Ask the Car People.SM


Subaru Forester (up to 2005) - READ ONLY

18028 messages,  Last post on Nov 02, 2006 at 7:19 AM

You are in the Subaru Forester Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Forester, Wagon



Messages Page 1802 of 1803

#18012 of 18028 Re: Thoughts on 2004 Forester Turbo automatic; 15,000 miles [terry92270] by p0926

Oct 11, 2006 (2:55 pm)

Replying to: terry92270 (Oct 06, 2006 8:48 pm)
I have made the same trip, without my Forester feeling at all sluggish, 80MPH, and it isn't a turbo
 
Ha! That's only because you haven't taken the same drive in an XT
 
Don't get me wrong, I had a 2001 non-turbo and while it did okay in the mountains, there's no arguing that the XT is in a different power class. In fact, driving in the mountains offers the perfect example: you're climbing a mountain pass in over-drive and go to accelerate. In the non-turbo you've already got the pedal floored just trying to maintain your speed and you have no choice but to down-shift. With the turbo however, all you have to do is give it some more gas and you're pressed back into your seat from the turbo boost enabled acceleration That being said, there's also no arguing that you'll pay the price at the pump for having a turbo.
 
-Frank

#18013 of 18028 Re: Thoughts on 2004 Forester Turbo automatic; 15,000 miles [p0926] by terry92270

Oct 11, 2006 (3:29 pm)

Replying to: p0926 (Oct 11, 2006 2:55 pm)
Frank,
 
I think we are mixing apples and oranges here, as that wasn't the question or my post. Some 4 bangers will indeed feel sluggish driving the area you posted about. The Forester X does not. And I didn't have to floor it to maintain speed. Not even driving I-70 over the pass to Denver.
 
Obviously a turbo anything will give you better, easier acceleration, although my 2006 Murano SL might leave you in the dust without having it, and certainly my Viper would. All of those come at a cost, one way or another, eh? Most won't want to pay for Premium gas and loss of MPG, or endure the extra mechanical maintenance most turbos come with.
 
Me, I like turbos, but most buyers of economy cars will be, and usually are, put-off by the extra costs, that are not always apparent to the first-time turbo buyer. They get caught up in "feeling the power"....and like you said, nothing beats that feeling when climbing a mountain road!

#18014 of 18028 Re: Thoughts on 2004 Forester Turbo automatic; 15,000 miles [terry92270] by p0926

Oct 12, 2006 (8:30 am)

Replying to: terry92270 (Oct 11, 2006 3:29 pm)
Actually, the original post was specifically commenting on the climbing ability of the XT:
 
As a bonus for Continental Dividers, the turbo motor handles the 5,000-7,000 altitudes with nary a hiccup
 
While your response was to contend that the non-turbo performed equally well while using cheaper gas:
 
I have made the same trip, without my Forester feeling at all sluggish, 80MPH, and it isn't a turbo, using that cheap(er) regular unleaded
 
Since I've climbed the same mountain pass in both, my personal experience with their climbing capabilities seems to provide an ideal comparison. The bottom line being that the normally aspirated engine gets the job done but without the sizeable power reserves that the XT brings to the table and therefore the non-turbo does indeed feel sluggish in comparison.
 
Speaking of mixing apples and oranges… what does a Nissan Murano much lees a Dodge Viper have to do with comparing different Forester models?
 
-Frank

#18015 of 18028 Re: Thoughts on 2004 Forester Turbo automatic; 15,000 miles [p0926] by terry92270

Oct 12, 2006 (10:33 am)

Replying to: p0926 (Oct 12, 2006 8:30 am)
The comparison had to do with the ability to climb hills.
 
You want to make an argument here, as you obviously feel some need to "defend" your turbo, which isn't under "attack" I merely said my X model didn't feel sluggish, as some 4's do. I believe I stated I liked Turbo's, and recognized nothing beat the feeling of extra power. But it is all realitive, since the non-turbo vehicles I own can wipe most turbos.
 
People looking here for information usually like comparisons, therefore my comment. If someone is looking for an affordable car, and might think they must buy a turbo if living in the Inter mountain West, IMO they would like to know Subaru's regular Boxer 4 will handle the hills better than most 4's....without the extra maintenance of a turbo, and the need to buy Premium Unleaded.

#18016 of 18028 Re: Thoughts on 2004 Forester Turbo automatic; 15,000 miles [terry92270] by p0926

Oct 12, 2006 (11:14 am)

Replying to: terry92270 (Oct 12, 2006 10:33 am)
People looking here for information usually like comparisons
 
Yep, that's why I provided one without confusing the issue by throwing in totally unrelated models. I'm happy for you that you have a Viper that can "wipe most turbos" but fail to see what that has to do with the forum topic
 
I could just as easily argue that it appears you feel it necessary to "defend" your non-turbo even though I agreed that it performs adequately when climbing. I also agreed that the turbo comes with a financial penalty (both premium gas and lower mpg). In fact I tell anyone who cares to ask that the Forester X provides the best value for the money of any small SUV/CUV
 
-Frank

Messages Page 1802 of 1803

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement