Leasing a WRX

[AccordWarrior]

Are Subarus really so unreliable that something major is going to break in the first 30,000 miles?

I hit the rev limit on my 100K mile/boosted on a shitty tune/stock 10.6:1 compression motor GSR every time I shift almost daily.... and nothing ever breaks on it besides engine mounts get torn. I don't see how a brand new car that is designed for rally racing is going to be any less reliable.

The transmission on the WRX isn't particularly strong, and high RPM launches are incredibly hard on the car. The stock tune isn't particularly good, although the newer models aren't having nearly as many issues as the 07/08 models.

No, keep it stock if you are leasing it. I'm looking into purchasing an '11 or '12 WRX and plan to keep it stock even though I want to mod it. I've heard the '11-'12 WRXs are plenty fast stock. Some Subaru dealers are mod friendly to a point. I have heard that some Subaru dealers allow a Cobb reflash and catback, however they can look into the ECU and see if you are constantly redlining it and driving the piss out of it.

The '08 STIs had an issue with the stock tune which if not taken care of would caus internal engine damage.

My two cents though is that a WRX is not a vehicle to lease. It is an ethusiast car.

There are some dealers that are mod friendly, but obviously you have to develop a good relationship with the dealer. I know some dealers will even sell aftermarket parts through the service counter.

The problem with the tune is that it runs very lean under 4,000 rpm (at least on the 07-08 models) to keep emissions down. Even if you were doing a full boost run the car would run way lean.

I have to agree on the sentiment that leasing a performance car is a bad idea. Yes, you do have a warranty and if you play by the rules you can do fine, but if you push it, you do have to pay to play.

[deevergote]

A mod-friendly dealer may not be cool with you modifying a lease, though. It's one thing to mod a car you own according to dealer-approved specifications for warranty reasons, but a lease is still technically the company's property... and after you drive it in modified form, they take ownership of it again. Then they're left with a modified car that was most likely run hard (who doesn't run a modified car hard? that's the point!)... and they then have to attempt to sell it to someone else!

[owequitit]

Unless the dealer determines it was owner abuse and won't cover it under warranty.

Most (not all) Subaru dealers love to throw up the "owner abuse" reason to deny warranty claims. Since the OP is asking about modifications, that could be a very real possibility.

It is ALWAYS at the discretion of the dealer. It isn't like they aren't going to pull that same card on a purchased car. The bottom line is they don't want to be responsible for paying for warranty repairs. It has NOTHING to do with lease/buy, and to pretend it is different for a lease is silly. If you mod ANY car, under warranty, then you are taking a risk that it won't be covered.

Are Subarus really so unreliable that something major is going to break in the first 30,000 miles?

I hit the rev limit on my 100K mile/boosted on a shitty tune/stock 10.6:1 compression motor GSR every time I shift almost daily.... and nothing ever breaks on it besides engine mounts get torn. I don't see how a brand new car that is designed for rally racing is going to be any less reliable.

As with any car it depends. They are designed to take abuse to a point, but with any cheap performance car, there is a limit to how much they can overbuild it and keep a price point. The lower the volume, and the more special parts, the worse it gets. Nearly any factory stock car can be broken when driven hard enough.

No, keep it stock if you are leasing it. I'm looking into purchasing an '11 or '12 WRX and plan to keep it stock even though I want to mod it. I've heard the '11-'12 WRXs are plenty fast stock. Some Subaru dealers are mod friendly to a point. I have heard that some Subaru dealers allow a Cobb reflash and catback, however they can look into the ECU and see if you are constantly redlining it and driving the piss out of it.

The '08 STIs had an issue with the stock tune which if not taken care of would caus internal engine damage.

My two cents though is that a WRX is not a vehicle to lease. It is an ethusiast car.

There is absolutely no reason to not lease a WRX. It being an enthusiast car has nothing to do with it. The additional wear and tear will likely be included in the residual calculations.

There are some dealers that are mod friendly, but obviously you have to develop a good relationship with the dealer. I know some dealers will even sell aftermarket parts through the service counter.

The problem with the tune is that it runs very lean under 4,000 rpm (at least on the 07-08 models) to keep emissions down. Even if you were doing a full boost run the car would run way lean.

I have to agree on the sentiment that leasing a performance car is a bad idea. Yes, you do have a warranty and if you play by the rules you can do fine, but if you push it, you do have to pay to play.

Again, this applies to ANY car. Go purchase a WRX, blow it up due to abuse and see how willing the dealer is to cover it...

Trying to build a case against leasing for it is ridiculous. I know of shit tons of modified lease cars that are driven quite hard and never have a problem.

Also, in the case of a lease, as with a purchase, the OEM can ONLY void your warranty if the modification can be shown to have caused the issue. I.E. if you flash your ECU and the engine blows up due to detonation, then they can refuse the warranty repair, and you pay out of pocket. Whether the car is a lease has nothing to do with it, legally or otherwise. I am not saying to mod a leased car under warranty, but then again, I wouldn't recommend modding ANY car under warranty. That said, there are shit tons of cars that are modded and leased out there. The biggest difference is that you have to return the car back to stock at the end if you get rid of it.

A mod-friendly dealer may not be cool with you modifying a lease, though. It's one thing to mod a car you own according to dealer-approved specifications for warranty reasons, but a lease is still technically the company's property... and after you drive it in modified form, they take ownership of it again. Then they're left with a modified car that was most likely run hard (who doesn't run a modified car hard? that's the point!)... and they then have to attempt to sell it to someone else!

The dealer doesn't give a shit, and honestly, they have no idea whether it is leased or bought when it comes in for service. The restrictions are exactly the same. If you bring a modified car in, and the modification caused the failure, they are NOT going to pay for it. Doesn't matter if it is leased or purchased. Furthermore, your assertion about them not wanting to re-lease/resale a modded car is hearsay. They don't want to resale a modded purchased car either, and if you bring your purchased WRX in 3-4 years later, because you don't want to deal with it, or want something else, they are going to have to deal with it being modified then too. They aren't going to give you more for modifications, and they are going to assume the car was run hard. That is why if you are going to sell a modded car, the private party route is the best option, be it lease or finance. Or, you can return the car to stock, and they will likely be none the wiser, as long as you did good work in the first place. You and Accordwarrior are attempting to build a false reality around the idea of leasing.

The dealership isn't in a position to deal with the lease. The finance company is. If the car comes back to the dealer in a manner other than wholly good condition resalable, then they simply call the finance company and tell them to come and get their car. As was the case with our 06, they told us they didn't give a shit what we did with it, because they were sending it back to Honda because they didn't want it anyway. They couldn't make money on it, so they didn't care. A lease is not an agreement between a dealer and an owner, it is an agreement between the lessee and the manufacturer/finance company. Dealers are 100% independent businesses that just happen to sell product for that company. You guys are completely confused on who is doing what and what the relationship is. Just like when you buy a car, the bank owns it until the loan is paid off. In this case, the owner would be Subaru's finance arm (just like if he purchases it through Subaru), the ONLY difference is that you aren't paying for the full value of the car. If anything happens to the car before the loan matures with traditional financing, then it is between the lien holder (the bank) an the purchaser. Same with a lease, except that your loan doesn't necessarily have GAP built in, the lease does, because the bank wants to make sure they don't get hung out if the car is destroyed.

See, this is what I am talking about...misinformed, assumed information about leases and how they work that is wholly incorrect and perpetuates misleading and incorrect beliefs.

[AccordWarrior]

See, this is what I am talking about...misinformed, assumed information about leases and how they work that is wholly incorrect and perpetuates misleading and incorrect beliefs.

I am well aware how a lease works. I was responding specifically to this:

You get charged for driving an owned car over mileage too. And leasing has nothing to do with getting repairs... In fact, since most lease terms are 3yr/36K, the car will NEVER be out of the bumper to bumper warranty, i.e. you don't pay shit for shit.

This infers that no matter what happens to the car, it's covered if you break it. I was simply stating that I have heard MANY stories of BONE STOCK cars being denied warranty coverage due to "owner abuse."

You tout the warranty coverage term as a pro in leasing, and I'm simply saying for a performance car that can be broken in un-modified form due to aggressive driving (which the OP admits to), that is not necessarily a selling point in leasing the car.

[owequitit]

I am well aware how a lease works. I was responding specifically to this:



This infers that no matter what happens to the car, it's covered if you break it. I was simply stating that I have heard MANY stories of BONE STOCK cars being denied warranty coverage due to "owner abuse."

You tout the warranty coverage term as a pro in leasing, and I'm simply saying for a performance car that can be broken in un-modified form due to aggressive driving (which the OP admits to), that is not necessarily a selling point in leasing the car.

No, it doesn't infer anything. It is standard warranty coverage, the same as you get with a purchased car. You would have to twist my words to "infer" that a lease automatically covers repairs not covered by warranty. That isn't anything even remotely close to what I said, nor was it "inferred." If you read the post I was responding too, it would be even more clear. The fact is that ANY car broken from hard abuse may not be covered under warranty. Leasing has nothing to do with it. It is very clear from the context of the whole string of my posts, that the only difference between leasing and financing a car is on the finance side. There is no other difference in any way, shape, or form. By your logic, your post infers that if you purchase, you are less likely to be denied warranty coverage because it isn't a lease. So if we are "inferring," then how does that work? You and I both know that isn't what you meant.

[rexload]

Well I finally found some time to test drive the WRX...

Overall it is a very comfortable and quiet ride...


As for the fun factor, there wasn't any.. Very loose in the turns, suspension is way too soft, and ummm absolutely no throttle response during normal driving... and no top end... just makes a lot of noise but doesn't really accelerate past 4500rpm..

So at this point, I am very puzzled after reading all the hype about this car online. The 1.8L GSR engine pulls a LOT harder at any rpm... what a joke...

[deevergote]

I've driven an 06 STi... and while it's a very fast car, it never felt fast to me. I don't care for the feel of a Subaru either.

My CB7 FEELS faster than my friend's STi, even though it's at least 2 seconds slower in the quarter mile.


What was it that drew you to the WRX in the first place? The power? AWD? Price? Looks?
The WRX sells for about $25,000, so I assume any car that sells for about that price would be affordable, correct?

You could get a Genesis Coupe for around that price (a bit less for the 2.0T, and a bit more for the 3.6)
A V6 Mustang (as I believe was already mentioned) would be about the same price as well, as is the Camaro V6.

[Xsjado]

hey I'm lazy but what gearbox do these have.
it's either a Jatco, re4r01a. or 4n71b same as a legacy.??
a lot bigger than I initially thought.

why they destroy them is unknown.
My assumption was awd gearboxes were small but I was just informed they aren't.

[deevergote]

I don't know what box it is, but I do know that Subaru doesn't make their AWD systems to handle a launch from a dead stop. The WRX is a rally car, not a drag car... so when people try to launch them hard, they break. Even in stock form, that's a pretty hefty amount of power being put down instantly. Not a whole lot of wheelspin.
They're not really weak transmissions... just not made for how some people use them.

[Saidaigen8]

Well I finally found some time to test drive the WRX...

Overall it is a very comfortable and quiet ride...


As for the fun factor, there wasn't any.. Very loose in the turns, suspension is way too soft, and ummm absolutely no throttle response during normal driving... and no top end... just makes a lot of noise but doesn't really accelerate past 4500rpm..

So at this point, I am very puzzled after reading all the hype about this car online. The 1.8L GSR engine pulls a LOT harder at any rpm.what a joke...

I DD a 11wrx and the only things I agree on is the soft suspension and top end. Mine is bone stock besides an accessport which will wake it up a bit. My cb is h-swapped and Turbo. It is faster but I can feel the large difference in torque in the subie easily. Your teg may feel better cause its light but Im pretty sure its all just different from what you're used to..

[wed3k]

you guys obviously havent driven a subaru on dirt roads. it's amazing so if you do't need the awd then you dont need one. it's like i don't need a lifted 4x4 on swampers but i still drive one to work.

but my subaru is way more practical and reliable than a cb7.

[deevergote]

It's also way newer. CB7s are plenty reliable, as long as you don't carelessly modify it, or get one that's already been beat to shit! Same goes for Subarus, though. The only downside is (something that fizzbob7 once hammered into my skull...) the more stuff your car has, the more there is to break. So a turbo AWD vehicle has those two extra (relatively expensive) systems that could crap out on you.

But yeah, Subaru built the WRX for rally racing. The run-of-the-mill WRX that we get now is toned down from its racing roots to accommodate average drivers that don't care about racing. The STi is their "performance model". The WRX is like a GSR compared to an ITR. Sure, enthusiasts bought the GSR, but so did middle aged women that wanted a sporty car without compromises.
Take a WRX on a rally course, and it will shine. Just launch it on the street, and it will be quick, sure... but new cars are so "isolated" feeling, IMO, that it won't feel nearly as fast as an old, lightweight, loud, bumpy Honda. The "raw" factor isn't there in a newer car.

These days, if you want raw power... power that's gonna slam your testicles up into your kidneys... you're going to have to go for 400+hp V8 power. It's easily available these days.

[owequitit]

Well I finally found some time to test drive the WRX...

Overall it is a very comfortable and quiet ride...


As for the fun factor, there wasn't any.. Very loose in the turns, suspension is way too soft, and ummm absolutely no throttle response during normal driving... and no top end... just makes a lot of noise but doesn't really accelerate past 4500rpm..

So at this point, I am very puzzled after reading all the hype about this car online. The 1.8L GSR engine pulls a LOT harder at any rpm... what a joke...

I was personally never a huge fan of the WRX, but I always liked the Legacy GT. I guess the power delivery and feel of the 2.5T were more fitting to that car. I know your Teg isn't stock, but a stock WRX will rip a low 14-high 13 second 1/4 mile, which is going to be significantly faster than any non-modified Teg. It is notably faster than my Si, in the hand of the right driver. However, with a few changes, I would be pretty close to in the hunt, and IMO, that style of power delivery is more fun (top end happy NA enignes).

Personally, if it were me, right now, I would consider the GTI, the Mini Cooper S (the Mini Countryman S is also actually really fun), a Genesis 3.8 (the new 2.0T is probably a LOT better than the old one, but the facelift is hideous), a 370Z, a TSX SE, or an Accord Coupe V6 6MT. Those could all conceivably stretch to within your price range.

There are also several used alternatives that would be worth considering, but I left those out because it pretty much precludes the possibility of leasing.

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with a Mustang V6 or Camaro V6. Well, I wouldn't waste my time on any Camaro, but that is just me. If I were dealing with a Mustang, I would stretch for the GT, as the 5.0 would make it totally worthwhile.

[wed3k]

It's also way newer. CB7s are plenty reliable, as long as you don't carelessly modify it, or get one that's already been beat to shit! Same goes for Subarus, though. The only downside is (something that fizzbob7 once hammered into my skull...) the more stuff your car has, the more there is to break. So a turbo AWD vehicle has those two extra (relatively expensive) systems that could crap out on you.

But yeah, Subaru built the WRX for rally racing. The run-of-the-mill WRX that we get now is toned down from its racing roots to accommodate average drivers that don't care about racing. The STi is their "performance model". The WRX is like a GSR compared to an ITR. Sure, enthusiasts bought the GSR, but so did middle aged women that wanted a sporty car without compromises.
Take a WRX on a rally course, and it will shine. Just launch it on the street, and it will be quick, sure... but new cars are so "isolated" feeling, IMO, that it won't feel nearly as fast as an old, lightweight, loud, bumpy Honda. The "raw" factor isn't there in a newer car.

These days, if you want raw power... power that's gonna slam your testicles up into your kidneys... you're going to have to go for 400+hp V8 power. It's easily available these days.

forester started in 97 and cb7's ended in 93. there's only a 4 year gap however i did have to do a rear wheel bearing on my subaru lately. those seem to go out quite a bit on suby's as well as the headgaskets...which i still need to do. but it's never left me stranded, my cb7 has left me stranded because of distributor issues and one time a fuel injector resistor box.

and i haven't seen an accord go wheeling. ive had water halfway up my driver's side door.

[deevergote]

I was personally never a huge fan of the WRX, but I always liked the Legacy GT. I guess the power delivery and feel of the 2.5T were more fitting to that car. I know your Teg isn't stock, but a stock WRX will rip a low 14-high 13 second 1/4 mile, which is going to be significantly faster than any non-modified Teg. It is notably faster than my Si, in the hand of the right driver. However, with a few changes, I would be pretty close to in the hunt, and IMO, that style of power delivery is more fun (top end happy NA enignes).

Personally, if it were me, right now, I would consider the GTI, the Mini Cooper S (the Mini Countryman S is also actually really fun), a Genesis 3.8 (the new 2.0T is probably a LOT better than the old one, but the facelift is hideous), a 370Z, a TSX SE, or an Accord Coupe V6 6MT. Those could all conceivably stretch to within your price range.

There are also several used alternatives that would be worth considering, but I left those out because it pretty much precludes the possibility of leasing.

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with a Mustang V6 or Camaro V6. Well, I wouldn't waste my time on any Camaro, but that is just me. If I were dealing with a Mustang, I would stretch for the GT, as the 5.0 would make it totally worthwhile.

I totally agree with the first part. My 117hp Fit with the revvy little L15A is actually very fun to drive. Winding out that puny little engine is still enjoyable, even after 238k miles. It has no power, but it will propel the car down a twisty road with power to spare. My boat of a GTP, on the other hand, made more than double the power... and was no fun at all to drive (well, when I could launch it and maintain traction, or avoid spark retard due to what I assume was the knock sensor freaking out... then the torque was fun.)

A low-powered car that makes you feel involved and connected to the road is often more enjoyable than a high powered car that makes you feel like you're just along for the ride (a BIG complaint I've heard about the new GT-R, actually.)


The new Mustang and Camaro V6 models are actually pretty impressive. The Mustang will run the quarter mile in the 13s. The Camaro is heavier, and though it makes a bit more power, is probably slower.
I'd certainly prefer the V8s myself, though the Mustang V6 is only about 100lbs heavier than the Genesis Coupe or 370z, with engine performance that's damn close to the top models of each. And the Mustang can actually turn for once, or so I've read! For the price, you're getting more horsepower from the V6s than previous V8s were giving you.


I'm actually turning into a Mustang fan with this newest generation. I've always hated Ford previously, and I still dislike their apparent abandonment of big RWD luxo-boats in the Lincoln line... but they seem to be releasing damn good cars one after another. If I wanted to lease a sporty car that's worth less than $25,000, I think the Mustang V6 would be high on that list, if not the top of it. (not that I'm leasing, or that I want a Mustang in my driveway at the moment... but given those parameters, I think it's a strong contender.)