N/A vs turbo

[Rish]

I test drove another turbo car last weekend, which now brings my grand total to two. My point is, stock for stock, I really cannot tell a power difference between a turbo and normally aspirated Legacy. Has anyone ever taken them head to head? It's not even like the second car I drove was trashed. It was in awesome shape, and had about 120 000 kilometers less than my car (wish I could've afforded it).

Anyway, please post your facts as well as opinions.

Rish

[THAWA]

I'd love to see how i compare to a turbo, but so far no go.

[TireIron]

well my 92 turbo leg roasts my cousins 2000 2.5 n/a leg. it runs circles around it and my turbos still bone stock.

[evolutionmovement]

I did test drive a 1994 turbo sedan with 120 or 130k IIRC. I own a fwd N/A wagon. Mine was much stronger off the line and the turbo felt only slightly faster than my car when its happy (I only went up to about 65mph). However, I suspect there were some issues with the turbo as it smoked white at start up and the thing had an AWIC. Compression was otherwise good. It was definitely boosting as it would pick up over 2500 - it just wasn't as healthy as it should have been.

Drove to Detroit to look at a 1993 turbo sedan - that car was trashed all over, but it was definitely faster than my car. I'd say mid 7's to 60 or so. No intercooler and the boost gauge the guy put in didn't work. My N/A used to run (100k miles ago) consistent low 8's to 60 and hit the 1/4 in 16.3 once. Now its more like 10 sec to 60, but I don't want to time it.

Steve[/i]

[Rish]

hmmm... I guess I'm talking about the first gens. I did read somewhere that they're geared differently. I will admit, though, that a turbo car has a heck of a lot more modding potential (dollar for dollar) when compared to a N/A car. That and there's nothing sweeter than the sound of the turbine spooling, who cares if its still got the stock radio?

Rish

[ericS2the6]

well if you compare a bone stock fwd L with 130/137 @ a little over 2700 lbs to a 3100+ lb awd turbo with 160/181 in dry conditions both 5 speed it would be very close

[BAC5.2]

My 94 feels MUCH faster than my 95 N/A FWD L.

A short rant with my buddies Turbo Beetle, and I held up alright from a roll. He pulled about half a car length and hardly pulled away. My 95 is no where near as fast as the 1.8T.

I don't think the N/A cars are 16 second cars, are they?

[evolutionmovement]

I don't think the N/A cars are 16 second cars, are they?

Not according to published reports. My car used to be a good deal faster than the Datsun 260Z I had.

Steve

[ciper]

I can beat a stock WRX upto about 25mph in my 2.2 , after that its no contest.

If the turbo didnt feel faster then something must have been wrong, it has higher peak torque at a lower RPM and higher peak HP at about the same RPM so in both ends of the range it should feel better. Gearing may play a part, was the NA a 4.11:1 manual and the turbo a 3.9:1 auto?

[Rish]

Ciper,
both were autos. The N/A is mine. I've wondered at times if the motor in my car may have been gone over/ rebuilt at some point in its life, because even with a failing 4EAT it still feels strong acceleration wise. The chassis and tranny seem on par with the mileage, the motor feels younger (knock on wood). Maybe that's why I was suprised at how little difference there was between the two cars.

Rish

[BAC5.2]

I've heard far fewer instances of Factory Freaks from Subaru than I do from other companies.

But now that you mention it, my N/A 95 feels REALLY strong for a 9 year old car. The Turbo is definately faster though.

[G-reg]

I'd think that the 30hp the turbo has wouldn't make up for the turbo weight, the auto, extra doo-dads. A L with a 5spd and FWD would have quite a weight advantage. This is stock V. stock of course. My Sube has a engine/tranny from a 94 with about 75,000, and it deffinitly feels strong. Not fast....but strong.

[BAC5.2]

I'd think that the 30hp the turbo has wouldn't make up for the turbo weight, the auto, extra doo-dads. A L with a 5spd and FWD would have quite a weight advantage. This is stock V. stock of course. My Sube has a engine/tranny from a 94 with about 75,000, and it deffinitly feels strong. Not fast....but strong.

You are strictly thinking peak hp, and completely ignoring torque. We make all of our torque down at under 3k RPM's, while the N/A make it around 4500.

The VW New Beetle Turbo (non-S) will run a high 15 1/4 mile. It makes less hp, and less torque than the Turbo Legacy, with a weight advantage of, at most, 200 pounds (5-speed, stripped Beetle [3100] vs Autotragic, loaded Legacy [3300]).

Not only does my turbo feel strong, it feels fast. Fast by any sedan standards at least.

[NuwanD]

I had been driving a 91 legacy FWD L for years before picking up my turbo and i distinctly remember feeling the difference in the turbo car when going for test drives. Much more power/torque as well as a more solid ride and more lateral stiffness in the suspension over the FWD L. After every test drive i'd hop back in the FWD L and feel as though something was wrong with the car.

[BAC5.2]

I had been driving a 91 legacy FWD L for years before picking up my turbo and i distinctly remember feeling the difference in the turbo car when going for test drives. Much more power/torque as well as a more solid ride and more lateral stiffness in the suspension over the FWD L. After every test drive i'd hop back in the FWD L and feel as though something was wrong with the car.

Same here. I have a 95 FWD L. Drive the turbo and it feels so solid, like it's got torque to spare, then you drive the N/A and it feels "hollow". Lots of noise, but not as much getup as the Turd has.

[TurboLegacy]

my mom has 2000 forester 2.5 ej25 with a 5spd, that thing is noticibley faster than my turbo, but my dads 98 auto is slower. i love to drive my moms car, i hit 110 at the top of a generally steep hill with 4 friends in the car. i still love the turbo more tho.

[elkaboom]

This is an interesting thread. My 90 LS AWD sedan, despite having 156k on the clock, still has plenty of pep. It's not exactely a screamer off the line, but in the midrange, at around 60-65 and 4500+ rpms, the car really rolls when pushed . On the highway when I'm passing, she loves to go, go, go! And in general, my performance is pretty solid. Once I complete my suspension and upgrade the wheelset, I think I'll notice more specific gains, but even under the current setup, my car is pretty fast for a n/a.
I'd love to pick up a turbo, but in my area (NE Ohio) there really aren't too many to choose from. I was lucky just recently to find a 91 L AWD wagon with a bad tranny and some interesting looking cooling related issues (this was a cursory examination as the car wasn't in running condition), but It's a shame, because the body is very clean. Anyway, I've been cleaning this out for odds and ends, but trying to find a turbo seems near impossible here.
Anyway, for a 14 year old car, my little Legacy is still quite peppy if just a bit noisy... at 65mph wind and road noise are becoming distinct annoyances.