Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R



  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Posts: 426
    I agree. When you can draw HP and torque curves with a ruler it makes them suspect.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The 3.6R's was done on a dyno and then smoothed out (all you gotta do is show the moving average)

    Ford's looks more like their goal - not an actual measured result.
  • davidc1davidc1 Posts: 167
    From what I read in magazines, that torque curve is correct. I understand that the engine is actually capable of producing much more torque. It's the engine and turbo managment that keeps it down. That's supposedly why you'll get the same torque figures regardless of the situation e.g. altitude, fuel quality, etc..
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    If that's true, and the engine turns out to be reliable, that's quite a feat. 350 lb-ft and on 87 octane.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    Diesels can pull off that feat, but in their case, it's usually by limiting torque than anything else - plus thee rev range isn't nearly as wide. When Dodge introduced the common-rail Cummins HO for MY2003, the peak output was 305 hp @2900 rpm and 555 lb-ft @1400 rpm. What's the torque rating at 2900? 552 lb-ft - flat as a board thanks to the ECU, but only sustained for a rev range of 1500 rpm.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    That is a nice looking torque curve, and as Juice said that is what is important. HP is simply a calculated number derived from the torque produced. The only real things that matter to a "driver" are the torque, the gearing, and the vehicle weight... and of course suspension tuning.

    I'm well aware of this. I actually road race several Subarus and modify them as a part time job.

    My point is that they COULD have bumped up the top of the line car to really compete and stand out. Instead folks will look at the numbers and dismiss it if they are looking for a sport sedan. I just find it a shame that they came so close with the redesign but fell short in the trans and engine department :( I have heard from sources that the 3.6 is very capable of producing well over 300hp in NA factory form....

    Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 683
    I have heard from sources that the 3.6 is very capable of producing well over 300hp in NA factory form....

    No doubt, but with what fuel economy rating? CAFE is probably the villain preventing such engine tuning. Subaru may need some very small, very fuel efficient models to permit a few such gas guzzlers.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    No doubt, but with what fuel economy rating? CAFE is probably the villain preventing such engine tuning.

    I'm sure that's the reason too. Once Subaru has some truly economical cars in production, that can offset the EPA penalties of a high-performance 3.6, then we might see such an engine.

    It's also an image thing too. To date, Subaru as a brand, has not been known for great gas mileage. So they're taking great pains now to change that image. Witness the new CVT-equipped Legacy and Outback as proof of that direction. When the Impreza and Forester get CVTs, then I think a "smokin' 3.6" could arrive.

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Hopefully all us loyal owners who thirst for a true sports sedan will not have flocked to greener pastures by then. :(

    I have no problem with the heart and soul being economical cars. Heck I'm the one who preaches to the STi folks how if it wasn't for the Forester and Outbacks, there would be no STi. I just want Subaru to produce a car for when STi owners "grow up" and want a big, fast, well handling car with a stick...

    I guess I'll have to live with my CTS-V for now :)

  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 683
    When the Impreza and Forester get CVTs, then I think a "smokin' 3.6" could arrive


    But is there a production cost increase from the (Nissan) JATCO-sourced 4-speed to the CVT? There is a precarious balance between purchase price and operating economy for buyers of low end models.

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    The 5EAT, not the 4EAT, is bought from an outside supplier. The 4-EAT is an in-house unit, as is the new CVT. Subaru has already stated that they're committed to CVTs for other future models.

    The Impreza and Forester are next in line to get the CVT, I'm guessing 2011 for the Impreza, and 2012 for the Forester, as that's when their mid-life refresh is due. There is also a strong rumor that the '11 Impreza may be all-new, and not just a refresh. An STI sedan has been confirmed for 2011, and I find it hard to believe they would do such a massive body revise on the current Impreza sedan, four years into its shelf life.

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    Mike, Subaru is in the same situation as other carmakers: they all have to raise their corporate MPG average in both the U.S. (2016), and Europe (2012). Some brands are better off than Subaru, others are worse off—and as such, will offering some strange cars in order to meet those very tough standards. Here's a few that we'll likely see:

    • An Aston Martin based on the Toyota iQ micro car. No kidding! See link: - - - ed-minicar
    • A Porsche hybrid. 911? Possibly.
    • An entry-level Porsche sports car based off a VW platform
    • A BMW 0-Series based off the next-gen Mini. Yep, a FWD BMW!

    There will be more announced, for sure.

    The bottom line is, this is not a decision of their own making, but rather a decision by various governmental vehicle sanctioning bodies that's being forced upon them.

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Yeah I hear yah. Just kills me that there is no up-ward path for those who don't want the STi boy-racer dealio. The Spec B was almost there, had they put the STi engine (Heads, IC, Tuning, etc) in there it would have been the trick.

    Heck introduce a tiny little gas-meizer to offset the top end car (ala Escort, Cavalier, etc of the 80s).


  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    The bottom line is, this is not a decision of their own making, but rather a decision by various governmental vehicle sanctioning bodies that's being forced upon them.

    Yup, that sums up a lot of what is wrong with America these days. Home of the not-so-free :(

  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Posts: 426
    I am less concerned with what the graph says than how it says it. I spent 33 years analyzing and presenting data as well as studying the capabilities of control systems and the resultant variability on a product. I have also looked at hundreds of dyno graphs, and have never seen one without any ripple. There are smoothing techniques available to remove noise and provide a cleaner picture but they have limited use in a dyno graph. Higher frequency ripple causes no distraction in what the graph purports to show. This graph is either overly and unnecessarily numb or it is an artist rendition. The only thing that remotely looks like ripple is the plotter pen jitters on the rising part of the torque curve. That is why I made my "drawn with a ruler" comment.

    In your example there is at least 3 lb-ft variation in a 1500 RPM range, here there is no variation in about 4000. I also bet that Diesel curve showed ripple too.

    I also understand the technology and believe that what they are trying to show for torque performance CAN be done. This should be relatively easy to design with today's sophisticated engine control capability, and 2 turbos. You take the normal engine curve and use the design of the turbos to each help a different part of the curve, and control the whole result with the computers, sensors, and mapping. Ford should be praised for taking the time and spending the resources to do it.

    Way back, Saab was an innovator in this type of technology with their APC engine management/turbo control system. They toned down peak torque to provide a much flatter and usable torque curve, and they did it with one turbo on a 4 cyl and electronics that can't compare to what the capabilities are now.
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Posts: 426
    Hi Mike. I only commented on the HP because that is all that was being mentioned. Back in the muscle days with the horsepower wars there were many vehicles with higher claimed HP that were getting dusted by vehicles with less listed HP but had much better torque characteristics, gearing, and overall balance.

    I agree that they COULD do as you ask, but think about whether a small company would want to direct their resources to that task. Some things to consider:

    1. Would that be an "extra" engine or would they tweak the 1 3.6? They just got the H6 away from premium fuel, would they want to move back in that direction when their target is clearly mainstream use?

    2. There are higher costs incurred with developing a higher output non-mainstream engine, as well as higher warranty costs from higher stressed engines. They don't seem to dilute their efforts and the current achievement is the CVT, and now getting it spread out to other vehicles. Since this helps the MPG due to the lower final drive ratio it is obvious that this is their big-picture view.

    3. There have been issues selling the upmarket Tribeca even though it is an excellent vehicle. Do they want to keep pushing vehicle prices higher to try and pick up some additional specialized sales, or do they focus more on the mainstream market with their limited resources, especially in a bad economy? "Horsepower wars" have been replaced with "advertised price and MPG wars".

    As I mentioned, they could have given more performance by keeping the Tribeca gearing with the 3.6, even if they only did that for a top sporty model. They didn't do that either, and there are added costs to do things like that both from a manufacturing/assembly standpoint as well as EPA certification of any combo they plan to sell, in addition to the overall brand MPG average that others have mentioned. They are clearly keeping their conservative approach and staying focused on the sweet-spot of buyers, not those of us that always want more performance, more power, and more gears. We may want something different but the stockholders are probably happy with how the money is getting spent, and the results.

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Oh I agree, I prefaced the whole discussion that the new Legacy is a great way to take on the Camcord. However there is no way to retain buyers that want to have all the niceties of the size of the legacy but are looking to move up to a classier car with all the bells and whistles. I think that the G37x can walk all over the 3.6R unfortunately not a much higher of a price. I held out before plunging in on the 05 CTS-V but when they confirmed the non-upscale 2010 3.6R I had to part from the Subies :(

    I still race/track my 05 LGT Wagon 5MT and love it. Also run a Subaru aftermarket Install shop, so hopefully they'll come around with something to lure me in again.

  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 683
    I think that the G37x can walk all over the 3.6R unfortunately not a much higher of a price.

    Unless the G37 is greatly improved over the G35 that I have driven, The 3.6R has a much more comfortable ride.

    The styling of the 3.6R may be its real weak point, not 0-60 time.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Styling? It looks just like the G37... :D
  • Some of our local Portland tuner shops told me Subaru turbos (and other engines) don't make as much HP as they could.

    The claim's apparently Subaru engines were originally intended for 98 Octane, but had to be de-tuned significantly for USA's much lower 91-92 Premium Octane. The result is the USA engines both burn as lean as possible and ride the ragged edge of detonation.

    The tuner shops have ECU programs that will get 40 - 50 HP more out of the turbos (they showed me their dyno curves), but at the price of using more fuel, possibly overheating the CAT converter, and voiding your Subaru engine warranty.

    One of the before-after profiles came from Cobb.
    Any comments?
This discussion has been closed.