ej25_TS Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 School me... Pros and cons for both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommypenguin Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Search...... If you are planning to mod your car, go with lgt, its so much easier to extract power out of with a forced induction vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazma Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 ^^^^^ What he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniqueTII Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture but I don't see any reason at all to get the 3.0. They both make peak power at 6000 (and only 2 hp more on the 3.0) and the GT makes more torque (241 vs. 215) at a lower RPM (3600 vs. 4200). So, what's the plus side for displacement? Oops, almost forgot, the R is heavier than the GT as well. Data is taken from http://autos.msn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edekba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 3.0R has the Blistien shocks that lgt lacks. Unless you get specB ... then its up to auto/6sp 18 vs 17 tires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniqueTII Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Yeah, I guess I knew about the 18s but not the Bilsteins. I wouldn't give up torque for shocks and rims though. The R does get the Nav as well so that's a plus. A GT with the Nav (and obviously the 5EAT) would run you $500 more than the R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture but I don't see any reason at all to get the 3.0. They both make peak power at 6000 (and only 2 hp more on the 3.0) and the GT makes more torque (241 vs. 215) at a lower RPM (3600 vs. 4200). So, what's the plus side for displacement? Oops, almost forgot, the R is heavier than the GT as well.//The 3.0 has better resale, generally uses less fuel, is very smooth and quiet on the highway, happily burns regular, has a nearly flat torque curve, and comes with 18" rims like the SpecB (but with A/S). Downside is essentially zero performance tuning options and no manual shift option in the US. A fellow at work has a 2005 LGT 5EAT. We've swapped cars and even had a chance to compare acceleration. They're as close as can be up until 75-80, when the LGT starts to pull away. The lower-geared manual 2.5T has faster 0-60 acceleration if that's important to you. As I drive 20-25,000 miles per year, overall over-the-road performance is more important to me. If 0-60 acceleration is important, presumably one of the Impreza turbos would be a top choice. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarumannen Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture but I don't see any reason at all to get the 3.0. They both make peak power at 6000 (and only 2 hp more on the 3.0) and the GT makes more torque (241 vs. 215) at a lower RPM (3600 vs. 4200). So, what's the plus side for displacement? Oops, almost forgot, the R is heavier than the GT as well. Data is taken from http://autos.msn.com Think the 3.0 is more direct when you press the pedal and it pulls good through the whole register. Another big plus with the 3.0 is the sound! The Boxer 6 never sounds strained and it's a bit like the sound of a Porsche. The Boxer 4 sounds more like a stressed WV Beetle But that’s just an opinion from my 3.0 point of view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impulse Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 i would guess feel more than anything, turbo lag vs. not, and a flatter power curve. i think the area under the curve should work out to be equal though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniqueTII Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I guess I need to drive a 3.0R so I can formulate my opinion wisely. I'm too much of a numbers person I guess. I should probably also drive a stock GT since I've never done that either. Good thing my girlfriend is a Subaru salesperson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ej25_TS Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 Thanks for the tips guys. You brought up some good points I never thought about. So far the main points I have got were.... LGT - easier to mod - faster top end - manual trans - more torque 3.0R - No turbo lag - Flatter torque curve - can fill up on regular - NAVI - better suspension Anyone have anything to add? How do people like the new paddle shifters on the 3.0R? What the difference in car insurance? I'm from Canada but will be buying from the US. Crazy price difference. About $15 000. We don't have the 3.0R up here so I can't test drive one to compare. I'll be making a trip down in december tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniqueTII Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Does anyone have a dyno plot for both cars handy? I'm curious to see how the whole torque aspect really plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarumannen Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I have tested an 3.0 Outback -07 with automatic gearbox ()SI Drive) and I was very disappointed at the paddle shifters. It took way to much time before anything happened after you pulled the paddle. The 0-60 mph also differs 1,3 sec between the Automatic and the 6 MT according to the papers. I think it's true because the 6MT feels much quicker as well. Have the US 3.0 cars always had the Bilstein suspension? Think they got it this year in Europe. The 3.0R Speb.B has had the "up side down" Bilstein since 2005. I also guess that the fuel economy is much better on the GT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 My landlord's girlfriend just picked up a Black/Black 3.0R. I have been meaning to take some side by side pics but it has been dark every time we're both home. Our impressions of the differences are that the 3.0R is a more laid-back version of the Legacy that offers more refinement out of the box. Ignoring the differences between the '06 and '08 model years, the Bilsteins, NAV and sportshift automatic make the car more of a commuter and roadtrip car. The ride is decidedly "plusher" but otherwise there are no real surprises. The extra weight (and location of said weight) of the H6 and the automatic make the car slightly more cumbersome in the corners, showing the limits of the re92's a bit more quickly than the GT. However, the extra dampening from the Bilsteins improves bump absoprtion mildly and makes the lateral weight transfer seem more gradual than the abruptness of the KYB's. The automatic transmission is a bore although the landlord and gf both felt that the shifts were crisp and responsive. Also, the AWD is the electronically controlled version, which I have not been able to "test" since the ground is dry and the car is still in break-in. As far as the difference in the torque curve... The H6 might have a flatter torque curve but you will forget all about that when compared to a well-tuned stage 2 GT. No big surprises here, and I'm still glad I jumped on the '06 GT when I did. The Crimson Dynamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ej25_TS Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 new for 2008 Paddle-shifter with downshift blipping control on 3.0R and GT with automatic. I guess I'd have to drive both to get a feel for if I would like the paddle shifters. I'm trying to saty away from modding my car too much... Wheels and some bolt ons maybe. I put way too much into the car i have right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edekba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Paddle Shift are great, but i rarely use them unless i'm bored. & yeah you can get a LGT w/5EAT w/Navi ... but that's like 1k more than then the 3.0R. specB is like 2500 over 3.0R + no dealer incentives or cash back crap. gasmilage ... i've got about 22mpg (not via the built in meter... that tells me i'm getting about 23~24). & yes ... nothing in terms of Mods. I've got Ion Springs ... cusco rsb (fsb dont fit), and i might put a CBE but that only gives me high end power but i loose low end torque so i'm debating that. insurance ... my company put down that I have a 2.5i even though i faxed them over my sale reciept thing, so that's a plus i guess? In terms of dyno plots .... yeah you dont wanna seea 3.0R. I've heard that we put down only about 170hp. I dont wanna see cuz i'd just be sad. Sounds .... my ez30 has no boxer rumble or anything. just as if you were drivng any v6 ... imo. Nice but not a rumble of power or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Subaru would have two engines that produce similar power and fuel economy #s. But seriously, get the GT and enjoy the torque. And if you get a MT, enjoy better gas mileage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Hoping the 3.6L gets stuffed under the hood, at least bring the 6-cyclinder Legacy option a bit closer to the competion in terms of performance, and on regular fuel to boot. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edekba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 3.6 has worse gas milege than the 3.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vichugo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Was looking at both this year (wanted Nav...didn't want manual...never owned a turbo before) Went with the lgt...couldn't put any performance numbers to it but a test drive with the SI drive set to s# and then the turbo dumping in made me decide on the lgt vs the 3.0. When i got back to the 3.0...it just didn't "do it" for me. 5 k on the lgt and no regrets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 3.6 has worse gas milege than the 3.0 No it doesnt. Its the same and actually 1 mpg better hwy mileage in the Tribeca if EPA testing procedures hadnt changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitestar Pilot Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Hoping the 3.6L gets stuffed under the hood, at least bring the 6-cyclinder Legacy option a bit closer to the competion in terms of performance, and on regular fuel to boot. That's kinda what I was thinking. Wouldn't a V6 Accord or Altima pretty much destroy a 3.0 Legacy in any type of acceleration test... other than uphill ice racing? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdoggydog Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Something else I haven't seen on this thread - the 3.0, being a 6-cyl, should have a longer life than a 4-cyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacks GT Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 That's kinda what I was thinking. Wouldn't a V6 Accord or Altima pretty much destroy a 3.0 Legacy in any type of acceleration test... other than uphill ice racing? LOL I dont think so altima 0-60 6.6 and 1/4mile 15secs. accord 8.6 sec and 15.1 1/4mile. legacy 6.5 cant find 1/4 sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edekba Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 i think the new accord v6 is as fast if not faster than the altima v6. dont forget about the camry v6, that's pretty quick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.