Leebo310

Can someone confirm exactly what the official stats were please?
I know they don't mean much in real world driving but there seems to be a bit of a difference between the ones quoted by Autotrader and the ones on PH and I was just wondering which were the true figures?

PH
227 BHP
0-62 in 6.4 seconds
Combined MPG 31

AT
230 BHP
0-62 in 5.9 seconds
Combined MPG 27.4

Thanks!

phoenixgold

iTrader: (2)

The leaflets at the dealer when I bought mine agreed with the autotrader figures for the BHP and 0-60 if that helps! I didn't look at the MPG as I didnt' see the point! It certainly never went anywhere near 30MPG while I owned it!!

paulbu

Vehicle specification figures quoted on both AT and PH are quite often a load of garbage. Road tests by the likes of Evo magaazine etc in 2006 had the Hawkeye WRX at 230PS (227 BHP), 27.4 mpg overall and 0-60 in 6.2 secs.
Arguably the slowest turbo Impreza ever.

Leebo310

I drove a 2010 plate 2.5 WRX and that felt a lot slower than the hawk eye!

Tomwrx

iTrader: (54)

227bhp was standard for the hawk unless u had the ppp which was 260 i think.

mines was 227bhp when i got it at 10 months, nowhere near that now lol

MattyB1983

iTrader: (51)

227bhp in a car that weighs as much as a small country....lol....

lgtuk

Bang a better breathing exhaust on and your straight upto 254bhp anyway and no need to remap as running spot on only 6bhp short of ppp

paulbu

Standard Hawkeye WRX, standard hatch WRX, same power, same weight, there should be no noticable difference in performance. Maybe the hatch was a bit more refined and felt slower because of this.