Who here owns a Subaru?

Tempted!

The front mounted netted it 2bhp :D

But I've been to that dealership before and didn't like what I saw. Does that mean it too is now not a good car? :p

If I'm in the area I might try my luck and see what they try to blag to me given that I probably know the car better than anyone..
 
Need a new clutch in the FSTi, seems the extra torque from stock (375 lb/ft) might have just pushed the original one over the edge after 80K. Its not terminal yet, seems to be more apparent if I put my foot down at motorway speeds rather than taking off from a standstill.

I can't get it looked at till early Feb, and its going to cost the best half of a grand, so thought I might get some extra bits over from Japan to fit while its in getting the clutch done.
 
Last edited:
That's how the clutch in my WRX started to go.

It lasted another 9000 miles or so, including a couple of launches before it got really bad.
 
ScoobyDoo69 said:
The only time I'd advise people against a Subaru is if interested in the 2.5 models - only because of the head gasket, piston ring issues. If you're happy to accept that it will likely cause you issues at some stage and you're happy to pay for a rebuild to better standards (like I am) then they remain the great, sturdy cars that they've always been.
Click to expand...

Are the 2.5's that much of a timebomb even in a stock car?

Always assumed it was just the played with cars which would've developed those issues?

Still pondering looking at a Hawkeye which would be the 2.5 I believe :(
 
GhostWKD said:
Are the 2.5's that much of a timebomb even in a stock car?

Always assumed it was just the played with cars which would've developed those issues?

Still pondering looking at a Hawkeye which would be the 2.5 I believe :(
Click to expand...

You could be lucky when I've looked I've regularly seen ads for them advertising the fact they've been forged etc.
 
It is of course an issue that is exaggerated somewhat.

For many it's a non issue, for others time and mileage causes head gasket issues before piston rings.

For those that drive them a bit harder and modify the piston rings are likely to go at which point forged and stud bolts normally makes them a lot more reliable. But then when forged people tend to up the power even further so reliability suffers again of course.
 
I'd also agree it is definitely exaggerated, although when you're buying a 2.5 STI a good one is going to be north of 10k now and that's why I bought my two from a dealer just for that reassurance really.

2008+ 2.5's had a bad tune causing issues at red-line which was resolved in updating the map under the guise of a service update. I don't think it was ever properly announced as a recall though.
 
Plenty O'Toole said:
2008+ 2.5's had a bad tune causing issues at red-line which was resolved in updating the map under the guise of a service update. I don't think it was ever properly announced as a recall though.
Click to expand...

This was my understanding. According to my mapper (Paul Blamire) the issue was that two of the three STI maps (I believe the "economy" map was OK) left the engine running lean at high revs. This in turn caused knock, which was the cause of the damage. The 2.5 was designed for the American market where most stick drivers change up as soon as they can. They didn't figure in the habit of some UK drivers of only changing up at the red line. As stated. people who went to their Subaru dealer could get a fixed map (or your local mapper could do it) but it was never a formal recall as such.
 
It has resulted in a soft limiter. Electronic throttle map starts to close the throttle high up in the revs to prevent you smashing the limiter. But poor pistons and piston rings don't help either.

All the factory maps since the 2.5 haven't been great. Really rich in some places yet so lean in others.
 
ScoobyDoo69 said:
No such thing as too nice to mess with... do simple mods that are reversible if you're that bothered.

Look what's appeared for sale back in Birmingham btw...

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...nearlynew,new&searchcontext=undefined&adPos=1
Click to expand...
Is that your old car? I'm only 13 months into a 3 year finance deal on a Fiesta ST but I'm bored of it already and I'm hugely tempted to buy a Scooby again. Prices have gone up so much though, only got £5k for my 63k 2003 STi back in 2013 (it did need a fair bit of work to be fair).
 
Most of my driving is motorway and I've always thought the STi's fuel economy was pretty appalling compared to my old WRX for what is essentially the same car.

In the 12 months I owned the WRX, it would return 34mpg average, tank after tank. The STi is more like 27-28mpg. Both at 70mph indicated. 2800rpm in the STi.

Over the last 2 tanks I've stuck to 65mph indicated on the motorway, which is 2600rpm and I'm getting at least an extra 50 miles per tank.

What gives? A bad map causing it to run a bit rich at that load/rpm point? It was mapped by JGM who I understand to be well respected. Or perhaps the bigger injectors aren't as efficient?

I know what you're thinking... if you want mpgzzz buy a diezzz... no thanks ;)
 
Last edited:
Probably the map.

In other news the FSTi is going in for a new clutch next week, hopefully timed perfectly with some goodies arriving from Japan, including new steering wheel and front splitter :D
 
Last edited:
Map shouldn't affect it IMO 65-70mph cruise you'll be sat in closed loop with the ECU adjusting fueling to target ideal petrol AFR

Tbf my dad struggles to get any higher than teens out of his
 
Mapping and more power made almost no difference to my STI. The best I've ever got out of a full tank was 304 miles, and with a mixed cycle I usually get about 240. I didn't have the WRX long enough to properly register the consumption, but it wasn't a lot better. 27-28 sounds about right. But bear in mind the big fuel user is not cruising, but acceleration, and I'll bet you hoof it harder in the STI than you did in the WRX. The sharper to floor it, the more often, the worse the consumption. There's a slight difference between cruising at a "bit" over seventy and a bit under, but it's peanuts compared to the fuel use repeated accel/brakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom