Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am wondering, in terms of reliability, are the turbo foresters more prone to problems or is it dependent on how hard you drive it.
 

·
Sydney Dinner Organiser
MY05 XT luxury
Joined
·
1,694 Posts
I think a turbo is going to be less reliable.
Its got more parts! Plus its a higher strung engine, more heat and can put more stress on the driveline.

Now the question is - if driven sensibly is this going to be much of a difference? And we are talking averages, you could abuse the turbo and still have less problems than a NA, just that its not as likely.

Subarus in general are quite reliable. The turbos dont have a reputation as being unreliable (and they have sold plenty of WRXs and even turbo Foresters for a number of years now)

So would I say the turbo is less reliable - yes.
Would I think its a big enough factor to worry about as an owner - no.

If you are someone who drives that hard that you think your driving is affecting the possible reliability, then you probably are the type of person who wants the turbo anyway.
 

·
Registered
2004 Sube slushy
Joined
·
566 Posts
And if the NA and turbo are driven at the same level of performance, the turbo should last longer because it's loafing more for the same level of performance as a more struggling NA. Reality? turbos get pushed harder and the extra plumbing is more to pay attention to.

I had 2 turbo Zs-one went 190k+ under my butt and drove away with the happy new ebay winner 1400 miles home at 28mpgs on the raod w/o a problem. So a turbo is nothing to worry about especially if you're the orig owner.
 

·
Registered
2010 FXT Limited 4EAT Sport Shift
Joined
·
1,461 Posts
I think the message here is 'treat them like you want to keep them'...if you're the type that has little self-restraint, the turbo model is probably not for you, as it is a temptress...
The turbo model does get nearly unequaled Smileage..;>}
-Quick
 

·
#8 Post ho
1999 Subaru Forester
Joined
·
2,441 Posts
Since we don't have the S/TB foresters here I settled for an L, but if I could have boughten a turbo SF I would have definatly done so.. more powar!!!!!!!


BUT then again, I can have just as much fun with my NA SF in the twisties/ forest roads


BUT then again.. I remember how I got beat by a buick the other.. day..
I had 3 passangers, thats WHY I got beat, RIGHT? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
dicknose said:
I think a turbo is going to be less reliable.
Its got more parts! Plus its a higher strung engine...
Information I have says the engine block on the turbo model is a stronger, reinforced version of the NA engine. The same block is used for the STi, which suggests to me that in my XT it is understressed.

You do raise a good point about the driveline--I don't know whether the XT driveline is exactly the same as the NA drivelines, or if it's also somehow reinforced. Perhaps if the same, the quality is such that it can take the turbo treatment.

More parts, yes; that makes sense. More to go wrong. Maybe.
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
55K miles on my turbo XT and no problems whatsoever, for what it's worth.

eta: not modified and I drive relatively conservatively.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
KCCasey said:
55K miles on my turbo XT and no problems whatsoever, for what it's worth.

QUOTE]

114k miles and no problems. not modded yet apart from a greens filter and going to upgrade the exhaust this month
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
103 Posts
45hp on paper, 70-ish based on dyno results.


I'm with Hal on the "stress" issue. I'll take the Forester's 2.5t over a phase I or phase II EJ25 any day. But then, I have to assume the *new* NA 2.5s are the same block now, and the days of woe are behind us all.

Now, about the turbo. Frankly, I find my slower BG Outback to be a more satisfying lump to thrash in the real world. For me, the addage "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow" holds true to an extent. The FXT is more about "Oh My Freaking God this is Fast!" than finessing the power through a bunch of twisties on a country 2-lane. For that, I'll take the NA. Seriously, it loves to rev, there is no wierd "hang time" when the clutch is engaged, and it loves to be stomped. I'm sure, back to back, the FXT would likely finish the same stretch in faster time, but I'd have more fun doing it in our OB. Also, that old OB is just set up so well. FSTB, RSB, Plus One tire upgrade, and she's good to go, a total runner. No slow steering rack either, and perfectly damped.
 

·
Premium Member
06 FXT
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
Drive both back to back and you'll find youself saying: Screw the reliability concern, I'll take the turbo.
 

·
Premium Member
06 FXT
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
In that case, we should be the one that's asking the question...

What if the FXT is set up as well as the OB? Would you still go NA over turbo?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
103 Posts
I can't say for sure. Obviously the turbo's power is intoxicating, you just can't help dipping into the boost; my gas card receipts confirm it. :D

But i do find it to be a more detached experience than the NA, mostly because the ECU holds on to the revs for a moment, which for me makes it difficult to heel-toe downshift with confidence- I haven't yet adjusted my throttle input to compensate for the fact that the tach isn't falling as I'm shifting.

Then again, I did 2 HPDEs and 2 seasons of autocross in various NA 2.5s, and haven't ever had the chance to completely flog my turbo. Yet. So I had a lot more 7/10ths to 9/10ths experience in NAs.
 

·
Registered
2017 Forester 2.5I - 6 Speed
Joined
·
988 Posts
Northwest Tan said:
I agree. Years ago I bought a Civic because it was supposed to be so reliable. But I hated to drive it and found it to be the most uncomfortable car for long trips. Point being buy and drive a car because you like to drive it or because it fits your needs, never buy a car cause it is reliable unless reliability is your only need.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top