H6 engine v. H4 in Subaru Outback wagon

Hate to Hi-jack this topic but have a question that fits in.

Have not looked at the H6 but how do they get that engine in the car? The H4 engine to very close to the radiator. Seems to me going to the 6 requires more than just bolting in the new engine. Seems like with the longer engine, the front diff is going to move back and then not in line with front wheels. Maybe some of the extra $$$ is due to requirement for different differential/transmission.

Mickey

The H6 is only about an inch or so bigger than the H4. A timing chain was used instead of belts, saving space up front. The H6 does weigh about 90lbs more, though. The H6 tranny is a slightly beefed up 4EAT. I get 26-27mpg on the highway using 92octane.

Very good attitude. Dybya would love your kind.

This has been my experience too. I really enjoy the H-6 VDC.

Tony, don't bring AGA politics in here.

Thanks!

Steve

Yea, knock on fake wood trim! :)

I find the 2.5 H4 a good match for my 98 GT. Of course, that car weighs 600lbs less and the smaller tire radius gets more effective torque....

Florian

Are you going with an automatic or manual transmission? If you're going with the manual, then you won't have any trouble with the power of the H4. If you're going with the automatic, then I'd get the H6. During my test drive a couple of years ago, I had felt that the automatic just sucked the life out of the H4 fairly quickly. I think you need the H6 with automatic just to get back to the same level of responsiveness that you get with the H4 and manual. Of course, the H6 is only available in automatic, so your only real choices are: (1) manual and H4 or (2) automatic and H6. Forget about the H4 and automatic.

Yousuf Khan

The H6 is just a derivation of the H4. They've fit the extra cylinders pretty much in the space between the existing cylinders. Namely the cylinder walls are practically touching each other and there's no cooling water jacket in between them. Apparently the H6 isn't all that much longer than the H4.

Yousuf Khan

Well, it's probably too late to jump in here, but not everyone prefers a 6. I bought an '03' model and chose the 4.... the fuel efficiency is a big deal for me. I don't find the 4 lacking in power, except when it's all loaded up cruising up in the mountains.... and even then, it really is fine.

I went in thinking Outback, by the way, and came out with a Legacy wagon... it handled a lot better.

The H6 is *not* just a derivative of the H4. It is a new engine... and they did *not* 'just' fit 'extra' cylinders in the space between existing cylinders! From the technical manual:

-" The cylinder bore and piston stroke dimensions have been selected optimally for sufficient output and reduced size of the engine; they are

89.2 mm (3.512 in) and 80 mm (3.150 in) in contrast to 99.5 mm (3.917 in) and 79.0 mm (3.110 in) of the H4 engine."

-"The EZ-3.0 is the model name for the new 6-cylinder engine introduced for the 2001 model year Legacy. The design idea for this engine was to create a power plant that could utilize the current body style, provide more power and decreased exhaust emissions. Many of the features refined for the current 4 cylinder engine are emploed on the EZ-3.0 however, new features such as Variable Intack Control and timing chain driven camshafts give the new engine a look and operation all of its own."

Please check your opinions before posting them as facts. John

Have you tried taking both for a test drive?

Well, the H6 is mighty peppier. The h4 in a car of the Outback's weight won't dazzle anyone with acceleration, but it's not horrible.

The downsides to the H6 appear to be a bit of an issue with reliability apparently--someone mentioned it's actually on a list of cars to avoid list somewhere. And also, the cost since the H6 is only available in the tpo of the line models (LL Bean and the VDC I think).

Late model Subarus are one hell of a rarety on the used market, though. At least they were in this tiny town of Chicagoland when I was looking a couple years ago. As such, I don't imagine you'll have the luxury of being too picky. I know I sure didn't, and when I looked at how well they seem to hold their value, and their nearly linear depreciation (as opposed to some cars whose values fall off a steep cliff when you drive em off the lot), you may find that it's worth it to buy new and take advantage of some incentive financing, and the ability to get what you want rather than picking from the 1 or

2 used 2003 Outbacks in your area. Say you keep a car 6 years, assuming depreciation is linear no matter if you buy it new, or buy it 1 year old, your cost of ownership is the same over that same period, and you get all the fun and choice of being able to buy new and get perfect info on what the seller paid for the vehicle (edmunds.com, consumerreports.com). The same can't be said for the used market.

Anyhoo, have fun and do get to a new lot to test drive both models news since the 04's are little different than the 03's.

Best Regards,

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA

That person was a troll- it is not on CR's list of cars toa void.

I believe the 6 cyl is now an option without the added LL Bean trappings, or the VDC.

Dukephoto '01 VDC- 80,000+ miles

Cool. Duly noted.

Oh yer right--I was in the dealer last week and I think the 2004 models have that as an option, but it's kinda steep--$3k-$4k adder if I remember?

Best Regards,

-- Todd H.

2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA

Look at the CR 2004 Annual Car report issue, then "used cars to avoid." You will find the 2003 Subaru H6 there, as well as the Baja.

I am avoiding it alright since I can't afford one. What exactly is the recommendation by CR based on?

Florian

CR evaluations are based on sruveys sent out to its subscribers -- I received and submitted one myself. You are prompted for the year of your vehicle, and asked to check off any sub-system that needed repairing that year.

CR does not give much detail on the poor showing for the 2003 Suburu Baja and Outback H6, except to say that first year reliability has been "disappointing" for the Baja. For all cars it reviews, CR breaks down troublespots by subsystem, and gives history for 8 years. The 2003 Baja is rated average for "body integrity", with the other categories are described as having fewer problems than average. I think "average" can be considered sub-par for a major Japanese brand. CR tends to give Honda and Toyota reliability ratings of "better" or "much better than average" across the board.

The 2003 Legacy Outback 4 cylinder is recomended, it is only the 6 cylinder edition that should be avoided, according to CR. The reliability stats for Legacy Outback 6 cylinder are not given. The 4 cylinder version is described as having "average" reliability, as is the Impreza. I'm not sure if this means that the 6 cylinder engine is the guilty party here, in terms of the bad rating.

GJJ