[PICS]The New Subaru WRX 2002 !
To add to Carl's comments, they've even chopped off part of the front tyre when overlaying the sill extensions.
Should be "slightly better" photoshoped ones
So much for professional journalism.
Stefan
[Edited by ozzy - 9/5/2002 12:16:14 PM]
Should be "slightly better" photoshoped ones
So much for professional journalism.Stefan
[Edited by ozzy - 9/5/2002 12:16:14 PM]
Don't know if been posted before, but this it the new Subaru WRX for 2003.
-new agressive looking headlights
-bigger air intake
-new rear lights
-exhaust modification for more torgue

What do you think? I say it's a beauty

JP
Trending Topics
why have they photoshopped a pic released by Subaru?
Happened with the fugly too and probably every other make.
Stefan
Apart from the front lights, it just looks like loads of the other Scoobies that have added a big wing and some sill extensions/splitters.
They've probably used some of the cars on SN to come out with that.
Stefan
They've probably used some of the cars on SN to come out with that.
Stefan
The first pictures have both, without doubt (in my mind)
, been photoshopped. The wheelarches are too dark , the reflections are wrong (highlights on top of lights as opposed to side of car), there's a roof vent hole on there, the WRX stuck on logo on fogs looks just wrong (but that could be me), the rear arches are lower than the front, the driver side lights and the bumper don't merge properly, ...
If it is right, I'll print this post and eat it.
As for EVO, that's not quite as bad, but why picture a car with rusted front brakes?
On both the intake is "interesting".
Both of them look good to a certain extent, but I don't think they're official pics yet. They may be based on spy shots or something, but in my opinion no car exists looking like that
Nick.
(cynic)
, been photoshopped. The wheelarches are too dark , the reflections are wrong (highlights on top of lights as opposed to side of car), there's a roof vent hole on there, the WRX stuck on logo on fogs looks just wrong (but that could be me), the rear arches are lower than the front, the driver side lights and the bumper don't merge properly, ...If it is right, I'll print this post and eat it.

As for EVO, that's not quite as bad, but why picture a car with rusted front brakes?
On both the intake is "interesting".
Both of them look good to a certain extent, but I don't think they're official pics yet. They may be based on spy shots or something, but in my opinion no car exists looking like that

Nick.
(cynic)
Vanker,
If looks aren't important, what's all the fuss about? The biggest complaint about the new model was the bug-eyes. Yes people will still buy it, but not as many if it looks sh!te.
It's one of the reasons I haven't traded-in my RB5. IMHO, the current model (in std form) has the image of a fat @rsed, middle-aged accountant

Stefan
If looks aren't important, what's all the fuss about? The biggest complaint about the new model was the bug-eyes. Yes people will still buy it, but not as many if it looks sh!te.
It's one of the reasons I haven't traded-in my RB5. IMHO, the current model (in std form) has the image of a fat @rsed, middle-aged accountant


Stefan
Another point - if the model has clear rear lights according to evo, why does the side-on picture that they have published show a touch of red in the rear light cluster?
I think we'll have to wait 'til the paris motor show for the absolute truth.
As for why people are bothered... There's quite a bit of emotion attached to these cars, as you may have picked up on a little bit from some of the more emotive posts on this board. People have opinions on what looks good and what looks bad...
And the bugeye's lights weren't right. Hence the STI being different, the UK300 being different. Ever felt like a guinea pig?
I think we'll have to wait 'til the paris motor show for the absolute truth.
As for why people are bothered... There's quite a bit of emotion attached to these cars, as you may have picked up on a little bit from some of the more emotive posts on this board. People have opinions on what looks good and what looks bad...
And the bugeye's lights weren't right. Hence the STI being different, the UK300 being different. Ever felt like a guinea pig?

oh sorry to offend ozzy just thought the scooby was a drivers car not peni$ extension. Yes I have a fugley but if the old shape had still been in production then thats what I would of got by defination. For me the looks of the scooby is irrelevant.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Why all this big secreacy surrounding new car designs? Most other consumer products take part in some marketing surveys\testing etc to see what to guage consumer reaction long before the product is released. Why don't car manufacturers adopt the same approach. I and any other Jo bloogs could have quite clearly told Subaru's big-wigs that the bug-eye headlights were a no-no if we had been given indications of it before the car was built.
It's sheer nonsense in my eyes. Loads of companies have made costly styling mistakes with their cars which have been reflected in the poor sales figures. This could have easily been avoided with a bit of market research. Audi's A2, The new BMW 7 series, The bug-eye Subaru, the list goes on.
It's sheer nonsense in my eyes. Loads of companies have made costly styling mistakes with their cars which have been reflected in the poor sales figures. This could have easily been avoided with a bit of market research. Audi's A2, The new BMW 7 series, The bug-eye Subaru, the list goes on.
Why all this big secreacy surrounding new car designs?
.Gets people talking about it which we can all agree on yes

IMHO it will have a slightly revised front and rear end people are expecting major changes which I very much doubt just bumpers and lights
.



Wonder what country he came from 

