I've searched 7 Subaru dealerships in my area, but 2.5i Limited Outback Sedans are hard to find. After test driving two new and two 2003 OBS's, I decided I really prefer something bigger, but not a station wagon. I'm considering regular Legacy's, but I really like the look of the raised-suspension sedan.

 

I found a 2005 3.0 R L.L.Bean Edition Outback Sedan. Had less than 7k miles on it, and it was down to my price range, so I took it for a drive. I LOVED the feel of it. I don't care about all the bells and whistles junk, but the six cylinder adds a nice punch. Who thinks these are or aren't worth the premium gas?

 

(I've already googled the threads on risking 87 octane, so let's not get into that again.)

Do it!!!! if you can afford to spend the money then get one....I personally am not a fan ONLY b/c i hate automatics but my wife would just about kill anyone to have one. I see one in my/our future but not for awhile though.

I personally am not a fan ONLY b/c i hate automatics

 

 

Well, it IS a "fake" automatic.

 

I thought that was hysterical. I'd heard of these stick-shifts-without-a-clutch in cars before, but never saw one until now.

My 93 has one of those

3.0's take premium??....thats crap

Can someone explain to me why they call them Legacy Outbacks?

 

I saw one at the dealership, so I've seen them. But I thought Outbacks were the wagons?

legacy outbacks are only 96-99. In 2000 Outback got its own platform. The outback sedan he is talking about is in fact a outback, all outback sedans are outbacks - not legacys.

I found a 2005 3.0 R L.L.Bean Edition Outback Sedan.

 

Oops, it's a 2005 Subaru Legacy Outback 3.0R. What do I know? My question is still the same, anyway. Is a flat-6 engine worth the extra?

I've never driven a 3.0. It is really up to you if you wanna be spending the extra cash.

 

I would say NO because you can get a different "make" (pontiac, acura...) with 6cyl, getting the same or more power using regualr 87 gas. I don't understand why a naturally aspirated (no turbo or s/charger) would need premium fuel.

you can get a different "make" (pontiac, acura...) with 6cyl, getting the same or more power using regualr 87 gas.

 

That's what has me suspicious. If the other guys can build engines hearty enough to handle 87, why can't Subaru? I wonder if it's been difficult to cram 6 cylinders into a horizontally opposed engine. No one else pulls it off except Porsche, I think.

the one thing that in my opinion really makes that engine shine (to me) is the fact that it has a timing chain and not a belt like the 4 cyl does. Right there alone is $500 in savings of maintence that you don't have to do to the car.

 

As for the premium gas thing: I think (my understanding) is that it will be fine with 87 in the tank but you are not going to get the full 212 or whatever HP out of it then. Another thing....does it have to be 92/93 oct? Maybe use the 89 instead?

Just my own opinion... but... i HATE outback sedans..... they're just so... uhg... :-\

sorry... they just need to be... longer... and a wagon :cool:

now... steve on the other hand... just has bad taste :-p

That's what has me suspicious. If the other guys can build engines hearty enough to handle 87, why can't Subaru? I wonder if it's been difficult to cram 6 cylinders into a horizontally opposed engine. No one else pulls it off except Porsche, I think.

Yeah, I bet Subaru wishes it could build an engine as "hearty" as GM

 

It has nothing to do with being able to build a "hearty enough" engine. It is a design choice. A higher compression engine requires higher octane fuel to prevent pre-ignition (that is what high-octane fuel is: it ignites at a higher temperature, i.e. you can compress it further, in atomized form, before it spontaneously combusts). All other things being equal, a high-compression design squeezes more power out of the same displacement engine. It is not like it is tricky to design an engine with low enough compression to take regular-octane fuel (quite the opposite -- tougher to design a high-compression engine that remains reliable, does not overheat, blow gaskets, etc.).

 

The H6 can compensate for pre-ignition, running on regular, by retarding the timing (basically, the spark is ignited a tiny bit **before** the piston reaches the extent of it's compression stroke). An sti engine could as well, except it's design is limit-pushing enough that there is not enough "wiggle room" to compensate by timing adjustments (if you retard the timing too much, the engine winds up "fighting" itself, i.e. the fuel mix is ignited while the cylinder is still moving upwards, resulting in stupid power loss and destructive forces).

 

BTW, there is nothing magic about turbo'd engines that makes them need premium by definition. Pressurizing the intake does increase compression, but one could certainly still put a roomy enough enough head on there so as to not require high-octane fuel. But then, why bother with the added complexity of turbo parts if you're not already maxing out power via high compression?

 

As for "cramming" six cylinders into a boxer design...not an issue either. Porsche may be the only other engine doing this, but: what other builder uses the boxer design anyway? (ok, bmw motorcycles)

it has a timing chain and not a belt

 

I didn't know that. It is a good selling point.

Yeah, I bet Subaru wishes it could build an engine as "hearty" as GM

 

It has nothing to do with being able to build a "hearty enough" engine. It is a design choice. A higher compression engine requires higher octane fuel to prevent pre-ignition (that is what high-octane fuel is: it ignites at a higher temperature, i.e. you can compress it further, in atomized form, before it spontaneously combusts). All other things being equal, a high-compression design squeezes more power out of the same displacement engine. It is not like it is tricky to design an engine with low enough compression to take regular-octane fuel (quite the opposite -- tougher to design a high-compression engine that remains reliable, does not overheat, blow gaskets, etc.).

 

The H6 can compensate for pre-ignition, running on regular, by retarding the timing (basically, the spark is ignited a tiny bit **before** the piston reaches the extent of it's compression stroke). An sti engine could as well, except it's design is limit-pushing enough that there is not enough "wiggle room" to compensate by timing adjustments (if you retard the timing too much, the engine winds up "fighting" itself, i.e. the fuel mix is ignited while the cylinder is still moving upwards, resulting in stupid power loss and destructive forces).

 

BTW, there is nothing magic about turbo'd engines that makes them need premium by definition. Pressurizing the intake does increase compression, but one could certainly still put a roomy enough enough head on there so as to not require high-octane fuel. But then, why bother with the added complexity of turbo parts if you're not already maxing out power via high compression?

 

As for "cramming" six cylinders into a boxer design...not an issue either. Porsche may be the only other engine doing this, but: what other builder uses the boxer design anyway? (ok, bmw motorcycles)

 

 

That's the kind of info I was looking for. I'm not a mechanic or engine hobbyist by any stretch of the imagination, but I knew a comment like "it's not hearty" would fish out some good explanations.

what other builder uses the boxer design anyway? (ok, bmw motorcycles)

 

Lycoming, Continental, Rotax, Jabiru ... jus' gotta get you mind off the ground and into the air, where about ninety percent of airplanes fly behind (or in front of) boxer engines.

2004 Outback Sedan H6 and I buy regular unleaded (87).

 

In fact: I notate every fuel purchase and my fuel mileage is better on regular unleaded than it was on premium.

 

In my opinion, Save your money.

I didn't know that. It is a good selling point.

Chains may last longer than belts, but that doesn't mean you won't have a failure down the road -- and being lulled into a sense of false security by having a chain, you may be more likely to end up with a pile of loose valve stems, grooved cam lobes and stuff where your heads used to be, not to mention some interesting looking valve head impressions on the tops of your pistons. I don't know what chain design the sube 3.0 uses, but a lot of chain timed engines out there use sprockets with nylon teeth on the cams -- so instead of a belt breaking you end up with sprocket teeth shearing.

 

I think I'm actually happier with a belt timed system. More of a hassle since you have to change them out periodically, but if you're good about following the maintenance guidelines, they're not any more prone to trouble than the chain designs.

I didn't know that. It is a good selling point.

 

http://www.subaru-global.com/about/parts/12.html

 

they say it never has to be replaced, but there have been some issues with tensioners on a few of them, and there are a hell of a lot of bolts to get to that puppy.

 

i worry about never has to be replaced. Translation .. when it does its going to require a 2nd mortage.

 

nipper

the one thing that in my opinion really makes that engine shine (to me) is the fact that it has a timing chain and not a belt like the 4 cyl does. Right there alone is $500 in savings of maintence that you don't have to do to the car.

 

As for the premium gas thing: I think (my understanding) is that it will be fine with 87 in the tank but you are not going to get the full 212 or whatever HP out of it then. Another thing....does it have to be 92/93 oct? Maybe use the 89 instead?

 

it is far far more complicated then that. Subaru engines are more hearty then any four cylider gm has.

 

http://www.eric-gorr.com/techarticles/Fuel_Basics.htm

 

Just because all engines have a piston valves and a crankshaft does not mean they all behave the same.

 

Subaru recomends premium, but doesnt insist on it. They will tell you you might notice a loss in performance.

 

nipper

legacy outbacks are only 96-99. In 2000 Outback got its own platform. The outback sedan he is talking about is in fact a outback, all outback sedans are outbacks - not legacys.

 

At the risk of being pedantic, I have to disagree.

 

Subaru has 4 basic vehicles on 3 platforms that they sell in the US: The Impreza, the Legacy, the Forester and the Tribeca. The Outback Wagon and Outback Sedan are versions of the Legacy wagon and Legacy sedan. The Outback Sport is a version of the Impreza. The Forester is its own vehicle but sits on the Impreza chassis. The Outbacks and the "vanilla" Legacys are the same basic vehicle but the Outback gets some different body and suspension parts, as well as different interior goodies. Certainly they have multiple variations (Impreza comes in 4d sedan, hatchback, OBS, WRX, and WRX-STI, etc) but the line is essentially 4 model types on 3 chassis.

 

From 96-99 Outbacks and "vanilla" Legacy wagons actually did have different bodies, with the plain Legacy's getting the "flat top" and the Outbacks getting the "bubble top." From what I've seen, though, it seems like when they went to the 3rd generation Legacy body in 2000, they all became "bubble tops."

http://www.subaru-global.com/about/parts/12.html

 

they say it never has to be replaced, but there have been some issues with tensioners on a few of them, and there are a hell of a lot of bolts to get to that puppy.

 

i worry about never has to be replaced. Translation .. when it does its going to require a 2nd mortage.

 

nipper

 

Wow, nipper! Although my opinion of timing chains isn't fundamentally changed (since I had one shred cam sprockets on an old Oldsmobile V8 back in the early 70's and the more I disassembled on that beast, the more I found broken, until I finally gave up and we towed it out to an empty field where it still does duty to this day as the neighborhood pellet gun target), these Fuji guys are impressive with their almost mystical approach to engineering. I'm sure that no American car mfr ever had a single engineer dedicate 2 YEARS to becoming one with his timing chain design!

Wow, nipper! Although my opinion of timing chains isn't fundamentally changed (since I had one shred cam sprockets on an old Oldsmobile V8 back in the early 70's and the more I disassembled on that beast, the more I found broken, until I finally gave up and we towed it out to an empty field where it still does duty to this day as the neighborhood pellet gun target), these Fuji guys are impressive with their almost mystical approach to engineering. I'm sure that no American car mfr ever had a single engineer dedicate 2 YEARS to becoming one with his timing chain design!

 

Actually what they came up with is pretty standard, just the way they describe it is far more detailed then anyone else does, but from an enginneering point of view they are right on target with the rest.

Odd i had a runin with an oldsmobile timing chain, a 1968 (this was 1980 something), a few freinds, and a bottle of tequila. We discovered you can put a timing belt in backwards (needless to say it was a mess)

 

nipper

i wouldn't buy a relatively new engine myself. but i'd plan on keeping the car a very long time, i'd want something that is proved solid. there's very little to go on for those that want to see long term engine performance.

 

someone commented about sticking 6 cylinders in a horizontally opposed engine. Subaru has been doing it for a long time. XT6 (ER27), SVX (EG33) and the new H6. totally different engines, but all 6 cylinder and horizontally opposed and been around since the late 80's.

 

i'd stick with the 2.5 all day long before going with the new H6. but that's just me, i like seeing lots of evidence of reliability, like we see in the 2.2 and 2.5, which is still avaialable!

Actually what they came up with is pretty standard, just the way they describe it is far more detailed then anyone else does, but from an enginneering point of view they are right on target with the rest.

Odd i had a runin with an oldsmobile timing chain, a 1968 (this was 1980 something), a few freinds, and a bottle of tequila. We discovered you can put a timing belt in backwards (needless to say it was a mess)

 

nipper

 

Mine was a '69, and I wonder if it had been installed backwards!