performance-2.0 vs 2.5

It may be a performance question, but the answer is marketing.

US Subaru, at least until the WRX, has sold their product to a class of people that are not interested in a small engine with a turbo. The classic Subaru here in California is 4 adults and gear heading up to the mountains to go skiing. The best engine for the job has low-end torque, is quiet, and doesn't have to be revved high to shift. These people are not interested in a turbo and its real or perceived maintainance issuse.

Subaru has carefully cultivated this market and it is their bread and butter. They will not do anything that might reduce their market share with them.

Just my 2 cents.

I own a '95 Legacy 250T wagon (2.5L engine, auto). I just drove a friend's '00 Legacy GT wagon (2.0L engine, twin turbo, manual) for a week.

The 2.0 is slow off the mark unless you abuse the clutch (I didn't beat

10 seconds for 0-60 (mine does 9 easily, the 2.0 supposedly does 6 or so if you abuse it), but then 100mph comes up *really* frightningly quickly.

It's just fine for hill climbing. It pulls smoothly from 1200, you can hear the turbo spinning up by 1500 rpm and somewhere just above 2000 it gets stronger than my 2.5L. By 3000 rpm it feels as if it's making more power than my 2.5 makes at redline. I climbed a number of big hills that I know well at revs between 1500 and 2500 and I can tell you it has

*no* problem with them, even if you're not revving high.

The ony real downside is that it uses more fuel than my 2.5. I got 9.2 km/l driving carefully, and 9.0 km/l on a good thrash. My 250T gets 11+ km/l driving carefully on the open road, 10 km/l around town, and 9 km/l on a good thrash.

So if you're into thrashing a lot you may as well get the 2.0 turbo, because it thrashes funner :-)

-- Bruce

In Austalia, the Impreza & the Liberty (Legacy) come with both 2 L & 2.5 L options. We test drove both, find the 2L version really slow off the mark but 2.5 L version isnt' exactly a screamer either.

If you want speed, 2 L turbo is the only option or the 2.5 L turbo Forester GT

In the end, performance isn't our goal, so we took the cheaper alternative. Though I find the find the car really slow to get moving from rest - I find it scary at busy intersections.

my toyota seca 1.6 L (auto) 1993 flogs it in the city.

I'd be going with 2.5 L if they sold the Impreza Hatch 2.5 L here - they sell only RS (sedan).

Missed STI bit. I wished we had the 2.5 T litre here in Australia for the STI. The 2 T litre version is really hard to drive quick appearantly - the power band is one big peak - no flat lines at all -

alternative.

I am one such person that preferred the 2.0 liter engine. The reason that there is a large group of people with whom I share this opinion is that under FIA rules, rally cars may not excede the 2.0 litre limit. Now I realize the obvious retort is "But you're not a rally racer", but the STI has its roots in rallying, and many of us still see it as a rally car. That said, the newest departure to a 2.5 litre feels like the STI has lost touch with its rally heritage. Its only the opinion of a specific group, but we feel very strongly on the matter. Even more frustrating is the fact that reviewers of the new US Spec STI keep placing in 2nd place next to the new EVO VIII. It achieves first place ranking without exceeding the 2.0 litre barrier......Subie fans are rolling over in their graves everywhere...

KD

In terms of raw performance, the 2.5L is going to be superior (I have had one person argue that the block on the Ej207 is stronger, but that was with zero data - I can't recall ever reading any failures in the 2 or 2.5L engines) - for all-around drivability, the 2.5L is the one to have - it will always have more low end grunt than the 2.0L, and ultimately, more power available at the high end (comparing stock to stock, or modified to modified).

People want the 2.0L because of the history behind the WRX, and the rally rule stipulation - and there is probably something to be said for that. But in the world of street performance, the 2.5L is the better engine.

The STi loses to the EVO VIII in reviews because of it's softer suspension and longer steering ratio. Not because of power or anything related to the engine.

The real reason that the US STI has a 2.5 instead of the 2.0 everywhere else in the world is GAS. US gets crappy 91 octane in California. The 2.0 won't make 300 hp with U.S. gas. Point proven by EVO VIII only making 271 hp.

Bottom line is cost. It's cheaper adding 0.5 litres to the block instead of retuning and/or redesigning a whole new 2.0 engine to get

300 hp on crap 91 octane gasoline.

JaySee

This is a good point, another thing that I've heard many people agree on, is that even with the STI's suspension tune over the WRX, its still not as sharp as the EVO VIII (much to my chagrin). They tote the better pull and the bigger engine, but it doesn't seem to be as nimble as the new EVO.

========================= "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity."

-- Albert Einstein

I have a 2 litre Legacy wagon. It was quite slow I felt, and often used the "power" button to get the auto to change faster.

I took out the cats (one each side) and now it runs like the power button is on all the time. Races up hills as well compared to the leasurly ride from earlier. :-)

Cheap solution :-)

Too bad that's not legal where I live...... Tonyrama

we've just bought an impreza in Ausralia - it's 2L what does the power button due exactly? I can't tell the difference. All I know is we really like the car, but it's crap from a stand still. Really hard to get it moving. After that, its quite nimble - ours is 4spd auto - think the 5 spd would have fixed it, but wife can't drive a manual - made that mistake 3 years ago and now I'm stuck with it - rav 4

Just keeps it in a lower gear until higher rpms.

My 2.5L auto Legacy wagon *flies* from a standing start. It'll see off the 4l fords and holdens up until the 1st gear change (50 or 60 km/h) no problem.

-- Bruce

Agreed. Off the line performance is very good, and it holds its own against most traffic. Low - mid range grunt is very impressive. It runs out of puff at higher revs and higher speeds, but then it is a 4 cylinder, not a V8.

I read somewhere that the cats cause a 10% decrease to your performance when new, and then another 10% for every 30,000 miles you drive. That gets to be a big cut after a while.

I have not seen any data to that effect. Car & Driver? ran a long term test on a Subaru WRX (I think) and the acceleration was as good or better at