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
As to the argument that turbos are just one more thing to break, if you compare today's cars to those made 10-15 years ago, they are far more complicated yet reliability ratings have never been higher.
-Frank P.
Larry
If the turbo in question is LPT and tuned to deliver low-end torque, isn't it preferable to an H-6 ? It seems to me that with such a turbo you give up very little in low-end torque, and gain much better performance at altitude and potentially better gas mileage (assuming smaller displacement and a reasonably light foot in everyday driving) when not towing.
No ?
I am assuming that we're not talking about towing Ohio here, just class II + normal complement of passengers and paraphernalia...
(I've added the "normal complement" bit because so many vehicles are rated class II but limited to 200 lbs of cargo after tongue weight at the limit - meaning I'd have to drive naked on a 1/4 tank of gas when towing a full class II load...)
-brianV
-Frank P.
As an example, my uncle has an F250 Pickup with the V6 RWD and towing with that v. a smallblock v8 with similar hp/torque ratings is like night and day.
-mike
Craig
-mike
Turbos in diesels are as common as snow in Baltimore (these days!). So again, it all depends on how the engine is engineered.
* = Note I said tow "engine," not "vehicle." If that engine were put into a heavy-duty chassis, or at least something beefier than the Forester, it could tow 5000 pounds easily.
Bob
Turbo Diesels are a different story altogether I think, but not positive.
-mike
If the Forester turbo had a tow package I think it would match the Trooper's engine any day of the week for towing or any other chore.
What I'd like to see was a power graph of the Forester turbo plotted against the Trooper 3.5L. My gut feeling is the Forester turbo will have a better powerband, with more power from idle through mid-range. But since we don't (yet) have such a power graph, I guess it will be nothing but bench-racing between you and I on this topic.
Bob
I understand what you are saying about the Vehicle towing capacity, which makes sense.
-mike
Your NA engine will run out of air above 7000', which is where I tow.
Please explain.
-brianV
Another example is the GMC Envoy XL, the towing capcity is 1500-2000lbs greater with the V8 v. I6 and the V8 only makes marginally (20lbs/15hp) more than the I6.
Also the cooling factor, if you are always pushing that 2.5t, the cooling system will be working to cool that turbo, and will effect engine cooling.
-mike
I could see that, all else being equal.
The cooling issue is well taken, of course.
For my particular needs, though, I'd still go with the turbo - and make sure plenty of cooling capacity is available. NA engines are down 15% from spec where we live, and 25 - 30% from spec where we play. It makes a heck of a difference.
I seriously doubt that the NA 2.5l engine would have the gumption to handle class II in the "hills" around here, even if they rated the chassis here like they do overseas. Class I is fine, as I've stated before, but near the practical limit just the same.
If I bolted a LPT to our Forester and set the wastegate to atmospheric, it would add 25 peak hp to my daily driving experience. No small potatoes, that.
-brianV
But yes, all else being equal, and at relatively low altitudes, I'd go with the NA 6cylinder over a 4banger turbo for towing/hauling(stuff), I'd probably go for the 4banger turbo for hauling something else though!
-mike
Also, more cylinders doesn't necessarily mean more struggle. I'm willing to bet Mike, that your experience with 4-cylinder engines, at least as far a towing is concerned, has been with relatively primitive 4-bangers.
I keep raising the turbo-diesel issue. Many modern commercial turbo-diesels, including those from Isuzu, are often big-bore 4-cylinder units. I talking about Class IV – V trucks, with GVWs in the 15,000 – 19,000 range. So, I think, a state-of-the-art 2.5 turbo, such as the Forester engine will perform just about any task as well as most 3.5 non-turbos, regardless of the amount of cylinders.
I really think this Forester turbo engine will see many applications in the future that are more "task-related" rather than "high-performance" related. I think it will be a very good engine for Subaru.
Bob
I hope they make 'em like popcorn and bolt 'em in everywhere!
-brianV
-Frank P.
No doubt it will be a great engine for subaru!
Hopefully the Isuzu-FHI Diesel engine that they are co-developing for the legacy will make it to the US.
-mike
I think Subaru, if they should decide, could enter the small truck/SUV market with this XT engine. This engine has that capability. They just need a proper chassis to house it in.
Subaru, with this engine, is no longer just limited to making "cars." It's just a matter of if they want to enter other markets.
Bob
Of the 5 dealers I visited with, 4 of them said the turbo forester is a big mistake, only 1 was even mildly entertained.
The biggest thing they said was: "My customers ask for a 6 cylinder, they don't care if the the turbo 4 has most power, they just want a 6" and "Why didn't they give it more rear legroom, I could sell far more with more legroom, than a turbo"
I think that you are overestimating thing engine bob. Do you really think that this is a "truck" engine? Just from a jaded consumer standpoint a turbo 4cylinder "truck" would never sell. Not saying that I personally wouldn't be peaked by it, but John and Jane Q Public would laugh their butts off!
-mike
Bob
No doubt, the H4-turbo will be significantly faster and sportier than dropping an H6 in the car, and that it makes sense to me. If Subaru markets the car right, they can virtually "create" the small sports-SUV market on their own. I don't think an H6 would fit that image.
Craig
I am having a difficult time deciding between the Forrester XS and the Outback Ltd. Wagon. My primary concern is room/comfort, safety & performance/durability.
There is a $3000+ difference in price, yet the two vehicles have striking similarities. They both have the same engine, similar head/leg room, same proposed gas mileage, both include front/side airbags, etc. Is the price difference based on leather interior, dual moonroofs and a power driver's seat?
Subaru indicates similar cargo space, but I find that hard to believe. Is the difference in the Forrester made up in the height of the car? When I load a car, I prefer to keep a clear line of sight out the rear windshield, so that's a negative aspect.
In short, is the Outback Ltd. Wagon a better vehicle than the Forrester XS? Is it worth the difference in price?
Mike - I'm with Bob. Subaru can't and shouldn't compete in the crowded light truck market. Everybody and their duck is building those these days. I think you're underestimating the low-end grunt the XT engine is capable of generating. We'll just have to wait and see.
As to asking dealers what they'd prefer to sell, they will always prefer what sells best in the mainstream. And the American mainstream is generally behind the times in terms of automobile technology IMHO - this ain't Europe or Japan. So of course the dealers here want to see the H-6 in every model, and gobs of legroom, yada yada. Everybody and their duck is building those, too.
Subaru needs a unique selling proposition - to date that's been solid reliability, robust full-time AWD without the maintenance hassles, above average handling due to the boxer engine, practicality, safety, environmental responsibility and overall value.
A whole lot of manufacturers are crowding into that space, so they're adding top-shelf performance. I do think they need to add performance with finesse, avoiding the American "my engine is bigger than your engine" pissing contest. It runs counter to the Subaru eco-friendly/practical mindset. I am so bored with American truck commercials, I could spit.
I really like what they're doing with the XT engine.
Craig - A lot of people complain about the legroom in the Forester, but as I see it, that's what the Legacy is for. The Forester's size is no coincidence. If you want more legroom and ground clearance, buy an Outback.
Personally, I find the legroom in our Forester more than adequate, and I'm 6'0". We do drive in an upright position though. Folks who prefer the Barcalounger driving position will create a knee room problem in the back, no question.
USA26 - The biggest difference between the Forester and the Outback is size - that's what you're paying for. The Outback's wheelbase is 4" longer, most of which ends up in the rear seating area. It is also a bit more plush, although the gap has narrowed substantially over the years, especially on the Forester XS.
-brianV
The Forester cargo area is shorter front-to-back yet taller when compared to the Outback. That may be better in some cases. It just depends on what kind of cargo you usually carry.
I think the bottom line is that they are two different classes of vehicle. The Outback is based on the larger Legacy platform, while the Forester is based on the smaller Impreza platform. You can trace the driving qualities, interior space, and handling characteristics of each car back to its origins quite directly. If I were to make a weak analogy to Honda, it would be like an Accord versus Civic comparison.
For a more direct price/feature comparison, put the Forester XS w/ Premium package (leather and big sunroof) up against the Outback Limited. Or, compare the base Outback (cloth, no sunroof) to the standard Forester XS.
Craig
They see potential customers turned off by the size of the Forester and lack of a 6 cyl. The turbo is a totally new market. It will be interesting to see if Subaru can capture the performance crowd like they have with the WRX. I personally love turbos. They last too - Our 86 Saab had over 200,000 miles on it with the original turbo when we sold it.
I think the Forester actually has a bit more ground clearance than the Outback. I have had both off road (light use) and the Forester is definitely more nimble.
Craig
They all loved the Forester but didn't sign the papers due to those 2 items above.
I'm all for quirky (Owner of 2 XT6s, and currently own an SVX) I'm just saying what I hear from people out there buying cars.
I'm not sure subaru would do well in the light truck market. But i suppose it could create a market, that is what they are good at.
-mike
I see those comments as evidence that the dealers don't have a grasp on FHI/Subaru's global strategy, or else aren't selling the vehicles properly. Adequate training would help them in that area. (You can tell what I've been occupied with these days, no?) Are those dealers Subaru-only dealers? I still think SoA should move in that direction, as you wouldn't necessarily sell a Subaru the same way you'd sell a light-duty truck or SUV.
I pretty much agree with Brian's comments. FHI/Subaru has to figure out where the majority of their market share comes from and tailor their product lineup to meet that. You can't be all things to all people, or else you satisfy none - especially yourself. I'm not certain the US is behind the world in what it wants technologically, but its wants in terms of vehicle size and capacity are almost unique on the planet. Granted this is a big country and we have to cover a lot more ground than people in other countries, but I wonder how much of a factor that has been in shaping our wants and needs.
Ed
The two are very close but the real big difference is in their overall trim. The Forester usually has more creature comforts compared to the Impreza. Sit in both and you'll notice that the Forester tends to have a little more upscale materials used in the interior.
Subaru made a concious decision to keep the Forester rear seats the same size. They wanted to keep the vehicle nimble and not eat into the sale of the Legacy/OB line for larger vehicles.
Ken
Having spent many years in Germany, home of the biggest automobile snobs on the planet, my views on American car tastes can be a bit jaded. (The Germans will tell you in all seriousness that the Japanese still can't build a "real" car - at least they did when I lived there in the early 90's.)
As to the truck commercial thing, I think I'm just OD'ing on them - we see an awful lot of them in these parts...
I can see people jumping to a Pilot or Highlander, or for that matter, an H6 Outback, but the Forester -> Accord/Camry shift makes me think they weren't really interested in the Forester to begin with.
Craig
1 was subaru/isuzu/kia but the salesman was subaru salesman
3-4 were combos with other brands but walked into the subaru sales showroom
As for the "buy the legacy" I don't buy that, these people came in wanting the Forester with a 6 or wanted more rear room. The people I know don't need to carry more than 4 people, but they carry adults in the back seat. The ones who want a 6 just want a 6, even if it has the same power as the 4.
As for salesman training? Haaa I do that every other week at my local dealer, cause they are the most un-informed group in the world. My salesman knows subaru stuff, but he's different than the rest. It's a riot going in an lecturing about the Kias, Isuzus and Subarus.
-mike
I've always wished for a light truck from Subaru, but not one that fits existing market slots. It will be interesting to see how the Baja will be recieved when this engine is applied to it. I bet sales will at least double (which is still not saying much).
Bob
Now as to the "Forester with a 6" rationale: what do those people expect that a 6 will give them that a 4 will not? Two more spark plugs to change? Bragging rights at the golf course? The only thing I can think of immediately is possibly a smoother delivery of power (old Packard auto and marine V12s come to mind), possibly less NVH.
Brian: I don't think you're being elitist: you've been exposed to different automotive ways of thinking. The Germans could do something about reliability and costs of ownership IMO. Maybe we're drinking from the same pot of coffee today?
Ed
As for the 6 under the hood, status is the only reason. Living in suburbia, people feel they need to have a 6 to "compete" even if the 4 is better, they are stuck with the misconceptions and are very very Calabraise aka Hard Headed so no matter what you tell them, a 6 is always better in their mind.
-mike
Ed
BTW - the ground clearance on an 03 Forester is 7.5, on a 03 Outback Wagon it's a coupe of tenth's (7.2-7.3) less.
We're hoping to get back there this summer, barring complications due to war (sigh), for the first time in 10 years. It'll be great to see old friends - not to mention very interesting. A lot can happen in 10 years, even in "old" Europe !
Salesperson knowledge - As a veteran of technical sales (photo/video/digital imaging in mid-90's), I can say that the sales industry in general attracts - and consciously cultivates - a certain mindset. Many scoff at the need for product knowledge - their egos are all wrapped up in the "game", i.e. their ability to manipulate and "close" anybody. Studying the product line is for wimps, according to this line of thinking. I personally found it very "high school", but that's my coffee talking again...
The guys who understood the how's and why's were in a position to counsel prospects as to which particular offering would best fit their needs. Amazing how much loyalty you can generate that way, if you take the trouble to know your stuff...
I was fortunate to work for a firm that understood the difference - they sold out to the corporate Borg, and I bolted, as did all the other senior guys. Within a year, they lost the team that had accounted for 50% of sales and 65% of profits. Two years later, they went under. So much for the superiority of the corporate model, but I digress...
-brianV
I am a former German car owner ('86 VW Jetta, Wolfsburg built); though I strongly considered an Audi A4 Avant before going the Subaru route and still drool over the RS6, S4 and S6 Avants, the cost of maintenance and repair turned me off to them. I don't ever see myself buying another VW, that's for sure. We must be drinking from the same pot of coffee today.
I am slated to go to France on business before end 2Q2003 - I'd like to move that up if I could because of the threat of war.
Ed
And as for the French, if it wasn't for us they'd be speaking German right now.
-mike
I'm not sure those dealers know what they're talking about. Maybe there is more regional demand in the NY/NJ area for big engines, who knows.
Any how, the thing with the turbo and towing is that off-boost, it's just a regular 2.5l engine, even less with vacuum losses. This is good for gas mileage, but bad for getting a 2400 pound trailer started up a steep hill.
A 3.0l H6 is a 3.0l at any rpm.
However, tuning means everything. The H6 has less torque at a higher rpm vs. the XT's new engine, so I bet the 2.5T tows better than Subaru's own H6.
No doubt the 3.5l in the Trooper kills them both, but that's a truck engine built for low rpm pull, and has the comparatively awful EPA mileage figures to show for that. It's tuned to make torque whether you need it or not.
BTW, that's perfect for someone that drives like paisan and needs torque at all times! ;-)
Turbos are different. They produce torque when you put a load on the engine and give it throttle (you need both).
So that leads to tranny tuning. An automatic could be designed to allow slip so the engine spools up. So it may not lock up until maybe 3000rpm or higher. This would allow you to get started up that steep hill. If it locks up at 1200rpm (not likely) I doubt you could climb at all.
With a manual it's up to you to determine how much to slip the clutch, but 1500rpm ain't gonna cut it in that situation.
-juice
-mike
We could debate this ad nauseum. My point is: this whole "they owe us" stuff is a bit over the top - and based on an extraordinairly selective reading of history.
I thank the Germans, Russians, and French for slowing our headlong rush to war. War may be eventually justifiable, but we're not there yet.
Not to wax melodramatic, but History may yet conclude that the role of our European allies in this diplomatic dispute prevented WW III.
War will cost untold human lives, severely undermine the remaining moderate Arab regimes, stoke the hatred of terrorists everywhere, and put us in the unenviable and most likely inextricable position of occupying a hostile Arab land for the long-term, not to mention drive oil prices into the stratosphere and delay economic recovery. It is also being used as an excuse for the largest rollback in American civil rights since the Boston Tea Party.
So long as the inspectors are in Iraq, Saddam is contained. I think we have to play this out, if for no other reason than to convince the world that military action is justified. Any other course of action is playing into bin Laden's hands. He's trying to start WW III, a religious war between Islam and the West.
Our current leadership couldn't be more foolhardy or arrogant, IMHO. They have unnecessarily squandered foreign goodwill toward the US among our allies.
With all due respect,
-brianV
-juice
I will refrain from posting more about this, as I will be forced into a tyrade...
-mike
'nuff said
-brianV