I really have heard it all

I suppose you've driven both?

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 02:10

Dangerous Dave said:
Drivers Republic before they disappeared timed their long term mountune remapped ST doing a 30-70 in 4.4 seconds in 3rd almost a second quicker than the times mentioned for the STI by Fett.

The time does seem very quick but it was timed with a vbox.

Maybe my butt dyno isn't so bad, after all.

Clarkey said:
Subaru yes, Focus no. Doesn't take a genius though to work out that a car with much more power and shorter gears is going to be faster. The turbo on an STi isn't laggy at all so maybe it was knackered, likewise the brakes.

Much more power? We're comparing ~275bhp to what would seem is 300bhp on a 4WD system that is going to be suffering from greater transmission loss. I don't think my comments are that ridiculous at all.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 09:02

I think I need to clarify something. I took the scoob for a proper blast, and found my self accelerating through some corners where I'd still be braking in the ST. This is wonderful, but I didn't find this bit 'fun', it was just going fast. Much the same as doing silly speeds on the motorway isn't fun.

I understand your points on the limitations of FWD Gibbo, but on the road I find you can take bigger liberties and spend more time at the limit without going OTT. So you see, I'm not suggesting that the scoob wasn't faster A-B, just that if I had to do that drive again, I'd choose the Focus to do it in.

Meridian - it wasn't like they didn't work, they just seemed to lack feel in a big way - once stepped on, they never failed to stop in good time but they seemed almost too progressive in doing so.

It would seem I'm pretty much alone in my driving preferences, assuming everyone here has actually driven one.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 10:05

I'm not saying my ST was significantly faster, but it certainly feels it, but that could be due to the extra torque, which is probably delivered in a bigger lump. In theory I would expect the much lower rotating mass on the STs FWD system and it's lesser transmission losses to play a part, too.

I'm happy to accept the correction that the Subaru is faster, it just doesn't feel it.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 10:20

The second quote was after i was corrected. I'm happy to accept that my original statement was wrong.

As for getting in a car and straight away having the confidence to put it through its paces - the only thing I declared the ST faster on (which I now know to be wrong) was in gear times, and it doesn't take a genius to stamp on the throttle. The rest is subjective, but I'm happy to conclude the Scoob is faster through the bends - my point was it wasn't as fun for me.

For everyday driving, yes I think the ST is a much better car, but this is mainly on refinement - the Subaru would be intolerable every day for me. As a weekend car its downfalls become irrelevant.

Don't forget, my OP even indicates that I was surprised by my feelings and findings, which is why I wanted to post up here and find out what others thought. You're not the only one that finds my experience odd; I did too.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 10:30

I don't think its much slower though, is it? When we compare remapped times to 05 PPP times (Which is 300bhp, not 330 as the times you quoted were).

With all the cars you've experienced, you must be aware of how cars can feel massively different, with torque mainly (The ST's strong point) being able to sway things massively.

All I can suggest Fox, is that you find a remapped/Mountuned ST to have a go in. Once you've experienced that power delivery, I'm sure you'd understand my point.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 11:51

I'm not saying the ST is amazing, and it isn't all about appearance - it is about feel. Besides, I never compared the interior to the ST, only the cabin noise. Its the one point everyone else completely agrees on, so why have you come in questioning it?

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 11:55

Numbers on a speedo are not fun, no. Driving dynamics, user input and car response, and getting a car close to its limits are far more important to me.

I think you're getting too caught up about the comparisons with the Focus - that isn't what this is about. Actual speeds, no the Focus isn't as fast but to me on public roads it is more fun and better to live with.

The easiest, shortest way of explaining it to me, is having to go significantly faster to get closer to the limits of grip and traction is not attractive to me - please don't pick this apart, as it isn't that simple - just the general direction of where I'm coming from.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 12:38

Fox, Well I clearly said it wasn't as black and white as that, but you also seem to have missed the first paragraph of that post.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:02

Peerzy said:
This is worse than me thinking my Fiat thing is faster than a V8 Atom.

What is? Have you read the thread? I think the scoob is faster than my st.

MikeHiow · 17 Oct 2010 at 21:22

realscot said:
snip

Are you for real? Whilst we all know the STI is going to be faster on track, are you really using a computer game to test it and then reporting back to a motoring forum with the results?

MikeHiow · 18 Oct 2010 at 14:02

So it is probable that the car I tested was indeed slower than my ST?

MikeHiow · 18 Oct 2010 at 14:10

Heh, so once again - the OCuK motors crew wrongly jumps to conclusions, and my "review" probably was accurate.

MikeHiow · 18 Oct 2010 at 14:36

Gaijin said:
Your first review? Or the one after you changed your mind?

I changed it because everyone told me I was wrong, and I believed them. But when two people that actually own/have owned one of these cars tell me it was probably only running 260bhp, it leads me to conclude that the rest of the posters were talking crap as usual (based on it not sounding right probably).

MikeHiow · 18 Oct 2010 at 15:04

No idea, but if Prodrive's power claims are off, what is to say that those timings aren't off, too?