By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
In normal day to day driving with no abuse, an AT would out accelerate the same car(or inferior) with MT?
Forgetting the difference in gearing or weight, I tend to think AT does launch faster dead stop than MT. When I drive my XT/MT smoothly below 3k, I always get out-accelerated by some family car...
Or maybe after 12 years driving MT's, I still don't know how to operate them properly?
Scott- There are plenty of AT drivers who routinely floor it at every launch and don't let up until they reach their desired speed (that includes me when I'm driving a rental :-). So yes, if you're shifting below 3k, you're going to get left behind because their AT equipped cars are shifting right before the redline (of course you're getting much better mpg than them).
The way I see it you have two choices:
a. Take Loosh's suggestion above and you'll be laughing as said family sedan rapidly disappears in your rear-view mirror.
b. Continue to drive conservatively, secure in the knowledge that you can dust the competiton whenever you want.
Of course if you take the "B" route, that begs the question as to why you got the XT in the first place if you weren't going to at least occaisonally open up the throttle ;-)
-Frank P.
I DO occasionally drive it HARDER when I see an open road ahead. It is rather difficult to find here in NYC. To be honest I've never rev past 3.5K.
Yes, I do question my self why I got this car the first place. For now, all I can say is that, it is nice to know that I have one. I'm still babying it at 3000 miles.
But what I wanted to know in the last post was that, AT does launch faster than MT in non-aggressive conditions. Right?
This is probably true for any performance car.
This engine is very durable. Subaru knew how people would drive it when they designed it, so don't be so afraid to rev it. I had a Toyota that I basically ruined by keeping the revs low. At 50,000 miles the engine was all coked up with carbon and needed a valve job amoung other things. The mechanic said "look, sometimes you have to take these out and run em hard now and then".
I test drove an XT AT. It was PLENTY fast off the line for me. Given the BETTER gas mileage attributed to the AT, and the reports of difficulty with the "Hill Holder" on the MT in the very hilly (San Francisco) area I live in, I didn't really see any reason to go for the MT. I've found the XT is plenty exiting in the twisties (I'm sure it will be Better when I ditch the Geolanders, eventually). That excitment wouldn't get appreciably better, for me, with an AT.
In short, even if you wouldn't think of driving an AT "performance" car, you should test drive the AT XT before you buy. You may be surprised! Actually, the only reason I could think of for going for the MT is the potential for lesser repair costs (WAY) down the road.
-Frank P.
P.S. It strikes me that you have to be a real glutton for punishment to routinely drive a MT in NYC!
-Frank P.
-Frank P.
Ahoy! Another XT driver who actually operates as I do.
You need to make better friends with your redline
Why? The redline is the upper limit - the maximum engine speed. IMO, that's for emergencies, not for everyday routine driving. With a car as responsive as an XT, moving along with traffic never demands pushing it to the redline - or even close.
begs the question as to why you got the XT in the first place if you weren't going to at least occaisonally open up the throttle ;-)
I can't speak for f1_rox, but in my case the XT provides a highly desirable margin of surplus power to make every operation more effortless and especially to allow safer passing on 2-lane roads, particularly in challenging mountain terrain. The X/XS, while adequate, do not provide this. That's the entire reason why I bought the turbo - not to blast away at every opportunity in ordinary everyday driving.
To be honest I've never rev past 3.5K.
If higher revs and/or power are not necessary to meet your requirements, then there is nothing wrong with putting lower stress on the machinery. Knowing I have more on tap whenever necessary is completely sufficient for me; I feel no need whatever to demonstrate it.
IMO if you have never reved past 3500 rpm then you haven't really experienced what makes the XT so unique. Do you limit your rpm's out of preference or to save the engine? If it's the latter then it's probably not necessary. As has been pointed out many times in this forum, the XT engine is actually overbuilt for the power it is putting out. It may even harm an engine over time to baby it too much. Obviously blasting out of every light all the time will cause premature wear on any engine, but the occasional (or daily) run up through the gears (no speed shifting) is probably good for the overall health of the engine. Unlike big lazy V8's, small high output engines are designed to provide their best output and efficiency at higher rpm's. My dad once bought a Honda 200 motorcycle after riding Harleys and Indians all his life. He complained that it didn't have any zip at all. I noticed the Honda was red lined at 10,000 rpm and asked him where he normally shifted. About 3500 to 4000 he said. I suggested he wind it up to 8500 or so. He did and couldn't believe the difference.
You don't really need to redline it, but then again if you shift before the torque peak you are not getting peak acceleration.
-juice
I used to own a 90's 3-series i-4(120HP) which the clutch had 90K of NYC miles before I donated it. I drove like a manic during the latter half of my ownership. Then came the XT and I didn't know what to expect. I knew the engine is strong and detuned and all, but wasn't sure how the clutch and AWD(differential?) would hold up. I've read that the WRX clutch are pretty weak but they beefed it up for XT. Since this is my last car to enjoy, I intend to keep it as long as I can.
-Frank P.
-Frank P.
-Les H.
-Frank P.
P.S. Except to say that more = better!
Well put!! I've posted used oil analysis' of my WRX and the OB on bobistheoilguy.com. Those guys are amazed at every Subaru analysis posted there. They say that Subaru's can use any oil because every Subaru oil result posted is excellent.
I agree that if your are not getting close to the redline, you're really missing out on what these engines are about.
If you shift a turbo regularly at 3.5K, what's the point? Get the X/XS. ;-)
-Dennis
John
-Les
I don't know how you can read what I wrote and reply with that. You have somehow totally missed my point.
In my daily driving, the owner of an X/XS would have no difficulty at all keeping up with me, because I'm just matching the flow of traffic. 3,000 RPM shiftpoints are more than enough. I haven't the slightest need or desire to blast away from stoplights, or humiliate Cayennes, or any of the rest. I already know my ride is faster than 99% of what's out there, and I don't need to demonstrate that.
However - and this is the point you somehow missed - in an emergency (say, a 2-lane uphill pass around a semi when an oncoming vehicle unexpectedly appears) - the X/XS driver has nothing more to call on to get around and complete the pass without drama. That is when I'll dig deeper and call on the XT's abundant power.
That's why I bought the turbo instead of the X.
I might need that burst only two or three times a year - but when I need it, the XT will produce.
Len
I think in typical driving around town, the AT and the manual would be pretty even in a stoplight drag below 50, assuming that the manual owner was trying not to abuse the clutch and drivetrain. As I have said before, the torque and lack of turbo lag give the automatic good performance in day to day driving.
However, in a race to higher speeds the efficiency and lower gearing (5 speeds vs. 4) of the manual would win out over the parasitic losses of the auto, leaving the auto behind in a real race at higher speeds. Of course, a clutch dump would completely dust the auto, even if the auto is brake torqued. Let me know if any of you manual guys want to come to Georgia and test my hypothesis.
As a side note, although I love the turbo, if it was primarily my car and I could get a 5 speed, no turbo with leather and a sunroof, I would have had to think long and hard about that.
I know there was a long debate about premium vs 89 octane and the consensus was there isn't much difference. From my experience I'd disagree, and state the extra cost for fuel is well worth it.
Does anyone know how difficult it is to retrofit the interior air filter, as my car didn't come so equipped?
I knew my post would get you going. :-)
Seriously, IMHO the 2.5 NA would've suited you fine. My wife's OB has over 75k miles, and it has handled the few situations that you mentioned nicely. Whether it's the flats of I95, or the twisties of PA and NJ. Like I said, JMHO. :-)
-Dennis
Anyway, does anybody see Subaru making the suspension/steering/brakes match the engine performance of the XT anytime soon?
On the Hill Holder: Sure it could be disabled, but we do a lot of parking on hills. Going forward or backward into a space where you're on a 30% hill is not something enhanced by the Hill Holder. The Hill Holder would only be advantageous when you stop on a hill and want to continue in the same direction. Parking on a hill involves a lot of tricky back and forth.
Finally, it is mentioned that, regarding MT v AT, "in a race...". Just my point. I don't race. As also mentioned, I think it's nice, as Lance would say, to have this power in reserve for when it is NEEDED. It isn't needed, by me at least, for "racing". It is needed when you want to pass a truck on a country two land where you've only got a small break in the double line, or for accident avoidance, and stuff like that.
On the subject of MT vs AT, I have been reading road tests in the car magazines for years. Given the same car one with MT and one with AT, the MT car will almost always out accelerate the AT by a second or more in the 0-60 tests. I believe this is due to the inherent slippage in the auto transmission as well as the extra weight.
JB- I'm with Dennis. When I have a urgent need to accelerate quickly with my 2.5 NA engine, I just down-shift :-)
-Frank P.
The XT is one quick, nimble, vehicle with its current driveline setup that offers good controlled suspension travel to handle most road surface conditions. I don't feel that the engine overpowers the suspension one bit but the limit of adhesion on paved surfaces is the tires, IMO. The brakes haul the XT down nicely but the pedal is a little too soft from what I like. My XT is very tractable through the turns & at speed, & is a pleasure to drive.
Subaru could look at what Datsun (Nissan) did in the early '70's by offering numerous specialty performance parts at the dealer level that were at a very attractive price (240z / 510). That would give those inclined a good avenue to tailor their vehicle to fit their needs without adding unnecessary features & building in price not everyone will appreciate or enjoy. After I sold my modified Spridget, I had a lot of fun beating more expensive Alfa's & BMW's in an auto-x with my humble 510 - plus it could handle an occasional creek bottom or 2...
The XT in its current configuration offers a lot of performance value no other manufacturer can match at the present time. It's a real sleeper & I appreciate its stealth factor.
-Dennis
I wonder if the Vue Redline will have new suspension tuning as well as that engine. The old one simply could not challenge the Forester in the handling dept. The new one is still heavy so it would take a miracle, hee hee.
-juice
Always brakes for those failed passing situations...
JB- I'm with Dennis. When I have a urgent need to accelerate quickly with my 2.5 NA engine, I just down-shift :-)
Maybe you've never experienced a tedious delay behind a long 3-trailer semi - or two - climbing a 2-lane winding mountain road at 35MPH. Eventually a passing opportunity arrives, and you move - downshifting, full throttle, etc. 2/3 of the way through the pass, when you're now thoroughly committed, an unseen oncoming car appears. It's far too late to brake, you're moving too fast and the truck(s) are simply too long to tuck back in behind - and besides, there's often already another car right on your tail, passing the same group behind you. You've already downshifted your X/XS; there's no more left. Now what? These situations are common in the Cascade and Coast Range mountains here, and they can be unnerving at best, and fatal at worst.
To suggest that mere downshifting or braking would suffice when neither is an option indicates that you haven't yet experienced what I'm describing.
I bought the XT to provide the power to pass with a margin of safety in situations where no amount of downshifting or redlining or braking in an XS could possibly have provided the same outcome.
Loosh- Some people are seriously deficient in the humor dept.
?
Guilty, SSBN, hence the nickname. But that ended a third of a century ago.
Still savings my Nav Res pay for a Forester (but am so hung up on fuel efficiency I'll probably forgo the 4.4 axle, turbo...
Understood. Decent fuel economy is obviously high on my list, too. It's a pity that the XT hits with a double whammy - mediocre MPG and the price of premium. For the performance addicts, it's not an issue. For those of us who need the XTra performance but only rarely, it's a significant flaw in an otherwise nearly ideal vehicle.
-Frank P.
John
Actually, this is the first time I’ve replaced a car with something from the same manufacturer. My sole indulgence is autos, and I tend to get a new one every three years or so. I usually jump from brand to brand (Mazda, Toyota, Lexus, BMW over the past years), but when shopping this time, the XT just pulled away from the pack (literally and figuratively). The closest competition was a BMW X3, but, after driving it, I just could not see paying so much more for very little extra. Granted, the X3 handled like a BMW, but everything else was lacking versus the XT.
Had one problem that I’d like to get some informed opinions on. The day after I took delivery, I walked into the garage and was greeted with a very strong smell of gasoline. Found a very small fuel leak coming from the XT in the rear driver side. Took it back to the dealer quite concerned! The service manager said a valve was leaking, and took care of it immediately. The service ticket reads that they fixed the “MFI OBDII evaporative vent solenoid valve.” He gave me his assurances that this would fix the problem, and that it was not a serious long-term issue. I trust the dealer – this is the second one I bought from them, and they have treated me quite well over the years, both in terms of service and price (got the XT for $500 under invoice). But, I’m not a mechanic, so I still have this lingering concern, even though the car seems 100% fine.
The delivery was also marred by the fact that I found a nail in the rear tire after I got it back home. It was in the tread, and the dealer said it was easily pluggable. To be on the safe side, I had him plug the puncture, but use the tire as my spare – they took the existing spare and mounted it on the alloy rim, and put the repaired one on the steel rim for the spare. So, I don’t know if my concern about the fuel leak is being amplified by having two problems.
Any thoughts? Anyone else have a fuel leak problem? Thanks!