jaygsi

iTrader: (46)

What did Subaru do to the R sport Hawkeye to increase the bhp from a crubby 125 to 160BHP?

I've always said the non turbo versions where so under powered. Especially when you can get cars like a old Saxo VTS 1.6 with 120 bhp. Even my dads old 90's Vauxhall cavalier years back had more bhp and was 8 valve. And it took them till 2006 to sort it out.

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

Fairly sure this technical paper from Subaru covers it.

http://www.subaru-impreza.org/downlo...ical_Paper.pdf

They are no rocket ship but so much better then the stupidly under powered original version. Economy is still laughable tho and not much better then the WRX (we are talking a couple of extra MPG).

south_scoob

Subarus marketing crap always makes me laugh! They made the foglight reflectors smaller to improve light distrbution, and the hawkeyes bonnet is lengthend.. Give me a break!

jaygsi

iTrader: (46)

Cheers for that. Can't see where it says about the difference in the old and new engine.

Only thing i spotted was (the pistons move in the
horizontal plane from left to right with low levels of noise, vibration and
lower power loss)

FMJ

iTrader: (2)

What did you expect them to say? "Here is the new impreza. It's basically the same but we changed some stuff. Buy it if you like imprezas and want a new one"

It's marketing... That's what they do. Subaru are no different to other companies.

They should have said the bonnet is lighter rather then longer. have you lifted a classic bonnet then a hawk bonnet? Massive difference trust me. I have both and one you have lower gently the other you have to drop from a height to get it to shut lol.

I'm sure it's a combination of remap, avacs, exhaust change, intake and inlet redesign and electrical bits. You have to really rev them to get the power.

jaygsi

iTrader: (46)

It amazes me the difference in cars and engines and power. For instance Ford did a V6 that pushed out 160bhp at the same time as making a 2.0ST engine that delivered 190bhp.

I'm sure any underpowered V6 engine has come from USA. But it happens with many other companies. Glad they improved the engine as 124bhp is rubbish.

south_scoob

my blobeye bonnet feels incredably light. I have to drop it from height for fear of denting it if i try and push it shut!!

Also in that pdf it says the hawk has 68% more downforce from that little rear diffuser and the blade spoiler! Over a blobeye.. Wtf that cant be true can it!?

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Capacity means nothing. The Challenger 2 tank as a CV12 Cummins Diesel Condor engine producing 1200 hp from a 26,200 cc engine.

But small efficent engines that have forced induction get better BHP than NA engines.

south_scoob

Yeah a mg zr 1.8 n/a 4 cyl also produces basicaly the same bhp as a vectra 2.5 v6..

But The torque is usualy overlooked with the vauxhall producing nearly double the rover!

Jamie Barlow

so what are the difference between a non Turbo and Turbo engines the internals as the R spot makes 180bhp i think thw gx is what 130bhp ish what is the difference between the engines apart from the obvious turbo in the corner and so one or how much power could a say 2006 hark eye non turbo say R sport 180bhp how much will that engine take stage 1 . You no what i meen has anyone pushed there the a good bhp. Or the gx
plus what engine is better the 2003 or 04 . Or the 2006 hark eye as I am thinking of getting one. Some will say get a wrx . Wish I could been a member befor when I had my wrx then you no wife kids house lol. But realy would like a rep but would like to no if remaped and a few other bits how much power the non turbo will take . Not what you can map then airfileter and so on but what that stock engine will handle. Please no non turbo haters . I did have a wrx she was lovely L reg jap import dam i am welling up 😁😂
please if any one cam help me with that Q on what the stock 2.0L engine will take . And what engine is better befor I bye one thank u