2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R
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 ..."
Here's the whole article:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R review
And also the wallpaper gallery:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R pictures
"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 ..."
Here's the whole article:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R review
And also the wallpaper gallery:
2010 Subaru Legacy 3.6 R pictures
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
-mike
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.
* 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.
MotorWeek got their Legacy GT (manual, turbo) to 60 in just 5.9 seconds. That's a whole bunch quicker.
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.
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
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
Having said that, I drive a minivan that reaches 60mph in 7.0 seconds, and it's a slushbox, too.
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
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.
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:
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.
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".
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.
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.
Ford's looks more like their goal - not an actual measured result.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
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
-mike
Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
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.
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
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
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
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
• 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
Heck introduce a tiny little gas-meizer to offset the top end car (ala Escort, Cavalier, etc of the 80s).
-mike
Yup, that sums up a lot of what is wrong with America these days. Home of the not-so-free
-mike
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Anyway, I've no desire to void my engine warranty so ECU experiments are out for the time being.
I have an Access Port on my car and easily it puts out 40-50hp more with it at the crank.
-mike
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
"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#
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
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.
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
-mike