Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

Motor Trend's slowest vehicles tested in 2018

5K views 40 replies 13 participants last post by  hoshie 
#1 · (Edited)
#31 ·
My wife always wanted a red Mustang GT. Purchased the car and then she became too scared of getting speeding tickets. When she drove at or a little above the speed limit on two lane roads the people following her would get pissed off that she had a fast car and wouldn’t drive it that way. Traded it in for the Forester XT and she’s never been happier.
 
#3 ·
Agree that the newer Subi SUV's have a serious lack oomph in the power department, but also realize that this is the same rag that decided the Wrangler was the 2018 SUV of the year. A vehicle they admitted sucked to drive on the pavement and had other issues. "...second-row ingress and egress remains cramped, tire and wind noise is quieter but still intrusive, the manual transmission's clutch will ruin your Achilles tendon in rush-hour traffic, and the Rubicon's around-town ride—though improved—is still flinty compared to car-based crossovers. Such are the trade-offs Jeep lovers willingly endure."

I know it's not a US test, but still significant for an "SUV of the Year." That the Wrangler gets a 1 star rating in NCAP Crash Test.

So articles like this matter tend to matter less to me as it seems to me like they are following the trend of almost all of the "independent" auto reviewers/journals. Take their opinion with a grain of salt.
 
#4 ·
We are talking SUV's what do you expect
More power less gas mileage..CAFE
I never once had a problem with my 08 with respect to "slowness"
Forester arguably does its job better than vehicle in its class
99+% of folks that are in the market for a Subaru type don't care. If they do they will buy an up scale 2.0+ turbo

Subaru may monitor this forum but they monitor more the sales and satisfaction of typical owners. They are on a roll with their car line

I almost never see an XT Forester on the road. And I actually look for them. I wonder why-not.

And what lowflier said about Motor Trend. I started reading Motor trend 57 years ago. They were out of touch then and they are more out of touch now.
 
#5 ·
Subaru may monitor this forum but they monitor more the sales and satisfaction of typical owners. They are on a roll with their car line

And what lowflier said about Motor Trend. I started reading Motor trend 57 years ago. They were out of touch then and they are more out of touch now.
Subaru IS on a roll. Sales keep getting better and better, more are on the road every day. Whether it is the safety aspects or the longevity [what's the tag line "more than 92% of Subarus sold in the last ten years are still on the road"..?]

And mags like Motor Trend and Car & Driver and R&T have been on a steady diet of Honda Kool-aid, Toyota taters and BMW bratwurst, finding most vehicles without the stylized H or T or the vaunted 3 letter propellor logo on the front or back are junk.

It seems that they cannot seem to realize the real world is much different than the 2 weeks they spend spinning around skidpads and kicking the quarter-mile.

The Forester is capable and I've never felt the need to quote Tim "the tool man" Taylor when driving around town or on the road ["more power - grunt-grunt-grunt].... Sure, a bit more torque or a few more ponies could be nice, but at what cost? If I want to impress folks with 0-60 times and quarter-mile drag numbers, I'd go buy a Porsche.
 
#7 ·
A slow car has to have other attributes to make it fun. I had a previous generation Honda Fit I think 0 to 60 was 8.3. But I lowered it and it had one of the best 5 speed manual transmissions better than my Miata. It felt like a roller skate around corners and ramps.

I tried lowering my XT but does not have the same fun factor when it comes to handling.
 
#11 ·
I specifically bought my 2.5 for the drive train and economy, would it be slightly more fun to have more power under my right foot, sure sometimes... until I roll up to the pump and have to pay $1.40 per litre ($5.60 per gallon for my American friends). It isn't often I feel the need to go drag racing so 0 -60 in a couple more seconds isn't a huge deal. I replaced the rear sway with the 19mm so I don't think I would be able to go round a corner faster (safely) with more power. I wouldn't mind taking out a wrx for power/handling or XT for more power for fun but I would have to change my mind set on the price of that much fun.... just my opinion...
 
#17 · (Edited)
Makes sense when fuel is that high. But, as someone has already posted, it isn’t just 0-60, although that matters. It’s whether the vehicle is engaging to drive, or not. I had more fun with my smallish, fairly low hp cars and hatchbacks with slick manuals than some newer, hulking but high hp vehicles. But, I have to laugh a bit when companies like Subaru ( and many others) dress up a base model with some cheap colored plastic, different paint, and a few additional lights and blacked out wheels and sell it up priced as the “Sport” model. Meanwhile it’s no sportier to drive than the base, but more profit for the seller.

Of course this is just my personal preference, but the worst combination for killing all driving fun is pairing a small engine with a CVT. There is just no way to make that engaging. The combo usually results in a lot of engine noise, no real sense of movement, and no play possibilities at all. It’s just cheap, basic transport. Or in the case of some Subaru models, not particularly cheap, but still the same outcome. I am talking Impreza and Crosstrek, even Legacy and Outback, with the base engines, really. Point A to Point B. That’s fine, if that is what you want or what your budget demands. I’ve been there.

I like a happy medium, with a peppy, normally aspirated engine (could be a 4 or a small 6) paired with a six or eight speed automatic. Most unfortunately, Subaru doesn’t sell any of those. Seven or eight years ago I would have said a slick manual, but not these days. I would forego the turbo. Unfortunately with Subaru, as well as many other makers, you either get the base doggy engine or maybe a turbo option, with the usual turbo lag, slow warmup issues, and often a thirst for premium. One prominent outlier is the 3.6r Outback or the Legacy, which are quite different, even great to drive in the Subaru family.

Plus all of that additional turbo mechanical stuff to break, as the just previous poster has lamented.

EJ


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#12 ·
as subaru enthusiasts, were expecting them to keep making fast cars, when the general population could care less about fast cars.
Slow cars = great fuel economy. Which in the end of the day, is going the be the best for humanity. decrease use of fossil fuels, cleaner airs, etc..

I was hoping their hybrid technology would get better, but subarus hybrid failed miserably.

i drive my xt like a grandma to get the best milage. ...kinda like the 19 forester. except the car is built that way.
 
#14 ·
Fast does not equal enthusiasm. People are enthusiastic about VW bus and bugs and they are slower than dirt.

Not all who buy Sabaru are looking for speed. Many are looking for reliable and economical AWD vehicles to get fro here to there, carrying their dogs or mountain bikes or kayaks or _____ whatever.

The precursor to the Loyale [known as the DL and GL were not fast and built a legacy [pun not intended] that is still here 40 years later.

You want whip fast? Buy the WRX.
 
#15 ·
Even though the Crosstrek is slow I always look at it for several reasons. It offers a 6 speed transmission, different colors, roof rails, AWD and lowered would handle more like a car than my Forester. Downsides of course slow or under power, cargo room, and possible carbon build up.

But with the possibility of getting a orange, 6 speed, premium model for $20k has me going back and forth.
 
#28 ·
From your link...

“On every continent, automotive manufacturers are being challenged to meet increasingly stringent emissions and fuel efficiency requirements - and industry experts agree that turbocharging offers one of the most cost-effective routes to achieving the desired results, whether in gasoline, diesel or hybrid powertrains," says David Paja, Vice President, Global Marketing for Honeywell Turbo Technologies.”

That comment pretty much explains the reason for the growth of turbocharged engines.

Also, one should note that this isn’t just a USA issue, but everywhere... USA, China, Europe.

So the argument that increased emission control and fuel efficiency requirements are somehow bring driven primarily by the US EPA doesn’t really seem to hold as much water as it might have 25 or more years ago. This is worldwide...
 
#27 ·
Subaru is just gravitating more in the direction of Toyota with single engine offerings per vehicle. Meanwhile, other brands like Mazda, Hyundai, Kia, and Honda, are still playing the two engine game. It's a bit disappointing for sure but it's probably the influence of CAFE and the small minority stake owned by Toyota.
 
#33 ·
Exactly. For example, Ford is not putting turbocharged engines under the hood of most of their vehicle lines because they want more power. The truth is they want to put smaller displacement two engines that have similar power ratings to the larger and less efficient engines they're replacing.

It also makes sense from a sales perspective. Let's say that for 2 sold 100000 F-150 trucks with 5 liter V8 engines. They get dinged for those 5 liter engines. Whether it's their Cafe numbers for not being able to sell vehicles in certain markets because of the engine size, it limits the range of where they can sell the vehicle. But now they come up with a 3.6 L Ecoboost V6 that gets better mileage with roughly comprable power outputs. Now they can sell the same 100,000 trucks but maybe 80% of them will have the V6 and only 20% will have the V8. This then becomes the economy of scale. By manufacturing and selling more of the smaller and more efficient Motors, they recoup the cost - the ROI - for the development of the smaller motor much quicker. And now suddenly, that Ford F-150 truck is available to more markets.

Another way to look at that is to look at the name that they are calling their engines. Over at Ford, the turbocharged engines are called EcoBoost. Over at GM, they're called Ecotec. Notice the first three letters in each name - Eco. They're not called turbo boost or turbo tech because the emphasis is on the economy available by adding a turbo to a smaller displacement engine.

Going back to the original post and topic - motortrend - and the way that the car magazines have often and frequently referred turbocharged engines. They often complained about the turbo lag between the time they step on the gas and the time the turbo kicks in and would always prefer a naturally-aspirated larger engine in any vehicle. Lag is an inherent issue with turbos simply by virtue of the fact that you have to have the RPMs up in order to get the turbo spooling.
 
#34 ·
Mostly its economic market decisions by the manufacturers. As you correctly note, it’s cheaper for them to bolt a turbo on a six, call it “eco”, and sell it as a substitute for an eight, implying through advertising that’s its somehow “better”.

It IS better, for them, not for the buyer. By using older, smaller displacement engines with a turbo they can spoof the emissions tests, scam the lab mileage ratings, and avoid producing newer, more costly designs as long as possible. If you believe that a turbo magically achieves better mpg over what it replaced than you have never driven one very long. I can’t tell any great benefit of my 2.0 DIT from a mileage standpoint over the comparable small six in a similar vehicle. And, from a driving perspective it is definitely not close.

As already noted, all turbos feature a lag, and the power delivery is not linear from stop to full power. Also, they work much better when fully warm, so short urban driving, especially in cold weather, is their poorest performance arena.

Turbos in general are poor substitutes for NA displacement in average driving conditions, and for short trips with a cold engine they provide no benefit at all and miserable gas mileage.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#38 · (Edited)
There are plenty of turbos/designs in which lag is not noticeable.



In addition my XT/turbo performs fantastic in the cold....and I live in a very cold place.



Love me turbo’s


Sorry, Hoshie, but apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. I HAVE an XT, and in cold weather, and short trips, the turbo doesn’t even function. Read your gauges. The computer won’t put it to work until operating temp is reached. My XT gets less than 15 mpg on short winter trips. Yours? I’m guessing 12 or even 10, depending on distance traveled. Do you actually read your mileage indicator? I do.

Your XT, as mine does, once warmed to over 180 degrees, works well enough. How long does that take in Canada, in winter, in town? 15 minutes? You never get there. I have driven my XT in below zero temperatures and since it doesn’t have radiator shutters the maximum temperature might only reach 180 degrees, but only if I get it on a longer run.

A comparably powered NA achieves full function in about five minutes, or less. That equation isn’t a debate, it’s just physics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#36 ·
It does perform better in cold weather bc air is more dense and enhances the turbo. But gas mileage in cold weather is abysmal.

Example If I start it up on a cold morning and drive 6 miles I will get under 20 mpg. Thoroughly warmed it will deliver 10 mpg more on that same trip.
And they are not lying when "they" say there is "no replacement for displacement" they were not lying.
 
#39 ·
It does perform better in cold weather bc air is more dense and enhances the turbo. But gas mileage in cold weather is abysmal.



Example If I start it up on a cold morning and drive 6 miles I will get under 20 mpg. Thoroughly warmed it will deliver 10 mpg more on that same trip.

And they are not lying when "they" say there is "no replacement for displacement" they were not lying.


How does it perform better if the turbo never engages fully? Where and when have you experienced enhanced turbo function because of cold weather, and how did you measure it ? On the psi gauge? With a computer? On the track? Did you compare 0-60 times at 75 degrees vs 10 degrees? Where is the data?

Who did the analysis?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top