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
I think the Subaru Crew would find it valuable to read your comments on the WRX. How about taking a test drive when you go to pick up your XT?
Ken
Bah - it's an automatic. Besides, I'd have to assume that the 400+ miles put on while being driven pre-introduction by "top Subaru execs" were HARD miles on a car that probably never got a proper break-in.
I wouldn't touch this one with somebody else's pole.
- jack
My only disagreement is that I don't think the EPA city or highway drive cycles would require EITHER the WRX OR the XT to actually get into positive-boost mode at any time during the testing. My understanding of the tests is that they won't require any stronger acceleration of either of these cars than they would require of (for example) a Civic or regular Forester. These are not performance tests; they're controlled simulations of everyday-driving tests. I'd wager that if you could sit in the cabin of an XT during EPA testing and continuously watch the boost gauge, you'd never see positive boost. The XT has more than enough acceleration to meet all of the EPA's demands with no more than moderate throttle, without ever even breathing hard.
- jack
1. Do you have any idea what you're asking? You actually expect me to sacrifice scarce, precious time behind the wheel of my long-awaited XT just to go drive a boring old run-of-the-mill yesterday's-news WRX?
2. This could only be accomplished by cutting even farther into the mere hour or two of sleep I'll be getting each night until the XT's magnetic "new toy" appeal wears off...until then, even my wife won't be able to entice me out of the car and into bed.
2. Seriously, much as I'd like to provide meaningful comparative insight, it will be quite some time (probably late September) before I'll ever drive my XT hard enough to really know "wot'll she do". Until then, even a WRX with three flat tires will run circles around me. I'll be the old grey fart in the slow lane that everybody laughs at as they roar by. I'll get my laughs - and revenge - but only later...<evil grin>.
You'll get the comparative feedback you seek far sooner if other XT owners who are less fanatical than I about long, gentle break-ins respond to your logical request. Either that, or Car & Driver or Motor Trend et al will FINALLY end the blackout, test the XT, and provide the comparisons via hard published numbers. Can you believe after the seismic stop-the-presses splash the WRX made, and more recently the STi, how deafeningly silent the major mags continue to be about the XT?
XT: Winner of the Sleeper of the Year award (in more ways than one). <sigh>
- jack
This reflects a possible misunderstanding of the EPA test regimen and procedures. The cars aren't even on the road. They're tested on stationary dynamometers, "driven" though closely-controlled repetitive routines that are as identical for every tested vehicle as can be achieved. The entire point of EPA testing is to arrive at numbers that let "Car A" be directly compared to "Car B" - not in terms of absolute mileage any given driver will actually achieve, but rather in relative terms: If A gets 15% better EPA ratings than B, then in the hands of an actual owner, A is likely to return proportionately better mileage than B would have if driven the same way by that same driver. The tests don't accomplish this goal perfectly, but in my experience with a large number of vehicles, they come very close.
- jack
-Brian
Basically, pick any torque-rich engine. Got one in mind? OK, now look at the EPA numbers, they're not as good as a high revving engine. Even some sub-compacts with small V6 engines only return 19mpg in the city (Beretta, Cavalier, Duster, etc.). To have that immediate throttle response, you'll sacrifice a little mpg.
"Power to spare" is the case with the XT, whether you use it or not, it'll burn a little extra fuel. I really think the target demographic is willing to pay the extra costs.
-juice
Actually, I was being slightly sarcastic (wishing the darn magazines would get off their duffs and give us the real road tests we crave). Evidently the XT is SO stealthy it's even escaping their notice!
But,like you, I strongly appreciate the XT's mild-mannered Clark Kent appearance and reputation. "Honest, officer, your radar gun must be WAY out of calibration. It's only a Forester - it can possibly have been doing 130mph!"
- jb
It's probably beating a dead horse, but it's possible we're both right, just not talking about the same thing. No doubt the EPA's testing would likely reach 3600RPM. The question is, how much throttle was dialed in to get the programmed (modest) acceleration levels? How much throttle did you have to apply to see actual boost at moderate RPMs? If you were using a lot of throttle, of course you'd see boost. If EPA's tests only demanded modest acceleration (thus relatively light throttle and moderate revs), then would even a light-boost tuned-for-midrange XT necessarily get into actual boost range? EPA-cycle driving is (or so I understand) quite moderate - think soccer mom, not foot-through-the-firewall. Also, your torquey-down-low observation is explainable at least in part by the continuously-optimized variable valve timing, and need not necessarily require boost to get the effect you observed.
Anyway, until I get behind the wheel of mine tonight and actually eyeball the boost gauge while I (moderately) drive it home, I'm just speculating. All of these questions will be answered soon, if not by tomorrow. I'm guessing that the sort of driving I'll be doing DURING break-in is a lot closer to EPA's tests than your typical leadfooted enthusiast wringing an XT out to the max during a test drive.
- jack
Better late than never. September it is.
BTW, how do you find time to write such lengthy and frequent responses?
Ken
Good luck with the XT, Jack. It sounds like she's a beaut!
-jim
Dunno, there's just a rule that says torque is inversely proportional to EPA mileage.
But look at tests of cars like the Civic and Prius hybrids. They never seem to meet EPA claims. I can and do on my Subie, so maybe the XT will exceed the EPA projections too. Who knows.
Also, real-world results tells us 5 speed Subies do better in mileage, yet EPA scores have some autos as doing better. Why is it not representative of true mileage? Again, I have no idea.
21.7 in mixed driving on a green engine? That's not bad at all. And chassol's was an automatic.
I did have an old rule that I would not buy a vehicle that did not get 20mpg city, but I may have to break it next time. We'll look (again) at vans, the 2005 SUW, maybe a Pilot, and performers like the XT. None get 20 city.
-juice
Fast typist? Obsessed with the XT to the exclusion of all else? Insatiable thirst for like-minded companionship? Who knows?
- jb
I bet someone at SOA could explain the EPA figures. There has to be some condition in the testing methodology that hurts the XT.
Ken
I can understand potential-surplus-power-not-used requiring SOME additional fuel (especially if it involves substantial additional weight, etc)- but not dropping all the way from the X/XS ratings to the XT's. Plus, at risk of being repetitious, the XT has key advantages: continuously-optimized variable valve timing (reducing unburned fuel flow-through at moderate loads & RPM) and electronic throttle control. BOTH of these technologies are claimed (not by me, by Subaru) to enhance fuel efficiency - as they should! So if a fixed-timing X/XS and a timing-optimized, throttle-optimized XT are both asked to do the exact same thing, what explains the XT's 15-20% worse fuel consumption? The inescapable conclusion is that the XT, asked to deliver xx horsepower, is somehow appreciably LESS efficient at converting the BTUs in fuel to power than the older-tech X/XS when asked to do the exact same thing. The XT's lower compression ratio is shared with the WRX and STi, but without the same effect. It simply doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think I'm all that obtuse.
No offense, but I have yet to see a persuasive answer to the riddle.
- jb
Lets us know if you have any questions, and give more details - color, accessories, etc.
Greg
: ^ ) Yummy.
VW will also have a 2.0 liter turbodiesel 4 next year in the Passat that will have close to 250 lbft of torque.
This is about all we have here, but these things are getting to be all over Europe.
A more pedestrian example is a Chevy Impala (or pick another large American car) with 225 lbft of torque that gets 30 mpg on the highway test (with a large 3.8 liter V-6). Not a super fast car, or even a competitor of the XT, but that is pretty good fuel mileage, and better than any 4-cyl that Subaru makes. Even a BMW 530i gets 30 on the EPA highway test.
I think Subaru makes some really nice cars (I am very intrigued by the new Legacy and its promise of 20% better fuel mileage), but to me their achiles heel is fuel mileage. Of course if you are coming from an SUV that is not an issue.
Keep an eye out for a white '99 Forester S with Illinois plates...
-Bob
Close. 1st at 3,000, 2nd at 7,500, then at 7,500 intervals thereafter, unless driving conditions are severe.
- jb
So, simply because you don't happen to care about fuel consumption, everyone else is supposed to adopt the same attitude? Rather cavalier, I'd say.
Regardless of any particular vehicle's level of performance, I care about whether its fuel consumption is reasonable under all the facts and circumstances. You needn't accept my concerns as valid, any more than I need to adopt your lack thereof.
- jb
- jb
I'm a bit intrigued on this. For some reason Boxer engines are less fuel efficient than other layouts. I was getting consisent 42mpg (okkay Imperial Gallon but you get the idea) from my Passat 1.8T but have averaged 28mpg (10 litres/100km) from my 99 Outback 2.5l. Over time, that does add up to a big difference in fuel cost.
That is not a show stopper (I don;t pay for he fuel) but it does worry me a bit as it means 50% more natural resources expended per mile.
Cheers
Graham
Clearly, the test is more scientific than I imagined.
But how can a stationary test can measure mileage? Does it account for the weight of the vehicle? How about the aerodynamics?
If you know, I'd love to hear. Thanks.
Dynamometers are like big electric motors that apply a countering drag to the vehicle's attempt to rotate its drive wheels in a forward direction. The amount of drag is adjustable, and (as when using dynamometers to measure horsepower) adjustments are made which correlate the induced drag to the weight of the vehicle. EPA also adjusts for the frontal area of the tested vehicle. This is measured carefully, and reportedly includes such items as side mirrors and top racks. EPA does NOT make adjustments for coefficient of drag, so that two otherwise-identical cars with the same weights and frontal areas (but where one has extremely good C/d and the other is terrible) will presumably deliver the same ratings. In that case an owner of the very aerodynamic car might expect to equal or maybe even exceed EPA ratings (not bloody likely!), whereas the owner of the brick should expect to do somewhat worse in real-world driving.
- jb
Bob
other Bob: I'm an alum (or is it alumni) of UW-Parkside.
-Brian
And the Forester XT automatic, which is similar in power and engine size, gets only 19/23.
Yep, I'd say Subie engineers need to go back to the drawing board on this issue.
Bob
Bob observes, "And the Forester XT automatic, which is similar in power and engine size, gets only 19/23. Yep, I'd say Subie engineers need to go back to the drawing board on this issue."
And the 5-speed's EPA city rating is even worse. I was in disbelief when others reported that, but there it is on my own window sticker - 18-23. Forgive the harping, but the XT's low EPA ratings remain a mystery to me. Not a deal breaker, just a disappointment that vehicle is evidently going to consume more fuel (and more expensive fuel) than I was (reasonably, I believe) led to expect from Subaru's logical claims regarding the AVCS and ETC.
jb
* V70 has a 5-speed automatic
* V70 AWD works a bit differently than the XTs. I suspect the Subie's AWD is in use more often, but that's just a guess.
Even so, the XT should have better EPA ratings.
Bob
OK, does that explain it? ;-)
Seriously, the Impala and the 530i use ultra-tall gearing. Usually when a more powerful engine is used they relax the gearing. Subaru didn't. Bless them for that, if you've driven one you'll understand why, then, it feels like a V8 engine. A powerful one.
Instead of comparing (relatively) GROSSLY underpowered, slow, 2WD cars, let's compare a few AWD vehicles that might actually be able to keep up with the Forester, shall we?
Infiniti FX45: 15/19
Porsche Cayenne: 14/18
Mercedes ML500: 14/17
BMW X5 4.4: 13/17
Um, folks, that's about it! Everything else will be slower. You could add Cayenne S, ML55 AMG, and X5 4.6 but the mileage just deteriorates further, as do nose-bleed price levels.
You could toss in cars with more power, but they'd come with taller gearing and slower acceleration. The only difference between the XS and the XT is the engine, right, so it's entirely about acceleration. Compare a slower vehicle and you may as well buy an XS and forget it.
The only lesser vehicle that could even *hope* to compete is the Saturn Vue Redline. That might get about what the MDX gets, 17/23, and with premium fuel also. Plus, 0-60 comes in about a full second slower, at least compared to a 5 speed XT.
-juice
I'm comparing as close to apples-to-apples as I can think of. Both the XT and V70 AWD are: AWD, 2.5 engines, put out almost the same horsepower & torque, and are automatics. If anything, I would think the larger Volvo would be heavier.
Bob
At a minimum we'd have to compare the XC70, and that's still much slower than the XT (I've driven one, NO comparison).
Lemme look it up - the XC70 gets 19/24. Perfect example of how SUV-like features create a sacrifice in mileage.
So, are you willing to sacrifice 1 mpg to chop about 2-3 seconds off the 0-60 time?
Do fish swim?
-juice
Bob
-juice
Bob
Remember, the US XT was not lowered, like the JDM Cross Sport model was.
Car, the UK magazine, said the UK Forester turbo easily was better off road than the XC and the allroad quattro. So really it's more capable in this regard, *plus* it's faster.
Let's add the allroad quattro, with 16/22 mpg.
The plain V70 AWD will compete with the Legacy turbo, head to head pretty much. Not the Forester. Not even the Outback.
-juice
Bob
Bob
The huge mirrors alone give the XS model a coefficient of drag 0.01 higher than X models.
Subaru should not be penalized for offering more clearance, stouter tires, and huge mirrors to benefit the types of uses a soft roader will encounter.
-juice
In the BMW 540i, if you get the Sport Package, you get a shorter final drive ratio. EPA figures plunge and you actually pay a gas guzzler tax of $1300.
Same exact car, only the tires and gearing change. Again, same EPA test, too.
Subaru could have used the 3.9:1 ratio from the Legacy L, sure, but then it wouldn't be wicked-fast.
Alternately, they could use low rolling resistance tires, but that hurts braking distances.
They could delete the roof rack cross bars and the bigger side mirrors, but then we'd whine about cost cutting. They can't win. ;-)
-juice
I had it compare the XC70, V70, XT, and STi, as well as the Legacy GT and Outback VDC. Under powertrains, you'll see the axel ratios.
XT = 4.11
V70 = 2.27
XC70 = 2.65
STi = 3.90
VDC = 4.11
GT = 4.11
-Brian
Subaru could have done better. Boosting the mpg by 2 mpg, to get it out of the teens, wouldn't have hurt the performance too much IMO.
Bob
Bingo, same ratio as in the Legacy L (GT and Outback get shorter gearing, like the Forester).
That must be why throttle response is so immediate in the XT.
Hey, now I have an official need to test drive an STi. Anyone in the DC area willing to offer a free drive or even a ride, or if SoA will step up to the plate, please do! I want to see if the STi has that immediate rush that the XT gives.
Another thing - the STi has a 6 speed, so I'm sure the highway EPA number has a huge advantage, with much lower revs/mile.
-juice
Keep in mind though that the higher axle ratio numbers help towing. I remember on my Chevy Z71 that the 3.73 was decent for towing, but if you were serious into towing, you went with the 4.11 (you'd get 4 ton towing capability that way instead of 3 ton).
So, with the XT maybe they're keeping the axle ratio at 4.11 to help make towing easier on the engine and drivetrain?
-Brian
2nd-gen X/XS/XT: 0.35 or 0.36 depending on your source. Which is really not all that bad, and besides (as has been pointed out ad nauseum) EPA ratings take no account whatsoever of coefficients of drag - only frontal area. As for SUV look, I couldn't have cared less about that (though I would have drawn the line on an Element). I just didn't want anything like the current boyracer WRX look. If I could justify the price of a slick Audi A4 Avant, that's what I'd be in right now. But my XT will (after break-in!) handily outgun my sister's 3.0 Avant, for $14,000 less. I'm an incurable bargain hunter, and you can't beat that bang-for-buck ratio.
jb