[Snap]

Zero to sixty. Heh?
Around here the seniors all drove Buicks. Then it switched to Honda Civics. Now, you can guess, Foresters. That and retrievers may be the target market.
Sorry to think that our household had gone from 60's musclecars to Foresters in a lifetime.
Bikes around here still provide the 0-60 thrills, but the Forester is for something else all together.

 

[adc]

Todays cars are much quicker than even 60's muscle cars. Not saying a subaru will be quicker than a 396/427 Chevelle or Chevy II. But my subaru would easily shut down my 1969 Camaro 307 4 speed. It had a bit over 200 HP.

 

[DragonSubie7]

@adc - You picked the Chevy widely regarded as having the largest yawn factor, as the 307 was not a well performing engine, and not a great example of "60's muscle cars", because it wasn't one, and to say that a N/A Forester is quicker than a 60's muscle car is kind of ridiculous.

A GM 327 or a 350 in a light framed car would easily blow the doors off a N/A Subaru.
You don't need a big block to do that.
If you move up to the 70's - Different story due to emissions...

There are plenty of quick cars out there being manufactured, but the current Forester isn't one of them.
The '19 is nearly a full second slower than my FB25 MY'12, which is no light to light pink slip winner.

I guess the whole point of this thread - 0 to 60 times - for a Forester is off to begin with.
The N/A Forester is not a speed performance car in any way, and is not a great choice if your primary interest is how quick it is off the line.
Now a WRX...

 

[adc]

Muscle cars were over rated-I know-I was there.
"My muscle car – a 1976 Trans-Am – doesn’t rate much when compared with even the base/V-6 powered versions of today’s muscle cars. Though it came with an engine packing more cubic inches (liters, in today-speak) than any of the new stuff (excepting the Viper, but that’s not fair because it’s got a V-10 and my Pontiac’s only got a V-8) the power output and performance – delivered in stock trim – was feeble. Or rather, is feeble – relative to the performance of today’s stuff: Zero to 60 in about 7.2 seconds, a low 15 second quarter mile – top speed (mechanically limited, due to the axle ratio and non-overdrive transmission) about 118 MPH."
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2014...-slow-part-ii/


"1. 1967 Corvette Convertible
0-60mph: 7.8 seconds
Engine: 327 cid
Power: 300 hp
Transmission: Manual
Tested by: Car and Driver"

Here is one of your 350 cubic inch:
"3. 1967 Camaro SS/RS
0-60mph: 8.0 seconds
Engine: 350 cid
Power: 295 hp
Transmission: Automatic
Tested by: Motor Trend"

Lots more examples:
https://www.thrillist.com/cars/nati...er-than-a-minivan-corvette-mustang-and-camaro


Yea I am not saying it was a super muscle car but it did have .411 gears and a Hurst shifter. I put on a Holly and re-jetted it I won't mention my exploits but I did OK with it. Don't knock it if you haven driven one. The 307 was a stroked 283" More torque. It would best a 283. 4 sp gear boxes gave up a lot. And yes the 307 does not have a great reputation..but it was OK.Unless you had really good rear rubber.

Have you driven an XT? You might be surprised.