Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R

mluismluis Member Posts: 2
edited June 2014 in Subaru
Topspeed revealed a new review on the 2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R, featuring details about the sedan as well as a few photos and wallpapers.

"The 2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R Limited is an excellent import, any consumer who fails to recognize the niche market Japanese automaker’s latest mid size four door sedan as a viable option when shopping for a new car are seriously missing out. This Ruby Red Pearl 3.6 R Limited is the automaker’s top of the line Legacy, and a pleasant ..."

image
image
image

Here's the whole article:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R review

And also the wallpaper gallery:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R pictures
«1

Comments

  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    My only disappointments are that there is no MT option available and that it doesn't put out at least 300hp. If you look at all the competition in this size/spot in lineup, they are all closer to 300hp.

    -mike
  • eps105eps105 Member Posts: 216
    My only disappointments are that there is no MT option available and that it doesn't put out at least 300hp. If you look at all the competition in this size/spot in lineup, they are all closer to 300hp.

    Have you actually driven one? Forget about the rated HP, Subaru tunes their engines for real-world driveability and a nice flat torque curve. This car feels like it has gobs of power to spare no matter how fast you are going. It is sublime.
  • ahqahq Member Posts: 37
    Just to clarify, the Legacy is not an import. They're manufactured in Lafayette, Indiana.
  • ahqahq Member Posts: 37
    That's what the Legacy GT is for... although it doesn't have 300 hp, it does come with the six-speed manual transmission and 18-inch wheels. The only cars that have approximately 300 hp are the Acura TL, Infiniti G37, BMW 335i, and Audi S4... all of which are far more expensive than the Legacy, which really doesn't even compete in that class anyway.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think their powertrain strategy makes sense -

    * Turbos come with a manual.
    * H6 models come in automatic.

    I think they got it right.

    The niche buyer who really wants a manual is more likely to tune the car, and the turbo would lend itself to tuning more easily than a NA H6.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    0-60 in 7.8 seconds is a bit disappointing.

    MotorWeek got their Legacy GT (manual, turbo) to 60 in just 5.9 seconds. That's a whole bunch quicker.
  • ingvaringvar Member Posts: 205
    Slow car for mature adults :sick:
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    0-60 in 7.8 seconds is a bit disappointing

    I recall the same number from a CR test for my 2005 Outback 3.0 R VDC. I believe the weights are not very different.

    Strange.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'm well aware of the power bands that Subaru has...

    I've had:

    1988 XT6
    1991 XT6
    1992 SVX
    1996 Impreza L converted to a Racecar w/4EAT
    1994 Legacy SS Turbo converted to a Racecar 5MT
    2005 Legacy GT Wagon 5MT

    You take this car against most of the other mid-sized cars and you get in the 285hp range POWERING ONLY 2 WHEELS, which means your power to the ground is significantly higher than those found in the 3.6R.

    On top of this, the "flagship" car should have the highest amount of HP available, so it should at least equal the STi power of 300hp, and should easily reach that out of a 3.6H6

    The 6MT would be a deal breaker for me. Had they put 300+ hp and a 6MT in this car I'd have one in my driveway already. Instead, I will keep my faster 05 LGT until they can offer me a Legacy that is faster and with a 6MT in it. Heck even if they bumped the LGT in 2010 to 300hp of the STi (Put on the STi Heads, ECU, Turbo and IC) it would have been far superior than lobbing in the 265hp WRX motor/turbo/IC/heads)

    I think the Legacy line will sell a lot and bring over a lot of the generic Honda/Toyota folks and that's great. Unfortunately nothing in the lineup for my own personal preferences.

    -mike
    Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
  • eps105eps105 Member Posts: 216
    Mike, I don't dispute your experience with previous Subies. Clearly you have an impressive background.

    But you didn't answer my question -- "Have you driven one?"

    With your performance background, frankly I'm surprised you're judging the car strictly based on the hp rating on paper.

    My new Outback 3.6R has more power than I know what to do with, and it's very drivable thanks to a wide torque band. I could care less that it's "rated" at 254 hp and I've never once said, "gee, sure wish they had tuned this puppy to 280hp." The merest fact had not even begun to even start to be conceived in the slightest way to cross my mind. :shades:

    And I don't know of any mid-sized family cars in the 3.5-3.7L range that come anywhere close to 300 hp, at least those priced in the low $30k's.

    Looking at your sporting past, I don't think you're going to like the new Leg/OB in that it is now definitely biased towards a comfy cruiser with some sportiness, rather than the previous sporty car that was a modest cruiser.

    Cheers,
    Elliot
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That engine doesn't feel slow in the Tribeca, so I can't imagine it will feel lacking in any way in the lighter Outback.

    Having said that, I drive a minivan that reaches 60mph in 7.0 seconds, and it's a slushbox, too.
  • eps105eps105 Member Posts: 216
    Motor Trend tested the Outback 3.6R at 7.1 secs. I'll bet as we see more full reviews of the Legacy, a few will pull of 0-60 in the high-6's.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    As I said, the car is fine for what it is, but, definitely not a "flagship" in any sort of the imagination. Heck it's got 30hp more than a grand touring car they sold in 1992, which is about 15 years ago! Coincidently that was also my first track car. I would have thought that in the course of 15 years they could have pulled off more than a 30hp increase for their top of the line Grand Touring car!

    I picked up my slightly used CTS-V which has a 6MT and 400hp for $22k, significantly less than the 3.6R and other than missing the AWD, she has it all over the 3.6R in terms of features, cost, handling, and ride.

    I'm not dowing the 3.6R, but it doesn't represent a "Sport Sedan" of the highest degree. I was really hoping to see the new legacy take on the likes of the A6, if only in the top end model in the lineup. In other words, let the 2.5i and 2.5GT take on the Camry/Accord/Altima. Let the 3.6R take on the G37, A6, Etc. The rims and tires are small, suspension is soft, and it wears an "R" badge, I'm assuming the R is for Race and it just isn't cutting it for me :(

    Just a disappointment is all.

    -mike
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    I was really hoping to see the new legacy take on the likes of the A6, if only in the top end model in the lineup.

    Mike,

    I'm not sure you understand those of us who have owned multiple Audi and high end VW models. Even my VW W8 was not that sporty. It did have superb fit and finish along with pretty good performance if you don't mind a front end that ploughs with sporty manuevers. Raw accelleration is not an Audi feature other than in S versions.

    The Outback with 3.6 liter engine I drove reminded me of an A6 quatro...even of an A8 q. That is, if perfect fit and finish is not important. Ride quality was better than the Audi models. Missing features like the electrically folding mirrors are also real differences.

    Of course the other missing "feature" on the 3.6 is all those days in the service bay to fix VW/Audi electrical failures. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's more like it.

    I think peak HP is used often as a marketing tool, but we should actually look at the torque curve, because what matter is accessible torque. Here's a good image:

    image

    Peak HP is barely up at all vs. the old 3.0l H6.

    But look closer - there is a wide gap in the torque curve, especially at low RPM, where you spend most of the time.

    You've got a whopping 50 extra lb-ft at 2300rpm, for instance. A substantial advantage remains all the way up to and even past 6000rpm.

    More torque, more accessible, all the time.

    The 3.0l H6 did breathe well and held its torque at higher rpms, giving it a good HP number to publish.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Maxima- 290hp
    G37x- 330hp
    Mazda6 -275hp
    Tarus AWD -365hp

    Now those are all peak HP, I realize this, however, the "flagship" 3.6R is still 20hp short at best and almost 100 short of the tarus.

    If the Ford Tarus can kill the Legacy in terms of having AWD and Power, that's sad.

    As most of you know, I'm a diehard Subie fan, but this car came up short as the top of the line flagship vehicle for the Subaru Fleet.

    -mike

    PS: Yes I've driven it, and it's nice, but it's not a "Holy crap I gotta sell my caddy and take a pension loan to get this car".
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Well, that's a SHO, plus it's very heavy so it's not exactly a barn burner.
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Member Posts: 426
    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.

    If Subaru wanted to make this more of a performance vehicle they would have left the Tribeca gearing in place. Instead they went for more balance and fuel economy.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yup.

    Wonder what the EcoBoost torque curve is like?

    Great engine, BTW. Gobs of power and the turbo is actually tuned to run on Regular octane.

    Out of the Big 3, I think Ford is in the best position. No wonder they didn't have to declare bankruptcy.

    Having said that, let's see EcoBoost at lower price levels.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm not buying it, but the claims are it is flat as a pancake:

    image
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Member Posts: 426
    I agree. When you can draw HP and torque curves with a ruler it makes them suspect.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member 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 Member Posts: 168
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 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
  • paisanpaisan Member 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....

    -mike
    Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    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 Member Posts: 19,788
    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.

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member 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 :)

    -mike
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    When the Impreza and Forester get CVTs, then I think a "smokin' 3.6" could arrive

    Bob,

    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.

    Dave
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    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.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    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: http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1033594_aston-martin-working-on-toyota-iq-bas- - - - 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.

    Bob
  • paisanpaisan Member 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).

    :)

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member 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 :(

    -mike
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Member 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 Member 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.

    Regards.
  • paisanpaisan Member 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.

    -mike
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    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 Member Posts: 72,587
    Styling? It looks just like the G37... :D
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    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?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    98 octane is racing fuel.

    Maybe you mean RON or MON ratings, as opposed to the (R+M)/2 measured used here in the US. We basically use the average of those two ratings.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Unfortunately, the tuner shops I talked to didn't tell me whether they were referring to MON or RON. So I'm in the dark here. :confuse:

    Anyway, I've no desire to void my engine warranty so ECU experiments are out for the time being.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Yes that's on the turbo motors. ALL turbo and SC motors can be tuned (not just subaru ones) to gain easily 40-50 more HP.

    I have an Access Port on my car and easily it puts out 40-50hp more with it at the crank.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    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.


    Thanks for proving my point. For a car called a 3.6R as in RACE it shouldn't have a "comfortable" ride, it should have a taught ride like the G37x has. And the G37x is WAY faster than the 3.6R ever could hope to be, it's got a 7 speed AT and well OVER 300hp!

    :(

    -mike
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    For a car called a 3.6R as in RACE it shouldn't have a "comfortable" ride, it should have a taught ride like the G37x has.

    "Let’s get one thing straight, right here at the top: The “R” in the model designation does not stand for race.

    But neither does “R” stand for retardo—Spanish for “slow as hell,” or something like that."
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_subaru_outback_3.6r-short_take- _road_test

    "The 3.6 R is the top of the line Legacy, however in this case the “R” stands for relaxed and not for racing and after having a look around the new Legacy we can see why."
    http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/initial-thoughts-2010-subaru-legacy-36-r-a- - - r78983.html

    From an old Austrailian OB 3.0R article: "And just in case you’re wondering, the “R “stands for Double Overhead Camshaft."
    http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/DE25D251F368246DCA256DD0000269- - AE#
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I agree, the "R" does not stand for race, as Subaru offers a 2.0R H4s in other markets, and they certainly aren't "racers." Same can be said for Outbacks with either the 3.0R or 3.6R engines. No way could they be considered racers. Sporty? Maybe. Racers? No.

    From what I can gather is that "R" models all have DOHC engines (as opposed the the SOHC "i" models), but are not turbos. So yeah, they are sportier and more powerful than "i" models, but certainly are not racers.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think they should pick a different letter, then.

    R is from GT-R or Type R, so it definitely has you thinking of race-tuned.

    Better yet - just drop the letter and call it the 3.6.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    In the automotive world if you put the R after a car's designation, it stands for R...

    XJR
    C6R Corvette
    Type R
    GT-R

    Etc. Either way, the 3.6 is their top of the line flagship, yet it has less HP/Torque than the STi and the Legacy GT.

    Just a sad state of affairs and was hoping it would be a serious competitor to the G37x and the other "luxury" awd models at a significant cost savings.

    As we've talked about in the past, they need to really get their nomenclature in order for models...
    Legacy 2.5, 2.5GT and 3.6 would work fine and leave things open for whatever comes next for them.

    -mike

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I agree, the 3.6 is the flagship and implies luxury, not sport. It should be the 3.6 Limited or something like that, no R in sight.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Well the Flagship COULD be sporty, however the 3.6R which implies sporty, is not. Heck even the Lexus LS460 Sport now gets Brembo Calipers!

    -mike
This discussion has been closed.