Ask the Car People.SM


Subaru Legacy/Outback

11746 messages,  Last post on Dec 06, 2011 at 12:51 PM

You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Legacy, Subaru Outback, Wagon

Messages Page 1104 of 1176

#11023 of 11746 Re: 99 Subaru Legacy Sedan Heater Problem [jfl] by fibber2

Nov 19, 2005 (8:55 pm)

Replying to: jfl (Nov 18, 2005 9:02 pm)
Jim,
 
One way to help 'burp' the system is to jack up the nose or drive up ramps. This helps to put the top of the radiator higher than the heater core. Rev it a bit to help push fluid thru all paths, and the air should find its way to the filler neck.
 
As long as there is no new source of air, it should stay purged. It is always possible that she just ran the coolant low and that this will be a one-time event.
But with the history of HG issues on the pre 2000 DOHC engines, I fear that "mommyof2girls" problems will return. I would strongly suggest a pressure test be done to confirm.
 
Steve

#11024 of 11746 turbo pickup by subieseeker

Nov 20, 2005 (12:44 am)

I'm currently driving a 2003 Audi A4 Avant 1.8T manual. I've never had a car that was so much fun to drive, or one that's had to spend so much time in the shop. So now I'm looking at the car I probably should have bought in '03--the Outback wagon, but I want something similar in handling and pickup to my Audi. I'm leaning to the XT, but the poorer mileage and premium fuel requirements are negatives. I'm wondering how much difference there really is between the XT and the non turbo 2.5. My Audi gets 170 hp 5900 rpm, but I'm told that the 170 hp subaru would not feel the same without the turbo. The obvious solution would be to test drive both cars, but I can't find both of them anywhere. Sticks are apparently a specialty market, or so the dealers tell me. So, I'm looking for feedback from anyone familiar with these cars, just in case I have to order one.

#11025 of 11746 2.5l vs. 1.8T by ateixeira

Nov 20, 2005 (8:04 am)

Some people just prefer turbos, the rush that you feel when the boost kicks in. That rush is excaberbated by the fact that there is a little lag before it kicks in. So at first you have less power, then BAM, much more.
 
The 2.5l is very different, it's torquey and very linear in its power delivery. So it never feels slow or laggy, but then again it never presses you back in your seat the way a turbo does in full boost.
 
Oddly enough, most people prefer the linear route, and complain audibly about turbo lag, throttle lag, non-linear power, etc.
 
-juice

#11026 of 11746 Re: turbo pickup [subieseeker] by garandman

Nov 20, 2005 (3:53 pm)

Replying to: subieseeker (Nov 20, 2005 12:44 am)
How much does the Audi weigh? Face up to the fact that 2.5l Subarus are slow. Few of them will break 9 seconds 0-60 (neinther of my 97's did) and it gets worse from there. They work extremely hard when the vehicle is loaded in hills on the highway. People who say their performance is good are moving up fom 4 cylinder Camrys or some other similar roadblock. Mileage drops precipitously as you laod up and drive uphill at 75 or 80, although the flat four is perfectly happy to buzz away for hours like that. You will not get to know the Subaru dealer as well as the Audi dealer, from my experience.
 
The 2006 models have variable valve timing and 175 peak hp. I've heard they are much more responsive at around-town and highway speeds, but won't have a chance to drive one until tomorrow.
 
I'm planning to buy a 3.0R (flat six) but that's a big price increase. I didn't seriously consider the XT because although quick they're thirsty. But I drive a lot.

#11027 of 11746 2.5l by ateixeira

Nov 20, 2005 (6:15 pm)

Stick to a stick. C&D got 0-60 in 8.8 seconds, and that was the previous generation, with more weight and a couple fewer horses, so the new ones should be as quick or better.
 
The autos are geared tall for economy but they're relatively slow (still adequate for most).
 
-juice

#11028 of 11746 Re: turbo pickup [subieseeker] by kens

Nov 20, 2005 (7:33 pm)

Replying to: subieseeker (Nov 20, 2005 12:44 am)
The 1.8T was a solid performer with a nice broad torque curve, but it was hampered by the weight of the A4. I think the new 2.5L engine mated to a 5MT could give you a similar experience (I haven't driven one yet).
 
However, neither the new 2.5 nor the 1.8T will come close to the performance of the 2.5 turbo.
 
I think the best match for you coming from an A4 Avant would not be the Outback, but the Legacy. Unfortunatley, Subaru no longer offers the Legacy GT wagon with 5MT in 2006 -- if you could find a used 2005 model, you'll probably have the best upgrade to your A4 experience.
 
Ken

#11029 of 11746 Re: 2.5l [ateixeira] by garandman

Nov 21, 2005 (1:01 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 20, 2005 6:15 pm)
Stick to a stick. C&D got 0-60 in 8.8 seconds, and that was the previous generation, with more weight and a couple fewer horses, so the new ones should be as quick or better.
 
What will yours do? My first two were both closer to 10 seconds. Most road tests recorded 0-60 for the Outback of 9+ seconds. And the numbers closer to 9 seconds are the 97-99 that weighed less than the 2000-2004 models. They ranged up to 10.7 seconds for a '97 at TheAutoChannel to 11.7 seconds for a 2005 at CR. A manual 2002 Legacy GT tested here recorded 9.3.
 
You'll have to decide what level of peformance you're looking for. The A4 1.8T's are all faster than the 2.5l Subarus. The XT has all the performance you could want, at the cost of higher purchase price and Premium fuel.

#11030 of 11746 1.8T by ateixeira

Nov 21, 2005 (1:44 pm)

That engine was peppy with a manual, but a friend had a Passat TipTronic with a 1.8T and it was just gutless.
 
In fact I'd argue that the torquey 2.5l is better suited to an automatic. The 1.8T/auto took forever to build up the boost and get going.
 
My friend ended up chipping the engine, which helped some, but the Tiptronic was so slow that he chipped the transmission as well!
 
The 1.8T was best suited to a light, manual tranny car. If you're coming from an auto, I don't think the Outback will feel slow.
 
-juice

#11031 of 11746 Power by wmquan

Nov 21, 2005 (2:42 pm)

Is the 2.5i with a manual really that much slower than an A4 1.8T with a manual? An Outback 2.5, with a 2.5 is 3,320 lbs, 3,370 if you get the Limited. A 2003 Audi A4 Avant with a stick weighed 3,516 pounds.
 
The 1.8T was 170hp 5900 RPM, 166lbs/torque 1950 RPM
 
The 2.5 is 175hp 6000 RPM, 169lbs/torque 4400 RPM

#11032 of 11746 Re: Power [wmquan] by robr2

Nov 21, 2005 (3:12 pm)

Replying to: wmquan (Nov 21, 2005 2:42 pm)
The 1.8T was 170hp 5900 RPM, 166lbs/torque 1950 RPM
  
The 2.5 is 175hp 6000 RPM, 169lbs/torque 4400 RPM
 
I'm not an expert but that torque figure on the 1.8t tells you a whole lot. No need to ring out the gears to achieve greater velocity.

Messages Page 1104 of 1176

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement