Jump to content
Please check your junk folder for registration emails ×

3.0R vs GT for daily driving fuel efficiency


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, SpeedySub said:

Go the turbo.

Im so glad I got one. My first Turbo car was at the age of 39!

I so wish I had done it sooner. I would say that in traffic especially stop/start would be cheaper in the turbo by a little. Plus you get more chance to tune it later once you get used to the stock power.

 

Ahah, it's so funny to read this, I did the complete opposite. I had a few turbo cars before changing my mind about it and getting a GT86 : first reason is it's RWD and second beeing its NA. NA = no lag, higher revs and better fuel efficiency on track, I guess that we just have a different definition of driving pleasure then B|

 

Regarding fuel efficiency, I think you would get better mileage with a turbo in traffic, but I'd keep my the 3.0R hands down if I were you. Keep in mind that you won't get as much torque in low revs, which is enjoyable in start-stop conditions , with a turbo. Up to you !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@delta  the more I think about this the more I think the likely scenario is selling my wife's NA 2.0i, getting a turbo for my car/the daily and keeping the 3.0R as my wife's car/road trip/tow bar car.

 

The alternative/sensible thing to do would be start commuting in my wife's 2.0i, but I think that would be soul destroying....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, G B said:

What about insurance costs? Worth taking those into account too.

Good point,I had just assumed 2.0T would be similar to 3.0 for a legacy of the same year.

 

Playing around with trade me insurance it  would be about 60 more a year. Though for dinner years the cost is the same, go figure...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything I should look out for when shopping for a turbo BP? Assuming I will look for a facelift spec B auto.  Assuming I should go spec B vs a GT if possible. Is there much difference between the years for the facelifts? I feel like I remember someone saying the turbo changes at one point....probably imagining that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this thread.

 

I have been tossing up between a 3.0R and a GT 2.0T BL sedan. I have driven a GT BP wagon and found the twin scroll turbo to be a little too short compared to my RS BD sedan. This thread has certainly got me thinking of buying the GT and doing some mild mods to bring it up to what I want.

 

Nothing like the smile a turbo puts on your face :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
On 8/18/2017 at 1:30 PM, willisnz said:

Anything I should look out for when shopping for a turbo BP? Assuming I will look for a facelift spec B auto.  Assuming I should go spec B vs a GT if possible. Is there much difference between the years for the facelifts? I feel like I remember someone saying the turbo changes at one point....probably imagining that...

 

For auto's there isn't alot of difference between GT and Spec B, Spec B's are usually better specced in other ways so can be worthwhile still. Transmission in the manual is the big one.

Sure @sobanoodle has the catalogue which spells it out. 

Essentially the same turbo for all facelift years, the only problematic one was the prefacelift auto one. Manual's get the Torsion diff rather than viscous in later years but doesn't apply to the auto's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, GT and GTB have same max power but GTB has worse fuel efficiency based on that?  Both better than 3.0R though.

 

Less aggressive tune at lower revs for GT maybe?  This is getting beyond my engineering knowledge...

 

@sobanoodle rev.E starts what year? Thanks as always for being a font of knowledge when it comes to manuals/brochures:)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense, though that brochure is confusing as it has the AT/MT listed with same fuel efficiency for GT (13km/l) whereas the spec.B splits out AT (12km/l) and MT (11.4 km/l).

 

I.e. that doesn't explain why the AT spec.B be worse than the AT GT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The GT wagon I drove was an automatic which, according to the brochure above, is down on power by 15kW. Plus there would be more loss through the drive-train in the automatic.

 

Time to test drive a manual BL GT sedan me thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

I have owned both cars.

Last year I owned a 3.0R Spec B, and now currently own a 2.0GT Legacy wagon.

Both manual.

I can honestly say that the 2.0gt is more fuel efficient off boost, period.

But putting your foot down, the turbo becomes extremely fuel inefficient.

This is because turbo engines must run a rich, high fuel mixture when boosting to prevent knock and excessive temperatures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...