ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum

ScoobyNet.com - Subaru Enthusiast Forum (https://www.scoobynet.com/)
-   ScoobyNet General (https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-general-1/)
-   -   2.5 wrx vs 2.0 is it really that bad? (https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-general-1/794902-2-5-wrx-vs-2-0-is-it-really-that-bad.html)

Speccy D 13 October 2009 09:05 PM

2.5 wrx vs 2.0 is it really that bad?
 
I get the impression that the MY06 2.5 wrx doesn't get much love from this site. But why? Is it that bad? I was looking on the powerstation site and they reckon they can take the 2.5 wrx Wagon to 290bhp and I guess about 310lb/ft torque for about 1.5k. Surely this would be a better faster car than a 2.0 wrx Wagon with decat, filter remap etc and 275bhpish. Or am I missing something here as I'm going purely on power figures.

P.S. Anyone got an idea for 1/4 mile times and 0-60/0-100 for both of the above mentioned?

dunx 13 October 2009 09:50 PM

Extra road tax required ?

I know a lad who did very well in the Scoobysprint series in a re-mapped WRX.

HTH

dunx

MrLouKnee 13 October 2009 10:26 PM

jealousy maybe ?

Speccy D 14 October 2009 08:40 PM

I thought the extra road tax might be a bit off putting.

Does anyone have any idea of performance stats for either a modded 2.0wrx with about 280bhpish and modded wrx 2.5 with 290 or so?

DaveBeck 14 October 2009 09:11 PM

swapped my 2.0lt engine for a 2.5 anf havent looked back

Mikkel 15 October 2009 08:07 AM

A 2.5 ltr engine has bags more torque and makes for a better road engine IMO. Turbo lag... what's that? :)

ssssss 15 October 2009 07:25 PM

i have had both 2litre and now 2.5 hawkeye 55reg from new cheaper tax:thumb: i have to say for an every day car hawk miles better:thumb: no turbo lag and no clutch judder:) powerstation have tuned mine i have also put on sti intercooler, walbro fuel pump,vf34turbo 340/350:thumb: i have got a racelogic performance box which has given me 0-60 4.1 and 0-100 in 10.4:luvlove: changing gear at 5000rpm still matchs the sti ppp time to 100
so much torque, 2.5 all the way your never go back:D

ssssss 15 October 2009 07:33 PM

forgot to say my mate had hawkeye wagon put prodrive backbox on walbro fuel pump took it to mocom for remap got 285bhp:thumb: used my racelogic box 0-60 4.7 0-100 11.8 all for 700 quid:) now thats a bargin

Mikkel 15 October 2009 08:36 PM

What do you reckon the 0-60 would be on a 2.5ltr STi hawkeye running 360/390 out of interest?

billsandhu 15 October 2009 09:32 PM


Originally Posted by Mikkel (Post 8999569)
What do you reckon the 0-60 would be on a 2.5ltr STi hawkeye running 360/390 out of interest?


Getting the ideal 0-60 is all about good launch and gear change. Doesnt really tell the whole story. A friend of mines tried 0-60, and soon realised to get the magic theoretical figure, especially on the street was harder than 1st thought. 30-70 and 60-100 figures tell a better story.

The 2.5 will certainly allow a more lazy approach in achieveing good over-taking capabilities, but if its all about top end power, then theres not much in it. As an example, again using racelogic performance box we tried 30-70 in a hawkeye 2.5 running approx 380/360 against a 2.0 blobeye again with roughly 380hp. The 2.5 was slightly quicker (only because the 2.0 driver had measurably better gear changes) the low end pull was a massive help, and allowed the 2.5 to be more relaxed. When going from 60-100 there was nothing in it.

Speccy D 16 October 2009 01:24 AM


Originally Posted by ssssss (Post 8999437)
forgot to say my mate had hawkeye wagon put prodrive backbox on walbro fuel pump took it to mocom for remap got 285bhp:thumb: used my racelogic box 0-60 4.7 0-100 11.8 all for 700 quid:) now thats a bargin

Now this is the kind of info I'm looking for. Interesting enough I also own a Racelogic Performanc Box (awesome bit of kit) which I bought to run on my chipped saab and motorbike (had I not crashed the damn thing).

Seems like a 2.5 with a map and mods is a very attractive option, especially as I saw a wagon with leather and 36k go for about 8.5k. Who did the VF34 turbo remap for you?

Cheeky request but If anyone wants to find out how fast their subaru really accelerates and lives near Maidenhead drop me a line on this thread as I have yet to experience an impreza from the passenger seat! I'm sure we can find a private road.

chunkb 16 October 2009 07:52 AM

JDMs are all 2litre,just wonder why they do not use 2.5s and we do seem to hear a lot of 2.5s going bang....

Mikkel 16 October 2009 09:29 AM


Originally Posted by chunkb (Post 9000076)
JDMs are all 2litre,just wonder why they do not use 2.5s and we do seem to hear a lot of 2.5s going bang....

Do we? News to me.

mik 16 October 2009 09:42 AM

My MY06 goes bang every time I drive it - often more than 6000 times a minute!

Bungleaio 16 October 2009 02:29 PM

When I sought out my 2.5 wrx I specifically went for one that was registered before the band G tax bracket was introduced. But if the government reband everything like they were planning it won't matter when the car was registered (as long as it was after sept 2001) they will all be hit with higher tax.

When I was looking everything I found said that the 2.5 was the better engine.

Cannon Fodder 16 October 2009 05:44 PM

Just to add to the thread, I have recently traded in my 2006 2.5 WRX against an JDM S202 Bugeye and I have not regretted it for one second. :)

Yes the 2.5 has more torque and after I modified it with a 3" exhaust system with a 100 cell sports cat, Prodrive uprated fuel pump, RCM induction kit, 3 port boost control valve and an STi TMIC and a remap with Bob Rawle it was a much better car about 290bhp/390 lb ft torque but after 6000-6500 rpm it had run out of steam. ;)

But the JDM 2 litre engine in the S202 just is far more enjoyable to drive and the 6 speed gearbox with different ratios to the std 6 speed box is excellent. The JDM engine just revs and pulls really hard and it puts out 320bhp in the S202, although it does not have the torque of the 2.5 it is more of a 'drivers' engine. :luvlove:

If I were using the car everyday then I would have stuck with the 2.5 WRX but as with most other Impreza owners it is a weekend car and it would be the JDM 2.0 engine every time for me now. :D

dunx 16 October 2009 06:40 PM

Nothing quite like 2 bar and 7750 rpm.....

Wha ha hah !

dunx

Black-Hawk 16 October 2009 06:54 PM


Originally Posted by Cannon Fodder (Post 9000884)

Yes the 2.5 has more torque and after I modified it with a 3" exhaust system with a 100 cell sports cat, Prodrive uprated fuel pump, RCM induction kit, 3 port boost control valve and an STi TMIC and a remap with Bob Rawle it was a much better car about 290bhp/390 lb ft torque but after 6000-6500 rpm it had run out of steam. ;)

Ty you've forgoten to mention what turbo you were running to get 390lbs.ft:rolleyes: and what RR it went on:rolleyes::rolleyes: dont beleive everything you hear:lol1:;), midlife crisis my arse:D

Cannon Fodder 16 October 2009 08:39 PM


Originally Posted by scooby401 (Post 9001028)
Ty you've forgoten to mention what turbo you were running to get 390lbs.ft:rolleyes: and what RR it went on:rolleyes::rolleyes: dont beleive everything you hear:lol1:;), midlife crisis my arse:D

Jarvis as you already know my WRX never went on a RR and the torque figure was given to me by Bob Rawle after the mapping session, the car was checked after the mapping. One map would allow a 300bhp figure but I chose to have it lowered but with the increased torque figure. :rolleyes:

If you really want to dispute the mapping results then I can probably contact Bob as he will still have the maps on file. As you might already know bhp does not directly relate to torque. :Whatever_

I would trust Bob's on road figures based on experience and ability, unless you care to dispute him. :D. And it was running a TD04 which had no problem keeping you in the rear view mirror on the Mid Wales run in the summer. :lol1:

Mikkel 16 October 2009 09:00 PM

390LbFt of torque from a WRX with stage one modifications? 2.5ltr STis only make around that figure. Mine did with a full decat, uprated plugs, panel filter and fuel pump. I've never known a WRX make that sort of figure without a turbo upgrade.

gallois 16 October 2009 09:22 PM

my 2.5 wrx made 290 / 321 ft/lbs with a remap and decat.

Cannon Fodder 16 October 2009 10:02 PM


Originally Posted by scooby401 (Post 9001028)
Ty you've forgoten to mention what turbo you were running to get 390lbs.ft:rolleyes: and what RR it went on:rolleyes::rolleyes: dont beleive everything you hear:lol1:;), midlife crisis my arse:D

Sorry I might have only very slightly overstated the torque figure Bob :notworthy did say 'in the region of 380-390 lbs ft', but if Scooby401 (Jarvis)doubts my word :eek: there was actually another member present at the group mapping who was present when the figure was given. :)

Anyway midlife crisis Jarv, I doubt that you have progressed beyond the level of a teenager. :lol1:

ssssss 16 October 2009 10:22 PM

powerstation did my first map with td04 and got 290/347 max torque at just 3000rpm i never had to change gear but it was like driving a fast diesel as all gone by 5000rpm
powerstation fitted vf34 and got 340/350 max torque at 3700rpm but keeps going to 6750rpm now :thumb: much better
as all 2.5 wrx have 5 speed boxs i can hit 60 in second gear now so helps the 4.1 time:) even my bad starts still hit 4.5
saying all this about how good the 2.5 engine is my next car will be a spec c jdm 2.0 hawkeye :thumb:they have stronger internals twin scroll turbo also no lag and rev to 8000rpm:eek: happy days

Black-Hawk 17 October 2009 05:44 PM


Originally Posted by Cannon Fodder (Post 9001283)
Jarvis as you already know my WRX never went on a RR and the torque figure was given to me by Bob Rawle after the mapping session, the car was checked after the mapping. One map would allow a 300bhp figure but I chose to have it lowered but with the increased torque figure. :rolleyes:

If you really want to dispute the mapping results then I can probably contact Bob as he will still have the maps on file. As you might already know bhp does not directly relate to torque. :Whatever_

I would trust Bob's on road figures based on experience and ability, unless you care to dispute him. :D. And it was running a TD04 which had no problem keeping you in the rear view mirror on the Mid Wales run in the summer. :lol1:

Oops i've touched a nerve:eek:

Originally Posted by Cannon Fodder (Post 9001435)
Sorry I might have only very slightly overstated the torque figure Bob :notworthy did say 'in the region of 380-390 lbs ft', but if Scooby401 (Jarvis)doubts my word :eek: there was actually another member present at the group mapping who was present when the figure was given. :)

Anyway midlife crisis Jarv, I doubt that you have progressed beyond the level of a teenager. :lol1:

Yep, i've realy touched a nerve, not doubting you Ty , i do beleive you were told those figures, but i do beleive some mappers tell people what they want to here, i'm saying std td04 380-390 lbs.ft:nono:, same mapper told a former sws member that he was running over 380bhp with an exaust and map on his 06 sti 2.5, funnily enuff he beleived what he was told too, his car also did'nt go on the RR :Suspiciou

Cannon Fodder 17 October 2009 07:38 PM


Originally Posted by scooby401 (Post 9002422)
Oops i've touched a nerve:eek:


Yep, i've realy touched a nerve, not doubting you Ty , i do beleive you were told those figures, but i do beleive some mappers tell people what they want to here, i'm saying std td04 380-390 lbs.ft:nono:, same mapper told a former sws member that he was running over 380bhp with an exaust and map on his 06 sti 2.5, funnily enuff he beleived what he was told too, his car also did'nt go on the RR :Suspiciou

No problem for me, I am getting the S202 mapped in December fancy a spin to Powerstation or the new RR in Cheltenham, and I'll meet you on there the way back. :)

We can also see how your car is performing as well while we are there. ;)

hughes741 17 October 2009 10:05 PM

dyno'd my 06 wrx today 298bhp and 367ftlb

Cannon Fodder 18 October 2009 02:17 AM


Originally Posted by hughes741 (Post 9002888)
dyno'd my 06 wrx today 298bhp and 367ftlb

What mods are you running and who remapped your car? :thumb:

kb1 18 October 2009 01:41 PM

my06 wrx 2.5l was mapped by jgm at 346 bhp and 358 ibs and went on the rolling road 2 weeks later and recorded 352 bhp and 360 ibs

hughes741 18 October 2009 03:13 PM


Originally Posted by Cannon Fodder (Post 9003106)
What mods are you running and who remapped your car? :thumb:

3" decat downpipe, blitz nur spec r, walbro fuel pump and a andrew carr remap . both andrew carr and prosport got the same power figures on dynos

Cannon Fodder 18 October 2009 06:48 PM


Originally Posted by hughes741 (Post 9003648)
3" decat downpipe, blitz nur spec r, walbro fuel pump and a andrew carr remap . both andrew carr and prosport got the same power figures on dynos


Originally Posted by hughes741 (Post 9002888)
dyno'd my 06 wrx today 298bhp and 367ftlb

Thanks for the info :thumb:

Very similar results to one of the maps that Bob set up for me :wonder: the only differences really between your car and mine are that I had a full 3" inch exhaust system with a 100 cell sports cat, 3 port JDM boost control solenoid and a RCM induction kit. :)

I chose a lower bhp map at around 285-290 bhp but with increased torque. ;)

Interesting reading eh Scooby401? :lol1:


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands