I know very little about engines and am considering getting a 3.6R. I understand that the trend now is to use turbocharged engines as opposed to 6-cylinder engines. Is fuel economy the only reason for the trend? Which engine is a better performer? How about more reliable?
I know that this is a moot point for the Outback (no turbo option), but I was just curious. Thanks.
I owned turbo VW GTIs from 2001 through 2015. The first had a minor turbo plumbing repair at about 105K and otherwise ran flawlessly until I sold it with 142K miles on it. The second GTI ran flawlessly but I only had 87K miles on it when I swapped an SUV and a GTI for an Outback.
Over 200K miles, a 6-cylinder engine will usually be a bit more reliable than a 4-cylinder turbo. It is simpler. It will tend to be a bit smoother. The tradeoff is higher fuel burn due to the added weight and friction from the extra moving parts. The other thing to consider is that high compression turbos require more-expensive premium fuel so they're not quite as much of a cost-per-mile win as you'd initially assume looking at the MPG difference. If you run 87 octane fuel in them, the knock sensors trigger and the engine control unit lowers the boost and retards the timing so the engine does not perform as well. Over the long term, the turbo will be cheaper to run even accounting for a bit less reliability. The tuners love turbos because you can fiddle with the boost and easily see 20% performance gains for very little money and little degradation in reliability. If you go for more of a gain than that, you start seeing failures. The head gaskets won't take it. The transmission might not be happy with that much horsepower. Etc.
Due to CAFE fleet fuel economy regulations, the Subaru 6-cylinder won't be around much longer. The whole industry is going turbo and it's surprising that the higher performance engine in the 2015 Outback wasn't a turbo.
Any chance the 3.6 won't return for 2016, or is that premature?
Also, regarding your past cars, I must say that I love the GTI. I'm trying to convince my wife to let me get one as a complement to the Outback (we eventually need to replace both my SUV and her smaller car).
I don't have an Outback, considering getting one, but I do own a turbocharged vehicle. Yes, the trend is now to turbocharge smaller engines to gain more power and it does work, quite startling in some cases. Most turbo's do have some of what's known as "Turbo-lag. That means that the turbocharger, (basically a turbine connected to the exhaust stream and the intake stream of air) has to spin-up to sufficient speed to add boost to make power. Some manufactures say they have all but eliminated the lag, but it is still there to some degree. The other thing is turbos are more complicated and normally the turbo engines need additional preventive maintenance since the turbo runs at very high temps. I would say all things being equal, the turbo engine will not last as long as a normally aspirated engine. That may mean the difference of 200k miles for the turbo engine and 300k miles for the NA engine. Hope this helps out. I think Subaru has been making the WRX turbo engine for long enough that they may know what they are doing.
Gettin, If you purchase a GTI, get a new one or a used one with low miles. Mine ('08) started having quite a few problems at 100k. I still own it, love driving it, but it is getting expensive to keep running.
There is a big difference in driving sensation between a NA big engine and a turbo small engine.
Bigger engines usually have more low RPM torque so you get good power and acceleration early on and it delivers it smoothly. That's why many 3.6 owners describe it as a more refined ride.
Smaller turbos need higher RPM to get good power and acceleration. But once that turbo kicks in, you feel it hit immediately. Smaller turbos have the advantage of less weight up front which makes the car more nimble and handle better. Fun in the twisties.
Turbo 4: it's like dating a supermodel. Sexy, fun, makes friends and enemies jealous, puts a smile on your face every time you drive it. . . but it's painful when she goes 'shopping' (in for repairs) which will be often.
NA 6: This one's more like dating the farmer's daughter who went to an Ivy League school but can still drive a tractor and looks great in jeans. Nowhere near as glamourous but she's quite capable of taking care of herself. . and you.
EE will probably pop in and provide visual aides for the imagination impaired. I also have more gender neutral engine metaphors if you'd prefer.
Anyways - if Subaru made the Outback with the 2.0 DIT, I would have opted for that. I am adventurous enough to opt for high maintenance. Totally not regretting the H6 though, I expect this thing to last forever.
In as much as I love my 3.6, had the Outback been offered with T4 I wouldn't hesitate for a second to trade! I had an '03 WRX with all imaginable engine upgrades (~300WHP) and it lived for 250K+ trouble-free miles. If driven "reasonably", it returned 25MPG easily in mixed NJ traffic. Nothing wrong with H6, I love it, but turbos are soooo much cooler IMO, of course.
I know very little about engines and am considering getting a 3.6R. I understand that the trend now is to use turbocharged engines as opposed to 6-cylinder engines. Is fuel economy the only reason for the trend? Which engine is a better performer? How about more reliable?
Yes, small turbo engines are now en vogue vs. larger engines almost entirely due to fuel consumption targets enforced by the government.
It's tough to say which is the "better performer" without naming two specific engines. Historically any model with a turbo was performance-oriented. Now this is changing and lots of "ordinary" cars are showing up with turbos. Meaning if you look at some cars, the tiny engine + turbo might be the low-output option where a larger normally aspirated engine is the high output version. Turbos aren't "performance parts" in this context.
Going back over the 50ish year history of mass-produced automotive turbos, the turbo version of a given car was always less reliable than the non-turbo version. All models, all makes, with a very few specific exceptions. That's how it was.
A turbocharged engine is more complicated, with more parts, more logic in the electronics, more sophisticated software-more chance for bugs, and more dependent on consistent fuel quality and a tight maintenance regime.
Now you're seeing some of the biggest, top-tier automakers taking a chance on combining turbos with tiny 4 cylinder engines to replace large four and small 5 & 6 cylinder engines.
They have made the bet that they've come up with a recipe durable enough for ordinary appliance car owners. It remains to be seen how well they've done.
Subaru tried this themselves in the Legacy GT and Outback XT, 10 years ago. It didn't go well.
The cars turned out to be great in the hands of enthusiasts and petrolheads, but quite a few broke down expensively from relatively minor neglect as commonly presented by the average car owner.
That experience is (probably) why there is no turbo outback today. I think they just want to wait out this cycle, maybe try it again when they are sure that they can buy more reliable parts in industrial quantity. That should get a lot easier now that there are so many Ford, VW, Hyundai & other "ordinary" cars with turbo engines.
I went from a 1998 OB with the old DOHC 2.5 that I drove for 237,000 km trouble free. This was a good engine except for the head gaskets (the dealer changed mine under warranty before any trouble). I sold that car to a friend when I bought my 2015 OB 3.6R limited. I've had the new car for 2 months now and totally happy, even if it came with a turbo 4, I would still go for the 3.6 simply due to the more refined drive, quiet, smooth delivery of power. Keep in mind that I'm 55 yrs old and do not require stimulation from a turbo...lol. I also own a 2004 4 dr Mercedes Benz C230 Kompressor that I purchased new. This car has a modest 189 hp from a 1.8 L supercharged (kompressor in German) Mercedes could have squeezed more horses, but really there was no need. Cars with superchargers don't suffer from lag as some turbo changed engines did, but the trade-off is loss of hp being sucked up by the compressor. The MB is a very easy daily driver and fuel efficient but wasn't a big seller in the US and Canada due to only having 4 cylinders. Everyone thought MB should have 6 or 8 cylinders....! Now it's going the other way, maybe MB was ahead of their time? One more thing, the service requirements and cost on a Subaru 4 cyl turbo, i.e. Forester XT or WRX is more than a 3.6 Boxer 6, thats right from the dealer.
The fact Subaru is still offering the Forester in a turbo makes me say that subaru dropped the turbo in the outback and legacy for different reasons than reliability, but rather production and demand. It's hard to keep all the options open for low sales. I suspect subaru figured that small number of folks buying outback and legacy in turbo wasn't worth the cost of keeping the capability in the design and production lines.
I am sad, WRX and Forester doesn't really scratch the itch that a Legacy or Outback does with the turbo. And I don't really want to step over to an Audi, although the used market for Audi makes the switch very interesting. Of course I'm not sure I want to find out why those prices are so competitive.
The fact Subaru is still offering the Forester in a turbo makes me say that subaru dropped the turbo in the outback and legacy for different reasons than reliability, but rather production and demand.
I see your point. The Outback XT sold pretty well up front, but I guess once they caught up on pent-up demand it wouldn't have been enough to continue.
I imagine that the engine failures they saw made it easier to cut the model.
I know very little about engines and am considering getting a 3.6R. I understand that the trend now is to use turbocharged engines as opposed to 6-cylinder engines.
*)The smaller-turbo engine will deliver the economy of a smaller engine while having the ability to deliver spirited acceleration. I, for one, really like this combination.
*)The overall weight of the turbocharged engine is less than the larger engine. This usually means better handling, acceleration and braking..
*)The larger engine will tend to be more expensive to maintain. (more sparkplugs, more oil, consumes more fuel)
*)The turbocharged engine is less 'forgiving' to ignored oil-changes and low antifreeze. It needs more attention to the maintenance schedule.
*)Most turbocharged engines MUST be fed with high-octane fuel.
It really depends on what one considers 'performance'. The smaller-turbo engine performs better regarding MPG. The spec-sheet says the the smaller-turbo engine performs better at delivering peak horsepower. The larger engine feels more refined due to its wider power-band.
I agree, Love my 6, the turbo with turbo lag and winding up a small engine yea it goes fast but not as smooth and quiet as the 6. With maybe a mile or two better mileage, depends how you drive it. IMHO.
Historically (pre-2010) the 2.5 turbo cars had some durability problems. It wasn't uncommon to see new engines at less than 50K miles and turbos burning up at less than 100K miles. Ask any of the XT owners on this forum and they'll tell you about it, and what to look for in that regard. The 3.0 and 3.6 (6-cyl) cars are generally much more reliable, albeit less fun, than the turbo cars.
I can't comment on the new-gen 2.0 turbo that's in the Forester XT. Hopefully it's going to hold up better than the previous turbo cars did.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Subaru Outback Forums
1.9M posts
188.3K members
Since 2003
Welcome to the Subaru Outback Owners Forum, we have tons of information about your Subaru Outback, from a Subaru Outback Wiki to customer reviews.