Subaru Crew: Suggestions for Subaru

ateixeira

I know Colin's going to break out his calculator, but it would be a hard sell for my wife to agree to any vehicle that absolutely required premium fuel.

So for people like her that would be a big plus.

Bob's saying a de-tuned EJ257 rather than a built-up EJ255.

Outbacks still outsell Legacys 3 to 1, something like that. And the OB costs more, go figure. Must be all image.

-juice

rsholland

Outbacks still outsell Legacys 3 to 1, something like that. And the OB costs more, go figure. Must be all image.

Besides image, the Legacy has always (and continues) to get short-changed when it comes to content as compared to the Outback. For example the Outback gets:

• Roof rack cross bars
• Outlet in cargo area
• Rubber cargo mat
• Outback XT Limited gets a rear fold-down center seat armrest, whereas the corresponding Legacy GT wagon doesn't

Those kind of items are all very useful, and add up in terms of dollars and in customer's minds. I think many customers would just rather get those items in the Outback "package," rather than upgrade (pay more!) in a Legacy. Also, some of those items can't be had in a Legacy at any price.

Bob

ateixeira

Base Outback gets heated seats, Legacy doesn't, also.

OB is also pre-wired for towing, at least that was the case for the previous generation. I doubt that has changed. And I didn't see a harness in the spare tire well of the GT, either.

-juice

bluesubie

Just squeeze more horses from the N/A 2.5. You've got to pay to play.

My wife only uses premium in her 99 OB.

-Dennis

rsholland

Just squeeze more horses from the N/A 2.5. You've got to pay to play

Any by doing that, the N/A 2.5 may then require premium. So no, I don't agree with that. Having a 2.5 turbo that matches (or closely matches) the current F-XT power, but runs on regular, seems like a win-win to me. I don't know why anybody would argue against that.

Bob

ateixeira

Well, it would have to be an intermediate engine, one of 3 options. Turbos cost a lot and some people are averse to them. Subaru would have to keep a 2.5l base engine without it.

They can do better than 168hp, though. Maybe 175hp with AVCS and still run on regular?

-juice

dcm61

My '89 GL-10 1.8L Turbo ran on regular (87 octane) and that's what Subaru specified. OK, it only had 115HP and 134 lb/ft. but that was a 30 to 35% increase in HP over the base 1.8L's 85HP or 90HP.

DaveM

ateixeira

It can be done for a light boost scenario. To be honest I was hoping the F-XT would be that type of setup. But then that's probably why the power is so understated.

What if Subaru actually did offer a 210hp turbo, instead of the 240hp or so the F-XT is dyno'ing?

-juice

rsholland

Well, it would have to be an intermediate engine, one of 3 options. Turbos cost a lot and some people are averse to them. Subaru would have to keep a 2.5l base engine without it..

Absolutely! That was always the plan I had in mind.

Bob

pon1

As per a previous thread, give us a new and interesting powertrain that makes close to 200 hp and runs on regular....be it H6, H4 or turbo.

Anyone know if it is possible to produce a turbo H4 that happily runs on regular, maybe producing a "real" 210 hp.

We're still getting the 240 hp FXT, but I may have to gas it up alone. My wife simply hates the thought of "wasting" $3.00 per fill up, and will remind me of this for the next 10 years.

Unless Subaru fix this by developing anew base engine, the less committed will shop elsewhere.

I think the same problem is afflicting the Passat as all they sell are the premium fuel 1.8T or V6. The only models selling here in numbers are the TDi diesels...

p0926

Just get the FXT and use regular gas. Assuming a 10% performance penalty (is that accurate?) you'll be getting close to a true 210 hp output :-)

-Frank

volkov

If you are constantly putting regular in the FXT, remember not to use the happy pedal at all. You want the higher octane for those moments that the boost spikes to prevent pre-detonation. Yes, I'm sure there is a lot of leeway there, but it would be an awful shame...
Given the choice why not just get the 2.5 and drive it like it's stolen as opposed to driving the 2.5T like grandma? Premium is just not a big deal to me because I don't rack up the miles. $3 extra a tank is less than $75 a year. Get over it. Maybe try to convince the DW that you get better mileage with the higher octane. You'll even find plenty of regular people who'll agree with that statement. Just practise saying it with a straight face.;-)

Nicholas

p0926

Nicholas- While I agree that some people who are too cheap to buy premium would be better served by getting the N/A 2.5 Forester, I disagree with your presumptive statement that you have to drive like grandma when using regular gas or risk pre-detonation. Subaru has clearly stated that premium is only recommended in order to achieve maximum performance. Were there a risk of damaging the engine, I’m quite certain that Subaru would have required premium. Otherwise they would be opening themselves to costly liability claims when engines started to blow.

-Frank

rsholland

Frank, really? I thought it was required. If what you're saying is correct, then that puts a whole different light on the subject.

Bob

p0926

Bob- Well Subaru certainly prefers that you use premium and says that the engine was designed for premium but the owner's manual plainly states:

"For optimum performance and driveability, it is recommeded that you use premium grade unleaded gasoline"

-Frank

volkov

You'll notice I chose my words carefully. I do think they will have built in an obvious safety margin.
But if we take your presumption of a 10% drop in performance, won't there be a similar drop in fuel economy? Sounds cheaper to run premium in the first place. That was my real point.
This is different than the usual debate. A well tuned car designed for regular octane won't see any performance improvement with premium. But a car tuned for high octane will run more poorly on regular and that will include gas mileage. I just have no idea how big that differential is. I can honestly understand concerns re. the difference in gas mileage from an environmental standpoint between the 2.5 and 2.5T because it is very real. But as to the cost difference for premium I find it difficult to get excited since it really is a very small number relative to the cost of ownership of these vehicles.

jfl

With the computers able to retard the ignition, I'd figure the cars can run safely on regular.

Now a days, it's probably not a big deal.

Jim

volkov

Just wandered over, and this same low octane vs premium debate is going on over at Nabisco.
Weird.
And there is a big difference between a car running safely and running well.

p0926

Nicholas- But if we take your presumption of a 10% drop in performance, won't there be a similar drop in fuel economy?

The answer is no. I've been using mid-grade for the past couple of months and my mpg avg has actually gone up. I believe that JB also switched to mid-grade with no adverse effects.

-Frank

bluesubie

The manual also states:

"If premium unleaded gasoline is not available, regular unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 87 AKI or higher may be temporarily used...Using a gasoline with a lower octane rating can cause persistent and heavy knocking, which can damage the engine."

IMO you're not necessarily going to see any detrimental (small or large) effects from using a lower octane over a period of a few months or a few tanks. Why gamble?

-Dennis

rsholland

ateixeira

Subaru had stated the original H6 made 212hp with premium, 208hp with regular.

Turbos are a little different because you have effectively higher compression ratios, so the risk of detonation is higher. Forester is light-boost, compared to the Legacy and STi, so it may tolerate a lower octane diet a lot better than those cars.

-juice

pon1

My FXT will get nothing but premium. If it suffers premature wear or a major meltdown, I can blame something other than my penny-pinching.

So, do we think Subaru can continue indefinitely by offering the choice of either the N/A 2.5 H4 or a premium fuel engine. Or if we assume they they want to phase out the N/A 2.5 H4 in the base models, what do thay replace it with?? Would an "all premium fuel" line up of the current H6 or 2.5T chase away market share, or is it consistent with the move "upscale".

I'd hate to see GM powerplants, or even a move from the H-engines. A hybrid or a diesel would be an intresting choice, but assume it's a few years off.

JP

ohtoma

I'm writing in new to the "premium fuel" debate. For less than 2% performance decrease, the 10% increase in gas price seems unacceptable, especially when 91 costs stations ~4% more than 87 on average (from some USA today article). The FXT engine spec advertises a "Engine Control Module (ECM) with adaptive driving habits capability". If the ECM isn't spending some of it's time to sense engine knocking, what's it contemplating -- JLo's baby, the Mike Tyson bum story? Don't let them guilt you into 91 -- if that FXT ain't-a-knockin, don't, um, you know what I mean.

locke2c

there is a tiny bit of truth in that if the engine doesn't knock, you have enough octane. you must access this in the engine's most severe usage though-- hard acceleration, especially uphill.

**BUT**

how many people will correctly recognize knock and do the right thing? --which is, immediately reduce throttle input and change to a lower gear if climbing a hill or otherwise accelerating under heavy load.

detonation puts tremendous stress on an engine, many times that of normal combustion. it's just not something you want to risk.

in the winter you can try your 87 octane and be careful about it, but here in the midst of summer heat it just seems like a poor risk with very little to gain.

I'm not breaking out the calculator yet again, but the extra charge for premium is an *insignificant* component of new vehicle ownership.

But hey, it's your car. The knock sensor will *not* protect the engine if you foolishly or obliviously keep the pedal down when detonation occurs. Or if your significant other refuses to buy premium and you've decided this is a battle not worth fighting, then buy something that doesn't require premium.

~c

ohtoma

The FXT doesn't "require" premium fuel, it is recommended. And I would say the extra $150 per year for fuel is significant, enough for a years worth of oil changes!

Has anyone on this site heard knocking with their FXT's? I drove an '04 test drive pretty hard and heard nothing, however this certainly may not be representative.

ateixeira

I'm with Colin there - you have to observe it under load.

My '93 Miata is an interesting case because you dial in the timing manually. Stock in 10 degrees BTDC. You can advance it to 14 degrees, gain a little torque on the low end. I've done this.

But...under load, usually when revs are too low climbing a hill, I do hear an occasional pinging. Especially if the engine is cold. Could just be my mistake - I'm in the wrong gear. Nonetheless, it does happen. I do lift off and down shift quickly, of course.

Some people go as far as 18 degrees, but then you need premium all the time. Plus you get diminishing returns. 10->14 is a bigger gain than 14->18.

Interesting case, IMO. The Subie engines do this automatically, with the knock sensor as just one input for the ECU to process. On the other hand turbos are more succeptible given the higher effective compression.

-juice

jcabin

Boy, the difference between using regular and premium is dramatic in terms of smoothness of acceleration. With regular the car is sluggish. Sure it still has some power, but with premium, the car shifts a lot smoother and accelerates very linearly. This is with a 35th anniversary editition H6-3.0. Feels like a diferent car to me.

ohtoma

Do you hear the pinging in your '93 Miata or in the FXT? I imagine the Miata doesn't have an ECU or knock sensor, so the timing must be adjusted manually depending on the leadness of the foot!

ateixeira

Miata, my Forester is a '98 L model. The latter has never pinged once.

-juice

p0926

First off I agree that logically, the additional 20 cents a gal that premium costs is insignificant compared to the overall cost of ownership. Sure $150 (or in my case closer to $250) is a chunk of change but it's still less than 1% of what the Forester costs.

Now as to whether you can safely use a lower octane... well that's a different matter. The technical specifications for the engine aren't available so none of us can definitively say one way or the other. Subaru (who does have that data) says that it's okay but certainly doesn't encourage it and it appears that they're hedging their bets by including the blurb in the owner’s manual about the potential for a lower octane to cause heavy knocking.

From my experience using 89 octane the mpg has actually increased slightly but I have also noticed an occasional slight hesitation when accelerating. Now is that because the ECM was doing its job and retarding the timing? Quite possibly. I think I’ll run a few tanks of 91 octane to see if the hesitation goes away. I do know that my engine has not knocked once on the lower octane. And yes I do know what to listen for since my 01 Forester with its N/A 2.5 engine did sometimes knock when accelerating under load.

-Frank

bluesubie

Now is that because the ECM was doing its job and retarding the timing? Quite possibly.

Of course it was. You are not allowed to post any complaints, here or with your dealer, regarding lack of power, hesitation or pinging. ;-)

-Dennis

ateixeira

Compare the F-XT's boost to the STi, and if the STi requires premium, then surely the F-XT's requirement has to be lower.

-juice

locke2c

$150 per year is significant?

let's see... $20k car over 5 years is going to be about $350-$400 per month, your insurance is going to vary a lot depending on locale and your record, say anywhere from $40-200 per month, and then registration / property tax which also varies a whole lot. your total fuel bill getting 20 mpg driving 15,000 miles would be $1388 for 87 octane (at $1.85/gal, PFA* number I chose for 'average' in today's market) and $1500 for 91/92 octane at $2.00/gal--also PFA.

so yearly we've got:
- $4200-4800 in payments & interest
- $480-2400 in insurance
- $unknown for registration and tax (KS: about $450 for the first year, oof)
- $1388-1500 for fuel

so yes, the premium for premium is totally absurd. why on earth would you compromise performance and risk damaging a $4,000-$5,000 engine?

you're paying a whole lot just to own a new car and especially a nice one making well over 210 horsepower. use the fuel it requires, or at the least strongly recommends.

~Colin
*PFA = Pulled From A.. um, the Air!

locke2c

let's be honest: this premium thing to some of you is like choosing your favorite color. there doesn't have to be rhyme or reason. you just don't want to pay for it, and you hope that you don't have to.

Fuji Heavy engineers didn't choose that premium fuel requirement just arbitrarily, and the knock sensor is NOT a component of the engine management system that is part of normal operation to depend on, like an oxygen sensor for air/fuel mix. The knock sensor is a last measure to avoid damage. Sometimes, it can.

~c
PS my favorite color is blue. LOL

rsholland

One of the reasons I would like to see a regular-friendly turbo is not so much for the cost savings, but for "marketing" reasons. You're correct in the overall scheme of things the cost of premium isn't that great. It is, however, a HUGE psychological barrier for many. I bet Subaru loses a lot of potential turbo customers the moment they find out it needs premium.

Bob

paisan

With todays ECUs your car will just drop in MPG and Performance to accomodate the poor level of fuel you put in. So you spend extra $ to get the XT Turbo motor and then proceed to put in crappy gas which knocks down the power and mileage on it. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Both my cars require Premium (92 SVX and 94 Legacy Turbo) and I have no problem paying the slight increase in fuel costs, I knew the costs involved when I bought them.

-mike

locke2c

I totally agree, Bob. In fact the more I think about a low-pressure turbo 2.0L as Subaru's base engine making ~170-175 HP but *very* good low-end torque, the more I like the sound of it. and of course, tuned for 87 octane.

The reason I say 2.0L instead of 2.5 is to get better mileage on the highway and because the 2.5L even with a low-pressure turbo is going to be way more than enough standard horsepower to get into the game. 170-ish seems just about right.

~Colin

rsholland

In fact the more I think about a low-pressure turbo 2.0L as Subaru's base engine making ~170-175 HP but *very* good low-end torque, the more I like the sound of it. and of course, tuned for 87 octane.

Isn't that what the European F-XTs have? 2.0 w/170 horsepower. I think (?) they run on premium though.

Bob

ateixeira

Depends - if it's already a stretch to afford the car...well, maybe you shouldn't stretch in the first place. LOL

For us it's not an issue of affordability, it's a bad previous experience with the clogged up fuel system in our 626. $500 for a throttle body service after a premium-exclusive diet, ugh.

Wife swore off premium fuel then and there, perhaps unreasonable, but I don't even think Colin's calculator could convincer her otherwise. ;-)

-juice

paisan

That car also cost you a bundle in Axle/CV/Bearings no? So I wouldn't say it was the premium fuel requirement that did it in.

-mike

ohtoma

I suppose $1300-$1500 over five years isn't significant, however it still seems like a waste for 4 HP. And the "knock sensor as a last resort" is a bit silly, since the ECU controls this sensor, along a half dozen other sensors to monitor engine performance, including the timing advance/delay. I expect this was a case of the Fugi Heavy Engineers working with the Fugi Heavy Marketers to get that last 4HP!

Here's an article on Porsches and octane:
http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=2749&cat- - egoryId=9

Here's an artice on the WRX that has some good info:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/projectcars/0206scc_subaruwrx/

locke2c

it's half that, $150 or so per year over 5 is $750.

I know what a knock sensor does. Pulling ignition timing after detonation occurs doesn't prevent damage, nor in all cases does it STOP the detonation!

~c

subearu

are marketing the 2.5 turbos as 'performance' oriented vehicles. that performance was designed with proper fuel in mind. sure, lower octane *can* work. just like higher octance *can* work for vehicles that don't require high octane.

IMO, $150 or so per year is a small price to pay for the grin factor the F-XT provides. I think Nike said it best: just do it! :-)

-Brian

ateixeira

Yes mike, lots of issues there. She/we thought that at least the fuel system would be safe on its caviar diet. Not so...

I think the bottom line is people would like to see just a little more juice from the 2.5l engine. Or an intermediate engine.

If you think about it, the 2.5l made 165hp way, way back in 1997. Here we are nearly a decade later and the power has not increased significantly. Weight has, though.

-juice

rsholland

I think all Legacys and Outbacks should have this feature. I think (?) all sedans have this feature, as do Outback H-6s and XTs. On all Legacy wagons and Outback 2.5i wagons, this feature is MIA.

Bob

locke2c

I got one. Two cupholders in it, also.

~c

rsholland

Currently the rear cupholders are located on the rear of the front center console, at the bottom near the floor. The location is inconvenient at best. Putting the cupholders in the center rear armrest is a much better solution.

Bob

locke2c

ah. in that location I have a rear ashtray. AKA tiny, unusable storage since no one smokes in my car.

~c

volkov

There is a difference between the requirements for the STi and FXT. The STi specifies 94 octane as fuel of choice with 91 may be "temporarily used" so there already is a distinction between the high and ultra-high performance engine.
That being said, I do agree that a mini-turbo non-premium engine would be a good idea even if it was purely from a marketing standpoint.