- #51 of 3663
-
Re: Twin exhausts on the 2.5? [ateixeira]
by xwesx
-
Jan 04, 2008 (11:22 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 04, 2008 11:15 am)
I have a feeling that it is because the dual exhaust is merely a show feature - the the pipes are T'ed off near the rear axle. On the WRX, a performance-oriented machine popular with the tuner crowd, what is the point in a showy feature like this when so many owners modify the exhaust system nearly the moment they buy one?
|
- #52 of 3663
-
Re: Twin exhausts on the 2.5? [xwesx]
by paisan
-
Jan 04, 2008 (11:31 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Jan 04, 2008 11:22 am)
I looked at this at the NY Autoshow last year. The hatch has no room behind the rear to have dual mufflers in the rear. There is only room for 1 long can behind the rear suspension on it. This is similar to the SVX where they had a single can ala F-body cars back there.
-mike
|
- #53 of 3663
-
Re: Twin exhausts on the 2.5? [xwesx]
by ateixeira
-
Jan 04, 2008 (12:52 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Jan 04, 2008 11:22 am)
Agreed, more show than go, since the dual exhaust models have no extra HP.
|
- #54 of 3663
-
Re: Twin exhausts on the 2.5? [ateixeira]
by paisan
-
Jan 04, 2008 (7:24 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 04, 2008 12:52 pm)
They are 2 smaller ones v. 1 larger one. So it makes sense that they aren't anymore powerful. I like the look of 2 better personally.
-mike
|
- #55 of 3663
-
Not bad, but...
by avalon02wh
-
Jan 06, 2008 (7:05 am)
-
|
The new Forester looks interesting. The extra room is welcome. I will likely consider one down the road. In the mean time I think Subaru needs to address several issues.
1.As others have mentioned, Subaru really needs to offer a 5spd auto or a CVT.
2.They should bring back a FWD version. The energy bill makes the AWD a bit of a liability. Back in the early 90s my FWD Legacy worked great even in the snow. The FWD would cost less, weigh less and have better performance using the same motor.
3.Subaru should consider selling a FWD model with the 2.0L motor. Removing the AWD and using a smaller engine should result in a 200 pound reduction in weight. My guess is that the vehicle would weigh about 3,000 pounds – something a 140 hp, 2.0L engine could handle.
4.Subaru might also consider a 1.5L turbo.
5.A diesel motor, I am not sure about. Around here gasoline is going for $3.10 and diesel is $3.55. I have seen the spread as high as 70 cents. The higher cost of diesel negates some of the fuel savings. A lot will depend on the extra cost for the diesel motor. We have also had shortages of diesel but not gasoline. If another longer shortage hits during spring planting or fall harvesting things could get ugly.
|
- #56 of 3663
-
Re: Not bad, but... [avalon02wh]
by paisan
-
Jan 06, 2008 (7:04 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jan 06, 2008 7:05 am)
If they offer FWD there would be no compelling reason to buy a subaru over say a Honda or a Toyota IMO.
-mike
|
- #57 of 3663
-
Re: Not bad, but... [paisan]
by avalon02wh
-
Jan 07, 2008 (4:34 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: paisan (Jan 06, 2008 7:04 pm)
I consider the Forester a decent vehicle even without the AWD. Prices for the Forester are competitive with the RAV4 and CRV. Around here I can get a Forester for $21K while the others are above $24K when I can find a basic model. Drop the AWD and the price would likely be just $20k. We have a FWD 4cyl Highlander and like it a lot. You might be right in that others won't see the value. The 08 model was just a wee bit small. The new model appears to be just big enough. I like the increase ride height too. What will Subaru actually do to meet the energy bill requirements, only time will tell.
|
- #58 of 3663
-
The forester 4-cyl and petrol consume
by batman47
-
Jan 07, 2008 (7:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jan 07, 2008 4:34 am)
The best performance that a V6 engine (AWD) can deliver is 18/24 miles/gallon and this is the Nissan Murano CVT with prices $29,000-$34,000. CVT helps economize petrol consume. The other alternative is Diesel engine that increases to 22/30 miles/gallon. Latest German Diesel can do this by using an extra tank with some urea chemical fluid to eliminate pollutants. The other situation is to stick to 4-cyl engines that could perform 19/26 miles/gallon. The problem with using a 4-cyl on line vehicles is that the towing capacity is around 1,500 lbs. Only those who want to tow a boat or a caravan -in my opinion- need a V6 or V8. I think these are the people who can afford to expend thousands of dollars in extra petrol. The problem with CVT engines is the engine noise when accelerating and the small time lag that the CVT needs to respond. If buyers do not care about the noise then a CVT is the solution. I think the 4-speed automatic in the Forester has been proved to be reliable and Toyota is still using it in its RAV4.
I will not advise to buy a FWD instead of a 4WD/AWD just because of saving of money. Rear wheel drive only or FWD only is not sufficient to avoid an accident on icing roads. I know what scaring is when the car starts to skid without control out of the road.
I wish the 2009 Forester price would not be higher than$24,000-$25,000. I wonder why the Forester is not in the top 10 SUV (2007)?
|
- #59 of 3663
-
Re: Not bad, but... [paisan]
by ateixeira
-
Jan 07, 2008 (7:46 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: paisan (Jan 06, 2008 7:04 pm)
I agree with mike. Subaru's low point was 1994, IIRC, when they last sold FWD. They were getting clobbered by the giants, and don't have the resources even now.
Toyota now owns a share of Subaru so expect to see HSD hybrids in the future. That, plus a CVT, plus maybe diesels, is how Subaru will meet future CAFE standards.
Also, remember that "35 mpg" ain't really 35 mpg. That formula uses the old, unadjusted EPA numbers, which are much, much higher than the numbers we see on the window stickers now.
For instance, Subaru's CAFE scores right now is right at 27.5mpg, yet if you look at the EPA combined numbers for even the most efficient models they are only low 20s.
|
- #60 of 3663
-
Re: The forester 4-cyl and petrol consume [batman47]
by avalon02wh
-
Jan 07, 2008 (3:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: batman47 (Jan 07, 2008 7:07 am)
4WD/AWD is a bit overrated in my view. FWD works just fine in snow and ice. I have spent the last 30 years driving in Northern States without problems. For work I have driven 4WD trucks. AWD or 4WD will provide a little bit more acceleration in snow or ice. Unfortunately people think they can drive just as fast in poor conditions. In reality the AWD adds weight which slightly increases your stopping distance. I would rather have a FWD that slips a bit on takeoff. It is a gentle reminder that conditions are slippery and that I should slow down, stopping distances will be longer. And to quote the latest CR “Subaru touts the safety of its standard AWD, but the Legacy's rear end swings out too easily.”
You should be able to find a 2009 Forester for under $24k, Just don't load it up with every option. 
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons 
