New Forester Coming Soon!!

[thunder039]

the improved economy would be due to the introduction to of the start-stop technology

 

[aware]

the improved economy would be due to the introduction to of the start-stop technology

According to the brochure I've downloaded, Start-Stop is only on the N/A 2.0 and 2.5 petrols, not the turbo or turbo diesel.

 

[thunder039]

^ your right :iconwink:

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Aware

No idea where my post went - edited it and then logged out last night. Now disappeared.

You must have accidentally deleted it. I have restored it.
Please let me know if it's the wrong one ... :rotfl: :biggrin:

BTW, thanks for your initial thoughts/reactions.

 

[mr turbo]

No idea where my post went - edited it and then logged out last night. Now disappeared.

It was some how deleted by yourself, according to the edit note at the bottom of the post (I can still see/access it. Advantages of being an admin) If you want I can get & put it back if you want. Just let me know

Aware, I feel the complete opposite from what you do about Subaru and their customer support.

^ I'll second that about the Subaru dealers I have had dealings with Taza.

Ditto.
I have never had better service, both in the initial sale (Lindfield Subaru) & service of my Forry (Tom Kerr)
I don't want to say much here, but lets just say they have really looked after me, especially with after sales etc

However, getting back to it, I still don't like the idea of them dropping the motor size from the 2.5ltr to 2.0ltr (turbo) together with dropping the manuals from their line up for the turbo's. That together with the deletion of the low range aswell.

Regards
Mr Turbo

 

[aware]

Gidday Aware



You must have accidentally deleted it. I have restored it.
Please let me know if it's the wrong one ... :rotfl: :biggrin:

BTW, thanks for your initial thoughts/reactions.

Ah, that'd explain it. Computer skills weren't demonstrated by me there!

Thanks for that Ratbag.

Not a problem - as a long time Subaru fan, the release of what is the staple vehicle for Subaru is an important one. Whilst we may not be 100% happy with certain aspects, on the whole most consumers will be.

 

[aware]

It was some how deleted by yourself, according to the edit note at the bottom of the post (I can still see/access it. Advantages of being an admin) If you want I can get & put it back if you want. Just let me know




Ditto.
I have never had better service, both in the initial sale (Lindfield Subaru) & service of my Forry (Tom Kerr)
I don't want to say much here, but lets just say they have really looked after me, especially with after sales etc

However, getting back to it, I still don't like the idea of them dropping the motor size from the 2.5ltr to 2.0ltr (turbo) together with dropping the manuals from their line up for the turbo's. That together with the deletion of the low range aswell.

Regards
Mr Turbo

Thanks Mr T, Ratbag has restored the post.

 

[mr turbo]

No worries aware & thanks Ratbag

Regards
Mr Turbo

 

[Biesel]

Your comments sound promising aware,
I find the SH foz just a touch to small inside. I'm not a big bloke 182cm tall but generally find the internal space in the SH foz just enough.

Alot of people complain the SH foz is too big i say it's just big enoiugh.

Our other car is a HSV Senator sig edition so yeah i'm use to larger roomy cars. If i'm gunna be there i might as well be comfortable i figure.

 

[El_Freddo]

I'm still on the "don't like it" bandwagon - this has held up since about the gen 4's.

They're too big and they're not "being subaru quirky" anymore - one of the reasons why I like them so much, they're different and you don't really understand it until you own one.

All the best to them. Hopefully they'll come up with a proper transfer case on the back of the 6 speed. Then I'll get a bit excited about that at least - but I won't be holding my breath.

Cheers

Bennie

 

[aware]

Your comments sound promising aware,
I find the SH foz just a touch to small inside. I'm not a big bloke 182cm tall but generally find the internal space in the SH foz just enough.

Alot of people complain the SH foz is too big i say it's just big enoiugh.

Our other car is a HSV Senator sig edition so yeah i'm use to larger roomy cars. If i'm gunna be there i might as well be comfortable i figure.

I'm about the same height, at 98kgs. I find that the SH is just enough. The SG is my first car, and it's not bad, but I recently drove to Seymour and back, and found that after around 1h45m I had to stop - even for 5 minutes, just to get out of the car. It's a nice change to find a Subaru that I fit in relatively comfortably instantly. Our other car is a Skoda Superb - with the seat fully back I can't reach the pedals (like our numerous Commodores before it). (Completely off topic, but the best seats I've sat in would have to go to the M Sport BMW. Great bolstering and extendable squabs!)

Whilst the SJ isn't quite the same, it's enough so that I can imagine that I'd be fairly comfortable on a long run in the car - I'd like to sit in one again as i found that quickly adjusting the seat meant that I couldn't see the dials particularly easily, even with the wheel adjusted correctly.

 

[guzzla]

I still don't like the idea of them dropping the motor size from the 2.5ltr to 2.0ltr (turbo)

When the result is more power, more torque and vastly better fuel consumption, why not? I just can't see any negatives about it other than being able to boast about "bigger must be better".

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Guzzla

When the result is more power, more torque and vastly better fuel consumption, why not? I just can't see any negatives about it other than being able to boast about "bigger must be better".

It is not the absolute maximum torque figure that determines the drive-ability or off-road capability of any car.

As Taza and I have both written about, the lack of low rpm torque in both the 2.0L and 1.8L N/A donks severely impacts on how the cars they are fitted to perform both on and off road. My 1.8L Impreza had little usable torque under about 4,000 rpm, and Taza has explained how his 2.0L is in the same category under about 3,600 rpm. This is a function of the torque curve of the engine, as well as the maximum torque developed.

Mr T has explained how he would rather drive a 2.5L N/A Forester off road than his 2.5L turbo, because the N/A donk develops far more torque at low rpm than the DOHC turbo engine, even though the maximum torque of the turbo engine is massively more than that of the N/A engine of the same swept capacity. There are lots of reasons for this; one being that the turbo has DOHCs, and this sucks a lot of power out of the engine until the turbo cuts in at around 3,000 rpm. After that point is reached, I wouldn't see a turbo Forester for dust and distance. Same goes for the 2.0L turbo diesel.

OTOH, my N/A 2.5L is perfectly drivable at as low as 1,000 rpms, in any gear. Not fast (ha!) but it doesn't try to stall, either - the engine is not labouring (in the old terminology).

Many (most?) people misunderstand the importance of the shape of a torque curve. It is what gave ancient engines such as short stroke American V8s, and long stroke straight sixes, V12s and V16s their enormous pulling power. They had very gentle "hill shaped" torque curves.

What is remarkable in a four cylinder, over-square engine like the 2.5L N/A Subaru engine is its almost flat torque curve from around 1,800 to 6,000 rpms.

The marketing people concentrate on headline figures such as KW (irrelevant for all practical purposes) and maximum torque (also irrelevant for most practical purposes). This latter figure is almost the same for the SF and SG Foresters [EDIT]: WRONG, but the principle still holds true. The original SG developed its maximum torque at 3600 rpms - just a small spike in an otherwise relatively flat torque curve [end edit]), yet the SG performs far better than the SF in almost all situations. Why? Because the torque curve is flatter - the engine reaches close to its maximum torque around 2,000 revs earlier, and maintains it all the way to the red line ... [EDIT] The SG also has around 25% more torque at maximum [end edit]

A more practical example. Assume two cars that have identical mass, shape, gearing and coefficient of drag:

1) If both engines have identical torque curves, but one has half the KW of the other, their acceleration rate will be identical, but the one with the higher KW will have a higher top speed (but not twice as fast - the speed increase is approximately subject to a square law).

2) If both engines have identical KW curves, but one has half the torque of the other (but the same shape torque curve), their top speed will be identical, but the one with the higher torque will accelerate to its top speed much faster (but not twice as fast - the rate of speed increase is approximately subject to a square law).

3) If both have identical maximum torque figures and the same maximum power (with the same power development curve), but one has a torque curve like an inverted ski jump peaking at say 4,500 rpm, and the other has a torque curve that is almost perfectly flat from 1,800 to 6,000 rpms, the one with the flatter torque curve will accelerate far faster in all gears and will reach the same maximum speed for both much faster. It will also be a far more tractable a vehicle to drive ...

Another unrelated point is that some of us do not like automatic transmissions, and in my own case, particularly do not like CVTs ... Some of us also like the flexibility that having two sets of ratios available gives us, rather than just having a 6 speed gearbox that covers the same range ... I had a swag (3 :iconwink of Mitsubishi Colts over the years. One had the DR box, the second had the "5 speed" box (the manual DR lever was replaced by the gearbox moving the gears as one changed up), the third was an automatic. The smaller engined DR was the best of them all to drive, in every respect.

I far prefer driving my DR/5MT 2006 SG Forester to driving SWMBO's sports shift automatic SH. IMHO, the SH is too large, and I don't like any automatic, irrespective of the fact that it has one of the best I have ever driven. Parked together in the drive, the SH is huge compared with the SG, and there are lots of places I have been where that extra width and height would have caused damage to the car, or prevented me from going there at all. Fortunately, SWMBO likes her car better too.

There is no doubt that the SH is a nicer touring car on the bitumen. More spacious, comfortable, quieter ... BUT: I didn't buy mine for that purpose, and it is far more than just adequate as a touring car, anyway. Just far better once one leaves the bitumen, and suits me better while on the bitumen, for a host of reasons.

Just a few specific thoughts on why I will not be buying an SJ, ever ... Not new, not used.

 

[Rally]

Who buys a turbo for fuel consumption? More importantly, give people choices, instead of making it for them. I hear they want to put 2 litre or even 1.6 litre turbos into WRX's. Why?

I want POWER (Including torque) from my turbo- that is why I want a turbo. Yes, if you upgrade the technology for the 2 litre, then yes, I want more, I want a 2 .5 with the same technology. I want all of that, and I want it with a manual gearbox. Make the bloody car and I will buy it.

A bloke in our club has a 2.5 litre late model WRX. He goes on about how since fitting a twin scroll turbo he has 200kw ATW. My WRX is a 2 litre, runs more power, has a better bottom end and a better top end than his twin scroll 2.5. His car is better in the mid range, although he needs to lean out and has shorter gearing to achieve that (plus 25% more capacity), but overall my car has better technology than his. Would I want that technology on a 2.5? Of course I would!

In an offroad scenario, having a hi tech 2.5 would allow better off boost performance and maybe a better transition to boost. OF course, by being auto only with the new model they can skirt that particular issue. The problem we are facing is that we have far too many wankers out there who buy cars like the Forester and don't take them off road, and Subaru are catering for them and not us.

My experience with Subaru dealers is less tha impressive.

1) Dealer refused to even tell me how much the car cost, and no, it had not just been released.
2) Dealer did not get back to me with price, then abused me then assaulted/attempted to intimidate me.
3) Dealer's used car lot misrepresented the car by advertising it was an XS when it was an X and continued to do so when advised of the error, advertised it had had a 120 point safety check and had been fully serviced when it was un roadworthy due to rusty, holed muffler and oil leaking from gearbox and had a dirty air filter.
4) New car dealer did not get back to me with information after test driving a new car
5) Dealer's used car department on the other side of town (Over an hour away) would not let me test drive the advertised car,
6) Drove 40 minutes to another dealer to test drive the new Forester, was asked if I would like to wait 20-30 minutes, which I did. Only to be told 20-30 minutes later I had to book.

Toyota are no better. When looking for a new van, no one in Sydney seemed to want to sell me a car. Ended up buying one on the Gold Coast, flying up and driving it home. Not one of the many dealers I e-mailed about that car in 2000 has got back to me, even though they left on their website their e-mail address to contact them that way.

I HATE buying cars, which is why I hang on to them so long.

Anyway, the new Forester in many ways seems a better car, a step forward in many ways compared to the old model, which was in many was a step sideways and even backwards to it's predecessor. They just need to give the engine/gearbox combinations we want

When the result is more power, more torque and vastly better fuel consumption, why not? I just can't see any negatives about it other than being able to boast about "bigger must be better".

 

[Brumby Boy]

Problem is that the majority of people buy the forester as a town hack, and very rarely if ever leave the sealed road. I worked at Key Motors in Townsville and the number of people who brought their forester in for servicing that had never seen dirt was phenomenal, the under body looked cleaner than some of the Mazda 3/6's I've worked on. if the majority don't want it then the factory is not going to supply it for the minority.
Unfortunately Australia in general is a tiny market on a global scale and on top of that, in the Australian market we (the people who off road in them) are still a minority, so as far as the factory is concerned they aren't going to spend the dollars to manufacture and supply equipment and parts for (globally) an insignificant number of us.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with Ratbag and Rally, but unfortunately the factory is prepared to loose our business to another manufacturer than spend the dollars for a "few" people to buy a "few" cars. :deadhorse:

Personally I would love to see the Brumby return as a cut down forester with a D/R manual gearbox with a center diff lock and at least the old 1.4 low range instead of the 1.12 or what ever it is. in both turbo and N/A guise, but realistically it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Tweaksta]

Don't spend too much time "speculating" on how good the vehicle "might" be just from reading the specs.

More importantly I want to know:
1) Whether a 2" lift will be available and how well it will handle (and look) afterwards.
2) Whether front & rear bars will be available and how they look once installed.
3) Whether it can get to the top of big red or not.
4) Whether it can handle the odd wave over the bonnet like my SF5 with no snorkel.

 

[thunder039]

went and had a look at the new forester at the dealer today and its no SG....

the interior is a big improvement of the SH-which is a good thing. the only thing i didnt like is that the center area separating the driving and passenger was low to the ground.
the outside in the flesh is similar to the SH (they were both side by side) and the size increase isnt that noticeable.
there is no metal under body protection either

would i buy one? short answer yes.
if i had to choose between the SH and the SJ i would choose the SJ (given a similar price).
why? well i wouldnt buy a auto SH anyway so i would rather the CVT then the 4sp. also i wouldnt be buying a turbo so the decrease in engine size doesnt bother me that much. i would be buying the SJ just because the interior is nicer then the SH.
(also obviously i havent driven the SJ but i have driven CVT and the SH but i would not imagine the SJ would handle greatly different)

 

[taza]

the one serious question i have to Subaru, is why the increase in size?
the forester up until the SH have always been small to medium sized and has worked very well in this state, now its on the edge of being large and has the very real possibility of ending up like every other SUV on the market - boring urban wagons

Exactly, part of the reason I bought mine was due to size! If you want a bigger car, i.e Subaru. Get the Outback over the Forester. It's plain simple. The SH and SJ Foz are much bigger than a gen 3 or gen 4 Outback.

The Forester is a sedan that's grown into a general purpose wagon that is quite capable off-road. Pushing it to the very limits of what it can do will eventually break it, if not immediately.

Your very right here! A great little wagon(SF and SG). Good all rounder vehicles and the best in their class
You are 100% right on the breaking stuff part! I think I've proven this for most people on here. Sure my Forester goes well offroad, actually really good with the mods but it's still no twin diff locked, 4wd that'll go anywhere. That's not what I try to do with it now either as I am starting to learn :iconwink: :lol:

However, the Suzukis do not handle the way Foresters do. Their respective heritages show in many subtle ways, with advantages/disadvantages on both sides of the equation.

Both are nice vehicles, just different ...

Exactly!

As Taza and I have both written about, the lack of low rpm torque in both the 2.0L and 1.8L N/A donks severely impacts on how the cars they are fitted to perform both on and off road. My 1.8L Impreza had little usable torque under about 4,000 rpm, and Taza has explained how his 2.0L is in the same category under about 3,600 rpm. This is a function of the torque curve of the engine, as well as the maximum torque developed.

Mr T has explained how he would rather drive a 2.5L N/A Forester off road than his 2.5L turbo, because the N/A donk develops far more torque at low rpm than the DOHC turbo engine, even though the maximum torque of the turbo engine is massively more than that of the N/A engine of the same swept capacity. There are lots of reasons for this; one being that the turbo has DOHCs, and this sucks a lot of power out of the engine until the turbo cuts in at around 3,000 rpm. After that point is reached, I wouldn't see a turbo Forester for dust and distance. Same goes for the 2.0L turbo diesel.

OTOH, my N/A 2.5L is perfectly drivable at as low as 1,000 rpms, in any gear. Not fast (ha!) but it doesn't try to stall, either - the engine is not labouring (in the old terminology).

This is very true. It's the same with the turbo, they should be putting the technology into the 2.5l turbo and not be going back to a 2.0l.
That's the whole point of having a turbo is for it to be fun, fast and powerful. Not fuel economy(maybe on the highway)...

Who buys a turbo for fuel consumption? More importantly, give people choices, instead of making it for them. I hear they want to put 2 litre or even 1.6 litre turbos into WRX's. Why?

I want POWER (Including torque) from my turbo- that is why I want a turbo. Yes, if you upgrade the technology for the 2 litre, then yes, I want more, I want a 2 .5 with the same technology. I want all of that, and I want it with a manual gearbox. Make the bloody car and I will buy it.

A bloke in our club has a 2.5 litre late model WRX. He goes on about how since fitting a twin scroll turbo he has 200kw ATW. My WRX is a 2 litre, runs more power, has a better bottom end and a better top end than his twin scroll 2.5. His car is better in the mid range, although he needs to lean out and has shorter gearing to achieve that (plus 25% more capacity), but overall my car has better technology than his. Would I want that technology on a 2.5? Of course I would!

As I just said to Ratbag, your correct. This is exactly what should be happening. Modern technology being used to it's full extent! If you want a turbo then don't be chasing fuel economy, hell don't even have a petrol car. Go a diesel VW golf or something...
If the new 2.0l turbo is just as good as the old 2.5l turbo then imagine how good it would be if that same technology and the idea's were used for the 2.5l turbo :iconwink:

 

[guzzla]

Mr T has explained how he would rather drive a 2.5L N/A Forester off road than his 2.5L turbo, because the N/A donk develops far more torque at low rpm than the DOHC turbo engine, even though the maximum torque of the turbo engine is massively more than that of the N/A engine of the same swept capacity. There are lots of reasons for this; one being that the turbo has DOHCs, and this sucks a lot of power out of the engine until the turbo cuts in at around 3,000 rpm.

I understand abouy the distribution of torque curves but just because an engine is bigger doesn't mean it will have more torque at lower revs than a smaller engine. There are too many other factors that come into play, especially when a turbo comes into the picture. For example, I wonder what effect the variable valve timing on both inlet and exhaust (rather than just inlet) has on the new engine as well as direct injection? Only driving will tell how effective these different technologies will have and unfortunately we will never have the chance to compare manual against manual and not have the complication of the CVT that like all auto transmissions can be used more effectively to disguise engine power and torque deliveries.

As for the N/A v turbo comparison - I drive my brother's X manual a lot and swap straight back into my XT and he and I agree that there are no revs that the X has an advantage, even driving like the grandpa that I am at 1500rpm in 4th the XT has more "go". It's a falacy that the turbo does not cut in around 3000rpm - listen and you can hear it starting to spool up at revs not far above idle and there is plenty of boost happening around 2400rpm and by then it is feeling much gruntier than the X. And that is in a very useable rev range. The really big boost does come in just on 3000rpm however. It's that huge rush that tends to disguise just how effective the XT motor is right down to idle. What I like about the X is the even feeling in it's throttle response and the feeeling that you can predict just how much it is going to respond. That can give some unwanted surprises in the XT.

And as for fuel consumption? I have commented before how we get almost identical consumption when we drive in convoy in the country - I just have to pay extra for premium. What we can't do is drive in convoy around the city but I think the X does a little better there than the XT. I often hear the comment that you don't buy a turbo for the fuel economy but that's not true - how economical my car is will always be important to me and one of the satisfying things about buying the XT over the XS that I nearly did (one drive of an XT manual changed that idea!) is that there is no consumption disadvantage unless you use what the XT can really give and the XS engine doesn't give me that option.

 

[guzzla]

There are lots of reasons for this; one being that the turbo has DOHCs, and this sucks a lot of power out of the engine

Yet the new FB engine in the Forester has twin cams rather than single cam and according to Subaru claims still has the same 126kW yet produces more torque, up from 229Nm to 234Nm. It would be interesting to see the distribution of the torque curves of both.