The biggest problem with the new WRX and STi is they no longer offer a 5 door hatchback, 4 door sedan only. The 5 door is a much better looking more useful vehicle.

 

As of last week sounds like Subaru could be re evaluating this decision. Sounds like about 50% of the WRX market in the US was the wagon. And Subaru caught lots of flak for cutting the wagon from the WRX model range.

 

I think they kept the EJ25 in the STi because it's more modification/tuner friendly - I was surprised that they didn't move the turbo to beneath the engine similar to the 5th gen LGT or the '13+ FXT or '15 WRX, but maybe there just wasn't enough room with the new platform - who knows. I suspect the STi will get a new engine for '16 or '17.

For the 3.6, I think pairing it with the CVT will help it quite a bit - also, there are a lot of folks that are convinced they need the 6 for towing, and I am guessing that's why it soldiers on (the two big competitors (for the Legacy, anyway) still offer a 6 as well)

 

I don't think the FB20 has been developed enough to put into their top performance car, the STi. It almost certainly will be, given some time. But the EJ257 is extremely well developed at this point. Sticking with the old powerplant in the STi a little longer lets them pay for all the other changes in that car. Buyers and aftermarket vendors will be happy that it holds compatibility with lots of mod parts.

Eventually the tuners and Subaru themselves will learn how to really tweak an FA/FB series engine, and they'll drop the EJ altogether.

 

The only way I see the EZ36D being drooped is if the diesel engine comes to USA market.
I can see a head, cam, and intake change to the 3.6 to up the power a the lower and upper rpms to take advantage of the wider gear ratios of the Gen2 CVT. Plus if SOA ever wants to get back into a larger car size, they will need a flat 6 or a diesel. OR one better a Flat 6 diesel. :-D

 

I think they've already hit their power target, and they've only just gotten to the point where the new cvt can handle it. So I expect the 3.6 to remain largely unchanged until it is eventually replaced.

I think it's far more likely to see the EZ36 replaced by a smaller DI 6 or a turbo 4.

Diesel has become an exotic power system again now that they all require very complex injection and exhaust processing systems. I just don't see any percentage in it right now. If someone figures out how to hit the right emissions targets with a cheaper, simpler engine, Subaru can license that technology and approach the market fresh.

Everybody else's modern diesel seems to be at least as complicated, risky and expensive as the EJ255 turbo in my XT. Subaru has already figured out how to improve those, so I think they'd be smart to stick with that plan.

Mazda might be on to something with their new low-compression diesel. I think that is one to watch.

 

a 2.0 is PLENTY. Speed limit is only 70mph most places. Who doesn't want to gbe getting 36mpg vs 26mpg?
ONly places 2.0 not enough is high country mountains.
Subaru is DEAD RIGHT to do this.

-even bettter would be a 1.8 again. , and 40mpg again.
maybe the cars are getting too heavy again.

 

An where are most Subaru's sold? It is not SoCal.
I will give you a hint, it involves areas with lots of snow and altitude. The turbo 4 cylinder should be ok though.

 

aren't they gonna need a 1.6 for WRC?

(I admit to being ignorant of the current state of WRC)

 

Last I checked, the WRC was requiring that everyone use a certain transmission, and guess what? It's a gearbox that only works with transverse engines.

 

wow, I knew there had been a change in the past that knocked Subaru out - i thought it was displacement.

now, it's the tranny?

crazy

 

I had a moment to look into it. All I can find is that since 2011, they must have an all mechanical front and rear diff, must not have a center diff at all, and must have an all mechanical gear selector, no paddles.

So at the very least, dccd type stuff is outlawed.

They've dropped the homologation rules, but all that means to a manufacturer is that they're kind of guaranteed to need to build/buy individual units for racing- their production inventory becomes worthless. So the whole project becomes more expensive for a carmaker, and in subaru's case gives them less of a chance to use, test or develop stuff that they would hope to sell in a production car.

 

So basically it is another spec class and no longer a production racing class.

 

Around town and the traffic we have power is pretty useless around here unless you go to the track.

Road trips its really really nice to have the fuel range to skip costly remote gas stations and keep fuel costs down. We still make lots of potty stops and stop for a good home cooked meal at cool places to eat etc the range simply gives us the ability to choose where to fill up and also get into some places where the distances involved either means your paying through the nose for fuel in the remote location or actually driving in and driving out with no fuel concerns.

Loved and in LOVED the 93 Land CRUiser awesome piece of engineering and fun to drive. But 12-14mpg created a very large road trip cost in fuel and yes it was a factor in many cases just how far we would go into some remote places.

 

Around town and the traffic we have power is pretty useless around here unless you go to the track.

atlanta traffic is the main reason i require more power than the 2.5 can provide. when i look in my sideview mirror before changing lanes, and see a car approaching fast, i know i can go ahead and pull over in that lane and move out without causing that car to brake. ..with the 2.5 i tested, i would have to wait until that car passed before change lanes. ..and i hate waiting on others when there is another option. ..and that option was the 3.6 for me.

 

We have next-to-no traffic and lots of windy and hilly roads so I get use out of my 245 HP on a daily basis.

Some say the 3.0R Outback has more power than it can use because its handling capability is nowhere near the power. That may be true in some cases, but not when you're climbing some of those twisty roads. Sometimes I find myself wishing I had a little more under the hood.

 

Makes sense but just returned last weekend from Spring break trip in San Diego. I5 south was big head wind pushing 20mph and everyone was running around 75-85mph the 2010 2.5 CVT did it just fine wasn't really working that hard even with the roof box.

On the way back 101 north much different road curvy with climbs etc oddly enough everyone was running 80-85 for most of the way and **** if we had about a 12mph head wind couldn't catch a break. 2.5 was perfectly happy hauling ass with everyone else. By far the highest speeds I've done for hours on end on that trip both directions.

 

^^^?

curvy, not breezy - unless I misunderstand.

 

^^^?

curvy, not breezy - unless I misunderstand.

Yeah, you got it right. Gotta love English sometimes. I suppose I could have chosen a different word.

...and yes, of course a 2.5 can do it, but it's so much more fun to step on it coming out of a turn with the extra ~70 horsepower.

 

I love my WRX, I don't love turbo lag.

 

Lag is pretty much gone once the turbo is relocated - if you look at the specs for most engines where the turbo is right off the manifold (e.g., VW/Audi 2.0T, 5th Gen LGT, 13+ Forester XT, 15 WRX, etc.) they are making full torque at really low rpm (2k) - it makes a big difference. The uppipe/downpipe arrangement used in most of the EJ25 applications (except for the 5th gen LGT) - including the '15 STi, is a recipe for lag.

you should be glad you aren't in one of the earlier USDM WRXs - the EJ205 was pretty rough in the lag department (still a fun car, though!) - you have an extra half liter displacement which gives you a bit more low end torque. My 02 was miserable until I installed a catless up-pipe, then it was still annoying, but much more tolerable.

 

No argument there though already doing 80-85 I'd need to scrap the suspension and put it on Legacy spec B gear to keep us on the pavement if I were stomping the 3.6 out of the bends. ;-)

 

I'm not talking speeds like that. That chassis won't hold its own there!

It is very communicative, though, I'll give it that. It lets you know really quick when you're pushing it too hard.

We have some very bendy roads where 45-55 is a blast but you need to go slower around sharper turns and hairpins and it's very satisfying how well the H6 can move a boat like that back up to speed from around a corner.

 

I have to throw a twist on this, and if it is in the wrong thread delete it and tell me where to put it…..

BUT. I am going to be the first to dare say, in the future, Subaru will not used their own boxer, they will instead buy the ECO Motors engine, shown here (4 pistons), and put in the Subaru chassis

it has no cams, no valvetrain, and NO HEADGASKETS, extremely powerful, GREAT economy, and is a low profile design would fit PERFECT in the already boxer chassis.
here is a 8 piston, linked by a clutch center. So you can use all 8 or shut the clutch off and save fuel.

So there are my thoughts. If need be moved, mods do it.

They even have a ECT (electronic controlled turbo) and yes it has POWER big time,
http://www.ecomotors.com

This layout, will fit the subaru lineup, all the way back to a 78 BRAT… get the drift, and it runs on gas, diesel, propane pretty much any fuel you put in it. Probably air cooled. NO HEADGASKET Issue.

They will be mass produced, and if Subaru is watching, they will leave the design up to ECOmotors, and just toss it in their lineup.
It should fit the bellhousing trans case, and it should fit the crossmember. There would be no reason for Subaru to compete with this design, just buy it and install it and sell the cars...

 

I have to throw a twist on this, and if it is in the wrong thread delete it and tell me where to put it…..

BUT. I am going to be the first to dare say, in the future, Subaru will not used their own boxer, they will instead buy the ECO Motors engine, shown here (4 pistons), and put in the Subaru chassis

it has no cams, no valvetrain, and NO HEADGASKETS, extremely powerful, GREAT economy, and is a low profile design would fit PERFECT in the already boxer chassis.
here is a 8 piston, linked by a clutch center. So you can use all 8 or shut the clutch off and save fuel.

So there are my thoughts. If need be moved, mods do it.

They even have a ECT (electronic controlled turbo) and yes it has POWER big time,
EcoMotors

This layout, will fit the subaru lineup, all the way back to a 78 BRAT… get the drift, and it runs on gas, diesel, propane pretty much any fuel you put in it. Probably air cooled. NO HEADGASKET Issue.

They will be mass produced, and if Subaru is watching, they will leave the design up to ECOmotors, and just toss it in their lineup.
It should fit the bellhousing trans case, and it should fit the crossmember. There would be no reason for Subaru to compete with this design, just buy it and install it and sell the cars...

instead of bending a valve past red line, u will smack to pistons together destroying everything that its attached to...that's all i kept seeing when watching the demo, unless they have a real motor and how fuel and spark is also placed let me know(i didn't go past the video)

 

The OPOC engine is a big win for efficiency but I can't imagine a way to make it fit in a Subaru without changing... everything.

Possibly the most precious real estate in a Legacy chassis is the space between the front frame rails. The engines Subaru makes now are already a tight fit for width, and the OPOC design is even wider- unless you scale it all down and use a very small bore, with much smaller total displacement.

So if you're good with an 800cc engine (0.8L) it might work... But if you're burning pump gas in it the car will be mighty slow. Yes, you could stack out say 4 of them for 2.4L, but then the complexity and parts count is up where it was with the regular Otto cycle engine.

Very cool technology overall, but the shape is incredibly unwieldy for use in a car.

 

so i was wrong @u@

 

so what said was kinda true they are keeping the 2.5 and the 3.6 but later they will replace the 3.6 with a 2.0T i bet they will change it around 2017 when they might add the hatch for the WRX

 

Saw relative news earlier regarding new power lineup on Legacy as well, hope Subaru will actually do the same to Outback.. The FA20DIT on Forester is a good one, but 2017 ? It's toooo late :gasp:

 

what motor trend said they will removing the F6 for good at least from the legacy/outback(which is all of them), but that's the mid life change