Considering a 2010 Legacy, would like some thoughts on engine choice

Hey everyone,

I currently have a 2008 Tacoma that I am looking to ditch due to some issues with Toyota (not anything with the recalls thankfully... yet at least ) and after driving 4x4 trucks and SUVs since I got my license I figured it was time for a change. Between the lousy ride of a pickup, the fuel costs and "friends" always needing bulky crap moved I really don't feel a pickup is worth it anymore, not to mention that though the engine in this truck is pretty good, that's only in a straight line.

Anyhow, enough about all that. I'm looking pretty much exclusively at Subaru for my fun to drive fix as they're the only ones who seem able to have that along with AWD, which is a requirement up here in NH IMO. I'm sort of torn between the Legacy GT and the 3.6R though. The GT will surely be more fun to drive but that's where the advantages seem to end as far as I can tell. With bigger wheels wrapped in summer only tires, I'd have no choice but to buy snow tires and possibly wheels to get through winter, whereas the 3.6R has all seasons that *might* be okay in the white stuff (and if not, I'd have to assume the 17s would be cheaper to find snows for). Also, from what I've read the AWD systems are quite different- the GTs is purely mechanical but the 6 has an electronic system with a limited slip out back. To anyone who has driven both through crappy weather- is the 5EAT's system noticeably better than the open differentials on the 6-speed? And then of course there's the transmission- I'd love to have a stick shift again, I kick myself all the time for not getting the Taco with one as it has a fairly nice manual trans (for a truck at least). BUT, I do have to go down into Boston somewhat often for work and the idea of a clutch in traffic makes me shudder, so I'm on the fence still about that. The extra cost of premium isn't a huge deal as most weeks when I travel for work it's not in my personal vehicle. More often than not I'll drive to the airport early Monday and be off someplace all week so weekends are the only time I do much driving in my own vehicle. At this time, none of the area dealers have exactly what I'm looking for in stock so a test drive isn't much of an option just yet. Also, I'm at lease 2 months out from doing this, so I don't want to deal with some over aggressive sales turd pushing me to move early.

So to those that have driven both- pros/cons to the GT vs 3.6R?

Few other things- Is the H/K stereo worth it? I'd consider swapping the factory deck out for a navi unit, but according to Crutchfield, none of the double din units fit. Can that be right? This car can be had from the factory with GPS.

Any input you folks have would be appreciated.

No, don't look at the peak hp, but look at the torque curve. 2.5GT will be much more torquier down low, while 3.6R will be "peaky".

It's a shitty choice, or lack of it. I'd say get a manual, but then the 2.5 turbo engines have poor reliability track record. If 3.6R was offered with a manual it would have been no brainer (unless you want to mod).

That being said I'd not buy 2010+ Legacy in any shape or form...

IMO looks can be fixed with the proper amount of time and money lol, the 2010 headlights without the blackout looked really hideous, made the car look like ass vs its JDM counterpart, even my blackout job doesnt look quite as nice as the JDM one and shall be fixed accordingly

that being said the 4th gen still looks better (although i dont like the smiley look of the 08,09, the 05,6,7 looks way better) but the 5th gen can be worked on to make it not look weird

No, don't look at the peak hp, but look at the torque curve. 2.5GT will be much more torquier down low, while 3.6R will be "peaky".

 

It's a shitty choice, or lack of it. I'd say get a manual, but then the 2.5 turbo engines have poor reliability track record. If 3.6R was offered with a manual it would have been no brainer (unless you want to mod).

 

That being said I'd not buy 2010+ Legacy in any shape or form...

Mike, a Turbo is made for mid-range rather than high rpm. It pulls better through the gears. It could be that unclemat gets his Turbo "poor reliability track record" info from the people around here who complain or from personal experience but Consumer's Report thinks well enough of it. It really comes down to, "if you abuse it, you pay".

Personally the choice for me comes down to having a Manual tranny but I would have been tempted by a 3.6 Turbo. Someday, maybe. Wouldn't need to be a very big one.

As for the tranny issues, the real complaint is the shifter. I'll be getting a short shifting mod pretty soon.

The Turbo 4 is about 1 second faster 0-60 and is probably much funner to drive.

Pete

Just got a limited 3.6R. The GF was not into subarus until she pulled out of the dealer lot onto a busy road. We drove EVERYTHING and nothing compared. Made her drive a 4cyl which was nice, but as she says with me, have the "extra" is something you cannot live without and be happy.

Plenty of low end power, wide torque band

^ Dude, it's not about abuse, but borderline safe tunes to meet emissions and shoddy metallurgy of the pistons, especially from MY07+. You're in your honeymoon period with your car, so it must be the best and super reliable...

I don't buy cars that way. Note below the latest Consumer's Report long term ratings for the Subaru Legacy. It's from the 2009 Car Issue, 2010 issue coming out next month. Of more interest than just the Legacy is the center column which covers specifically the TURBO 2.5 in the WRX and STI. There have been less major long term problems in cars with that engine than in either the non-turbo Impreza OR Legacy. That would include the pistons. The real problem year is singularly 2007 according to the data rather than from 2007 on as you state. Just a guess would be a bad supplier or such.

I don't do honeymoons with cars. I do the numbers. CR hasn't failed me in over 20 years of new car buying (10 cars and counting).

Pete

http://webpages.charter.net/petewk/CR.jpg

Not familiar with current turbo's but I know that the older ones are usually the first engine failure. and expensive to replace.

Also traditionally, turbo's did not produce much power at low rpms the way more cylinders do. The quiet power of the 3.6R was a big selling feature for us. It just goes without screaming at you.

And consumer reports is to be taken with a grain of salt. they set a criteria that they chose, not the way you might drive. Just like the may like a cheap tire that gets lots of miles but you would kill yourself trying to take a corner at speed.

I don't buy cars that way. Note below the latest Consumer's Report long term ratings for the Subaru Legacy. It's from the 2009 Car Issue, 2010 issue coming out next month. Of more interest than just the Legacy is the center column which covers specifically the TURBO 2.5 in the WRX and STI. There have been less major long term problems in cars with that engine than in either the non-turbo Impreza OR Legacy. That would include the pistons. The real problem year is singularly 2007 according to the data rather than from 2007 on as you state. Just a guess would be a bad supplier or such.

 

I don't do honeymoons with cars. I do the numbers. CR hasn't failed me in over 20 years of new car buying (10 cars and counting).

 

Pete

 

 

http://webpages.charter.net/petewk/CR.jpg

The Legacy stats don't specify turbo or not.

By own Subaru's data by late 2008 5% of 2005 turbo Legacy/Outback failed. One can guess what the number is now.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480724dec&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480724dec&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Great attachment though your analysis of it wouldn't have pleased my old Sadistics er um I mean Statistics Professor.

Heading to Disneyland right now but I'll add something later in the day.

Pete

 

 

http://webpages.charter.net/petewk/CR.jpg

Where does it say that the legacy 4cyl engine is the turbo one? that's an inference you are making vs. what's stated on the page unless there is more info that was cut out. For that matter, there was no turbo engine in either 03 or 04 for the Legacy.

They make a clear delineation between impreza non-turbo and WRX STI, but do not do that for the Legacy

The reason I included the Impreza and WRX/STi cars was because of CR's deletion of the Legacy Turbo which I'm sure was because there weren't enough sales to gather a good statistical comparison (sample). It's a safe bet that the parts across the lines are at least similar with some being shared outright.

The sheet that unclemat referred to stated "failure and / or damage due to poor engine oil maintenance and / or continuous harsh driving conditions."

The years cited for the Legacy included (for those who don't want to read the pdf themselves)

2005 4.55%

2006 1.52%

The lower number is in line with all the other figures given for the other turbo Subaru cars sold in 04 through 06.

I strongly suspect a design fault in the 05 car, probably the infamous Banjobolt.

Note that the spike in problems was a one year affair and on only one model series. The 1.5% approximation is very consistent throughout the rest of the turbo product line.

Also, the results are "unscreened". This means that they're lumping all of the claims together for the sake of the service bulletin. They're not separating out the crazy people from product defects. There will always be a percentage of drivers who either race their cars or who just don't service them properly. It doesn't surprise me that a turbo wouldn't like that kind of abuse.

If you're nice to your Subaru turbo, I doubt problems will just fall out of the sky for no reason. The reason may well be in the driver's seat.

One would assume given the numbers that under abusive conditions (harsh driving / limited oil changes) the failure rates of the turbos would be about 1 to 1.5 %. Most of those should go to poor owners with a few being defects. The 2005 cars just had a defective part.

my 2 cents

Pete

N/A motors are more reliable than turbo motors, period. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.

I've probably called the thing a "turbo motor" on occasion but that's not accurate. My HS shop teacher always used to slam an old electric motor on the table whenever a student would refer to an "Engine" as a "Motor".

In any case, strictly speaking the turbo isn't part of the engine, it's part of the exhaust system. If it died you'd have to replace it like you would an AC compressor, externally.

There are two schools of thought as to how add-ons like turbos impact an engine. One side says it's damaging but there's another way to look at it.

Assuming it was properly set up with high quality speed-pro parts and then well maintained, the turbo shouldn't alter reliability much if any. The added strain on the engine would be off-set by forged pistons, higher quality rings, bearings, forged steel con rods and crank etc etc etc.

When I raced Oldsmobiles, the secret to my engine's reliability was the quality parts, fanatical maintenance and keeping it under 6000 rpm.

Pete

I've probably called the thing a "turbo motor" on occasion but that's not accurate. My HS shop teacher always used to slam an old electric motor on the table whenever a student would refer to an "Engine" as a "Motor".

 

In any case, strictly speaking the turbo isn't part of the engine, it's part of the exhaust system. If it died you'd have to replace it like you would an AC compressor, externally.

 

There are two schools of thought as to how add-ons like turbos impact an engine. One side says it's damaging but there's another way to look at it.

 

Assuming it was properly set up with high quality speed-pro parts and then well maintained, the turbo shouldn't alter reliability much if any. The added strain on the engine would be off-set by forged pistons, higher quality rings, bearings, forged steel con rods and crank etc etc etc.

 

When I raced Oldsmobiles, the secret to my engine's reliability was the quality parts, fanatical maintenance and keeping it under 6000 rpm.

 

Pete

So you are fooling yourself.

Present Subaru turbo motor don't have forged pistons. Turbo strain is offset by lower compression and semi-closed deck block vs open-deck on N/A cars. That's great but does not make up for decreased reliability and logevity of the motor. Turbo may be technically part of the exhaust, it will still send engine killing debris if goes out of balance and compressor hits the housing - into the intake/sump.

Again, face it. You bought performance over reliability/longevity. You can't have both. Not for the price you paid, not in a Subaru.

So you are fooling yourself.

 

Present Subaru turbo motor don't have forged pistons. Turbo strain is offset by lower compression and semi-closed deck block vs open-deck on N/A cars. That's great but does not make up for decreased reliability and logevity of the motor. Turbo may be technically part of the exhaust, it will still send engine killing debris if goes out of balance and compressor hits the housing - into the intake/sump.

 

Again, face it. You bought performance over reliability/longevity. You can't have both. Not for the price you paid, not in a Subaru.

Well said - performance over longevity. That's exactly the decision process just went through. Great insight, great post. Thanks