Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Forester Turbo in 1 year

11819202224

Comments

  • lark6lark6 Posts: 2,565
    That's a relief I guess. Again since it'll likely be October before I'm eligible - and even then I may not be ready to buy - initial demand should have been satisfied.

    Ed
  • beanboybeanboy Posts: 442
    Are making it tougher to decide between the WRX wagon and XT Forester!

    Going to swing on by the dealer this weekend and see if I can get a test drive in. Still, a test drive for 10 minutes isn't going to be enough.

    Keept those reviews coming!

    -B
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    getting the lower mpg explained. Noticeable acceleration off the line explains right now why the mpg is lower. We have boost kicking in well below 3000 rpm (normal range). Note, the turbo does not affect the WRX as much because it doesn't kick in at low range.

    John
  • krccrkkrccrk Posts: 36
    My boost guage shows negative boost most of the time for just normal in-town driving in moderate traffic. Maybe the actual mpg won't be bad at all.

    Ken
  • kenskens Posts: 5,869
    jack: I think you're doing the right thing by waiting for an XT on allocation. I would do the same.

    John: Maybe those EPA testers just loved having the XT boost kick in and drove the MPG numbers down!

    Ken
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Forgot the mention this. The 5 speed did not have the boost gauge, but the auto I drove did.

    Any how, it completely blocks the view of the temp and fuel gauges. They really need to find a better place to put it.

    This is a minor complaint, mind you, especially since it's just an option. But I like turbo boost gauges and I would pass on this one.

    -juice
  • forestergumpforestergump Posts: 119
    Since the turbo boost gauge is mounted on the steering column, doesn't any obstruction it causes depend on how you have the wheel positioned? Or is the gauge positioned on the stationary portion of the steering column?
    -Bob
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    once_and_for_all wrote, "I think we are getting the lower mpg explained. Noticeable acceleration off the line explains right now why the mpg is lower. We have boost kicking in well below 3000 rpm (normal range). Note, the turbo does not affect the WRX as much because it doesn't kick in at low range."

    The MPG debate (so far) has centered around the XT's mediocre EPA ratings (mainly because hardly anyone has compiled enough real-world numbers to evaluate yet). Your point would certainly be valid for an XT being driven hard, meaning that the XT's potent acceleration capability is actually being used. However, I don't believe the standardized EPA testing (which is tightly programmed and controlled to uniformly model typical everyday driving) would ever call on an XT to come anywhere near strong acceleration, either in the city cycle or the highway cycle. If the XT completes the EPA tests without ever needing to produce enough power to get into the boost range, then we still are left with the mystery: Why did the XT, with all of its important new technology that ought to enhance fuel efficiency (variable valve timing, electronic throttle control) do so poorly on the EPA testing?

    - jack
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    krccrk very helpfully says, "My boost guage shows negative boost most of the time for just normal in-town driving in moderate traffic. Maybe the actual mpg won't be bad at all."

    Thanks very much for this useful information. It confirms what I've been saying: In moderate driving, the XT will rarely if ever get into the high-fuel-flow boost phase. That almost surely would also have been true during EPA testing. Therefore, the true reason for the XT's disappointing EPA ratings (much lower than a WRX, and even lower than the 300BHP STi!) remain a mystery.

    - jack
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    "John: Maybe those EPA testers just loved having the XT boost kick in and drove the MPG numbers down! Ken"

    On a dyno? I can see overdoing it on the road, experiencing the actual acceleration sensation, but it seems that something would be lost sitting on a stationary dyno...

    Also - are vehicles undergoing EPA testing actually operated by humans, or is a computer operating the throttle? I would have assumed the latter, in order to make the results more standardized and comparable.

    - jack
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Ken placates me by saying, "jack: I think you're doing the right thing by waiting for an XT on allocation. I would do the same."

    I suppose. But I've now been telephoned by TWO dealers in my area who have 5-speed XTs sitting there, waiting to be bought. First, last Monday, a silver one; today a red one arrived. My dealer is supposed to be the highest-volume Subaru dealer in the Pacific Northwest; I can't figure out why he will evidently be the last one to get a silver 5-speed!- jb
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    "It completely blocks the view of the temp and fuel gauges. They really need to find a better place to put it."

    This makes me very unhappy. Every picture of the gauge I've seen was on WRXs, and it was always installed on the right side of the column. In that position, all it might block would be the low end of the tach and perhaps the unused redline area' the important top half of the tach would be unobstructed. But after seeing photos of the gauge installed on XTs (on the left side instead of the right), I asked about obstruction and was assured by a Subaru dealer rep in another forum (who actually had received an XT with the boost gauge), that it didn't block the fuel or temp gauges at all. I didn't see how that would be possible, but took her at her word. I certainly hope it's possible without too much difficulty to reposition the gauge on the right side.

    "This is a minor complaint, mind you, especially since it's just an option. But I like turbo boost gauges and I would pass on this one."

    If the gauge can't be relocated to the right side and really does block the lower part of the fuel gauge (approaching empty), I'd put that a bit higher than a minor issue. Grrrrr.

    forestergump says "Since the turbo boost gauge is mounted on the steering column, doesn't any obstruction it causes depend on how you have the wheel positioned? Or is the gauge positioned on the stationary portion of the steering column?"

    The gauge installs forward of the steering wheel, on the fixed part of the column.

    - jb
  • SteveSatchSteveSatch Posts: 20
    I have a '98 Outback limited with auto trans that I bought in the summer of '97. It has about 65,000 miles on it and runs great. I've had no problems with it and my only complaint is the lack of power. I think I made a mistake getting the auto trans. Oh well. Anyway I want something with more power and I'm sure I'll get a manual trans (I just hope I haven't forgot how to drive one in the last six years!). Should I get a turbo Forester or wait for a more powerful Outback? How much smaller is the current Forester than an older Outback? I'm a bit worried about that. Driving my Outback daily makes me feel like it isn't big and I wouldn't want to go smaller. My kids are 6 and 3, but most of the family trips are in her mini van. This would be a daily driver but would need ample room for kids in back. I fear the leg room isn't enough since I put the driver's seat all the way back. When I bought my Outback the Forester just came out and I got in the rear seat and I was not impressed with the leg room-but that was six years ago and it may be different now. I'm also not sure about cargo room.....But the price is right and it's here now. I've heard the next Outback might have a 3.0 250 HP non turbo engine in a lighter car than the current Outback. Will there be a turbo Outback? Any thoughts on how a non turbo Outback would do performance wise against the turbo Forester? I tend to think a bigger engine Outback would cost at least several thousand more than a turbo Forester. The price of the turbo Forester, the performance one gets for the $, and maybe having just enough room makes it looks real nice. It sounds like the perfect little bit of everything car.
    Satch
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    just what is "negative" boost anyway, are we talking a vacuum reading? The turbo can be applying "boost" in the sense that the vacuum readings aren't as negative as the NA engine at the same throttle position. End result: more fuel consumption. Although, I am thinking of it in terms of a normal carburator. The fuel injection may be tied into the pedal postion, not the vacuum readings. Too complex to speculate. We need a real subie tech to jump on the subject. On a practical side, so far we have been hearing mpg ratings similar to the EPA numbers.

    John
  • subewannabesubewannabe Posts: 403
    to change the discussion name.
    HOST...the new name , my suggestion:

    Forester XT: smoke 'em if you got 'em!

    Mark
  • kenskens Posts: 5,869
    John: The turbo gauge is really a manifold vacuum gauge. I believe a "negative" reading can still be had with the turbo running so you're right -- it'll probably show less negative pressure compared to a NA engine.

    Jack: A lot of WRX owners have installed Defi gauges instead of the stock one. The stock gauge uses MPa units where as the Defi displays psi.

    Ken
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    SteveSatch says, "When I bought my Outback the Forester just came out and I got in the rear seat and I was not impressed with the leg room-but that was six years ago and it may be different now."

    I'd like to tell you it's a lot better, but...
    The 2nd generation Foresters ('03-on) are claimed to have approximately an inch more backseat kneeroom. It's still very tight back there if, as you say, you need the front seat all the way back. You can improve the rear situation a bit by adjusting the driver's seat higher vertically (because that raises the angled seatback straight up); at the maximum height setting, things in back aren't quite so tight. This works OK if you don't have the sunroof; otherwise, headroom becomes an issue.

    The Forester would be considerably improved (in my opinion) if the wheelbase (but not the overall length) was lengthened by about 2", with the entire increase plugged into the rear doors and backseat kneeroom. This would (by moving the backseat rearward) sacrifice about 1 cu.ft of rear cargo area with the seats up, but none with the seat folded.
    - jack
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    My dealer just phoned. My silver 5-speed was just unloaded from the truck. I'm headed his way to see it. Unfortunately, they only do delivery preps on weekdays, so I can't actually get it until Monday! Grrrrr.

    - jack
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I could not see the fuel guage unless I leaned forward. Keep in mind it was near empty, but then that's the most important area to read if you think about it.

    18/23 is nothing to right home about, but let's put this into perspective. I think maybe our expectations were way too high. Let's compare.

    The Vue V6/auto gets 19/25, but with just 181hp and 195 lb-ft, and it feels slower than the non-turbo Forester. Plus it's AWD is part-time.

    The new 3.5l V6 Santa Fe is much worse than the XT, I forget exactly but it's closer to 15/20 or so, and I bet the XT will still outrun it.

    OK, the STi is better, but it's more aerodynamic, and the wimps at the EPA are light foots that probably never pass 3500 rpm, so the boost hardly ever comes into play. In fact the light pressure turbo's tuning would mean the XT would be using more of its power on the EPA dyno than the STi would.

    Real world, do you really think an STi will get better mileage? Anyone wanna bet?

    -juice
  • jason_elsjason_els Posts: 57
    What about the performance gauge pack? Could that be installed instead? I recall it does include the same gauge as for the turbo. I don't see why it wouldn't work.
This discussion has been closed.