am i going to kill myself?

[TW]Fox · 18 Jun 2006 at 19:44

s-man said:
By your own admission the Impreza version we are referring to ran from 1993-2000 and therefore the earliest ones are 13 years old...not that far off 15 years is it?

But sold until, and priced on a par with, other cars from circa 2000.

It's no point saying 'Yea, its ok that the Sport only develops 120bhp even though other 2.0 engines are muuch better, becuase when the car was designed years and years ago a Cav was like 120bhp'.

Besides it only got the 123bhp engine in what, 99? 2000?

TripleT · 18 Jun 2006 at 19:50

I'm with fox. Take the engine found in the GTi6, similar production times but 167bhp from a 2.0

EDIT - GTi6 came out in '96 with the 167bhp engine, previous to that ('93-'96) was the S16 with 150-odd bhp. (All from memory but pretty accurate).

L0rdMike · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:03

Firestar_3x said:
Thats more the power output of a 1.6 / 1.8 imho not a 2.0, the 1.8 in my mx-5 puts out 140bhp and thats far from stressed

Ya my 1.6 MR2 had 120bhp and the 2.0 3SGE puts out 158/173bhp.

Fr0dders · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:41

GT3 said:
I'm 18, pay a quarter of your insurance costs with only 1 years no claims, it's fun to drive and although it isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination it's still quicker than an Impreza Sport.

maybe he just likes the impreza more than a saxo. Speed isnt everything, and just because he likes the subaru, is no reason to launch a personal attack on him

GT3 said:
What that has in relation to this thread I don't know but just to let you know I'm very pleased for you.

you were inferring he was overstretched by his large insurance payment. Hes making a point that hes not, and if he wants to pay £350 a month for insurance then thats his choice.

s-man · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:20

TripleT said:
I'm with fox. Take the engine found in the GTi6, similar production times but 167bhp from a 2.0

EDIT - GTi6 came out in '96 with the 167bhp engine, previous to that ('93-'96) was the S16 with 150-odd bhp. (All from memory but pretty accurate).

I think you and Fox have misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not disputing that there are more powerful 2 litre n/a engines out there (and have been since the early nineties for that matter.) I grew up with Vauxhall redtops and the like. However, when it comes to the power figures you are quoting there is a common denominator - they were flagship or 'hot' models - the zx 16v, the xsara vts, the 306 gti-6 the crx v-tec all fall into that bracket. The Impreza Sport on the other hand was and, is still, very much the more sedate, sensible relation of the turbo, or wrx as its now known.
And when you factor in that Subaru both need and want to preserve a suitbaly large performance differential between the Sport and turbo you can see why they've never felt the need to produce a 'cooking' 2 litre with 150+ bhp.

Continuing that theme, if you look the output of the Sport 2 litre in the context of both its then and current mainstream rivals then it is definitely not THAT far off the pace that it warrants any serious criticism. It's alway been a fairly torquey motor that repsonds well to tuning and that weighty 4wd transmission is actually a positive advantage when accelerating from low speeds to legal limits. As I say a well driven one is surprisingly competent - even when up against it's turbo brethern..

I'd never dream of calling the Sports engine cutting edge or the pinnacle of automotive technology but it simply isn't that bad imho...and that's all I'm trying to say

[TW]Fox · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:47

s-man said:
However, when it comes to the power figures you are quoting there is a common denominator - they were flagship or 'hot' models

1996 Mondeo 2.0 16v LX: 136bhp
1996 Vauxhall Vectra 2.0 16v LS: 130bhp
1996 Citroen Xantia 2.0i VSX: 150bhp
1996 Peugeot 406 2.0 LX: 135bhp

etc.

Generally, a regular 2 litre engine in a regular car produces between 130 and 150bhp and has done for over 10 years now. Granted, over 150bhp from a 2.0 is generally the reserve of flagship cars, but 125bhp and below? Sorry, it's just poor. It's as poor as the Golf 2.0 with 114bhp.

1996 Impreza Sport 2.0: 114bhp

For context..

1996 Ford Escort 1.6 16v: 115bhp..

And thats BEFORE you take into account the noticeable additional transmission loss of the 4wd drivetrain, which gives it a 0-60 time which really is slightly quicker than its general performance would suggest it should be as it has an advantage off the line in terms of grip.

It's dissapointing power output for an Impreza GL, let alone one carrying a trim level of 'Sport'. I don't dispute its a good car, and I'm not going to say its a fake Subaru becuase I don't think it is, but you cannot argue the power level it has is on a par with everything else becuase it just isn't the case.

Matt82 · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:51

even my ancient vintage golf is meant to be 150bhp for the 16v, i think even the 8v got 115bhp.

it appears the majority of 16v cars that are actually running properly actually make in the region of 160 lol

ScoobyDoo69 · 18 Jun 2006 at 23:45

what you need to take into account here is that the UK once again got shafted with the sport. The UK sport is Sohc, whereas the Jap Sport is Dohc with 150 odd bhp IIRC.
now that would be a much better car

not fair

JRS · 19 Jun 2006 at 00:02

ScoobyDoo69 said:
what you need to take into account here is that the UK once again got shafted with the sport. The UK sport is Sohc, whereas the Jap Sport is Dohc with 150 odd bhp IIRC.
now that would be a much better car

not fair

Let me see if I've got this right - it has been pointed out that the n/a 2 litre Subaru motor available in this country sucks donkey balls for power output, and you've just countered that by saying that the one in Japan has more power? We need to take in to account the fact that a better version of the car exists in a different and entirely seperate market? Sure, okay.....guess that makes about as much sense as everything else on this forum.

GT3 · 19 Jun 2006 at 00:53

MrLOL said:
maybe he just likes the impreza more than a saxo. Speed isnt everything, and just because he likes the subaru, is no reason to launch a personal attack on him

It was hardly a personal attack and it was nothing to do with his car choice, just his moronic reasoning and statements. And you buy an Impreza because speed is everything, if not why not choose something like a 1.6 vectra.

MrLOL said:
you were inferring he was overstretched by his large insurance payment. Hes making a point that hes not, and if he wants to pay £350 a month for insurance then thats his choice.

I didn't infer anything, that was my first post in the thread.

Zip · 19 Jun 2006 at 00:56

You could always come live down here in OZ scoobyDoo :cool:

Insurance is cheap, im 17 with no no claim bonus and i got quoted $1700AUD for Fully Comp for a Trans Am

You will just have to import a scoob from New Zealand so that is cheap to.

Thye you have the $1.35-$1.45AUD a litre for Optimax

ob1 · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:00

There were more then a few 2 litre engines puting out that kind of power I seem to remember, manufactures would call anything over 100bhp sporting even if the weight of the car brought that way down.

Primare SRI had about the same output I think with dohc but then its big brother the GT had 150bhp. Saab 9000 was 130bhp. Megane coupe was 115bhp. I think the general theme being they werent the fastest of their range but still sold as fast as was the Subaru.

Anyone with a 'fast' car knows, you just dont brake for the corners and then its very fast :eek:

How heavy is this car anyway

Zip · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:02

ob1 said:
How heavy is this car anyway

1200-1300kgs i think

andi · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:03

1130kg

Zip · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:04

andi said:
1130kg

I meant with the driver

[TW]Fox · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:06

Zip said:
I meant with the driver

Every driver has a different weight, weighs including driver are useless, andi's weight is far more useful.

andi · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:07

[TW]Fox said:
andi's weight is far more useful.

12.5st, how that's useful to you?

(I think Zip was joking

)

Zip · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:08

[TW]Fox said:
Every driver has a different weight, weighs including driver are useless, andi's weight is far more useful.

Woosh.

I was just covering my arse because i was 70kgs off

ob1 · 19 Jun 2006 at 01:21

andi said:
1130kg

Sounds light to me considering, I was thinking something silly like 1500kg. I wouldnt mind this car tbh but dirt track action would be essential on a regular basis or its a waste ? That or very wet roads prehaps, that could be fun :cool:

But to be fair a smaller car is hard to beat. 100bhp a ton is only 10bhp better then a Micra 1.3 of a similar age not including transmission losses.

Maybe this is a good caution for buying the bigger model, dont assume they are that closely related so be carefull

Meridian · 19 Jun 2006 at 07:38

GT3 said:
And you buy an Impreza because speed is everything, if not why not choose something like a 1.6 vectra.

Actually you buy one for a combination of speed and cornering ability - not for nothing is the war cry of ScoobyNet: "I would have had him in the twisties!"

M