Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
-Brian
-juice
Ed
Now it's a popular art form of dance, with some wicked kicks and lots of use of the hands on the floor, flips, kicks, etc.
They play music with a hollow cocunut, a long bow-like stick, and a string between them. It's an extremely unique "BOING Ba-BOING" sound that you'll hear in the background of the Zoom Zoom tune.
The best show I've ever seen on Brazilian Dance was called "Oba Oba", and appeared in DC several years ago. If I hear of their return, I'll let you know.
-juice
Regards,
Frank
What makes you say the Forester has the ratcheting seats a la WRX? I see one dial-type adjuster and the seatback tilt lever. That's it. Looks like they made it worse from our '98 since our '98 has 2 dials (1 for front and 1 for rear of the seat base).
Also, have you ever played Tekken 2 or Tekken Tag? It sounds to me like you are talking about the martial arts style they used for a character named Eddie Gordo in that game. Very cool. Looks like break dancing.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Ken
I guess that makes sense to me because if you did exactly the same things to a 2.5 that they do to the 2.0, I would expect more than 238 hp. They will probably keep the compression ratio up a bit from the WRX to make the off-boost response less soft.
Regards,
Frank
Ken
I may be wrong about the seats, I'll have to see how the mechanism works in person. They did say it's adjustable over a wider range - some folks like those high chairs.
Yes, sort of like that character in Tekken.
-juice
we'll see if Frank's dealer is blowing smoke. not to say it's not a good idea, I just doubt FHI would do it.
-Colin
-juice
I'm still not conviced that it would make sense to introduce a turbo-anything for the NA Forester given the preference for displacement here.
I'm also skeptical that Subaru would develop a turbo engine just for the NA markets. I'd expect to see the H6 before that happens.
Ken
Remember, they haven't fit the H6 in the more narrow Impreza platform. Width and length have not changed, so I doubt the engine bay is as big as the Legacy's.
-juice
PS Where's Bob? Haven't heard from him since that drawing he made for Kfira.
http://www.auto-asia.com/viewcontent.asp?pk=6792 ).
From that article, a large number of changes appear to have been made to both to the 2.0l engine and its turbo. It looks to me that they made a big investment into that, which is understandable considering the Japanese domestic and highly taxed European markets. It seems reasonable to me to go ahead and use that technology also in the American market, in particular, since all three, efficiency, low-RPM torque output, and emissions have been vastly improved.
With regard to the 238hp - they would not put something like that into the US Forester, at least not in 2004. Around 200hp seems realistic to me and is also a magic number for people who come from the V(H)6 side. An engine/turbo tuned for good low-end torque is more important in this type of car. And with improved fuel economy, it would blow the competition away.
- D.
I was mentioning the new Forester, and how disappointed I was with no H6. He told me that the regional training guy, the guy who keeps them up to date on what they will be selling, told him that a 238hp 2.5l was coming for the new Forester.
He was told that it would only have 10 PSI unlike the WRX'x 13. 2004 was never mentioned, and I came away with the impression it would be sooner, but not immediately.
I told him that it was interesting, but that I thought the H6 was better suited for the way the Forester is marketed.
He told me that the concensus at the dealership was that vehicle for vehicle, the 2.5 H4 felt peppier than the 3.0 H6 (gearing?) except at highway speeds. The H6 was definately smoother though. Most customers chose the H4 after driving both, better perceived value, I guess.
If this is reflected elsewhere, maybe that's why the H6 is slow to appear. Maybe if they can keep the low end response and torque, a turbo might not be a bad idea.
Having had a turbo, and swearing never to get another, I would like to see a torque curve of this mythical engine. I might have to reconsider.
Regards,
Frank
turbos have come a long way and are quite reliable these days. More importantly, manufacturers like VW/Audi have shown for years that you can have a nice, long, flat torque curve with a turbo, that can start at or below 2000 rpm. The NB 1.8T is flat at 173 lbs./ft between 1950 rpm through 5000 rpm with 180 hp max, others variants of this engine go perhaps between 2400 to 6000 with much higher torque and hp ratings. That's at 1.8 liters. The new 2.0l Audi turbo engine for next year is rumored to make 265hp.
So what I am saying is that you can tune a turbo for fuel efficiency, emissions and low-end torque. While sacrificing perhaps 30% or more in hp, you get an engine that is more suited to the Forester market than a sports car version.
- D.
Bob
http://www.apexjapan.com/
Believe it or not, the HD Chevy 3500 dually pickups have a 2000 pound trailer restriction if the trailer doesn't have brakes! Can you believe that? If you don't, I urge you to go down to your local Chevy dealer and pick up a Silverado brochure. Chevy dedicates a great deal of ink in their brochure as to towing "do's" and don'ts." The issue of trailer brakes is clearly spelled out in there.
Having said all that, I really do hope Subaru will offer some sort of optional trailer-tow package to get their vehicles Class II trailer capable.
Lawyers... This is one more reason why they should all be sent to live under the Talaban!
Bob
-Dave (suddenly can't stop drooling) :^\....
You need to throw a lot of technology at a turbo to get it to do what a 6 does naturally. Turbos are still reactive systems, and that will always be a disadvantage. You can't beat cylinders overlapping on a crank for torque.
Good torque at 2k RPMs is not the same as good torque off idle and at 1k. Big difference in feel.
My Dodge turbo was pretty sophisticated for its time. Water cooled bearing, small lightweight impeller, spun at 180K RPM, electronic management that let the engine go into overboost (+ ~2.5 PSI) for the first 2 seconds and than drop back down.
Never had any reliability problems either. Playing with boost pressure (carefully!) was a very easy way to get more performance.
The throttle response was very good but there still wasn't much low end torque. You would give it throttle and it would respond, then WHAM, like you pulled a trigger. Fun for playing but not for "normal" use. Not a good "traffic" vehicle, and not conducive to good fuel mileage either.
So I am skeptical, but open to change my opinion. If they build it, I will... at least take a look.
Regards,
Frank
My dad had a 90 Daytona ES with T-tops and the 2.5 turbo engine with a 5-spd. Man, that was a sweet car at the time. It did have a bit of turbo lag, but that was quickly forgotten when you could smoke the tires most of the way through second gear! The engine was super smooth too, due to the balance shafts. All in all, not bad for what was essentially all base technology introduced with the K-car.
Craig
Yeah, mine was a 2.2 in a 88 Shadow 5 speed. That was the first year they used the Mitsu turbo instead of the Garrett.
The later 2.5 with the balance shafts were much smoother. I often think of the inherent benefit of the H design with our Soobs. 2.5 is a big 4 cylinder.
It's too bad they never solved the sticking problem they had with the variable vane turbos, I always thought that was an elegant solution.
Dodge did a good job not having much torque-steer either. Careful attention to the length of the half-shafts will do that. Physics is wonderful!
My next vehicle after the Shadow was a 90 Daytona with the Mitsu 3.0l V6 and 4 speed automatic. I liked that MUCH better, great torque everywhere. That combo was pleasant to drive in any situation, and it could also get up and go, sometimes too easily and too smoothly.
Regards,
Frank
-mike
-Frank P.
-Frank P.
I really enjoy the 1.8T in the Passat. It provides a lot of power but there is a bit of turbo lag below 2000 RPM. The tiptronic seems to hesitate a little bit when down shifting through gears but that is pretty typical of all automatic transmissions. That having been said, I would love to see the WRX Sti come stateside. I test drove the current WRX available here in the states and really like it . . . it was my choice for my vehicle purchase before I got the Passat. The wife put the veto on the WRX because we needed more passenger room than the WRX provided (3 kids). I just wish that VW offereed the 1.8T with the 4-Motion . . . after all, Audi has the Quattro with the 1.8T so I know it can be done.
Just my $.02
IIRC, it had 140hp.
-Brian
-mike
I wouldn't have a Subaru except for the Forester's headroom. The others are too small. I would like more legroom though, and I sometimes press multiple pedals with 1 foot.
I find VW tight and overpriced, and Audi more than I want to spend. I used to drive everything, but I was more limber then.
The test to me is how it works with an automatic transmission. At this point in my life, that's what I would prefer... make it 5 spd. and responsive though.
Have you or Dietmar driven one with an auto?
Regards,
Frank
I was commuting to college back then and this thing was breaking my wallet. If you look in my profile, I ended up with a Chevy(Geo) Sprint(Metro) after the Lebaron.
-Frank P.
The WRX honestly has maybe one of those. (8.0:1 CR, Mitsu TD04L turbo)
-Colin
I had the New Beetle with the old (150hp) turbo as a loaner for two days. That was definitely still a lot of fun to drive even with the automatic. Generally, I would say for cars in the NB, Golf and Jetta range the turbo (especially the new 170-180 hp) is more than adequate. In comparison, there is more hesitation from the automatic shifting than there is turbo lag. The automatic makes these cars about a second slower, from mid to high 7s to high 8s 0-60.
For a car the weight of the Passat (or A4 for that matter), I think the manual is a better fit for the 1.8l turbo engine. I did test drive a Passat automatic with the turbo; it is still acceptable, but it takes away from the fun factor that is one of the main selling points of these cars.
I have the V6 in my Passat wagon, with tiptronic (automatic), not by choice but because the 4Motion (=quattro) is not available in a different combination.
Now if they would just sell the Jetta Wagon with (Haldex-) 4Motion and the Pumpe-Düse Diesel engine in the US (only 150hp, but 236 ft-lbs and ~9s 0-60, 30-40mpg)
Coming back to the Forester, I agree with you, though, lots of torque at 2000rpm is still not quite the same as at 1000 or 1200 just off idle. Still a whole lot better than a turbo that starts at 3000 or 3500! Anyway, a 2.5l turbo or supercharged engine would definitely have more low-end grunt - I just don't think it is going to happen. Given that Subaru has put so much effort into lowering the fuel consumption and emissions of the 2l turbo, it makes sense that they will introduce that version into the US market. I am not sure what they will do about the pricing. I don't think a $28,000 Forester will sell - so they may have to lower the price of the other models or live with just a nominal upgrade price for the turbo
- D.
My buddy had a Shadow with the 2.2l turbo, while I had my Escort GT 1.8l 127hp DOHC. We used to drag race all the time, and he'd usually win, but not always, and it was close. My engine was far more driveable, more fuel efficient, and did fine on regular while he used premium.
His car was more or less like paisan's, falling apart around it's engine. Mine survived long after his died, and with many more miles on it. Score one for high-tech engines (that was a Mazda unit, BTW).
I don't mind a turbo, but I do want driveability. I hope Frank's buddy is right, and that 2.5l turbo with 238hp arrives. That sounds sweet.
5EAT in development? Bring it here!
VW's 1.8T felt good to me with the 5 speed, but not as good with the Tip. The tranny is a bit slow, and it doesn't feel peppy like the manual does. But I liked the engine, and that was with 150hp, too.
Volvo tuned their LPT engine for use with the auto. In fact, that's the only way it comes. You can get a manual with the base N/A engine, or the high boost engine. The LPT is for autos only, and it does mate well to it, IMO better than VW's auto with the 1.8T. It may be the extra displacement.
A 2.0l turbo on the Forester would probably not be good for the US market, so I really hope we get what Frank was told.
-juice
Exactly. Now envision that engine/turbo combination tuned for low-end torque. Perhaps 10%-15% less than the 2.5l at 1000 -1500rpm, the same at 1800, and 20% more at 2000 through 5500. All that with less emissions and better mileage (of course, I am just guessing here).
Also, until recently, Subaru owners were quite satisfied with the 2.2l engine. The new 2l should have about the same low-end torque as that one, with a new Forester weighing 60-90 pounds less than the previous year. I think that should be acceptable low-rpm torque.
- D.
I need to go drive a WRX and get re-acclimated. I sat in one once so I know I could drive it, at least long enough to get an impression.
I would be much less reluctant if they would just put a supercharger on the 2.5.
I am spoiled by my Dakota which only weighs ~200 lbs more than a Forester, and has ~325 lb-ft of torque, right now, anytime you want it.
Regards,
Frank
-Colin
-mike
Regards,
Frank
But I like throttle response too.
-Colin
-mike
Regards,
Frank
-Frank P.
-mike
Though his name is Dave, so I'll have to talk him into a Subaru next time around. Maybe for his wife, who is due for a new car soon.
-juice
PS Subaru has to meet car CAFE standards, so 27.5 mpg instead of 20.7 for trucks. That's a huge factor with displacement and torque.
It does have a full frame, and the package I bought that includes HD rear axle, sure-grip, and larger rear drum brakes, in conjunction with the HD electrical, and HD cooling with trans cooler, allow the tow weight to be that high. The front brakes are not changed but are about twice the size of my Forester anyway.
I apologize for sending this thread on a tangent. I only brought up my truck as an example of torque to weight ratio, not to compare it to actual vehicles in a different functional class. I know many folks are down on DC, but I have owned a lot of them, with only an occasional clunker. My truck has been outstanding with no problems for 60K miles.
Regards,
Frank
I recall a Mercedes ML photo with a trailer that had caused it to flip over. It basically went and took the whole vehicle with it!
-juice
Steve