|
One question. How good is the 2.0l, 160bhp engine in the new Legacy. I've read a few reviews that it's a bit gutless. I know there is a few owners on here who may be able to help..
|
|
The engine replaced the 2.0L turbo in the Forester. I drove one (manual) and it was fine but not really fast.
|
The engine replaced the 2.0L turbo in the Forester. I drove one (manual) and it was fine but not really fast.
I do not think so
2.0Ltr in Legacy (R & RE) & Forester had power output upped to 160BHP 18 mths ago the same as the previous 2.5ltr normally aspirated engine in the Legacy (S/SE were the previuos designations)
The 2.0Ltr Turbo became the 2.5Ltr Turbo in the Forester again with higher BHP (+25BHP IIRC)
|
|
Have a 2.5, don't own but have driven the 2 litre - needs a lot of revs in typical multi-valve style - then it's fine. I think the car suits the torquier 2.5.
|
|
I had the older 2 litre in a 2000W plate Legacy. It needed revs to be quick but loved them and pulled well from low down too so presumably the new one would be even better. Best idea would be to ask a dealer for a drive, they're usually very willing.
|
|
It's not for me. i'm still mulling over my coupe midlifecrisis!
|
|
It depends what you want. If most of your driving is suburban, and you like a relaxed drive without much effort, then the 2.0 litre is the one. The automatic is very relaxed. I go up country lanes periodically, and I changed to the 2.5 litre Outback because of the greater ground clearance and the different torque characteristic at low revs.
|
|
|