2.5 wrx vs 2.0 is it really that bad?
13 October 2009, 09:05 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
P.S. Anyone got an idea for 1/4 mile times and 0-60/0-100 for both of the above mentioned?
14 October 2009, 08:40 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
15 October 2009, 07:25 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: west sussex
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have had both 2litre and now 2.5 hawkeye 55reg from new cheaper tax
i have to say for an every day car hawk miles better no turbo lag and no clutch judder
powerstation have tuned mine i have also put on sti intercooler, walbro fuel pump,vf34turbo 340/350 i have got a racelogic performance box which has given me 0-60 4.1 and 0-100 in 10.4
changing gear at 5000rpm still matchs the sti ppp time to 100
so much torque, 2.5 all the way your never go back
i have to say for an every day car hawk miles better no turbo lag and no clutch judder powerstation have tuned mine i have also put on sti intercooler, walbro fuel pump,vf34turbo 340/350 i have got a racelogic performance box which has given me 0-60 4.1 and 0-100 in 10.4 changing gear at 5000rpm still matchs the sti ppp time to 100 so much torque, 2.5 all the way your never go back
Trending Topics
15 October 2009, 07:33 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: west sussex
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forgot to say my mate had hawkeye wagon put prodrive backbox on walbro fuel pump took it to mocom for remap got 285bhp used my racelogic box 0-60 4.7 0-100 11.8 all for 700 quid now thats a bargin
used my racelogic box 0-60 4.7 0-100 11.8 all for 700 quid now thats a bargin
15 October 2009, 09:32 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
16 October 2009, 01:24 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
16 October 2009, 09:29 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North East
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 October 2009, 02:29 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Midlands
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
When I was looking everything I found said that the 2.5 was the better engine.
16 October 2009, 05:44 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
16 October 2009, 06:54 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SWANSEA/BRIDGEND
Posts: 3,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
and what RR it went on dont beleive everything you hear
, midlife crisis my ****
Last edited by Black-Hawk; 16 October 2009 at 06:56 PM.
16 October 2009, 08:39 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I would trust Bob's on road figures based on experience and ability, unless you care to dispute him.
. 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.
16 October 2009, 09:00 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North East
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
16 October 2009, 10:02 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did say 'in the region of 380-390 lbs ft', but if Scooby401 (Jarvis)doubts my word 
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.
16 October 2009, 10:22 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: west sussex
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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 hawkeyethey have stronger internals twin scroll turbo also no lag and rev to 8000rpm happy days
powerstation fitted vf34 and got 340/350 max torque at 3700rpm but keeps going to 6750rpm now
much betteras 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 4.5saying all this about how good the 2.5 engine is my next car will be a spec c jdm 2.0 hawkeye
they have stronger internals twin scroll turbo also no lag and rev to 8000rpm happy days
17 October 2009, 05:44 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SWANSEA/BRIDGEND
Posts: 3,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I would trust Bob's on road figures based on experience and ability, unless you care to dispute him.. 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.
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.
I would trust Bob's on road figures based on experience and ability, unless you care to dispute him.
. 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. Sorry I might have only very slightly overstated the torque figure Bob did say 'in the region of 380-390 lbs ft', but if Scooby401 (Jarvis)doubts my word 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.
did say 'in the region of 380-390 lbs ft', but if Scooby401 (Jarvis)doubts my word 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.
, 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 
17 October 2009, 07:38 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops i've touched a nerve
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, 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
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
, 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 We can also see how your car is performing as well while we are there.
18 October 2009, 03:13 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: warrington
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 October 2009, 06:48 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very similar results to one of the maps that Bob set up for me
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?
Last edited by Cannon Fodder; 18 October 2009 at 09:24 PM.