Landshark

Oof, 8.3 seconds! ForesterXT was 5.3!

Not complaining, though ... It got 16mpg on premium ... Before the engine blew up.

Looks like the 2015 NA Forester is 8.6, so not bad, Mitsu. I guess the OS may be lighter, or "geared" for better acceleration. Not sure how that works with CVT. ???

mRVRsport

Oh my... I sense an interesting story here!
Do tell !!!
What, When, Why and How?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Landshark

not that interesting ...
bone stock, driven gently by wife (not launched or hooned).
first the turbo grenaded ... Subaru did some dumb **** - they put a catalytic converter in the uppipe. if that ever breaks down, pieces go into the turbo and bye bye turbo. they also had little banjo bolt filters in the oil line to the turbo, if they clog, bye bye turbo.
so, filters removed, catless uppipe installed, low mile used turbo installed. fine for over a year.

start getting a little rough running around 3000rpm sometimes. a little later get a CEL (cylinder#4 misfire). i figure it sa bad coil pack (spark plugs done less than 10k prior). take it to dealer because its a PITA to get to the coil packs on a flat-4 engine (and im getting lazier).
they tell me very low compression on cylinders 2 and 4. said $8000 for new engine. LOL yeah, no.

71k miles on it.

CottageLifer

Turbos are great things (had one in my SAAB) but they can destroy an engine far too easily. When mine went (it was a Garrett AirReasarch T3) I refused to get ripped off by the dealer. Had it removed and rebuilt at a Caterpillar dealer! Saved hundreds!

I doubt I would ever buy another turbo'ed car - unless I win the lottery.

Landshark

i've had 4 of them, only problems with the FXT.

aside from failed ACD pump that i got reimbursed fully for (didn't affect driveability of the car, either - drove it for a month before fixing), the Evo has been rock-solid. it helped sway my decision away from another Forester to the OS.

i don't have much of a choice - i like performance and AWD. not many AWD V8's to choose from, at least not ones that aren't giant land barges.

mRVRsport

Ouch !, !, !
Man, that's a freaking nightmare!
Poor engineering. Seems like they want their turbos to fail.


Ha, guess the Subaru Tech took some classes with MINI service guys, (whenever anything goes wrong, "just offer to replace the whole motor or transmission" instead of repair...

We had looked at their general line up of Forester, VX (& BRZs)


We (I) had considered buying the Forester XT 2.0L Turbo when we started shopping for a CUV.
Was attracted to that motor (heard about their WRX AWD systems) and wanted to see what a flat 4 turbo was all about/can do... BUT, the salesman wouldn't even let us get into that model vehicle let alone test drive it until we "qualify" with a credit check and other "..well, are you serious in buying the car today.." BS.


Well, with their asking price of $33K+ & sh!ty salesman attitude.. You can get your flat 4.


And, now with your story on that XT motor/turbo experience.
We are glad we did NOT go with a Subaru!
They are now officially on my Ban/Forbidden list.

CottageLifer

My son has a normally aspirated Forester. It has great acceleration. I would not write them off my future list.

mRVRsport

We test drove the Impreza and VX 2.0L NA's and were very under whelmed by their performance (guess I was expecting more from their touted flat 4 boxer engines) on top of their skinny features list/price.


I'm sure their WRX/STIs are top notch.. but not in our price budget at that moment.

Landshark

Now, that was a 2005 XT. The newer ones do not have a catted up pipe or the banjo bolt filters.

They aren't anywhere near as fast as the older ones, and are much larger, though. I liked the size and drive-ability (very car-like) of her 2005, but the newer ones just didn't do it for me. We have no kids or big dogs, so didn't need the added size. The interior seemed like a sea of cheap plastic. I know the OS is no Bentley, but it doesn't have the cheap feel of the newer Forester (IMHO). I liked her 2005 interior more than the 2015.

Cottagelifer, the 2.4L OS is faster than the NA Forester! By 0.3 sec to 60. LOL
There are definitely arguments for the Forester, but the OS was better equipped (HIDs, A backup cam you could actually see -tiny screen on Subarus, FWD/AWD, etc.)

Probably another year or so in the Evo, but not ruling out a WRX as my next car .... Unless something that better suits my needs comes out ....

2of9

I've got a 11' OS. I'd jump on the AWD, especially in the winter. Wife loves it. I love it. I'm not expecting ANY speed from this car. Yes, I would love more torque in this but it does it's job for what it does.

rongdoer

iTrader: (1)

don't forget that awd has more expensive components to repair. The maintenance cost will be higher in the long run. Fluids and service will be more expensive.

CottageLifer

Good point. But they have higher resale values.

ZombieBatman

Cool, thanks for the input. I'm sure the AWD comes in handy up there in MN. With the way we've been getting hit around here the past couple of years, I'm probably better off.

Landshark

that's where the 10yr/100,000 powertrain warranty is nice.

as far as maintenance, its an extra few bucks for some fluid changes every 30k ... not exactly like maintaining a vintage Ferrari.

mRVRsport

Those are true points -
However, in regards to safety (yours and your family's safety) in bad weather or unforeseen poor road surfaces...the cost(s) of having such an active AWD system in those situation(s) is without question a better "savings"/investment.


No doubt!
Getting stuck in snow is bad enough, but if you're stuck out in -20 degrees and having to navigate in snow&ICE on highways and overpasses with just FWD... it's no bueno!




PS:
Why AWD in Houston, you ask...
Because they get crazy heavy rain storms and muddy runoffs in streets sometimes.