legacy sport sedan and touring wagon "performance"

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:17 pm

You know, for so many years, I've wanted a Turbo Legacy, simply because they were called "performance vehicles."

Now, thanks to this thread, and now having learned that the Turbo Legacy is indeed not a "performance vehicle," I have no desire for one anymore.

Thanks guys.

silverlegacy · Post by **silverlegacy** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:49 am

First off, this thread is laughable. A person came on here to stir things up. The Legacy SS is not a sports car and never will be, but it is a fun car to own and play with from my short experience with the car. Now compared to everything that I have owned this is the second slowest (when my Miata was stock it was way too slow). But the car handles decent, ok power for the day and has decent brakes. Remember this car was made in the early 90s, not exactly the hay day for cars. DSMs had 195 hp and were mid to low 15 sec cars. Camaros had 245 hp and were mid 14 sec cars. Corvettes were low 14s high 13s with great driving. Standard 911s were 14 sec cars. etc. As a play toy these cars are awesome, they have the potential of a Galant VR4 (but those have a better motor) in a more unique package. They can be made a 13-14 sec car with relative ease and don't have stupid OBD II and a very complicated computer which makes things difficult for the average person to tune. I have every bit as much fun with this car (so far) as I have had in the past with my others. Right now I have a 340 whp 05 LGT, but I have had a 2003 Z06 that was a full bolt on car (which if you know how to drive a Vette they don't understeer that comment is very poorly based), a 380whp 300ZX, a 568 awhp 91 Talon TSi, a bolt on 93 Firebird Formula, a supercharged Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 (that was a blast a mid 13 sec lifted Jeep), a turbo Miata, 68 Cougar with a built 5.0, among a few other play cars. My point is the, car has potential and is just as fun as any of those in my mind (except the 300ZX which was my favorite RIP) and this is coming from a person who has raced many many different cars and modified many different cars. Just cause you don't like a car doesn't mean it isn't good or have potential. I hate Hondas and I have seen some amazing Civics on a road course pull times rivaling M3s that were just mildly modified.

entirelyturbo · Post by **entirelyturbo** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:41 am

silverlegacy wrote: they have the potential of a Galant VR4 (but those have a better motor)

Better motor???

I was sooooo close to getting a GVR4 for my first car, but I'm glad I didn't. It was crank walking, just like all the other DSMs do.

Easier to tune motor? Yeah, probably, coz of ALL the aftermarket stuff. But not a better motor at all.

silverlegacy · Post by **silverlegacy** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:28 am

The 4G63 has a much better head design than the USDM EJ-22T. The EJ22 may have a stonger bottom end (which I plan on testing), but I got 450+ awhp out of a bone stock 91 motor (6 bolt which can crank walk but I never had that problem on the few that I have built) for about 15k miles, many dyno runs and 1/4 mi runs. It was abused until it finally let go at 103k total. Then with just forged pistons and a metal head gasket (no head work was done, cams but no porting and the cams were just 264s) the car ran 568 awhp for 13k of my abuse and as far as I know is still running. The problem in them crank-walking is the fact that people put 2800 lb pressure plates on them and the stock bearings just can't take it. If people lighten up on the pressure plate to a 2400 and get used to a puck clutch you would have no problems on a 6 bolt and I would doubt it would happen on a 7 bolt. If the EJ22T had better heads it may very well be a better base, but I still find that ALL Subaru heads that are USDM need major work to flow as well as a stock 1g DSM head and the cams that Subaru has are not very good until you get to the EJ257 and EJ255 w/ ACVS. A few JDM heads are very good but those are as expensive as just having some heads worked over. But Subarus biggest downfall lies in the fact that I find them very thirsty for fuel (I have to run a 10.7-10.9 afr to run 93 octane on my LGT) I got away with 91 on my 4G63 and ran mid 11s afr. with a lot more power That isn't a huge deal except in day to day driving which makes them hard to get a great tune that isn't a pain to live with.

ramathorn · Post by **ramathorn** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:41 am

subyluvr2212 wrote:
silverlegacy wrote: they have the potential of a Galant VR4 (but those have a better motor)
Better motor???

I was sooooo close to getting a GVR4 for my first car, but I'm glad I didn't. It was crank walking, just like all the other DSMs do.

Easier to tune motor? Yeah, probably, coz of ALL the aftermarket stuff. But not a better motor at all.

6 bolts dont walk. youre thinking of the crap 2g 7 bolts.

93forestpearl · Post by **93forestpearl** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:42 am

Everybody knows that EJ22T heads aren't the most efficient out there. To say the motor is not good based on that fact is foolish. The OEM EJ22T heads were designed around low-mid range torque. With no intercooler, it makes sense for the time period and Subaru's goals for the car in the mass market.

In case you didn't know already, Subarus are like legos. Put on any heads you'd like. DOHC 2.5 heads flow really well.

I know way too many people who's DSMs spend more time on jackstands than on the road, by a WIDE margin. Mitsu cannot touch Subaru's reliability, stock or otherwise. I'll agree, DSMs can put down some crazy power when built properly. But everyones got one.

555BCTurbo · Post by **555BCTurbo** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:52 am

DSM's are fucking garbage...

I could care less about you DSM guys saying "I made 67,000,000hp on my 4G63"

That doesn't really matter when it won't get you to work because you blew up your poorly designed, and poorly built car.

I like my Legacy because it is quite quick, and VERY reliable.

It is on its original motor, with 208,000 miles on it...gets driven hard every time I drive it, doesn't use ANY oil, and still has 145-150 psi of compression in all 4 cylinders (that is stock spec by the way)

Power bragging is kinda silly...because what most DSM owners don't tell you is that their motors make a ton of power, but not for very long...

I am building an EJ22T with EJ20G heads pretty soon...and I fully intend to put at least 100k miles on it...and I bet you it will do it and then some. And make a shitton of power to boot

Basically, I say all that to say this...

You are on a Subaru Legacy forum...if you want to bash our cars and tell us that your Mitsushitties are better, you came to the wrong place, and that kinda shit doesn't fly here...

[/end rant]

silverlegacy · Post by **silverlegacy** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:14 pm

The heads are a big part of the motor. To say that the EJ22T is better just cause it may have a stonger bottom end is just plain dumb there is so much more that goes into a car than the bottom end. That would be calling the old VG30DETT from the old 300zx TT a better motor than the new VG35 which has a much better setup for making big power they just have weak pistons (which can still hold to around 450 whp). The 4G63 is a proven better motor for making power, you can even see that EVOs make more power than STIs. I searched back and you guys are amazed at a stock longblock going for 370 whp at 28 psi with race fuel. My new Legacy is only at 21 on a 20g and I get 340 whp on 91 pump gas. The EJ22T isn't the best motor that Subaru has made here let alone beating the early 1st gen 4g63 (which makes about the same power as a new EJ257) and the Evo 4G63. I'm never said that the Legacys were bad cars and I never said DSMs were God's gift to the world, just that DSMs usually make a good amount more power. You are right about the reliability and a DSM usually doesn't run long because of transmissions and stupid people blowing up their engines. On the flip side lots of WRXs break as well and give them another 10 years and they will be just like the DSMs of today cause then everybody gets their hands on them and screws them up. To compare the reliabiliy of the old Legacy turbos to DSMs is not apples to apples. I know about quite a few DSMs that have lasted as long as the owner hasn't gone crazy for power. One of my friends has a 20g DSM that has been running now for 7 years with over 90k mi on the mods, but he takes care of the car. There are just not enough people modifying the old Legacy turbo to reveal all the weakspots (like the tranny which sucks in this car). It all can be fixed easily because Subaru uses the same parts on most of their cars, but other car's weaknesses can be fixed as well. Then to call the DSM poorly built, one better look in the mirror the Subaru isn't much better (it is but slightly). There are tons of electrical, seals, crank pullies, visors not staying up, headliners sagging, rust and wheel bearings that come up on almost every Legacy and older Subaru. Now don't get offended by this and just say "I don't care DSMs are $hit." They are not the best car in the world but neither is the Legacy both have their pros, cons, problems, etc. Both cars are not on the level of a Supra, 300zx, 3000gt, BMW 3 series, Corvette etc.

Post by **Legacy777** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:18 pm

Paragraphs are your friend.

ramathorn · Post by **ramathorn** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:32 pm

ive been laggin on this thread for lack of motivation but, great points were just made by silverlegacy. also alot of the dsm's that are fairly quick arent put together that well. i know quite a few people that are running really good times and putting down really nice power and still just run great because they were put together well.

this thread has gone so far off the original topic now its sofawking funny.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:13 am

I've never had a single electrical issue with my Legacy with 260k+. Original alternator died around 250k and all my lights, bar the 8-year-old headlights I replaced for being dim, lasted 10 years or more. The starter has been on its way out since a little after the alternator. All switches and accessories work and never so much as hiccuped. I'd say my car is better than a new Mercedes-Benz.

ramathorn · Post by **ramathorn** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:33 am

so does that make it more of an economy car since its more reliable than say a true sports car?

silverlegacy · Post by **silverlegacy** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:08 am

I didn't know the grammar police were out?!?!?!?

The sunroof motor working sporactically is the only thing on mine. Though my girlfriends ex-outback a 1999 had a ton. Headlights and taillights burned out from day one. The driver's rear window worked only when it wanted to. The electrically controlled transmission didn't ever shift right. The car was a nightmare and was told by Subaru techs that some outbacks just have those problems. My 2005 Legacy GT burned out two headlight bulbs (because Subaru had a bad design in the projector) the whole assembly was replaced with a 2005.5 and works great now. The radio in my new Legacy doesn't always work right. Subarus have their own electrical gremlins.

Rammathorn brings up a good point sports cars normally aren't that reliable. They can be, but the very nature of what happens to them means they will just break more. Take an 03-04 Mustang Cobra, they would be a bulletproof stock car. Then, the public gets ahold of them and mods them. They start showing up with issues aroud 650 whp with transmissions, rear ends, half shafts does that make them a bad car?

It seems kind of funny that you can't retort to anything but the electrical, because they are true and Subarus have their own set of issues. They might have a better record than a DSM but its not much better stock for stock. It's also funny that a 1991 Subaru Legacy has a worse motor reliability rating than a 91 Eclipse. It also has a worse rating on suspension. While the DSM has a worse rating on the transmission.

Both are good cars, they are just different. You don't have to like them, but they have their appeal just as the legacys do.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:49 am

I beat the car like a red headed step child and only got a burnt exhaust valve at 247k. The only money I spent on it (besides tires every 15-20k) was mostly in the bodywork, which still rusts a lot less than its contemporaries, unlike the older generations. The other big item was the transmission that went at 170k from doing J-turns every day after work. It never left me stranded. My 2006 Mazda3 at 50k feels older than my wagon and I don't beat it as hard since it can't take trails. As for suspension, that's utter BS. I've rammed curbs front and side and never damaged a thing. Things that wrecked my mother's Nissan not so much as threw my car out of alignment. Still have the original wheel bearings even with improper offset wheels for years, New England weather, submersion in water up to the headlights, and all the sliding sideways. An Eclipse couldn't make it down the dirt roads the wagon could do 80 down.

Ratings are for old ladies. A cup holder in a bad spot works against a car as a fault just like Land Rover's shot transmissions.

Funny, too I saw an early '90's DSM the other day (with one headlight up) and was amazed since I realized I hadn't seen one outside a junk yard in a few years and that even the better looking later ones are getting rare. Must be they're all in collector's sheds now.

New Subarus suck. My sister's 2000 Outback is a POS and I have no interest in being associated with the people that buy them now.

BAC5.2 · Post by **BAC5.2** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:01 am

Legacy777 wrote:Paragraphs are your friend.

I was thinking the same thing.

Rammathorn. You haven't defined a "true sports car" yet. When you do, you'll find that there is no such thing as a true production sports car. The closest you'll find is the Supercharged Exige S track. The only real production car you can buy that is illegal for street use.

silverlegacy · Post by **silverlegacy** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:02 am

You sound very open minded about cars!

dzx · Post by **dzx** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:40 am

One of my friends had a 1st generation gs turbo when we were in highschool and I've never seen soo many things go wrong with a car. Then the front fender on the driver side collapsed somehow one winter which is weird cause I've seen a couple other dsm's with the same collapsed fender. He finally graduated college and got a Jeep wrangler to replace it and he's a lot happier.

georryan · Post by **georryan** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:08 am

What is wrong with this thread? Isn't a legacy sports sedan just that, a *gasp* sedan that is a little bit sporty as compared to the basic model?

You look at the car and it has performance built into it. No it isn't a 12 second factory car, but it wasn't designed to be. It has a turbo for more performance, upgraded brakes, rims, bumper and trunk, hood scoop, etc. Nothing on the car was put there for show (except maybe the spoiler). The scoop is functional unlike any other subaru until the wrx.

The engine was built solid, but not built for high end power. The heads weren't something to brag about, but man, they put out a lot of torque, and really give the car a nice low to mid range power band.

It didn't come with an intercooler, and it didn't come with a large turbo. The turbo was small but helped compliment the heads. It spooled fast and helped build power quick through the low and mid range, while falling off in the upper rpms, but the car wasn't built to be a drag racer.

It is just that, a sports sedan. It is a car meant for a family but built with performance in mind. It comes from a competition background (subaru used it for rallying). Yes it was released without realizing its full potential, and many people on the board have legacies that are near stock (only minor changes) that will take an sti in a drag race. Yes you can say that stock for stock it won't, but you throw in a larger turbo, an intercooler, and some equivalent boost, and the legacy turns into a monster that is far more than a tame sports sedan: all for minimal work, minimal cost, and zero loss in reliability. The only thing about the impreza that made it so great in ralleying over the legacy was that it had a slightly shorter wheelbase. If you look at subarus today, they are getting taller, heavier and have a longer wheelbase. So really, they aren't all THAT much better than the legacy in those areas, but excel in other spots such as chassis rigidity and things like that.

What is so hard to understand about that, and what exactly is point of all of this?

douglas vincent · Post by **douglas vincent** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:41 am

Hi!

New here!

Just Joined!

I need some help1

My 1992 auto tranyy SS wagon keeps losing to a damn EVO!

Why1?

555BCTurbo · Post by **555BCTurbo** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:34 am

silverlegacy wrote:There are tons of electrical, seals, crank pullies, visors not staying up, headliners sagging, rust and wheel bearings that come up on almost every Legacy and older Subaru.

I haven't had any of those problems with my SS, and it has 208,000 miles on it

93forestpearl · Post by **93forestpearl** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:57 am

I'm of the furm belief that a sports car is what you make of it. Very few "sports" cars are sold realising their full potential. The SS was put together to do certain things well with what is had, or didn't have for that matter. No intercooler stock meant low boost and a quick spool. The quick spool of the turbo means the heads were designed to take advantage of that. Cost plays a big factor into all of this, and what comsumers are willing to pay in that given time period. In the early nineties, the demand wasn't there for higher output, so they kept it simple. If you look at other markets at the time like Europe and Australia, they wanted the goods, so they got it. Larger turbos, ICs, high-flowing heads, and so on.

Yes, newer cars do make more power with a given set of mods. Thats because, as a market, we wanted that. We said "damn the gas mileage and cost, I want some power!" If we wanted it 1991, we would have gotten it. Rally cars of the era make significantly more power, and the bottom end of hte EJ20G reflects that. Most of the advancement of subaru engines has been in the peripherals such as heads and related hardware, intake systems, engine controls, and so on.

An LGT makes sees gains on power more readily because of, guess what, namely the heads. We were amazed at that 376whp due to the fact these old ones just don't flow well up top to make the power that newer motors do. Lay old and new next to each other and you'll laugh at the difference in just the valves. I have yet to decide what newer heads I'll use. I have some STi units availible for cheap, but I dunno if I want to use them. I also have a need to see what these old buggers can do with a decent turbo and the deltas before I switch to an updated set.

92ss satinsvoice · Post by **92ss satinsvoice** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:46 am

in the world of cars there are base and premium models. say for instance the rsx. is a performance car. then theres the rsx type s.
witch is the sport modal of this car. with means, bigger breaks, tighter suspension, high performance engine and maybe better aerodynamics over the base modal. i be leave there is standards and scales for when they start categorizing car performance. not simply is the ss a sports car because it has a turbo, the mercadies 300 has a turbo but only because its a deisal and they need the extra compression to run. its not a sports car by any means. regular fuel cars that have forced induction systems generally are quicker. they do not need this system to operate in the standard form. power is not the only thing that makes a car a performance vehicle. handling and breaking have a play in it all too.

when they start wasting time on a cars performance to make it better then the base or other modals thats when they can put that little sports logo on her. epically if it out performs its rivals.

ok i think im done trying, dunno if it makes any sence an any of your guys eyes. please dont flame!

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:01 am

Diesels don't need turbos to run.

92ss satinsvoice · Post by **92ss satinsvoice** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:21 am

i know but alot of them have turbo's to run. instead you can have really high compression pistons to do the job.

i didn't realize that there was another page before i posted with what i said.

man i feel dumb.

evolutionmovement · Post by **evolutionmovement** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:19 pm

The pistons are always high compression or they couldn't start. The turbo compliments a diesel since the highly compressed gases provide more energy than a gas engine's pulses to spin a turbo and the internals are already really strong to handle the extra pressure. Heat, within reason, is also a better comliment as it uses it to ignite the fuel/air mix. Extra heat can be accounted for by later injection cycles on the fuel since fuel timing is like spark timing to a gas engine.

I never liked diesels much until I worked on them and I now love them. It's so much simpler rugged than gas with better efficiency. Only thing I don't like is the pollution, but they're working on that. I can't wait to see if I can get my hands on the new Subaru diesel and put it in a 1984 hardtop.

As an aside, if they can solve the NOx issues with diesels, maybe they can do it with stratified charge injection in gas engines. Honda could bring back the CVCC.

legacycentral bbs

A forum for 89-94 BC-BF(BJ) Legacy Owners and Fans

legacy sport sedan and touring wagon "performance"