adrenaline

Hi first nice site I alway contrute my knowledge as well as liek to receive, I did have a gti 16v mk3 and found some great forums,
well Ive been offered this subaru impreza sport 1996 p reg 69k
its the same insurance as my golf 16v from figure ive seen the non turbo is still torquey and very under rated its still doe 0-60 8.9 secs ive seen standard not bad,
does any one have one or any tips whether they are still good cars people say ur th enon turbo but it still keeps up with most hatches, is the image still good on them whats your experinces of them, they look the same apart from no bonnet vents and smaller spoiler

my friend said there still good as have contstant power where as the turbo can go of on corners and surges in steps so isnt alway a lot quicker

Microstar

Well, a '96 is an old car now and I think these early Sports had drum brakes at the back and no rear antiroll bar (I'm no expert, but I think that's the case). So handling won't be brilliant. I don't think they do 0-60 in 8.9s either. Having said that, it could be a better buy than a clapped out and ragged-to-death turbo model of the same age that will cost you a fortune to insure and repair!
If I were you I would try to get a bit more money together and buy a newer car - a newage. The Sports can be a decent enough motor if you have insurance 'issues' (i.e. you're being quoted a massive premium on a turbo). Stick a bonnet scoop on it and 99% of the public will not know the difference.

The best non-turbo models are the latest Hawkeye ones which have 160bhp and reasonable performance (0-60 in about 8s IIRC). But they are probably out of your price range.

vindaloo

Try here....
.:ImprezaSport.net:.

Also here for lots of Impreza goodness...

Impreza WRX Online Catalog - Contents

Avi

The Pre 2000 Sport's only produce about 115 BHP (from 2000 on they had 123bhp) . More like 9.5 secs to 60

I used to love mine in the twisties but my Mk2 Golf GTI would beat it hands down in a straight line. It really needed about 150 BHP to be called a Sport in my eyes!

fabiostar

there no racer thats for sure.but thro in a few bends and you will eat faster cars around you..iv a 1999 car and love it to bits,,easy to run and insure.and as somebody says there to most people in the street its a turbo as you rumble by

a 96 car will have the phase 1 engine in it.a we induction kit and a good pipe sorts it out .also there was a batch of 96/97 cars that came with discs on the rear for some reason.mines 99 and has drums.cant say i notice them as iv not hit anything yet

the one thing you have to get for a sport if you want it to sound the part is a borla no ifs or buts.a set of borla or replica down pipes give you the turbo rumble due to them haveing unequal lengths.and throw in a set of 30mm drop springs and away you go


fabio

Simon 69

'...Throw in some bends...'? I feel that you are mistaken. The Sport (essentially A 2 litre GL tarted-up by IM to cash in on the demand for their over-priced Turbos in the 90s) has a basic agricultural four wheel drive system, which is nothing like that found in performance models. All bends will do is show up the poor handling and the only throwing likely, will be at the scenery.....

Microstar

Can't speak for the 90's Sport models, but I'm pretty sure the newage Sport's have essentially the same AWD system as on the turbo cars. I recall driving a Blobeye Sport and it seemed corner much the same as a WRX - i.e. very good.

fabiostar

your never gone get wrx performance from a sport in a straight line or maybe round bends..i say maybe because theres a lot of old toss talked about how fast my car is or how well it goes round corners the cars onlt as fast as the driver and theres some ***** out on the roads

a sport has to be taken for what it is.....a sport.handling wise put it up against most front wheel drive cars of similar performance or better.golf gti etc and if you cant outdrive them in the twisties....buy a micra..

the added bonus is the sports are good mile munchers that keep munching miles and not garage bills..

fabio