3.75L H6 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 who said that? I've heard that for its class the STi is very good for daily liveability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 [quote name='3.75L H6']who said that? I've heard that for its class the STi is very good for daily liveability.[/quote] Both AutoWeek and Car&Driver, when reviewing the R32, preferred its daily livaeability to the STi or Evo, making direct reference (IIRC) to both cars. You can see why. No picnic-table wings, softer suspension tuning, less-demanding, non-turbo motor and luxo amenities. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurpman Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 I got the R&T issue today. Only a one page review, but overall very favorable. The downside, as Kevin pointed out, was: "While I love this engine in the WRX STI, I would have preferred something with a bit more linear acceleration in this car. There's a dead spot below 2500 rpm, and while the on-off nature of the tubo-charger (which occurs around 3000 rpm) may be fun when driving in a spirited manner, it can get tiresome if racing around the corner isn't your thing." He goes on to say that the 2.5 T and 3.0 R are as different as night and day, as the 3.0 "leaves the line more smoothly without the lag of the 2.5". My take on that part of the review is that Joe Average Commuter who spends most of his time under 3000 rpm will find the 2.5 T a bit sluggish. I'd bet most of us don't fit that profile. Furthermore, I imagine some people just don't like the dual nature of a turbocharged car, at least not for their daily driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPower Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 And hence why some people may even feel like the 3.0 is quicker in normal, daily driving compared to the 2.5T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 I think the H6 will be a welcomed addition for the Legacy line in MY06, if indeed it comes in MY06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 with the rpm/turbo lag numbers mentioned, sounds like my experience driving a wrx should prepare me for the gt just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I still can't believe it will be as extreme as the WRX, the XT and STi both have a lot less lag so shouldn't the GT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='jk']with the rpm/turbo lag numbers mentioned, sounds like my experience driving a wrx should prepare me for the gt just fine.[/quote] Yes, I totally agree jk, perhaps the magazine reviewers are looking at this car in a differnet lighht to the WRX (as well they should be) and that's why we're getting reports of lag. IIRC most of the WRX reviews back on the day acknowledged the lag but focused on what it did from 3k rpm onwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Well, from everyone else that I hear that has driven the new GT, they say it is much more refined than a WRX with more smoothness than a WRX and STi. Perhaps the reviewer is used to larger displacement engines where low-rpm running is normal? They might try to be unbiased, but it's very easy to be regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolbluelb Posted June 2, 2004 Author Share Posted June 2, 2004 [url]http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/38236#ratings[/url] [url]http://autos.canada.com/saskatoon/researching/roadtest.html?year=2565[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I admit to not knowing why some drivers of the car say "What turbo lag," while others report turbo lag. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 All driver bias. Some drivers have driven other turbo cars with less, or more lag, is probably where the discrepencies arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolbluelb Posted June 4, 2004 Author Share Posted June 4, 2004 USA Today review: [url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-06-03-subarus_x.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurpman Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 The USA Today review is definitely positive, but any delusions I had about car of the year are pretty much gone. Lots of complaints about lack of options, but that doesn't bother me. These comments were disturbing: "But the turbo four vibrates remarkably at idle, cackles and grumbles at low speed instead of whirs and sings, and stutters and jerks during moderate acceleration." "The ride is flawed in the wagon — bouncy, as if the rear shock absorbers were worn. Though less evident with a load or brood aboard, it never goes away. If you hit an undulation in midcorner, where the suspension's already taxed, you get side-to-side pitch, as well." I haven't heard that about the wagon before, but I do remember someone posting about the "rubber band" effect they felt test driving the GT or XT. Anyone other test drivers notice the above problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Again, the only wagons tested were OB's. Take them for what they are regarding suspension tuning. As for the turbo engine, this clown is the only one to ever bring this up... nothing in C&D, nothing on Edmunds, etc. I take little stock in what major-newspaper auto writers have to say. I used to work at a major newspaper, and well, let's just say I trust C&D a whole lot more than those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 [quote name='racerdave']Again, the only wagons tested were OB's. Take them for what they are regarding suspension tuning. As for the turbo engine, this clown is the only one to ever bring this up... nothing in C&D, nothing on Edmunds, etc. I take little stock in what major-newspaper auto writers have to say. I used to work at a major newspaper, and well, let's just say I trust C&D a whole lot more than those guys.[/quote] :lol: I work at one now and luckily, our guy (Jim Mateja) is good. But during my days at the Sun-Times, I recall Dan Jedlicka saying that the Saturn coupe (SC2, back in the day) had "peppy" acceleration. Driving one, you essentially did 0-60 by mashing the throttle and flipping your egg timer. :lol: Newspaper reviewers do have a lot of influence, however, as the average consumer doesn't read any auto magazines. And USA Today's circulation is HUGE. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Yeah, but 99% of the newspaper auto writers are still tools. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I think that side to side motion they had was with the OB XT tires, I felt the same on the FXT when I took one through it's paces. I'm not a fan of those more bloated tires on narrow rims anyhow. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Good point about tires. I think a lot of people underestimate how much tires can radically alter the feel of the car. My friend's WRX was changed hugely for the better after he took off the RE92s and threw on some Azenis. Steering feel and response went up by a factor of 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Most people don't even think about them, but they ARE the contact with the road and a bit of your suspension at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 And that's the thing that kills me about most comparison tests that the car mags run... all the cars come on their OEM tires, which vary wildly. Any comments about a car's steering response and turn-in should be taken with a grain of salt unless they're on the same rubber. Good stuff Sube. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 That's why I wish they put RE950s or similar on WRXs and GTs, the true potential isn't even close on the stock rubber. They call it a compromise, but I think there is more to it than that considering Bridgestone, their tire supplier has better models available which hit nearly all aspects of the tire including all-season potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Yeah, I have the 950s on my wife's car and they are definitely better than the 92s. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 [quote name='gurpman']USA Today "But the turbo four vibrates remarkably at idle"[/quote] It's a boxer Dude, get with the program, think for a second it which direction the pistons are moving :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Not only that, but C&D says how SMOOTH the 2.5 turbo is... Some people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.