Wanna bet we're next?

http://www.subaru.co.jp/legacy/30rspecb/index.html

Bob

Where do I bet no?

you know, I drove that Shift Pattern on the 6 spd
TSX and every time I went into 6 I was worried I'd
hit reverse! I like the 6 spds that put Reverse
to the left of 1st.

SOA has to see a bit more time and high numbers of Legacy GT selling before they bring over variants.

I know it bites, but money screams more than all your letters ever could.

GGT

It will have the reverse lock-out ring like the WRX.

That's cool but the 2.5l Turbo still pulls harder.

SOA has to see a bit more time and high numbers of Legacy GT selling before they bring over variants.

I know it bites, but money screams more than all your letters ever could.

GGTOne could argue that the Legacy 2.5 GT is the variant (relative to the rest of the world) and that many folks aren't buying it because they know the rest of the world gets a Legacy 3.0R and are sitting on their wallets til "the real thing" arrives here.

If you want a Legacy 3.0R sedan or wagon. You just buy a 3.0R Outback, sedan or wagon.

Unless you live in Canada then you can't get the 3.0R Sedan anymore.

No. If I want a Legacy 3.0R, I do NOT buy something I don't want, like an Outback 3.0R!

3.0 > 2.5T ?

Clear this up for me.

Frankly, a 250 hp, low torque 3.0L NA 6 cylinder does not impress anyone. With superb V6's around like those in the TL or the G35, I can't imagine why anyone looking for a performance sedan would pick the subaru H6 over the other two or over the Leg GT (maybe over the TL, given it's FWD). To put this in perspective, Acura made more HP (270) and only slightly less torque (210 vs. 219) out of their 3.0L V6 in 1991 (NSX).

']No. If I want a Legacy 3.0R, I do NOT buy something I don't want, like an Outback 3.0R!


Why not? It is after all the exact same car with slightly more ground clearance and bigger fog lights. If you don't like big fog lights put covers over them. Otherwise, it even looks the same!

Here's a Joe Spitz picture for you of the 3.0R Legacy Outback:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/OB05Rsedan1.gif

Why not? It is after all the exact same car with slightly more ground clearance and bigger fog lights. If you don't like big fog lights put covers over them. Otherwise, it even looks the same!

Here's a Joe Spitz picture for you of the 3.0R Legacy Outback:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/OB05Rsedan1.gif

And that higher ground clearance, tires with taller sidewalls all lead to less sporting handling. Besides that, it's auto-only. So there is a a difference.

Bob

And that higher ground clearance, tires with taller sidewalls all lead to less sporting handling. Besides that, it's auto-only. So there is a a difference.

Bob

Not only that.. the suspension is different, so that's a killer as well.

I have to say that I'd be more interested if they offered a 2.5R here and kept the turbo motor that's already in the GT.

I have to say that I'd be more interested if they offered a 2.5R here and kept the turbo motor that's already in the GT.

Why can't they offer both? There's the 2.5 Outback XT and H6 Outbacks. Why can't they do the same with the Lagacy?

Bob

And that higher ground clearance, tires with taller sidewalls all lead to less sporting handling. Besides that, it's auto-only. So there is a a difference.

Bob

All of the 3.0R's in NA are Auto only, but I only drive auto's so I don't mind that. They do have SS.

Plus you automatically change the tires when you buy a Subaru, or do what I did and make it a part of the buying process. Nobody likes RE92's.

If you want a tighter suspension you take it somewhere and have them tighten it. It isn't a big deal. Or go see Hondaslayer and ask how he had his Forester lowered.

The likelyhood is that if a 3.0R Legacy comes to North America it will only be a 5EAT SS anyway.

All of the 3.0R's in NA are Auto only, but I only drive auto's so I don't mind that. They do have SS.

Plus you automatically change the tires when you buy a Subaru, or do what I did and make it a part of the buying process. Nobody likes RE92's.

If you want a tighter suspension you take it somewhere and have them tighten it. It isn't a big deal. Or go see Hondaslayer and ask how he had his Forester lowered.

The likelyhood is that if a 3.0R Legacy comes to North America it will only be a 5EAT SS anyway.

Where do you get the idea that everybody "mods" their vehicles? I don't switch tires or revise the suspension when I buy a vehicle. Most people I know don't either.

I disagree about your auto-only statement too. The spec.B is offered with the 6-speed in every market it has been introduced in. Why would you think North America would be any different?

Bob

You know what Bob, I have to completely and fully agree with you, especially with the normal demographic of such a buyer for this type of vehicle. I think there is definitely a need for a Legacy 3.0R. It's questionable as to whether we'd get a 6-Speed right away as the market is generally auto-focused, but I sure wouldn't rule it out since a lot of other markets are seeing it.

But most people won't mod their cars like some of us do, myself included, and many of those want more than 4 cylinders, don't want a turbo (because it still has that bad reputation of not being reliable to many), and they don't want to have to buy an Outback to get those things. My parents would fit that bill perfectly. It's a good car for those who aren't looking for ultimate performance and modding capability in a well-rounded package.

I really hope they bring a Legacy 3.0R to the states, and soon, as in MY06. It would help bolster that upscale image.

I think we will see a bunch of 6-speed Subies within the next few years. I would not be at all surprised if all the Subie turbos get that tranny at some point; if not standard, as an option.

Bob

Bob--your mean in your opinion the next generation WRX may have a 6 speed, albeit not the the STI 6 speed? Interesting notion.

Methinks Subaru makes a 3.0l NA engine for people who have a stigma against turbo. In the 70's and 80's, american manufacturers tried turbo'd cars and failed miserably. A lot of people still remember it. Personally, I think the 2.5l NA is a little underpowered for a Legacy. That is what kept me out of the 00-04's.

As for an automatic, again Subaru is giving people what they want (or so to speak). Americans today like automatics, especially in big cars. Part of it is because that is sometimes the only choice you get. Sometimes it is because a lot of people are afraid to learn how to drive stick.

It was fairly hard for me to find an LGT Ltd wagon with a stick.

I would rather have a turbo, easier to do upgrades that give you more bang for your buck.

Bob--your mean in your opinion the next generation WRX may have a 6 speed, albeit not the the STI 6 speed? Interesting notion.

I think non-STis will get the STi-derived 3.0R Spec.B 6-speed. The Spec.B's 6-speed tranny is similar to, but not identical to the STi's tranny.

Bob

The 3.0R w/ a 6 speed would be a great addition to the Subaru lineup. My dad doesn't like the thought of paying $30k for a 4 cylinder car. If it were an AWD 6 cyl that pulls very smoothly, I could probably get them into it. FWIW, I really enjoyed the motor in the 3.0 Outback that my boss owns. It is a great highway car. A lot of people don't like turbo lag, which the auto LGT DOES have. I drove one this weekend and was very disappointed with the auto. I'm sure the 5MT is a lot more fun, though.

~~Quentin

']One could argue that the Legacy 2.5 GT is the variant (relative to the rest of the world) and that many folks aren't buying it because they know the rest of the world gets a Legacy 3.0R and are sitting on their wallets til "the real thing" arrives here.

Permit me to quibble. The average car shopper knows about as much about what they're selling in the JDM as I do about building a space shuttle. For them, the USDM GT is the "real thing," and that's all that they know.

FWIW, a wagon 3.0R with a manual transmission would have had my money over the turbo version in a heartbeat.

Kevin

Another thought: what type of gas would the 3.0R use? I'd say 87 Octane, and that can make a difference to the average car buyer, especially with current gas prices.

91 Octane for the 3.0R

it is only 87 for the NA 2.5's like mine.

91 Octane for the 3.0R

it is only 87 for the NA 2.5's like mine.

91 is "recommended," but you can use regular with some loss of power. I don't think I'd run regular all the time though.

Bob

I think non-STis will get the STi-derived 3.0R Spec.B 6-speed. The Spec.B's 6-speed tranny is similar to, but not identical to the STi's tranny.

Bob
I hope so too. I have no need for the DCCD function... the active center diff works just fine in Auto mode.

Im prb. the minority, but i still think people are turning away from subaru because of the GT mpgs. Does anyone know if the Flat 6 w/a manual betters the numbers of the GT.

BlitZ

It isn't the engine it is the AWD.

If they tested the GT vs AWD cars the MPG wouldn't be an Issue.

Im prb. the minority, but i still think people are turning away from subaru because of the GT mpgs. Does anyone know if the Flat 6 w/a manual betters the numbers of the GT.

BlitZ
Probably so. It has a much higher compression ratio.. so highway cruising should be more efficient.

Im prb. the minority, but i still think people are turning away from subaru because of the GT mpgs. Does anyone know if the Flat 6 w/a manual betters the numbers of the GT.

BlitZI decided to check out the differences in fuel economy (measured per EU standards) of some German Legacy and Outback 3.0R models and compare them to some US versions. Note that one can't directly compare EU numbers to US numbers due to differences in how they must be measured. Same for the vehicle weights. However, comparisons WITHIN EU models (or US models) should be valid.

The info for the German versions comes from:
http://www.subaru.de/legacy-spec.pdf
http://www.subaru.de/outback-spec.pdf
and the info for the US versions of the Outback come from Joe Spitz's Outback specs page at:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/outback/outback2005.html

Note: I converted the EU fuel economy measure (liters per 100 kilometers) to the US measure shown in the table below by dividing the EU measure into 235.215 (if this is grossly wrong, please let me know).
Model City MPG Highway MPG Overall MPG Weight lb
EU Legacy Wagon
3.0R 6MT 14 27 20 3340

EU Legacy Wagon
3.0R 5EAT 17 32 25 3296

EU Outback Wagon
3.0R 5EAT 18 31 24 3406

US Outback LL Bean
3.0R 5EAT 19 25 ?? 3600

US Outback XT
2.5L 5EAT 19 24 ?? 3480

US Outback XT
2.5L 5MT 19 25 ?? 3415The results are a rude shock. The 3.0R Spec B Legacy wagon in Germany has LOUSY fuel economy when compared to the similar EU automatic 3.0R Legacy wagon. And it's even worse than the heavier EU Outback 3.0R automatic wagon.

????

The rude shock might be that the higher numbers are for Imperial gallons and your lower US numbers are for American Gallons.

1 US Gallon = 3.7 Litres
1 Imperial Gallon = 4.54 Litres

31 miles per Imperial Gallon = 25 miles per American Gallon.

As for the 3.0R 6MT being worse then 3.0R 5EAT likely has something to do with the way it was tested and gearing. Although it is still surprising.

The rude shock might be that the higher numbers are for Imperial gallons and your lower US numbers are for American Gallons.

1 US Gallon = 3.7 Litres
1 Imperial Gallon = 4.54 Litres

31 miles per Imperial Gallon = 25 miles per American Gallon.

As for the 3.0R 6MT being worse then 3.0R 5EAT likely has something to do with the way it was tested and gearing. Although it is still surprising.I converted liters to US gallons and kilometers to US miles. Your "observation" still doesn't dispell the disparity within the EU 3.0R model line or explain why the Spec B gets such lousy fuel economy relative the 5EAT 3.0R version.

P.S. How do you convert L/100km to MPG?

']
Note: I converted the EU fuel economy measure (liters per 100 kilometers) to the US measure shown in the table below by dividing the EU measure into 235.215 (if this is grossly wrong, please let me know).

The rude shock might be that the higher numbers are for Imperial gallons and your lower US numbers are for American Gallons.

Where did you get imperial miles from?

1 l/100km = 235.214584 miles per gallon (http://www.google.com/search?q=l%2F100km+to+mpg&sourceid=mozilla&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) Google knows all.