2.5i or 3.6R which one????

[wesel123]

Hey all.

The girlfriend is selling her 4R to get an Outback. We test drove the 2.5i Premium and a 3.6R Limited. We both don't want the leather or the ugly wood trim of the Limited so we are looking for the 3.6R in the Premium trim but they are like hens teeth.

That being said is the 3.6R as reliable as the 2.5i??? And other than gas mileage being less in the 3.6R what other negative or positives.

 

[Owyhee H]

2.5i is reliable, uses regular gas, gets better mileage, and is great. The CV trans takes some getting used to but I have been driving one a lot recently and it is really nice when you get used to it. Go 2.5!!!

 

[carolinasuby]

I own a 2003 Outback with the 3.0 six cylinder. The current engine is basically an enlarged version of this motor. The six cylinder will have a timing chain vs. a timing belt, and unlike the 2.5 four cylinder, there have been no issues such as the dreaded head gasket failures associated with the 3.6. Subaru has addressed those issues for the most part, but keep in mind it is still the same engine from 10 years ago, and that past engine was notorious for having bad gaskets. I currently have 95000 on mine and it still purrs like a kitten. The other thing to think about is every day and real world power. 175 horsepower is not too much when you think about the current wagon. I drove many 4 cylinder models before finding the 6 cylinder and it is night and day between the two. That extra size is a no brainer when it comes to the ability to pass a car or tow a trailer as well. Put some stuff on the roof and head down the highway and your gonna want that extra oomph.

 

[Climber Rob]

I agree with idaho85. I have an '08 2.5i. It has been reliable, gets great gas mileage, and I have never felt the need for more power, particularly with the tradeoffs. I live in the mountains and it pulls and passes great in every situation.

 

[Owyhee H]

The new(2011) 2.5i is a timing chain as well. I hear they did this to work with the VVT. Although the displacement and basic layout of the engine is the same, I hear the new engines are quite a bit different than the old 2.5.

 

[Pedro]

3.6 The MPG's are great. Torque down low and through the range. I find the engine to be a perfect replacement for the somewhat more quirky turbo engines.

 

[Ozarker]

Well, I just chose the 2.5 XS Fossie (N/A). I drove a turbo and yes, there was more power to it, but IMO, not so much more as the 2.5 can scooooot past any speed limit in the states. I use to race autocross, power is nice to have, but driver skill can overcome power in many situations, so long as you have enough power, the 2.5 has more than enough to do most jobs. (It's more than the 2 liter that I raced and we beat a tube framed Caddy V-8!) If the plan is to get from A to B in basically the same vehicle, I doubt power is really that critical. You said you weren't rock crawling and neither would I. I chose reliablity and less maintenance over a little more power that I can't really use in most driving situations. There is the fun factor and knowing you can, but really, when I translate that to dollars, it wasn't worth it to me, but then I'm an old phart too! :smiley_drive: