Re: (DavidR)
Not sure if I believe that 5-60 time for the Legacy GT. Car and Driver tested a 2.0L WRX 5-60 at 6.6 seconds, with a 0-60 time of 5.4
The 2.0L turbo in the 2002-2005 WRX pales in comparision to the 2.5L turbo in the new WRX/LGT in terms of low-end response and torque delivery.
The LGT is making over 40 more lbs-ft of torque at 2500RPM at the wheels versus the WRX. It peaks 250RPM higher, but still makes 45lbs-ft more at the wheels.
Gearing advantage goes slightly to the LGT as well.
The roughly 250 pound difference in weight between the wrx and LGT certainly isn't going to result in only a 0.3 difference in the 0-60 but a massive 1.0 second difference in 5-60 time. In fact, I would be less suspect if the WRX returned a 7.6 5-60 time and the LGT had a 6.6 time. Ayup, still slower than the Volvo, but much more reasonable.
And not that it matters much, the LGT manual is rated at 20 / 26 mpg, the auto is 19/25.
AWD volvo with the manual is 20 / 29 mpg, auto 20 / 28 mpg
Not sure if I believe that 5-60 time for the Legacy GT. Car and Driver tested a 2.0L WRX 5-60 at 6.6 seconds, with a 0-60 time of 5.4
The 2.0L turbo in the 2002-2005 WRX pales in comparision to the 2.5L turbo in the new WRX/LGT in terms of low-end response and torque delivery.
The LGT is making over 40 more lbs-ft of torque at 2500RPM at the wheels versus the WRX. It peaks 250RPM higher, but still makes 45lbs-ft more at the wheels.
Gearing advantage goes slightly to the LGT as well.
The roughly 250 pound difference in weight between the wrx and LGT certainly isn't going to result in only a 0.3 difference in the 0-60 but a massive 1.0 second difference in 5-60 time. In fact, I would be less suspect if the WRX returned a 7.6 5-60 time and the LGT had a 6.6 time. Ayup, still slower than the Volvo, but much more reasonable.
And not that it matters much, the LGT manual is rated at 20 / 26 mpg, the auto is 19/25.
AWD volvo with the manual is 20 / 29 mpg, auto 20 / 28 mpg