"Hawkeye" WRX Buying Advice

[ModishNouns]

Hi all,

I have my eye on a couple of '07 Impreza WRXs. Are there any specific weaknesses I should look out for beyond the usual uneven tyre wear, panel gaps, smoking etc.?

They are quite low mileage (one in particular has only done about 22000) and the trade sellers are only asking £7200 - £7300. That seems a lot of car for the money. Should I be concerned?

There are some worrying things about the 2.5L engine in Ali's Sick STi thread. Is that something I need to take into consideration?

Any help / advice greatly appreciated.

[japgt]

Yeh the 2.5 has a bit of a reputation for lunching itself, apart from that havnt heard anything else detrimental about them.

[Mastodon2]

The 2.5L engine is known to have the weak piston rings. I know you would have thought that a 2.5L engine making the same sort of power the 2.0L was making would be under less stress, but there you go. It seems Subaru used a less durable material for the rings which then leads to failures.

I'm sure someone else with more experience will come and give more advice than me. I'm not sure if the hawkeyes fail as standard or only when they are modified for more power, but I'd think it's the former as I recall reading about quite a few hatch Imprezas failing in showroom spec.

[Ali_T]

If only it were the piston rings. It's the pistons themselves. They like to break off chunks or crack....

[Dr_Rick]

Depending on location, I'm considering selling my GB270 saloon. Just gone through the 19k miles. PM if interested.

Dr Rick

[paulmoonraker]

Mastodon2 said:

I know you would have thought that a 2.5L engine making the same sort of power the 2.0L was making would be under less stress, but there you go.

No, its also to do with the number of cylinders. Larger bore cylinders are inherently weaker than smaller bore cylinders (goes for pistons too - greater surface area). As you know, they are both 4 cylinder engines.

The 2.0ltr is a more robust and revvy block. The 2.5ltr has more low down torque which makes it a nicer daily drive.

If your going to modify aggressively it get a 2.0ltr (or in fact get an STi), if not then the 2.5 should be okay. A simple stage 1 (exhaust, map) on a 2.5 will see 270bhp and lorry loads of torque.

-P

[paulmoonraker]

Ali_T said:

If only it were the piston rings. It's the pistons themselves. They like to break off chunks or crack....

Because they are bigger hence weaker, and (I think) also cast not forged.

-P

[Ali_T]

And very, very thin. A classic example:



Apparently, mine looks like that.

[ModishNouns]

Hmm. I'm not planning on modding at all but I am planning on keeping it a long time. Whatever I buy is going to have to last me up to nine years.

All good stuff, guys. Thank you :-)

[Ali_T]

It's a risk. I had hoped my STI would last 4 years from new. Only 2 and 1/2 years old, 21,000 miles and needs a new engine!

[paulmoonraker]

It's the hatches that have received the attention, not Hawkeyes. However, they do seem to be getting tared with the same brush. Most Hawkeye failures have been more related to overzealous modifications without the supporting engine modifications.

The hatch failures seem to be a combination of things as the cause - some to do with the original engine map, and some to do with engine component weakness.

-P

[paulmoonraker]

If your not sure and still want an Impreza get a 2005 car - bomb proof

[Mastodon2]

I was about to say, I've heard nothing but good things about the blob eye Imprezas.

[paulmoonraker]

Mastodon2 said:

I was about to say, I've heard nothing but good things about the blob eye Imprezas.

That's because they are the best

[CaptainSlow]

nicer interiors too, imo

[paulmoonraker]

CaptainSlow said:

nicer interiors too, imo

What do you smoke? I would like some

[CaptainSlow]

I just dont like the hawkeye seats. Admittedly neither has a great interior

[nottyash]

One reason they are cheaper is the tax band on 2006 onward. Its currently £460 a year, where as earlier cars are £240

[DKL]

nottyash said:

One reason they are cheaper is the tax band on 2006 onward. Its currently £460 a year, where as earlier cars are £240

Bugger, our tax is coming up, £460 is getting a bit silly.
Spotted a gb270 wagon oop north, 28K and under £10K. I really wanted one of these but couldn't justify the 4K difference over the stock 2.5 wagon we bought and have a couple of years ago. Great car, as was the 2.0 before it. Just trying to work out what to replace it with a year or two as the options are rather limited.
Who wants another hatchback - why couldn't they have left it as it was?

[Ali_T]

THe hatch exists because of the GM tie in with Subaru and Saab. Look at the hatches shape, rear lights and creases. Now look at a Saab 9-3. Similarities? That's because the hatch was also destined to become the Saab 9-2 until GM got cold feet in the recession and released their shares in Subaru to Toyota, and got rid of Saab.