2015 WRX STI is 2015 Civic Type R

"450X_FTW" (mistermic) 03/03/2015 at 13:14 • Filed to: None

1

34

I commented last week about how the new WRX looks like a Civic with a wing. Well this pretty much proves it

cazzyodo > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:16

1

aughhhhhh

I think 2013 was a great design year for this segment...MY that is. I obsessed in that time frame.

450X_FTW > cazzyodo 03/03/2015 at 13:17

2

I would take the previous Gen WRX based on looks alone

OPPOsaurus WRX > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:25

2

Aa would I.... o yea...

also hatch!

Jonathan Harper > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:30

1

I like the Subaru Civic more.

cazzyodo > OPPOsaurus WRX 03/03/2015 at 13:32

1

Did I tell you that I was basically two hours away from getting this (like the picture, but not) exact WRX?

Party-vi > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:33

0

Hatch

Party-vi > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:34

0

No hatch.

450X_FTW > Party-vi 03/03/2015 at 13:38

0

The new subuaru pretty much carries the pillar right to the vertical of the trunk where as the old had much more or a deck lid to it

and the Civic is a hatch-light at best.

Axial > Party-vi 03/03/2015 at 13:42

2

What the Type-R has can barely be called a hatch.

Irlyluvwagons > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:42

0

I mean the wing is similar but otherwise nah

Textured Soy Protein > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:45

0

You're comparing it to the wrong Civic.

Party-vi > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 13:50

0

WRX + truck != hatch

Civic Type R + hatch = hatch

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Axial 03/03/2015 at 14:24

1

If it opens from the roof, it is instantly better than a tiny little trunk lid opening.

trunk floor space means nothing, if the box you just bought doesn't fit through the opening, even if it would fit fine in the trunk's volume.

No hatch, no deal. Not anymore. Did that with a Subaru Legacy GT... loved that car otherwise, but won't be going back to a trunk-lid coupe or sedan if there is anything nearly similar with a hatch.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 14:30

1

Why can't either one be a COUPE? Especially, a 3-door hatchback coupe? What is the appeal of a performance car that is needlessly based on a sedan?

Why no sport coupes anymore?

Anybody who wants practicality concessions would do better with practicality anyway, with a sporty CUV variant, rather than a sedan... like a properly up-tuned HR-V, or a Turbocharged XV Crosstrek.

Party-vi > Axial 03/03/2015 at 14:39

0

What would you call it then? It has a hatch.

RobG-ADV > 450X_FTW 03/03/2015 at 14:47

1

I hate to say it but the Civic is better looking. BUT, I'll never own a FWD car again so the Sube is what I'd buy, if I were buying one. But I'm not, because it's not a hatch. So there. :)

Axial > Party-vi 03/03/2015 at 14:57

3

It is also not tall enough to provide that extra space associated with hatches, and it has a short deck.

So if it's a hatchback, then it's using the Corvette definition of a hatchback.

Party-vi > Axial 03/03/2015 at 14:59

0

Then the Honda Insight and Prius can't be considered hatches either, because this is exactly like them.

Axial > Party-vi 03/03/2015 at 15:04

0

Neither of those has a short deck.

Axial > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 15:07

0

I mean, yeah it is a hatch in the most technical sense, but so is a Corvette (and yes, the opening from roof is handy).

The big reason I see people raving about hatchbacks for, though, is that they have all this extra space for stuff (which I call bullshit on, because how often does anybody need extra vertical space, space that blocks the rear view when used). Well, the Type-R clearly isn't that, so what now?

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 15:09

0

Some people want a fun car, and easy access to usable rear seats.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 15:11

0

should have got a GT wagon.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > Party-vi 03/03/2015 at 15:12

0

a four door liftback?

Party-vi > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 03/03/2015 at 15:15

0

Liftback is fancy-boy marketing jargon. Is hatchback.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 03/03/2015 at 15:22

0

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You think a compact-class car has useable rear seats?!?!

You had better be looking at mid-size or larger if you REALLY have a daily use for rear seats. any passenger older than 12 years old, or young enough to have a safety seat, won't quickly and easily fit in the back seat of a compact car, sedan or otherwise.

Again... you might as well go for a well tuned cross-over, with a practical rear hatch, enough cubic feet of cargo space for said passengers, and suspension that doesn't ground out with 4-passengers and cargo on board... let alone high-centering on speed bumps in parking lots without being loaded down.

A compact sedan is becoming a less useful body style by the model year, and a car that small hardly ever has regular rear seat passengers anyway. Any car owner who subjects those passengers to such a tiny rear seat is being inconsiderate to those people anyway.

With no or very infrequent rear seat passengers, it might as well be a 2+2 coupe with a fastback hatch, like that Acura RSX, and be slick, sexy, and lighter weight that help the performance aspect, and driver satisfaction, while still accommodating one front seat passenger well.

With frequent rear passengers, it had better be a mid-sized or larger sedan, or otherwise a wagon/CUV/SUV for passengers+cargo.

A sedan, especially a compact one, is relying solely on tradition, not a better use case.

The only other alternative, is an asymmetrical layout, like Hyundai Veloster, but better than that, or Pininfarina Cambiano, where the front passenger is set forward of the driver, and the rear passenger actually has some leg room, and leave a rare-use jump-seat behind the driver, and a coupe door on that side, with generally the same modest overall size, and fastback rear hatch. It is a shame that Veloster is such an ugly little car, the concept is quite interesting.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 03/03/2015 at 15:54

0

I probably should have. And a part of me really would have liked an Outback 2.5XT Limited 5-speed... My legacy pounded it's suspension to pieces, and had a tendency to hit the rear bump-stops when loaded with passengers or what cargo it could try to fit, also.

After that, I really wanted a Forester S-Edition, or a Forester STI, but neither were sold in the US. S-Edition had a WRX-spec 268hp EJ255, and a Legacy/Outback/Tribeca sourced 5-speed automatic, with VTD AWD... Forester STI (not tS - tuned by STI), and WRX STI swapped drivetrains in Forester bodies, had 300hp engines, and STI's 6-speed DCCD gearbox and drivetrain, in a '09-13 Forester body.

I would also like a runabout XV Crosstrek with at least WRX grade drivetrain, but WRX STI is better, and should be amortized well enough to be more widely useable in other models.

But as performance cars go... if I had a different car for practicality, and could have a low-ride-height sporty car just for personal commuting and fun, I would want a sleek, gorgeous-looking coupe, with a manual gearbox, and AWD all-weather traction, since I live where the weather is not cooperative.

I don't have a visual attraction to cars with tandem side doors for the most part. Some look good despite being 4-doors... no 4-doors look good because they have tandem doors. Even RX8 is trying to be a coupe, is nowhere near as good looking as an FC or FD RX7. The profiles and lines of most sedans are diluted to allow for the practical compromise...

Either be a PRACTICAL, VERSATILE car that happens to be fun... or be a gorgeous, fun car that doesn't have to be practical.

The middle-ground gets into things like BMW X4 and X6, Honda CrossTour, and other vehicles that really start to become the worst of both, and the best of neither option. A compact sedan is getting to that point as well. Not practical enough to be considered for true practicality, and not sleek and good looking enough to be compelling against better looking coupes that aren't much less practical than that.

Does anybody think that a Civic Type R 4-door has bigger rear seat volume, or leg room, than a Genesis Coupe or Mustang 2.3 EcoBoost turbo-4? If anything the HATCH on the Civic would be the benefit there. The Civic's floor plan is pretty small for cargo, too, even with the roof-hinged hatch. The Civic Type R 5-door pictured in this thread has tiny rear doors, which suggests tiny rear seat volume, especially if the driver or front passenger is taller than average.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Axial 03/03/2015 at 16:09

0

Vertical space can be used occasionally. In a sedan, that vertical space doesn't exist aft of the rear seat back.

it isn't about more space, in terms of the floor plan of the car. A given car has the square footage it has.

The question is... can that square footage be used to carry cargo.

A 32 x 24 x 24 inch rigid box is not that outlandishly big. However, I would bet by being rigid, and not particularly thin, it would have a hard time going through the trunk opening of most compact, and some mid-size sedans and coupes trunk lid portals, even if those cars had more than enough volume in the trunk space.

That is somewhere near the size of a box for a new power tool, or packed and dis-assembled yard tool, or other boxes. Which wouldn't fit into my 2005 Legacy's trunk, which had plenty enough volume, but not a wide enough opening.

I would bet a box like that would not fit in a WRX STI, unless it fit through the rear passenger door somehow, which assumes no rear seat passengers.

That might very well fit in the rather modest cargo area of the Civic, though, because the portal is plenty large enough for it to be set into the car in any applicable orientation, maybe even without having to lower one of the rear seat backs.

Unless a trunk lid is several feet long, or the car is substantially wide, which most new sedans have minimal rear overhang, and tail lights and fenders that intrude on trunk lid width, the portal is usually quite noticeably smaller than the trunk volume otherwise suggests.

A rear hatch simply makes the trunk space much more easily accessible.

Axial > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 16:24

0

I think you are missing my point. As far as I am concerned, the hatch mechanism is not the issue and I already acknowledged that it is the superior way to open a boot. What I am trying to say, though, is that one can make it work on a three-box design as well as on a two-box.

So, I'm not criticizing the better opening. I'm saying that the big reason for wanting a hatchback, according to most people who mention it at all on this site, is the extra space once inside. "More practical!" It is that two-box shape they are placing the value on. I'm nailing the Type-R for lacking that shape and, therefore, the extra space and the "practicality."

Now, why am I taking the opportunity at all to rail on a hatchback? Because I think two-box designs are, generally, hideous, and I like this Type-R for going for more of a quasi-three-box.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Axial 03/03/2015 at 16:36

0

Ok, I can agree with that, and I do prefer 5-door sedans to 4-door sedans, but anything smaller that mid-size, I don't see the point of them not just being 3-door fastback coupes, as the rear seats get too small to be practical anyway... and I would ideally prefer a 3-door fastback hatch sport coupe with AWD... like Audi's Quattro Sport concept. (the original 2010 white one, not the blander later yellow one.)

If I could have gotten an A5 Sportback, rather than an A4, or a 5-door MazdaSpeed 6, rather than only the 4-door body style, I might have gone for those.

However, when it comes to CUVs... I don't see the point of Honda CrossTour over Toyota Venza.

I don't see the point of X6 and X4, when X5 and X3 exist, respectively. It may block the rear view mirror, but many trucks do anyway, but stacking up cargo under the roof, can allow much more cargo volume.

On the other hand, small 2-box designs, like Golf, or Nissan Juke, don't appeal to me at all, and I don't see how Scion X_various boxes, and Nissan Cube are seen as fashionable.

In Juke's case, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY doesn't appeal. A horrible little car, that could have been something interesting in a sleeker, non-insane form.

Axial > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 16:45

0

To be completely and brutally honest, there is literally no point to CUVs or SUVs at all. If you need a people-hauler, a minivan is fine. If you need to go off-road or carry lots of stuff, a truck is fine. I mean, most CUVs and SUVs can only carry one more person than a truck with a full cab. The only reason CUVs are a thing is because people want a car that is easy to get in and out of but they don't want to be seen in a truck or minivan. It's the same level of boring, though, so the joke is on them. For SUVs...I don't get it. SUVs used to essentially be trucks with permanent bed caps (which also made no sense as a completely separate market segment) and now they are lifted vans.

Ultimately, I think it's just a prolific case of "tiny penis." Oh no, that guy has a big car! I must get a bigger one to feel .

The Juke's problem is that it is universally too small inside, even for the driver. You have to be a tiny person (which I am) to fit in there. I like the car for its face and general "not stylish, ain't care" attitude, but its utility is definitely hampered.

As for the two-box, well, most people never need the extra space. At all. You can shove a 26" mountain bike, without disassembly, into a Mk. IV Jetta pretty easily and with tons of room to spare. What the heck are you doing where that amount of space is not sufficient and why aren't you using a truck to do it instead of a tiny economy car?

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Axial 03/03/2015 at 17:24

0

I used to think like that... until I couldn't put cargo in my sedan.

I have driven a full size crew-cab 2011 Dodge Ram. Good GRIEF is that overkill, unless you are towing something. It isn't a matter of being seen... as much as it is a matter of being able to see around it, and it being heavy, as well as huge.

I grew up in a front-drive minivan that was bland as cold toast. Sure, it had great cargo capability, but for 2 regular passengers, and maybe two more on VERY rare occasions, a Minivan is not a real consideration, and not as many of them offer AWD as CUVS do.

I have a 5-passenger CUV, a Toyota Venza V6 AWD with almost all of the options, that replaced my AWD Legacy sedan. It isn't a compact, like RAV4, or Ford Escape, that we found to be rattly and cheap. It isn't a BIG one that has three rows, and 5000lbs towing capacity, and hauls around 1500lbs of body weight that I don't need, like newer Highlanders, Explorers, and Pathfinders.

But I have put a 50" plasma TV in it. Or a garden tiller. Or almost a dozen 8' long timbers, or an antique library table AND a glass display case, none of which would have come close in a sedan, or even a wagon version of a mid-sized sedan, and I am not getting 15MPG every other day that I drive it mostly empty, like my family member's RAM, or my other family member's Dodge Magnum RWD wagon. Efficiency isn't far off of the sedan equivalent, which would be a Toyota Avalon V6.

I am 6'2", so not a tiny person, and my Venza is comfortable for hundreds of miles at a time, while getting ~25mpg on the highway with a sub-7-second 0-60 V6, and AWD... although I admit it is faux-wheel-drive compared to my previous Subaru. It isn't perfect, but there isn't much on the market under 5oK that is better, and I can't afford a Porsche Macan, or a Range Rover Evoque (likely too small anyway) or the new Discovery Sport.

Plus, Venza may be 3900lbs, but everything else in it's class is ~4300lbs. The Magnum V8 is ~4000lbs... and the RAM is over 6000lbs curb weight. Most mid-size or larger sedans anymore are between 3700-4300lbs anyway... with all of the safety equipment that new cars have built in.

Juke's problem is that it looks like an insane frog, and shouldn't have been brought off the drawing board, let alone being so impractically small. A fun little AWD runabout is not a bad premise, but everything about how Juke was designed is WRONG, and the fact that people buy it makes me lament for the automotive industry.

With a main use car that is practical, I would love a commuter/fun car that could back it up, but I would still prefer it have a hatch to access what internal volume there is, and I would still rather it have AWD for any road in any weather, a manual gearbox for fun, and a shape that is nice to look at and enjoy... with longer coupe doors for me to fit through, as well as the sleeker form and profile.

I was so disappointed when Subaru came out and said that the BRZ development was for RWD only, and with a minuscule little trunk lid. Even more when 2015 WRX and WRX STI ended up being tame-looking sedans, no 5-door anymore, and obviously no 3-door fastback coupe body style.

If they had built a modern revival of the AMC Eagle SX/4, or their own Leone RX-II 3-door 4WD coupe from the 1980s, with modern 21st century tech an materials, it would have been something interesting. A Turbo XV Crosstrek would be something interesting, and more capable than a Paceman, and more affordable than a Range Rover Evoque Coupe 3-door CUV.

I have no need whatsoever for an agricultural-grade pickup truck, unless the AWD-turbodiesel Hyundai SantaCruz concept is actually built. A minivan is not the right fit for me, and I am done with tiny trunk lid 3-box coupes and sedans that are just too limited, compared to 3 and 5-door fastback variants. A practical, right-sized 5-door CUV, and a smaller, more fun, AWD runabout would be about right for me.

Too bad Venza is being discontinued while Edge/MKX, and Murano are now re-designed, and there are no compelling *sporty* little AWD runabouts. XV Crosstrek is woefully under-powered, and Juke is insane, and Mini Paceman is not well executed, and overly expensive for what it is.

Axial > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/03/2015 at 18:07

0

With the Colorado being out, you might have to re-evaluate the truck segment. No, it's not a tiny vehicle, but it's also not the same size as a 1500. It'll comfortably seat 5, it can carry more stuff, it has 4WD, and it gets 24 MPG in 4WD+Crew trim (and, given my experience with GM, it'll probably do better than that). There's even a manual option buried somewhere in there. As for agricultural grade, well, everything is agricultural grade if it doesn't need to be kept clean.

Still, the thing about the CUV is that it's still a product of the desire for convenience, not actual function (not that convenience doesn't have a utility value, mind you). To me, that's wasteful. A sports car is designed to go fast, and it does it with aplomb. A truck is designed to carry things, and it does that with aplomb. A minivan is designed to move people, and it does that with aplomb. A subcompact is designed to be cheap...and it does that with aplomb. The CUV is trying to do all of those things: be somewhat car-like in handling, move people, carry stuff, and be cheap...and it excels at none of them. While it doesn't support the industry, you would have a hard case to make against splitting the $40,000 I might have to spend on a good CUV over two used cars, with one being a sports car and the other being a truck. Trying to have one thing that does it all is a recipe for regret or envy, something that has held true for me no matter what product it is I'm looking for (phones, computers, cars, clothes, etc).

TheRealBicycleBuck > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 03/26/2015 at 09:27

1

I'll take my practicality with excellent handling and a heap of turbo, thank you.

Camping:

With a new hat (to allow camping for four):

Nellybui > 450X_FTW 10/27/2015 at 05:37

0

They have absolutely nothing in common beside the fact that they both have 4 wheels...

Plus the STi has been out 1 year and a half before that Type R, so it would more be the Type R that looks like the STi...

But once again, they have nothing in common.