John M Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 If the Legacy had a 2.0 turbo, I would not have a Legacy. Small turbo engines are too peaky. Ideally, I'd take a twin turbo H6 but they don't make it yet. Something with 3-4 liters and turbos will get my money instantly. The term "lag" does not belong in a discussion on the factory Legacy. There just isn't any to speak of. Magazine reviewers always bitched about lag on the 3000GT/Stealth, yet how did they make 300+ torque at like 2k rpm if there wasn't boost? Too many people think lag is the time between nothing and full boost. Lag means NO boost, and you don't spend too much time waiting with our tiny stock hairdryer. Mitsubishi designed the 95-99 DSMs to have lag on purpose. They modulated boost so it wouldn't hit all at once, delaying the time to full power by 1-2 seconds. That's lag. They said it would "make it feel like a bigger engine" and somehow thought that would broaden their market. Screw "twin scroll" too -- so what if I get boost 200 rpm sooner? Big whoop! It sells expensive turbos, and works fine in stock vehicles, but I don't care about not having it. If you pick a sanely sized turbo, you can push all the boost you engine can handle without having to wait to get power. If you buy a giant turbo to impress others with, you deserve the dyno queen you end up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKB_SATX Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 I'm in favour of using fewer resources to get the job done. When the OEMs went to 3.5 liter 6s, that's when I started looking for 4 bangers. Don't get me wrong though because I love power and torque and do realize that there is no replacement for displacement. However, I read something a while back that said something to the effect that a car will never use the amount of energy in gasoline to power it than the energy that was used for its manufacture. If people really want to help out with CO2 emmisions and energy conservation, they should drive smaller. Not only are they easier on fuel but they are also easier on mother earth as a whole. (No, I'm not a hippy. I just find elegance in efficient solutions.) Re: the amount of energy used to build a car: I think this is a slightly specious argument based on the assumption that a car is made from virgin materials (ore, oil, etc.) Most of the metals used today are at least partially from recycling sources because it's WAY less expensive to recycle metals than it is to produce them from ore. As far as 2.0 vs. 2.5, my partner's first WRX was an '02 with the 2.0, his '06 and my LGT are both 2.5s. Having driven both engines a lot of miles we both prefer the 2.5. The extra power available before the boost comes on makes a big difference in everyday drivability. The '02 was great from about 10mph up (if you were in the correct gear when you began accelerating) but both cars with 2.5s are great from 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 quoth jdm guys 'making about 300whp' 2.0 with better technology, forged and titanium twinscroll turbo. Makes torque lower, makes more power up top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDpower Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 I vote 2.5 mainly for one big reason... the 91 octane swill we get here in CA. I own three DSMs, which have excellent 2.0 liter engines. The limiting factor when tuning them is the crap gas. To make good power on 91, you need a bigger turbo. But for low end torque and throttle response, smaller turbos work better. Or you have to compromise somwhere in between. I got tired of my car behaving so differently due to the quality of a tank of gas, or the weather, or if the knock sensor is having a bad day. My EVO friends still have these problems, even though the cars are fast and make good power. They can rule the dyno one day, then be down on power the next. The 2.5 is much less finicky at the same power levels on pump gas. I don't want to have to drive around with a datalogger in my daily driver, I'd rather just drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Re: the amount of energy used to build a car: I think this is a slightly specious argument based on the assumption that a car is made from virgin materials (ore, oil, etc.) Most of the metals used today are at least partially from recycling sources because it's WAY less expensive to recycle metals than it is to produce them from ore. Let's say $27000 for an off the rack LGT / gas @ $3.20 per gallon = ~8440 gallons * 25 mpg = ~210000 miles. Most cars will never see that total mileage so one can conclude that the cost of the car is greater than the cost of energy it will use for motive power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKB_SATX Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Let's say $27000 for an off the rack LGT / gas @ $3.20 per gallon = ~8440 gallons * 25 mpg = ~210000 miles. Most cars will never see that total mileage so one can conclude that the cost of the car is greater than the cost of energy it will use for motive power. The original statement was that the total amount of energy that goes into making the car is greater than the amount of energy from all the gasoline the car will use in its lifetime. If it took $27000 worth of energy to build an LGT, Subaru couldn't be paying their employees very much now could they? Never mind a little markup for the dealer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 The original statement was that the total amount of energy that goes into making the car is greater than the amount of energy from all the gasoline the car will use in its lifetime. If it took $27000 worth of energy to build an LGT, Subaru couldn't be paying their employees very much now could they? Never mind a little markup for the dealer. Notice that I used cost not price. The arithmetic is straightforward. It appears that the cost of the car is greater in my example. As I wrote previously, I would like to have the original article in front of me again but the concept seems confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKB_SATX Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Notice that I used cost not price. The arithmetic is straightforward. It appears that the cost of the car is greater in my example. As I wrote previously, I would like to have the original article in front of me again but the concept seems confirmed. Actually, what you originally wrote was "However, I read something a while back that said something to the effect that a car will never use the amount of energy in gasoline to power it than the energy that was used for its manufacture." Amount of energy. Not cost of energy. Not price of energy. Not cost or price of car. And you've presented absolutely nothing to make me think that even the cost of the energy to make an LGT is anywhere near $27k, you just pulled that number from some orifice or other. Find the article and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 Orifice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.