2.5L vs 2.0L Turbo - Subaru Forester Owners Forum
User Tag List

 103Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-03-2016, 05:13 PM Thread Starter
New User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 2
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
2.5L vs 2.0L Turbo

I'm in the market for a new car and am considering the Forester Touring, but am curious as to what the major difference is between the 2.5L and the 2.0XT Turbo. I vaguely understand what a turbo is/does, but is the performance that much better that it justifies the cost difference? TIA.

DaytonDennis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-03-2016, 05:32 PM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MA
Posts: 161
Car Year: 2012
Car Model: Forester 2.5x
Transmission: AT
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
There are plenty of people on this forum that will say turbo is the only way to go and that the 2.5 with CVT is lacking in power(not me,but I have an older version, with 4 speed automatic). You should drive both versions and then decide if the turbo is worth the extra money in first cost and extra fuel costs.

typenine is offline  
post #3 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-03-2016, 06:05 PM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south jersey
Posts: 1,074
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester XT Premium
Transmission: automatic
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I had a 2015 2.5i and now a 2016 2.0 xt turbo. I liked the very good fuel economy of my 2.5i plus the reliability and less maintenance,the turbo is pretty much quicker,but uses more fuel and has higher maint costs,and there is just more to go wrong with the turbo cars. As one of the other guys stated you need to drive them both ,if the turbo excites
you then I guess you gotta go with it. ed
Chuckl likes this.
Eddie Spaghetti is offline  
 
post #4 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-03-2016, 06:43 PM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Okinawa, Japan
Posts: 24
Car Year: 2003
Car Model: Forester XT
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Pretty sure it's part of the man code to choose the version with the most HP. Everything else is irrelevant lol.

Jeremy Clarkson had a pretty good explanation of how turbos work.
SHHHHHH, bbun, regajohn and 6 others like this.
RabbitXT is offline  
post #5 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 06:52 AM
Forum Member
 
Even_Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 208
Car Year: 2014
Car Model: Forester 2.5i
Transmission: CVT
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Yes, the turbo has more performance. It should be fed a steady diet of high-octane fuel, which costs more per gallon. It will use more fuel per mile if you, like most folks, decide that you like that fast acceleration and push your foot down a lot. If you drive a at higher altitudes (I notice you are in Ohio, so it might not apply to you), you won't suffer much performance loss as you go up.

Is it worth the extra cost? Not to me. But it would be to many folks. Only you can decide.

Not sure that the turbos cause higher maintenance. Subaru has been at this many years and has a pretty good and reliable system. But it is true that there are a few more parts under the hood of a turbo model. After all, you never have to replace a turbocharger/wastegate/intercooler/etc. if you don't don't have one ...
Even_Stephen is offline  
post #6 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 07:10 AM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 12
Car Year: 2011
Car Model: Impreza WRX STi
Transmission: 6SPD
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
First off, welcome to the forum.

I just picked up a 2016 2.5i Premium. Coming from a 2011 STi I could have went with the XT model, but overall I needed to stay within a budget (new home owner)

Comparing the two, 2.5i and 2.0XT - the XT provided much better feedback in driving and handling overall, but again it came down to costs.

I'm still satisfied with the 2.5i and the better fuel economy numbers on paper while overall providing the same amenities that I was looking for. My needs will be different than yours and the next person.

Also the NA model was also less expensive on my insurance by $25 a month. Include in the higher premium fuel costs(which I'm used to in the STi) and maintenance (added variables with a turbo) the numbers played much better in my favor going with the 2.5i
Santa is offline  
post #7 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 08:11 AM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 33
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester Limited
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
We also went they this process. We ended up buying the 2.5i as it was enough for what we needed. We have a track car (for when we want power) so the 2.5i works awesome for a daily driver. It was cheaper for insurance and doesn't need 93 octane. Plus the wife likes it, so that was enough to seal the deal.

16 Forester Limited
16 Crosstrek Limited
EBG18T is offline  
post #8 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 10:27 AM
Forum Member
Contributing Member
 
Hacksaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 916
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester XT Touring
Transmission: CVT
Garage
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Welcome to the forum!

I test drove both. Decided on the 2.0 FXT. In the spirit of fairness though, I was coming from a '14 2.0 XV Crosstrek. It was great on a 4,000 mile road-trip and got awesome MPG but was a little under-powered and too cramped for my taste.

We'll see how I like the FXT on a 5,000 mile road-trip I'm planning in May. Same fuel tank size as the Crosstrek but I anticipate getting 7-8 mpg less.
EJH likes this.

The secrecy of my job prevents me from knowing what I'm doing.
Hacksaw is offline  
post #9 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 01:05 PM
Forum Member
 
Flames9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester Touring
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
When it comes down to power....You need to go test drive it urself and see if it is worth the extra cost to buy and drive (less mpg and premium fuel) My Wife and I just bought 2...2016 Subarus, an Outback Limited and hers a Forester Touring...both with the 2.5 engine....We don't tow anything....mellow drivers, so for us the 2.5 is fine...You just need to take 1 for a test drive and see what is a good fit for you.
Flames9 is offline  
post #10 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 01:43 PM
Forum Member
 
SolarForester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 285
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester 2.5 Limited
Transmission: CVT
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonDennis View Post
I'm in the market for a new car and am considering the Forester Touring, but am curious as to what the major difference is between the 2.5L and the 2.0XT Turbo. I vaguely understand what a turbo is/does, but is the performance that much better that it justifies the cost difference? TIA.
Why don't you tell us what kind of driving you do and what vehicle you currently drive. That would help answer your question.

Judging from the way you phrased your question, it sounds like your suspect of the power vs price difference and I would wager that for you personally, the power won't justify the cost. Drivers who want the power of the XT usually don't ask questions about cost. They just want power. For drivers -- like myself -- who are more concerned about the value for the buck, the 2.5i is the way to go. Less up front cost, less fuel/mile cost, less insurance cost, less maintenance cost. Every which way you analyse it, the 2.5i costs less. But if you're really stuck on power performance, then get the XT. For people who live in high elevation and need the boost speed passing on hwys going uphill, then a XT would be quite helpful, but not essential.

Athens Turbaru, EJH and CoolMike like this.
SolarForester is offline  
post #11 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-04-2016, 03:34 PM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 210
Car Year: 2014
Car Model: Forester XT
Transmission: CVT w/ S & S#
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
If you search the threads there's lots on here regarding the turbo vs non turbo. As others have said, it makes up much bigger difference if you live at altitude.

Spend lots of time in the car and when in the turbo try the S & S# modes ... both in the auto shifting and in the manual paddle shifting modes.

Also spend a lot of time evaluating seat comfort, there's a whole thread on here about the seats. I would rate them about a 5 out of 10, but a lot depends on body type, some people think the seats are comfortable ...
regajohn is offline  
post #12 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-05-2016, 12:52 AM Thread Starter
New User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 2
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Thanks for the replies, very good advice. I've had older 4 cyl that almost made me weep when trying to pass a semi on a 2 lane road. Needed about a mile of clearance to do that. So, I was concerned that Subaru didn't offer the 6 cyl, but I really not need a ton of power. I'm retired and most of miles I put on vehicles is about equal between highway and city. The only thing that will go on my hitch is my bike carrier + a bike or two, and perhaps a jon boat in the future. Nothing heavy, so it's not that my concern. Your input about costs might make me change my mind. Insurance, higher octane fuel and mileage. All add up. I'm retired and on SS, so yeah, those things definitely come into play. My previous vehicle (it was just totaled) was a Dodge Nitro with 6 cyl. From all that I read on their forums, I was glad to have the 6 cyl as power lacked a lot in the 4. It also required higher octane (8.9) and the mileage sucked. From what I read thus far, haven't seen issues with the 2.5L on the Subaru. I won't be mountain climbing very much and won't be pulling boats or campers, just more concerned I'll have to ability to pass on 2 lanes roads without needing that mile open lane to do it.

Thanks again for the input. Gives me a bit to think about and it's always good to hear from actual owners (dealers will tell you that you'll see unicorns and rainbows while driving!) I think you have me leaning for the 2.5, but as was mentioned, I do need go get out and test drive them both. Sorry about posting in the wrong forum - my first post and I didn't look deep enough for the correct one. Consumer Report rated the Forester best choice for small SUV which got me looking at them. Hopefully, I can get a decent deal and pull the trigger on one within a month.
DaytonDennis is offline  
post #13 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-05-2016, 02:56 AM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 33
Car Year: 2016
Car Model: Forester Limited
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Dennis - you will know when you drive it if it is the right vehicle for you. My folks are retired and I took them car shopping in January. It came down to the Honda CRV & the Subaru Forester. While I preferred the Forester (we bought one got my wife in February), my mom preferred the feel of the passenger seat in the CRV. You just never know what the deciding factor is going to be sometimes.

16 Forester Limited
16 Crosstrek Limited
EBG18T is offline  
post #14 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-05-2016, 04:12 AM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sussex Co, DE
Posts: 563
Car Year: 2015
Car Model: XT-P
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Take a 2.5 on a test drive on a 60 mph road. Stomp on it like you are going to pass someone. If it feels good, buy it. If not try an XT. A 2.5 premium with Eyesight is a great value. Maybe look at a RAV4 hybrid if you do a lot of in town driving.

I still miss my BugEye WRX Wagon
sinbad is offline  
post #15 of 151 (permalink) Old 03-10-2016, 06:34 AM
Forum Member
 
FutureSubie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 11
Car Year: 2010
Car Model: Rav4 Limited
Transmission: 5 Speed auto
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
I'm interested in the XT in few years to replace my 2010 RAV4 Limited 4WD V6 (269hp, regular fuel) 5sp. Toyota no longer offers the v6 in their RAV4s or I would get another one when this one wears out in few hundred thousand miles (I have 85,300 miles now).

This is our only car and I drive 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year (50-50 city/highway) with several long road trips every year so I need POWER when the car is loaded with two people, lots of luggage and a bicycle. Trying to avoid trouble on the interstates by staying away from big trucks is my main concern. And I want to continue to take the many, tight mountain curves on I77 through West Virginia at 70mph.

The Forester XT is looking pretty good on my future list but I'm concerned about turbo reliability, cornering at speed ability and CVT performance. My yearly, 3 week hiking trip in the Colorado mountains should not be a problem with the Subies of course.

And when pulling off the highway to rest or gas up or eat do I really have to worry about letting the turbo engine idle a minute to cool it down?

Tom
FutureSubie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Subaru Forester Owners Forum > General Forums > Forester Shopping

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 

Title goes here

close
video goes here
description goes here. Read Full Story
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1