Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday July 22, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Technical > Normally Aspirated Powertrain

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-25-2001, 09:13 PM   #1
baldcherub
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 11017
Join Date: Oct 2001
Vehicle:
1998 L
White

Default 2.5 RS vs 2.2 L

I have read in a thread (I forgot which one) that a stock 2.2 L can keep up with a stock 2.5 RS if driven correctly... is this true? and what exactly does driven correctly mean???
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
baldcherub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2001, 09:43 PM   #2
Midwayman
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1997
Join Date: Jul 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Vehicle:
2006 Acura TL 6spd
STMGM6 alumni

Default

Ummmm no.
If the RS has a bad driver and the L has a perfect driver maybe...
Midwayman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2001, 10:21 PM   #3
HndaTch627
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6551
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Carol Stream, IL
Vehicle:
'01 GC8 Dinged STM
'09 Concours 14 ABS Black

Default

john wasn't too far behind me in his L wagon at our last rally-x but he has more expereience in the dirt then i did. But sure there's a chance...given the right (or wrong) drivers.

jeremy
HndaTch627 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2001, 10:23 PM   #4
baldcherub
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 11017
Join Date: Oct 2001
Vehicle:
1998 L
White

Default

that's what I thought but I looked up the 0-60 times on the L and the RS and they differ by about 0.4 seconds... is that a lot? I mean for the extra amount you pay for the RS?

of course I'm ignoring the other factors such as the LSD, the improved looks and suspension etc...

but I'm talking about pure 0-60 time

plus the compression ratio on the RS is a tad too high for turbo isn't it?
baldcherub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2001, 11:18 PM   #5
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Default

Quote:
that's what I thought but I looked up the 0-60 times on the L and the RS and they differ by about 0.4 seconds... is that a lot?
In my opinion, 0.4sec in 0-60mph is easily within the good driver vs. bad driver range.

Quote:
plus the compression ratio on the RS is a tad too high for turbo isn't it?
Go tell that to all the guys in the Aftermarket Forced Induction Forum. With good fuel and engine management, guys are running boost pressures in the double digits.

Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
Patrick Olsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2001, 11:26 PM   #6
jagcars26
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2394
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Bel Air Md.
Vehicle:
2005 Legacy GT wagon
2009 Forester X

Default

Aint no way!! even with a lousy 2.5 driver.Ive owned both.That .04 has got to be BS.Im talkin staight line here,,not threw the twistys and what not.There the driver would count.
Rudy
jagcars26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2001, 02:40 AM   #7
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: haha XD
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru 599 :P
Galaxy Blue Sexy

Default

No

Unless you take alot of weight out of the 2.2 and leave that same weight in the 2.5

Its 140hp vs. 165hp
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2001, 09:09 AM   #8
inpreza kid
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3334
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Default

when i drove a 140hp L i noticed it had alot less torque and power. i think it might be a little more than .4 seconds. than again it might be just my butt dyno.
inpreza kid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2001, 09:42 AM   #9
JGard
pooptastic
 
Member#: 1904
Join Date: Jul 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Austin, TX
Vehicle:
2014 Lexus IS 350
01 Miata red

Default

don't forget the ABS!

ok, so it's not always the best thing...but generally it is better to have it, than not.
JGard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2001, 11:16 AM   #10
baldcherub
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 11017
Join Date: Oct 2001
Vehicle:
1998 L
White

Default

ok I did more research...
the fastest time I found for a 98 2.2 L is 8.8
the fastest I found for a 98 RS was 8.2

does that sound about right?
baldcherub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2001, 09:47 AM   #11
JGard
pooptastic
 
Member#: 1904
Join Date: Jul 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Austin, TX
Vehicle:
2014 Lexus IS 350
01 Miata red

Default

i haven't seen the 98's times, but that could be right.

I know it has a different engine than the 99-01's, with less torque. The best I've seen on a 99-01 RS 0-60 is 7.7 seconds, as reported by SCC.
JGard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2001, 02:29 PM   #12
advance
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3291
Join Date: Dec 2000
Default

Driver makes the differce, I have beaten RS's before and I am completely stock other than looks and I ran a 16.5 1/4 mile grinding third really bad which means I should have been around 16.4 or 16.3, they can keep up, on the freeway or on the drag but the RS seems to respond better in 4th than my car.
advance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2001, 04:48 PM   #13
joltdudeuc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 6119
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Union City, CA
Vehicle:
1999 GM6
RBP

Default

i can do 0-60 in 7.8 in my RS...

Intake Silencer Removed
Stromung Mild-Steel Midpipe
Stromung Dual Tip Exhuast
k&n panel Filter

SCC got 6hp across the board with the dualtip exhuast...

so, i figure i'm running 170hp... and i'm a pretty skilled driver, for the most part...

i don't think a 2.2 DOHC has the torque to keep up with a 2.5...

-Gagan
PS: there are some crazzzzzzzyy 2.2 out there though!!
joltdudeuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 12:13 AM   #14
baldcherub
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 11017
Join Date: Oct 2001
Vehicle:
1998 L
White

Default

ohh those quarter mile times are pretty decent... although I got a 98 and stock you got about 5 more hp... don't know if that makes a big difference??? Right now I'm running a ractive muffler (4 1/2 inch tip) and larry ganz's cone filter conversion (which is quite nice with some custom fabrication may I add).... I'm getting a new clutch next week and putting it in myself (gonna kill myself doing it too probably but I'm not gonna pay someone 500 bucks to put it in for me)... then I'll take it to the track and see what it has...
hopefully the clutch will do something for me
baldcherub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 02:51 AM   #15
lethargicman
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8961
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: My bed room! :P
Vehicle:
2001 Impreza GM6
Rest In Peace. 2/01-10/04

Default

But remember, the 2.5 is just a bored and stroked 2.2. Top speed is very similar. The 2.5 simply has the advantage of the low-end. RallyImprezive (Impreza L 2.2 automatic) and I went at it once just to see. He kept up with no problem, granted he has an automatic, and my shifting was short and smooth. But I DID get him on the get go and stayed ahead. But he was on my ass the whole time. I for one have faith in the little 2.2's Still better than a Honda 1.whatever!

-Jason SDC

Huh huh, I said stroked!
lethargicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 02:55 AM   #16
Kostamojen
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2272
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: haha XD
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru 599 :P
Galaxy Blue Sexy

Default

And the 2.0 is just a bored, redone 1.8
Kostamojen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 01:07 PM   #17
FlooredSubaru
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 10254
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Westminster, Co
Vehicle:
1995 Impreza Rally
red with 2.0L turbo motor

Default

i have beat 2.5rs in my modified OBS but i have also beat WRX who dont know how to drive about a week ago i beat one becouse he would shift at about 3500 rpm and the turbo didn't have much time too spool.

but my friends rock me in the 2.5 rs and if i had the money i would be driving one right now.

so if i was going to spend the money and had more time to save i would for sure buy the 2.5rs over any subaru L or at least the OBS becouse you get all the power stuff

Erik s.
FlooredSubaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2001, 01:49 PM   #18
Iowannaski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8268
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brighton, MA
Vehicle:
00 GM67
BRP me ASAP

Default

top speed for the L and RS are probably closer than they should be because of all the aerodynamic trash the RS has to deal with.

"just a bored and stroked 2.2"

well, yeah, I suppose more displacement does have something to do with the additional power
Iowannaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2001, 05:45 AM   #19
damianq
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 5380
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Edmonton
Vehicle:
1999 Impreza
Primer

Default If one takes the driver out of the equation

It is very possible that the 2.2L can be just as fast (0-60) as the 2.5L motor. The advantage that most 2.2L equipped cars have is weight. Most do not have a sunroof or power options, etc. The RS even has thicker sound deadening material and more of it. The seats are even heavier. It also has smaller & lighter rim/tire combination that allows it to accelerate faster, all things being equal.

Another advantage the 2.2 has over the 2.5 is that it makes its peak torque lower in the rev band than the 2.5. The 2.2 has a compression ratio of 10.0:1 and the RS has a 9.7:1 ratio. Therefore, upon launch, it reaches its peak faster than does the 2.5 which gives it a slight edge. The 2.5 catches back up w/ a higher revving engine so it can go further into the revs than the 2.2L allowing it to have a rolling advantage. Once moving the 2.5 will have more in reserve since the 2.2 will move past its peak and into inefficiency sooner than the 2.5L. The 2.5 can keep accelerating faster b/c it has more wind left in its sails.

Just to clear some things up:
Yes, the 2.5 is a bored & stroked 2.2L motor. The 2.0L motor is NOT a bigger 1.8L. They share the same design layout but internal passages & lengths are completely different. They are in the same family only by series not by manufacture. One was built to be a turbocharged engine from the get-go. The Japanese 2.0L motor is the most efficient Subaru has ever made. That cannot be said for the older 1.8L, any way you look at it.

Before anyone asks, I don't work for Subaru. Well, not exactly.

Last edited by damianq; 11-29-2001 at 05:51 AM.
damianq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2001, 07:49 AM   #20
baldcherub
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 11017
Join Date: Oct 2001
Vehicle:
1998 L
White

Default

ok according to edmunds a 98 2.2 L weighs in at 2720
and a 98 2.5 RS weighs in at 2825

which for the nonmathmeticians out there amounts to 105 pounds of difference.



Quote:
Another advantage the 2.2 has over the 2.5 is that it makes its peak torque lower in the rev band than the 2.5
not really... the 98 models both reach their peak torque at 4000... you must be thinking of the 2000 models which have the higher compression ratio and reaching it's peak torque at 3600. Giving it a 5 hp boost over it's predecessor.

just my two cents
baldcherub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2001, 10:30 AM   #21
inpreza kid
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3334
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Default

i believe the MY00+ phase 2 ej 25's all have a compression ratio of 10.0:1 the MY99 and MY98 had 9.7:1.
inpreza kid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2001, 12:01 PM   #22
damianq
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 5380
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Edmonton
Vehicle:
1999 Impreza
Primer

Default

You are both correct but driving them you will see that they drive very similarly. The powerdand is very similar & and difference is almost undetectable, w/ the 2.2L.
damianq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Legacy 2.5 GT vs. Impreza 2.5 RS beantmt Newbies & FAQs 1 06-06-2007 04:05 PM
2005 2.5 RS vs. 2006 2.5i Paraskass Normally Aspirated Powertrain 15 08-18-2006 03:48 AM
('93-'01) 2.5 rs vs si vs rsx-s vs gs-r scoobyimpreza Impreza Forum 79 11-08-2002 12:30 AM
ROAD TEST: 2001 2.5 RS VS 2002 2.5 RS WantaSubaru Normally Aspirated Powertrain 4 06-11-2001 09:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.