2.0 or 2.5 what's better?
16 February 2009, 08:39 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.0 or 2.5 what's better?
Just wondered what peoples thoughts are on the 2.5, as some people don't rate it, any particular reason? Also why did subaru see fit to produce this engine as it doesn't seem to have any more power than the 2.0 in standard form. Is there greater tuning potential with it?
Cheers
Cheers
16 February 2009, 09:51 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Its a good engine up to a point, the biggest letdown is that its the same physical size as a 2ltr engine, which means that you have less metal between the bores, which makes it weaker, even if lined.
The driving characteristics are your next issue, the 2.5 is a lazier engine, more low down torque but not as revvy as the 2ltr, the 2ltr on the other hand is stronger, the 2ltr twin scroll is much more of a compromise between the 2, producing similar torque levels but also higher revving.
Tony
The driving characteristics are your next issue, the 2.5 is a lazier engine, more low down torque but not as revvy as the 2ltr, the 2ltr on the other hand is stronger, the 2ltr twin scroll is much more of a compromise between the 2, producing similar torque levels but also higher revving.
Tony
16 February 2009, 10:41 AM
#3
I think Tony forgot to add a big IMHO 
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
16 February 2009, 10:46 AM
#4
Bang for buck 2.5 is a best upgrade you can do IMHO. Well thats before the US to UK exchange rate went **** up. It s agood base for a good high perfomance engine with a nice wide power band.
Also means you can fit an even bigger turbo without it turning into an annoying pile of poop thats gutless below 3000rpm IMHO
(unless it has anti-lag or a twinscroll ).
Also means you can fit an even bigger turbo without it turning into an annoying pile of poop thats gutless below 3000rpm IMHO
(unless it has anti-lag or a twinscroll ).
Last edited by ALi-B; 16 February 2009 at 10:48 AM.
16 February 2009, 10:48 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I think Tony forgot to add a big IMHO
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
If you see what i put, the 2.5 produces more torque low down, which it does, its lazier, which it is because its a 2.5ltr, its not as high revving and is a weaker engine block, both of which are true.
You also forget to mention that when people go the 2.5 route they normally need to replace their gearboxes as 400lb of torque eats them
but the 2.5 isnt the best engine subaru do, far from it, the twin scroll unit is, and it IS the best compromise, and considering on the standard turbo you can push nearly 400lbs of torque, not bad for a 2ltr is it Tony
16 February 2009, 11:11 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SWANSEA/BRIDGEND
Posts: 3,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Tony forgot to add a big IMHO
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
Who doesn't favour it? (apart from Tony)- seems to be a common upgrade for those who have grenaded their 2.0 engines.
On like for like models, the 2.5 engine makes similar or slightly higher power, but quite a bit more torque.
Where fitted as the std engine (06> cars), the potential for making up to 400 lbft is far greater (and cheaper) than any 2.0 car I've had.
All IMHO
Nick
Last edited by Black-Hawk; 16 February 2009 at 11:13 AM.
Trending Topics
16 February 2009, 11:19 AM
#9
Now i have driven 2ltr single scroll cars, 2.5ltr single scroll cars and 2ltr twin scroll cars, and the best one was the twin scroll unit.
If you see what i put, the 2.5 produces more torque low down, which it does, its lazier, which it is because its a 2.5ltr, its not as high revving and is a weaker engine block, both of which are true.
You also forget to mention that when people go the 2.5 route they normally need to replace their gearboxes as 400lb of torque eats them but the 2.5 isnt the best engine subaru do, far from it, the twin scroll unit is, and it IS the best compromise, and considering on the standard turbo you can push nearly 400lbs of torque, not bad for a 2ltr is it
Tony
If you see what i put, the 2.5 produces more torque low down, which it does, its lazier, which it is because its a 2.5ltr, its not as high revving and is a weaker engine block, both of which are true.
You also forget to mention that when people go the 2.5 route they normally need to replace their gearboxes as 400lb of torque eats them
but the 2.5 isnt the best engine subaru do, far from it, the twin scroll unit is, and it IS the best compromise, and considering on the standard turbo you can push nearly 400lbs of torque, not bad for a 2ltr is it Tony
When you say the block is weaker, can you qualify that?
So its alright to put 400 lbft into a 5 spd box with a 2.0 engine, but not 400 lbft with a 2.5 engine
How on earth did a VF36 get to 400 lbft and how much did it all cost?
Don't be a Luddite and block the path of progress. Newer IS better
16 February 2009, 11:47 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The 2.5 isnt newer the block has been around for years, the twin scroll unit is newer though
The block itself is weaker, the distance between the bores is less, which means you cannot put as much stress through it, they have a tendency to crack
hence liners...
Now 400lbft on any 5 speed box is stupid, it will just eat it, doesnt matter if its a 2ltr or 2.5ltr, it will break
You can get to 400lbft of torque on a vf36/37 in under 1k, 650 for the remap and whatever the exhaust costs, a new one for 300 quid, but it does take some doing, most only reach the high 300's but i have seen one or 2 hit that 400 mark
Now lazy is the way it delivers its power, its lazier because its a bigger engine, so lazy describes it nicely
Tony
the block has been around for years, the twin scroll unit is newer though The block itself is weaker, the distance between the bores is less, which means you cannot put as much stress through it, they have a tendency to crack
hence liners...Now 400lbft on any 5 speed box is stupid, it will just eat it, doesnt matter if its a 2ltr or 2.5ltr, it will break
You can get to 400lbft of torque on a vf36/37 in under 1k, 650 for the remap and whatever the exhaust costs, a new one for 300 quid, but it does take some doing, most only reach the high 300's but i have seen one or 2 hit that 400 mark
Now lazy is the way it delivers its power, its lazier because its a bigger engine, so lazy describes it nicely
Tony
16 February 2009, 12:00 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a quick one - sort of related to this thread - is a jdm twin scroll (blobeye) able to be tuned up with mods to up to the 400 bhp mark - i heard this engines werent as good for moding
16 February 2009, 12:03 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the only real issue with the 2.5 was possible head gasket problems..? Due to the fact there's less material around the top of the cylinders and therefore narrower gasket area..?
That's the only thing that I've seen come up more often than on 2.0.
TBH, if my 2.0 did give up the ghost I'd go 2.5 without a doubt as I prefer 'lazy' power, for the road anyhow..
That's the only thing that I've seen come up more often than on 2.0.
TBH, if my 2.0 did give up the ghost I'd go 2.5 without a doubt as I prefer 'lazy' power, for the road anyhow..
16 February 2009, 12:05 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North East
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really is horses for courses this one. We've been here a few times before. A lot is down to how you drive it and what you want from it.
16 February 2009, 12:13 PM
#15
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a road car, a 2.5 would be best IMHO. Torque is what you want, and a nice wide power band with something that'll let a bigger turbo get into it's stride without needing to thrash it.
I, personally, wouldn't want to get a significantly higher boost threshold and more lag than I have with the VF35 on a 2 litre car.
A well set up 2.5 with a MD321T would be an awesome car for the road.
If you want something you can rev the **** off on a track then maybe a really strong 2litre is the way too go?
When you get to the power outputs I suspect we're talking about, realistically, you have to assume that both a 2litre and 2.5litre set up will eat the std 5 speed gearbox, so not worth sticking with the litre just for that reason.
Ns04
I, personally, wouldn't want to get a significantly higher boost threshold and more lag than I have with the VF35 on a 2 litre car.
A well set up 2.5 with a MD321T would be an awesome car for the road.
If you want something you can rev the **** off on a track then maybe a really strong 2litre is the way too go?
When you get to the power outputs I suspect we're talking about, realistically, you have to assume that both a 2litre and 2.5litre set up will eat the std 5 speed gearbox, so not worth sticking with the litre just for that reason.
Ns04
16 February 2009, 12:51 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Scuttling Around Essex
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive got an 05 WRX blobeye 2.0 ltr would that be a single or twin scroll thingy?????
how would I tell or are the twins only STIs
Must admit I asked the question re the 2.0v2.5 and the decission was split with goods and bads for both, so I just bought the 2.0 as the insurance was about £200 cheaper and as far as I was told there was not a lot of difference in the performance in either guise
how would I tell or are the twins only STIs
Must admit I asked the question re the 2.0v2.5 and the decission was split with goods and bads for both, so I just bought the 2.0 as the insurance was about £200 cheaper and as far as I was told there was not a lot of difference in the performance in either guise
16 February 2009, 01:14 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North East
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive got an 05 WRX blobeye 2.0 ltr would that be a single or twin scroll thingy?????
how would I tell or are the twins only STIs
Must admit I asked the question re the 2.0v2.5 and the decission was split with goods and bads for both, so I just bought the 2.0 as the insurance was about £200 cheaper and as far as I was told there was not a lot of difference in the performance in either guise
how would I tell or are the twins only STIs
Must admit I asked the question re the 2.0v2.5 and the decission was split with goods and bads for both, so I just bought the 2.0 as the insurance was about £200 cheaper and as far as I was told there was not a lot of difference in the performance in either guise
16 February 2009, 01:51 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to have the single scroll 2L UK STI and now drive the 2.5L UK single scroll STI,
IMHO the 2.5 is a far more relaxed drive (at same speed) due to more low down torque, requiring less gear changes, but it'll still rev quite high enough to gain the extra ponies when overtaking.. I'd still love to put an MD321T + remap on it thogh....
IMHO the 2.5 is a far more relaxed drive (at same speed) due to more low down torque, requiring less gear changes, but it'll still rev quite high enough to gain the extra ponies when overtaking.. I'd still love to put an MD321T + remap on it thogh....
16 February 2009, 02:06 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SWANSEA/BRIDGEND
Posts: 3,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote by Andy Forrest about my 2.5 wrx, power run at powerstation, "400lbft of torque by 3100 rpm not something you see too often, especially on a maha dyno" as has been said above the 2.5 is such an easy car to drive on the road especially with a 5sd box .
.
Last edited by Black-Hawk; 16 February 2009 at 02:31 PM.
16 February 2009, 05:53 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falkirk
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's kinda cleared some stuff up 
I asked because of this....
Subaru : Show winning impreza sti type-r I hope the acceleration isn't sluggish now due to the 2.5 conversion, cause that would kinda defeat the purpose of a Type R IMHO so much conflicting info..
I asked because of this....Subaru : Show winning impreza sti type-r I hope the acceleration isn't sluggish now due to the 2.5 conversion, cause that would kinda defeat the purpose of a Type R IMHO
so much conflicting info..
16 February 2009, 06:17 PM
#21
Well that's kinda cleared some stuff up I asked because of this....
Subaru : Show winning impreza sti type-r I hope the acceleration isn't sluggish now due to the 2.5 conversion, cause that would kinda defeat the purpose of a Type R IMHO so much conflicting info..
I asked because of this....Subaru : Show winning impreza sti type-r I hope the acceleration isn't sluggish now due to the 2.5 conversion, cause that would kinda defeat the purpose of a Type R IMHO
so much conflicting info.. Nick
16 February 2009, 06:38 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Isleworth, MSOC
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Burns is right, and his knowledge is EVIDENCE based, not based on what he THINKS he knows. Factually, technically, mechanically, the 2 litre twin scroll engine is the best one that Subaru manufacture.
Why was the WRC car based on a 2.0 and not a 2.5?
In the case of STI, an STI engine is not a proper STI engine unless it redlines at 8000 revs. Oh it may have big low end torque, big deal, at the expense of paying through your nose fuel and tax costs?
The 2.5 engine was introduced on UK cars to compensate for variations due to Euro emission laws. It was not introduced as a 'hey, lets make a superb fantastic 2.5 engine for UK cars' How come the JDM even today still has the 2.0 engine? JDM only for the REAL STI driving experience.
Why was the WRC car based on a 2.0 and not a 2.5?
In the case of STI, an STI engine is not a proper STI engine unless it redlines at 8000 revs. Oh it may have big low end torque, big deal, at the expense of paying through your nose fuel and tax costs?
The 2.5 engine was introduced on UK cars to compensate for variations due to Euro emission laws. It was not introduced as a 'hey, lets make a superb fantastic 2.5 engine for UK cars' How come the JDM even today still has the 2.0 engine? JDM only for the REAL STI driving experience.
16 February 2009, 07:09 PM
#25
I've had a 2l and now got 2.5 . As i understand it the 2l is a stronger engine . The 2.5 doesn't have forged pistons and can suffer with head gasket failure as mine did at 30'000 miles . But saying all that i personally prefer the 2.5 as it seems to be a lot more responsive at any point in the rev range especially at 3000 . Its a much more refined drive and you don't have to drop down the gears too much when over taking . I ve heard the 2.5 is pretty safe running iro 350bhp and 400ish torque on std internals which makes a very nice road car . I've not had the priveledge to own a twin scroll so can't comment but if it means anything to you a lot of people are converting to a 2.5 over the 2l so there must be something in it ?
16 February 2009, 07:45 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
they produce 80% of their torque at 2.5krpm, it makes for driving around town in 5th at 25mph very easy As for the conversions of a 2.5 over a 2ltr, most are due to engine failures and the 2.5's are considerably cheaper to buy than a 2ltr short motor.
Tony
16 February 2009, 07:57 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Darlington
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts