Page 30 of 109 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 40 80 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 2710
  1. #726
    Digital Toast
    Reputation: Zeroack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    449
    Stick is no problem. I'm a farm boy from Nebraska. I learned to drive on a 1974 half ton full time 4x4 Chevy truck. I'll see if I can't find a wrx, wrx with a stick, or a non-wrx with a stick to test drive.

  2. #727
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    106
    You sound like you need a WRX... You won't like the 2.5rs/i '02+ they are also dogs. The Pre-'02 2.5rs is a fun little car but not exactly "fast" like I'm thinking you're looking for. I have an '02 WRX wagon and I love my car. Traded an '07 2.5i for it actually.

  3. #728
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    ^^ Nice. I'd love those headlights but they're just too pricey for me. What exhaust is that in the 1st pic? Looks like a Cobb.
    I certainly wish I still had those headlights but they were sold in the first part-out ... The exhaust is a Borla XR-1

    Quote Originally Posted by essjss
    I drove a Miata through 6 Ohio winters and loved it. Throw some snows on it and have a tail sliding good time!
    Well snow tires or some good all weather tires (we dont get too much snow usually) are the plan but at the moment it might be more economical to keep the WRX through the winter. And besides, for as long as I've had the WRX I never got to play in the snow yet in it because I was usually on crutches for some reason....

  4. #729
    MTB Newbie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    569
    It's hard to imagine a 175hp Outback is a dog, but I guess it is? We have a 6sp Versa that has 122hp and 127tq and THAT is a dog in the mountains, even on rolling hills. I was hoping we would be fine with an Outback, but maybe we'll need the 3.0L motor.

  5. #730
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kona_CT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by stib
    Fraternal twins... Came back from a ride to find another LGT wagon parked next to mine (the one with the bike). Sorry about the crappy phone photo.
    Same thing happened to me a while back!

    --NC
    2008 Kona Cowan // 2005 Kona Cowan // 2009 Giant Modem // 2009 department store IronHorse // 1970s Schwinn roadie

  6. #731
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1
    I know this likely isn't the best place to post, but I am bit lost with picking out a proper bike rack for my '05 WRX wagon.

    Ideally, I want a setup that won't have the trunk spoiler making contact with the back of the tray when the hatch is open...though I hear this is easier said than done. Any advice?

    I was planning on getting the Thule 45050 setup (which attaches to the factory wagon rails) and a thule fairing, but am lost when it comes to best bike attachment. It will be for a Specialized Stump Jumper (26" wheels). Any help would be great!

    Also, obligatory pics of my wagon.





    Mods are:

    Eibach Springs
    KartBoy Shifter and Swaybar Endlinks
    Upgraded Sways
    UTEC Engine Management
    OZ 17" Superleggeras
    Turbo-Back Exhaust (Invidia and Prodrive)

  7. #732
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,232
    RogueM3 I am purely speculating here but I think the problem lies with what bike rack you choose.

    The 45050 will work but if roof length is an issue you need to find a rack where it's front attachment point is not at the very end.

    So this may not work if you have a short roof with a spoiler:



    But this one will work (it's the 594XT Sidearm):



    ...you simply slide it just far enough forward to clear your spoiler.


    EDIT: DUHHH, I just saw the picture up above of the white bugeye WRX... dude just turned the rack around, so technically if you mounted your bike backwards you could use any rack you wanted to.
    Last edited by XJaredX; 10-01-2010 at 04:27 PM.

  8. #733
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeroack
    Help me like a Subaru. I've test drove two different Outbacks. First was a 04 and the last one was a 06. The 04 had a lot of miles, but the 06 only had about 60k. Both cars were complete dogs on the road. It seemed I couldn't get the accelerator pedal to go deep enough. After looking at Rav4's, Escapes, Wranglers, Xterra's, etc, I really like the form factor of a Outback. I just can't stand the lack of power. The Escape and Rav4 completely blew the Outback away in that category. Not a totally fair comparison because the others both had v6 power plants, but still. Do I need to look at a different model?
    You should be looking at either a 6 cylinder outback if you're going '04, or if you're going '05 onward either a turbo or a 6 cylinder, it wasn't exactly fair to compare a 2.5L Outback to a 6 cylinder anything else.

  9. #734
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    It's hard to imagine a 175hp Outback is a dog, but I guess it is? We have a 6sp Versa that has 122hp and 127tq and THAT is a dog in the mountains, even on rolling hills. I was hoping we would be fine with an Outback, but maybe we'll need the 3.0L motor.
    The 3.0 is a funny motor. Still a dog around town, but a dream cruising the highway.

    You need the turbo if you want acceleration around town.

  10. #735
    Digital Toast
    Reputation: Zeroack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    449
    I've contacted a few dealers that have outbacks and wrx's with manual transmissions and turbos. I'm hoping I can drive them next weekend. Is there a huge difference between the 2.5t Outback and the 2.0t wrx? Is the weight diff between the cars that eveident or does the .5 displacement make up the difference.

  11. #736
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,232
    If we're talking about a pre-owned 224hp WRX, it's only like 20 hp difference between that and a heavier Outback XT so I would have to say the WRX would probably beat it in a drag race. But the XT gets up and moves quick enough that it shouldn't matter.

    What you should more-so be looking at is the size. If you have kids or dogs an Outback is a bit friendlier. As far as handling, that's up to you- the WRX will take the twisties better, but the Outback is quieter, smoother, and more composed.

  12. #737
    Digital Toast
    Reputation: Zeroack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by XJaredX
    If we're talking about a pre-owned 224hp WRX, it's only like 20 hp difference between that and a heavier Outback XT so I would have to say the WRX would probably beat it in a drag race. But the XT gets up and moves quick enough that it shouldn't matter.

    What you should more-so be looking at is the size. If you have kids or dogs an Outback is a bit friendlier. As far as handling, that's up to you- the WRX will take the twisties better, but the Outback is quieter, smoother, and more composed.
    Just the answer I was looking for. From what I've seen the XT's also don't have the price tags that the wrx does.

  13. #738
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeroack
    Just the answer I was looking for. From what I've seen the XT's also don't have the price tags that the wrx does.
    Just try to find one with a good maintenance history. The turbo 2.5's are just as reliable as their non-turbo counterparts, AS LONG as the oil is changed every 3,750 miles. When people stretch the changes out to 5-7,000 miles is when you start seeing fried turbos.

  14. #739
    MTB Newbie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    569
    Any of the 2.5T cars will have much better midrange drivability than the 2.0T cars. The OBXT/LGT/FXT all use basically a detuned STi motor.

    I have an 02 WRX, so we're looking for a trip car that gets better mileage than I do. that's why we're trying to avoid a turbo.

  15. #740
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    I have an 02 WRX, so we're looking for a trip car that gets better mileage than I do. that's why we're trying to avoid a turbo.

    You definitely don't want the H6, then. That thing is an absolute pig on gas.
    Oh noes. I'm going to drink the Kool-Aid.

  16. #741
    MTB Newbie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by jcaino
    You definitely don't want the H6, then. That thing is an absolute pig on gas.
    I just can't believe the H4 isn't enough power for the Outback. We're not racing the thing...

  17. #742
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,232
    The H6 is not a pig on gas compared to other 6 cylinder AWD cars. It will gets roughly what your WRX gets.

    The 175hp 2.5L is quite alright when paired to the 5 speed manual. Its just that the 4 speed automatic box, while ever so reliable, tends to hinder the acceleration. The 05-09 automatic Outbacks with the SportShift mode alleviates this somewhat though.

  18. #743
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,532
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueM3
    I know this likely isn't the best place to post, but I am bit lost with picking out a proper bike rack for my '05 WRX wagon.

    Ideally, I want a setup that won't have the trunk spoiler making contact with the back of the tray when the hatch is open...though I hear this is easier said than done. Any advice?

    I was planning on getting the Thule 45050 setup (which attaches to the factory wagon rails) and a thule fairing, but am lost when it comes to best bike attachment. It will be for a Specialized Stump Jumper (26" wheels). Any help would be great!
    I had the same spoiler issue on my Impreza Outback Sport (with a Yakima rack) & someone here suggested putting the rack on backwards (bike faces rearward), and voila, problem solved.

  19. #744
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AWDfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by XJaredX
    The H6 is not a pig on gas compared to other 6 cylinder AWD cars. It will gets roughly what your WRX gets.

    The 175hp 2.5L is quite alright when paired to the 5 speed manual. Its just that the 4 speed automatic box, while ever so reliable, tends to hinder the acceleration. The 05-09 automatic Outbacks with the SportShift mode alleviates this somewhat though.
    Yeah, the 4-speed does have somewhat widely-spaced gears. If you're forced to use the SportShift to pass, it might've been a better idea to get the 5-speed manual.

  20. #745
    MTB Newbie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by XJaredX
    The H6 is not a pig on gas compared to other 6 cylinder AWD cars. It will gets roughly what your WRX gets.

    The 175hp 2.5L is quite alright when paired to the 5 speed manual. Its just that the 4 speed automatic box, while ever so reliable, tends to hinder the acceleration. The 05-09 automatic Outbacks with the SportShift mode alleviates this somewhat though.
    Well, we're trying to get away from a manual as my fiance isn't that good with her 6sp in the summer, and I'd hate to see her trying to drive a manual in winter conditions. That's why we're trying to go for an auto, and I'd like the H4 for better mileage. Plus, I'd feel a lot better knowing she doesn't have ~250hp on tap. I think we'll look at an 05+ with 5sp auto.

  21. #746
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,639

    How do they have that tuned?

    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    Any of the 2.5T cars will have much better midrange drivability than the 2.0T cars. The OBXT/LGT/FXT all use basically a detuned STi motor.

    I have an 02 WRX, so we're looking for a trip car that gets better mileage than I do. that's why we're trying to avoid a turbo.
    Turbos usually save gas... at least in the sense that you can put a smaller more efficient engine in the car, and still have power when you need it. It's basically recycling wasted exhaust heat energy back into the engine. If they tuned it so it's always hitting the turbo pretty hard, then you're just losing energy in pumping losses.

    Do they get decent mileage if you stay out of turbo boost? My A4 works like this. I get get up to 30 mpg on the flat freeway if I don't put my foot in it so much. 1.8 liter 20 valve 4 cylinder doesn't take much energy to just spin at light throttle at freeway speeds, but can kick out some good power when asked.

  22. #747
    I Tried Them ALL... Moderator
    Reputation: Zachariah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,318
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot
    Turbos usually save gas... at least in the sense that you can put a smaller more efficient engine in the car, and still have power when you need it. It's basically recycling wasted exhaust heat energy back into the engine. If they tuned it so it's always hitting the turbo pretty hard, then you're just losing energy in pumping losses.

    Do they get decent mileage if you stay out of turbo boost? My A4 works like this. I get get up to 30 mpg on the flat freeway if I don't put my foot in it so much. 1.8 liter 20 valve 4 cylinder doesn't take much energy to just spin at light throttle at freeway speeds, but can kick out some good power when asked.
    Love my twin-turbo allroad. I loved my 2007 WRX STi....but it felt cheap, compared to the Audi.
    "The mind will quit....well before the body does"

  23. #748
    MTB Newbie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot
    Turbos usually save gas... at least in the sense that you can put a smaller more efficient engine in the car, and still have power when you need it. It's basically recycling wasted exhaust heat energy back into the engine. If they tuned it so it's always hitting the turbo pretty hard, then you're just losing energy in pumping losses.

    Do they get decent mileage if you stay out of turbo boost? My A4 works like this. I get get up to 30 mpg on the flat freeway if I don't put my foot in it so much. 1.8 liter 20 valve 4 cylinder doesn't take much energy to just spin at light throttle at freeway speeds, but can kick out some good power when asked.
    I know how a turbo works Your Audi also makes much less power than the 2.5L turbo Subaru motors so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

    I always drive out of boost like a granny, but I still get terrible mileage. Of course, I just fixed a long standing up pipe exhaust leak a few weeks ago so who knows if that was affecting mileage.

  24. #749
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,639

    True...

    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    I know how a turbo works Your Audi also makes much less power than the 2.5L turbo Subaru motors so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

    I always drive out of boost like a granny, but I still get terrible mileage. Of course, I just fixed a long standing up pipe exhaust leak a few weeks ago so who knows if that was affecting mileage.
    My car stock is 170 hp out of 1.8 liters of displacement. I have it chipped to 205 hp (on paper... never dyno-ed it myself... I don't care that much to find out the exact number), and I know Subie is 2.5l... and pancake engine to boot (which I think wastes more energy too... I could be wrong, but it seems that all pancake engines get cruddy gas mileage).

    Taking the turbo off, 2.5l is obviously going to draw more vacuum than 1.8l, and therefore have more pumping loss. I haven't read the specs, but I'll bet the Subie weighs a whole lot less than an A4... probably closer to an A3 or a Golf.

    *edit*

    Dang... just looked it up. WRX weighs 3200 pounds? Dang! I thought it was much lighter. I would have guessed 2700-2800 or so The B6 A4 weighs 3300 pounds and is way bigger.

    Yeah... no wonder it's rated at 23 mpg freeway. ... but 305 hp!


    Quote Originally Posted by Zachariah
    Love my twin-turbo allroad. I loved my 2007 WRX STi....but it felt cheap, compared to the Audi.

    Yeah, that was sorta my take on Subies too... but that is comparing a $25k-$35k Subie to an originally $47k Allroad. Gas mileage is about the same, although the Allroad is quite a bit bigger (and slower... and heavier... 4200 pounds?!? Dang, that is like a Ford Explorer!).
    Last edited by pimpbot; 10-09-2010 at 12:45 AM.

  25. #750
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Superorb
    Any of the 2.5T cars will have much better midrange drivability than the 2.0T cars. The OBXT/LGT/FXT all use basically a detuned STi motor.

    I have an 02 WRX, so we're looking for a trip car that gets better mileage than I do. that's why we're trying to avoid a turbo.
    The 2.0s are damn close to 30mpg, I usually average right around 28, but that's driving around 80 on the highways we have here with lots of ups and down. I'd imagine 29-30 isn't hard given flat ground and lower speed limits.

    You want to do significantly better than that? Forget AWD. Forget high horsepower for the most part. Some higher hp V6s these days ARE doing pretty decent, but we're talking only a few more mpg than you'd already get, not real significant.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

Page 30 of 109 FirstFirst ... 20 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 40 80 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •