Poverty Spec Imprezas
#1
Looking at buying a scooby this month, I've been hunting like mad for an early "Sport" model, Where the hell have they all gone? Looks like i'm going to have to plump for a 1.8GL until i find one. Does anyone have any experience with the 1.8, Is it really that slow?? To be honest i just need a reliable, cheap car for a few months. I was looking at something like this. Is this a reasonable price?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Ta
Any thoughts appreciated.
Ta
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Dundee
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody have any more info on these "240 bhp sports?" Its a wind up right?
Just interested in knowing what they did to get up into the 200's without putting a turbo on. I emailed prodrive ages ago and asked if they could do anything for a normal sport and they told me that the 2.0l engine was as peaked up as it could go. (with the exception of a backbox)
Just interested in knowing what they did to get up into the 200's without putting a turbo on. I emailed prodrive ages ago and asked if they could do anything for a normal sport and they told me that the 2.0l engine was as peaked up as it could go. (with the exception of a backbox)
#5
The special 1.8 GL's were specials a few "Test Beds" that were actually fitted with the Turbo Engine and drivetrain, After they had finished using them for testing, they were sold off, As 1.8GL s, even on the Logbook, !! I don't know if this was meant to happen , but i think there are 3 or 4 of them in the UK and I believe they were all Red.
Andy
Andy
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Dundee
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick question then. What sort of bhp does a turbo make?
And also , a turbo engine without a turbo on must be putting out high figures still.
A normal sport is 126 bhp. A non turbo'd turbo engine (if that makes sense) must be putting something around 180? or am i wayyy off.
And also , a turbo engine without a turbo on must be putting out high figures still.
A normal sport is 126 bhp. A non turbo'd turbo engine (if that makes sense) must be putting something around 180? or am i wayyy off.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you took the turbocharger out of one of the turbo cars, it would be pretty anaemic actually. As far as I'm aware (and I'm quite prepared to be shot to pieces about this!), the biggest relevant difference between the two is the compression ratio, which is 8:1 on the turbo engine and 10?:1 on the non-turbo. A high compression ratio is good (more efficient), but having it too high leads to pre-ignition (knocking) which can rapidly destroy the engine! This is more of a problem when a turbocharger is fitted, because the compressed air coming out of the turbo is hot.
That said, 126bhp for any 2 litre engine sounds a bit low and I'm sure it could be tuned - but as spend money doing that, I think you'd be better off buying a turbo car in the first place, provided you can stomach the insurance.
Andy.
That said, 126bhp for any 2 litre engine sounds a bit low and I'm sure it could be tuned - but as spend money doing that, I think you'd be better off buying a turbo car in the first place, provided you can stomach the insurance.
Andy.
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Dundee
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply. I have a sport already - fairly modified to say the least. I'm too young for a turbo still this year. Next year i will join the big boys tho'
I went off on my own thoughts when i saw the 240 non turbo'd engine. 126 is completely standard for a sport. With a decent exhaust/backbox etc it shall go up.
I went off on my own thoughts when i saw the 240 non turbo'd engine. 126 is completely standard for a sport. With a decent exhaust/backbox etc it shall go up.
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahm now I see where you're coming from. The '1.8GL' specials were actually 2 litre turbo-engined cars, complete with turbocharger! They were registered as '1.8GL', I think, to get around some DVLA import restriction - it's mentioned in the SIDC FAQ. Even Honda can't get 240bhp out of a 1.8 litre normally aspirated production engine! (Shame, I could save myself the cost of the PPP )
Andy.
Andy.
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that will have been a _real_ 1.8GL, complete with 1.8 litre non-turbo engine. The ones we're talking about are cars with 2.0l turbocharged engines that were _called_ 1.8GL to get through some registration loophole
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Dundee
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody who has a 2.0l sport fitted a superchip to it? I was around a year ago that they didn't make them for a sport and not to bother even thinking about it as they seemingly ruin the engine on a non turbo?
However,
Thanks to one of the boys on Scoobynet. I've been told that there is one for it now and that it gives a 10BHP gain.
Just wondered if anyone had fitted one and if so what its like. with a 10Bhp gain... getting a sport up to 150bhp is definately worth looking into!
However,
Thanks to one of the boys on Scoobynet. I've been told that there is one for it now and that it gives a 10BHP gain.
Just wondered if anyone had fitted one and if so what its like. with a 10Bhp gain... getting a sport up to 150bhp is definately worth looking into!
#15
Andy,
I don't think it's worth the money, I pulled these specs off Parkers Guide
(BHP, Top, 0-60, mpg)
Subaru 1.8 4WD 4/1820 101 108 11.6 31.5
Subaru 2.0 4WD 4/1994 115 118 9.7 31.5
Subaru Turbo 4WD 4/1994 208 144 6.4 29.9
Now in my opinion, 31.5 mpg from a 1.8 with 101 horse power is very poor.
I get 28mpg out of my Nissan 200sx and I don't exactly drive it economically. 4WD just arn't the way to go for cheap motoring
Matt.
I don't think it's worth the money, I pulled these specs off Parkers Guide
(BHP, Top, 0-60, mpg)
Subaru 1.8 4WD 4/1820 101 108 11.6 31.5
Subaru 2.0 4WD 4/1994 115 118 9.7 31.5
Subaru Turbo 4WD 4/1994 208 144 6.4 29.9
Now in my opinion, 31.5 mpg from a 1.8 with 101 horse power is very poor.
I get 28mpg out of my Nissan 200sx and I don't exactly drive it economically. 4WD just arn't the way to go for cheap motoring
Matt.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Jonny mac
ScoobyNet General
10
09 October 2015 12:25 PM