asqy Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I wonder if Subaru are considering putting the 'new' (it's the same dimensions right?) 3.6 boxer into the legacy? I wouldn't mind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iyalla Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Well they just put the H6 into the Legacy sedan (and its not an Outback!). It wouldn't surprise me if they put the 3.6 eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Still wouldn't be as quick as a stock 2.5 turbo......... Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Considering the Specs of the 3.6L H6 its pretty lame. 256HP/245Lb-FT if memory serves me and will burn more gas then the 2.5T. I'd say stick with the turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meltdown07 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Considering the Specs of the 3.6L H6 its pretty lame. 256HP/245Lb-FT if memory serves me and will burn more gas then the 2.5T. I'd say stick with the turbo. Maybe.. However, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that it takes regular gas. NOT premium. That would be a nice feature. Go Cardinals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Pimp Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'd hit it if it came with a six speed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asqy Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 In my market the 3.0R is the top model along with the GT. Some magazines have crticised the peaky nature of the 3.0 H6 and the lack of torque. A 3.6 H6 with a few more KW's would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impulse Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 i think i'd have to see the torque curve in the dyno chart to say horrible or anything. the power increase is minimal, but i'm pretty sure the torque curve has been greatly changed. from what ive read, 180ftlb of torque is available as low down as 1200rpm with the new 3.6, so i'm gonna wait till someone dynos that thing before going to any conclusions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Considering the Specs of the 3.6L H6 its pretty lame. 256HP/245Lb-FT if memory serves me and will burn more gas then the 2.5T. I'd say stick with the turbo. It may not go from 0-60 as a fast as a turbo, but its got more power and probably alot better fuel economy. But, if they dont make it available in a MT then its worthless to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 It may not go from 0-60 as a fast as a turbo, but its got more power and probably alot better fuel economy. But, if they dont make it available in a MT then its worthless to me. I was basing my fuel economy estimates on the current 3.0H6 vs 2.5GT turbo in the model that has both engines currently the outback. The current Outback 3.0R is 19/26 and the Outback XT is 20/26 both with auto. I was guessing that the 3.6H6 would be similarly fuel efficient to the 3.0H6 which is slightly less then the current 2.5XT. Figures pulled from subaru's web site. Hopefully the 3.6L makes the tribecca feel a little less doggy. An improved bottom end would be helpful. I'd like to see direct injection/variable van turbos on the GT for better low end performance and fuel economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I was basing my fuel economy estimates on the current 3.0H6 vs 2.5GT turbo in the model that has both engines currently the outback. The current Outback 3.0R is 19/26 and the Outback XT is 20/26 both with auto. I was guessing that the 3.6H6 would be similarly fuel efficient to the 3.0H6 which is slightly less then the current 2.5XT. Figures pulled from subaru's web site. Hopefully the 3.6L makes the tribecca feel a little less doggy. An improved bottom end would be helpful. I'd like to see direct injection/variable van turbos on the GT for better low end performance and fuel economy. Well the 3.6L is 10% more efficient in the Tribeca than the 3.0L. Im sure it would be the same for any Subaru it was put in to. Seems to me like it would get 21 mpg city, 28-29 hwy if I had to to guess. But yes, Subaru should utilize direct injection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_knoxville Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I was guessing that the 3.6H6 would be similarly fuel efficient to the 3.0H6 subaru claims slight improvement, with lower octane req'mts wonder if it could be tuned for increased performance using premium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzyss Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I bet it could, you just need new cams, maybe pistons and connecting rods. Then you need software that will take all of it into account. It does not sound cheap. Krzys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rottenspam Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I bet it could, you just need new cams, maybe pistons and connecting rods. Then you need software that will take all of it into account. It does not sound cheap. Krzys Yeah typically moding a n/a engine is more expensive for smaller gains. Forced induction is the car overclockers dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubieDriver Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I wonder if Subaru are considering putting the 'new' (it's the same dimensions right?) 3.6 boxer into the legacy? I wouldn't mind that. I'm hoping for this also. My bet is that it'll find its way into the 2010 model refresh, since the next Legacy is rumored to be on the Tribeca platform (= bigger, heavier), so it will need the extra torque. I'm also hoping they'll see fit to boost the output of the 2.5 turbo to match. I'm really hoping we'll see the lambchop connecting rods come to the 2.5 H4, which should push it up to about 3.0 liters. The H6 saw a 20% increase: 3.0 + lambchops = 3.6 liters So, we should see 20% in the H4: 2.5 + lambchops = 3.0 liters I'd love to see the 3.6 turbocharged, but, if that doesn't happen, I'd be almost as happy with a lambchopped H4 making approximately 300 hp & 300 lb/ft of torque. Slap that in a Legacy STI... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Thats a good point about the Tribeca platform. I wonder if we will still see the N/A 2.5L. Perhaps it will be replaced with a detuned, more fuel efficient 3.0L? But then I suppose cars like the Camry and Fusion are larger than the Legacy and still utilize 4 cylinder engines...but not AWD. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubieDriver Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Thats a good point about the Tribeca platform. I wonder if we will still see the N/A 2.5L. Perhaps it will be replaced with a detuned, more fuel efficient 3.0L? But then I suppose cars like the Camry and Fusion are larger than the Legacy and still utilize 4 cylinder engines...but not AWD. Discuss. I could see Subaru putting the lambchops in the NA 2.5. I would say that's probably more likely than the 2.5 turbo, as there would be additional stress on the turbocharged, lambchopped motor. I would think it would have adverse affects on the assymetrical lambchop rods. Assymetrical construction means assymetrical loads and wear. With the additional stresses of turbocharging, the reliability might suffer. So, reliability-wise, putting the lambchops in the 2.5 turbo seems less likely (unless proven to be just as reliable), but, if they don't, then they'll have two engines with almost identical output: the 2.5 H4 turbo and the 3.6 H6. That just won't do, especially since the 2.5 turbo takes premium fuel and the 3.6 doesn't. There would be little advantage to the turbo model (aside from modding potential). I'm hoping that bringing the 3.6 to the Legacy doesn't mean the loss of the 2.5 turbo,... unless it turns into a 3.0 turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 What I would like to see... 2.5i ~ 170 hp (and no more 4EAT, 5EAT please) GT ~ 2.5T 243 hp (no more 5 speeds here either, 6's please) Spec B. ~ 3.6L 270 hp (even if it has to run on 89, 91+ whatever) STi ~ 3.0L turbo 315+ hp MT only 2.5h ~ 215 hp hybrid ...choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.