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
"Turbo flat four". Would that be the "X" model Forester, which requires premium gas? No thanks, that is about 20-30 cents more per gallon here in LA.
Bob
The platform is rather small. In order to graft a decent-sized interior on that platform, the body needs to be fairly boxy. With a boxy body, there is only so much you can do as far as styling goes.
The second gen is definitely less dorky than the first.
You gotta pay to play. That same engine outran a Ferrari Enzo to 30mph, outruns a Cayenne Turbo all the way up to 50mph, and even beat the Lamborghini Countache 5000S in 0 to 60mph (source: C&D 50th anniversay issue).
Premium fuel is a fair price to pay for supercar-killing performance.
-juice
james
Here's some trivia next time you see a BMW snob - ask them why BMW used an open deck block when Subaru uses a semi-closed deck block for the Forester, Impreza, Baja, and Legacy turbos. All of them.
An open deck basically means the sleeve around the cylinder has fewer reinforcements and bigger gaps behind the cylinder walls. I was surprised to see BMW cut costs there and Subaru didn't.
Don't chip that BMW 335i, it might be more stress than the block can handle. We all know Subaru's EJ257 can handle more than stock power reliably.
-juice
-juice
Or not, if you don't want to pay the extra for gas...
-Frank
Back to the forester, if you do want to modify it it makes the worlds best sleeper. It is very strait forward to swap the turbo on a forester and get 240-260awhp (over 300 crank). As stated I dont like to screw with the warentee and risk it with any cars I own, but many have a reliable 350 crank hp WRX with the same basic internals and a 18G swap.
EDIT: Its interesting to note that mitsubishi owns almost as much stock in subaru as toyota does...Infact many of the shares purchased by toyota were actually from mitsubishi in addition to fuji. Also on another note I think the forester uses a td04 based turbo dosent it? Like a 13G or something... Maybe the next forester will get the vf40 from the legacy... Its only a little smaller then the 39.
CR quotes 0-60 figures for automatics all above 10 seconds, which is sorta slow. All 3, RAV4 4cyl, Forester non-turbo, and CR-V.
At least you can still get a manual trans with the Subaru.
-juice
Oh and never forget the HUGE moonroof that extends back to the rear seats...
And the more expensive the gas gets while the cents between premium and regular stay the same makes premium a better "relative" deal all the time. It's all bad... but... if you pay a buck for regular and a buck five cents for premium, that's 5% more. If premium is a buck 10 cents 10%. You pay 3 bucks a gallon for regular and 3.10 for premium, that's only 3.2%...
And who's counting when its that bad... IT's all bad then... The overall increase makes the relative distinctions pretty much meaningless. Get a gas card get a 5% rebate etc. Add up your total miles in a year and divide the mpg and compare to regular... Buy one less latte this week...
What's the fun of a Turbo worth if you like that kind of thing... You are still going to get around 22 to 23 mpg city and 27 highway. Not bad when you look at the world of massive SUV's we live in.
Be afraid, Be very afraid when an Excursion pulls up next to you and someone is on the phone doing their nails... IT will roll over everything and the driver will wonder what the bump was but you will live in your Subaru...
Still manages to be a major psycological barrier for a lot of folks, though.
-juice
The earlier performance claims indicate he was speaking of a Turbo model; hence I wanted to point out that it took premium fuel.
There is a big difference in "basic design" of a boxer engine and "Porshe engineering". Porshe is also interested in the range of vehicle performance for a two door, high performance sports car. Foresters are not designed for that, even with turbo...
Just like some people will fill up at the same station while others watch prices all around town and may even go out of their way for cheaper gas.
Anyway, it took a while for me to get over the mental hurdle of paying more for premium but I seem to be doing better now
Oh FYI, the turbo doesn't actually "require" premium, but it's recommended for optimum performance. I actually used mid-grade for several months with no ill affects (during the mental hurdle period)
-Frank
I'd still use premium on a turbo. You make it up at elevation, when N/A engines are wheezing by with much less power then normal and turbos are performing as well as ever.
-juice
Can't speak to the Subies, but my 2003 CR-V always performed better at higher elevations (above 4000 feet). Better acceleration, better MPG.
-juice
What is the physics in question?
tidester, host
So in simple terms as you increase elevation you decrease both temp and pressure but the decrease in pressure far outweighs benefit in the lower temps so all naturally asperated vehicles loose HP and performance at elevation.
Why dont turbo vehicles loose as much? Some do but not most because boost (the extra pressure above atmospheric going from the turbo to the intercooler to the intake manifold) is partialy regulated by a mechanical spring, not a ratio to atmospheric. The spring rate has no varience with increased altitude so turbo charged motors will just shunt more exhaust gas (or really the same amount by weight as at lower altitude) to the turbo until the spring is compressed and it lets it bypass which corrilates to a set intake pressure. So puting it another way:
Nonturbo Car at sea level: 14.7psi
Nonturbo Car at 4000ft: 12.6psi
Turbo Car at sea level: 26.7psi (14.7 + 12psi boost)
Turbo car at 4000ft: still close to 26.7 (boost not exclusivly controlled by spring)
So unless it is rolling down a hill non turbo cars wont perform better at elivation. Infact supercharged cars wont either. Because boost is controlled via direct connection to crank by belt or gears.
....cheers
Are there any differences in fuel blend that may affect performance at higher elevation?
tidester, host
Perhaps the CR-V has less weight in it when he goes to those elevations and the smaller load has a more noticeable impact.
For me, even at just 3000 ft or so (yeah, I know the Rockies make the Appalachians look like foothills), I notice a loss in power.
I had a '91 Escort GT, pretty peppy car around town. Even on the highway it was geared short so I could pass whenever I wanted to.
Until one day, I was driving up to Deep Creek Lake, had cruise control while ascending slowly, a long uphill run. The power loss was such that cruise control gave up, and let go. The car literally failed to maintain speed at that elevation.
It was quite humbling.
-juice
Juice had a Ford once. It wouldn't go up a hill. He doesn't own a Ford anymore.
-juice
PS Maybe that the real reason I had to veto the wife's desire for an Expedition back in 02, rather than gas mileage.
-Frank
Sorry, my training is in software engineering, not physics. I am just reporting my results at altitude. Maybe Honda figured out the physics. Don't know, don't care. Just sharing information.
I suspect that your "seat-o-pants-meter" needs recalibrating :P
-Frank
Also some states blend in ethanol which by itself has a higher octane rating but actually has less energy per unit volume (octane is just a relative rating of resistance to detonation under pressure). Its why a tank of E85 will not take you as far as a normal tank of gas, even with lower octane. Note if your car isn't designed for E85 dont put it in even if it appears to have a higher octane. Also some gas is oxygenated but that is not to increase power (it dose not) it just improves emissions (not sure why maybe helps the cat converter somehow).
It also provides tuners with an easy method for gaining a little extra power.
The thing is, seldom do most people go from sea level to 5,000 ft in a single trip. You gain elevation gradually and get "acclimated" to how the car feels.
If that sort of change is part of your daily commute, you'll feel it. If you only see elevation changes like that while on vacation, the roads would be less familiar, and therefore it's a little more challenging to gauge performance.
Even driving the highest summit here in the Northeast (Mt Washington - 6,288 ft), you start the drive at nearly 2,000 ft. The vertical rise is only 4,000. That's pretty much as extreme as it gets on the east coast and it only represents a 12% change in engine performance. (Now, before you Midwesterners get snooty about the Rockies, there are very few mountains out there with a greater vertical rise and a public road. I kind of prefer the lack of roads part.)
Of course, mountain roads tend to be more interesting to drive. A driver could easily be fooled into thinking that their own frisky reaction to the conditions is actually the car behaving more frisky.
Well, the acceleration is my judgment, but the the MPG was math, at which I do fine. The CR-V got over 31 MPG at altitude, with the average speed about 70 MPH...
I usually got 27 at that speed.
Ummm, so I should have lost 15% of my power between LA and New Mexico? I drove that in one day, and did not notice it, but then I wouldn't have on the Interstate. The performance I am speaking of was all at high altitudes. Perhaps the engine CPU compensated somehow, but I don't think the 2003 CR-V was that sophisticated.
Anyway, that does not explain the higher MPG.
I should mention that I used the 88 octane in New Mexico, since the regular unleaded was 86, and the owner's manual calls for a minimum of 86... and I'm pretty sure it had some ethanol in it, about 5 or 10%
EDIT: I should also note that your honda will not adjust for elivation just for mass airflow and temp change. Note if it did you would likely see an altimeter on your dash board or in your engine bay. No car that I know of does this. The best the car can do is say: I am receiving X cubic feet of air per unit time at temperature Y and my air fuel ratio in my exhaust is Z, and I am going Q speed and not accelerating, therefore I should inject W amount of fuel now.
If the engine is delivering more power than it needs to maintain a given speed then where is the extra energy going? Do I need to ride my brakes? Do I need to worry about my engine melting down?
tidester, host
Yes. And thats part of where it is going. Think about running in first or second gear at 70mph what will happen? The first thing that will likely happen assuming your right at but not above red line is you will overheat. Most energy is lost in the form of heat the largest amount via the exhaust, followed by the radiator then finally friction loss. Only 25% or so makes it to the drive wheels. Run at wide open throttle at high rpm is very efficient at utilizing the gasoline energy, but only the fraction required to move at 70mph will be turned to mechanical energy (unless you spin the tires). Put it another way: Lets say that it takes X amount of energy to move at 60mph, if you run the engine at 6000rpm in the right gear lets say first you may make 10X energy, if you run 2000rpm in fifth gear you may only make 3X but it still only takes X to go 60mph so instead of wasting 2X by heat in fifth gear, you may waste 9X in first via heat loss. Internal friction eats up a small amount as well but not nearly as much as is heat loss. The radiators are very big for this reason. Old cars used to overheat much more easily despite less power. The reason I stated redline above is that if you go much above your engine may infact have mechanical failure before the heat destroys it.
If the engine is delivering more power than it needs to maintain a given speed then where is the extra energy going? Do I need to ride my brakes? Do I need to worry about my engine melting down?
tidester, host
Blue330xi is right. I have Scangauge and when I select engine loading gauge, it shows exactly how much power I can POTENTIALLY produce, and ho wmuch power I am ACTUALLY using. Cruising at 80 mph (cruise control on) on a fairly flat road, I use about 70% of POTENTIALLY available engine power.
Subaru techs have told us the same thing - the H6 will get by just fine with 87 octane, though they still recommend premium fuel to get the most power from the engine.
You certainly won't void the warranty, because the owners manual says 87 is the requirement.
-juice
it shows exactly how much power I can POTENTIALLY produce
What caught my attention was that Blue330xi wasn't talking about potential but actual power production.
tidester, host
-Frank
BTW, my "high MPG" tank was about 1/2 in the mountains (up and down).
Is a Subaru ext. warranty available on new or used Subarus?
Yeah but that was on what, I-40? The uphills and downhills are long and straight so I bet whatever you lose mpg-wise on the uphills you regain on the downhills.
-Frank