Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

2.0 or 2.5 what's better?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16 February 2009 | 09:05 PM
  #31  
Mikkel's Avatar
Mikkel
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
From: North East
Default

Originally Posted by adehook
can you not fit a tst to a 2.5?
You can. A lad on here with a Spec D has done just that. Reckons it runs great and judging by his SSO times last year, there must be something in it.
Old 16 February 2009 | 09:08 PM
  #32  
TonyBurns's Avatar
TonyBurns
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 2
From: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Smile

Originally Posted by adehook
can you not fit a tst to a 2.5?
Type25
But you pay for the priviledge

Tony
Old 16 February 2009 | 09:17 PM
  #33  
adehook's Avatar
adehook
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
From: wolverhampton
Default

whats the price on them?

i see the type 20 is £38k
Old 16 February 2009 | 09:18 PM
  #34  
ALi-B's Avatar
ALi-B
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,052
Likes: 301
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Default

How come the JDM even today still has the 2.0 engine?
Partly due to Japan's taxes for engines over 2000cc such as Environment Tax, Weight tax, Recycle tax and Vehicle registration tax. Its even more barmy than the EU and US put together.
Old 16 February 2009 | 09:58 PM
  #35  
Butty's Avatar
Butty
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 1
From: MY06 STi Spec D
Default

Originally Posted by adehook
can you not fit a tst to a 2.5?
You can - I believe it is RobinSherwood who has done this with a std 2.5 engine and a VF37?
IRO 400 bhp & 420 lbft and did rather well at SSO.

A bit cheaper than a T25.
Old 16 February 2009 | 11:06 PM
  #36  
Pavlo's Avatar
Pavlo
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,316
Likes: 2
From: home
Default

tst powered 2.5 with 650ftlb, owns Tony Burns...
Old 16 February 2009 | 11:41 PM
  #37  
TonyBurns's Avatar
TonyBurns
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 2
From: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Wink

Originally Posted by Pavlo
tst powered 2.5 with 650ftlb, owns Tony Burns...
The Gobstopper, 2ltr (572lbs@wheels), owns Pavlo
Old 16 February 2009 | 11:49 PM
  #38  
ZEN Performance's Avatar
ZEN Performance
Former Sponsor
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
From: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Default

as a matter of fact not, still more than gobstopper torque and last time my car competed it beat the gobstopper.
Old 16 February 2009 | 11:59 PM
  #39  
eggy790's Avatar
eggy790
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (20)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,304
Likes: 0
From: n/a
Default

ok lads..

howm much torque can the 6 speed boxes take?

second question how much for a 2.0 twin scrool turbo engine in my mates version 5 wagon? big end went last night
Old 17 February 2009 | 12:11 AM
  #40  
TonyBurns's Avatar
TonyBurns
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 2
From: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Default

The 6 speed boxes are rated at around the 450lb mark, so quite good and you can pick up a complete twin scroll engine from 3.5k-4k with virtually no miles on from a breaker.

Pavlo, they quote at power figure (torque and bhp) at the wheels, do you quote yours at the wheels also?

Tony
Old 17 February 2009 | 08:26 AM
  #41  
Butty's Avatar
Butty
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 1
From: MY06 STi Spec D
Default

Originally Posted by TonyBurns
d you can pick up a complete twin scroll engine from 3.5k-4k
Old 17 February 2009 | 08:59 AM
  #42  
dynamix's Avatar
dynamix
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 3
From: near you
Default

Originally Posted by ZEN Performance
as a matter of fact not, still more than gobstopper torque and last time my car competed it beat the gobstopper.
Absolutely owned them

2.5 is the way forward as almost all the top tuners have recognised.

There is no substitute for capacity in making a great driving car and phenomenal performance and response.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:24 AM
  #43  
stealthy55's Avatar
stealthy55
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Default

[QUOTE=dynamix;8515981]Absolutely owned them

2.5 is the way forward as almost all the top tuners have recognised.

correct me if im wrong then but what won totb, sso and time attack? was that a 2.0? and has it blown up?
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:31 AM
  #44  
dynamix's Avatar
dynamix
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 3
From: near you
Default

you obviously missed the word 'almost'

Last outing for Zen in the almost fully developed car (previous to that it was only part finished) was at Brands Hatch .. the result was never in doubt there.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:34 AM
  #45  
dazdavies's Avatar
dazdavies
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,061
Likes: 82
From: N/A
Default

Tony, I'll be blunt here. You're talking nonsense.
The 2.5 isn't a lazy engine that doesn't like to rev. My old car (standard 2.5 bottom end, STI 5 heads and a rotated GT30R setup) quite happily revved to 8krpm, It made 450 bhp @1.4 bar and was very very driveable.

I've had a 400bhp 2.0L and and then swapped to 2.5, it's one of the best mods you can do on a scooby. As for them being weak, Duncans and Shauns have seen in excess off 540bhp with no problems liner wise.

Granted the 2.0L CDB is the strongest platform to start from but unless you're aiming for massive power the 2.5 is a good option.

I've gone for the best of both worlds on my current build a 2.0L closed deck block bored and sleeved to 2.5L.

I wouldn't have gone to the expense of doing that if the 2.5 was a lazy engine that doesn't like to Rev.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:37 AM
  #46  
stealthy55's Avatar
stealthy55
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dynamix
you obviously missed the word 'almost'

Last outing for Zen in the almost fully developed car (previous to that it was only part finished) was at Brands Hatch .. the result was never in doubt there.
cheers , wernt a dig, just curious why 1 engine is better than the other when the 2.0 won the 3, just confusing.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:39 AM
  #47  
dynamix's Avatar
dynamix
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 3
From: near you
Default

RCM have stuck with a 2.0 CDB because they run HUGE amounts of NOS. The 2.5 would not cope with that in std form.

Zen's and other's 2.5 engines have got great power without having to go down the NOS route and have shown that the 2.5 is a very reliable platform to get performance without having to suffer the lag that the 2.0 does.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:42 AM
  #48  
stealthy55's Avatar
stealthy55
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dynamix
RCM have stuck with a 2.0 CDB because they run HUGE amounts of NOS. The 2.5 would not cope with that in std form.

Zen's and other's 2.5 engines have got great power without having to go down the NOS route and have shown that the 2.5 is a very reliable platform to get performance without having to suffer the lag that the 2.0 does.
Old 17 February 2009 | 10:55 AM
  #49  
StickyMicky's Avatar
StickyMicky
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
From: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Default

2.5 in a road car is what you need IMO
Old 17 February 2009 | 11:29 AM
  #50  
MrRA's Avatar
MrRA
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Default

It depends on what kind of drive you're after IMHO. The 2 litre loves being revved and needs a bit more work to get going, whereas the 2.5 produces a much more lazier drive so may be better suited to some for road use. Personally I having come from Honda VTEC units I'm used to working an engine to keep its in it sweet spot. I get more satisfaction from it which is why I prefer the drive of the 2 litre.

The 2.5 is the weaker unit of the two. It was only introduced into Europe to comply with the forthcoming Euro IV emissions, whereby the 2 litre would have needed expensive modding.

Yes the 2.5 produces more torque, it's bound to, it has a higher capacity, but the way in which a twin scroll unit delivers its power may be preferable to some. But how many 2.5 units out there would cope with 400-450bhp on standard internals? Erm, none would be my answer. Yet we know there are a few Spec C's on this forum putting out that kind of power still on standard internals, but obviously with the obligatory turbo upgrade. The 2 litre also features a stronger valve train, nitrided and cross-drilled crank, larger ported heads and a more aggressive inlet cam, not to mention the stainless headers versus the cast items of the 2.5 unit.

For track use the 2 litre is definitely the better choice. It loves being revved and on track you are most likely to be in the higher rpm range most of the time. Hence the reason why Honda VTEC units work better on track rather than on the road.

This is a debate that will rage on for all time if you ask me, with each person shouting the merits of each engine, BUT, if you want to look at it from a pure technical viewpoint then the 2 litre IS the better engine, there can be no denying that.
Old 17 February 2009 | 11:32 AM
  #51  
dazdavies's Avatar
dazdavies
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,061
Likes: 82
From: N/A
Default

Originally Posted by MrRA
It depends on what kind of drive you're after IMHO. The 2 litre loves being revved and needs a bit more work to get going, whereas the 2.5 produces a much more lazier drive so may be better suited to some for road use. Personally I having come from Honda VTEC units I'm used to working an engine to keep its in it sweet spot. I get more satisfaction from it which is why I prefer the drive of the 2 litre.

The 2.5 is the weaker unit of the two. It was only introduced into Europe to comply with the forthcoming Euro IV emissions, whereby the 2 litre would have needed expensive modding.

Yes the 2.5 produces more torque, it's bound to, it has a higher capacity, but the way in which a twin scroll unit delivers its power may be preferable to some. But how many 2.5 units out there would cope with 400-450bhp on standard internals? Erm, none would be my answer. Yet we know there are a few Spec C's on this forum putting out that kind of power still on standard internals, but obviously with the obligatory turbo upgrade. The 2 litre also features a stronger valve train, nitrided and cross-drilled crank, larger ported heads and a more aggressive inlet cam, not to mention the stainless headers versus the cast items of the 2.5 unit.

For track use the 2 litre is definitely the better choice. It loves being revved and on track you are most likely to be in the higher rpm range most of the time. Hence the reason why Honda VTEC units work better on track rather than on the road.

This is a debate that will rage on for all time if you ask me, with each person shouting the merits of each engine, BUT, if you want to look at it from a pure technical viewpoint then the 2 litre IS the better engine, there can be no denying that.

All of them!! Mine coped with 452 at 1.4 bar for over 10,000 miles on standard internals. I only sold it on as I was doing a 600bhp build
Old 17 February 2009 | 11:42 AM
  #52  
MrRA's Avatar
MrRA
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dazdavies
All of them!! Mine coped with 452 at 1.4 bar for over 10,000 miles on standard internals. I only sold it on as I was doing a 600bhp build
I stand corrected then, but personally I would never take a standard UK 2.5 to anywhere near that power level.

And surely it also depends on the supporting mods you had fitted ie if you were running an FMIC which allowed for much lower and safer inlet charge temps along with a more efficient turbo that didn't scream it **** off and blow nothing but hot air.
Old 17 February 2009 | 12:49 PM
  #53  
johnfelstead's Avatar
johnfelstead
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,439
Likes: 53
Default

Originally Posted by MrRA
Yes the 2.5 produces more torque, it's bound to, it has a higher capacity, but the way in which a twin scroll unit delivers its power may be preferable to some.
This thread is funny.

Standard the engines are listed as giving
STi5 2.0 single scroll 280PS @ 6500rpm, 353NM @ 4000rpm
MY05 2.0 JDM twin scroll 280PS @ 6400rpm, 412NM @ 4400rpm
MY08 2.0 JDM twin scroll 308PS @ 6400rpm, 422NM @ 4400rpm
MY08 2.5 300PS @ 6000rpm, 407NM @ 4000rpm

Last edited by johnfelstead; 17 February 2009 at 08:26 PM.
Old 17 February 2009 | 01:08 PM
  #54  
ALi-B's Avatar
ALi-B
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,052
Likes: 301
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Default

Post the toque/BHP dyno graphs, John...lets see how wide those power bands are

Pity Dyno.scoobies was never maintained. Would have been handy for topics like this.
Old 17 February 2009 | 02:08 PM
  #55  
eggy790's Avatar
eggy790
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (20)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,304
Likes: 0
From: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by TonyBurns
The 6 speed boxes are rated at around the 450lb mark, so quite good and you can pick up a complete twin scroll engine from 3.5k-4k with virtually no miles on from a breaker.

Pavlo, they quote at power figure (torque and bhp) at the wheels, do you quote yours at the wheels also?

Tony
4k is well cheap for a twin scroll unit.. might be better than a rebuild,..

what power are they capable off? reliably..
Old 17 February 2009 | 02:21 PM
  #56  
dazdavies's Avatar
dazdavies
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,061
Likes: 82
From: N/A
Default

What's different on a Twin scroll engine other than the manifold, up pipe, turbo and sump?
Old 17 February 2009 | 02:43 PM
  #57  
micahmoor's Avatar
micahmoor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Default

This is a graph for a spec C

Full de cat
RCM K&N
3 port
Uprated acuator

Does any one have a uk sti 2.5 with the same mods with a graph


Last edited by micahmoor; 17 February 2009 at 02:52 PM.
Old 17 February 2009 | 03:53 PM
  #58  
vindaloo's Avatar
vindaloo
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
From: South Bucks
Default

IMO it depends where you start from.

If you're starting from owning a classic with a knocking bottom end, then the simplest way to get a more driveable, potentially(!?) more reliable car is to bung a 2.5 bottom end in. It'll run similar power with less boost, it'll spool earlier and it'll be more driveable off boost. Only caveats to this I can think of are purist thinking and costs/insurance costs etc.

If you're starting from having no Impreza and a healthy bank balance. Then you drive all three types form an opinion and make your choice.

J.
Old 17 February 2009 | 04:53 PM
  #59  
Butty's Avatar
Butty
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 1
From: MY06 STi Spec D
Default

Originally Posted by micahmoor
This is a graph for a spec C

Full de cat
RCM K&N
3 port
Uprated acuator

Does any one have a uk sti 2.5 with the same mods with a graph
So which turbo are we looking at here?
Something like a Hybird VF37 ( is this a PS stage 4 kit?) or perhaps a VF42?
Old 17 February 2009 | 05:05 PM
  #60  
MrRA's Avatar
MrRA
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by dazdavies
What's different on a Twin scroll engine other than the manifold, up pipe, turbo and sump?
I think the dipstick and oil pick up are also different due to the difference in the shape of the sump. You also forgot to include the downpipe.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 AM.