Jim Stewart said:
It may be a performance question, but the answer is marketing.
US Subaru, at least until the WRX, has sold their product
to a class of people that are not interested in a small
engine with a turbo. The classic Subaru here in California
is 4 adults and gear heading up to the mountains to go
skiing. The best engine for the job has low-end torque,
is quiet, and doesn't have to be revved high to shift.
These people are not interested in a turbo and its real
or perceived maintainance issuse.
I own a '95 Legacy 250T wagon (2.5L engine, auto). I just drove a
friend's '00 Legacy GT wagon (2.0L engine, twin turbo, manual) for a
week.
The 2.0 is slow off the mark unless you abuse the clutch (I didn't beat
10 seconds for 0-60 (mine does 9 easily, the 2.0 supposedly does 6 or so
if you abuse it), but then 100mph comes up *really* frightningly quickly.
It's just fine for hill climbing. It pulls smoothly from 1200, you can
hear the turbo spinning up by 1500 rpm and somewhere just above 2000 it
gets stronger than my 2.5L. By 3000 rpm it feels as if it's making more
power than my 2.5 makes at redline. I climbed a number of big hills
that I know well at revs between 1500 and 2500 and I can tell you it has
*no* problem with them, even if you're not revving high.
The ony real downside is that it uses more fuel than my 2.5. I got 9.2
km/l driving carefully, and 9.0 km/l on a good thrash. My 250T gets 11+
km/l driving carefully on the open road, 10 km/l around town, and 9 km/l
on a good thrash.
So if you're into thrashing a lot you may as well get the 2.0 turbo,
because it thrashes funner
-- Bruce