So what do you really think about your H6 equipped OBK

[kleggo]

Hi,

I'm buying an 06 OBK and am looking for feedback of the 4 cyl vs 6 cyl engines.

 

1) what's your overall impression?

 

2) have you driven anything similar previously?

 

3) ever owned a H4 subie? if so, have any drivability preferences?

 

4) do you ever use 89 or 87 octane gas instead of 91?

 

 

i'm asking because my experience with an H4 auto outback = a bit too underpowered

and i

'm not convinced a turbo engine is a wise choice.

 

thanks for your time

 

kleggo

[red beast]

1)h-6 less torque, smoother operation, no real mods

 

2)had a 2001 ll beaner with the h-6

 

3)n/a 97 outback sport, 04 wrx turbo. the h-6 responds to imputs better at lower rpms than the lgt. but the lgt engine is far better than the wrx h-4 with it's turbo lag. the lgt kicks ass when the turbo kicks in especially with mods.

 

4) i tried the 89 octane once. you can feel the difference and it's not worth the change. you might get a lower price per gallon but your engine will use more gas due to the ecu. not worth it.

 

the plain h-4 is for old farts that have no place to go. go with the h-6 or h-4 turbo.

[GraysonSubaru]

I like the XT limited over the 6 cylinder models. same hp, but the turbo has a lot better "off the line" acceleration and more torque.

 

I have owned an SVX, outback sport (impreza wagon non turbo), 2005 wrx, 2005 LGT limited. i like the turbo 4's best.

 

turbo engines are not really any less reliable than a non turbo vehicle in the subaru line-up unless you start modding it like crazy. the turbo might be a little more for gas and just some "keep up" on certain services, but definitely not a reason i would take a non turbo vehicle over a turbo.

 

the subaru turbo left stock will be just as reliable as the 6 cylinder ....

 

we do not get any more turbo models in with any problems than we do 6 cylinders....

[GraysonSubaru]

the 6 cylinder models have good HP, but it is hard to feel the HP -- especially off the line.

[phoenix96]

I can compare four boxer engines:

 

1992 SVX 3.3L: Could feel the torque down low best in this car although it's not particularly quick (compared to the modern cars anyway). Wonderful engine though.

1996 Outback 2.5L: 155 horsepower and a very poor power-to-weight ratio. Slow. A fun vehicle to drive.

2002 Outback 3.0L: 212 horsepower. Not as quick feeling as the SVX; I've definitely felt a lack of power on inclines and occasionally in passing. The car's smoothness and quietness has been unmatched, however.

2006 Legacy 2.5L Turbo: Ridiculously quick. The combination of the 5 speed manual and the 250/250 engine make this car a completely different animal from the others. The power available in all situations (off the line, passing - even in 5th, etc) surpasses that of the other Subarus I've had.

[see_obxt]

I chose the XT Limited because I drive at high altitudes to go skiing and because it's a blast when the turbo kicks in. The turbo is definatly a drivers car. I tried the H6 and it was nice but just not as fun. I also only use premium.

[xdeadhead]

bought an 05 xt lmtd obw this past november. test drove the beaner first and some others. then i drove the turbo. then i bought the turbo. the beaner is a granpops car, just didnt have the oomph factor. 10 seconds after i had the xt on the road, i knew it was teh aw3s0m3. get the turbo. you wont be sorry. for the record,

i never put less than 91octane in the tank. also, just got back from a new england road trip. woohoo killington and stowe. i love this car. also, it loves 94 octane from sunoco. at least the last 3 tankfuls have been gobbled up with mad rpms and maybe 22mpg. meh i dint buy it for the gas mileage. i concur with see_obxt and anyone else that says buy teh turbo.

[petmor]

I don't own an Outback, but a legacy H6. I really like the power it gots but it consumes way too much petrol. Be glad that you have "cheap" petrol in America

[erito]

1. No turbo Subarus in Sweden The H6 is really quick and nice, but i've just tried it once.

2. Alot of straight six cyl engines since i've had several BMW. The power and smoothness of a 6cyl is always nice.... but then you have more 'mouths' to feed with premium.

3. I have an 2.5i 2006 Outback with auto transmission. Ofcourse you always want more HP and torque

But seriously, i think the engine is good so far. I have the power I need (175HP), and it runs nice in freeway speed, in the city and off the track. MPG is okay but i've only run it for 2100km so the MPG should get better after a few more kKm. When you floor it, the RPM gets abit too high, and in high speeds you could wish for more power, but all in all i like it.

4. No

[Garandman]

I bought a 3.0R for $26K.

 

1) what's your overall impression?

 

Have 2700 miles on it, very pleased.

 

2) have you driven anything similar previously?

 

Company 05 V6 Accord EX-L. The Accord is a little quicker, gets great mpg, is decent in snow with Nokians; has excellent seats; and comes with XM sat radio. For my driving and for wanting a wagon, the Subaru is a better fit.

 

3) ever owned a H4 subie? if so, have any drivability preferences?

 

Had two 1997's, both auto. Don't let anyone kid you: if you load up an H4 with people and gear and drive at high speeds or big hills, it works pretty hard. The 4-3 downshift is pretty abrupt. The manual is a little better, but not much.

 

H4 pluses - tons of new and used inventory; much better city MPG; somewhat better highway MPG; lower purchase price.

 

4) do you ever use 89 or 87 octane gas instead of 91?

 

I have never used 91 after the first couple tanks. No problems with the lower octane at all. To put it in perspective, we have an 05 Nisssan with a 3.5l V6. The power is rated at 242 with 91 and 237 with 87.

 

I'm asking because my experience with an H4 auto outback = a bit too underpowered and i 'm not convinced a turbo engine is a wise choice.

The Subaru H4 turbos seem to hold up well and are quicker than the H6 around town. But the delivered mileage isn't very good and it has the hood scoop which IMHO is silly. They are quick, and there were plenty of 06 and leftover 05's to choose from, though.

 

The 3.0R doesn't seem to be stocked much by dealers. There were only two in New England when I bought mine. The LLBean and VDC have some nice features, but I don't fit in one with a sunroof. You can't get leather on the 3.0R except aftermarket. Yesterday I saw two, so that may be changing.

 

Appearance difference between the 3.0R and 2.5i are five spoke alloys; turn signals in the body colored side mirrors (a GREAT feature); and a 3.0R badge. Mine is debadged.

 

Other differences are 5 spd auto; 6 disc CD changer; dual front zone auto AC; VTD AWD system; rear center arm rest; TPMS.

 

The Limited 2.5i, at about $500 MSRP less than the 3.0R, is more popular. Like the LLBean, it's a very popular MILF-mobile.

 

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2006.html#overview

[kleggo]

Thanks for takingthe time to reply to my questions.

i appreciate your input.

 

Several people ask why i'm not convinced a turbo is a good idea.

several reasons, perhaps not rational ones, but reasons non-the-less:

1) i grew up in the era where a performance car was my 440 - 6 pak 'Cuda or HEMI Superbee, the mindset then was that other than specific racing applications a turbo was stuck on an engine that wasn't designed correctly in the 1st place to get acceptable performance, a "bandaid" in other words.

2) same era, turbos always needed replaced after 80K - 100K miles despite how anally you maintained your car.

 

i know that things have changed since those days but my pre-conceived notions and experience are difficult to overcome.

 

can you really say with confidence that a turbo H4 driven conservatively will really have fewer reliability issues than a NA H4 or H6 at 100k+ miles?

 

more input appreciated.

thanks

 

Craig

[MilesA]

...1) i grew up in the era where a performance car was my 440 - 6 pak 'Cuda or HEMI Superbee, the mindset then was that other than specific racing applications a turbo was stuck on an engine that wasn't designed correctly in the 1st place to get acceptable performance, a "bandaid" in other words.

2) same era, turbos always needed replaced after 80K - 100K miles despite how anally you maintained your car...

...can you really say with confidence that a turbo H4 driven conservatively will really have fewer reliability issues than a NA H4 or H6 at 100k+ miles?...

Subaru has a lot of experience with turbocharging. The 2.5 turbo models have completely different engines, not 2.5i engines with a turbo bolted on to it. The block is stronger, the heads, valves, pistons, rods, crank and other parts are designed specifically for this application. There is an intercooler to cope with the increased temperature of the intake charge. The fueling is specific to this model. The turbo itself is much better designed from a reliability standpoint than those older models you remember.

 

If you want to produce more power, a larger displacement engine is one way of doing it, but not the only way. An alternative is a correctly-designed smaller displacement engine with turbocharging.

 

I have been somewhat leery of turbocharged cars in the past because of the added complexity. But I have personally seen Volvo, SAAB, Mazda and Subaru turbo cars going in excess of 150,000 miles without engine problems. I feel confident enough in Subaru's design to give it a try this time around, and I usually keep my cars for 8-10 years.

[Garandman]

A small update. I've been running regular now in the H6 for nearly 1,000 miles. I notice no difference at all, although presumably my peak horsepower is down 5hp or so if Nissan is any guage.

 

the beaner is a granpops car, just didnt have the oomph factor]

If streetlight cruising is most important, the turbo is a much better choice as it is overall faster. Count me out for the comparative lack of smoothness; less responsiveness below 2300 rpms or so; schizophrenic integration with an automatic; and thirst. But you get a hood scoop!

[SBT]

As MilesA mentioned the OBXT and LGT have engines (and drivetrains) that were specifically engineered for the turbo application. Unmolested (read: un-modded) but routinely maintained, these engines will easily run 150-200K miles with zero issues. Just do an autotrader.com search on the 90-94 Legacy Sport sedan or wagon. These are 2.2L Turbo powered and you'll find that they all have very high mileage on the ODO. The 2005 and newer LGT turbos are built to even higher standards then these older Legacys.

 

You mentioned "bolt-on" turbo issues. The LGT/OBXT turbos are water cooled AND pressurized oil lubricated and they are specifically designed to auto-cool (coolant keeps flowing to-from the tubo AFTER engine shutdown) so they won't develop hot spots or cook the residual oil.

 

Essentially the turbo is designed as an integral part of the powerplant. Others mentioned that all of the internals are beefy, race-proven components, even the engine core itself is strengthened. If you're going with a 5MT, then you're also getting a beefed up transmission to go with it. Mated to the 5EAT, it's a really nice road car/package.

 

In my opinion, the 3.0L is one of the smoothest engines in production. It has its place in the product line-up and is particularly good for open-road cruising and running around town. Also good for towing. Would I own one, sure. But not until I had a 2.5T in the garage first. We are considering one but will likely go with OBXT for the overall power and fun factor.

 

Just my .02

 

SBT