Well, if the wheelbase is the most significant change, they should be able to come up with a highly usable car (interior room increases) without necessarily adding weight or making the car feel cumbersome. Personally, the H4 is a peppy power plant for the Legacy/Outback under normal road conditions, so if some of the changes mentioned are made to the engine to boost its power output, it certainly would not be rendered obsolete simply due to modest gains in size.
As for the 3-liter H6, from all I have read about the changes made to create the 3.6 liter, it already is rendered obsolete. Other than using up already manufactured parts, what advantages does it really provide that could induce Subaru to keep it around?
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I know lots of folks do this anyway, but now Subaru is making it official. Makes you kinda wonder if they've been running into wear-and-tear issues with turbos?
Okay, I will certainly grant you that, but why? What advantages would it provide over the 3.6? The engine is the same on the outside (right?), so there are no space advantages.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
My guess is they would offer the 3.6T with both a 6MT and 5EAT. This car though would be heavy, especially in top-trim so I could see maybe 3 engines being offered:
2.5di 3.0i 3.6t
I also agree with bob that we may see a 3.0 offered in the top-tier of the Forester line as well.
There's nothing wrong with the 3.0 H-6. I think there's room for it, especially as a premium trim level Impreza or Forester. It falls neatly in between the 2.5 and 3.6 engines. Cost too much to re-tune it to run or regular? I doubt it.
I think for the next larger Legacy and Outback the 3.6 is the way to go.
It seems logical to me that Subaru will follow the big 3 (toyota, honda, nissan ) and just use the 3.6. The 2.5T fills the gap the 3.0 would leave anyway, unless Subaru is going to start shying away from Turbos!
I always felt the 3.0 was just not enough power for the Legacy/Outback.
I disagree Tom. A lot of people don't want turbos—and now that Subaru is saying all '08 turbos REQUIRE oil changes every 3,750 miles, there will be fewer still customers once this news becomes widespread.
I'm telling ya, the 2.5 turbo is not a substitute for the 3.0 H-6. Not eveyone wants a turbo, and I'm convinced their new oil change requirement for turbos is going to hurt sales of turbos.
I'm not sure of that. With most dealerships already pushing their own schedule for maintenance (usually a schedule 2 or severe), most people just go ahead with that. And Subaru oil changes aren't that expensive.
I'm still am wondering about this change in the service requirement - even w/o a Subie in my garage. If there were any issues with the turbos, we'd have seen reports from forum members here about issues of their own, wouldn't we? Are we just not seeing them here? Anyone see problems with the turbos on Nabisco or any other Subie sites?
What if they switched the requirement to synthetic for the turbos and extended the mileage to 5k? What is the service requirement on the Evo? My S40 T5 has a 7500 mile service interval for oil changes and sythetic is not required but is listed as acceptable in the book.
Some folks over at Nabisco, who work at dealers, said they've seen some problems. They weren't very specific, so who knows...
The point is: It does raise suspicion about the long-term durability of their turbos. If SOA is now rejecting 7,500 oil changes for turbos, it can't help but raise doubts with current turbo owners—and certainly with those considering buying one. I have no doubt it will make life a bit more difficult for Subie salesman trying to sell turbos. Maybe not so for WRXs, but more so for Forester, Legacy and Outback customers. If I were debating between a Outback XT and an LL Bean H-6 Outback, I'd be more inclined to opt for the LL Bean now. I'd go for the XT only if I wanted a manual, but most Outback customers seem to prefer automatics.
Perhaps more of their cars are being leased. People who lease typically don't treat their cars as well as those that own. The change reduces warrantee claims and helps reduce repair costs at lease end.
From what I've been hearing is that folks have been very lax in their oil change intervals and checking their oil, which has led to the turbos running dry and causing issues. Hence the shorter interval so folks will actually do it every 5k miles.
A 3.0 H-6, tuned to run on regular, would work well in either the smaller Forester or Impreza, as part of a luxury package
The problem is that the "retuning" would require the new cylinder head castings of the 3.6. They are redesigned to eliminate hot spots in a front cylinder according to Subaru technical article published in Automotive Engineering. Eliminating the hot spot is what permits use of 87 octane, they say.
Still doable in my book. Carmakers constantly improve engines, be it engine castings or whatever. I understand direct injection will start showing up in the next year or so, which is long overdue.
Bob I agree; the revised castings are not as big a deal as the more difficult engine assembly required for the 3.6...which may increase cost. Direct injection itself would mean head mods so both changes could be made at the same time. However, the 2.5l might be very adequate with DI.
I understand what you are saying Bob, and sure having another engine in the Subie lineup would have some place, but given that the 3.6 is basically the same size I think it's too much to ask of Subaru to have 2 H6s. If I wanted a 6 I would want more power and torque. If I want better fuel economy I would go with the 4. I just don't think there are many people in the middle, at least not enough to warrant another engine.
I agree with Dave, add DI to the 2.5 at it would come very close to the power output of the 3.0 H6.
As for the Turbo, I think Subaru should just use sythetic oil and lengthen the oil change interval. It just makes sense to use synthetics in high performance engines. If you buy a turbo you already have to put in premium unleaded, why not just pay a little more for synthetic oil as well? It's just part of the ownership experience. If they don't want to do that they can buy the H6.
The "policy change" for Turbos, as Subaru calls it in Drive Magazine, states that the shortened oil change interval applies to MY 08 models. There is no change in the oil change interval for earlier model years. I'm no expert on the subject, but if there were a problem with Turbos in earler MYs, I would expect Subaru to require a shorter oil change interval for earlier years as well.
The mandatory premium fuel requirement and its extra cost has kept me away from a Turbo.
As has been stated, you need to pay to play. When I push my car on the track and come off with literally smoking Hawk HPs pads, I'm not complaining that I only am getting about 10k miles out of em. Same goes for folks who want turbos, Premium fuel, Synthetic Oil, etc. are all part of the game....
my parents have a 3.0 H-6 and I gotta say......it isn't my favorite. Heavy, not significantly faster than the 2.5, and waaaaay thirstier. My parents had the "gotta have a six cylinder" blinders on when they got it and have regretted it ever since.
Hey, the new STi looks better than I thought it would. I wonder if it's going to be 'softer' though? It's going to need something to keep up with the new Evo. Another 50 horses would be nice.
The real question is, does the 3.0l cost any less to manufacture than the 3.6l H6? The 3.6 has AVCS and those unique connecting rods.
If not, I don't see why they should bother. Aren't the external dimensions pretty close? Perhaps the 3.6l would not fit in the Forester and Impreza, then that would be one reason to continue it.
For the Legacy and Outback, they should just phase out the 3.0l and go with the 3.6l.
If they phase out the 3.0 in favor of the 3.6 (in the Forester), then they had better come out with a 4.0 for the 'Beca.
I don't have a problem per say with the 3.6 being used in smaller Subarus, but in doing so, that's going to knock some of the wind out of the Tribeca's appeal.
I officially celebrated my mid-life crisis by getting a silver SLK350 with 6-speed MT :shades: I’ll be the first to admit that if you’d told me 5 years ago that I’d be driving a Benz I would have told you that you were nuts :P But then that was before the new SLK came out (which I immediately fell in love with).
This particular “baby Benz” is a 2005 (which was the first year of the current gen model) and is pretty loaded with the AMG Sports Pkg, Power Pkg and Heating Pkg. The heating pkg includes the “Air Scarf” (which is unique to the SLK), it operates by blowing warm air on the back of the driver’s neck and allows for comfortable top-down driving even when it’s quite cool out.
I took it for a top-down spin on some twisty mountain roads this past weekend and am quite pleased with its handling and power band. It corners with almost zero body lean and has gobs of power. Oh and as an added bonus on the 200 mile downhill return trip I averaged over 32 mpg!
At the B&B where we stayed were two other couples and each were proud owners of original edition 17-year old Miatas. They both professed un-dying love for their cars but when they got to see the power top of the SLK along with the roomy trunk (relatively speaking of course) and all the other lux amenities I just may have made a couple of converts
I know there are plenty of skeptics who don’t view the SLK as a true sports car but the combination of “sports car like” performance and handling, a power hardtop, great looks along with lux features sealed the deal for me
"...my parents have a 3.0 H-6 and I gotta say......it isn't my favorite. Heavy, not significantly faster than the 2.5, and waaaaay thirstier."
We've currently got an '06 Legacy sedan 2.5i SE AT & '06 Outback wgn 3.0R AT... Legacy's 2.5 can't keep up with the 3.0, even in the heavier Outback. I do enjoy the feel of the 2.5 quite a bit in the Legacy, but the 3.0 propels the Outback with much smoother, consistent power delivery and more highway passing oomph than our Legacy. We had the 2.5 in an '04 Outback and it just had no oomph.
Yeah, the H6 is thirsty, though it wouldn't feel quite so bad if they didn't recommend Premium grade. Our H6 has 19k miles, probably a 50/50 mix of highway & city, and is averaging about 21.5 MPG. Our Legacy has 20k miles, probably a 70 hwy/30 city mix, and is averaging about 27 MPG.
wowie, my parents are getting something like 18 city/20 highway. They are conservative drivers and swear the car's maintenance schedule has been adhered to.
City MPG's pretty close... hwy's 3-4 MPG lower than what we've been getting, though. Not an extreme difference, so maybe it's a combination of little things, or just average variation. What model year & how many miles? Do they put premium-grade fuel in? Tires underinflated? Rooftop carrier or some type of rack? They can always try removing the crossbars, too, if they don't use 'em often. (I kinda like that look anyway - a touch more sportwagon, less SUV. I have 'em on now, though.)
Very pleased with the 2.5's economy in the Legacy. We've been above the original rating by 10%... in fact, we've gotten 35+MPG on a couple of all-highway trips (at speeds of about 70, deliberately trying to achieve optimum MPG). We must be doing much better compared to the new ratings. It probably also helps that this is my wife's daily driver and she's... err... somewhat less liberal in her rapid application of the throttle... than I am.
My tires made a big difference in milage on the LGT. I went from 23mpg in the city and 28mpg on the highway down to 18 city and 24 on the highway just switching from 225-40-17 tires to sticky 235-45-17 tires.
Did I happen to mention that Scottsdale AZ has a ridiculous number of luxury cars? While I live on the "other side of the tracks" (or in this case - canal), one of the main roads I frequently take goes thru the more affluent sections of town. When stopped at a light I can easily lose count of the number of Benzs, Bimmers, Lexuses, Porsches, etc that pass by. Seeing a Ferrari or Lamborghini isn't unusual nor is a Bentley. Last week while driving to work I was behind a Porsche Carrera GT. I knew it was expensive (6 figures easy) but had no idea how expensive until I looked it up that night. How about $400k! :surprise:
When I visited my sister in central Illinois recently, you could drive all day and count the number of imports (Hondas, Toyotas, etc) on the fingers of one hand! Around here, it’s practically the opposite :P
Anyway, I find it interesting how the mix of makes and models varies so widely depending on what part of the country you’re in. Then of course there’s Subaru which can be seen in abundance any place that has hills and gets much snow :P
We're racking up the mileage now, closing on 2000. MPG has improved to 26 mixed, and I expect that to climb as break-in continues. The car continues to be a roomy, breezy, comfy cruiser. HVAC is fantastic compared to any of the subes I have owned; stereo quality is pretty good. I have gotten more comfortable with its handling, which is still....uh....unremarkable. It pushes quite a bit, but again I must say the tires are a big problem. Overall the car is living up to expectations, good and bad. Niggly complaints- wheel mounted radio controls are so limited in function as to be essentially useless. No illuminated switchgear, unlike my friend's 8 year old Passat. Needs an armrest extention badly. Hubcap design prone to curbage in the center. The engine is proving to be the best part, seriously let down by the slushbox...seriously. This 2.4l VVTi is a nice piece.
So yea. The car is best out on the highway, and unhappy in the twisties. A capable comfortable family/fleet sedan, it is more than adequate for what its mission is. Mind you, mine is pretty basic, so it is missing the bells and whistles that many buyers would sign up for.
HVAC is fantastic compared to any of the subes I have owned;
Let's hope Toyota can help Subaru improve HVAC. My 2002 Passat had much better HVAC than my 2005 3.0R VDC Outback. But my Outback stays out of the repair bay!
I haven't been on this board for a while. I bought (or rather my husband did) a 2003 Forester, new in June 2003. It made engine noise so I took it to the dealer. They put in a rebuilt engine. My Forester had less than 37,000 kms on it. and more than likely that rebuilt engine has a lot more kms on it. I was planning to keep the Forester for a long time. I had it rustproofed every year and took really good care of it, taking it a long distance to a Subaru dealer for even an oil change. My husband feels we should dump it. Not only that but he will not get another Subaru for me. I've been a Subaru costomer for over 20 years so this is all a very hard pill to swallow.
Questions which might help the decision making at this point are: 1. Does my Forester have a higher resale now (with the 3 year extended engine warranty) than in spring next year (when the loan finishes). 2. Do the new Foresters have a different (better) engine? 3. Are there any "piston slap" problems in the new Foresters? 4. There is a rumour that the Forester will get a new engine - when is that?
I'll admit I'm a bit envious. I like the Miata but it is very basic. That's both good and bad - it's simple, pure, nothing breaks, but there are also not many amenities.
I would like to have your heated seats and that warm air on the back of my neck!
what kind of engine does the Impreza have and what kinds of engine problems (if any?).
The one thing both I and my husband agree upon is getting rid of the 2003 Forester. The question is when to do it and what to buy instead. My husband says absolutely no more Subaru and I am trying to convince him otherwise - maybe fore an Impreza instead. What else is there out there really?
Comments
Sounds good to me.
As for the 3-liter H6, from all I have read about the changes made to create the 3.6 liter, it already is rendered obsolete. Other than using up already manufactured parts, what advantages does it really provide that could induce Subaru to keep it around?
Bob
http://www.drive.subaru.com/Fall07_policy.htm
I know lots of folks do this anyway, but now Subaru is making it official. Makes you kinda wonder if they've been running into wear-and-tear issues with turbos?
Bob
The other is market positioning within the brand; the bigger more expensive models get a bigger more powerful engine, that sort of thinking.
Bob
2.5di
3.0i
3.6t
I also agree with bob that we may see a 3.0 offered in the top-tier of the Forester line as well.
-mike
Bob
-mike
Honda, Toyota, and Nissan all use 3.5l V6s. GM has moved to a 3.6l and Ford to a 3.5l Duratec.
Few use a small V6, plus Subaru's 4 banger is big so it may be too close of a gap.
I think for the next larger Legacy and Outback the 3.6 is the way to go.
Bob
I always felt the 3.0 was just not enough power for the Legacy/Outback.
Now, a 3.0 turbo would be nice.
tom
I disagree Tom. A lot of people don't want turbos—and now that Subaru is saying all '08 turbos REQUIRE oil changes every 3,750 miles, there will be fewer still customers once this news becomes widespread.
Bob
You mention Forester, yet the Forester has to compete with the 3.5l RAV4, for instance.
GM also put a 3.6l in the new Vue. Even Hyundai uses large V6s in compact SUVs.
Bob
I'm still am wondering about this change in the service requirement - even w/o a Subie in my garage. If there were any issues with the turbos, we'd have seen reports from forum members here about issues of their own, wouldn't we? Are we just not seeing them here? Anyone see problems with the turbos on Nabisco or any other Subie sites?
What if they switched the requirement to synthetic for the turbos and extended the mileage to 5k? What is the service requirement on the Evo? My S40 T5 has a 7500 mile service interval for oil changes and sythetic is not required but is listed as acceptable in the book.
-Brian
The point is: It does raise suspicion about the long-term durability of their turbos. If SOA is now rejecting 7,500 oil changes for turbos, it can't help but raise doubts with current turbo owners—and certainly with those considering buying one. I have no doubt it will make life a bit more difficult for Subie salesman trying to sell turbos. Maybe not so for WRXs, but more so for Forester, Legacy and Outback customers. If I were debating between a Outback XT and an LL Bean H-6 Outback, I'd be more inclined to opt for the LL Bean now. I'd go for the XT only if I wanted a manual, but most Outback customers seem to prefer automatics.
I don't think we've heard the last of this.
Bob
Perhaps more of their cars are being leased. People who lease typically don't treat their cars as well as those that own. The change reduces warrantee claims and helps reduce repair costs at lease end.
Charlie
-mike
The problem is that the "retuning" would require the new cylinder head castings of the 3.6. They are redesigned to eliminate hot spots in a front cylinder according to Subaru technical article published in Automotive Engineering. Eliminating the hot spot is what permits use of 87 octane, they say.
Bob
I agree; the revised castings are not as big a deal as the more difficult engine assembly required for the 3.6...which may increase cost. Direct injection itself would mean head mods so both changes could be made at the same time. However, the 2.5l might be very adequate with DI.
Dave
I agree with Dave, add DI to the 2.5 at it would come very close to the power output of the 3.0 H6.
As for the Turbo, I think Subaru should just use sythetic oil and lengthen the oil change interval. It just makes sense to use synthetics in high performance engines. If you buy a turbo you already have to put in premium unleaded, why not just pay a little more for synthetic oil as well? It's just part of the ownership experience. If they don't want to do that they can buy the H6.
tom
The mandatory premium fuel requirement and its extra cost has kept me away from a Turbo.
Martin
-mike
tom
If not, I don't see why they should bother. Aren't the external dimensions pretty close? Perhaps the 3.6l would not fit in the Forester and Impreza, then that would be one reason to continue it.
For the Legacy and Outback, they should just phase out the 3.0l and go with the 3.6l.
I don't have a problem per say with the 3.6 being used in smaller Subarus, but in doing so, that's going to knock some of the wind out of the Tribeca's appeal.
Bob
-Frank
I officially celebrated my mid-life crisis by getting a silver SLK350 with 6-speed MT :shades: I’ll be the first to admit that if you’d told me 5 years ago that I’d be driving a Benz I would have told you that you were nuts :P But then that was before the new SLK came out (which I immediately fell in love with).
This particular “baby Benz” is a 2005 (which was the first year of the current gen model) and is pretty loaded with the AMG Sports Pkg, Power Pkg and Heating Pkg. The heating pkg includes the “Air Scarf” (which is unique to the SLK), it operates by blowing warm air on the back of the driver’s neck and allows for comfortable top-down driving even when it’s quite cool out.
I took it for a top-down spin on some twisty mountain roads this past weekend and am quite pleased with its handling and power band. It corners with almost zero body lean and has gobs of power. Oh and as an added bonus on the 200 mile downhill return trip I averaged over 32 mpg!
At the B&B where we stayed were two other couples and each were proud owners of original edition 17-year old Miatas. They both professed un-dying love for their cars but when they got to see the power top of the SLK along with the roomy trunk (relatively speaking of course) and all the other lux amenities I just may have made a couple of converts
I know there are plenty of skeptics who don’t view the SLK as a true sports car but the combination of “sports car like” performance and handling, a power hardtop, great looks along with lux features sealed the deal for me
-Frank
We've currently got an '06 Legacy sedan 2.5i SE AT & '06 Outback wgn 3.0R AT... Legacy's 2.5 can't keep up with the 3.0, even in the heavier Outback. I do enjoy the feel of the 2.5 quite a bit in the Legacy, but the 3.0 propels the Outback with much smoother, consistent power delivery and more highway passing oomph than our Legacy. We had the 2.5 in an '04 Outback and it just had no oomph.
Yeah, the H6 is thirsty, though it wouldn't feel quite so bad if they didn't recommend Premium grade. Our H6 has 19k miles, probably a 50/50 mix of highway & city, and is averaging about 21.5 MPG. Our Legacy has 20k miles, probably a 70 hwy/30 city mix, and is averaging about 27 MPG.
A really sweet looking ride.
Jim
Bob
tom
Our '06 OB was rated 19 city/26 hwy, and under the new ratings is 17/24, which is pretty close to what we're getting.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySide.jsp?column=1&id=22593- -
Very pleased with the 2.5's economy in the Legacy. We've been above the original rating by 10%... in fact, we've gotten 35+MPG on a couple of all-highway trips (at speeds of about 70, deliberately trying to achieve optimum MPG). We must be doing much better compared to the new ratings. It probably also helps that this is my wife's daily driver and she's... err... somewhat less liberal in her rapid application of the throttle... than I am.
-mike
When I visited my sister in central Illinois recently, you could drive all day and count the number of imports (Hondas, Toyotas, etc) on the fingers of one hand! Around here, it’s practically the opposite :P
Anyway, I find it interesting how the mix of makes and models varies so widely depending on what part of the country you’re in. Then of course there’s Subaru which can be seen in abundance any place that has hills and gets much snow :P
-Frank
So yea. The car is best out on the highway, and unhappy in the twisties. A capable comfortable family/fleet sedan, it is more than adequate for what its mission is. Mind you, mine is pretty basic, so it is missing the bells and whistles that many buyers would sign up for.
Let's hope Toyota can help Subaru improve HVAC. My 2002 Passat had much better HVAC than my 2005 3.0R VDC Outback. But my Outback stays out of the repair bay!
Questions which might help the decision making at this point are:
1. Does my Forester have a higher resale now (with the 3 year extended engine warranty) than in spring next year (when the loan finishes).
2. Do the new Foresters have a different (better) engine?
3. Are there any "piston slap" problems in the new Foresters?
4. There is a rumour that the Forester will get a new engine - when is that?
I'll admit I'm a bit envious. I like the Miata but it is very basic. That's both good and bad - it's simple, pure, nothing breaks, but there are also not many amenities.
I would like to have your heated seats and that warm air on the back of my neck!
My rule - above 40 degrees and the top is down!
The EJ25 has been slowly refined, but it's pretty much the same basic engine.
Piston slap affected only a few, and I haven't heard of that issue on the 03+ models, not that I can recall anyway.
New engine? At this point we're all just speculating, some hoping it gets an H6, I suppose.
I bet the 2.5l will still be the base engine, even in 2009.
The one thing both I and my husband agree upon is getting rid of the 2003 Forester. The question is when to do it and what to buy instead. My husband says absolutely no more Subaru and I am trying to convince him otherwise - maybe fore an Impreza instead. What else is there out there really?
Ask the dealer if you can bring it home to show your husband. That way he at least has to SEE it.
Then decide.
I traded my 98 Forester for a van, for the space, but I miss it and will buy another, there's no doubt.