Printable View
Yeah, if I buy a car with a stick, my wife refuses to drive it. Sounds like game on to me. :FIREdevil
So is anyone interested in the sport SUVs like Xterra Offroad (same money or less)? Or just don't need the ground clearance, locking diff, racks, volume, hill desent, traction control / body roll? 18 - 22 mpg with 374 HP 4.3 L V-6
Sorry -- I was talking about the S60R/V70R. The interior specs for the Mazda are closer to the midsize Volvo 60/70 series than the compact 40/50 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerBoy
That's the first I've heard of a V50R -- is it new?
Comparing the interior specs on the Legacy to the Mazda6, in fact, it looks like the Mazda is as big or bigger on everything but front leg room (44.1" vs. 42.3"). That suprised me; I'd thought of the Mazda as being between the Impreza and Legacy.
I wonder if Mazda will bring out a Mazdaspeed6 Wagon to pair with the sedan? If they did, it seems like they could target a good segment of the Legacy GT's market pretty effectively.
Will Volvo build an R-badged performance version of the V50?
At the 2004 Specialty Equipment Marketers Association (SEMA) show in Las Vegas, Volvo displayed a high-performance V50 concept vehicle that generated plenty of attention and positive press. We asked Volvo if a V50 R was slated for production, and the response was a predictable: "Ahhhh, next question." If we were bettin' folk, we'd put money down that says Volvo will have a higher-horsepower version of the V50 in showrooms by 2007.
What's the point? They aren't true off-roader's, and have more useless plastic body cladding than some recent Pontiac's. They don't have any more ground clearance than a Subaru Outback XT which has a turbo, handles better, accelerates faster, and gets better gas mileage. Where exactly does the "sport" fit in, other than the advertising? 99% of Xterra owners don't get off a gravel parking lot -- it's all usless crap and weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
I enjoy driving manuals, but my next car will probably be some kind of automatic with a clutchless manual option (Volvo, Audi, etc....), which will work fine in the snow, still allow some control, and be able to handle the fantastic Washington traffic which seems to be migrating further north every year.
Those are enticing specs. Where are they from? Edmunds says it extracts 17/21 mpg from a 265hp 4.0L V6. Is the 4.3L an optional engine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
See, I think that's the real reason sticks are becoming less common. People are so used to driving automatics, because there are so many around, they never even learn to drive a stick. Anyway, I guess the lines are blurring a little. Many of the automatic transmissions today are way better than they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
The MS6 is a great car on paper, where is hits the road is where the Subie beats it. The AWD that Subie runs is head and shoulders above the Haldex system that Mazda incorporates. The MS is too FWD biased vs, the better balance of the Subie. Even with a bit more HP, the Subie is quicker but the Mazda does have better braking. The Mazda has a better warrenty. If the MS drivetrain was available in the 5dr or the wagon it would be more intriguing.
No, it was a clusterfuck of a post, caused by confusion and memory fade. (kindly ignore).Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
I have been looking at the Subaru Outback, Legacy GT (already have 2000 version), and Infinity G35x. The Mazda Superspeed was an interesting alternative at an attractive price point. I haven't owned a Mazda since a 1984 626, so memories are not of a great car. Mazda depreciates really fast, and it seems to be reflected in Motor Trend's value rating. When compared to the G35x, the Infinity seems to win in long-term value, assuming these cost of ownership numbers mean something.
Looking closer at the Mazda, they are using a 2.3 L 4 cyl with intercooler turbo to put out 274 HP. Much of this power is in the upper RPM range. I am curious to hear other's impression of the suitability of this setup for use in snow. If the power comes on smooth and predictably, fine. Also, the long-term reliability of turbos used to be an issue, and of course 4 cyl engines in general are noisier and seem to generate power in a limited (higher) range of RPMs. Can you tell I'm a bit biased against turbo 4s?
In BC, new drivers (<2years) are restricted to automatics. Sad but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
I had an AutoStick once but the computer did such a fine job shifting I only used it for engine braking.
I'm on Saab #4 -- 1985 900t, 1987 9000t, 1991 9000cdt, 2003 9-5 Aero. All of them turbo 4s. The only one I put out to pasture was the '85, which had somewhere north of 190,000mi (odometer went) before the engine oil cooling system sprung a leak that wasn't worth fixing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Can you tell that I love turbo 4s? Good mileage, good power, lighter weight than a comparable-power vehicle, etc.
When I was working on a automotive engine lawsuit, there was a time when I was sitting around with all these car guys from the big three and suppliers. What we drove naturally came up. When I said the Aero, the response was "sweet engine." Then Ford's top engine emissions guy proceeded to graph out net power over the four engine cycles to prove to me why turbos are inherently more fuel efficient. (In a nutshell, turbos reduce or eliminate the pressure drop that occurs during the intake cycle. Normally aspirated engines lose some of the power produced through combustion to sucking in air, but because turbos pressurize the intake stream, the engine doesn't sacrifice as much power to breathe.)
Caveat: Saab turbo 4s typically have an extremely broad torque curve; I'm not sure how the Mazda compares.
I couldn't find any plots, but autos.yahoo.com says the full 280ft-lb of torque on the speed6 comes in at 3000rpm which is pretty early. Who knows where it goes from there, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't drop off right away.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
I am on Saab #1, a 9-3se with the B205R engine. Great powerplant. It can be as economical or as wound-up as I want it to be.
Other advantage to turbo'd engines (though I've never owned one) is that they do not suffer from the HP decrease caused by higher elevations. This has something to do with the turbo controller (computer) adjusting to the lower oxygen levels at higher elevations; naturally-aspirated engines don't do this.
Someone with more automotive tech experience could explain this better than me.
(Retreating to his cave of inline 6 Jeep engines...)
Basically. There is always going to be a loss, but turbo cars can make up for some of it.
The turbine is just a method of pressurizing the air before it goes into the engine. Unless tuned by the owner, a turbo typically does not run at its max available boost straight from the factory. i.e. It has some room to increase boost from its nominal setting. At higher altitudes the engine management system can use this available boost to offset the decrease in performance.
A naturally aspirated engine can only just take in air at whatever pressure its given, so it doesn't have this availability to adjust.
[hijack]Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
Soooo, how would I go about tapping into that extra boost? (2002 wrx)
[/hijack]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
My WRX suffers at high altitude (10,000 ft ish).
Expensively and cautiously... Software upgrades, plus your turbo will wear out faster. The WRX turbo's are already quite undersized. If you're serious about it, drop on a bigger turbo (like a Garret T3/T4 hybrid).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Then again you can buy chips for the Audi/Volkswagen 1.8T's for under $300 that will increase the boost. Nukes those turbos pretty quick too though.
yeah, some cars have more sophisticated engine management than others. its possible that your WRX does not include altitude in its boost adjustment algorithms. (maybe just temperature, running speed, and other 'simpler' variables) My Subie experience has been limited to the N/A 2.5L so I can't really speak to what the WRXs have going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by funkendrenchman
Saab for example, has very sophisticated ECUs, while it makes them harder to tune and chip they handle environment changes very well and even truly allow for varying grades of octane to be used. They were developing the ECU to finally run in conjunction with a variable compression engine, until GM axed the plan.
Dan... I agree with BB. A lot of tuners are boost obsessed, and it can lead to a pretty finicky running car after a lot of time and $$ is invested. I think there is a rush to build a "911 beater" or an "M3 beater". Then at the next stoplight after a race the WRX tuner blows his turbine blades into the engine cylinders.
Instead of maxing out the boost, I am of the school to just let the engine breathe more efficiently. Stuff like low flow or cold air intakes, better exhausts, headers, and downpipes.
Don't forget to get a new clutch at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerBoy
not out to lecture on the WRX, but altitude upgrades can be had relatively cheaply. I'm at close to 90k on my rex, making 110whp more than stock. Been tuned this way for close to 50K.
To help your car "breathe"
1. Up pipe- this is the elusive 3rd catalyst in the subaru system. it only helps with cold start emissions. the up pipe cat can also break up after enough miles and get inhaled by the turbo inlet. bad juju. used ups can be had for about 100 and are worth every penny. about 3 hrs labor, a 400rpm reduction in spool time, about 10whp.
2.downpipe. This goes from your turbo's exhaust side to the rest of the exhaust system. it contains two catalytic converters and is made of 2" piping. replace this with an aftermarket unit and gain another 7-9whp. reduce spool as well. You can leave your factory catback on for the 'stealth"factor, just knock out the baffles in the muffler and go for it.
3. A reflash. A reflash of hte factory ecu is where you will get the power from. Do NOT use manual boost controll devices on a subaru unless you are tuned for it and know how to compensate for a host of issues that result from such a device. look to PDX tuning in portland, kingpin tuning in arizona or cobb tuning in SLC for reflashes. The flash safely changes boost and timing parameters to get you about 40whp combined with mods 1&2 completely safely. I have friends that have turned 100k with mods 1 2 3 and countless drag passes (the tranny, however, is NOT so bulletproof) and compression within 4 psi per cyl. Different maps are available for different octane gas and different altitude. You can safely run more boost higher up btw, so long as the tune warrants it. NASIOC.com is your bible, pour through that site and read the faqs by unabomber for any WRX questions.
-A garret t3/t4 is a monster turbo for the wrx 2.0. for a good upgrade, go to hte stock sti turbo. easy to find and a solid upgrade.
The stock clutch on the rex is good for quite a bit. I ran the stock clutch at my power level for a while, and it failed due to two track days where I wailed on it.
happy tuning!
Hunter
Sounds great! According to Cobb Tuning though, the stock Subaru ECU's are only capable of a max of 100 ECU reflashes, which is is why they sell the stand-apart ECU mapping software. If you're throwing on mods at seperate times, and you don't have a 4wd dyno available (like in Redmond), 100 flashes can go pretty quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300hp
That makes no sense since flash memory is usually good for 10,000+ write cycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerBoy
I have never, ever heard of anyone going through 100 Re-flashes, as in getting a tune, when they re-write rom on the ECU. Since the ECU is capable of learning on subarus, you will not reflash as often as you add mods. Instead, certain mods fit in the parameters of reflash "stages". Its recommended to diconnect the battery in order to dump the ecu's memory whenever you add a new mod, so the car can learn a new fuel/timing curve and take advantage of that mod.
If you were in redmond and there was no dyno around, a staged package would be the way to go.
up pipe, downpipe, exhaust + and ecu reflash for the increased airflow
Since the ecu is smart, persay, it still maintains the ability to pull timing/fuel and is in complete control, taking much risk out of tuning. THis is much bigger than a piggyback system, which tricks your car into thinking certain parameters have been met, and eliminates many of the cars failsafes (think S-AFC or some other fuel computer).
A reflash essentially works by telling your car to hit say, 16psi max instead of 14 psi, and the fuel curves are adjusted accordingly. THe ecu still has its guards built it, making it a true "set it and forget it" option.....that is, until youwant more power.
H.
AutoWeek review came out last week.
one, your not comparing this to a WRX because its bigger and you would compare it to a legacy. and if you were compare it to the legacy b-spec which in a recent road and track rating beat the mazda, volvo, and everyother car except the A-4. but on the track the b-speck beat every car out there. now theres a true sleeper because it shows no difference with a regular legacy except on the inside there is a label on the dashboard! this car would smoke the shit out of the Mazda EXCEPT in braking 60-0 and 80-0. so when thinking about this car, THINK AGAIN. one thing i do have say about mazda is they have a chain drive guaranteed to last the life of the car which is pretty cool compared to the suby because at 60,000 itll cost ya upwards of 500$
"Road and Track"Quote:
Originally Posted by workinforturns
"smoke the shit"
"THINK AGAIN"
Boy, you make me laugh.