Subaru Impreza WRX STi: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Subaru Impreza WRX STi catalogue covers five listed production phases from January 1994 to February 2014: the first-generation Coupe, the second-generation Sedan, two second-generation restylings, and the third-generation Sedan. Choosing among them comes down to priorities. The first generation is the lightest, with measured kerb weights from 1,220 to 1,300 kg.
The Subaru Impreza WRX STi catalogue covers five listed production phases from January 1994 to February 2014: the first-generation Coupe, the second-generation Sedan, two second-generation restylings, and the third-generation Sedan. Choosing among them comes down to priorities. The first generation is the lightest, with measured kerb weights from 1,220 to 1,300 kg. The strongest third-generation 2.5 MT produces 400 hp and 542 Nm, while the quickest measured version reaches 100 km/h in 3.7 seconds. Buyers wanting measured fuel economy have several later 2.5-liter choices, including a third-generation 2.5 AT rated at 10.3 l/100 km combined. Prices and sale listings are not included in the catalogue data, so the comparison below focuses exclusively on specifications.
Generations and the Differences Between Them
The first generation ran from January 1994 to September 2000 as a Coupe and contains ten versions in the catalogue. Every version is named 2.0 MT and combines a 1,994 cc Gasoline engine, Turbo, AWD, and a 5-speed Manual gearbox. Outputs range from 250 to 300 hp, torque ranges from 309 to 353 Nm, measured kerb weight ranges from 1,220 to 1,300 kg, and ground clearance ranges from 145 to 155 mm. Because the names are identical, these versions must be identified by output.
The second generation began as a Sedan from April 2000 to October 2002, with two 2.0 MT versions. Both retain the 1,994 cc Turbo Gasoline engine and AWD but move from the first generation’s 5-speed Manual to a 6-speed Manual. The choices produce 265 hp and 343 Nm or 280 hp and 353 Nm. The measured 265 hp car weighs 1,410 kg, which is 110 kg more than the heaviest measured first-generation version.
The first second-generation restyling ran from November 2002 to December 2005 and offers three versions: two 2.0 MT cars producing 280 hp or 265 hp, plus a 2.5 MT producing 300 hp. It retains the Sedan body and 6-speed Manual AWD layout while adding a larger listed displacement: the 2.5 MT uses 2,475 cc rather than the 1,994 cc of either 2.0 MT.
The second restyling ran from June 2005 to September 2007 and contains two versions. Its 2.0 MT and 2.5 MT both produce 280 hp and 422 Nm, so the smaller 1,994 cc version delivers the same listed output as the 2,457 cc alternative. The 2.5 MT nevertheless supplies the catalogue’s measured performance and economy figures for this phase: 5.4 seconds to 100 km/h, 255 km/h, and 10.9 l/100 km combined.
The third generation ran from October 2007 to February 2014 as a Sedan and contains eight catalogue entries. It expands the selection to 2.0 MT, 2.5 MT, and 2.5 AT, with outputs from 300 to 400 hp and torque from 350 to 542 Nm. Most entries retain a 6-speed transmission, although one 300 hp 2.5 AT has a 5-speed Automatic. This is also the only generation listed with Automatic choices.
Subaru Impreza WRX STi Engine Specs
All listed versions use a front, longitudinal Turbo Gasoline engine with Distributed injection (multi-point), four Opposite cylinders, four valves per cylinder, and AWD. The principal differences are displacement, output, fuel grade, and transmission.
| Production phase and exact version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders/layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation 2.0 MT (250 hp, 1,220 kg) | 250 hp | 309 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (275 hp, 1,240 kg) | 275 hp | 319 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (280 hp, 1,240 kg) | 280 hp | 343 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (250 hp, 1,220 kg) | 250 hp | 309 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (275 hp, 1,240 kg) | 275 hp | 319 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (280 hp, 1,250 kg) | 280 hp | 353 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (300 hp) | 300 hp | 353 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (250 hp, 1,250 kg) | 250 hp | 309 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (260 hp) | 260 hp | 309 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT (280 hp, 1,300 kg) | 280 hp | 353 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | AWD |
| Second generation 2.0 MT (280 hp) | 280 hp | 353 Nm | 1,994 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Second generation 2.0 MT (265 hp) | 265 hp | 343 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| First restyling 2.0 MT (280 hp) | 280 hp | 353 Nm | 1,994 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| First restyling 2.5 MT (300 hp) | 300 hp | 407 Nm | 2,475 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| First restyling 2.0 MT (265 hp) | 265 hp | 343 Nm | 1,994 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Second restyling 2.0 MT (280 hp) | 280 hp | 422 Nm | 1,994 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Second restyling 2.5 MT (280 hp) | 280 hp | 422 Nm | 2,457 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.0 MT (308 hp, 1,490 kg) | 308 hp | 422 Nm | 1,994 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 AT (300 hp, 5-speed) | 300 hp | 350 Nm | 2,457 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 5-speed Automatic | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 MT (300 hp, 1,480 kg) | 300 hp | 407 Nm | 2,457 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.0 MT (308 hp, 1,395 kg) | 308 hp | 422 Nm | 1,994 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 AT (300 hp, 6-speed) | 300 hp | 407 Nm | 2,457 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Automatic | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 MT (330 hp) | 330 hp | 470 Nm | 2,457 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 MT (400 hp) | 400 hp | 542 Nm | 2,457 cc | 98 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
| Third generation 2.5 MT (300 hp, 1,505 kg) | 300 hp | 407 Nm | 2,457 cc | 95 | 4, Opposite | Turbo | 6-speed Manual | AWD |
On calculated specific output, the third-generation 2.0 MT with 308 hp develops about 154.5 hp per liter. The 400 hp 2.5 MT reaches about 162.8 hp per liter, the highest result in this catalogue. The second-restyling 2.0 MT is another notable choice: it matches the contemporary 2.5 MT at 280 hp and 422 Nm while using 463 cc less displacement.
Performance and MPG Comparison
The third-generation 2.5 MT with 400 hp is the performance choice: 0–100 km/h takes 3.7 seconds and top speed is 250 km/h. The 330 hp 2.5 MT takes 4.8 seconds, making the 400 hp car 1.1 seconds quicker; its top speed was not measured. The 300 hp 2.5 MT takes 5.2 seconds and reaches either 255 km/h or 250 km/h depending on the catalogue entry. Its consumption is 14.1 l/100 km in the city, 8.4 l/100 km on the highway, and 10.5 l/100 km combined.
The third-generation 300 hp 2.5 AT with a 5-speed Automatic takes 6.0 seconds to reach 100 km/h and reaches 250 km/h. It uses 14.8 l/100 km in the city, 8.1 l/100 km on the highway, and 10.6 l/100 km combined. Against the 300 hp 2.5 MT at 5.2 seconds and 10.5 l/100 km combined, the Automatic is 0.8 seconds slower and consumes 0.1 l/100 km more combined. The other 300 hp 2.5 AT has a 6-speed Automatic and lower measured consumption of 13.8, 8.2, and 10.3 l/100 km; its acceleration and top speed were not measured.
The second-restyling 2.5 MT produces 280 hp, takes 5.4 seconds to reach 100 km/h, and reaches 255 km/h. Consumption is 15.3 l/100 km in the city, 8.3 l/100 km on the highway, and 10.9 l/100 km combined. Acceleration, speed, and consumption for the second-restyling 2.0 MT were not measured.
The measured 265 hp 2.0 MT used in the second generation and its first restyling takes 5.5 seconds to reach 100 km/h and reaches 238 km/h. It consumes 16.7 l/100 km in the city, 9.5 l/100 km on the highway, and 12.1 l/100 km combined. Compared with the third-generation 300 hp 2.5 MT, it is 0.3 seconds slower and uses 1.6 l/100 km more combined. Performance and consumption for every first-generation 2.0 MT were not measured.
Dimensions, Weight, Ground Clearance, and Tank Capacity
Wheel sizes and wheelbase were not measured for any version, and the supplied data contain no exterior length, width, or height measurements.
The first-generation 2.0 MT entries have measured kerb weights from 1,220 to 1,300 kg, gross weight was not measured, ground clearance is 145 or 155 mm, and the tank holds 60 liters. Among entries with both kerb weight and power, the 280 hp car at 1,240 kg has about 4.43 kg per hp. The 250 hp car at 1,220 kg has 4.88 kg per hp.
The second-generation 265 hp 2.0 MT weighs 1,410 kg kerb and 1,850 kg gross, provides 150 mm of ground clearance, and has a 60-liter tank. Kerb and gross weights for the 280 hp 2.0 MT were not measured; it has 155 mm of clearance and the same 60-liter tank.
In the first restyling, the measured 265 hp 2.0 MT weighs 1,430 kg kerb and 1,860 kg gross, with 150 mm of clearance and a 55-liter tank. Weights for the other 2.0 MT and the 2.5 MT were not measured; both provide 155 mm of clearance and use the 55-liter tank.
Both second-restyling versions weigh 1,460 kg kerb. Gross weight was not measured for the 2.0 MT, while the 2.5 MT is rated at 1,880 kg gross. The 2.0 MT has 155 mm of clearance, the 2.5 MT has 140 mm, and both carry 60 liters.
Third-generation measured kerb weights range from 1,395 to 1,505 kg. The 308 hp 2.0 MT weighing 1,395 kg has about 4.53 kg per hp, while the 300 hp 2.5 MT weighing 1,480 kg has about 4.93 kg per hp. The 300 hp 2.5 AT with the 5-speed Automatic weighs 1,500 kg, or 20 kg more than that Manual. Third-generation clearance ranges from 140 to 155 mm, and every entry has a 60-liter tank. Kerb and gross weights for the 330 hp and 400 hp 2.5 MT versions were not measured.
Which Subaru Impreza WRX STi Version Should You Buy?
Choose the third-generation 2.5 MT with 400 hp if measured acceleration and maximum output matter most. Its 542 Nm is 72 Nm above the 330 hp 2.5 MT, while its 3.7-second acceleration time is 1.1 seconds quicker. It also delivers the catalogue’s highest calculated specific output, about 162.8 hp per liter.
Choose the third-generation 2.0 MT with 308 hp and a 1,395 kg kerb weight if you want the strongest measured power-to-weight result among later cars. Its approximately 4.53 kg per hp improves on the 1,480 kg, 300 hp 2.5 MT by about 0.40 kg per hp. Acceleration, top speed, and consumption for this 2.0 MT were not measured, however.
Choose the third-generation 2.5 AT with the 6-speed Automatic if an Automatic gearbox and the lowest measured combined consumption are the priorities. Its 10.3 l/100 km combined figure is 0.3 l/100 km below the 5-speed 2.5 AT and 0.2 l/100 km below the measured 300 hp 2.5 MT. Its performance figures were not measured, so the saving cannot be paired with a verified acceleration comparison.
Choose the second-restyling 2.0 MT if engine-size efficiency matters more than measured road performance. Its 1,994 cc engine produces the same 280 hp and 422 Nm as the 2,457 cc 2.5 MT, giving approximately 140.4 hp per liter versus about 114.0 hp per liter. The 2.0 MT also has 15 mm more ground clearance. Its acceleration and economy figures were not measured.
Choose a first-generation 2.0 MT for the lowest measured kerb weight. The 1,220 kg, 250 hp entries are 175 kg lighter than the lightest measured third-generation car, while the 1,240 kg, 280 hp entry has a calculated 4.43 kg per hp. These versions lack measured acceleration, top-speed, and consumption data, so the catalogue supports a weight-based choice rather than a complete performance comparison.
Whichever version is considered, purchase price, reliability, known problems, service history, engine condition, and availability were not measured. Those factors therefore cannot be ranked from this dataset; the defensible choice depends on whether the buyer prioritizes the 400 hp car’s acceleration, the 6-speed Automatic’s measured economy, the 308 hp 2.0 MT’s measured power-to-weight ratio, or the first generation’s lower kerb weight.