Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
none none none
Joined
·
64 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know the official spec for the 2.0XT CVT 0-60 is 6.2 - 6.5 seconds. But I don't think I've seen a single review or test drive where the actual tester got numbers faster than mid-sevens.

Now i've seen a test where the 6MT 2.5 went 7.5 sec 0-60.

Obviously the CVT robs a lot of speed off standing starts. Passing and highway accerlation speeds etc, I'm sure the XT easily trumps the 2.5 6MT, but from 0-60?

A 2.0XT 6MT would be awesome. Thoughts? Did I miss some actual sub 7 sec results for the XT? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
2017 2.0XT Touring
Joined
·
114 Posts
2014 Subaru Forester XT vs 2013 Subaru BRZ : Car Reviews

Subaru 0-60 Times & Subaru Quarter Mile Times | 2013 Subaru WRX Sti 0-60, BRZ, Tribeca, Outback, Forester and 2012 Subaru Legacy 0 to 60 stats!

2014 Subaru Forester XT First Drive - Autoblog

Those show 0-60 times of 6.2, 6.1, and 6.2 respectively.

I do see other reviews in the 7s... but from everything I've read, the 0-60 time should be in the low 6s. Can't wait to check it out once mine finally gets here... (ordered in July, still waiting on delivery)
 

·
Premium Member
2017 VW Golf SportWagen 5MT
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
This is what is wrong with numbers when it comes to cars. There is no way the N/A model is as fast as the XT, and they are very different cars in many aspects.

Why do people look at advertised speed and power numbers when comparing cars, anyway? Just go drive the car and see how it feels, numbers are just that.

Stan
 

·
Registered
2015 Impreza 5-Door Sport Auto (CVT)
Joined
·
2,351 Posts
I would believe the 0-60 time with a MT would be slower.

Might not be by much, but the time it takes a driver to shift gears has to be slower than the CVT which does not do any shifting at all.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 VW Golf SportWagen 5MT
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
Yes, but a manual car is lighter and there is much less drivetrain loss. But, that's besides the point -- are people buying these cars to do 0-60 runs against each other? Transmission preference is a big thing for many people, how fast I can do 0-60 has very little to do with my selection of transmission.

Yes, a manual XT would be nice, but that ship sailed 5 years ago and many of us moved on.

Stan
 

·
Registered
2015 XT premium The one without the fun pedal
Joined
·
831 Posts
This is what is wrong with numbers when it comes to cars. There is no way the N/A model is as fast as the XT, and they are very different cars in many aspects.

Why do people look at advertised speed and power numbers when comparing cars, anyway? Just go drive the car and see how it feels, numbers are just that.

Stan
How bad would it look if you were wrong and the manual versions of the Foresters were just as quick to 60 as the XT? Most of the comparisons have been done with the 4 speed autos and CVTs. You shot down my post where I asked the question is my 5 speed as quick as your stock XT and I still think you are wrong in your assumption- lesser weight, better gearing, and one who knows when/how to shift makes a big difference.
 

·
Registered
2014 Forester XT 8 speed
Joined
·
113 Posts
It all depends on how you drive the car.

An automatic can (and usually is with todays cars) be alot faster in the 0-60, especially on turbo car. Its called brake boosting. Something that cannot be done on standard cars very easily.

Not to mention the time it takes to shift a gear on a standard.

Trust me I'm all for standards, but the way things are going with cvt's and 8 speeds, there is no real advantage to them aside from simplicity.
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford RS & 2019 Subaru Descent
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
How bad would it look if you were wrong and the manual versions of the Foresters were just as quick to 60 as the XT? Most of the comparisons have been done with the 4 speed autos and CVTs. You shot down my post where I asked the question is my 5 speed as quick as your stock XT and I still think you are wrong in your assumption- lesser weight, better gearing, and one who knows when/how to shift makes a big difference.
I'd love to see it personally. I am resigned to getting a 2014 CVT FXT when wife is ready for her next Forester, however, seeing the numbers of the 2.5i 6mt had me thinking. You can't argue the difference between the 2.5i 6mt and the CVT when it comes to acceleration performance. CVT has it's pluses, but for a manual driver, only pluses I see with the 2.5i CVT Forester are available options.

Reading performance stats (acceleration, handling, braking, fuel economy, etc.) on a car is probably the first stat I look at after I have made the decision on vehicle category.

Sure, there are many fast cars I skipped over after looking at other stats.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 VW Golf SportWagen 5MT
Joined
·
10,784 Posts
How bad would it look if you were wrong and the manual versions of the Foresters were just as quick to 60 as the XT? Most of the comparisons have been done with the 4 speed autos and CVTs. You shot down my post where I asked the question is my 5 speed as quick as your stock XT and I still think you are wrong in your assumption- lesser weight, better gearing, and one who knows when/how to shift makes a big difference.
I've spent enough time in both turbo and non-turbo Subarus to know how different they are, so I stand by my statement. Buy whatever car works for you -- they both will be great. But expecting the same level of performance is not reasonable.

I'd buy the 6MT Forester because it's the only AWD car of it's kind left with a manual, not because of it's 0-60 times, that's what I'm trying to say. XTs have always been beasts and the N/A models are nice and economical, but not beasts for sure.

Stan
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford RS & 2019 Subaru Descent
Joined
·
1,349 Posts
^To clarify my remark above, I have driven several Foresters, turbo and NA, but have yet to drive a NA manual of any year.
 

·
Premium Member
'19 Forester LTD CVT
Joined
·
3,248 Posts
Well... let's see how they got that 0-60 time for the N/A Forester. They drove up to the line, and launched the car probably around redline, with 1 person in the car, and probably not a full tank of gas. So if you launch your car on every start, and only care about 0-60 times, then yes the 6MT forester is decently fast.

The XT will still beat it to 60 with less damage to the transmission (no launch) and be faster in every acceleration measurement (50-70, 30-60, 60+, etc) except for 0-30.
 

·
Registered
2014 Forester CVT
Joined
·
286 Posts
This is what is wrong with numbers when it comes to cars. There is no way the N/A model is as fast as the XT, and they are very different cars in many aspects.

Why do people look at advertised speed and power numbers when comparing cars, anyway? Just go drive the car and see how it feels, numbers are just that.

Stan
Yep I agree. I know my 2.5 cvt is not super fast to 60 but it does not feel underpowered to me and I enjoy driving it. I also love seeing a good MPG number. I used to enjoy manuals much more than I do now. These days I just find them mildly irritating.
 

·
Premium Member
2014 2.0 XT yes
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
The CVT isn't a good "drag transmission". The soft-launch issue doesn't exist at speed however. If you were to look at something like an on-ramp merge or a passing maneuver, I think you'd find that there isn't much to talk about. The 2.5 is easily dispatched by the turbo.
 

·
Registered
none none none
Joined
·
64 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I think the links are just quoting Subaru's specs (although one didtest lap times).

Also, the MT with the same engine is clearly much faster 0-60 than the CVT. Actual test results of the Impreza, the XV, and Forester 2.5 all show that.

Everyone gets so defensive, yikes! Anyways, for me its merely an interesting observation, that's all. If accurate it shows how even with all the extra power, the extra 300+ lbs and CVT rob its potential. From a standstill that is. I already acknowledged passing acceleration easily goes to the XT.
 

·
Registered
none none none
Joined
·
64 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The CVT isn't a good "drag transmission". The soft-launch issue doesn't exist at speed however. If you were to look at something like an on-ramp merge or a passing maneuver, I think you'd find that there isn't much to talk about. The 2.5 is easily dispatched by the turbo.
Agreed.

As I said I found it interesting that when pushed hard the 2.5 6MT is pretty quick from a stop while I haven't seen an actual 3rd party get under 7 sec. with the XT.

Either way people don't buy these cars for stoplight sprints.
 

·
Registered
2017 2.0XT Touring
Joined
·
114 Posts
I think the links are just quoting Subaru's specs (although one didtest lap times).

Also, the MT with the same engine is clearly much faster 0-60 than the CVT. Actual test results of the Impreza, the XV, and Forester 2.5 all show that.

Everyone gets so defensive, yikes! Anyways, for me its merely an interesting observation, that's all. If accurate it shows how even with all the extra power, the extra 300+ lbs and CVT rob its potential. From a standstill that is. I already acknowledged passing acceleration easily goes to the XT.
People do seem to be getting quite touchy!

I swore up, down, and sideways that our next car would be a manual. After reading a lot about the FXT's high-torque CVT and test driving one myself though, I think I'll be very happy with the decision. Come 2-3 years from now with wife and kid(s) in the car, I think I'll be even happier that I don't HAVE to shift.

The thing I like more than 'off the line juice' is the ability to accelerate while already at speed. From what I've read and experienced in a test drive, the turbo in the '14 FXT will make that happen without me having to think about it. The better brakes and stiffer suspension as well... I'm just all around excited for a kick-*** car.

Would I have bought it in a manual were it offered? Absolutely. As far as the answer to your original post: I think that the 6MT with the 2.5i will not be nearly as quick as the CVT and the 2.0T.
 

·
Registered
2014 Forester CVT
Joined
·
286 Posts
Lol.....not to be defensive about being defensive but I just re-read the thread and don't really see any sign of that. Just everyone wasting time on the interwebs tossing their 2 cents on the opinion pile. :Banane35:
 

·
Premium Member
2014 Forester XT Touring CVT
Joined
·
12,780 Posts
Would a video help convince you of the 2014 XT 0-60?

This video is Czech, so the MY 2013 = US 2014 and 60 mph = 96.5 km/hr.

Notice he starts around 18.5 seconds and gets to 60mph just before 24 seconds. Also notice at the end of the video, he hits 145 mph going downhill.


The following video, the time shown starts a little late, but the actual time would be close to 6 seconds.

 

·
Registered
MY06 MY06 & MY10 Forester 5MT/DR + 4EAT (Sports)
Joined
·
54 Posts
Gidday All

^ Yeah, I agree that there is a lot of hyperventilation going on about very little!

In Oz, we still got the dual range box and 5MT up until the 2013 model/s. Thank goodness. Much as there are times when I would appreciate driving SWMBO's MY10 2.5L N/A SH 4EAT (Sports shift version) when I am crawling in dreadful traffic, I much prefer my 5MT/DR 2.5L N/A SG in every other situation. She is the opposite ... Isn't it great to have the choice?

Both have the EJ-253 engine.

I am well over 60 y.o., but still tend to drive my cars like I stole them.

Roo1 ('93 Impreza hatch, EJ-18 donk and 5MT) served me excellently for some 234,000 kms and nearly 18 years. Never left me anywhere. Used next to zero oil, water, etc. Great touring car. Absolutely gutless engine, seriously wrong gearing (for the torque and power curves), extremely inappropriate ECU programming. But just wonderful for driving point to point on the open road, or on slippery roads around town, or elsewhere. I wouldn't have kept it for so long if I hated it ... :icon_wink: :rock:.

In December 2011, I traded Roo1 in on Roo2. As you can guess, I am really imaginative when it comes to naming cars ... :lol: :icon_rolleyes: :icon_biggrin:.

Roo2 is our MY06 XS. I deliberately didn't want any kind of turbo. Maintenance and running costs are one thing, losing my driving licence every month or so is another altogether!

In any event, this car is extremely tractable to drive, both on and off road. It gets heaps of torque from 1,800 rpm to its red line at around 6,300 rpm. Its usable torque cuts in much earlier than it does with the 2.5L DOHC turbo. In Oz, the N/A 2.5L EJ-253 engine came with tumbler valves on the inlet manifold and the variable valve lift technology (AVLS). I may be wrong, but it appears that these didn't come until the next MY in the USA.

It also goes pretty well. The other day I hit 90 km/h in 2nd (high range) in the MY06. It will happily pull its maximum speed in 5th low range, 4th or 5th high range. According to the Owner's Manual, it can be driven in 5th LR all day, just so long as one doesn't exceed 188 km/h ... :icon_biggrin:. It also has sufficient torque at low revs to dawdle at around 1,500 rpm in 5th/HR.

I get barely acceptable fuel economy around town (to me), at 10.5-12.5 L/100 kms. That's 22.4-18.82 miles per US gallon (why does the US insist on using a "gallon" that's not equivalent to anything?? :shrug: :icon_wink:). On the open road with two adults and a moderate amount of crap on board, it turns in around 7.5 L/100 kms (31.6 mpg/US). That's quite a bit better than SWMBO's SH 4EAT. With 4 adults on board on the open road, it gets around 8.5 L/100 kms (27.7 mpg/US). I reckon that these figures are pretty good for cars that are hardly light weight shopping prams, and that have (relatively) large 4 cylinder engines with a torque curve that is a bit flatter than the old OHV US V8 engines, and a lot broader rev range. Nothing like the absolute torque of the old V8s, but not moving 2.5 tons, either ...

What I am trying to say, in a very long-winded way, is that it's horses for courses. If one wants a pocket rocket, either buy the WRX or STi, or perhaps a turbo Forester. Don't know if you get the 3.0L H6 in the USA, but it has much the same maximum torque as the XT Forester, without needing the turbocharger to get it. So has better (read "flatter) torque curve, over a wider rev range.

The shape of the torque curve is the determinant of performance in any given situation.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top