fzanetti Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Damn. 5.1 and 13.7 is quicker than I have seen some of the rags clock STi's at. I can almost smell the smoking clutch now! Exactly!!!!!! Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino_Martini Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Nice, this article really made me want a Subaru Legacy...now its just a choice of wagon or sedan, auto or five speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintinet Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Wagons are terrific (love the utility, huge area of glass in the LTD). Personally, I would only buy a MT vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSiWRX Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So...I see our brakes are HORRIBLE!!! <-- note sarcasm - Yes, I'm one of those LGT owners who think that our stock brakes only FEEL horrible, but obviously will stop us sufficiently, if not exactly arrestingly. Hum, like another LGTer mentioned above, what's up with the elapsed time of the MS6 at higher speeds? I thought that by using lower than 93-octane fuel, ALL aspects of engine performance for that vehicle would be negatively affected, not just top-end? <-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges '16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 ^ I was thinking the same thing while reading the braking performances...throw on a set of more aggressive pads...Say they shave off another 4Ft from 60...tied for 1st.... As mentioned earlier (Real world Pricing) should be taken into acct. The Audi S-line option is not sitting around on lots...40k Spec-B Sitting & waiting in showrooms.......33k 7,000 All for a more refined interior & a 6 speed tranny:lol: Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSiWRX Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 ^ I was thinking the same thing while reading the braking performances...throw on a set of more aggressive pads...Say they shave off another 4Ft from 60...tied for 1st.... Don't forget tires as well. I'm currently looking at Bobcats, and the Endless line of SS-M, SS-Y, or Vitas. <-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges '16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Correct you are....adding those could take off another few..... Our Brakes are the Winner;) DBA Rotors here Bobcats F&R SS lines **Motul Fluid** T1R's It's all the stopping power I need & more:) Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I thought that by using lower than 93-octane fuel, ALL aspects of engine performance for that vehicle would be negatively affected, not just top-end? It probably had gas in it already... they either filled it up during the days events or topped it off before the events with 91... so it was probably a mix [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidMonk Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The current MS6 has issues with the ECU panicking itself into 'limp mode'. Apparently, the exhaust manifold heat soaks the TMIC and when the intake charge gets too hot - wham. Once it enters limp mode, it stays there until the car is shut off and restarted. If the MS6 really is heatsoaking itself into limp mode on a 70 degree day, I feel sorry for them this summer. Just to add salt to the wound - a run of the mill 6s (v6) would have posted significantly better numbers than the MS6 did in that test. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfd425 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 It probably had gas in it already... they either filled it up during the days events or topped it off before the events with 91... so it was probably a mixAm I missing something? These cars are tuned from the factory for 91 octane, right? Maybe even lower, because carmakers tend to tune cars very conservatively, knowing that occasionally someone is going to put in a lower grade of gas than recommended. I'm no expert on gas, but I thought if a car was tuned for a particular octane level, there really is no performance gain by going to a higher grade. In other words, if a car is tuned for 91, there is no performance gain from using 93. Am I wrong about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limeydriver Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 RE92 = 130ft 60 - 0 (Regular GT) RE050A = 126ft 60 - 0 (Spec B) Proof that stopping distance is not only about tire choice? Or do the RE050A's suck nearly as much as the RE92's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 suspension dive, different pad compound on the Spec B and tires all play a role to improve by that 4ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfd425 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Is the different pad compound a documented fact? Four feet based on tires alone would be a pretty good improvement, it seems to me, especially since the Spec B is heavier and has a slightly higher ride height.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC GT Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 ^ I was thinking the same thing while reading the braking performances...throw on a set of more aggressive pads...Say they shave off another 4Ft from 60...tied for 1st.... As mentioned earlier (Real world Pricing) should be taken into acct. The Audi S-line option is not sitting around on lots...40k Spec-B Sitting & waiting in showrooms.......33k 7,000 All for a more refined interior & a 6 speed tranny:lol: Using Edmunds TMV, I was able to get: Spec B $33,455 Audi w/S-option only $36,588 add Navi $38,596. Not that big of a difference. Whether or not the Audi is readily available with S-option only, I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Is the different pad compound a documented fact? It's a different P/N for sure. Everything else about the braking system is the same, save suspension and tires (those are technically part as well) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Pimp Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Using Edmunds TMV, I was able to get: Spec B $33,455 Audi w/S-option only $36,588 add Navi $38,596. Not that big of a difference. Whether or not the Audi is readily available with S-option only, I have no idea. Still a 5K difference from 33,455 to 38,596...and you can easily get a SpecB for invoice which makes true difference more like 6K in reality. I think these two vehicles speak to two different crowds really, a bunch of leasing badge snobs and another that has cobb accessport and downpipes on the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jond_68 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I broke down and went out and bought the spec B the day after the article came out. I must say that I love the car. It is so much better than the 02 gt limited I traded in. The only problem with the navigation system is that it does not show the location of the police on the turnpike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franklin Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Am I missing something? These cars are tuned from the factory for 91 octane, right? Maybe even lower, because carmakers tend to tune cars very conservatively, knowing that occasionally someone is going to put in a lower grade of gas than recommended. I'm no expert on gas, but I thought if a car was tuned for a particular octane level, there really is no performance gain by going to a higher grade. In other words, if a car is tuned for 91, there is no performance gain from using 93. Am I wrong about this? The Mazda is tuned for 93 octane from the factory. ( to get the stated HP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_knoxville Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Am I missing something? These cars are tuned from the factory for 91 octane, right? Maybe even lower, because carmakers tend to tune cars very conservatively, knowing that occasionally someone is going to put in a lower grade of gas than recommended. I'm no expert on gas, but I thought if a car was tuned for a particular octane level, there really is no performance gain by going to a higher grade. In other words, if a car is tuned for 91, there is no performance gain from using 93. Am I wrong about this? perhaps no (or very minimal) immediate gain, but over the course of time, any car would benefit from using premium over lower-grade gas in both fuel efficiency and performance p.s. post #48, and still no scans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumb Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I'm a newbie to this board and have been eyeing the MS6, and now, as a result of that R&T article, the LGT. Seems the MS6 has, according to MS6 boards, some sort of power loss issue (lots of discussion as to the exact cause, Mazda being coy) that seems reflected by the R&T article data. The MS6 was very quick out of the blocks, but then over 60 mph, just wilted while the Spec B charged ahead. In the end, the "274hp" MS6 had about the same 1/4 mile trap speed as my '94 165hp Probe GT! R&T seemed to hint at this issue a bit, but it really is there as a quick surf to a Mazda forum will quickly reveal. Maybe its just some bad ECU coding, fixable with a reflash, or maybe its something more, like insufficient intercooler function. Shame as the MS6 seems, otherwise, quite a compelliing car. The R&T article really opened my eyes to the LGT/Spec B. I used to have an old Subaru DL eons ago, a sturdy if drag little conveyance which some colored my view of Subarus since. But the R&T article has revealed the LGT to be a veritable rocket, a real Q-Ship indeed. And it doesn't even look goofy like so many Subarus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukilla98 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Still a 5K difference from 33,455 to 38,596...and you can easily get a SpecB for invoice which makes true difference more like 6K in reality. I think these two vehicles speak to two different crowds really, a bunch of leasing badge snobs and another that has cobb accessport and downpipes on the brain. Yup I think you hit the nail on the head, althought, I gotta admit, I wanted to be one of those snobs, but was turned of by the offset in price and the idea of the keeping German hardware out of warranty.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownBoy Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 The MS6s are starting to be advertised w/ 2K rebates locally....the one that the dealer down the street got is still sitting front and center... ...are these not selling? <---I just wanted to use this icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfd425 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 perhaps no (or very minimal) immediate gain, but over the course of time, any car would benefit from using premium over lower-grade gas in both fuel efficiency and performanceI thought one or more of the gas companies (possibly Amoco?) got sued for false advertising for claiming that. Now, in their ads for premium gas, there is an asterisk with a fine print disclaimer that says something like "*for cars that are engineered for premium gasoline". As if the only reason it did so well was because it was a spec. B, and that a regular LGT wouldnt have fared the same.The suspension and tires probably made a difference in the handling tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_knoxville Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I thought one or more of the gas companies (possibly Amoco?) got sued for false advertising for claiming that. Now, in their ads for premium gas, there is an asterisk with a fine print disclaimer that says something like "*for cars that are engineered for premium gasoline". every gas website i visited states the opposite of that, but i'll be happy to review any link you care to provide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfd425 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Fair enough, but the Spec. B is not different from an LGT, the way an E55 is from an E320. Or, the Spec. B is not to the M3, as an LGT is to a 330.No, it's more like comparing a 330i to a 330i with the Sport Package. every gas website i visited states the opposite of that, but i'll be happy to review any link you care to provideHow generous and open-minded of you! I'll see what I can find sometime when I've got nothing better to do. In the meantime, I'll be glad to review your links too, when I get a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.