XT vs XS

The answer to this question is totally subjective. It all depends on how you define "worth it" and "long term trouble".

ok

Are Subaru Turbos good quality or likely to cause trouble beyond warranty?

Is the extra cash worth it or is the 2.5 non turbo a better buy?

I don't think I've ever heard of a Subaru turbo failing, and I know plenty of people with turbo Legacies from the early to mid 90's.

Personally I prefer the 2.5 non-turbo. It's quicker off the mark in normal driving, and pretty much the same time to 100 km/h (once again, in normal driving, not in abuse-it-for-all-its-got mode). If you're already doing 100 km/h and want to overtake in a limited space then the turbo is much better, but then it's a question of by how much are you prepared to exceed the speed limit? I have yet to see a hill so steep that a fully loaded 2.5l Legacy can't climb at our 100 km/h speed limit due to lack of power (corners is another matter of course) -- that's still comfortably in 2nd gear on the automatic.

I've got a 2.5 Legacy wagon, my sister has a 2.0 Forester which I had for three months once, and I've borrowed friends' 2.0 turbo Legacies for a week or two.

The turbos give a real kick in the back when they're on song, but most of the time keeping them on song is more trouble than it's worth in 1st and 2nd gears so they give no advantage over the non-turbo.

If you live somewhere where you need to be able to accelerate quickly at speeds above 120 km/h (75 mph) or cruise at over 160 km/h (100 mph) then I'd take the turbo. But otherwise I like the 2.5 nonturbo as much or more.

-- Bruce

normal driving = change gear @ 2000rpm? doesnt make sense..if you want to accelerate of course you want to rev it up..... otherwise a civic accelerating at "normal driving" is probably just as fast as a normal forester

"Bruce Hoult" ¦b¶l¥ó news: snipped-for-privacy@copper.ipg.tsnz.net ¤¤¼¶¼g...

I usually shift around 3k in my Impreza 2.2.

"Normal driving" means anything up to and including flooring the gas and changing gear at 5000+ rpm.

It does *not* include revving the engine to 4000+ rpm for a standing start and/or slipping your foot sideways off the clutch.

My car is a 1995 165 HP 2.5l legacy wagon with 4 speed automatic. Sitting in drive with engine idling, traffic light turns green, simply press hard on the gas and it gets to 100 km/h at 5600 RPM in 2nd gear a little less than 9 seconds later. My grandmother could do it.

My friends car is a 2000 280 HP 2.0l twin turbo legacy wagon with 5 speed manual. It feels really really impressive when it comes onto the turbo in 1st and 2nd from a standing start. But there is a long time before the turbo comes in in 1st and again after the shift to 2nd. I timed myself doing 0 - 100 km/h runs and found it *really* hard to beat the 9 seconds my 2.5l does. I'm sure it actually will do the 6 seconds (or whatever it is) that the reviews say, but in order to do that you'd have to abuse it *way* more than I'd be prepared to abuse a car on a daily basis and expect it to last.

Maybe I just can't drive. I don't know. But I've been driving manual cars for more than 25 years (the sooby is the first automatic I've ever owned), including high performance ones such as a 3l twin turbo AWD Mitsubishi GTO (only 300 HP but I get much better 0 - 100 times, presumably due to the 3l vs 2l thing). I also commute every day on a BMW motorcycle that does 0 - 100 km/h in 4 seconds, no problem.

Incidentally, my passengers (GF...) sometimes complain that I launch too hard in the Legacy, especially around corners. I only give it about 1/3 to 1/2 gas, but it goes pretty good.

My GF had a flat tyre a few days ago and ruined it so we had to buy a new one. The old ones had 4mm tread left and we've put two new ones (8mm tread) on the front. I was wondering how much strain this was putting on the center clutch so I've just been out now doing some tests, including doing hard acceleration and tight low speed turns both with and without the fuse to put it in FWD mode. (it seems to be fine)

The really interesting thing is how *very* easily the 2.5l spins up a front wheel on dry tarseal. I was totally surprised. Just what I consider a normal stright line start breaks a wheel free every time. Accelerating out from a side street becomes an exercise in delicate throttle management. Not that I can't do it, but the AWD has definitly spoiled me in the last year or two. Just mash the gas and the car simply *goes*, straight line or turning, wet or dry.

I had an '02 WRX (2.0L) turbo, and your comments generally hold true, but my '04 XT (2.5L) is a different matter. It has much more low end torque, and pulls happily from below 2K RPM's. The 2.0 didn't like to drop below 2.2K, and would start to shudder. Not nearly the same need to "keep the revs up" with the 2.5L.

Bruce Hoult wrote:

Right. My remarks were about 2.5 NA vs 2.0 turbo. 2.5 turbo would probably be great! Well, it depends on by how much they've dropped the compression ratio on the 2.5 in order to turbo it.

But now you've got to ask yourself: 2.5L turbo, or 3.0 NA?? A coworker recently bought a used Outback with the 3.0. Perhaps I'll be able to try it soon. I've never seen a 2.5 turbo in NZ.

-- Bruce