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 1175

#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.

#11033 of 11746 Re: Power [robr2] by xwesx

Nov 21, 2005 (3:47 pm)

Replying to: robr2 (Nov 21, 2005 3:12 pm)
I agree with that assertion; a lot of the power is going straight to the pavement real early on, so regardless of the final 0-60 time, it is probably going to feel a whole lot faster.

#11034 of 11746 Revisiting tires by xwesx

Nov 21, 2005 (3:56 pm)

So, I had to put new tires on my OBW earlier than preferred due to an "internal structural failure" in two of the tires that lead to constant air loss of 5-10# per day, and slowly but steadily becoming worse. It was not as bad as it could have been, considering that this happened in the winter months when less heat builds up in the tires (reduces chance of blowout) and because it was only 3 months shy of my planned replacement date.
 
Again, for this car, I have decided to stick with all-seasons as I do not think I would get adequate return from investing in a set of dedicated winters.
 
After looking around town at what was available in all seasons at any vendor with whom I was willing to do business, I went with Goodyear Assurance TripleTreds - $90 each from Sears, plus a bunch of misc fees to up the total to $475 installed.
 
Oh well: With shipping, I would have paid about the same price for anything cheaper from tire rack, etc. (one problem with living in Alaska).
 
After having the tires on the car for 24 hours, I see a noticable improvement on snow/ice over the old Goodyear Allegras that came off it. Of course, those again were at 75K miles, so they were worse this year than in previous years as well. Stopping distance (at full lockup on snowpack/ice) is a good 1/3 less and I have to work pretty hard to break loose on the ice during acceleration. It likes to break loose on turns fairly easy, but it responds incredibly well to corrective actions when recovering so it is more fun than anything.
 
Overall, good impression so far. I just want them to wear well and last for close to the 80k treadwear warranty. That should keep them on the car for its remaining useful life.

#11035 of 11746 Re: Power [robr2] by wmquan

Nov 21, 2005 (8:53 pm)

Replying to: robr2 (Nov 21, 2005 3:12 pm)
Perhaps, but we'd need to see the torque curves of the two engines to know for sure. A lot of it depends on how much torque the 2.5 puts out at lower RPM's. It may be less but it doesn't have to be a lot less.
 
But the previously referenced A4 Avant 1.8T was heavier, and you'd have to wait for a delay before the turbo built up some of that low-end torque peak.
 
The new VW/Audi 2.0T engine addresses a lot of these shortcomings, however. But that's a discussion for another forum.
 
Now, step up to a 2.5 turbo and you won't have any complaints. Sure it's heavier on the gas, and sure it takes premium. BTW the 1.8T and the 2.0T also take premium too.

#11036 of 11746 Re: Power and torque by subieseeker

Nov 21, 2005 (11:52 pm)

Thanks for the feedback on the Outback. I wouldn't consider an automatic--the other drivers in the house would mutiny. I'm not a fan of the tiptronic, even forgetting performance. I find it to be a very unsatisfying way to shift, and I keep slamming my left leg down looking for a clutch. I guess you get used to it, but it seems like a high maintenance automatic. We live off an unpaved road and have gone through struts on previous cars; that's why I'm leaning to the Outback. (The Avant has a sport suspension.) I know this isn't Engines 101, butI'm pretty vague on torque. I gather that the goal is to have the highest torque at the lowest rpms? Do you really notice a difference in performance if you use midgrade rather than premium? My Audi dealership told me to disregard the driver's manual and use midgrade, and I can't see any driving differences--unless it improves mileage. I'd be tempted to do that with the Subaru.

#11037 of 11746 Re: Power and torque [subieseeker] by jeffmc

Nov 22, 2005 (4:37 am)

Replying to: subieseeker (Nov 21, 2005 11:52 pm)
Premium fuel is "required" by the manufacturer on Subie turbo engines. Use of other fuel may void your warranty. You could get away with it on Subie 6-cyls, where premium is only "recommended". Seems like most posts I've read find it a tossup whether it's cheaper to run regular in the 6-cyl and get decreased mileage, or pay for premium and get higher mileage.
 
The extra cost of premium should be under $20/month if you drive a typical amount.

#11038 of 11746 Outback by jeffmc

Nov 22, 2005 (4:39 am)

Incidentally, I've got an '04 Outback and am amazed how well it rides on gravel Forest Service roads. I can only imagine the newer models are just as good or better off of pavement.

Messages Page 1104 of 1175

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