2008 US Legacy and Outback Model Lineup

[BigT]

whats the redjar thing about?

[PGT]

bad pic link? rehosted

[FaLeX]

I didnt say that it was. But, Americans look at horsepower. Although a Camry may be slower from 0 - 60, people can still look at it go "hmmm more horsepower and better fuel economy than the competition."

 

What is the 0 - 60 of an H6 Outback anyway? Anyone?

The 0 - 60 of a Camry V6?

 

Im not sure that the Outback/3.0R would beat a Camry V6.

 

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2007-toyota-camry-6.htm

 

XLE V6 did 6.2 sec 0-60

 

vs

 

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2007-subaru-outback-1.htm

 

Test 3.0 R L.L. Bean did 7.9 sec 0-60 mph

[BigT]

7.9

 

That is terrible

[SLegacy99]

7.9

 

That is terrible

 

Thats slower than my N/A.

[SubieDriver]

Which means that the 2008 Legacy 3.0r might be around the 7.5 mark being a bit lighter than the wagon.

 

Oh SOA, why not put the 3.6 in the Legacy? Friggen morons... We wonder why they need Toyota's deep pockets to survive...

 

 

From what I understand, the 3.6 is 30 pounds lighter than the 3.0, and, due to the lambchop connecting rods, has the same dimensions as the 3.0, so I can see the 3.6 in the Legacy happening soon. If not for 2008 or 9, then definitely for the redesign in 2010.

 

But, if they do that, they better bump the performance of the 2.5 turbo, or they'll be too similar in performance.

 

Hmm, they could put the lambchops in the 2.5 and make it a 3.0 H4. I could really go for that!

 

Okay, everybody write to SOA and ask for lambchops in the H4 turbo!!!

 

Let's see, working with round numbers: 2.5 liters = 250 hp & 250 tq. Bump that to 3.0 = 300hp & 300 tq! I know, actual numbers are slightly under 250, so the new numbers would be under 300, but I'd be very happy with that!

 

Then Cobb can produce an AccessPort that can push those numbers to over 350!

 

Yeah, I'm really liking this idea...

[SLegacy99]

 

Hmm, they could put the lambchops in the 2.5 and make it a 3.0 H4. I could really go for that!

 

What would be the point of a 3.0L H4 when they already have a 3.0L H6?

[SubieDriver]

What would be the point of a 3.0L H4 when they already have a 3.0L H6?

 

Well, we haven't seen a 3.0L H6 TURBO yet (since Subaru refuses to put it in production), so, since they refuse to give us that, I'm pushing for a 3.0L H4 TURBO, giving us around 300hp/300tq instead of the current 250/250 (or the 245/215 for the 3.0 H6).

 

Okay, I'd be happier with an H6 3.6L turbo, or even an H6 3.0L turbo, but I figured an H4 3.0 turbo was more likely than the other two.

 

Do you have any better ideas?

[SLegacy99]

Well, we haven't seen a 3.0L H6 TURBO yet (since Subaru refuses to put it in production), so, since they refuse to give us that, I'm pushing for a 3.0L H4 TURBO, giving us around 300hp/300tq instead of the current 250/250 (or the 245/215 for the 3.0 H6).

 

Okay, I'd be happier with an H6 3.6L turbo, or even an H6 3.0L turbo, but I figured an H4 3.0 turbo was more likely than the other two.

 

Do you have any better ideas?

 

Im still not seeing the point of a 4 cylinder being that big?

1. I dont know if it would produce that much power.

2. Just get an STi with a 2.5L if you want that much.

[krzyss]

I have never seen 4 cylinder that has 3 liter capacity. As far as I can tell even 2.5 is pushing the limits.

Optimal volume is 0.5 liter per cylinder.

 

Krzys

[Guest]

I have never seen 4 cylinder that has 3 liter capacity. As far as I can tell even 2.5 is pushing the limits.

Optimal volume is 0.5 liter per cylinder.

 

Krzys

 

I did, but that was a diesel. EDM Nissan Patrol used to have 3L 4 banger diesel.

[Tommyh]

I did, but that was a diesel. EDM Nissan Patrol used to have 3L 4 banger diesel.

 

Nice, but we all know diesel and gas engines don't play by the same rules.

[Guest]

Nice, but we all know diesel and gas engines don't play by the same rules.

 

I know. But I remember that engine, because it seemed big even for a diesel 4 banger.

[SLegacy99]

I have never seen 4 cylinder that has 3 liter capacity. As far as I can tell even 2.5 is pushing the limits.

Optimal volume is 0.5 liter per cylinder.

 

Krzys

 

The GMW Canyon is the biggest 4 cylinder Ive ever seen. 2.9L 185hp, 190 trq.

And it gets 26 mpg on the highway. Very nice for GM. And its not a diesel.

[Tommyh]

True, and that 26mpg is from a pick-em-up truck. GM is doing some good things.

[krzyss]

Tell me what rpms this engine is turning when delivering its 185HP.

 

Krzys

[SLegacy99]

Tell me what rpms this engine is turning when delivering its 185HP.

 

Krzys

 

The dont tell you that, but the compression ratio is 10.0:1.

[GeorgeB]

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/Ob08keys1.JPG

 

Ok.. who are all the idiots who complained about having a seperate remote from the key? This is what we get thanks to you and I wouldn't want to have to carry that big ugly thing on my key ring.

 

ok ... that is the stupidest and most ugly key EVER !!! like EVER !!!

 

this is what we get as euro specs ... but no turbo though .. so , you win X(

[axis008]

George do you know if your keys have an immobilizer chip in it?

 

Does anyone know if that key be retrofitted to work with our Subarus?

[GeorgeB]

yes it has .

the only thing it doens't have is that panic button , and the car finder function .

 

but it looks greeeeeeeeeeeeeat

 

LE: you know that the other remote control attached is from the viper alarm and not from the subaru ... just checking

[AKSubie]

so with the immobilizer it potentially CAN be ported to USDM cars?

No biggie to me, since I keep my car keys seperated, and then a ring for work/house/shed/bikerack, but woudl be nice to know and not HAVE the fob

[jland67]

Porsche 944's had 3.0 liter inline 4's.

 

 

 

Jeremy

[paycer]

Speaking of Porsche, the 968 also had the 3 liter. The Turbo S model was...you guessed it, turbocharged. In fact, in a race it could beat a stock STi WRX through 1/4 mile dash, but not by much. That car came out in 1994 and only 15 were made. 10 years later Subie gives basically the same power to the masses along with AWD and out of only 2.5 liters. Imagine what Subaru could do with 3.0 liters...

 

http://vista.pca.org/stl/968t.htm

[IwannaSportSedan]

That is just the beginning. the 968 Turbo S and Turbo RS race cars had the 3.0 short block, with the 944 Turbo S's 8-valve SOHC head from the 2.5 liter.

 

The 944 S2 had the 3.0 DOHC non-turbo, IIRC, some 944s had a 2.8 hybrid of the wider bores, but the shorter stroke 2.5 liter crank shaft and rotating assembly. The 968 added Variocam to the 3.0 for the first time. Those engines had prodigious torque for their engine size and weight. When turbo'd that produces more power while not spooled up, and makes the car less sensitive to lag. More engine volume also helps spool larger turbos faster, where a small volume engine would have a harder time spooling a big impeller.

 

Plus the 944/968 car was less front heavy, and lighter overall than the 928 with the V8 motor, which was essentially that 2.5-3.0 "slant 4" mirror-duplicated, with displacements from just under 5 liters, to about 6 liters fully bored and stroked, similar changeover from SOHC to DOHC.

 

Powerhaus in Arizona link is tuning 944s and 968s with 2.8 and 3.0 inline 4s, with the 16-valve DOHC variocam head to the mid 400hp or higher, with turbo parts from the 951 (944 Turbo) and aftermarket. THOSE are crazy machines. Ten to fifteen year old front-engined, water-cooled porsches with 996 or 997 Turbo -like power levels, and nearly perfect weight distribution. A lot of people would be VERY suprised to find that kind of power and handling in a car from the 80s or early 90s. Personally, I have wanted one for a long time, but that isn't exactly a cheap project, even if the base car is becoming more and more affordable.

 

http://www.powerhaus.com/images/968%20turbo%20S%20conversion/Layout.jpg

http://www.powerhaus.com/images/968%20turbo%20S%20conversion/finished_car.jpg

 

The thing is, on the Subaru side of things... with the new 3.6 H6, and it's assymetrical connecting rods... those rods may not be up to the stresses of high dynamic compression under turbocharging or supercharging. Most of the weight loss is material being taken out of the block, and a few lighter components.

 

I would be hesitant to trust assymetrical connecting rods to those kind of stresses. I would probably go with the wider bores of the 3.6, with straight and strong connecting rods, and forged low-comp pistons, and then turbocharge it, even if it is only 3.2 liters or so. Hopefully with a semi-closed or fully closed deck, and oil jets behind the pistons. With twin turbochargers, or even a rotrex supercharger, or something... it could be a fantastic and powerful motor.

 

I have also previously wondered about the 3.3 H6 motor from the SVX, and what it might have in common with the robust 2.2 H4 that is highly regarded as one of Subaru's strongest blocks. If the 3.3 shares some of that design, it could be a good candidate for internal upgrades and forced induction...

 

but I doubt Subaru is looking to an older engine for future products... so on that front it is eyes forward to the current and new engines.

[Mid-life crazy]

Not so, I put in an order for an 08 GT Automatic Transmission with the color and options that I want. I gave them $500 to do so. The car is already being built and should be here in 4 weeks or so.