The next-generation Subaru Global Platform currently being developed aims to enhance Subaru's strengths in safety and driving performance. The new platform will make its debut with the new Subaru Impreza to be launched in the second half of 2016, and will then be rolled out to other models as they undergo full model changes. In the aim of further expanding our customer base in the booming North American market, we will launch a new 3-row SUV in 2018.
On the safety front, we will further refine our EyeSight driver assist technology, introducing traffic jam assist functions for use on highways in 2017 and autonomous driving capability for expressways by 2020.
In response to environmental regulations around the world, beginning in 2019 we will progressively launch new downsized turbo engines as our main internal combustion power units. To comply with US zero emission vehicle (ZEV) regulations, we plan to launch a plug-in hybrid in 2018 and an electric vehicle in 2021.
Smaller turbo engines generally give good official figures, but poorer real life economy.
However, the official figures for the 1.6 turbo Levorg in the UK are not as good as for our 2.0 N/A forester, using the same CVT transmission and axle ratio, and the Levorg is a smaller car. After owning a Forester of each generation, doubt I'll be going for the SK!
There were very few turbocharged vehicles available just a few years ago, and now you can get them from most manufacturers. My mother-in-law's Hyundai SUV is a turbo. Ford is turbocharging the Mustang, Fiesta, Focus, pickup trucks, and more.
I'm a lot less saddened by the (potential) gradual disappearance of NA's than I am the manual transmission, which Subaru still thankfully offers on multiple vehicles.
I am big fan of turbos but I think that on USA market, many average consumers of economy vehicles will not be happy with turbo only options (if market conditions don't change dramatically). Main reasons why manufacturers will do it here are emissions and official mpg numbers.
In USA, there is no tax penalty for engine displacement (like around the world), fuel is still cheap and consumers still have perception that turbos are more expensive to maintain (which is debatable, at least on newer vehicles). Also, I noticed that that price difference between lower and higher octane fuel is sometimes 20+ percent (87 vs 93 AKI), while in continental Europe is, for example, usually 2-10% difference (95 vs 98 RON) Most of the new direct injection turbos will work on regular, but manufacturers will probably advertise their mpg numbers on premium (like Ford). First time turbo drivers will be disappointed with mpg if they they drive it like N/A and watch for RPM only, not boost. For performance models and engine upgrades, turbos will work great, but I bet that there will be many average consumers that will be missing their n/a port injected engines of yesterday...
You knew this was coming, just the wave of the future. At least Subaru has been doing it forever and knows how to do it well. Unlike say BMW with turbos that are built into the headers, have fun replacing those. The next 10 years are going to bring some pretty radical changes, much like when Fuel Injection first came out if you can remember that. Some people were all up in arms that they would be no end of trouble vs good old carbs which will still run when "out of tune". Now FI is everywhere and nobody thinks twice about it. Find a mechanic today who can properly tune a carb and isn't grey haired.
I don't get what everyone goes on about the expense of owning a turbo? What exactly is the extra maintenance costs? I yet to ever see "turbo" on any planned vehicle maintenance and my last two vehicles have been turbo.
Modern turbos and modern N/A engines should be equally expensive to maintain. In the past, turbos will need full synthetic and shorter intervals vs conventional oil in N/A engines. That is where perception that turbos are more expensive to maintain comes from. Today, that is not the case since almost all of the modern engines require synthetic and similar intervals.
It reminds me of situation where people are comparing CVT repair/replacement cost (as argument against them) to old 4-5 speed autos or manuals. I doubt that modern 8-9 speed autos or DSGs are any cheaper to repair/replace/service than CVT.
On the other hand, higher cost of premium fuel or potential repair cost on high mileage turbos is legit concern in economy class.
The repair cost (turbo replacemeant) on higher mileage cars might affect resale value.
Also lets not forget insurance costs. We all know how insurance companies love any excuse to raise prices.
the resale value stuff(like "100K miles on stock turbo still") wont be an issue. people are still buying higher mileage 06-08 XTs for the same money i bought my 2011 touring XT, with 14k miles. crazy. the things that make a car great, often tend to be the pricier aspects (like the jump to a more advanced transmission idea mentioned couple posts earlier).
i never understand the turbo "issue". its just another part. or more so, additional, if you want to consider it that way. but that would be like me telling someone not to buy a forester with foglights, or auto climate control, or heated seats. yes, its an additional thing to pay to fix should it break, but it makes the car what it is. and makes it much better.
in 5 years are we going to read threads suggesting "dont buy that model used forester, it has x-mode. thats an additional expense, if it breaks."
I think there are far more complex systems in today's cars than turbochargers that could involve pricey repairs if they were to break or if something went haywire - and they're mostly of the electronic kind. How well will the Eyesight systems age? Will they be more failure-prone on cars with 100k or 200k miles? Or X-Mode, or the CVT transmissions? But people always like to focus on turbos. Heck, my hubs and I have replaced a turbo in our driveway in less than a couple of hours, and once on someone else's FXT that was street-parked in San Francisco, of all places. It's a fairly easy to replace part, nothing mysterious about it.
Look at Europe, Asia and other places where fuel is ALOT more expensive relative to cost of living. See what cars are most common. Many small engine, turbocharged cars are used, lots of them are diesel too. Probably has to do with efficiency per unit of fuel, that will go NA < turbo < diesel.
I agree the gas expense debate is a bummer. I read a large number of car publications and car review/tests. It is obvious that most manufacturers are moving to 4 cylinder turbo cars, BMW, Mercedes, etc. Even the new Ferrari has 488 is turbocharged.
I'm not saying Turbo's are bad they have many positive features, torque being one.
Economy car that requires premium fuel. That just rolls off the tongue wrong!
Will a turbo last the lifetime of the car, like most non-turbo engines? The Ford 4 cyl Ecoboost engines do not get any better gas mileage than competitors with larger non-turbo engines, according to tests by Consumer Reports.
^^^^thats (the earlier comment, about the rolling off your tongue idea) just because we think of the premium thing as a massive expense. if i skip the Wawa hoagie im about to buy...i can have a full tank of 93, compared to a lower grade...for free. ill take that trade any day...esp if it leaves me with an XT, compared to an NA.
like the turbo engine...outlasting the body? or just the turbo itself...lasting as long as the rest of the engine? assuming its the second bit....in regards to the additional expense of the additional part....
it should. i dont see why it wouldnt. they already do, regularly.
esp if the design and role of it becomes more subdued...and its used purely for moving the vehicle as economically as possible...compared to how we often view them now...as being used for a jolt of power and purely for "extra" fun.
Premium is still a bargain for us in US. I've been using premium only for almost 10 years, but for those who aren't this will ne an extra expense. I love both NA and turbocharged cars equally, but I'm not too bummed out, I think it may be a food move in the long run.
Turbos on US market have premium fuel disadvantage but that is probably only reasonable negative. But comparing to other costs associated with owning a relatively new vehicle, premium fuel additional cost can be negligible for most of the people.
Manufacturers are using turbos for decades (especially in Europe) and I would be more concerned about other technologies when vehicle gets older.
If I got Mazda that has new direct injected n/a engine with 13:1 (or 14:1?) compression running on 87 regular with brand new modern automatic (or DI Honda with CVT), I would be equally concerned as with my turbo...
Displacement tax was present in Europe since I remember, that is what was killing old n/a Diesel engines. My family there has 3 vehicles and to register them they pay yearly approximately $150 for 1.2 liter engine, $250 for 1.4 liter and $800 for 2.2 liter engine. When you have much lover standard and fuel that is double in price, that is significant difference.
Diesel was about 80% of petrol price 15-25 years ago but you didn't save much unless you drive a lot. Turbos resolved that problem. Some old school guys (like my father) were crying for old, simple n/a Peugeot and Merc diesels but at the end, turbo diesels did just fine, they didn't fall apart because of turbo. Problems were more related to direct injection and controlling sensors/electronics. Turbo diesels were still more reliable than contemporary n/a petrol engines.
That very much reminds of current situation in USA, transition from n/a to turbo (petrol) engines and similar concerns.
There are excellent and crappy designs of NA and turbo engines, I think arguing which is better overall is somewhat pointless. Having to pay for premium -- yes, I do see that point. But one can argue that the low compression is inefficient and contributes to more polution, and all that jazz.
I'm sure we'll still have V8 Mustangs, it's just that now we also have a turbocharged 4 cylinder version. I think it's cool.
Stan
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Subaru Forester Owners Forum
2.5M posts
188.6K members
Since 2006
We’re the best Subaru Forester Owners Forum to talk about the best years of the Subaru Forester, modifications and reliability history of the Subaru Forester.