3.0R Spec-B announced

[Dr. Zevil]

This must just be in Europe. The Subaru Global site has been updated as well to include some Geneva Auto Show stuff. Check it out for yourself! Oh, and there is a wagon too! YAY! [url]http://www.subaru-global.com/topics/ms/2004gen/index.html[/url]

[Dr. Zevil]

The more I think about it the more confused I get. They offer the 6MT in the EDM market but they aren't (as far as we know) going to offer it at all here. They are using the H6 which just seems silly to me. They are offering the NAV package, why wouldn't they bring it over to the USDM version? Something just seems wrong with Subaru marketing department. They don't seem to understand that in order for them to break open a new era for Subaru that they need to offer things to the US market that they offer elsewhere, perhaps even more. If someone has some more insight, please enlighten me. I can aslo say that if they offered a USDM Spec-B with the 2.5T and all those goodies from the Geneva auto show, I would have a deposit on one right now!

[gtguy]

The EDM doesn't get the 2.5T, either. For whatever reason, Subaru Corporate does different things in different markets. They don't get the 2.5-liter STi, either, so who knows? For every thing that we think we aren't getting, we're getting something as good or better. If you were to ask the Euros, for example, if they would trade their shorter bumpers for the bullet-proof 2.5-liter block, any one of 'em with half a brain would say "Heck, yeah!" I still don't think we've seen the last of the Legacy offerings, and we still don't know the options package. There is still that persistent rumor of the "performance" Legacy. Perhaps that will be the 3.0R. Personally, I'd take a GT any day of the week, particularly if the Spec B comes with those hard Bilsteins and 18" wheels. Not the thing for Midwestern potholes and frost heaves. Kevin

[Dr. Zevil]

I am sorry to say that I would like to have a 6mt. It's definitely not a deal breaker and I don't even have a rational reason for wanting it. I just have never had a 6mt before. Then again I could get even more annoyed with that manual than my current 5speed. I wonder how much more the spec-b would cost in the USDM market. I am so antsy to hear some more about the usdm model. i think i might be getting a little OCD with the surfing for legacy details :lol: :o

[PPower]

[quote name='Dr. Zevil']I am sorry to say that I would like to have a 6mt. It's definitely not a deal breaker and I don't even have a rational reason for wanting it. I just have never had a 6mt before. Then again I could get even more annoyed with that manual than my current 5speed. I wonder how much more the spec-b would cost in the USDM market. I am so antsy to hear some more about the usdm model. i think i might be getting a little OCD with the surfing for legacy details :lol: :o[/quote] I would NOT want the 6MT if it came with the STi gear ratios. Poor choices IMO, but maybe it can help the H6 be a bit quicker compared to the 5MT. I would sure hope that a Spec B type model in the US would still have the 2.5T. As I've said before, the only reason I could see to have a 3.0R Spec B in the US would be to pave the way for a 3.0T or TT STi Legacy.

[gtguy]

[quote name='Dr. Zevil']I am sorry to say that I would like to have a 6mt. It's definitely not a deal breaker and I don't even have a rational reason for wanting it. I just have never had a 6mt before. Then again I could get even more annoyed with that manual than my current 5speed. I wonder how much more the spec-b would cost in the USDM market. I am so antsy to hear some more about the usdm model. i think i might be getting a little OCD with the surfing for legacy details :lol: :o[/quote] You've been letting the kids get to you too much. We've already been over the more shifting does not=more better debate with the turbo motors, because you aren't going to get the big, overdrive 6th cog because in top gear a turbo car still has to be near boost. There IS no rational reason for wanting a 6 speed in the GT. With no boost, a la the H6, why not put a 6-speed in there? All the other kids have them so what the heck, which is almost certainly what Subaru was thinking. That the whining precludes their waiting until the 6-speed specific to the Legacy was ready, a lighter gearbox that is said to be in development. Then, when that lighter 6-speed comes out, people who bought the Spec B with the flat six and STi six speed box can bitch about not having gotten the lighter box from the outset. Makes us wonder why car companies bother, sometimes! :lol: Kevin

[Dr. Zevil]

I know I know.. i really don't care that much about the 6mt but I would probably opt for it if I could get it. You are right, and like I said in my earlier post that it might just be too much shifting for me altogether. This is coming from a guy who is considering the 5AT. This is how much I am sick of rowing gears. It's a lot of fun sometimes but othertimes it's just annoying.

[PPower]

So should we still be using 3 speeds? Why did we need to go up to 4, and then the 5MT that we are most familiar with now? Why is there a need for a 5AT when a 4AT should work better according to your comments. Right? Sure, you can bring up the fact that Peugeot is using a 4 speed this year, but that hides the fact that those cars run a HUGE mountain of torque. More shifting doesn't = better, but it also doesn't = worse either. I would rather have a taller top gear for better mpg. It's very rare that going down that highway at speed limit +4mph do I need to speed up any more unless I would be downshifting anyway. A slightly shorter 4th and 5th gear would be appreciated for being more in boost range at the common 40mph speed limit. I do agree that extra power would make a taller top gear even more liveable, but I would still prefer it anyway (stock power or aftermarket increase). I completely agree that the STi 6MT w/ the same ratios is overkill for the 3.0 given lower torque compared to 2.0T or 2.5T, heavier weight than 5MT, and higher cost. Aside from the 2-shift 0-60 run, I doubt that the shorter gearing compensates for the extra shift and extra weight in even a 1/4 mile run. So Kevin, I agree with you in the specific case, but a 6MT is still not in itself a bad thing. Whether it is intended or not, the attitude portrayed is "6MT's always suck and so does anybody else that thinks there are benefits". I know that we all believe our own opinion is right, otherwise we wouldn't have an opinion. In this, I just think that it is more complex than a simple number of gears.

[gtguy]

First off, my 6-speed discussions have never, and could never be intended as "6MTs always suck and so does anybody else that thinks there are benefits." I came here to get away from that sort of stuff, not to propagate it. People should know by now that's just not my style. Further, my posts arguing against the logic of the 6-speed have always taken pains to explain why I don't think it makes sense with the Legacy GT in turbo iteration, rather than simply saying something as dogmatic as more shifting sucks...then end. It isn't that simple. I even say, in my post above, that a 6-speed would work with the H6. No, I'm not saying that 6-speeds suck. I'm saying that proponents of them don't understand that with the Legacy GT, a turbo motor, a 6-speed with an overdrive just isn't going to happen, because in top gear, boost will never be allowed to be that far off. There are valid performance and safety reasons for that, not to mention the more ephemeral reason that for many automotive die-hards, the true definition of a GT is a car that requires only one shift to 60 mph. Sometimes you have to scoot, but don't always have time to downshift. Some people don't like/want to downshift. My WRX, for example, has the 3.9 final drive. In 5th, I can mash the throttle and in a second or two, boost is right there, vs clutching, blipping the throttle and downshifting. I actually think that the 6MT makes MORE sense with the H6, because you don't have the boost issue, so you can have an overdrive top gear. I'm guessing, however, that the final drive won't be that far off the 5MT. We'll have to wait for the Euro gear charts for that one. You can see the gearing logic for a 5MT over a 3 or 4-speed MT. That's a no-brainer. More cogs, to a certain extent, give you more flexibility. But just as with bicycles, where Shimano has supplanted their 9-speed cogsets with 10-speed cogsets, now it's just excess. But because Campagnolo has a 10-speed cogset, Shimano can't be perceived as being lower tech than a competitor, albeit a distant one. You can see the logic of a 6MT with a normally aspirated engine, or for pure performance, such as that of the STi which, don't forget, also has 50 lb-ft and hp more than the Legacy GT. But even that car doesn't have the overdrive 6th that people suggest would be a value of the 6-speed, because of that whole boost thing. So in the case of the STi, you get more shifting for tighter gearing and better performance, but I'm betting the STi wouldn't be much slower with the WRX's gear ratios and a 5MT. 300hp/tq is 300 hp/tq, after all. If people want to suggest that a 6MT would keep Subaru up with the Hondas and Acuras, that's fine. I can understand that, from a marketing viewpoint. But more isn't always better, is my main point, though it sometimes can be. I am not a flamer or an antagonistic poster. I have withdrawn from discussions because of flaming and antagonism. Even in the difficulty of interpretation of text messages, knowledge of that should preclude any further misinterpretation of my statements in the future, I trust. Kevin

[PPower]

Points all well taken. First, notice that I was merely pointing out that really [i]I[/i] perceived the tone or "attitude" as being that "6MT's suck, etc." I do not for a second think that is what you meant, but only how it is coming across from reading. But I'll make a couple of points/thoughts anyway spurred from what you just wrote. -If you really need to scoot, do you really have time to wait a couple of seconds for the WRX to get into boost in top gear? Isn't it quicker to blip/downshift? -As for the logic in the flexibility of a 5speed over a 3 or 4, will the same be said some day of BMW & Mercedes' 7 speeds over the most common 5 speed? That is overkill to me as well, but is it just is or partly because it is so new? Was the same thing said when the first 5 speeds came out? I have no answers to this, just wondering. I definitely understand your point about the bike gears without even being a rider, but in a race setting, it seems like having a wider range of gears to choose from could be good. It would be like a 10 speed being like a 5 speed tranny with a selectable 4.111 or 4.444 final on the fly. There is also a similarity that one can wonder if there is really any value in having 9 speeds. Why don't racers just use 5? How many do they use, btw? Indy cars have a 5th gear that is just a tad lower than 6th for that boost to pass while at top speeds, but race situations normally have no place in street cars. I fully understand marketing pressures, but that isn't always the driver. Honda hasn't given in to pressure about FWD or V8 engines, so I have a hard time believing that their inclusion of 6MT's is also of marketing. If it is an improvement, than it's worth looking at. -I know the cost problems of a twinscroll, but the JDM engine's peak tq coming at 2400rpm would really assist in lowering cruising rpm. In order to solve that cost problem, what about changing from turbo to supercharger (Lyshom 8) )? That would certainly take care of the boost issue and could make the boxer 4's really feel like a 6 or 8 cylinder. Doesn't the R2 S have a supercharger instead of a turbo? I would definitely take that 3.0R Spec B with a supercharger (but I'd still want wider gears).

[AMT4SWA]

Darn those 18" wheels are HOT! They look like wheels you would find on a new XJR...great job Subaru!!!

[gtguy]

Well, in my WRX, it takes about the same amount of time to clutch, blip, shift and re-apply the throttle, or just floor the gas pedal, and wait for boost. But I don't think that we're indicative of most drivers, who in a tense situation, would never think of downshifting. They'd just mash the throttle. The bicycle racing question is an interesting one. In the Tour de France, the guys like the 10-speeds, because they claim more gearing flexibility for mountain stages. They can have climbing gears, and another set for descending/flat stuff. In fact, it was discovered that 99% of the peloton (group) use about six cogs. Generally, the more you're struggling, the more cogs you use, trying to find the right one. Racing in the mostly flat Midwest, you find that for most guys, their clusters are pristine at the bottom and the top, so the (assuming 9-speed) 19 and 21 are clean, as are the 11 and 12. It's pretty funny, actually. But guys are buying 10-speed kits. Then again, I'm a Luddite, as my favorite bike is my one-speed fixed gear commuter. For racing, five speeds didn't allow sufficient flexibility, but legs are a lot more picky than a motor about what they'd like. There are times when a 15-tooth cog is too big, but a 17-tooth cog is too small (referring to pedalling effort, rather than cog size). Six speeds were still too few, because of climbing races, mostly. You had to choose a ratio for climbing flexibility or all-around performance. For fast, flat stuff, criteriums and circuit races, five speeds were plenty. I went right from six to eight, then from eight to nine. Both eight and nine are some pretty major overkill for everything except hilly road races. After 9-speed, the wheel dish gets pretty hinky. With 10-speed wheels, one side is basically flat, rather than both sides being pretty much convex, as they were with 5 and 6-speed cogs. I just can't see a reason for a car to have seven forward speeds. What does Mercedes say about that setup, except "Seven...it's one more." Perhaps in an autobox, you can see extremely precise ratio setups with a 7-speed, but man, I'd be ready to slit my own wrists rowing a 7-speed manual box. :lol: But as I said, for normally aspirated cars, I can see the value of the sixth, tall overdrive gear. Note that with the long-term Outback test, AutoExpress said they'd love to see a sixth gear for fuel economy purposes. I just can't see the turbo GT getting one and if it does, it being all that tall. The super vs turbocharger question is an interesting one. I, in my limited mechanical knowledge, think that turbos give more power and efficiency, which is why they get the nod over superchagers. You can tune a turbo so that boost is seamless. Witness the Forester XT, which feels like a punchy six-cylinder motor. As a matter of fact, my hope is that Subaru tunes the GT so that rather than the "hang on now" feeling when the WRX comes on boost, there is more of a linear feel to the torque curve. I'm also betting that the twin-scroll vs the 2.5-liter block will be a wash as far as driveability. We won't have much longer to wait. Someone posted that the magazines already have their test rides. Kevin

[PPower]

Thanks for the cycling "perspective". With Mercedes, it will undoubtedly be an automatic like everything else they make for the US. sigh. For BMW, I believe it has been talked about for the M6 as SMG sequential shifter. I believe that the real push for these 7speeds is for fuel economy. The huge power and torque that these are making means they are gulping the gas, so they probably want the cruising rpms as low as possible, and 2000rpm with all that torque is still going to be fine. It's unfortunate that wanting a taller gear for better fuel economy has to be an issue, but it is these days. As for the wheels, I actually like them the least of the GT, JDM Spec B, and EDM Spec B. I like the spoke of the GT the best, but the JDM Spec B wheels are finally growing on me.

[SUBE555]

Dangit, I get late to the party. :( I would have to say the new 3.0R Spec B w/ 6MT is actually a pretty well developed idea in my book. I like Kevin (and Paul, actually-talked about this tuesday IIRC) think the 6MT is better suited for the NA engine and the 5MT for the turbo. With 2.5L boost is never far away, and it's smooth. With as fast as you can build boost and as much of a power curve it provides, 5 decently spaced gears like the new GT will have should do well! With turbo power you'd be shifting so fast, I know I wouldn't want a 6MT, especially with a 6500rpm redline. Think of the H6 a little more like an RSX/TSX engine with a bit less torque, still sporty and plenty of fun, but the power is made higher in the range so keeping it in the sweet spot while having a fun drive is key. I'm sure the gears are definitely closer and if the ratios picked are as well picked as the GT's are on paper, we'll be well off. One of my favorite things to note is the 'Prototype' mention about the car. I think the supposed lighter 6MT box may be on the way but as things aren't final in a prototype model, they could have just thrown the STi 6MT in there for the show. All indications on the global site make it look a go. As per supercharging the H6, I think it would really make a mean sleeper, think 280/280 or better perhaps. I like it because you can use a good tuned header system (and yes, the new H6 uses headers actually this time) and exhaust that doesn't need to be as massive as a turbo motor. I can't imagine more than 5-7lbs of boost would make that engine just full of fury. I like turbos a bit more for many applications, but 6-cylinders and a required turbo manifold of inherent complexity, or twin-turbos, or an SC, an SC w/ air-water intercooler would make the most unsuspecting setup and probably most cost effective if done right. The other setups just have increasingly more complicated setups as I see it at this point. Hey, we'll just be lucky to get a car like this to match up with the GT (even though the GT would be faster overall, this car would still be really nice!) Like Kevin said, we may still have something in the pipe for MY05 Legacy line. :)

[Dr. Zevil]

[quote name='gtguy'] As a matter of fact, my hope is that Subaru tunes the GT so that rather than the "hang on now" feeling when the WRX comes on boost, there is more of a linear feel to the torque curve. I'm also betting that the twin-scroll vs the 2.5-liter block will be a wash as far as driveability. Kevin[/quote] Amen brother!

[Ridgeracer]

[quote name='PPower']Thanks for the cycling "perspective". With Mercedes, it will undoubtedly be an automatic like everything else they make for the US. sigh. For BMW, I believe it has been talked about for the M6 as SMG sequential shifter. I believe that the real push for these 7speeds is for fuel economy. The huge power and torque that these are making means they are gulping the gas, so they probably want the cruising rpms as low as possible, and 2000rpm with all that torque is still going to be fine. It's unfortunate that wanting a taller gear for better fuel economy has to be an issue, but it is these days. As for the wheels, I actually like them the least of the GT, JDM Spec B, and EDM Spec B. I like the spoke of the GT the best, but the JDM Spec B wheels are finally growing on me.[/quote] Wouldn't a well developed CVT autobox make better sense with these new cars from BMW and Mercedes vs. a 7 spd...?

[PPower]

A CVT could work well, but so far they can't handle high torque. Otherwise, wouldn't a CVT work best on all cars?

[SUBE555]

It would! But where's the fun in that? :D

[Ridgeracer]

Well it would be good for all the yuppies who want that linear feel in acceleration. I tell you guys.....Nobody appreciates driving a good 5 or for that matter 6 spd nowadays....

[PPower]

[quote name='Ridgeracer']Well it would be good for all the yuppies who want that linear feel in acceleration. I tell you guys.....Nobody appreciates driving a good 5 or for that matter 6 spd nowadays....[/quote] So you're are suggesting that either 1) only yuppies want linear acceleration or 2) it is a fallacy that linear acceleration is good. In straight line, it doesn't really matter. Once you start mixing acceleration with curves, linear acceleration/power can really help with maintaining adhesion at the limits of the tire just like why rev-matching is good. For non-linear, look at reviews of old 911 turbos. They were a lot of fun if driven right, but dangerous because when the boost came on while exiting a turn.

[SUBE555]

That's why the H6 with a low-boost supercharger could be very exciting and linnear all at the same time. :)

[PPower]

[quote name='SUBE555']That's why the H6 with a low-boost supercharger could be very exciting and linnear all at the same time. :)[/quote] Exactly. I would take a 3.0R if it could be assured that a supercharger could be made for it. That's something where a G35 6MT with a supercharger is enticing.

[SUBE555]

You and your friggin 6MT. :roll:

[PPower]

[quote name='SUBE555']You and your friggin 6MT. :roll:[/quote] If it makes you feel better, G35 MT. There is no 5MT offered. It just happens to be a 6 which works very well, btw. The auto version I drove is thoroughly unimpressive to me, and the manual is a huge leap of an improvement for driving.

[SUBE555]

It's just fun with that 5 vs 6 debate. :D If that's all they offer and their ratios work well, then it's probably a good thing to have a 6MT. :) Will be interesting to see how a new Legacy 3.0R/6MT would handle/work in comparison to the G35, 330ix, 330i Sport Pack. :)