Opinion's on 08 Legacy 3.0R

Been awhile since I checked out the site hope this is the right area to post.For those that have an 08 Legacy 3.0R could you share your thought's on the vehicle.Any mechanical issues,what type of gas mileage are you getting,how is the headlight performance on it etc.I would appreciate any insight,I am looking at getting a 4-door sedan and was just looking for some insight.

Thank's

TurboMike04

since your name is turbomike i suppose you would be looking for an LGT instead, no?

Yeah TurboMike, the 3.0R is not turbo. However, is does not require 91 octane gas just HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

I drive mostly in town and am averaging 19.8 according to the computer onboard.

the only mechanical issue (2 month old car) has been a broken plastic nut when

I tried putting the license plates on. dealer fixed that though.

headlights are fine, the DRL are a little annoying but not enough for me to

disable them. there is a light on the dash to let you know that the actual headlights

are on at night so I never forget. performance is reasonable. its a bit heavy

for the lowish torque so if you want rapid acceleration stomp on the gas to get

the revs up. its very comfy and overall has enough luxury. My other choice

was the acura TLS which is a bit bigger in the back. the awd won out in the

end. partly because the global honda corp has taken enough of my money

over the years.

 

the only really @#%^ing annoying part is the radio controls and to a lesser extent

the cruise control buttons. the streering mounted audio controls consist of a volume

control and a few other really uselessly designed buttons. Cruise control has no

way to default on. have to turn it on each time I start the car.

their over gizmoizing the MPG readouts is a bit much.

Being as I live at altitude and N/A engines lose A LOT more power than turbo'd engines I would prefer to get the GT over the 3.0R. I work for Subaru, have driven both and had this discussion with one of our technicians. My father is in the market for an Outback and he was considering getting the 3.0R over the XT. All of Subaru's N/A engines are notorious for needing their head gaskets replaced. The Turbo'd models have better gaskets and the engine is designed better overall.

IMHO I would spend the extra 2 grand and get the GT.

Last I checked most of Texas is pretty flat, no? The NA engine will be fine for your needs. Heck, I've taken mine up to 7000' and still had plenty of power. Go for it! Nice, linear powerband.

LGT is cheaper and faster ... case closed

^^ Ignorance is bliss.

Great car, buy one..

 

If you plan to mod for more power, get a LGT..

I love my 3.0R. I needed something to get me to work and back and I wanted the navigation etc. The turbo's are nice but I would rather have the extra 2 cylinders. As far as the LGT being cheaper it is debatable. If I use 87 octane gas (which the 3.0's can) I will end up spending less in the long run. So cheaper has different meanings. Plus I paid way under sticker for my 3.0 so It was about the same as a GT.

a lgt is cheaper yes ... it doesnt have the navi or the better shocks. If you add navi to the LGT the price will actually be more than our 3.0Rs

B/// My father is in the market for an Outback and he was considering getting the 3.0R over the XT. All of Subaru's N/A engines are notorious for needing their head gaskets replaced. The Turbo'd models have better gaskets and the engine is designed better overall. //

This is not true for the H6 engines. They have been out since 2001 and are proving as durable as the 2.2l H4 that made Subaru's reputatiuon for 300,000 mile engines. That's one of the reasons why the resale value is quite good for the 6 cylinder models compared to the H4's or 2.5T's. The H6's are also used as aircraft engine conversions.

 

Turbomike, until recently the H6 was only offered in the Outback line, although that's really just a trim level difference on the same platform. I have 48,000 miles on my 06 wagon, which has the same powertrain. We log all fuel use and have averaged between 21-22mpg long term. I drive pretty hard, live in a city, and drive a lot during rush hour so most could do better. Highest tank was 26.9 and I've had a few below 20mpg.

 

I tested mpg and performance with regular, mid-grade, and high test: including a dyno run. We now use regular all the time unless I am going to do an autocross or tow. I have an email from SOA saying that burning regular all the time is fine, even though the owner's manual "recommends" 91 octane.

 

If you want an AWD vehicle, it's a great compromise between ride, handling, performance, fuel economy, and traction under duress.

PLEASE! Let's leave our rabid turbo brethren occupy another forum! Yes, they are faster. No, they are not cheaper unless you remove options the 3.0r comes with. Now go away.

 

I average 24.5 MPG with a 50/50 mix of highway and back road driving (in "I" mode). My observation is, you should really drive the car in "S" mode. I mode retards the timing and leans out the fuel mixture so severely it causes the car to have a barely perceptable buck at light accelleration.

 

In S mode, I'm averaging about 22.5 MPG pretty consistently.

 

I run 93 octane exclusively as I just have 7k miles on.

 

I chose the 3.0r as it just felt tighter and felt smoother than the GT. The GT comes on with that familiar turbo torque curve, whereas the 3.0 is much more predictable.

 

I test drove both (and the Spec. B) and loved the manuals, but settled on the auto as I can play with the paddles if I want, or sport shift, or, get lazy and play with the stereo and forget about the stick. I ended up paying about $1000 more than the LGT Limited with the same stuff (and about $1200 less than the Spec) and got a better suspension and nicer feel without having to spend time reading reviews on what sway bars to add, what struts, etc.

 

Biggest annoyance: Minor body roll not present on the Spec. Probably the extra 55 lbs.

 

Oh, and for what it's worth to Stormtroopers statements; 3 of the 5 mechanics at my current garage and 4 of the 6 at my old garage drive 6 cylinders. Only 2 drive turbos. 1 drives a Neon. Poor bastard.

get a rsb and stiffer springs.

 

No body roll :-p

+1 for NA 6 cyl. over LGT. I've owned both, but a lightly modded 3.0R keeps the wife happy with her car, and I can drive it on weekends. Not really the same car, I'd say the 3.0R has a luxury feel, but still has the power to boot.

It all depends what are your goals with the car. DD, trackcar, or a little mix of the two.

If racing is important to you, I'd say LGT all the way.

But I'd get another 3.0R over another LGT again if I were to do it over again.

True, if you want to do anykind of racing i would go with the LGT, and i did lol. Yes the power curve is better in the 3.0r, that is until you go stage 1 or even better stage 2 with the LGT, power kicks in earlier and harder. And i only put around 100 bucks down for my stage 2 setup. The 3.0r does feel more stable, but i was never one to go for the more stable car over performance.

PLEASE! Let's leave our rabid turbo brethren occupy another forum! Yes, they are faster. //

A fellow at work has an 05 LGT 5EAT. It is not faster than the 3.0, at least up to 75mph. Closed course, professional driver.....

 

Unfortunately SOA does not make the SpecB 3.0R wagon available in the US, or any manual with the 3.0, let alone the 6 spd.

This is not true for the H6 engines. They have been out since 2001 and are proving as durable as the 2.2l H4 that made Subaru's reputatiuon for 300,000 mile engines. That's one of the reasons why the resale value is quite good for the 6 cylinder models compared to the H4's or 2.5T's. The H6's are also used as aircraft engine conversions.

I'm not saying that the N/A engines aren't durable, they just have headgasket problems... just like all of our N/A engines have since the mid 90's. The turbo'd engines have entirely different gaskets that are more durable. Personally I could care less if my headgaskets get fried... but I work for a dealership and can have it fixed for cheap.

 

As for the price difference... I have my invoice book sitting in front of me. If you were to have all the gross taken out of the vehicles along with the customer rebates (which is what I quote each and every one of my customers) there is a $631 difference between the XT Limited w/NAV and the L.L. Bean w/NAV.

Im not sure how you figure its not faster, same car, they have basically the same horsepower, but the 2.5turbo has 35-40 more trq and is lightier. You can sit there all you want and say the 3.0r has a better powerband, not really, when i trq brake my car even when it was stock the i would launch at a higher rpm then when the turbo starts to spool and in about 400rpms it would be fully spooled. Now that im stage 2 i can launch at a highr rpm then when its fully spooled. I did race a couple 3.0rs stock and i won by about 2 cars each time. Stage 2 they loose by alot more and like i said i only spent 100 bucks

like i said i only spent 100 bucks

How do you only spend $100 to be stage 2?

gut the cat on the Downpipe and use a laptop to create an open source tune, easy 30-40whp, if you ahve the time to do lots of data logging you can push you car as far as it can go and still be safe and see 50whp

 

30 bucks for gaskets, 79.99 for the usb to ecu cable

So.... that's not really stage 2 then.

Y not? Because i dont have a up, i could just gut the up and its the same lol. Most people dont see a hp difference between stage 2 with aftermarket up/dp and gutted oem up/dp. And i plan on gutting the up for that extra 5-10hp lol

 

I guess you can call it what you want, but either way its a huge boost in performance for 100dollars, a huge boost you wouldnt see with a 3.0r and 100 dollars

Im not sure how you figure its not faster, same car, they have basically the same horsepower, but the 2.5turbo has 35-40 more trq and is lightier. You can sit there all you want and say the 3.0r has a better powerband, not really, when i trq brake my car even when it was stock the i would launch at a higher rpm then when the turbo starts to spool and in about 400rpms it would be fully spooled. Now that im stage 2 i can launch at a higher rpm then when its fully spooled. I did race a couple 3.0rs stock and i won by about 2 cars each time. Stage 2 they loose by alot more and like i said i only spent 100 bucks

Say what you want, we've driven them against each other a number of times and the difference is inconsequential. 3.0's could torque brake as well, and have a lot of torque at low rpms.

 

I tried to have both cars run back to back on the TDC dyno, but it wouldn't work for some reason and we scrubbed it. They claim never to have dyno'd a stock 2.5T 5EAT to compare my plot with.

 

But I'll give you two car lengths (that's about .3 seconds) to 75mph, in return for better mileage, regular gas, better resale value, better towing capacity, and proven long life. Downside is no real tuning options (other than transplanting the 3.6l).

 

Advantages of the turbo - which the OP did not say he was even considering - are lighter weight, availability in US with manual, many tuning options, relatively robust power at low rpms for a turbo, and proven life to well over 100K miles.

Silly sea-level people !