WRX STI Owners
Discussion
Looking at a 2014 WRX STI. Been well serviced & in great condition. Previous owner traded it in for the new Final Edition.
I've always been a Subaru fan and well aware of the 2.5 engine woes. Question is, was that mostly exclusive to the older hawk/hatch STI or is it becoming common with the new model? It's a lot of money to drop on a car which may go pop. I'll not be tuning it in any way either so no extra stress will be put on the engine.
I've always been a Subaru fan and well aware of the 2.5 engine woes. Question is, was that mostly exclusive to the older hawk/hatch STI or is it becoming common with the new model? It's a lot of money to drop on a car which may go pop. I'll not be tuning it in any way either so no extra stress will be put on the engine.
I had a black 2014 WRX STI for just 3 months earlier this year.
Compared to earlier Subaru's it is a lot harder ride. It sticks like glue and just feels so unstickable in dry and pretty much the wet too with the standard Dunlops.
The problem for me was the hard ride. Circumstance's changed after a months ownership meaning I did the school run over a speed bump infested road daily, and it was truly awful.
Couple that with the fact the engine had no flexibility at all compared to more modern engines. It wants you in 4th at 30mph or the little gear change arrow goes nuts.
However the old school turbo lag push is addictive, and on the right roads its in a class of its own.
Only issues I had were down to tyres. The Original Dunlop RT are no longer made. The RT2 is a completely different tyre and must have different circumference as it stopped my 4wd system from working when the dealer put 2 new tyres on the back. The front still had 5mm on yet it was enough to knacker it., I had to have 4 the same on, which if you get a puncture on some worn tyres could be an issue.
Its common too, even happening to the pistonheads test car.
Shame because I loved the looks and driving it on the right road.
Compared to earlier Subaru's it is a lot harder ride. It sticks like glue and just feels so unstickable in dry and pretty much the wet too with the standard Dunlops.
The problem for me was the hard ride. Circumstance's changed after a months ownership meaning I did the school run over a speed bump infested road daily, and it was truly awful.
Couple that with the fact the engine had no flexibility at all compared to more modern engines. It wants you in 4th at 30mph or the little gear change arrow goes nuts.
However the old school turbo lag push is addictive, and on the right roads its in a class of its own.
Only issues I had were down to tyres. The Original Dunlop RT are no longer made. The RT2 is a completely different tyre and must have different circumference as it stopped my 4wd system from working when the dealer put 2 new tyres on the back. The front still had 5mm on yet it was enough to knacker it., I had to have 4 the same on, which if you get a puncture on some worn tyres could be an issue.
Its common too, even happening to the pistonheads test car.
Shame because I loved the looks and driving it on the right road.
Thanks for the replies.
Re tyres; there are 4 new Yokohama Advan Neova something or other. Gripped fine on the test drive.
Ride quality doesn't concern me, last few cars haven't exactly been comfortable and I know what to expect.
My main concern is the engine. All well saying rebuild it but this will be my daily so I need it to get to work. I had a 2.5 WRX before and serviced it twice a year / 4k miles and it served me well, WRX isn't an STI though! Would hope a similar schedule with no tuning should keep it from going bang...
It's a literal (attainable!) dream car so my head is friend. Heart says do it, head is 50/50,
Re tyres; there are 4 new Yokohama Advan Neova something or other. Gripped fine on the test drive.
Ride quality doesn't concern me, last few cars haven't exactly been comfortable and I know what to expect.
My main concern is the engine. All well saying rebuild it but this will be my daily so I need it to get to work. I had a 2.5 WRX before and serviced it twice a year / 4k miles and it served me well, WRX isn't an STI though! Would hope a similar schedule with no tuning should keep it from going bang...
It's a literal (attainable!) dream car so my head is friend. Heart says do it, head is 50/50,
The 2.5 is a crap engine, it has too many inherent issues with it, it was never designed to run the sort of power that gets put through it but they put it in the STI because it passes emissions which the 2ltr didn't (even though it produces more CO2).
On the original cars fitted with the 2.5, the map was the biggest issue along with the head bolts not being tightened correctly from the factory, the pistons are still crap (think they improved them but looking at cars in the USA they still suffer ring land failures), the oil pick up issue still exists as does the cracking across the cylinders (though that doesn't seem to be much of an issue).
You can have the engine rebuilt, have the oil feed moved, have longer head bolts put in, forged pistons and rods, there will still be some issues but you pretty much get rid of all the major ones (except the lag, its not a nice engine for that).
You have an option to try to find a JDM, better engine, same looks, probably more expensive but hey, they pull like a train from very low down in the rev range and sound great.
New FA20's are coming at some point too (they bring their own problems, hence why the EJ20's are still used in the JDM STI's).
There is no real win/win situation unless you spend a bit of cash, they are still a good car but more modern machinery (I won't say the Focus RS as that has far more engine issues than an STI) that can put a smile on your face and feel refined, the refined bit is where you may find the WRX STI lacks a little.
On the original cars fitted with the 2.5, the map was the biggest issue along with the head bolts not being tightened correctly from the factory, the pistons are still crap (think they improved them but looking at cars in the USA they still suffer ring land failures), the oil pick up issue still exists as does the cracking across the cylinders (though that doesn't seem to be much of an issue).
You can have the engine rebuilt, have the oil feed moved, have longer head bolts put in, forged pistons and rods, there will still be some issues but you pretty much get rid of all the major ones (except the lag, its not a nice engine for that).
You have an option to try to find a JDM, better engine, same looks, probably more expensive but hey, they pull like a train from very low down in the rev range and sound great.
New FA20's are coming at some point too (they bring their own problems, hence why the EJ20's are still used in the JDM STI's).
There is no real win/win situation unless you spend a bit of cash, they are still a good car but more modern machinery (I won't say the Focus RS as that has far more engine issues than an STI) that can put a smile on your face and feel refined, the refined bit is where you may find the WRX STI lacks a little.
tonyb1968 said:
The 2.5 is a crap engine, it has too many inherent issues with it, it was never designed to run the sort of power that gets put through it but they put it in the STI because it passes emissions which the 2ltr didn't (even though it produces more CO2).
On the original cars fitted with the 2.5, the map was the biggest issue along with the head bolts not being tightened correctly from the factory, the pistons are still crap (think they improved them but looking at cars in the USA they still suffer ring land failures), the oil pick up issue still exists as does the cracking across the cylinders (though that doesn't seem to be much of an issue).
You can have the engine rebuilt, have the oil feed moved, have longer head bolts put in, forged pistons and rods, there will still be some issues but you pretty much get rid of all the major ones (except the lag, its not a nice engine for that).
You have an option to try to find a JDM, better engine, same looks, probably more expensive but hey, they pull like a train from very low down in the rev range and sound great.
New FA20's are coming at some point too (they bring their own problems, hence why the EJ20's are still used in the JDM STI's).
There is no real win/win situation unless you spend a bit of cash, they are still a good car but more modern machinery (I won't say the Focus RS as that has far more engine issues than an STI) that can put a smile on your face and feel refined, the refined bit is where you may find the WRX STI lacks a little.
your not confusing the 2.0 and 2.5 as far as lag goes are you? i'm yet to see a 2.0 ever outspool a 2.5 unless its dropped compression or has another major fault?On the original cars fitted with the 2.5, the map was the biggest issue along with the head bolts not being tightened correctly from the factory, the pistons are still crap (think they improved them but looking at cars in the USA they still suffer ring land failures), the oil pick up issue still exists as does the cracking across the cylinders (though that doesn't seem to be much of an issue).
You can have the engine rebuilt, have the oil feed moved, have longer head bolts put in, forged pistons and rods, there will still be some issues but you pretty much get rid of all the major ones (except the lag, its not a nice engine for that).
You have an option to try to find a JDM, better engine, same looks, probably more expensive but hey, they pull like a train from very low down in the rev range and sound great.
New FA20's are coming at some point too (they bring their own problems, hence why the EJ20's are still used in the JDM STI's).
There is no real win/win situation unless you spend a bit of cash, they are still a good car but more modern machinery (I won't say the Focus RS as that has far more engine issues than an STI) that can put a smile on your face and feel refined, the refined bit is where you may find the WRX STI lacks a little.
Tidgy said:
your not confusing the 2.0 and 2.5 as far as lag goes are you? i'm yet to see a 2.0 ever outspool a 2.5 unless its dropped compression or has another major fault?
The 2.5 is a horrid laggy thing from yesteryear, having driven a litchfield FSTi (330bhp) even my 1.6ltr turbo lump out paces it (demonstrations available on request 
). The 2ltr twin scroll totally blitzes the 2.5, it kicks in from as low as 1400rpm, not the 3.5+k you need on a 2.5, its outdated and poorly designed, hence avoid it.vxr2010 said:
If you are talking about an peugeot rcz r , the 0 to 60 is 5.7 seconds , a tuned forester sti is at least a second quicker plus four wheel drive , the fsti has around 60 bhp more , and kerb weight is virtually the same
Really? and what modifications does your car have?Mine is standard, its a 1.6, produces full boost by 1900rpm, will outpace a tuned FSTI quite easily due to the fact it has a much lower drag coefficient, 0-60 does not bother me, its fwd, its 30-155mph is where its at and its very quick considering its a 1.6, less transmission losses, better grip, better handling, less drag,
Even when I had my standard STI Spec C (both of them), they were far more responsive than any 2.5, if they were tuned then they would have just been stupidly good, those you could drive around town in 5th gear at 30mph and still put your foot down and have response, and have you ever wondered why in Japan they only ever used the 2.5 in auto Impreza's and the FSTi and kept the bhp down to 262?
It was an engine that was not designed to run in WRX STI's, the only reason they did that was for the emissions, bigger engine actually produced more CO2 but due to it being bigger it got away with that compared to the twin scroll units (which are actually cleaner), the FA series engines are also very responsive, though due to the design they have not built an STI version of this yet (its not as strong as the EJ20 to start with due to the design of the conrods), but all of the EJ25 turbo series engines are of a poor overall design and hence they are run at lower power than the EJ20's.
I’m not saying your 1.6 is not fairly quick , but 0 to 60 fsti is quicker , so the drag at that speed is not coming into it , ive also had a forester up to 164 mph and still going as it’s not limited , i’m not doubting a twin scroll is quick but we were talking your 1.6 v a fsti and the fsti is quicker , grip wise fsti has more as it’s four wheel drive , it’s going to be even quicker if you get the launch right on a four wheel drive too , in answer to your question which car , both fsti are quicker one at 310 the other at 330 bhp , an up rated clutch fitted makes a lot of difference as you get no slip plus helps launches , and no wheel spin as it’s four wheel drive compared to front wheel drive , you can’t argue with a 0 to 60 figure as it’s a way of testing how quick a car is and the fsti figure is much better by over a second
vxr2010 said:
I’m not saying your 1.6 is not fairly quick , but 0 to 60 fsti is quicker , so the drag at that speed is not coming into it , ive also had a forester up to 164 mph and still going as it’s not limited , i’m not doubting a twin scroll is quick but we were talking your 1.6 v a fsti and the fsti is quicker , grip wise fsti has more as it’s four wheel drive , it’s going to be even quicker if you get the launch right on a four wheel drive too , in answer to your question which car , both fsti are quicker one at 310 the other at 330 bhp , an up rated clutch fitted makes a lot of difference as you get no slip plus helps launches , and no wheel spin as it’s four wheel drive compared to front wheel drive , you can’t argue with a 0 to 60 figure as it’s a way of testing how quick a car is and the fsti figure is much better by over a second
0-60 is NOT an ideal way of testing a cars performance, 60-100 and i will be pulling away from you, so which car is quicker?Traction off the line is the only benefit of the AWD system, you don't have more grip just because you have AWD, if you look at most of these modern hot hatches, they pound the crap out of awd cars (wheels Australia did a group test, cars like the VW golf R, Hyundai i30N, both the Subaru WRX and STI, they even had the Honda Civic type R and a 308 GTI, funnily enough the GTI came 3rd with the type R 2nd and the i30N 1st, fwd, more mechanical grip, the real eye opener is that the wrx was only 0.2 seconds behind the STI).
Do not mix off the line traction with mechanical grip once the car is moving, I can say that my old Spec C would easily out handle and out grip a FSTi, not an issue, the RCZR is more than a match if not better than the Spec C, even in the wet where its very controllable and predictable, its one of the reasons I don't miss the Spec C that much (not that I wouldn't have another at some point but it would have to be a limited edition model
) though I don't miss the expensive servicing and running costs on the JDM cars (6 month oil changes, gearbox oil change and diffs every 2 years etc).Have you ever wondered why they do the 30-130 sprint series?
Rather than getting into a big debate , the Fsti is quicker to 60 , and tops out higher than the peugeot , due to speed limits and lots of cameras on uk roads we are not supposed to go more than 70 so based on that a good 0 to 60 is important as that’s were most people have a play , and that’s how manufactures show the performance of the cars they sell so you can’t say it’s not important , due to a lack of forester lag it very quick mid range too , based on the forester being still ahead of the peugeot at 60 it will more than likely stay that way until the peugeot top speed of 155 were the fsti keeps going to possibly around 170 or so , the forester i have been told has less drag than the impreza don’t know how that was worked out but a tuner told me , cars are horses for courses , i personally am not into french cars even if they are quick , if you want an out and out drag race on a runway some where i will bring out the 500 bhp v8 and that will crack around 190 mph and be ahead of the peugeot from beginning to the end again horses for courses, remember the fsti is the ej255 not the ej257 so not the piston issue plus both of mine are forged any way
You still have not got it....
0-60 is NOT a method of proving the performance of a car because different setups mean different performance, in gear power is a better way of showing performance figures.
Your Forester has a 112mph top speed because its restricted to that in Japan, mine has a 155mph limited top speed because its restricted to that by EU law, if it was removed then it would have a 170+ mph top speed.
The drag coefficient of the Forester STI is around .40 (its a brick dynamically), a WRX STI is around .35, the RCZR is .28, you can also add transmission losses, your FSTi will be around 20-22%, my fwd will be around 10% (remembering that drag does not really come into play until you are doing over 70mph which is another reason 0-60mph is pretty useless).
Your understanding of the awd system has a lot to be desired, on a high grip surface like tarmac its benefits are pretty much zero, many people do not understand this and this is why you get people crying that they stacked their awd car on a roundabout because its suppose to have fantastic grip, errrrm nope.
AWD benefits in low traction situations, its still not as good as a proper 4x4 with hi/lo ratio's which is the best you will get but as most cars sit on the road most of the time, they don't need to worry about AWD.
FWD or RWD in winter with good winter tyres will leave an awd with summer tyres in the snow, fact, so unless you put winter tyres on, you basically don't gain much in the way of benefit from your awd system.
A VW Golf R lives in fwd mode for approximately 95% of the time (normal road driving) due to it only being needed on demand, so over 100k miles thats 5k miles in awd mode (that was some wonderful fact I read from a VW article on the car and its Haldex system).
Love my Subaru's but I know what they can and cannot do, where they have benefits and where they have none, the major fact is that in the 90's they were the king of the road, but modern tech in fwd and rwd cars has pretty much caught up and put paid to the need of awd, tyre design has also come on in leaps and bounds and they are far better than they use to be.
Just to also put things into perspective, one of the guys who has an RCZR in Germany (he's had it de restricted), most of his journey to work is unrestricted autobahn, he averages over 130mph, he still pushes out over 25mpg on those trips, not only is it scarily quick, its also very efficient and yes, it will pass you before you hit 100mph 
0-60 is NOT a method of proving the performance of a car because different setups mean different performance, in gear power is a better way of showing performance figures.
Your Forester has a 112mph top speed because its restricted to that in Japan, mine has a 155mph limited top speed because its restricted to that by EU law, if it was removed then it would have a 170+ mph top speed.
The drag coefficient of the Forester STI is around .40 (its a brick dynamically), a WRX STI is around .35, the RCZR is .28, you can also add transmission losses, your FSTi will be around 20-22%, my fwd will be around 10% (remembering that drag does not really come into play until you are doing over 70mph which is another reason 0-60mph is pretty useless).
Your understanding of the awd system has a lot to be desired, on a high grip surface like tarmac its benefits are pretty much zero, many people do not understand this and this is why you get people crying that they stacked their awd car on a roundabout because its suppose to have fantastic grip, errrrm nope.
AWD benefits in low traction situations, its still not as good as a proper 4x4 with hi/lo ratio's which is the best you will get but as most cars sit on the road most of the time, they don't need to worry about AWD.
FWD or RWD in winter with good winter tyres will leave an awd with summer tyres in the snow, fact, so unless you put winter tyres on, you basically don't gain much in the way of benefit from your awd system.
A VW Golf R lives in fwd mode for approximately 95% of the time (normal road driving) due to it only being needed on demand, so over 100k miles thats 5k miles in awd mode (that was some wonderful fact I read from a VW article on the car and its Haldex system).
Love my Subaru's but I know what they can and cannot do, where they have benefits and where they have none, the major fact is that in the 90's they were the king of the road, but modern tech in fwd and rwd cars has pretty much caught up and put paid to the need of awd, tyre design has also come on in leaps and bounds and they are far better than they use to be.
Just to also put things into perspective, one of the guys who has an RCZR in Germany (he's had it de restricted), most of his journey to work is unrestricted autobahn, he averages over 130mph, he still pushes out over 25mpg on those trips, not only is it scarily quick, its also very efficient
and yes, it will pass you before you hit 100mph oh hear we go again
The forester is quicker to 60 its a test across the board of some one asks you how quick your car is you say 0 to 60 or top end and it’s quicker than the Peugeot on both counts
secondly i did not know you have driven my car and knew if i had a limiter still working ?? ,i know in japan they are limited , my car it does not now have a limiter in it thats working , as soon as you change it to mph the limiter is no longer working ,
you had on previous posts a long chat/ discussion about the failing pistons on subaru’s and said the fsti has an ej257 engine and you were adamant it did but it does not it has the ej255 as it was shown to you so in the greatest respect you are not always correct either , i’ve not gone into in gear speed as all i know is the fsti is quick and i’m not going out testing it and writing figures down as that’s a bit sad , it’s quicker than the peugeot to 60 and likely to stay that way up to its maximum speed , and has a higher top end so on that basis it’s therefore quicker , a good launch on a 4 wheel drive is quicker than most cars can manage if they are 2 wheel drive thats why the forester is quicker to 60 than your peugeot which you don’t deny , so recapping yes it’s quicker to 60 and has a higher top end as i don’t have a limiter slowing me down , you don’t seem to be able to accept your french car is slower you know the top end and 60 is quicker on the fsti , no replacement for displacement 1.6 v2.5 plus more boho , so the fsti is quicker lol
The forester is quicker to 60 its a test across the board of some one asks you how quick your car is you say 0 to 60 or top end and it’s quicker than the Peugeot on both counts
secondly i did not know you have driven my car and knew if i had a limiter still working ?? ,i know in japan they are limited , my car it does not now have a limiter in it thats working , as soon as you change it to mph the limiter is no longer working ,
you had on previous posts a long chat/ discussion about the failing pistons on subaru’s and said the fsti has an ej257 engine and you were adamant it did but it does not it has the ej255 as it was shown to you so in the greatest respect you are not always correct either , i’ve not gone into in gear speed as all i know is the fsti is quick and i’m not going out testing it and writing figures down as that’s a bit sad , it’s quicker than the peugeot to 60 and likely to stay that way up to its maximum speed , and has a higher top end so on that basis it’s therefore quicker , a good launch on a 4 wheel drive is quicker than most cars can manage if they are 2 wheel drive thats why the forester is quicker to 60 than your peugeot which you don’t deny , so recapping yes it’s quicker to 60 and has a higher top end as i don’t have a limiter slowing me down , you don’t seem to be able to accept your french car is slower you know the top end and 60 is quicker on the fsti , no replacement for displacement 1.6 v2.5 plus more boho , so the fsti is quicker lol
Gassing Station | Subaru | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff