Forester 2.5 XT

  • Thread starter Thread starter rollazn
  • 21 comments
  • 3,722 views
rollazn

rollazn

Messages
3,760
Messages
rollazn
Well, I just want to bring this on a new topic as to we can talk about it. The Forester 2.5XT is a fast SUV no doubt but can it run 13.8s?

rollazn Forester

Type Horizontally opposed 4-cylinder intercooled turbo with die cast aluminum-alloy block and heads and Active Valve Control System (AVCS) variable valve timing.
Displacement 2.5 liters (150 cubic inches)
Horsepower 210 @ 5600 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft.) 235 @ 3600 rpm
Our forester highest power out put is 210.. the STi verison in Japan has 265ps or 261hp
how can it run faster than a 350z (287hp) and its about the same weight than the SUV too. I dont see on how its going to run 13.8s.

The Vanishing Boy It is true:
http://www.supercars.net/garages/groupb/19v2.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/article...article_id=6854

I think this will prove my point.

rollazn That is quite weird. How can a 210hp SUV weighing in 3298lbs run 13.8 in the 1/4. I dont see that as possible at all. Motorweek did it in a 6.2 which is a full second off car and driver time. I just dont get it. Every thing including the 1/4 is 1 second off. Less power than the S2000 and heavier than the S2000 how can it run faster than a S2000 dont make sense at all. I just cant believe it. I dont know who to trust. Supercar's time is off of Car and Driver so thats basically the same thing. I dont know it seem impossible.

I did the 1/4 calculator 3298lbs with 245hp (est.) only run around mid-high 14s how can this car do 13s dont make one sense at all.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2250.shtm

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/s...l=Forester&src=

Is that the only source that state it 0-60 in 5.3 second... I dont know what to believe... ALL I KNOW IS IT IS QUICK AS HELL FOR AN SUV!!!

What do you guys think?
 
Originally posted by M5Power
I already said, it's quite under-rated on power. Not by 50bhp, though, that's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i know its underpower. It might be around 245hp but i still dont think that with that power it can run 13.8 with a 3210lbs. Dont the S2000 have the same amount of power and is lighter and runs the same? The 350Z has more power and alittle heavier but isnt enough to slow it down that much (like around 50lbs give or take).
 
Forester weighs just 3090lbs - 350Z comes in at 3188, a full 98lbs heavier. Forester's 41lbs lighter than the TT convertible. So it's a light SUV (the third-lightest, in fact). But if S2000 (which weighs 255lbs less) does the quarter in the Forester's claimed time, the Forester would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of 300bhp to overcome both the weight and aerodynamics difference.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Forester weighs just 3090lbs - 350Z comes in at 3188, a full 98lbs heavier. Forester's 41lbs lighter than the TT convertible. So it's a light SUV (the third-lightest, in fact). But if S2000 (which weighs 255lbs less) does the quarter in the Forester's claimed time, the Forester would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of 300bhp to overcome both the weight and aerodynamics difference.
Click to expand...

The Forester 2.5XT weigh in 3210lbs with manual transmission.. i got it from the subaru site. The base Forester does weigh 3090lbs. The 350Z track weights 3225lb which is the most expensive 350z coupe... weights only 15lbs more.

If it need 300bhp to go with the S2000 then that time is false. I know the 2.5XT dont have 300bhp. Even though its rated at 210bhp it might be alittle more but i really doubt it has more than 250bhp.

So M5 you think the time is false? 0-60 in 5.3s and 13.8 at 1/4?

0-60 in 6.2s by motorweek sound more realistic. The FX45 run 0-60 in 6.3 and 1/4 in high 14s- low 15s.


I did the 1/4 calculator it saids that it need 280hp to run 13.8 with the weight 3210. I know the 1/4 isnt all that accurate but it seems to be right on most occassions. I know that the Forester dont have 280bhp or does it? I mean there is no reason why they would underrate the Forester that much... by 70bhp in that fact. Why not just tell it like it is.
 
Originally posted by rollazn


So M5 you think the time is false? 0-60 in 5.3s and 13.8 at 1/4?

0-60 in 6.2s by motorweek sound more realistic. The FX45 run 0-60 in 6.3 and 1/4 in high 14s- low 15s.
Click to expand...

Yes - no question both times are false. A 6.0-6.5 second 0-60 time is much more realistic, particularly because Consumer Guide has the automatic XT doing 0-60 in a full 7.1.

So we can add the Forester XT to the 'really freaking quick SUV list', along with the Cayenne, FX45, and GMC Typhoon.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Yes - no question both times are false. A 6.0-6.5 second 0-60 time is much more realistic, particularly because Consumer Guide has the automatic XT doing 0-60 in a full 7.1.

So we can add the Forester XT to the 'really freaking quick SUV list', along with the Cayenne, FX45, and GMC Typhoon.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know its FREAKING QUICK! Its also cheaper than all the rest so its a good bang for its buck. Its like a sleeper ;) nobody expect a subaru forester to be that quick with a rated 210bhp. :D Why would these magazine lie? I dont get that. How can those time be false when the magazine tested it?
 
Car & Driver's "estimates" are always quick. Subaru still uses one of C&D's 0-60 times from late 2001 in their WRX ads because it's the fastest 0-60 time ever recorded for the WRX: 5.4 seconds. C&D is nothing more than a solely-performance-oriented, unreliable magazine that I feel shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
 
I agree, they pulled that new 3.5 Altima SE to 60mph in 5.9 seconds!! That's a little too fast. Nissan's claim of 6.3 is much more believable.
 
What I saw on Impreza.net and Edmunds.com (owners experiece forum) that the Forester 2.5XT has 190 whp and has a weight disadvantage within 300 lbs. compared with the WRX wagon which has 170 whp.

Practicality first. :)
 
Just wait for the STi version.

That quarter time is suspicious, but I would counsel that you're not taking torque figures into account.
 
People that want a faster quarter mile time car should go for the Forestor. Reading over a few things on the Cobb Tunning boards people say it is easily capable of running a 13.8 second quarter mile. Which is understandable. Same engine block as the STi has under the hood. Probably a smaller turbo and some non-performance oriented timing and settings, and other things that my tiny brain couldn't comprehend. But if you want something to autocross, then you stay away from it. Go with the Impreza, or wait for a 2.5GT Legacy.
 
Thats why I like this wagon very much.
Its like the cheapest version of the WRX STi wagon or the Audi RS4.
Too bad, I wish that Subaru of NA would bring the Forester STi to the Stateside.

Forester 2.5XT (wheels and color N/A in the US)
norm_11_XT_Japan.jpg


Forester 2.5XT w/ STi package
forester.jpg


Forester STi (the real thing)
photo_01.jpg


Just bring us the STi package for the Forester and I will be very happy.
 
No, they are not, in fact the one in red is the European model and the wheels of the non-turbo 2.5XS. The US-Spec XT have a different wheel design:

US-Spec Subaru Forester 2.5XT
023171-E.jpg


Its kinda blurry, but you'll get the idea. :)
 
The wheels are also a $659 option on the X.

But fine, fine. So when you say "wheels not available in the United States" what you actually mean is "wheels not available unless you ask the Subaru dealer nicely." I'm sure for a few hundred they'd be more than willing to switch the wheels on the XS if it meant they'd get to mark up the XS's price even more.
 
The STi version while I assume its fast as all hell, I just think it gotta be one of the funniest things. I mean I look at it and its a station wagon, something my mom drives. Then I see a hood scoop and the engine I'm guessing is the same as the WRX.

I guess that would be one of the funnier things to race. I mean imagine you pulling up in a Supra or something and getting your ass handed to you by a wagon.
 
That's a better one - unusual to see Sube with anything but a five spoker....

forestxt1.JPG


...although it might be an evolution of the old RX wheel, although they're surely not 15's.

Impreza-RX-Hatch.jpg
 
It's a 16" wheel. The three Forester wheels here are the 16" steel wheel standard on the X, the 16" alloy wheel standard on the XS and optional on the X, and the 16" alloy wheel standard on the XT, but dealers will bolt-on anything to make a sale, and if you really wanted I'm certain they'd allow the XS's wheels to float over to an XT. America has never had a Subaru with the wheels pictured on that Impreza wagon, though our base Imprezas do see some pretty weak non-alloy wheels.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
It's a 16" wheel. The three Forester wheels here are the 16" steel wheel standard on the X, the 16" alloy wheel standard on the XS and optional on the X, and the 16" alloy wheel standard on the XT, but dealers will bolt-on anything to make a sale, and if you really wanted I'm certain they'd allow the XS's wheels to float over to an XT. America has never had a Subaru with the wheels pictured on that Impreza wagon, though our base Imprezas do see some pretty weak non-alloy wheels.
Click to expand...

The older RSs, before the WRXs came here, had very nice wheels. The five spoke, and then six spoke design were both great looking wheels.
 

Latest Posts

Back