Garandman Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 This thread must die..... Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMBIVALENCE Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 John said most Subaru turbo 2.5's have about 200 whp versus 170 for the H6, so despite the same 250hp max rating, the H6 generates 15% less whp. Very flat torque curve, though, which belies comments of many reviewers. Thank you for your dyno result! Wonder if auto transmission made a difference. Still believe H6 should be perferred over turbo as turbo damage the engine and is not as smooth ride as H6. ...let me go back to my study Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Odd most cars cut the A/C off when WOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilT Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Thank you for your dyno result! Wonder if auto transmission made a difference. Still believe H6 should be perferred over turbo as turbo damage the engine and is not as smooth ride as H6. ...let me go back to my study Why does a turbo damage the engine ? Double Award Winning Legacy GT Wagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 . Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMBIVALENCE Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Why does a turbo damage the engine ? Not damage the engine, but would wear off the engine faster than normal NA. =( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabius Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 ^^ that depends on the owner of the car. maintance is always the most important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSiWRX Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Thank you very much for sharing! Damn, that torque curve is *nice* - wonder, indeed, if the AT has to do with that. Now, just to add some more vertical area under those curves! <-- 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...
vxracer Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 A 3.0 that requires premium running regular unleaded made much more difference than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 . Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vxracer Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 its like common sense dude- would you run 87 octane in an sti? no. would you dyno it? no. subaru tells you to put 91 octane minimum in it too. before you go and say "but thats a different story" to subaru it isnt. the 3.0na is setup a little different than the 2.5na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundwgn Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Not damage the engine, but would wear off the engine faster than normal NA. =( Of course someone without a turbo makes those type of comments ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsalicru Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 interesting to see that the car made peak HP at the rev limiter. I wonder how high that thing would have to rev to actually hit peak... "some say, his arms are made of coiled adamantium fibers. And that he tops his cereal with nuts and bolts. All we know is, he's called the Jose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firedawgs Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Yes, I would add about 10whp for using Premium fuel. Updated my vBGarage: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMBIVALENCE Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Of course someone without a turbo makes those type of comments ^^ Well. I have to admit what you said. Driving a non-turbo allow me to put such comment here. However, when i was a kid i used to like everything that has a turbo snapped on it. But ever since i got my driver's licence and drove a Jetta 1.8T, I never wanted a turbo again. My old beloved accord is more ride-friendly. And as time goes by, everytime i hear my friend's turbo kick in, i can literally visualize engine is working at high stress... I am sorry i just cant get that feeling off my mind. (If u can guide me out of that feeling, that would be much appericated) Lets get back to topic, I firmly believe ride comfort > performance. and i also believe the H6 should be some good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 . Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilh Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 interesting to see that the car made peak HP at the rev limiter. I wonder how high that thing would have to rev to actually hit peak...I thought the 3.0 has a 7000 limit. I wonder why the plot ends at 6000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 . Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 BTW, anyone have a dyno plot from TDC of a 2.5 turbo for comparison? The only ones I've found so far are modified models. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Rebo Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 And as time goes by, everytime i hear my friend's turbo kick in, i can literally visualize engine is working at high stress... I am sorry i just cant get that feeling off my mind. (If u can guide me out of that feeling, that would be much appericated) Factory turbocharged engines are built to handle boost, so I wouldn't worry about putting too much stress on the engine. You can ruin a good NA engine, too. It just depends on the driver and the maintenance. If anything would fail first, it would be the turbo or other ancillary parts. I wouldn't expect anything in the actual motor to break unless there was a manufacturing defect. A more extreme example is a Lancer Evolution. It hits ~21psi, IIRC, but the engine internals are built to handle that type of boost pressure. With proper tuning, people are raising the boost significantly higher and running with no engine problems. Clutch problems... well, that's another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMBIVALENCE Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 i admit driving turbo on track should be more pleasurable than driving NA. and yes i agree with you about the factory turbo, they are not much concern, i guess it's just me that cant get over my psychological checkpoint. Turbophobia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05BluePearlGT Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Factory turbocharged engines are built to handle boost, so I wouldn't worry about putting too much stress on the engine. You can ruin a good NA engine, too. It just depends on the driver and the maintenance. If anything would fail first, it would be the turbo or other ancillary parts. I wouldn't expect anything in the actual motor to break unless there was a manufacturing defect. A more extreme example is a Lancer Evolution. It hits ~21psi, IIRC, but the engine internals are built to handle that type of boost pressure. With proper tuning, people are raising the boost significantly higher and running with no engine problems. Clutch problems... well, that's another issue. Exactly, which is why we have a much lower compression. We are able to handle the boost without a prob. How much is another story. And everytime I feel the turbo kick in some or hear the spool, I feel the engine being moved forward without much work. Just floats along with the turbo pushing it. It feels more reliable than a NA driving the LGT. Especially after the tune. SOOOOOOO smooth. And I have a 100,000 mile warranty thats still honored with a cat removed, CAI, custom tune, Rotora BBK, Gauge, and many many more mods to come. Ive had the car for under 4 months, and brought my car in many times to the dealership across from my condo. I walk there in under 30 seconds! I love it, and they all know me really well now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundwgn Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 I may go back and do a run with no air cleaner and premium, just to get some real #'s instead of this butt dyno stuff. quote] No Air cleaner??????? WTF? I'm glad I'm not your car!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 And here I thought a thread on a naturally aspirated engine in a naturally aspirated engine forum was going to remain about naturally aspirated engines. Or even mention one here and there..... Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Well. I have to admit what you said. Driving a non-turbo allow me to put such comment here. However, when i was a kid i used to like everything that has a turbo snapped on it. But ever since i got my driver's licence and drove a Jetta 1.8T, I never wanted a turbo again. My old beloved accord is more ride-friendly. And as time goes by, everytime i hear my friend's turbo kick in, i can literally visualize engine is working at high stress... I am sorry i just cant get that feeling off my mind. (If u can guide me out of that feeling, that would be much appericated) Lets get back to topic, I firmly believe ride comfort > performance. and i also believe the H6 should be some good stuff. Theres your problem there Comparing a VW to a Honda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.