Legacy choice. Can't decide between power or efficiency.

So, I've been researching cars (mostly legacies) for a few days now, and while the car is quite decent (notably the AWD of course), I'm having trouble deciding whether I'd want the efficiency of the 2.5i CVT or the more powerful 3.6R.

 

GT is basically out of the question - I'm not going to have another turbo car that requires premium fuel @ today's fuel prices. And while I realise the 3.6R seems lacking in takeoff power, I'm more one of the types that occasionally likes to put the pedal down rather than have a car that can always burn the tires and/or induce whiplash (not to say that it doesn't appeal to me a little bit..).

 

Essentially, I've realised that the 3.6R *is* somewhat underwhelming, so I find myself a bit hesitant to pick up a model with quite drastically lower fuel economy when the power doesn't really seem to justify the loss.

 

It's likely going to be a while before I'm ready to buy, so maybe I'll wait to see what the 2012 models have to offer. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the bells & whistles (which you see a lot on other similar-category vehicles) being made standard.

 

TD;DR - Convince me which Legacy to get when I want reasonable power but not have to buy premium fuel. What are *YOUR* thoughts on 2010/2011 2.5i / 3.6R (CVT or normal automatic) models?

 

A couple questions:

 

I've read that the CVT 2.5i is extremely lacking on torque from the get-go. Is this also true for the 3.6 model?

 

..edit: I've found while posting/editing this message that I've answered a lot of my own questions. I'm leaning towards the 3.6R model even with decreased fuel economy based on the following: Rear LSD, reasonable power, timing chain vs timing belt (in the 2.5i) and no dealing with CVT uncertainty.

 

More editing: Does the 3.6R Legacy have a rear LSD or not? I'm reading conflicting information. Either way, is it possible for a 3.6R to get stuck with just one tire per axle spinning?

The VDC system is supposed to apply the brakes to hold a free spinning wheel, effectively acting like an electronic LSD. The advantage of a true LSD is that you could disable VDC and just power through if needed.

For most situations, the VDC is probably sufficient.

 

Test drive both cars before dismissing the 2.5i, the CVT does wonders in terms of maximizing performance. You can accelerate while the engine sits right in the middle of its power band, so it gives a nice performance boost.

 

The 5EAT in the 3.6R is a decent transmission. Upshifts are a little slow, but rev matched downshifts are very nice.

Test drive both cars before dismissing the 2.5i, the CVT does wonders in terms of maximizing performance. You can accelerate while the engine sits right in the middle of its power band, so it gives a nice performance boost.

 

I intend to, but I've read that the 2.5i CVT doesn't have the low-end torque to make it up steep hills from a stop.. mostly in reverse.

 

Being virginia, there are some damn steep hills around here in the mountains. I don't really intend to 'off-road' in a Legacy, but I'd hate to get stuck because I can't get up a hill or something.

Any reason you dont want manual?

So, I've been researching cars (mostly legacies) for a few days now, and while the car is quite decent (notably the AWD of course), I'm having trouble deciding whether I'd want the efficiency of the 2.5i CVT or the more powerful 3.6R.

 

GT is basically out of the question - I'm not going to have another turbo car that requires premium fuel @ today's fuel prices.

Being virginia, there are some damn steep hills around here in the mountains. I don't really intend to 'off-road' in a Legacy, but I'd hate to get stuck because I can't get up a hill or something.

 

Yeah, I really wanted the power of the turbo just for the fun factor, but I too decided against it because of fuel prices for 92 grade. And the V6 would just guzzle gas with my lead foot.

 

Regardless, I really enjoy my 2.5i since it has plenty of power and then some. I even have the CVT which sips a little power off the top compared to the manual, but makes up for it in constant power application instead of lost power between shifts. And I've been up and down many steep hills. Let me just say that there is PLENTY of power in the 2.5i to have fun and plenty of torque to make hills feel like anthills, even in that horrid winter snow storm we had weeks ago.

 

My experience with it: a brand new 2.5i will take a little break-in until you get close to the full power out of it. Mine is getting faster and faster as I break it in. This is probably due to both the computer learning your driving style and the brand new engine doing a little fine-wear tuning of its own. But I'm no expert in this area, so whatever factors contribute to it, mine is getting much better at full throttle take offs now then when it was brand new. I've noticed that the CVT really helps with the power curve from about 40-60, while the 0-40mph is a tad more sluggish (but still plenty of torque). In other words, highway and country road passing is top-notch in all Legacies.

With regards to hills and the 2.5i, it will handle them without a problem. My college is on the side of a huge hill (the campus averages about a 6% grade, but there are a few hills that are steeper), and my '09 2.5i (not a CVT) has no issues.

I personally found the extra power (and cost) to not be worth the loss in fuel economy. I drive roughly 40k a year, so I need something reliable, safe, and fuel efficient. I was surprised how peppy it was for an automatic 4 cylinder. There are a few instances where I wish I did have more power for passing or such, but I feel it's helped me become a calmer and more fuel efficient driver. Since there are very few times I'd get to use the power anyway. I'd say over 85% of my driving is all freeway. So once I'm up to speed I'm just hit the cruise and go.

 

I've never had a problem with any hills, even when they're covered in snow, though I have the 4eat, not the cvt. Just test drive them both and I think the decision will be made then.

Tygerr makes a good point. If you drive a lot the H6 won't be very cost effective. I don't drive a lot per year maybe 10k so the fun factor is definitely enjoyed here. The 2.5i with the CVT did not have enough power for me and I found it a busy noisy engine. I needed an automatic so the wife can drive it without destroying it too. The H6 5EAT tranny is descent enough to put down the power; smooth and quiet. Effortless on the highway.

Well, considering my current car gets about the same (if not worse) gas mileage than the EPA 3.6R is rated for.. it's not like I'm losing anything. In fact, I'm sure overall power will be substantially better (I've got a puny 2.5L V6 hyundai).

Well, considering my current car gets about the same (if not worse) gas mileage than the EPA 3.6R is rated for.. it's not like I'm losing anything. In fact, I'm sure overall power will be substantially better (I've got a puny 2.5L V6 hyundai).

 

I just came from a 2.5L V6 Hyundai also, and the 2.5i seems quicker and much smoother, and they have practically the same power output. I absolutely hated that Hyundai engine...poor gas mileage and not much power for a V6. So if you're willing to sacrifice the mileage of the 2.5i for the power of the 3.6R, then definitely go for it. But I'm very pleased with the move from the Hyundai V6 to the Subaru H4.

you'll always want more power and you'll never have enough.

 

Get the smallest engine possible so that the money you save in gas can pay for all the f-ups when you try to get more power out of it.

I've had the misfortune of driving the Hyundai Sonata with the 2.7 v6 as a rental once (2005 iirc). Even though the motors put out similar numbers, the Hyundai's delivery felt very anemic. Add to that the poor road noise sound deadening, rattling interior with 11k on the clock, and non supportive seats it was dreadful for long drives.

 

The Subaru wins hands down. You'd be happy with either version in comparison.

you'll always want more power and you'll never have enough.

 

Get the smallest engine possible so that the money you save in gas can pay for all the f-ups when you try to get more power out of it.

 

I look at it like this - average fuel savings is ~20% for the 2.5i CVT vs the 3.6R.

 

Say I heavily use my car - ~15k miles a year. Assuming I'd average about 21mpg in the 3.6R (for city+highway), that's about 700 gallons of gas in a year. At ~$3 per gallon, around $2100.

 

Lets say the 2.5i averages about 26.5 city/highway, that's about 566 gallons, or $1700 (again, at ~$3 per gallon).

 

What's more important to me... saving $400/year on gas? Or having a car with a good amount more power? All things I'll have to consider, but I do favor 6cyl as I enjoy having a car that doesn't sound 'labored' on every natural acceleration.

 

One thing holding me back from the 2.5i CVT is the uncertainty of the reliability of the CVT. To that, you might say 'go manual', but the 2.5i with manual transmission loses a fairly substantial amount of fuel efficiency the CVT gives, so I feel I might as well go for the 3.6R over a 2.5i manual.

you'll always want more power and you'll never have enough.

 

Get the smallest engine possible so that the money you save in gas can pay for all the f-ups when you try to get more power out of it.

 

Hahaha, so true. Well, at least true for when I was younger and adding intake, cat-back, etc. to my little CRX Si. I never had enough power (ie: early 90s Honda engines are underpowered). With my 2.5i, and even with the CVT, I have plenty. But the kid in me always wants more, so I'll probably be poking and prodding the engine and computer over the years. It's still plenty of power for my daily commute.

Say I heavily use my car - ~15k miles a year. Assuming I'd average about 21mpg in the 3.6R (for city+highway), that's about 700 gallons of gas in a year. At ~$3 per gallon, around $2100.

 

Lets say the 2.5i averages about 26.5 city/highway, that's about 566 gallons, or $1700 (again, at ~$3 per gallon).

 

 

 

Now run those same numbers with a 2.5 Turbo.... I have a 5Mt and get 25mpg with alot of highway driving, but was getting 22 with a solid mix of city/highway. At an extra $0.30 per gallon you are looking at $210 more per year in gas (assuming your 21mpg numbers)

 

Is it worth $210 more per year to have the turbo??

 

There is always alot of talk about the extra cost of premium fuel, but honestly for each FULL fuel up (14gal) were talking $4.20 per tank. ($0.30 seems to be the norm diff from 87 - 92)

 

Of course if you go GT, MT is standard now, but the 6MT should yield similar MPG.

I'd rather not have to buy premium fuel or deal with extra maintenance/repair costs (long term) incurred by a highly tweaked turbo engine. Even though it would have a better 0-60, I'd have to pass. Plus, you're still going to have the same labored-engine sound while taking off naturally.

Plus, you're still going to have the same labored-engine sound while taking off naturally.

 

QFT. If someone wants more acceleration/torque before a turbo would kick-in, then they'd want the 3.6R model. Adding a turbo and/or supercharger to a regular, naturally aspired 2.5i engine is just a waste of time and money.

 

Other than that, there are always little things someone can do to make the stock 2.5i more efficient, but those add up to minor performance bumps only. And I'd take reliability and fuel economy with a already powerful stock engine over tweaks/bolt-ons with questionable longevity and quirky fuel/air mixtures.

 

EDIT: accidentally called the 3.6R a V6

You're forgetting about the difference in insurance rates as well as the increased purchase price, comparing equal packages. It all adds up.

I compared insurance rates for the base 2.5i vs the 3.6R - there's not that much of a difference at all (to my surprise).

 

As for purchase price, yes.. that's true, however.. I've heard they're having problems moving the 3.6R models due to everyone wanting efficiency (and/or lack of MT), so it shouldn't be terribly hard to find them cheap.

I just realized that I accidentally called the 3.6R a V6 instead of a boxer 6. anyways...

 

As for purchase price, yes.. that's true, however.. I've heard they're having problems moving the 3.6R models due to everyone wanting efficiency (and/or lack of MT), so it shouldn't be terribly hard to find them cheap.

 

Indeed. Unfortunately our 5th gen Legacies have a fairly weak 6 for their class, making it feel underwhelming compared to the Nissan's V6. On the other hand, our boxer 4 is excellent all-around, and of course the LGT blows away most everything else in its class.

Your right don't buy the GT, It will absolutely change your standards and expectations; then when your in too deep subaru will redesign it to some giant monstrosity with hideous headlights and you'll be lost...

 

/sarcasm

 

welcome to the forums.

Your right don't buy the GT, It will absolutely change your standards and expectations; then when your in too deep subaru will redesign it to some giant monstrosity with hideous headlights and you'll be lost...

 

/sarcasm

 

welcome to the forums.

 

I'm not implying it's a bad car, I just: 1. Don't want manual.. 2. Don't think the extra maintenance (turbo) cost is worth it.. 3. Don't want to have to use premium & still get roughly the same mileage as the 3.6R.

If the 3.6R was tuned to premium it would make more power. Have you driven both? When I bought my GT, I drove the 2.5, 3.0, and GT. I couldn't give up my stick shift, and the H6 just doesn't produce the torque the turbo does. I had a 2.5 forester previously and wanted to move up. The H6 was "sneaky" fast compared to the 2.5. It's a solid engine and was tempting to me except for the auto only. H6 will cost more but they hold their value well. If you can fit the difference in price and gas bill, go for it. Nobody has ever regretted having a little more power on tap either.

 

Downsides are not much choice in suspension changes, if you care. Also a bit more weight up front. Power from factory is what you get, no power mods out there unless you are seriously adventurous..

 

Have you looked at the AWD infinity G35?

I couldn't give up my stick shift

 

Although some of us (myself included) would love the manual, we have other people in our lives (ie: significant others) who can't drive stick. So for me, the CVT was a good compromise since I could still have my fun now and then with the paddle shifters. Others just don't want a stick due to excessive traffic in the commute they're traveling every day. On top of that, the CVT is supposed to save on gas over the manual, so it's also a fuel economy choice.

 

and the H6 just doesn't produce the torque the turbo does.

 

Indeed, the 3.6R feels tepid compared to the GT. Still much more powerful than the 2.5i, but nothing like a Subaru turbo.

 

Nobody has ever regretted having a little more power on tap either.

 

Because those who consider fuel economy a priority won't be going that route any ways.

 

Downsides are not much choice in suspension changes, if you care.

 

The downside of the 3.6R is that everything else mechanically is pretty much as the 2.5i. I don't know what's different on the GT in suspension from the 2.5i, if anything?

I compared insurance rates for the base 2.5i vs the 3.6R - there's not that much of a difference at all (to my surprise).

 

That's good to hear. Would you mind telling the price difference? I don't really care for how much you're paying, but if you don't feel comfortable don't sweat it.

 

I plan on picking up possibly a 3.0R or GT when I finally move and get the job I'm hoping for (which would come with a company car, Legacy 2.5i ).

 

I thought the H6 came with a bit firmer/sportier suspension over the 2.5i? Perhaps that was the 3.0, not the 3.6? I can't remember.