Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner
201 - 220 of 258 Posts

·
Registered
2018 2.0 FXT-Touring CVT
Joined
·
3,116 Posts
You know, I don’t see any manufacturer as a lifelong commitment… As we go thru life, our wants and needs evolve, and whether it’s vehicles, housing, or simple appliances, it’s all but impossible for a manufacturer to be all things to all customers.

GM made the attempt to be a vehicle one-stop-shop for every vehicle shopper, and it’s clear how well that worked out for them. In a real sense, companies like Subaru, which target specific sub-markets, are often more successful… even if that target market aimed at evolves over the years
Yea, that's true as well. The two Subaru we have now, we'll keep, but we'll always have a new vehicle that we replace every 3 years, and that's what I'm looking for now.
 

·
Registered
2021 Forester Limited
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
It s a real shame that Subaru remains ultra conservative on their redesigns. So the 2022 differs from the 2021 by the front grill and headlights...so sad!
 

·
Registered
2019 Forester Touring
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Slow evolution in design appearance…It’s a formula that VW used for decades, and it worked for them.

I suspect marketing analysts shows the niche Subaru sells in leans towards the conservative tilt when it comes to tastes in vehicle design, and prefer a slow evolution in the shape changes of their lineup. Maybe that’s why the Forester is often described by reviews as maintaining a “boxy” look to them.

But, that’s only a guess…
 

·
Registered
2019 Forester Touring
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
I agree with what you said here, but I do want to note that the CB18 would probably have higher MPG ratings than the FB25D. I'll see if I can find the numbers from the Japanese model here in a bit.

Edit: Here are the numbers from their official documentation. They are a little difficult to understand, but I'll post them here and attach the PDF (Translated from Japanese). Yes this is a different country with different Fuel economy rating practices so things could be different here. Hard to say how though.

JC0838.8 MPG
WLTC32.0 MPG
Urban/City Mode (WLTC-L)24.2 MPG
Suburban Mode (WLTC-M)33.6 MPG
Highway Mode (WLTC-H)35.7 MPG
My take is that, unless you’re one of the relative few that wants/feels like they need the extra 50 Ft.lbs. of torque, even if there’s a slight uptick in MPG, it wouldn’t be enough to push an overwhelming number of buyers to get the turbo model, unless it was the sole offering.
 

·
Registered
Future 2022 Forester Wilderness Owner
Joined
·
320 Posts
My take is that, unless you’re one of the relative few that wants/feels like they need the extra 50 Ft.lbs. of torque, even if there’s a slight uptick in MPG, it wouldn’t be enough to push an overwhelming number of buyers to get the turbo model, unless it was the sole offering.
I agree. It wouldn't make sense to market an additional "XT" trim with that motor. Only uses I could have seen for it were putting it in the higher trims (like the crosstrek did with the FB25D) and/or putting it in the Wilderness for the additional low speed/high altitude torque.
 

·
Registered
2014 2.5i Limited CVT
Joined
·
3,236 Posts
A few things to consider -

I agree with what you said here, but I do want to note that the CB18 would probably have higher MPG ratings than the FB25D. I'll see if I can find the numbers from the Japanese model here in a bit.
There is (as we know) a big difference between the estimated and posted MPG and the actual MPG. For example, Ford used a smallish 1.6 turbo in the previous generation Escape. While it posts impressive numbers for those estimated and claimed MPG numbers, real world MPG is so much less as the smaller displacement engine (with similar power outputs) has to work much harder to keep up with larger non-turbo motors. In a comparison test in 2014 of the then new SJ Forester Touring, a Mazda CX5, the Escape and the RAV-4, the Escape swallowed fuel like an drunk at an all-you-can-drink hosted bar... Much worse than the EPA estimated MPG promoted by Ford. This was in .. I think Motor Trend, but I may be mistaken.

It s a real shame that Subaru remains ultra conservative on their redesigns. So the 2022 differs from the 2021 by the front grill and headlights...so sad!
Remember that this is just a "mid-cycle refresh" and not a complete redesign. That new redesign should be around for the 2024 model year, based upon previous life-cycles. Mind you, however, the design change from the SJ to the SK was subdued, but still a complete redo.

Slow evolution in design appearance…It’s a formula that VW used for decades, and it worked for them.

I suspect marketing analysts shows the niche Subaru sells in leans towards the conservative tilt when it comes to tastes in vehicle design, and prefer a slow evolution in the shape changes of their lineup. Maybe that’s why the Forester is often described by reviews as maintaining a “boxy” look to them.

But, that’s only a guess…
Let's not forget Volvo and Mercedes (especially in the 60s through the 80s and even 90s).. A few manufacturers still work with the concepts of evolutionary styling vs revolutionary styling. The SL convertible from MB started off in the late 60s and didn't get replaced by a new design until the late 90s...

And then there's Porsche and the 911. There have been a dozen design iterations since the 60s, but it's been mostly just a lengthening of this panel, a widening of that panel, a change in the lights, etc..

We can then look at the other side of the spectrum for big styling changes every 4 or 5 years or following current design trends - like the Toyota RAV4. For the last 3 generational swaps, there have been big swings in style and so it makes the previous generation seem so dated.

What happens there is that you have a big styling change with the next generation that can alienate owners, especially if it is not a great redesign. Taste is a fickle thing; when you go chasing after a style trend, it can make a recent generation seem dated and out of sync when you keep redesigning the vehicle every 4 years to follow the current trend. Does a manufacturer gain some sales this way? Sure. But they also lose sales from those current owners that have to abandon the vehicle they love because of that change.

Even in the 50s, when pretty much every US made vehicle had yearly changes, it did not mean that Bob went and traded his 56 Ford on a 57 and then a 58 and so on...

If you need proof of that last part, look at how many XT owners will not buy the SK (or the next generation) Forester because there is no turbo/XT model. Instead, they'll jump ship to some other vehicle when they need to/want to replace their current ride.

Or look even at the loss of sales to a certain age group when Cadillac and Lincoln got rid of the RWD big sedans (DeVIlle and Town Car) to chase after BMW and Mercedes in that younger sport sedan market. They are now finally back to producing large and plush and super smooth models that are inspired by the DeVille or Town Car but it's been a dozen years (or more) and the damage has been done and look at all those former Cadillac owners that bought Lexus LS sedans.
 

·
Registered
2018 2.0 FXT-Touring CVT
Joined
·
3,116 Posts
My take is that, unless you’re one of the relative few that wants/feels like they need the extra 50 Ft.lbs. of torque, even if there’s a slight uptick in MPG, it wouldn’t be enough to push an overwhelming number of buyers to get the turbo model, unless it was the sole offering.
Yea, this is mostly true.
 

·
Registered
2019 Forester Touring
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Just thinking about it, I’m not too sure we’re going to see much more evolution in ICE-powered vehicles, if the EV trend continues advancing like it has over the last few years… and I really don’t see it slowing down, as more countries move to mandate the end of ICE powered vehicle sales in the next decade or so… there just isn’t enough time for manufacturers to recoup the engineering and production costs, especially as they ramp-up EV drivetrain investments.

Couple the EV trend with the fact that there simply isn’t much more that can be economically squeezed out of ICE drivetrains to significantly improve efficiency (at least, as a reasonable cost the buying public will be willing to absorb). The low-hanging “fruit” has already been harvested.

We’ll probably also see more and more manufacturing co-development and platform sharing, like Toyota is doing with BMW on the Z4 and Subaru on the Subaru Solterra EV it is introducing in the next year.
 

·
Registered
Future 2022 Forester Wilderness Owner
Joined
·
320 Posts
There is (as we know) a big difference between the estimated and posted MPG and the actual MPG. For example, Ford used a smallish 1.6 turbo in the previous generation Escape. While it posts impressive numbers for those estimated and claimed MPG numbers, real world MPG is so much less as the smaller displacement engine (with similar power outputs) has to work much harder to keep up with larger non-turbo motors. In a comparison test in 2014 of the then new SJ Forester Touring, a Mazda CX5, the Escape and the RAV-4, the Escape swallowed fuel like an drunk at an all-you-can-drink hosted bar... Much worse than the EPA estimated MPG promoted by Ford. This was in .. I think Motor Trend, but I may be mistaken.
Absolutely true. Though what mattered from what you were talking about was the CAFE rating which my point was simply that it would likely (depending on differences between US and Japan rating) be higher with the CB18.

As for real world being less than the rated MPG, that is doubly true for turbo engines. A short search over on the Ascent Forums or Reddit page will find you dozens of thread of people complaining about poor MPG. The truth is that most all of that can be alleviated by taking the lead out of your foot, but where is the fun in that.

With my limited knowledge, it seems that turbos are somewhat of a hole in the EPA's rating system. Manufactures are more and more using them to increase MPG numbers in their cars without sacrificing too much power, but real world numbers for those who drive them are likely WAY bellow the estimates. Much more than non-turbo engines. It seems like we are creating a false sense of accomplishment.

Just thinking about it, I’m not too sure we’re going to see much more evolution in ICE-powered vehicles, if the EV trend continues advancing
I would say it is already done. Any OEM that has not already transitioned all their R&D toward an EV future is going to be hurting in 10-15 years.

I really hope the ICE engine bans are bans on ICE only cars and not PHEVs. That I can understand, but IMHO we really need to be focusing on PHEVs. We can manufacture WAY more PHEVs over the next 10-20 years than we can dedicated EVs, and that will have 90% of the impact an EV will. Give a vehicle 50-100 miles of EV only range and the only times you will ever need the ICE are for long trips. Rare for most people and much better short term for the environment.
 

·
Registered
Future 2022 Forester Wilderness Owner
Joined
·
320 Posts
Have they ruled out the turbo? Forgive me if this has been gone over already.
No, they have not ruled it out because they have not announced anything. However, the official EPA website did post numbers for the 2022 Forester and 2022 Forester Wilderness 2 weeks ago and that showed the same 2.5 NA engine for both. It has since been pulled. While not official, it is hard to see a way it could be wrong. The EPA will obviously have early access to that information as they give the official MPG ratings and what would cause something like that to be wrong/made up?

In summary, the answer is no, but the chances of it happening are about the same as my Oklahoma State Cowboys winning the national championship in football this year.
 

·
Registered
2014 2.5i Limited CVT
Joined
·
3,236 Posts
As for real world being less than the rated MPG, that is doubly true for turbo engines. A short search over on the Ascent Forums or Reddit page will find you dozens of thread of people complaining about poor MPG. The truth is that most all of that can be alleviated by taking the lead out of your foot, but where is the fun in that.

With my limited knowledge, it seems that turbos are somewhat of a hole in the EPA's rating system. Manufactures are more and more using them to increase MPG numbers in their cars without sacrificing too much power, but real world numbers for those who drive them are likely WAY bellow the estimates. Much more than non-turbo engines. It seems like we are creating a false sense of accomplishment.
One of the reasons that people do not really "think" about the negative MPG "gain" on a turbo is that they focus on the peak HP and/or torque numbers. But the ugly truth is that there is a whole other area of the power curve that they neglect to consider - the lower RPM range where the Turbo has not spooled up and is not providing that push of forced air into the intake. Turbochargers work off of spin - the hot exhaust gasses spinning the turbine up to push more air through the system. But until that turbo is spooled up, pressing the air, the HP levels are pretty damn low. If you look at the power curves of 2 similar displacement motors - one with turbo, one without - you'll see that the turbo has a flatter curve until the RPMs raise up and that turbo is kicking in that extra air pressure.

A classic example is a just about any turbo diesel motor. A friend of ours had a Mercedes S-Class TD sedan (this was back in the early 90s) and I drove it. I started to get on the freeway ramp and took off from a light - it was "nothing, nothing, nothing, WOOSH" - the WOOSH being the turbo kicking in. But then the transmission shifted to 2nd and it was "nothing"... I thought the engine stalled ... but he's in the passenger seat "keep pushing on it - keep the pedal down" and then "wooosh" again as the turbo spooled and then - 3rd gear...

The little 1.6 motor in the Escape and possibly the 1.8 Boxer from Subaru will have that same issue - limited power until the turbo spools up and is fully pushing that compressed air into the intake system. That peak hp of 175 doesn't hit until 5200 RPM - and not many of us are putting the revs up there. Which surely sounds like what many on the Ascent forums have found out. I had an Ascent as a loaner for a day or two and - while it was adequate for around town, it didn't feel all at that much more powerful vs my 2014 Forester, until I really pushed my foot into it.

Bottom line - until the turbo is spooled and pressing, you're trying to move that 3500 lbs of Forester (or whatever) with 100 HP instead of 180 (or whatever)... While there is not a N/A of the CB18T in the JDM Levorg or Forester SK Sport, we can compare the FB16 - used in the JDM Impreza - and the FB16T - used in the previous generation Levorg - which is 113 hp NA vs 168 hp in the DI Turbo. And that 168 kicks in at 4200 RPM - pretty high up there to get that benefit.

Another comparison? Chrysler's 2.2 motor from the early/mid 80s - the EFI non-turbo was 93 to 99 HP (hotted up to 110 with the Shelby Charger) vs 142 HP in the original Turbo 1 motor.
 

·
Registered
2011 2.5X Limited
Joined
·
140 Posts
I wonder why we don't hear much about supercharger... anyway, that's another topic I guess.
 

·
Registered
2021 Forester Limited
Joined
·
260 Posts
Another comparison? Chrysler's 2.2 motor from the early/mid 80s - the EFI non-turbo was 93 to 99 HP (hotted up to 110 with the Shelby Charger) vs 142 HP in the original Turbo 1 motor.
And the automatic Turbo 1 cars were pretty gutless on take off. Until the turbo spooled up, they were worse than the N/A versions of the car. That low compression 2.2 had less power on the bottom end than the N/A 2.2. A little higher stall converter might have helped, but high stall and lock up don't mix well.

But once they were rolling, they were pretty fun for an AXT car of the era. But if you wanted to get moving in a hurry, the MTX was the ticket for a Turbo 1.

For a while, and maybe still, superchargers were easier to keep emissions happy, as they don't take thermal energy away from the exhaust. Possibly why the Hellcat is supercharged.

But even though superchargers can be fairly compact, there is always an issue of making space in the belt driven accessories area, vs tucking a turbo wherever is convenient. And bringing on boost is probably managed a bit easier with a turbo. Keeping that CVT happy.... Sudden bursts of lots of torque works well with a Hellcat. Not so much with a CVT powered Forester.
 

·
Registered
2014 2.5i Limited CVT
Joined
·
3,236 Posts
Both a supercharger and a turbocharger have pros and cons in the way they are designed and used.

A supercharger is driven by the engine - the same crank spin that runs the AC, the water pump, old school power steering, etc - spins the supercharger. This means it is ALWAYS feeing in the air. The biggest negative is that it can also draw some of that power it's creating (called parasitic loss) as it takes energy to spin those accessories. That's one of the reasons many dyno sessions are done with those accessories removed/unhooked.

The turbo is also driven by the engine, but as said, by the exhaust. Benefit is that there is no parasitic loss. Negative is that you only get boost as the engine speeds up.

Yes, many would love to see a turbo Forester, but it's just not viable in the USDM at this point.
 
201 - 220 of 258 Posts
Top