krzyss Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Just had the director of my dpt in my car the other day. I went to pass someone in 2nd gear and he jokingly said "wow, a lot of power for a 4 banger." I said, "It is a 4 banger." His jaw dropped to the floor. They don't see too many Subarus in south Florida... ? Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peniXmalone Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 how do the interiors compare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 And people don't realize that 2.5L is a big 4 cylinder. The 2.5L 6 cylinder Ford engine only makes 164 hp. But then its a Ford. The final variant of that 2.5l V6 produced ~200hp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The final variant of that 2.5l V6 produced ~200hp. What car was that in?????????????????????????????? The best I found was the Cougar, which they have stopped making. 170 hp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ SVT 2.5 liter Duratech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ SVT 2.5 liter Duratech. You are correct. http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/modelinfo_techspec.jsp?&default_sort=priceDESC&dealer_id=625936&end_year=2007&make2=&address=19380&start_year=1981&fuel=&keywordsrep=&certified=&car_id=214556277&search_type=both&max_mileage=&body_code=0&drive=&min_price=&distance=25&engine=&transmission=&make=FORD&keywordsfyc=&sort_type=priceDESC&num_records=25&ref=srl&ref=srl&car_year=2000&cardist=25&style_flag=1&doors=&advanced=y&max_price=&vehicle_number=892&model=CONTOUR&color= Who knew that Ford could do it? And why wasnt in the Cougar then? Im guessing Duratech is like Vtech. Increase the hp, but not so much on the torque. 170 ft lbs in this case. For arguments sake. The 1997 EJ25 = 165 hp. The 1997 Probe 2.5L = 164 hp. My friend has one and it pisses her off when I bring it up. Hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ The SVT was in the Contour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ The SVT was in the Contour. I know...hence the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ Didn't read the URL. The SVT Contour has a fairly large fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ^ Didn't read the URL. The SVT Contour has a fairly large fan base. So I have heard. Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I did but I was not in the market. I had Contour LX with I4. Decent car. Ford then killed it. In Europe Contour was available as sedan, hatchback and wagon, US of course got sedan only. Now new CEO asks why they do not sell euro Mondeo in US. Find the suckers who killed Countour then he will know. Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargeant_002 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 How did this get hijacked to a Ford 2.5 V6 discussion, haha!!?? I would say the turbo, I just love the feeling when boost kicks in...then again a nice running V6 is crazy fun to...drive both, decide from there...and yes, I agree with the cheaper gas idea...I'm loving boost, but premium hurts to fill up...haha... Brian- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Apples and oranges:lol: "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 HP-per-liter is a lame way to compare engines. I prefer domestic V8s over 4-cylinder turbocharged engines, wish I could pick-and-choose the best from across all auto companies, hehe. In any case, the 2.5GT will satisfy those who want performance #1 over other characteristics versus the 3.0R. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 The comparison arose over engine configuration efficiencies. Different set ups offer different pros and cons. I'm liking the turbo boxer 4 because it is compact and low which enables a smaller chasis which means less mass and therefore good power to weight ratio in a well set up (Spec.B) AWD sports sedan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Are there actual numbers out there showing center of gravity differences between vehicles? And how does the 2.5 turbo compare in terms of weight versus the V6 competition? -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IwannaSportSedan Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 3.0R probably weighs a tad more, but the distribution is further in front of the front axle. worse for understeer and being nose-heavy. The weight of additional exhaust and the turbo/intercooler themselves is not much, but at least it is over the front axle line, not added on to the front of the engine block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 3565 XT limited auto wagon versus 3600 for LLBean wagon. Fairly close, wonder how much can be attributed to equipment differences versus engine. 3.0L is an inch longer than the 2.5. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saki Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 More than anything, I want a fast Subaru. Maybe I would want to chip a Legacy and possibly put a bigger turbo on a GT. Do you think power gains would be similar between a chipped 3.0 and the 2.5T? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaWolverine Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 ^^+1. I think aside from the auto only being a deal breaker for me, if the 3.0R had lots of modding potential, I would consider it, but the GT has more mods and will be cheaper to mod also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzanetti Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Tubro kit for the H6 isn't too realistic as it's quite the investment. Stick with the 2.5GT turbo model and bump it up to stage 2 with Cobb programming and some exhaust swaps. Big power for a lot cheaper than a custom turbo H6. The 3.0 N/A motor is good for if you like linear, typical 6 cylinder power and more torque, earlier. My in-laws have a 3.0 Outback and it's a nice engine, very smooth and not peaky, but I am an driving enthusiast as well and wouldn't trade my current turbo 4 for the 3.0. I would buy a 3.0 for my wife in a second though... as I wouldn't need another turbo car. She's a V6 type-of-driver too. She just wants to step on the gas and get going. Very well said... +1 Flavio Zanetti Boston, MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 More than anything, I want a fast Subaru. Maybe I would want to chip a Legacy and possibly put a bigger turbo on a GT. Do you think power gains would be similar between a chipped 3.0 and the 2.5T? You never get similar gains chipping NA and FI engines. Turbos are much nicer to the wallet. You have all the hardware already in place. "Chip" just tweaks the controls. Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (Mods, I hope I posted this in the right place) So, theoretically speaking, if you had the choice between a 2008 2.5GT and the 3.0R and were more of a driving enthusiast, would it make more sense to get the far less expensive 2.5GT and add an aftermarket suspension and maybe a Cobb chip rather than spend almost 10k more on the 3.0R model? I don't follow Subaru too closely but I'm thinking of getting a Legacy soon, and would like some opinions on best buy options... Thanks, I recently purchased my Outback L.L Bean 3.0r I test drove both the turbo and the 3.0r in the automatics. I know the Legacy vs. Outback are of difference but in same categories the engine are exact platform. There are many reasons I needed the automatic, so the manual may completely change my mind if I were to do it again. This was my feelings: 2.5 turbo Pro Lighter/little faster Lighting fast when turbo is spooled Tons of mods Has SI Con TURBO lag! a big deal with the A/T Lower gas mileage NIOSE 91+ octane only 3.0R Pro More torque in the low rpm range No such thing as turbo lag Smooth comfortable power band Quieter Can run 87 octane Better gas mileage Con No SI Heavier/little slower in a long drag Little to no mods COST MORE $ Quick facts: 3.0r and 2.5 turbo have same HP in US models/ 3.0R looses performance with 87 octane/ I believe Cobb has a Rotex supercharger for the 3.0R for $4,500.00 I had the dealer and I do a little test. Beings he was a younger kid all about racing I asked if we could do some realistic test drives. The first test involved a short hill less then a 1/2 mile long, but very heavy grade. We rolled both the cars side by side and stopped mid-hill. Then raced the two cars, the winner was the 3.0r, most likely because of no turbo lag and faster torque at the initial start. The other test was to simulate passing at speed higher then 60mph. I drove the two cars as similar as I could do, and felt that the 2.5 turbo was a bit faster, (but hell no real way to really know that with just a test drive) In conclusion if you are looking for a comfortable very drivable quiet more luxurious car go with the 3.0R. If you want a racer, noise fast fun car with a little shift shock that reminds you that this car is quick, plus offers lots of mods for a future projects, then the turbo is the way to go. I’m not sure what 2008 will offer for power plants in the legacy models, but I think you will enjoy these cars regardless of choice in the upper end engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saki Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 You never get similar gains chipping NA and FI engines. Turbos are much nicer to the wallet. You have all the hardware already in place. "Chip" just tweaks the controls. Krzys That's what I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edkwon Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 The car will have to be an auto for the wife, but I have to drive it and I like fast cars. I know a 2.5 GT can easily be modded for great power, so I'm kind of shocked at the sticker for a 3.0R with no turbo plumbing to work with like the 2.5. It has me wondering why would anyone want a 3.0R over a 2.5GT... The type of ppl who would want a 3.0R are the type of ppl who are into modding or serious performance, they want a car that behaves like any 6 cylinder mid size japanese sedan (aka Accord or Camry). Obviously none of us are this type of person and those type of ppl do not come onto enthusiast boards like this. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.