How is
this possible?
We know the automotive press to sometimes demonstrate bias or manipulate results to suit and end goal. Sometimes, that goal is funding from a rival in the form of advertising or encouraging fanboyism. What is surprising is when a company finds itself comparing two products in the same product line. Inside Line reported on testing with the WRX and STi that this year's top rally model was slower than its lower trim alternative. Supposedly, Subaru is concerned enough about this development to do its own testing. At GM, testers would have discovered this problem long before production. I can only imagine how limited the testing must be at Subaru to have overlooked the huge financial problems posed by a more expensive, sportier vehicle being slower than the trim beneath it.
If I'm a rally racer, and I want to buy a fast rally car, I'll just get a WRX. The STi would only slow me down.
If I'm a ricer, there's no reason to buy the top trim because I'll consistently beat it with a WRX.
If I have loads of money to spend on my next Subaru (assuming a loyal Subaru customer), I might buy the STi just to say I spent more, but a smart buyer would happily buy the WRX and throw some BBS wheels on it.
If I'm a Subaru salesperson, I have no selling points for the STi. As a sport trim, it should be better performing than the next trim down. By being slower, it kills the value of the car.
How is it possible for Subaru to have built an upgraded model that fails to perform on the same level as its lower trim?
Discuss.
