WRX differences throughout 2004-2007
Results 1 to 14 of 14

This is a discussion on WRX differences throughout 2004-2007 within the Everyday Impreza Talk forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Hi all, new to the forums, been searching (google/duckduckgo) for a bit, but haven't found my answers. I'm looking into ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8

    WRX differences throughout 2004-2007

    Hi all, new to the forums, been searching (google/duckduckgo) for a bit, but haven't found my answers.

    I'm looking into the 2004-2007 WRX.
    I plan to tow a snowmobile & trailer in the winter.
    My price range is up to ~$15-16k, I'm near the West coast.

    Just wondering what the big differences are on these years. I know they mostly share the same body style/appearance by what I can tell.

    What about HP/TRQ numbers? [see below Update] Will a wagon be better for me (for towing) with the extra weight? [Yes, wagon is only body style Subaru reccomends for towing.] Can I get a mountain bike into the back of a hatch? [Yes, removing front wheel will allow this.]

    I'm still concerned about clearance on 'snow days'. Are lifts available or practical for these situations? [Subtle Solutions, Kings Springs]

    Really I'm looking for a fun car to drive (gravel road blasts, mountain roads, snow covered roads) that will still allow me to get up the mountain to the snow while towing a trailer and sled.

    I love the sound of the Boxer engine. I've owned a boosted snowmobile, and I've really been wanting to try a turbo car.


    Update: Just some number crunching, maybe will be useful if others happen upon this thread.

    2004-2005:
    weight (sed/wag): 3,085 lbs / 3,165 lbs (difference of 80 lbs)
    227 HP @6600 RPM, 217 TRQ @4000 RPM
    8.0:1 compression, 13.5 PSI max boost
    20/27 MPG (city/hwy)
    0-30 1.9-2.0s, 0-60 5.6-5.8s, 0-100 16.8-17.5s
    1/4 14.1-14.7s @93-95.4 MPH
    70-0 188-173 ft, 60-0 138-123 ft

    2006-2007:
    New larger 2.5L engine with 230hp and Active Valves (AVCS (Active Valve Control System): variable valve timing optimizes engine volumetric efficiency through the rev band), 17" 7-spoke alloys, engine immobilizer key, 4 piston front, 2 piston rear brakes with red painted calipers.
    New dual front 'Advanced Airbags' detect driver's seat position and passenger weight and seat position to control airbag deployment. Airbags: Dual Side head and chest airbags.
    175.8" long, 2" longer than the 04-05 @ 173.8"
    weight (non-Prem sed/wag): 3,192 lbs [+107 lbs] / 3,252 lbs [+87 lbs] (difference of 60 lbs)
    230 HP [+3 HP] @5600 RPM [-1000 RPM], 235 TRQ [+18 TRQ] @3600 RPM [-400 RPM]
    8.4:1 [+.4] compression, 11.6 [-1.9] PSI max boost
    20/26 [-1 hwy] MPG (city/hwy)
    0-60 5.6s [0-.2s faster], 0-100 15.0-15.8s [1.8-1.7s faster]
    1/4 14.21-14.3s [.1s slower to .4s faster] @96-97.42 MPH [3-2.02 mph faster]
    80-0 216 ft
    Last edited by rotax; 05-23-2013 at 03:36 PM.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Sammich Makin' Pwincess wrxtreme06's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    orlando flawduh
    Posts
    12,638
    I Support ClubWRX
    Cars101.com is a great resource for comparing different years and will answer all of your questions

    The basics:
    04-05 was the "blobeye" body style and had a 2.0l engine
    06-07 was the "hawkeye" body style and had a 2.5l engine

    desiree
    your friendly, neighborhood subaru girl
    abbigale : 06 impreza wrx tr: cobb stage II
    hawkeye alliance #11:11//
    wingl3ss @ll!ance #17 // lvl 80 N.E.R.D.

  4. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by wrxtreme06 View Post
    Cars101.com is a great resource for comparing different years and will answer all of your questions

    The basics:
    04-05 was the "blobeye" body style and had a 2.0l engine
    06-07 was the "hawkeye" body style and had a 2.5l engine
    Thank you! Took some digging, but finally found the details.


    Update:
    Looks like the 06-07 will work a bit better for my needs. The 2.5L engine being the biggest factor. Much better torque numbers [HP great too for the RPM] at much lower RPM. The 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are much much better too, they almost match the '08 STi numbers... (Note: Just numbers I used/found on the cars101.com site.) I also do like the looks of the body style better. They did get pretty heavy in 06-07, but probably not a complete negative for trailer towing. And clearly the engine upgrade made up for the fat.
    Last edited by rotax; 05-23-2013 at 04:20 AM.

  5. #4
    Registered User Ruh Roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pottstown PA
    Posts
    3,225
    wikipedia has a nice list of all the models and specs
    Marky Mark
    2002 Stage 2.3 PSM Bugeye tuned by Matty at WTFtuning
    Bugeye Mafia #397, High Mileage Club, WTF Tuning Intern
    My bugeye build
    MinoskePhotography
    First Mods and other useful info!
    GM EBCS/ Hallman MBC Hybrid boost setup diagram

  6. #5
    Registered User Monk_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    550
    I can answer a couple!

    For snow days, I live in SW Colorado now and spent a couple years out in Tahoe with my WRX as well. Skiing is pretty much my favorite thing in the world... usually get 50+ days a year and 99% of powder days. So I get my car out in the snow a lot. Usually every year I have multiple times where I have to drive through 12+ inches of fresh unplowed snow -- never had any issues or ever gotten stuck. I've had times where I had to dig out the sides of my car so I could open the door to get in... but I'd still be able to back straight out and drive away through knee high snow.

    As far as a mountain bike goes, you can get one in the back of a hatch easily if you take the front wheel off.

  7. #6
    zax
    zax is online now
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ zax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Neverland Ranch, Maryland
    Posts
    12,678
    I Support ClubWRX I Support ClubWRX
    Yes, if you plan on towing anything, the increased torque provided by the 2.5L makes it an absolute must. However, I'd argue that an older Forester XT would be MUCH better for your needs, as the 4.44:1 F/D provides increased acceleration and mechanical advantage for towing.

    FYR, I don't believe a stock 2006-2007 WRX will run a 13.6 @ 99.6mph in the 1/4. In my experience, it's much closer to 14 seconds at 95-97mph. The newer 2009+ Will run mid 13s at 100mph stock.

    Stock 2006 Subaru Impreza WRX TR 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com

    also this:

    0-60 5.1s [.5-.7s Faster], 0-100 13.1s [3.7-4.4s Faster]
    1/4 13.6s [.5-1.1s Faster] @99.6 MPH [4.2-6.6 MPH Faster]
    80-0 216 ft
    Makes no sense. If it does 0-100 in 13.1 seconds, why does it only do the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at under 100mph?
    2015 CWP WRX STi ... But how did I get roped back into an EJ motor?!
    Zax's utterly unimaginably stock 2015 STi build thread
    Zax's Shaggin' Wagon Build Thread Now tuned for 99% pure Unicorn Jizz!

    Zach | Moderator -- Mid-Atlantic States, Tech & Modifying & General Repairs
    Rollin' with the Bugeye Mafia #302 | N.E.R.D. Subject Zero
    Facebook me here

    Your Mid-A local board: http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/mid-atlantic-states/

  8. #7
    Registered User UEDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk_Knight View Post
    As far as a mountain bike goes, you can get one in the back of a hatch easily if you take the front wheel off.
    2 if you take both wheels off and the seats folded down =)

    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post
    Yes, if you plan on towing anything, the increased torque provided by the 2.5L makes it an absolute must. However, I'd argue that an older Forester XT would be MUCH better for your needs, as the 4.44:1 F/D provides increased acceleration and mechanical advantage for towing.
    This. If you can find an XT with a manual, I wouldn't want the 4 speed auto.

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post

    also this:



    Makes no sense. If it does 0-100 in 13.1 seconds, why does it only do the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at under 100mph?

  10. #9
    Luke Skywalker Mikie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palmyra, NJ
    Posts
    20,643
    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post
    FYR, I don't believe a stock 2006-2007 WRX will run a 13.6 @ 99.6mph in the 1/4. In my experience, it's much closer to 14 seconds at 95-97mph.
    Truf. I used to run with a buddy who was completely stock in his 2007 WRX. He never modded his car and he could never get down below 14.1 @96.



    Also another difference...06-07 WRXs had the red Subaru 4/2 pot brakes. The 04-05 models had the basic slider calipers.
    The Hawk-Eye Alliance #90|The Blobeye Syndicate #0|The Stink-Eye Mob #0|N.E.R.D. Founding Member & #3
    2012 Lightning Red WRX Sedan Stock...for now Soon to be OpenSource tuned by: Mattypants @ WTF Tuning
    "If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 giraffes, how many pancakes can fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don’t wear hats" -Ying

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by zax View Post
    FYR, I don't believe a stock 2006-2007 WRX will run a 13.6 @ 99.6mph in the 1/4. In my experience, it's much closer to 14 seconds at 95-97mph. The newer 2009+ Will run mid 13s at 100mph stock.

    Stock 2006 Subaru Impreza WRX TR 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com

    also this:



    Makes no sense. If it does 0-100 in 13.1 seconds, why does it only do the quarter mile in 13.6 seconds at under 100mph?
    Agree, that made no sense to me either. Again, just numbers I pulled from cars101.com for comparison. But logically it means different drivers in different locations, possibly different elevations. and really 1/4 mile and 0-100 times are not really a concern to me. :P I won't be a street racer or light to light dragger anyway.

    A manual is an absolute requirement.
    A turbo is an absolute requirement.

    Edit: OK, thanks for the tip on the Forester XT (2.5L turbo & manual, starting in 2004). Doing some research. Don't at all like the looks..but none the less, worth learning more about them.

    Update: Here is a copy paste of the infos from cars101.com for the 2007 model WRX. Possibly those Road & Track numbers are from an STi and not indicated. Because the Car & Driver numbers seem closer to real world WRX numbers?

    Road and Track speed test, Dec. 2006
    0-60 5.1
    0-100 13.1
    1/4 mile 13.6 sec @ 99.6 mph
    80-0 216 ft

    Car and Driver speed test Feb. 2007
    First Place: The Quickest Cars of 2007: $20,000 to $25,000:
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 15.8 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 36.3 sec
    Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.8 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph
    Top speed (drag limited): 145 mph
    Braking, 70–0 mph: 175 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
    Last edited by rotax; 05-23-2013 at 03:19 PM.

  12. #11
    Registered User UEDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Posts
    1,072
    Real world? No i-freaking-dea.
    You are basing your decisions way too much on numbers.
    All I know is my tuned 2005 WRX can always put a stupid **** eating grin on my ugly mug.

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by UEDan View Post
    Real world? No i-freaking-dea.
    You are basing your decisions way too much on numbers.
    All I know is my tuned 2005 WRX can always put a stupid **** eating grin on my ugly mug.


    Understood. Great real world reply.
    I'm convinced.
    Enjoy friends!

  14. #13
    Luke Skywalker Mikie13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palmyra, NJ
    Posts
    20,643
    Yeah paper racing doesn't mean squat in reality.

    Find one of each. Test drive one of each...make decision based on that. Game over, enjoy!
    The Hawk-Eye Alliance #90|The Blobeye Syndicate #0|The Stink-Eye Mob #0|N.E.R.D. Founding Member & #3
    2012 Lightning Red WRX Sedan Stock...for now Soon to be OpenSource tuned by: Mattypants @ WTF Tuning
    "If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 giraffes, how many pancakes can fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don’t wear hats" -Ying

  15. #14
    and the Funky Bunch Calvinball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Philly Area
    Posts
    5,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikie13 View Post
    Yeah paper racing doesn't mean squat in reality.

    Find one of each. Test drive one of each...make decision based on that. Game over, enjoy!
    ^ This.

    We've had plenty of guys convert to these cars from cars that are, on paper, faster. They liked the way these drive better. And there have been plenty of examples of the opposite too. The numbers don't really tell you anything about how the car drives; how the power is delivered, what the suspension setup feels like, how the brakes feel, etc.
    - Will
    First Mods: What to do and what not to do
    Current Car: 2014 Golf TDI
    Previous Cars:2012 WRB WRX Hatch, 2004 RSX-S, 1998 Grand Prix GTP
    "Isn't it amazing how smart you feel when you just aren't being stupid?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •