'06 Outback 3.0R, Good Choice?

[99miles]

Well I wanted to wait until I dove her (’06 Outback 3.0R L.L. Bean Wagon) awhile, before I wrote in. I have had many vehicles. My Outback is my 11th, in the past 10 years. I’ve had Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Pontiac, Acura, Jeep and now my Subaru Outback. I’ve just finished putting 1000 miles on her, and wanted to report in. I almost was going to go with another Highlander (hybrid, though). But you’ve got to go to the dealer that will deal, when you’re trading an 8 month old vehicle. Subaru won my business. However after reading some of your post, maybe I’m the winner having got myself into my first Subaru.

 

I love this car so far. Hopefully, this is the one I’ll keep awhile. Looking through the forum, it appears Subaru has a dedicated fan base. I would like to outfit her, though. Maybe a nice black Brush Guard up front. My Durango had this, and I thought it looked great. Any sites that make these for Subaru Outbacks? We’ll be going on a trip this summer. Are there any opinions on whether to go with the “extended roof cargo carrier” or the “heavy duty roof cargo basket”? One over the other?

 

I’ve read about the tires and yes, I think I will have to change out the Stock Tires. With all of the safety features of the Subaru why wouldn’t I want safer tires? I’m thinking of the Assurance TripleTreads. I also wanted a NAV system; however, I didn’t like Subaru’s Two Disk System. I bought a Nuvi 350. If anyone was thinking of one, that storage compartment worked out great. I took out the rubber mat inside, stuck on the Nuvi’s dash mount disk and arm, and it looks as though that NAV was meant to be there.

 

Just wanted to say, Hi; and I love my Outback Wagon so far.

 

Thanks, Great Site,

 

99miles

[mikem]

Welcome to the board. Sounds like you are enjoying the car. I've had two 3.0 Outbacks in the last two years. An 04 and now an 06 3.0R base model. We've got about 15k on the current one and i am still impressed with the quality. Took a while to find a seat position that was comfortable on long rides but finally managed to tweak the controls to fit for the long haul. Mileage is about 25 in town and about 25 on the highway if I drive 70 to 80 on the interstates. Premium is required so get used to it, though I figure that is only about $100 per year for the amout we drive. Nothing about the car has me aggravated and there is plenty I like about it.

Lots of info here. Take advantage of it.

[Andyjo]

06 Outbacks Make me drool... sorry

 

I'm pretty sure there are no after market brush guard makers for new outbacks.. but there are plenty of people around who make their own, and the just look mean

Let's see here, some designs floating around:

Mudrat's: http://oregonoffroadsubaruclub.org/Outback_Baja_Together.jpeg

Shady's: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/data/500/medium/new_bumper.jpg

Austin's: http://usmb.net/albums/album239/IMG_3070.jpg

Mine: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/photos/data/500/bumper2.jpg

There are also some old stock brush guards floating around from the EA series... it'd to a little modification but you'd be my hero if you put one on an 06 outback Lots of other people make their own bumpers... that's just all i could think of off the top of my head for the new gens those are all full bumper replacements... i'm not sure about just brush guards... i was thinking of just welding on the bull bar to my stock bumper, and cutting out the plastic to go around it.. but.. .i went all out heh...

 

As for stuff on the roof, i'd get a set of thule/yakama racks, and space them so they're located at the strongest part of the factory rails (ie: not in the middle). I've got a Box for my OBS, but one of my buddies at school has a yakama setup with a box & basket on top of his 06 ouback.. it's rediculous.

 

Other than that, welcome to the board, there's tons of info and friendly people willing to help out around here

[Ranger83]

06 Outbacks Make me drool... sorry

 

I'm pretty sure there are no after market brush guard makers for new outbacks.. but there are plenty of people around who make their own, and the just look mean

Yeah, as mean as a MILF-mobile can look:D (I know - I have one).

 

So where, exactly, would you fit a brush guard that wouldn't cause more damage than it prevents if you hit anything at speed, and iss a street legal replacement for the front lower facia? Anything like those shown above would let even more air underneath it on the highway.

 

I don't see too many $30K+ vehicles in brush. Folks who mod these cars generally put on a mesh grille ($300); clear the headlights; put on new wheels (the BBS wheels are 4 lbs lighter than the stock 5 spokers); and replace the rear swaybar with the larger Legacy GT bar. If they really get wild they put coilovers on it. Trying to make it look like an off-road vehicle will just make you look like a Hummer driver = poser.

 

[99miles]

Thanks for the Posts and Pics. I think if I tore the bumber off and put something like that, my wife would kill me. Although, your right it does look mean. I was thinking more like something I saw on an Aussie site. I think, if memory serves, it was from a company called TPM and the model had a 16 in it. Any thoughts?

 

As for my Pics, they'll be coming soon. We've had over a week of rain and I'm not about to take Pics of a new vehicle looking like that. Unless of course, I was off roading. :cool:

 

Thanks Again.

 

99miles

[Ranger83]

Here's what's under the cover. It's a really nice motor. I dyno'd it and it had roughly 180 hp at the wheels.

 

[Ranger83]

Here's the dyno results:

[dpoppeli]

Subaru advertises that engine as 250HP (not sure what RPM although they state torque at 4200 rpm). Your 180 HP wheel HP is a 28% difference. Wonder if that's typical across the board for newgen Subarus?

 

Here's the dyno results:

[shaggywerewolf]

Nice engine compartment. It's all shiny and new

Looks like a tight fit though

[nipper]

Subaru advertises that engine as 250HP (not sure what RPM although they state torque at 4200 rpm). Your 180 HP wheel HP is a 28% difference. Wonder if that's typical across the board for newgen Subarus?

 

Thats not unusual http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43845/article.html

 

Carmakers advertise the gross horsepower (barebones engine connected to a dino) as opposed to Net HP which is what is at the rear wheels.

 

nipper

[Ranger83]

Subaru advertises that engine as 250HP (not sure what RPM although they state torque at 4200 rpm). Your 180 HP wheel HP is a 28% difference. Wonder if that's typical across the board for newgen Subarus?

WHP is always a lot less. It varies from dyno to dyno. BTW the 250hp turbo 2.5 usually puts down about 200 WHP - despite also being rated at 250hp. Go figure.

 

Carmakers advertise the gross horsepower (barebones engine connected to a dino) as opposed to Net HP which is what is at the rear wheels.

No.

 

The leather seat kit from Katzkin is due in next week. I couldn't get an LLbean or VDC because there isn't enough headroom with the sunroof. And you can't get leather on the base 3.0R. So I'm having an upholstery shop put in an all-leather (not just seating surfaces) Katzkin set.

[nipper]

WHP is always a lot less. It varies from dyno to dyno. BTW the 250hp turbo 2.5 usually puts down about 200 WHP - despite also being rated at 250hp. Go figure.

 

 

No.

 

.

 

Yes

 

The disparity between these two figures comes from the fact that one is a gross horsepower rating and the other is a wheel-driven horsepower rating. Gross horsepower is a measurement of engine output, taken at the flywheel, without the engine installed in a vehicle. Since the engine has no load on it, all of its energy can be used for making horsepower.

 

Wheel-driven horsepower, by comparison, is a measurement taken at the driven wheels of a vehicle on what's called a dynamometer. This is done by placing the vehicle's driven wheels on a large roller and accelerating the wheels up to redline in first or second gear. The vehicle's ability to turn this roller is measured and calculated to come up with a figure that represents how much horsepower is actually available to move the vehicle around -- or real-world horsepower. Because a frictional loss between the engine and the driven wheels is unavoidable, wheel-driven horsepower will always be less than gross horsepower.

 

How much less wheel-driven horsepower will depend on how many mechanical parts exist between a vehicle's engine and its driven wheels. Since we already mentioned a late-model Corvette, we'll use it as our example. The 345 horsepower that initiate in the Corvette's engine compartment have to travel through a transmission, driveshaft, rear-differential, and two axle shafts (one for each rear wheel). That's four separate mechanical components taking a bite out of the `Vette's horsepower before the rear wheels even begin to turn. Suddenly, the 285 wheel-driven horsepower rating doesn't seem so hard to believe.

 

 

nipper

 

PS At college we had both, and Engine Dyno and a Rear Wheel Dyno, and this is what we would see wehn we would build an engine, then put it in a car.

 

nipper

[dpoppeli]

I understand that horsepower is all in where you measure it. That's pretty elementary. What I was throwing out there was what appears to be 28% in drivetrain losses (maybe more - do manufacturers really rate engine HP at 5800 rpm ... who the hell revs there engine that high??) and how this might compare across the subaru line and maybe even lower loss front-wheel or rear wheel cars.

[dpoppeli]

blip

[fastwgn286]

28% sounds pretty sane. its higher than an svt focus (17% IIRC), but the 3.0 has an auto tranny (please correct if i'm wrong...), three diffs, and four tires to turn, whereas most vehicles need to negotiate about half of that stuff. the auto tranny sheds more power than the manual, hence lower gas mileage results compared to manual trannies. as stated earlier, if the xt ob had 250 bhp and 200 awhp, thats about 20% loss, and if it was a manual, then that would make sense...

[Ranger83]

Yes

 

The disparity between these two figures comes from the fact that one is a gross horsepower rating and the other is a wheel-driven horsepower rating. Gross horsepower is a measurement of engine output, taken at the flywheel, without the engine installed in a vehicle. Since the engine has no load on it, all of its energy can be used for making horsepower.

no.

 

He's confused Gross versus Net.

 

Wikipedia has it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

 

hp (SAE)

 

In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse after the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended manufacturers use hp (SAE) to indicate the net power of the engine, given that particular car's complete engine installation. It measures engine power at the flywheel, not counting drivetrain losses.

Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972 U.S. carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment.

SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel. Contrary to some reports, it does not measure power at the drive wheels.

Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, at best, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines show a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating (often considered to be underrated) and a net rating of 375 hp.

 

SAE-certified horsepower

 

In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure (J2723) for engine horsepower and torque. The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharger Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW).

I've never seen a manufacturer publish a WHP rating, and individual dynos vary so much that you can really only compare two values if they're from the same unit. On Legacygt.com somewhere there's reference to a magazine that had a car tested on a number of different models and brands.

 

Mine was tested at TDC Tuning. He's done tons of turbo Subarus, but mine was the first H6 he could recall. YMMV.

 

I plan to go back and do another run, with Premium, and with and without an air filter.

[shortlid]

What are you geting for MPG with a premium 93 Octane you have to put in the 3.0 H6??

[Ranger83]

What are you geting for MPG with a premium 93 Octane you have to put in the 3.0 H6??

 

Premium is "recommended," not required.

 

I have been burning regular for the last 4,000 miles, so I can't answer your question.

[shortlid]

Cool so the engine will adapt for regfuel just not produce as much power correct??

[fastwgn286]

i wouldn't advise you doing that. a friend did a study on whether to use regular or premium, and cars that are rated at 91 or 93 octane are that way for a reason. their engines are tuned to use that kind of fuel. 87 octane doesn't burn the same way, which will ruin the timing, a/f ratio, and everything else. it won't destroy your car to use reg gas for a while, but after long periods of time, it will come back to bite...

 

same vis versa. cars with 87 oct. rating shouldn't use premium. it will do the same, only i heard the proof - the noise a focus makes while on premium for its entire life - and it aint pleasant.

 

don't doubt engineers. believe it or not, there is a reason it recommends premium fuel.

[Ranger83]

The reason those engineers "recommend" premium is so that they can produce higher hp ratings. If it was required (like the turbo 2.5) they'd say required.

 

Our Nissan Quest (3.5l V6) produces 242 hp on high test and 237 on regular, according to the manufacturer. That's at full throttle.

 

The dyno operator can download the logs from the engine's ECU. On mine, there was no evidence of detonation and the spark was not retarded much if at all. The dyo operator suggests Premium will yield an increase of 2-5 hp - about what I gained from shutting off the AC manually.

 

But I'm bringing it back for another run with Premium just to prove the point.

[fastwgn286]

what is up with everyone and conspiracy theories? first an airplane didn't really hit the pentagon, no one can trust a doctor, and now no one can trust an engineer. if you want to risk the engine, go ahead. i've witnessed the proof that extended periods of using the wrong fuel can fowl an engine, but, hey, it's not my car, and i'm only an engineering student....

[fastwgn286]

besides, spending your money to dyno run on premium won't prove much, if anything. i'm arguing that eventually, you will foul your engine by using regular. giving a dyno test that states more hp wont tell me or anyone else anything new. most engines get more power if a higher octane is used. if you ran your engine for four or five years on regular and recorded the sound heard, then i will be proven wrong (or right ).

 

and we've officially hijacked this thread into oblivion......

[Ranger83]

what is up with everyone and conspiracy theories? first an airplane didn't really hit the pentagon, no one can trust a doctor, and now no one can trust an engineer. if you want to risk the engine, go ahead. i've witnessed the proof that extended periods of using the wrong fuel can fowl an engine, but, hey, it's not my car, and i'm only an engineering student....

That's the point - the engineers at Subaru "Recommend" Premium. I worked as an engineer for years before starting an engineering consulting business - I get to vote as well.

 

I drove it the first 4,000 miles with high octane, then switched. I've logged every gallon of fuel used and had the engine codes read under full load to see if the spark was being retarded or there was evidence of detonation. There wasn't. So go ask one of the ME professors, "If an engine is running well, with normal spark advance profile and without evidence of detonation, is the octane of the fuel being used appropriate? Or does your experience with the VVT H6 in the 2006 differ? Especially now that there are 200 different blends of gas in the US alone.

 

This begs the question of whether the octane ratings shown at the pump are even accurate. If you were a factory engineer, would you design an engine that had problems with normal pump grade fuel? Factory engineers probably figure the average owner is ignorant - or that lower pump octane might be used at some point out of necessity. Wouldn't you make your design robust enough to withstand this kind of use/abuse?

 

Plenty of turbo 2.5 owners reprogram their ECU's for 93 Octane only. They get a big power boost. How can this be? Answer - factory engineers are conservative because selling hundreds of thousands of cars a year that grenade the engine is "non career enhancing."

[fastwgn286]

This begs the question of whether the octane ratings shown at the pump are even accurate. If you were a factory engineer, would you design an engine that had problems with normal pump grade fuel? Factory engineers probably figure the average owner is ignorant - or that lower pump octane might be used at some point out of necessity. Wouldn't you make your design robust enough to withstand this kind of use/abuse?

 

Plenty of turbo 2.5 owners reprogram their ECU's for 93 Octane only. They get a big power boost. How can this be? Answer - factory engineers are conservative because selling hundreds of thousands of cars a year that grenade the engine is "non career enhancing."

 

yeah, the octane rating are accurate. to make a long story shorter (but still quite long...) oil companies usually trans[port their gasoline products through a pipeline, correct? now, because their are about a hundred separate oil companies (ok, maybe not a hundred, but you'd run out of fingers and toes to count on), it would be kinda dumb to have each one build a separate pipeline. so, one separate company owns the pipeline.

 

now, the pipeline operates by having an oil company pump x number of gallons of product into the pipeline. they get x amount of product at the end. but, this isn't always the exact same gasoline that they put in. its usually refined by another gas company.

 

it works like a bank. you put a dollar into your account. the odds of getting that exact dollar back are slim to none. so, to ensure quality of octane ratings and that whats put in is exceptable to be given to any other company, its just regular gasoline. the additives and other stuff that makes exxon gas different from bp or shell gas is added at the end of the line, after it's pumped out.

 

to ensure that no co-mingled product reaches your neighborhood 7-11, it's all computer controlled to tight tolerances. once a tolerance is violated, the gas that comes out of the end is stored separately to be re-refined or sold to businesses that can use the product in its co-mingled state.

 

this is true for regular, premuim, and diesel fuels. the "mid-grade 89" is co-mingled IIRC, and that can vary from station to station, company to company.

 

while the octane is not state controlled, this means that variations from state to state are nil, meaning that the H6 engines will work on 91-93 octane in virginia, massachusetts, texas, or washington. they are tuned to work on 91 octane at least, because thats as high as it usually goes in california, which is one of the biggest markets in the US. as you stated, turbo owners on the east coast get their ECUs flashed to run on 93 octane, because that is what is sold over here. if you got your ecu reflashed to run the h6 on 87, that wouldn't be too much of a problem because the a/f ratio and how the computer adds the ingredients together would work perfectly. my guess is that engines flashed to run on premium adds more air than the same engine flashed to run on 87 regular. so, over time, you will run a lean mixture. if you ran an engine designed for 87 on premium, you would run rich, which is the proof i heard last year. i honestly don't know the consequences of running lean will be over time, but if i owned it, i would either fill it with premium or reflash the ecu so i won't have problems. i know that the car won't magically adjust to using 87 unless it tests the octane rating before injecting.

 

just my two and 9 tenths cents...