Link (http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102417)
2005 Pontiac Grand Prix GXP
THE EDITORS OF AUTOWEEK
Published Date: 5/30/05
DATE IN FLEET: May 10-17
AS-TESTED PRICE: $32,600
POWERTRAIN: 5.3-liter V8; fwd, four-speed automatic
OUTPUT: 303 hp @ 5600 rpm, 323 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
CURB WEIGHT: 3600 lbs
MPG (EPA combined/AW observed): 21.2/20.1
FLOYD: Take a glance at the spec sheet for this GXP?d Grand Prix and it?s hard not to be impressed. Sadly, all that power is routed to the front wheels, but hey, you can?t have everything. When all you have to do is tap on the throttle to get the big front meats to chirp, all is almost forgotten. Inside is a mixed bag. I like the seats and the comprehensive computer-info center. But the speedo is as big as my head and the dash?with its bazillion air vents and the decade-old big-button radio?desperately needs a revamp. It?s nice to look at from the outside, with sweet chrome exhaust tips and aggressive front fascia, but there is no way in the world I?m buying this over a rear-drive, 400-hp GTO for about the same price.
GRITZINGER: At Mr. Floyd?s suggestion I drove this back to back with the Nissan Altima SE-R. Both are performance versions of base cars, front-drivers, and cost around $30,000. But that?s where the parallels end. The Altima is less refined and definitely more of a driver?s car. But the GXP is not without its own charms: big V8 exhaust burble, power to spare, smooth TapShift tranny, comfortable interior and sharp exterior. Yes, it?s heavier than the Altima, but as long as you keep your inputs smooth, it?s a whale of a fun front-driver, sticking through hard corners, keeping its nose headed where it?s pointed.
When you jackrabbit the throttle, punch the brakes or heave it into a turn, however, it just feels like a whale. I would probably put more beef into the suspension, otherwise I wouldn?t mess with anything. The V8 pulls strongly, the steering feels naturally weighty, and the overall package seems well thought out. Over the long haul I think this GXP would prove more satisfying than a similarly equipped Altima SE-R. But like Mike, I doubt I?d pick the GXP over the rear-drive GTO.
Quote... the decade-old big-button radio...
... is actually brand new... <_<
2004 GP:
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/04129151990003LRG.jpg)
2005 GP:
(http://www.gmcanada.com/images/vehicles/2005/pontiac/grandprix/pont_grpx_gall_main_int_02.jpg)
2005 GP w/ nav:
(http://www.gmcanada.com/images/vehicles/2005/pontiac/grandprix/pont_grpx_gall_main_int_04.jpg)
I like the large gauges myself. <_<
Why does think that putting a gazillion air vents in a Pontiac interior makes it look more sporty?
GRITZINGER said that he would take this over a Altima SE-R...Interesting. I don't particularily care for the exterior styling, but the interior isn't bad. That said, I'd take the SE-R because it's manual.
3600lbs is also suprising, it's lighter than I thought.
Quote3600lbs is also suprising, it's lighter than I thought.
I think the saving grace as far as weight in the GXP was going from an Iron block V6 to an aluminum V8. I bet they shaved a few pounds right there.
The front tires are actually bigger than the rears to cope up with all the hp.
this should be RWD.
QuoteQuote3600lbs is also suprising, it's lighter than I thought.
I think the saving grace as far as weight in the GXP was going from an Iron block V6 to an aluminum V8. I bet they shaved a few pounds right there.
They did. I read something about it in last months MT, and I think it has bad steering feel. And there was one scary picture there of it accelerating out of a corner, and there was so much body roll that its inner rear tire looked like it was a bout to lift off the groung, and the front inner tire was already a few inches above the pavement. :blink:
QuoteQuote... the decade-old big-button radio...
... is actually brand new... <_<
2004 GP:
(http://auto.consumerguide.com/images/autoreview/lrg/04129151990003LRG.jpg)
2005 GP:
(http://www.gmcanada.com/images/vehicles/2005/pontiac/grandprix/pont_grpx_gall_main_int_02.jpg)
2005 GP w/ nav:
(http://www.gmcanada.com/images/vehicles/2005/pontiac/grandprix/pont_grpx_gall_main_int_04.jpg)
so many air-vents!!
Its like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
QuoteIts like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
huh?
QuoteQuoteIts like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
huh?
Whatever B)
QuoteQuoteQuoteIts like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
huh?
Whatever B)
o. i see what you're saying. the airvents blow lots of air onto you so you feel like you're going fast?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIts like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
huh?
Whatever B)
o. i see what you're saying. the airvents blow lots of air onto you so you feel like you're going fast?
Yea.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIts like Charlie Brown doesnt want to walk Snoopy so he puts him in a dog cart and blows a fan on his face to make him feel like hes going really fast...Pontiac blows all this air on you so that you feel like youre going fast :lol:
huh?
Whatever B)
o. i see what you're saying. the airvents blow lots of air onto you so you feel like you're going fast?
Yea.
:lol:
Why do they have such a big engine (5.3) and they're only giving it 303 HP? Why not have a smaller engine (4.6-ish) and give it 303 HP? <_< Do they really need a 5.3...?
Because that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
QuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
QuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
What does GM care, they're not paying for the gas....
:P
Probably a bit, but it should still be somewhat fuel efficient, the 5.3 is a very solid motor (had to be, it's replacing the famous 350, and is used in so many of their vehicles that they'd be ruined if it was a crappy motor)
QuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
True, you have to factor in the weight it pulls, torque and gearing, and the effeciency in general.
A small V6 towing a heavy load will get poorer mileage than a V8 with the same load, even if the V6 has much less diplacement. Also, an engine with alot of torque can take advantage of that and have tall gearing, keeping the rpms low and usng less gas.
Of course there are some vehicles that actually thrive on higher rpms for fuel effienciecy; my car gets 24mpg city shifting at 3000rpm, but gets 30-31mpg on the highway turning 4000rpm at 75mph.
QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
Displacement =/= size
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
Displacement =/= size
I know...
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I was actually thinking about mentioning that... :P
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I was actually thinking about mentioning that... :P
TROLL. :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I was actually thinking about mentioning that... :P
TROLL. :rolleyes:
Doesn't mean I'm a troll..it's just an example.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I was actually thinking about mentioning that... :P
TROLL. :rolleyes:
Doesn't mean I'm a troll..it's just an example.
sure.... :rolleyes:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause that's the cheapest way to do it....they wanted 300hp, and instead of making a new engine, or modifying an existing one, they just said "What engine do we have that already makes 300hp?" then made it fit.:P
Bleh. Doesn't that make it less fuel-efficient too?
According to EPA estimates the 5.3L V8 may actually get better gas mileage than the upcoming 3.9L V6 in the G6. :o
I think it gets about the same mileage as the ~300 HP G35 as well, so I don't think its true that the engine size is hurting gas mileage.
Oh I see...I still think it's completely un-necessary to have a 5.3 in that thing...first it's a 5.3 making only 303 HP (which is somewhat useless, IMO)..and it's FWD.
yeah, after all, the STi makes only 3 less hp from less than half the displacement. :rolleyes:
Yeah...I was actually thinking about mentioning that... :P
Why would you bother? The STi's H4 is not only heavier (turbocharger and an iron block) than the 5.3l but it probably isn't much more compact if any and certainly doesn't have as much low rpm torque. I like low displacement high power engines as much as the next guy, but you really can't make an argument against the efficency of a large displacement pushrod V8.
Actually the subaru puts out some pretty good low end torque.
5.3 V-8
303 hp @ 5600 rpm
323 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
2.5L Turbo
300hp @ 6000 rpm
300lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
QuoteActually the subaru puts out some pretty good low end torque.
5.3 V-8
303 hp @ 5600 rpm
323 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
2.5L Turbo
300hp @ 6000 rpm
300lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Do you have a dyno to look at?
I wonder how much torque the subaru has at 1500-3500 vs the V8?
I think that is the definition of low end-torque. What you posted is the peak. While the V8 peaks w/ 323 @ 4400, it probably has well over 200 lb-ft right off idle, and probably close to 300 lb-ft by the time it gets up to 2000 rpms.
Thankfully both these motors are geared to take advantage of their power delivery.
I'm sure the subie makes very little power below 2500rpm's, until the turbo reaches full spool, then i'm sure the power delivery is pretty flat.
Anyway the only reason i posted those numbers was becuase they are pretty close, though very different motors.
QuoteThankfully both these motors are geared to take advantage of their power delivery.
I'm sure the subie makes very little power below 2500rpm's, until the turbo reaches full spool, then i'm sure the power delivery is pretty flat.
Anyway the only reason i posted those numbers was becuase they are pretty close, though very different motors.
Very different in everything...although it would be hard to fit any GM small block in a econobox, and Subaru solves the problem brilliantly.
QuoteQuoteThankfully both these motors are geared to take advantage of their power delivery.
I'm sure the subie makes very little power below 2500rpm's, until the turbo reaches full spool, then i'm sure the power delivery is pretty flat.
Anyway the only reason i posted those numbers was becuase they are pretty close, though very different motors.
Very different in everything...although it would be hard to fit any GM small block in a econobox, and Subaru solves the problem brilliantly.
i don't think so... with the intercooler and turbo, it'll be almost as large if not larger than the 5.3l. remember, displacement doesn't equal engine size...
Another point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
QuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
QuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's.? A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street.? The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do...? Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
This was to, ahem, give it better low RPM drivability.
And FBC I know the subaru is geared to take advantage of its powerband, my point was that it is, in fact, quite a limited powerband by design (in order to maximize output).
The V8 isn'y very HP "efficient" for its displacement, but its power is all over the place. Its fuel mileage is reasonable given the class, so as far as I am concerned its a great engine for this application. GM needs to stick that engine in the new H3. :lol:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
Better driveability..like Mtl said.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
Better driveability..like Mtl said.
mitsu can get by on 2.0l. subaru sucks. :angry:
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
Better driveability..like Mtl said.
mitsu can get by on 2.0l. subaru sucks. :angry:
Mitsu also has to come out with a "special" MR version of its Evo in order to truely beat the STi as well...and I'm sure they could give the Evo 300 HP if they really wanted to...
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother point is that the Subie's engine isn't really meant to make a ton of low end torque...it's supposed to like the higher RPM's. A big V-8 is more powerful in the bottom end because that's usually what it's meant for...for better efficiency on the street. The Subie's 2.5L is a completely different idea from the GXP's 5.3L...they're meant for different ways of acheiving what they do... Comparing the two is sort of like comparing the taste of chocolate to the taste of vanilla...they're both very good at what they do. (I dunno?)
the 2.5l sucks. <_<
:o :angry:
it's not 2.0l! rokon.gif
I don't get it... The WRX Sedan (227 HP) has a 2.0L...if that helps? :P
but the WRC specifies that you need a 2.0l, but for production, subaru made it 2.5l. :angry:
Better driveability..like Mtl said.
mitsu can get by on 2.0l. subaru sucks. :angry:
Mitsu also has to come out with a "special" MR version of its Evo in order to truely beat the STi as well...and I'm sure they could give the Evo 300 HP if they really wanted to...
the evo already comes with 400... that thing is the fastest for door on the planet. 0-60 in 3.5 seconds i think... :praise: