BernardP Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I just saw the July issues on CaD and R&T on a newsstand and had time to flip the pages. CaD has a generally favorable full test of the Outback with 2.5 turbo engine and auto trans. 0-60 is 7.1 sec. I guess we will have to wait another month for the test of the 2.5 GT sedan. R&T has a First Drive preview of the top-of-the-line Legacies and Outbacks. On the 2.5 GT they mention that the engine has a dead spot below 2500 rpm and that the turbo, which is felt from 3000 rpm, has an on-off character that is not ideally suited to this kind of car. The Outback with the 3.0 six gets more compliments. They also say that the new models should be available in the early fall. :roll: Must be fall already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBE555 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Well every editor is different, some are absolutely against turbo cars no matter what and love big V8's, I've heard nothing to the fact they are that bad. We'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPower Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 That stinks. It is going to take a bit for these guys to brush off their preconceptions/misconceptions of Subaru to give it a fair shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I don't know.. I sure hope that those comments are misdirected and not genuinely true. We have heard from so many enthusiasts that have driven the car that it's great. I can't imagine that the masses are wrong but the C&D people are right. This does worry me a bit. Looks like the GT might not even be in the C&D top ten. Crap I tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drift Monkey Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Didn't editors say the same thing about the WRX? (dead spots, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 you can't say that c&d is prejudiced against turbos. they loved the wrx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Just to be clear, Bernard said C&D only talked about the Outback. R&T was the one slagging the GT's powerband. D@mn, I wanted a full GT road test this month. This anticipation is killing me! :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 i guess the outback is a bit heavier, but c&d always gets the fastest 0-60 times. remember, they're the folks who gave us the 5.4 second wrx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zevil Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I am sorry for my poor reading comprehension :lol: I would have to agree that they don't seem to be biased against turbo cars, but that's not to say that the v-6 and 8's aren't the preffered powerplant for the typical american blockhead. I would have assumed that the power delivery would have been quite linear. The mags didn't complain too much about the Forester XT did they? I thought they loved it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hmm, something doesn't sound right here, perhaps we need to wait until we get a full review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardP Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 I, too was disappointed by the added wait for a GT test in CaD and the comments on the engine in R&T. I had only a few minutes to look at the articles and was not going to buy the mags, as I am already a CaD subscriber (Thus, I get to read it after everyone else). If anyone can get hold of the articles, more detail could be posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axis008 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Guess we'll have to wait for Automobile and Motor Trend to see what they have to say, assuming they say something at all. -ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hopefully this was a problem only with the specific car that R&T was flogging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodro Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='Drift Monkey']Didn't editors say the same thing about the WRX? (dead spots, etc.)[/quote] YEa, and they were totally correct! Let's hope they aren't as right this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodro Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='BernardP']I, too was disappointed by the added wait for a GT test in CaD and the comments on the engine in R&T. I had only a few minutes to look at the articles and was not going to buy the mags, as I am already a CaD subscriber (Thus, I get to read it after everyone else). If anyone can get hold of the articles, more detail could be posted here.[/quote] My copy of C&D and R&T came today, lucky me, I also immediatly dug into the articles. Both were very complimentary. I got to say, I don't think the flat spot can be nearly as bad as on our WRX -- and as someone mentioned, didn't note it in the Forester XT we drove. (Couldn't handle the Forester styling and ride so passed on it.) More details: Auto trans Outback 2.5XT Limited zero to... 30 2.7 60 7.1 100 19.2 Top-gear: 3.4 (anyonew have figures on WRX for comparison??) 5-60 7.8 (v. 7.4 for WRX, really highlighting that WRX flatspot!) Braking and Skidpad were low, cause of the Outbacks tires and setup. They esp. highlight the Subies ground clearance and offroad capabilites. Also major kudos for the autoshift feature which allows you to drop down a gear from the steering wheel w/o having the gear lever in Manual mode. Would almost make me consider the auto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Thanks for the preview Ledro, I'm sure my copy will arrive in a week or two :roll: The 5-60 time is very impressive and indicative of real world acceleration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodro Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Oh, and here's the exact quote from R&T: "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 turbocharger (which occurs around 3000 rpm) may be fun when driving in a spirited manner, it can get tiresome if racing around corners isn't your thing." OK, well that is my thing, so that's cool. Still worried about the flatspot though. Better: "Despite being awd, the Legacy reacts like a rear-wheel driver...more akin to something from Germany than Japan." Me likes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodro Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='Gumby'] The 5-60 time is very impressive and indicative of real world acceleration.[/quote] Exactly. Implies to me that the manual version should actually beat the WRX in a lot of real-world driving situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 So it looks like this engine has characteristics more similar to the Sti than the XT. That's fine with me but I guess people who aren't acustomed to Turbos will find it different. I wonder if that 45/55 torque split is noticeable and is the reason fro the "more like RWD" comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='Lodro'][quote name='Gumby'] The 5-60 time is very impressive and indicative of real world acceleration.[/quote] Exactly. Implies to me that the manual version should actually beat the WRX in a lot of real-world driving situations.[/quote] It's lighter in GT form as well so yes, easily I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerdave Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 So can any 5M performance extrapolations be made based on those numbers? Those numbers in themselves are not terribly impressive, but I'm not sure about how much the auto is killing them. FWIW, those acceleration numbers are about the same as a 325i manual. I sure hope the 5M GT spanks those numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC GT Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 That review is sort of promising considering they reviewed the 5AT, in the Legacy's heaviest form, with the highest center of gravity. I imagine the review for a GT Ltd. sedan with 5MT will be a little different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Personally, I don't give a rat's you-know-what at this point. My order's in, and I'm sure the car will rock my world. :D Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Th3Franz Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='gtguy']Personally, I don't give a rat's you-know-what at this point. My order's in, and I'm sure the car will rock my world. :D Kevin[/quote] I'd like to add that after test-driving the GT, I don't really care about numbers at this point. It's still a lot faster than what I have been driving, and A LOT of fun to drive. I didn't notice a "dead spot" below 2500RPM or whatever, so I'm not really sure what they are talking about. -Franz The end of a Legacy http://www.youtube.com/th3franz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apexjapan Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Keep in mind that they may have been driving pre-production hand made, still-being-tuned mules due to print deadlines. Cheers, Paul Hansen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.