Subaru Crew - Future Models II

rblnr · April 2010

DI engines? (when) New Impreza (when/what)? Any guesses on where Subaru is going with specific cars and as a brand? I find the look and concept of the hybrid tourer great, but will it ever see the light of day? Etc. ??

Here's Dan Neil's take on the Legacy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184631545330398.html?K- EYWORDS=subaru

The guy won a Pulitzer for his car reviews and I think he's generally right on w/his reviews.

rsholland · April 2010

Rumor has it that the Impreza will be the first Subie hybrid, probably in 2012.

DI? My guess in a year or two.

Bob

ateixeira · April 2010

let's get real, America, you are significant of pants

That was funny.

This is a distinctive brand. The sheet metal should match.

When it does, people complain even louder. See 2002: bug-eyes.

My concern is simply this: Subaru's strength is in the purity, the clarity of its brand. It's the brand's self-definition, apart from the competition, that attracts the faithful.

Yes, but....

Subaru has chased mass-market acceptance before, and been burned badly. Does anyone remember the SVX? By all means, Subaru, make the cars better, but don't throw them in the anonymizing blender of the mass market.

Terrible example.

SVX, seriously? That's about as distinctive as you can get, with it's canopy roof.

They were burned trying to sell FWD.

I don't think he's giving the current lineup enough credit. Sales were up 100% plus even before the storms hit.

aaykay · April 2010

There seems to be a mixed message about the 2011 seats. Several people who sat in them state they are the same as the 2008+ WRX/STI seats, which, IMHO are lousy for performance driving.

Certain others state that there is a change in the 2011 seats that make them more supportive. I will have to sit in it in person to make a final call on this. I just wish they would just bring back the top-notch seats from the 2002/2003 WRX, which was universally acclaimed to be great for both long distance driving comfort and also for superb supportiveness during spirited driving.

As far as the Porsche seats, this is one of the cases where appearances can be deceptive. You need to actually sit in it to realize how supportive it is (I have sat and driven in them). The Subaru 2004+ WRX/STI seats are in no way, shape or form as supportive as the 911 seats, even though visually they might have some resemblance.

aaykay · April 2010

Spec-C, undiluted, would be good.

If they think the price would get too high (a valid concern, since Edmunds' last EVO cost $44 grand), then introduce a Legacy STI instead, with a turbocharged 3.6l H6.

I believe the SPEC-C is priced at around $38K (2-3K over the standard STI), which is a better price than some of the USDM STIs listed for sale with expensive accessories. I found several USDM STIs listed for $40K+ :sick: ....of course the fact that they have been sitting on the dealer's lot - unsold - for several months should have been a pointer to Subaru to not bloat up the car with useless/expensive options that nobody wants.

The SE version of the STI was supposed to be value priced and I have already seen several SEs listed for well over $36K (piled to the gills with useless options like "sport grille" and "Exhaust finishers" (aluminum trim piece costing over $200) etc) Of course the no-options version of the SE, listing in the $32K range, literally fly off the lots the day it lands at the dealer's lot......Subaru, get a clue ! :mad:

aaykay · April 2010

DI? My guess in a year or two.

Instead of continuing to flirt with Turbo-charging the 4-cylinder engine and getting mileage in the 17/23 range (STI's EPA numbers), Subaru should go back and introduce a revised version of the 3.0 H6 into the STI, with DI and no Turbo. With DI, they should be able to get it to over 300HP/280+ Torque, while bettering the mileage.

In the past, the STI was supposed to be a homologation special but the USDM 2.5L does not meet the homologation rules anyway. So why bother to stick with Turbo-charging 4-cylinder engines and getting horrendous mileage (along with the hit in long-term engine reliability) in the bargain ?

Note that even in the Extended Warranty provided by Subaru, they have a $500 "Turbo Surcharge" - probably to account for the higher failure rate of Turbo-charged engines. Turbo-charged engines are also mandatorily classified by Subaru as a "Severe driving condition" and requires that the oil changes be done at 3750 mile intervals to maintain warranty coverage. That is a LOT of extra expense that the owners have to bear (over driving a normally aspirated product), while driving around in a 4-cylinder turbo car that yields 17/23 mpg !

Of course the STI's gearing has a part to play in the mileage but even then 23mpg on the highway in a 2.5L 4-cylinder car ? That is pitiful.

ateixeira · April 2010

Subaru should go back and introduce a revised version of the 3.0 H6 into the STI, with DI and no Turbo.

That's a pretty radical idea. I'm not sure it would work.

To a lot of folks, WRX goes hand in hand with turbocharging.

The EZ30 made no torque and ran on premium fuel. The EZ36 is better in every way. I'd start with that, and build a halo Legacy.

aaykay · April 2010

Actually I am not talking about the older 3.0 H6 or the current 3.6 H6, both of whom don't have DI (Direct Injection) technology. I am talking about a re-worked version of the 3.0 H6, that does have DI.

The biggest advantage with DI would be the spurt in power AND Torque (well above the old 250HP etc) along with better mileage. A well tuned version should be able to get to 300+HP easily and push comes to shove, they can adopt the approach in the new Hyundai Sonata and go with a light pressure Turbo-charger in the 3.0L H6.

The Hyundai 2.0L Turbo runs on regular fuel, has Direct Injection, generates 274HP and 269 Torque and gets 22mpg City/34mpg hwy mileage.

Very true about the image of the WRX being joined at the hip with turbo-charging.....in which case, they should simply replace the 2.5L Turbo H4 with a new 3.0L H6 (with DI and a light pressure Turbo) in the USDM STI, with all other components of the STI like the 6-spd MT, front/center/rear mechanical diffs, brembos etc., remaining as-is. The good thing about a light pressure turbo-charger is that they will be able to run it with regular fuel, will not have any impact on engine longevity and with DI, will generate a lot of power and Torque and have good mileage. I am looking at 330HP/300Torque (via DI and the light pressure Turbo), runs with regular fuel and yields 30+mpg hwy.

PS: As it stands, there is very little weight difference between the 2.5L Turbo and the 3.0L H6, since the 2.5L Turbo comes with the additional Turbo hardware in addition to the Engine itself. There is absolutely zero mileage advantage from the 4-cylinder Turbo either, over the 6-cylinder. A 3.0L H6 with DI and a light pressure Turbo can achieve roughly the same weight numbers (as the current 2.5L H4 with the high-pressure Turbo) and be a VERY lightly stressed engine (vis-a-vis the current 2.5T)......which would enable Subaru to drop atrocious demands like mandatory 3750 mile oil changes (or 3.75months whichever is sooner) to maintain the warranty.

rsholland · April 2010

I honestly don't find the seats in my '09 WRX to be as bad as everyone says. No, they're not Recaros, but they hold this 213-pound. body in place just fine during spirited driving. If I was competing in races, yeah, I'd like something a bit more supportive; but as a daily driver, they're fine (for me, at least).

One more point, I've driven the EVO with Recaros, and they are not as comfortable as my WRX seats. Yeah, they grip you like crazy, but I don't equate that to comfort; not sure I'd want to be that confined on a long trip.

Bob

rsholland · April 2010

I think a 3.0 turbo would be perfect for the STI, if for no other reason as a marketing pointto further separate the STI from the WRX, since now they look so similar. I've stated this before over at NASIOC.

Bob

ateixeira · April 2010

300hp from a naturally aspirated 3l H6 would be too high-strung. I'm thinking 150% of a Honda S2000 and approximatly zero torque.

Forced induction changes things quite a bit. And I doubt, very seriously, that Subaru would tune either the WRX or the STI for regular fuel. They would bump compression to squeeze out more power for sure.

You know what cars they need to get to run on regular fuel? The Forester XT. 224hp and it still needs 93 octane? C'mon.

I say DI the current WRX engine for 280hp or so, and then build a blown H6 for an STI of some sort (Legacy perhaps).

The Hyundai motor looks very promising, but it's still mainstream, and will compete with EcoBoost and V6s. I'd like to see that motor in a Genesis coupe, though.

rsholland · April 2010

You know what cars they need to get to run on regular fuel? The Forester XT. 224hp and it still needs 93 octane? C'mon

That and the Impreza 2.5 GT, as they share the same engine. They also need either the 5-EAT or a CVT.

Bob

aaykay · April 2010

300hp from a naturally aspirated 3l H6 would be too high-strung. I'm thinking 150% of a Honda S2000 and approximatly zero torque.

Forced induction changes things quite a bit. And I doubt, very seriously, that Subaru would tune either the WRX or the STI for regular fuel. They would bump compression to squeeze out more power for sure.

Yeah, but the Honda S2000 does not have DI. DI is not a magic bullet but it does improve performance (power AND Torque) and mileage significantly. Subaru, via their association with Toyota, should have access to that technology now, hopefully. Interestingly, Honda is the only big manufacturer who has not yet moved to using DI.

Sure, Forced Induction via a turbo changes things a bit. And with DI and a light pressure turbo, if they are able to achieve 330HP/300+Torque (from the 3.0L H6), why bump up the compression and needlessly stress the engine ? The whole point in moving to the 3.0L H6 Turbo is to have a less stressed engine, right ?

They only need to go to a highly stressed engine, if they are after 400+HP, which is not needed in the segment the STI competes in. With 330HP/300Torque, they will get a high mileage, low emissions engine that can run with regular fuel and have no long term reliability problems. Subaru will no longer have to mandate 3750 mile oil changes to maintain warranty, which is always a good thing for the owners in terms of lower maintenance costs over the long haul.

Of course the mere presence of the Turbo will bring in a lot of aftermarket interest, who in turn will modify the hell out of the stock engine by changing the Turbo, changing the stock tune of the ECU etc for more power.....but that is completely upto them and does not affect the run-of-the-mill Subaru owners who will be more than satisfed with 330HP etc.

PS: Along with printing the other trivia on their brochure, if Subaru were to mention that their Turbo engines mandatorily require 3750 mile oil changes, I doubt it would sit well with the buying public, especially when competitive products don't have such an imposed/mandated limitation. To be quite honest, during my research over the past several days, I came across this 3750 mile oil change mandate, along with a bunch of engine ringland failures in turbo equipped Subarus. Definitely not the dependable image that Subaru garnered over the years. :sick:

ateixeira · April 2010

Subaru, via their association with Toyota, should have access to that technology now, hopefully

Even Toyota doesn't have access to it. For most models DI is reserved for Lexus. :sick:

The 2GR in my minivan doesn't have it, but the Lexus IS350 does. HP does jump from 266 to 300+, though. But that tells me it's expensive (for now).

Any how, I'm not sure I agree about the "stressed engine" argument. People who get a WRX or STI are willing to get service more often and use premium fuel.

The ones who aren't are the Impreza GT and Forester XT owners.

xwesx · April 2010

I'm confused as to why this discussion is centering around the 3.0 H6 rather than the 3.6 H6; is there something about the 3.6 that makes it unsuitable for this application? In its current application(s), the 3.6 is a much better engine....

aaykay · April 2010

That is a good point. I have the 3.6 H6 in my 09 Tribeca. For normally aspirated applications, the 3.6 H6 is of course the better option, due to the additional native displacement (better Torque).

However, note that the 3.6 H6 has been "carved out" of the 3.0 H6 by boring out the same block - leading to thinning out the spacing between the cylinders and reducing the metal within the block. For normally aspirated applications, that should work just fine with absolutely no hit on reliability.

But if turbo-charging is on the agenda (in the process, creating added virtual displacement), a 3.0 H6 would be a better foundation that the 3.6 H6, even if it is only a low pressure turbo, since there would be more metal available (within the block) to withstand the additional pressure, leading to better/worry-free long term reliability.

saedave · April 2010

However, note that the 3.6 H6 has been "carved out" of the 3.0 H6 by boring out the same block - leading to thinning out the spacing between the cylinders and reducing the metal within the block

But not a very much bigger bore: The engine is also stroked considerably...enough that special assembly procedures and diagonal split on the crank bearing were necessary. Water circulation is greatly improved in the 3.6 vs the 3.0 which is part of the reason the 3.6 can run on 87 octane.

The old 3.0 I had was piggy with fuel as compared to a friend's new 3.6. A lower boost on the 3.6 might be preferable to more on a 3.0. The 3.0 with any boost would need the cooling improvements already implemented on the 3.6.

ateixeira · April 2010

I remember the odd looking, dog-leg piston rods to allow for that long stroke.

Rats, can't find a pic right now.

aaykay · April 2010

Interestingly, my 3.6 H6 provides better mileage and more smoothness with premium fuel than regular fuel. After a couple of tanks, the realization hit me that regardless of the price of fuel, premium always costs 18-20 cents more than regular, which is around $2 additional per fillup. With the better mileage from premium, that $2 is more than compensated, especially when that $2 is less than the cost of 1 additional gallon of fuel. I thus always run premium (Shell or BP) in my Tribeca 3.6.

Sure, by "better foundation", I meant everything else being equal (including the cooling improvements you speak about), a 3.0 is a better starting point for a turbo - especially when the block (before being bored/stroked) was the same.

Pretty much all manufacturers follow this approach, including Audi and SAAB and Volvo and Mazda etc., where the Turbo version has slightly lower displacement than the NA version - clearly to have additional material to better withstand the added stresses from the force feeding. Even in case of Subaru, I believe the JDM 2.0L Turbo (with Twin-scroll et al) is a better foundation for a turbo than the "carved out" 2.5L Turbo that the USDM market gets. The JDM 2.0L Turbo engine has better tractability, MORE torque than the USDM 2.5L Turbo and in applications like the SPEC-C, revs freeer due to the ball-bearing turbo etc.

xwesx · April 2010

Thanks; I really appreciate that clarification.

I must have overlooked the turbo portion of the conversation and focused only on the DI....

saedave · April 2010

Even in case of Subaru, I believe the JDM 2.0L Turbo (with Twin-scroll et al) is a better foundation for a turbo than the "carved out" 2.5L Turbo that the USDM market gets.

I presume the JDM engine like the 2.5 turbo has a semi closed deck block. That is a considerable manufacturing cost increment and the tooling for the 3.0T block would probably need to be all new!

ateixeira · April 2010

They do, and it is more costly.

Funny thing is even the Forester XT's engine has a semi-closed deck block. Forged connecting rods also.

aaykay: interesting to hear the 3.6l can make good use of that extra octane. I guess the engine is very flexible in that way.

Unfortunately for me, around here the difference from 87 to 93 octane is a full $0.30, so figure 10% extra cost. Diesel is even worse.

Fortunately, none of my current fleet requires premium.

volkov · April 2010

No whining. 91 runs about 15% higher here with 93/94 being around 25% premium over 87. Diesel tends to run cheap though - lots of full size P-Us. It's one of the reasons that diesel cars are somewhat attractive here.

ateixeira · April 2010

In Brazil, diesel runs about HALF the price of gas, but it's not the low-sulphur variety.

Here in Potomac, if you have to ask the price of diesel, you can't afford it.

KCRam · April 2010

...if you have to ask the price of diesel, you can't afford it.

At the height of the July 2008 price spike, I needed to fill up the Ram. $155.00 for about 30 gallons of ULSD. Not a typo. :surprise:

kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host

ateixeira · April 2010

Yikes.

I looked today and premium was 37 cents more than regular, quite a difference. Diesel was another 7 cents above that.

No wonder there are so many hybrids around here, and not that many TDIs.

xwesx · April 2010

Even though diesel here was over $1.00 more than 87 gasoline after that price spike (diesel settled at about $4.00 and then slowly dropped to $3.50), gasoline is now $3.50 while diesel has remained steady. :sick:

volkov · May 2010

So we finally took the Legacy out for a test. Getting Dra to shop for vehicles is like getting the kids to pick up dog poop in the back yard. One of the biggest questions was OB versus Leg, with Dra very pro wagon. My logic is that we already have two wagony vehicles, so have no need for another. If transporting the hounds, or gardening supplies, I'd rather she use the truck and leave the new car tidy. We would give up the roof rack, but see previous statement - WRX and Yukon XL both have that covered. She would give up a couple of inches of ground clearance, but that only really matters once or twice a year with a really big snowfall, and she could simply drive the XL on those days. WRX has been seriously tested a couple of times, but I've never been stuck - although she did once, forcing me to rescue my clutch. I don't expect the Leg would be any different and might even be better integrated with TC and CVT. Given a $3.5k price difference, we didn't really see the cost/benefit. The irony is that the competition (Crosstour and Venza) are wagon only. Venza comes in cheaper than the OB with 4 cyl and fully equipped here in Canada.
We tested a 2.5 Limited with multi-media. I really liked the drive of the Leg. It's no WRX but not as sloppy at the wheel or in body roll as comparable sedans I've driven. Feels very solid without any tinny sounds or rattles. I instantly found my sweetspot in the seat which felt more substantial than the Forester. Dra had a bit more trouble getting comfortable. Would need another dry run before purchase in that regard. Power was good for our needs even fully loaded.
I liked the CVT. There is a faint whirr which someone else has commented on, but I didn't find it at all bothersome, and much less obvious than my beloved turbo whine. Can't hear a thing with the radio at regular listening level. It makes the drive very smooth. Dra loved the integrated B-U camera, and likes the idea of integrated blue-tooth. Lots of rear seat leg and foot room for the boys. Minimal middle seat hump which is less prominent than the Forester which had elicited complaints. No boy had a problem with sitting there in the Leg.
There were a few minor gripes. I thought the paddle shifters were too big and ugly. Personally I think they are useless in any auto, but at least better than tap shifting at the stick. The nav was not user friendly. I've used a few different ones in rentals or test drives and always been able to figure them out by trial and error in a couple of minutes. Not this one. Less likely an issue if we owned it and I RTFM to use it properly, but it does leave an impression that can't help sales. Not sure about the electronic parking brake. I'm much more of a low-tech, high reliability fan myself. I wish there was memory for the drivers seat. I expected it at this level, and it is found in the competition.
The car's looks are MEH! Dra really liked the shape of the Crosstour, but AWD requires the V-6 which is actually rather thirsty. Her car will see >95% city driving. By all measures the CVT 2.5 really sips getting 23mpg to the Crosstour's 17!! We can afford the gas, but Dra wouldn't even consider it after that. She in fact complained that we can't get a PZEV Leg variant with the electronic bells and whistles in Canada. The Venza 2.4 comes rather close though at 21, and that does remain in the competition.
We'll let you know how it turns out.

ateixeira · May 2010

I have that 3.5l in my van, it's really happiest cruising on the highway. Not a city vehicle, nor it is a city-centric engine. My mileage tanks when I drive it in to town.

I use the Miata for that.

For >95% city driving I'd get the 4 banger.

volkov · May 2010

Yep, that's our thinking. Simply no use for the V6 given the demands. We don't even have any true highways in town. We have the two lane highways which become main streets as you pass through the city here.
My mistake, the Toyo I4 is a 2.7L now.
Very surprised that Honda has no 4cyl option given their CR-V doesn't even offer a V6. They do tend to be careful not to compete internally, but that is probably taking it too far. More likely, I suspect it may be that they don't feel they have a small engine up to the task. The latest version of the 2.4 that runs the CRV is impressive for an I4 of that size, but it needs the revs for HP and the Crosstour with AWD is 500lbs heavier. It would probably overwhelm that engine wrt the performance that buyers expect. The two smaller engines share the same HP numbers, but the Toyo puts out 181 ft-lbs to the Hondas 160. I'm betting you would notice it.

aaykay · May 2010

I would think the 2.7L 4-cyl should be more than upto the task of cruising along on the highway, even with a full load. So in a nutshell, the 4-cyl is a better choice for both city and hwy driving. There is no reason to get a big, honking V6 for such a task.

If Subaru had a DOHC 2.5L H4, I think it would match up well in a Legacy - especially if it came with DI. Unfortunately, the Subaru non-Turbo H4s are all SOHC engines and quickly lose steam as the rpms climb. And the Turbos are thirsty, even when driven conservatively - even though in theory the Turbo engine is supposed to yield good mileage when off-boost.

PS: Honda SOHC engines are the exception to the above SOHC rule. The Honda SOHC engines rev as freely as DOHC engines of competitors. And curiously, till date, Honda has not moved to employing DI in any of their engines.

ateixeira · May 2010

Depends on the application, just keep in mind a minivan can seat 8 plus luggage, or 149 cubic feet of stuff. It can carry some serious weight. If you're in a hilly area, you'll be glad you got the 3.5l V6.

One car mag tested the new Sienna with the 2.7l 4 banger, and the V6 back-to-back, and guess what? The 4 banger used more gas. They worked it hard just to keep up, and then efficiency went out the window.

The reason the V6 works on the highway is the gearing is ultra-tall. At 60mph my van tachs under 2000rpm, barely idling along. That's why I can break 30mpg.

Vans are so big they often do the job of TWO cars. Several times I've taken 2 entire familys on trips. For that you want the six, trust me.

volkov · May 2010

We were more than happy with the performance of the 2.5 H4 in the Legacy with the CVT even without DI or DOHC. It drove with more authority than the 3.0 in the AWD Focus which seemed to hunt a lot and spend a great deal of time at high revs under load. Maybe that's the exact point you are making. The H4 doesn't get much benefit from going high in the rev range, so stays lower, optimized by the CVT. As an aside, that same Ford 3.0 felt like a better engine coupled with a CVT in the much heavier Freestyle.

ateixeira · May 2010

Focus, or Fusion?

I priced a Fusion with the 3.5l and it cost more than a 3.6R Legacy.

Ford basically builds huge, huge incentives into the price.

robr2 · May 2010

I priced a Fusion with the 3.5l and it cost more than a 3.6R Legacy.

But if you compare the 3.6R Premium with the Fusion SEL AWD (which is a closer comparison), the difference is only a couple of hundred dollars at MSRP according to Subaru's compar-o-ator.

ateixeira · May 2010

To me the Legacy is the one worth a couple grand more, so that means the Fusion has a $2400 rebate built right in.

volkov · May 2010

OOPS. Yeah, Fusion. The 3.5l is the sport package isn't it? Up here pre-rebate the 2.5i Limited and the AWD Fusion are the same price. 3.6 is significantly more, and the Ford financing offers are worth $$$ too.

ateixeira · May 2010

That's what I mean - they build the incentive in to the price.

I wonder why they don't just price the Fiesta at $117,000 and then offer a $100,000 rebate.

lucien2 · May 2010

MY subaru has a DOHC 2.5l NA.......but it's 11 years old! :P

just a quick note, we continue to be amazed by our little Clubman. The turbocharged 4-banger is so useful, I wish Subaru could find this sweet spot between performance and economy. 0-60 in 6.8 isn't WRX blistering, but puh-lenty sporty for most drivers. And we're getting 30.1 on this tank, in mixed use ( I figure it's 27 city and 36 hwy). With numbers like that, I'll put premium in it all day and still save money over running the ol' trusty Outback.

Steering is heavy, handling is extraordinary with the sport package AND the 17s. But at the (significant) cost of ride, which I would describe as brutal to most shoppers. I think only me and ColinL would be happy with it as a DD, and I don't get to drive it every day

I'd be interested to check it out with 16" rims and see what the difference is.

aaykay · May 2010

MY subaru has a DOHC 2.5l NA.......but it's 11 years old!

Yeah, but you missed the more important part of what I stated earlier.....a DOHC engine with DI. DI changes the engine profile quite a bit, with potential for both better mileage and more robust power/torque.

I agree that Subaru needs to find a sweet-spot in their turbos, when it comes to economy and sportiness. The STI is supposed to hit around 20-22mpg, when driven around like a grandma - completely off-boost. That is not acceptable in a 4-cylinder. Of course the short gearing is the culprit but what prevents Subaru from having a taller 6th gear ? They can make gears 1-4 short enough for rapid acceleration and lengthen out gears 5 and 6. But the STI is a 6-speed, with even the 6th gear built to accelerate the car strongly - for what purpose ? :confuse:

ateixeira · May 2010

at the (significant) cost of ride, which I would describe as brutal to most shoppers

At times I feel the same way about my Miata. I got the 17s with the sport suspension, and it bangs over potholes that appeared after the recent snow storm.

It's the first time ever I may actually get TALLER sidewalls tires when I replace these summer-only gumballs.

The weather warmed up just in time to remind me why I got a Miata in the first place, though.

I'm getting about 27-28 mpg in 100% city commuting. Not bad but I wish the gas tank were bigger. 270 miles and the low fuel light goes one.

zman3 · May 2010

Not bad but I wish the gas tank were bigger. 270 miles and the low fuel light goes one.

Hey, just like my OB 3.0!!! Major gripe of mine.

aaykay · May 2010

My 09 Honda Fit's gas tank is also a pretty small one. The low fuel light goes on when the miles (equal city/hwy mix) hit a little over 335-340 or so.....but the tank only fills upto around 9 gallons. I am certainly not complaining about the 37+mpg the car yields (I believe the EPA mileage is like 33mpg on the hwy and have no idea how they came up with that number) but wish the gas tank was larger so that I could reduce the frequency of the fillups.

PS: The only time I have seen the mileage drop below 35mpg is during the winter months and equipped with snow tires. During winter, I have seen mileage ranging from 29-33mpg and that I believe is par for the course, considering the conditions.

ateixeira · May 2010

The OB's gas tank grew for 2010, I think from 16.9 gallons to 18.

xwesx · May 2010

Lucien, I would be quite happy with it as a DD.

The tires are quite different between the sets of rims on mine, but I find the ride in my '10 Forester to be much more pleasant and quiet with the 16" rims and winter tires mounted versus the stock 17" rims and OEM (Geolandar G95) tires.

xwesx · May 2010

That is about the same as my '98 Escort. The book says it has a 12-gallon tank, but I have never put more than 10 in it (and those are rare instances) and a typical fill is nine gallons about the time the low fuel indicator goes on. Summer mileage around town is about 37 with winter mileage typically in the high 20s if the temperatures dip under or near zero. Above 20 degrees and it will stay in the 30+ range.

Completely unrelated, I randomly tried to start the '98 Caravan yesterday and it fired right up (first time in about four months!). That is likely the last time it will start for another four months, but the engine was so silky smooth that I almost missed having it. Now that I have the struts replaced on the Escort, getting the van running and sold is next on the automotive priority list.

ateixeira · May 2010

Interesting.

I tried snows on my 98 Forester and they felt squirmy to me.

Of course that was on 15" rims. I was using 16"s.

We have the 17"s on our 2009, but I ride is limo-smooth compared to the Miata.

xwesx · May 2010

In warm temperatures, the studless winter tires can definitely feel squirmy because the tread compound is so soft, but once temperatures drop well below freezing, they stiffen up quite a bit (while still giving great traction!). Of the six months I had mine on the car last winter, all but perhaps two weeks were at or below freezing.

That said, I was not commenting on the handling between the two, only the ride comfort and noise.

lucien2 · May 2010

to be fair, the MazdaSpeed 3 and the GTI do not set the world on fire for EPA ratings either, and both require premium. What advantage they post would likely vanish if saddled with AWD.

ateixeira · May 2010

GTI is pretty decent, but it doesn't quite match the Speed3 and WRX for straight line performance.

The TFSI engine is improved, but VW had problems with carbon build-up on the original 2.0l FSI motor. I'm still skeptical about VW reliability (and yes, Lucien, I understand the irony of your family's Soob gasket issues/trouble-free dubs).

Subaru Crew - Future Models II

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles