Last post on Oct 27, 2012 at 5:48 AM
You are in the Subaru Legacy & Outback
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Outback, Car Buying, Sedan, Wagon
#6 of 15 Re: engine [cipolla]
Jan 25, 2011 (8:06 am)
I think the CVT keeps the engine in its sweet spot, so it feels more powerful than it is.
#7 of 15 Re: engine [ateixeira]
Jan 28, 2011 (5:35 am)
Your right, it's more powerful then I though, it rides great and very quite, however the cont. tires do make some rode noise but nothing I cant live with. It was worth the $31.500 and that was with all extra fees. I think I got a good deal, I got the limited fully load except nav. and all the body trim. Thanks again.
#8 of 15 Re: engine [cipolla]
Feb 21, 2011 (5:53 pm)
Probably late to the party but I had the opportunity to test drive both today up some steep hills on the highway. The 2.5 has enough power, the problem I had was the engine noise was annoying, even driving on flats. I'd rather go with the CVT but think I may have to go with the 3.6 for a quieter ride.
#9 of 15 Re: engine [mojobaggins]
Feb 21, 2011 (6:46 pm)
I found the 3.6L engine to be great, however the driveline loss is awful. They are dynoing 255hp at the crank and 155 at the wheels. That's a lot of loss. I thought it was just folks internet bench racing, but my real world test showed that it felt real sluggish.
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
#10 of 15 Re: engine [cipolla]
Feb 22, 2011 (8:13 am)
#11 of 15 Re: engine [ateixeira]
Feb 23, 2011 (12:21 am)
Thank you. I have the OB about 3 weeks now and its a great car. I average about 25 to 27 mpg in mix driving. The engine (2.5) is quieter and faster
then I though it would be, but I see mojobaggins point. I think I got a good deal, I got the limited with body side moulding, winter mats, remote start, mud guards, bumper guards on four corners, chome on hatch door, moonroof, and the gold plan 7 years or 70.000 miles for 31500 out the door.
Again thank you
#12 of 15 Re: 3.6.engine [dlogan1]
Feb 23, 2011 (8:32 pm)
I live at 7000 feet in a mountain town, and 2.5i does fine. With the gas prices skyrocketing in recent weeks, I am even more glad I got the 2.5i.
#13 of 15 Re: 3.6.engine [ptk70]
Feb 24, 2011 (9:33 am)
Over $100 a barrel, ouch!
#14 of 15 Re: engine [paisan]
Sep 30, 2012 (7:17 pm)
Mike I am looking at the 3.6 over the 2.5; it felt stronger. With what you are saying about the drive line loss on the 3.6; what is the loss on the 2.5? I love the mileage figures for the 2.5. Trying to decide which to go for; is the 6 really worth the price difference. I am in Central Georgia so 'real' mountains are not an issue.
Additionaly have you ever heard anyone using the GForce chip in an OB.
#15 of 15 Re: engine [pepper7144]
Oct 27, 2012 (5:48 am)
I have the 2012 3.6r limited legacy, and it seems a lot faster than the 2.5 I test drove. It certainly outperforms the 2.5i 07 Impreza I replaced, and gets within 2 MPG of that Impreza.
If you enjoy performance, the 3.6 seems obvious to me. But the MPG is around 22MPG.
As to HP, I thought all recent HP figures were bhp - i.e. power at the wheels, not off the engine (which is partly why modern engines seem so much more powerful than 60's cars with the "same" HP.
I can say my 3.6R is *quick* seeming for a stock car that size. In my Impreza flooring it, when I'd hit 60, in the same time the 3.6 Legacy is close to 85. Though that is just my unscientific feeling, how I have to watch the speedometer from a stop or I'll end up going to fast.
On the 3.6 though, has anyone else noticed that the oil level (not pressure) light is really sensitive, and pretty much frequently a false positive? I've been in and out of the dealer on this, and seen that the oil is up to level - but the light will go on when I am stuck in traffic on a steep hill, and go off some time later on level ground or when on a hill in the opposite direction.