Is the 2.5 Impreza an outcast?
#1
Is the 2.5 Impreza an outcast?
I think this is a valid question and await some interesting debate about this, I have a 2.0 sti ppp that has been remapped giving 330/330 on the rollers, I also have a Mitsi GTO 3.0 twin turbo which was dyno'd @ 320/355 a few years ago, It is at the moment under going some tlc and hopefully it might see some miles by the end of the summer, Both very fast cars, but both very different, the scooby is great all round and I love it to bits,The engine revs sweetly and I akien like riding a two stroke motorbike, keep it in the power band and it flys,This to me has always been Impreza turbo driving, Today I took out an 06 reg 2.5 Sti with ppp, It was good fun and it is still a great car!, I did however find it pulled through the rev range much more but had a reluctance to reach the higher revs, Much like my GTO, Less of a racer and more of a cruiser!, To me today I was dissapointed as i walked away for the 06 sti, not because it was a crap car, far from it, it just didn't deliver the "Impreza" driving experience I expected.
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with the 2.5 as most people will know that they have lowered the revs down to 6 1/2 from 7 due to the engine having more torque than the 2.0.
It might of felt like the car had the reluctance to get to the high revs
but it would of got to the speed just as quick as and plus having a bigger engine it has smoother power delivery.
It might of felt like the car had the reluctance to get to the high revs
but it would of got to the speed just as quick as and plus having a bigger engine it has smoother power delivery.
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lanarkshire
Posts: 2,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like a valid point there mate!!, i have no experience from The 2.5 so cant really add anything to the party.
I am due to get a MY04 Spec C ltd and am expecting some good things from it,i have chosen this over a 06 STi as its a car i have alwys wanted,hope i am not dissapointed.
Mac
I am due to get a MY04 Spec C ltd and am expecting some good things from it,i have chosen this over a 06 STi as its a car i have alwys wanted,hope i am not dissapointed.
Mac
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't comment on the spec C as i have never been in one or have driven
one.
But i would like to know if anyone has one and what they think of the 2.5.
I would of liked them to have done the blobeye in the 2.5 then might of thought about swopping my bugeye for one
one.
But i would like to know if anyone has one and what they think of the 2.5.
I would of liked them to have done the blobeye in the 2.5 then might of thought about swopping my bugeye for one
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: S.E London
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking forward to the difference a bit for next weekend. Will be interesting to see how different the drive is.
Not usually one for driving too hard, but have hit almost 7k a few times.
Didnt know the 2.5 was a slightly less revvy engine, but guess I will discover this also next weekend.
Not usually one for driving too hard, but have hit almost 7k a few times.
Didnt know the 2.5 was a slightly less revvy engine, but guess I will discover this also next weekend.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: STImulation
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ive only had my 2.5 a week but seems to rev freely to me must admit though didnt drive a 2.0 version but my brother had a 2000 model from new and when he drove mine said the low down torque was totally different
#9
I've got a big dick, so of course I prefer a car with a smaller engine.
As my mum used to say-"there's no substitute for cubic inches!"
Come to think of it, that is a funny way to measure c*ck sizes.
As my mum used to say-"there's no substitute for cubic inches!"
Come to think of it, that is a funny way to measure c*ck sizes.
Last edited by cster; 05 June 2007 at 11:47 PM. Reason: typo
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swapping my MY04 2.0 WRC PPP for a 2.5 WRC this weekend
I've been thinking about changing for a while now but the last few examples of the current model are coming through to dealers now so I had to act. I tried out a 2.5 WRX last weekend and was very surprised how much better it delivered power at low revs. The difference in torque is very noticeable. It feels completely different and I was quite happy to save the cost (and higher insurance premium) of the PPP.
I'll be picking up my new Urban Grey saloon (once they've swapped my beloved Momo steering wheel and stereo from the old car) on Sunday.
Can't wait ........
I'll be picking up my new Urban Grey saloon (once they've swapped my beloved Momo steering wheel and stereo from the old car) on Sunday.
Can't wait ........
#12
I bought a 2.5 WRX but found it used to "stutter" at low revs - there was a defininte flat spot.
After though that it picked up very well.
I've since had PPP added to it and the difference is amazing - no stutter and it pulls like a train whatever the revs. I don't now get a pause and then a rush of power.
In fact it's better to leave in a higher gear than change down.
I am not sure that its massively faster than it was when I got it but its the way the power is delivered is much better now.
After though that it picked up very well.
I've since had PPP added to it and the difference is amazing - no stutter and it pulls like a train whatever the revs. I don't now get a pause and then a rush of power.
In fact it's better to leave in a higher gear than change down.
I am not sure that its massively faster than it was when I got it but its the way the power is delivered is much better now.
#13
Hi there,
I've got a 06 Sti Spec D which replaced a (stolen) WR1.
I originally tried a 2.5 Sti with PPP but that was disappointing and I doubt it was any better than the WR1, so my car has a Milltek exhaust and has been remapped to 340bhp and 350 lb/ft and I certainly have no complaints with the way it revs. With these mods there is no perceptible difference between the way the WR1 and the 2.5 Sti revs. It has taken a couple of attempts to get the car mapped so that I am happy with it, but it can't be too bad as the car did a 13.01 standing 1/4 at Elvington and finished 13th overall in the Handling shootout.
Robin
I've got a 06 Sti Spec D which replaced a (stolen) WR1.
I originally tried a 2.5 Sti with PPP but that was disappointing and I doubt it was any better than the WR1, so my car has a Milltek exhaust and has been remapped to 340bhp and 350 lb/ft and I certainly have no complaints with the way it revs. With these mods there is no perceptible difference between the way the WR1 and the 2.5 Sti revs. It has taken a couple of attempts to get the car mapped so that I am happy with it, but it can't be too bad as the car did a 13.01 standing 1/4 at Elvington and finished 13th overall in the Handling shootout.
Robin
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ascended to the next level
Posts: 7,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2.5 does get unfair bais against it. As what Suffolk says, the original 2.0 turbo lumps (e.g a 1994 Turbo) were akin to 2strokes - on or off, and when below the powerband had awful power output. They were just too reliant on the turbo to be spinning to make any decent progress.
This IMO, on a car is annoying, a flaw. You can get away with it on motorbikes beacuse of the lack of weight...but on heavy car, its not my idea of the characteristics of a "driver's car".
Later 2.0turbos have much better powerspread over the rev range (re: twin scroll) and the 2.5 is just another way at giving more power at lower revs whilst still maining a decent peak output. All in all, the 2.5 is more flexible to different driving scienarios.
Sure the kick in the back isn't as prominent, but remember that "kick" is because the engine was producing very little power before the turbo started working.
This IMO, on a car is annoying, a flaw. You can get away with it on motorbikes beacuse of the lack of weight...but on heavy car, its not my idea of the characteristics of a "driver's car".
Later 2.0turbos have much better powerspread over the rev range (re: twin scroll) and the 2.5 is just another way at giving more power at lower revs whilst still maining a decent peak output. All in all, the 2.5 is more flexible to different driving scienarios.
Sure the kick in the back isn't as prominent, but remember that "kick" is because the engine was producing very little power before the turbo started working.
Last edited by Shark Man; 06 June 2007 at 10:17 AM.
#17
The experience of 2.5 litre engines extends to just RB320s, but they knock spots off PPP'd RB5s and MY99/MY00 2 litre jobbies.
Just so much power delivery thru out the rev range. The word to describe the acceleration in the 2.5 PPP is RELENTLESS.
Just so much power delivery thru out the rev range. The word to describe the acceleration in the 2.5 PPP is RELENTLESS.
#18
2.5's are very driveable as already mentioned and as a road engine, certainly seem to be the best bet.
I must admit I did drive a 2.5l (modified and converted from a 2l) Scoob last year (not sure what spec the engine was internal wise), but I am over the moon with the fact that my set-up still revs to over 8k, with peak power at the same point as it was on my 2l twin scroll.
I had the understanding that standard 2.5's (engine wise not mapping wise) were a bit flat at the top end with power dropping fairly rapidly, but the fact that power / torque was seen sooner circumvented this.
Any comments?
I must admit I did drive a 2.5l (modified and converted from a 2l) Scoob last year (not sure what spec the engine was internal wise), but I am over the moon with the fact that my set-up still revs to over 8k, with peak power at the same point as it was on my 2l twin scroll.
I had the understanding that standard 2.5's (engine wise not mapping wise) were a bit flat at the top end with power dropping fairly rapidly, but the fact that power / torque was seen sooner circumvented this.
Any comments?
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Sheffield
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris.
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm, Not sure what you mean here but my 2.5 STI redlines at 7k, the previous 2ltr uk/euro models redlined at 7250. I love the way mine drives, no flat spots, pulls strong, especially from around 2800 to 6500, beyond this it just flattens out. But as said before, some small mods and the right remap and these things are a different beast.
Chris.
Chris.
#23
Maybe my first post was a bit long winded, The point I was making was that the 2.5 drove much more like my 3.0 twin turbo GTO, Lots of low down grunt, This is not a bad thing, It just didn't feel like driving an Impreza as I'm used too.
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Things turn out best for those who make the best of the way things turn out
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer, Shorter rods and longer pistons 2.5 then reves like a 2.0 liter
Having driven the 2.5 ppp sti I now own a JDM 2.0 STi
Having driven the 2.5 ppp sti I now own a JDM 2.0 STi
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Near Sheffield
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris.
#29