Subaru Forester XT does 13.8@97mph STOCK!

[Ekliptix]

!!!

http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6854

"The force-fed flat-four's combination of torque, gearing, and weight will get you a blazing 0-to-60 time of 5.3 seconds and a quarter-mile of 13.8 seconds at 97 mph, just 0.3 second slower than an $89,665 Porsche Cayenne Turbo."

[ecstasy_civic]

MY NEW CAR lol.

thtas insane for an SUV under 30 grand.

[spyguy]

whats funny is the turbo is smaller than the wrx turbo...

[4wheeldrift]

Such wicked sleepers, I love em :D

[GTS Jeff]

haha thats awesome! i wonder why subaru is going so crazy now

[l/l/rX]

WOAH. all those other jap car companies have mad tough competition now. wrx, sti, turbo forester. and IMO the forester doesnt actually look that bad. the scoop on the hood adds more flava to it :D :D only 210 hp and 235 tq dayum thats sweet for a family car. the interior too looks pretty cool.

[CRXguy]

Hmmmm, I wonder if the 5spd tranny is swappable into the WRX? :D Or maybe I should just buy the damn thing. My new winter beater! :eek:

[googe]

So...less power than the WRX, weighs more than the WRX, faster 0-60, top speed, and 1/4 mile than the WRX. How does this make sense?:dunno:

I must be missing something.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by googe
So...less power than the WRX, weighs more than the WRX, faster 0-60, top speed, and 1/4 mile than the WRX. How does this make sense?:dunno:

I must be missing something. It's called gearing.

[Boost Infested]

its a 2.5, more tq...

[googe]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
It's called gearing.

Notice I said it has a better 0-60 AND top speed...so, it obviously doesnt have a significantly higher or lower gear ratio to gain an edge in either...it has an edge in both. How does better gearing accomplish this?


Originally posted by Boost Infested
its a 2.5, more tq...

Displacement doesnt matter, the numbers it outputs is what counts...only 15 more torque. That shouldnt make up for 200lbs?

[CRXguy]

Originally posted by googe


Notice I said it has a better 0-60 AND top speed...so, it obviously doesnt have a significantly higher or lower gear ratio to gain an edge in either...it has an edge in both. How does better gearing accomplish this?



Displacement doesnt matter, the numbers it outputs is what counts...only 15 more torque. That shouldnt make up for 200lbs?

Maybe because they under-rated the car? Ever thought of that? :rolleyes:

[DonJuan]

It's about time the forester was introduced to forced induction! The regular ones are kina gutless, maybe now there may be some of those appearing in rallys and even autocross?

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by googe


Notice I said it has a better 0-60 AND top speed...so, it obviously doesnt have a significantly higher or lower gear ratio to gain an edge in either...it has an edge in both. How does better gearing accomplish this? It has a higher numerical first, which will give it better acceleration off the line affecting its 0-60, and a deeper 5th and different final drives for a higher top speed. Do the math.



Originally posted by googe


Displacement doesnt matter, the numbers it outputs is what counts...only 15 more torque. That shouldnt make up for 200lbs? It's not peak torque thats making the difference, its the fact that is has more torque EVERYWHERE, not to mention it isn't saddled by turbo lag below 3000 rpm like a WRX is.

[redline_13000]

It could have very short 1-3 gears for acceleration, and long 4-5 gears for top speed. Just an example

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
It has a higher numerical first, which will give it better acceleration off the line affecting its 0-60, and a deeper 5th and different final drives for a higher top speed. Do the math.


It's not peak torque thats making the difference, its the fact that is has more torque EVERYWHERE, not to mention it isn't saddled by turbo lag below 3000 rpm like a WRX is. googe got ricemath! :clap:

[googe]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
googe got ricemath! :clap:

No, then I would be going by the number of DOHC/VTEC stickers.

I dont see how going by the huge difference in weight/power ratio is illogical. :rolleyes:

Also, low-end torque has nothing to do with top speed.

And just how do you know when the turbo spools up on that car? It probably does have comparable turbo lag. It will be a bit faster, but likely not alot. Not that has much to do with anything at all. You do know how to launch cars with turbos right?

[FallenAngel]

...does anybody else find it funny that the turbocharger is listed as a mitsubishi on the last page?

[googe]

So, there is a much more logical explanation to this. No, its not gearing (didnt really make sense for the WRX's gearing to be that unoptimal, the engineers arent morons) and its not torque (nothing to do with top speed).

Its the simple fact that I made a mistake about the WRX's top speed. The WRX top speed is way faster than the Forester. :)

[googe]

Originally posted by FallenAngel
...does anybody else find it funny that the turbocharger is listed as a mitsubishi on the last page?

Haha, yeah. Subaru uses Mitsubishi turbos on all their cars. You'd think that would be the first to go :)

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by googe

And just how do you know when the turbo spools up on that car? It probably does have comparable turbo lag. It will be a bit faster, but likely not alot. Not that has much to do with anything at all. You do know how to launch cars with turbos right? Hey, imagine that, I've driven BOTH MODELS. Maybe, just maybe I know what the fuck I'm talking about, considering I drive a subaru myself, and here's the really fun part it actually sees COMPETITION USE. Yes, I know how to launch an all wheel drive, turbo or non-turbo properly. Do you? Do you know anything about these cars at all beyond what car and driver prints? Apparently not, because you continue to spew out numbers as gospel truth, assuming they are backing up the argument you are trying to make. I'm not just opening my mouth here because I like hearing myself talk. You are wrong, I can prove you are wrong, and I have already done so.

Perish the thought you should let actual facts dilute the unfettered stupidity of your arguments. I use actual fact to back up my argument, you dismiss it and come to whatever conclusion you like, and an incorrect one at that. I'd suggest you wander over to howstuffworks.com and start reading about what effects gearing and torque have on how a car accelerates, and all the answers will become immediately clear on how something that has less power and more weight can be faster than another vehicle with more power and less weight. It's simple physics really.

And, as an FYI the forester is governed to 130mph top speed, regardless of how fast it might be capable of going. With the higher numerical final drive, i doubt it would be able to go as fast as the WRX anyways, assuming it wasn't drag limited. The WRX is drag limited to 145mph, it just won't go faster.

There, now you've seen my militant side. Pleasant, ain't it? I'm going to bed before I say something that will REALLY upset you.

[googe]

Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
Hey, imagine that, I've driven BOTH MODELS. Maybe, just maybe I know what the fuck I'm talking about, considering I drive a subaru myself, and here's the really fun part it actually sees COMPETITION USE. Yes, I know how to launch an all wheel drive, turbo or non-turbo properly. Do you? Do you know anything about these cars at all beyond what car and driver prints? Apparently not, because you continue to spew out numbers as gospel truth, assuming they are backing up the argument you are trying to make. I'm not just opening my mouth here because I like hearing myself talk. You are wrong, I can prove you are wrong, and I have already done so.

Perish the thought you should let actual facts dilute the unfettered stupidity of your arguments. I use actual fact to back up my argument, you dismiss it and come to whatever conclusion you like, and an incorrect one at that. I'd suggest you wander over to howstuffworks.com and start reading about what effects gearing and torque have on how a car accelerates, and all the answers will become immediately clear on how something that has less power and more weight can be faster than another vehicle with more power and less weight. It's simple physics really.

And, as an FYI the forester is governed to 130mph top speed, regardless of how fast it might be capable of going. With the higher numerical final drive, i doubt it would be able to go as fast as the WRX anyways, assuming it wasn't drag limited. The WRX is drag limited to 145mph, it just won't go faster.

There, now you've seen my militant side. Pleasant, ain't it? I'm going to bed before I say something that will REALLY upset you.

Haha. Do not cry, it is just a forum. :nut:

And no, youre still wrong, the real reason it was too good to be true is because it wasnt true, like I said.

I know how gearing works. Pay attention to what I am saying. For a performance car to be geared poorly enough that a car with less power and more weight can be made to both accelerate quicker, and have a faster top speed, is very poor engineering. That is why this explanation isnt logical in this case. You can easily gear one car to have better in one of the two categories, but to be better in both with less of everything means the car (or its gears at least) youre comparing it with sucks.

The Forester XT Turbo governed top speed is 129mph. Ungoverned 134mph.

The WRX top speed is 143mph.

I think it would do you good to get over your elitist attitude and understand a few things.

You talk like you know more than most people about cars. You do know more than most people about cars. You probably know more than me about cars. Understand that this does not make you superior to anyone, there is no need to start talking down to people. Your initial condescending replies were not provoked.

Come on, we all know that little vein was bursting out of your forehead when you wrote that reply. Why? Chill man.

[4wheeldrift]

Originally posted by googe


Haha. Do not cry, it is just a forum. :nut:

And no, youre still wrong, the real reason it was too good to be true is because it wasnt true, like I said.. I could have chosen a better wording for my post, admittedly, but that doesn't make me wrong. The Forester could very well have a higher top speed than the WRX, since its got a longer 5th than the WRX, but the higher final drive might cancel it out and make them even. Who knows? There's no way of proving it since the top speed is electronically governed anyways. As for the rest of this argument, prove to me why I'm wrong. Go ahead. If you can, I'll concede the point to you.



Originally posted by googe
I know how gearing works. Pay attention to what I am saying. For a performance car to be geared poorly enough that a car with less power and more weight can be made to both accelerate quicker, and have a faster top speed, is very poor engineering. That is why this explanation isnt logical in this case. You can easily gear one car to have better in one of the two categories, but to be better in both with less of everything means the car (or its gears at least) youre comparing it with sucks.] Hey, reality bites doesn't it? So because the forester out accelerates the WRX, and the Forester isn't a "performance vehicle" to your mind the WRX is poorly designed? By your logic are a lot of really poorly designed sporty cars out there. Logic will not help you interpret the numbers a magazine prints any more than a ouija board will. Driving the cars in question is the best way to see exactly how they perform.


Originally posted by googe
[B]
The Forester XT Turbo governed top speed is 129mph. Ungoverned 134mph.

The WRX top speed is 143mph. And how did you find out what the ungoverned top speed is? They don't sell them ungoverned anywhere right now. And no one makes a chip that removes it. The 2.5XT is only available in north america AFAIK, so its not like you can use data from another country to verify it. It has a higher Cd than the WRX so its top speed is likely going to be drag limited and not limited by gearing, so its a moot point what it might be capable of because the reality will be lower than that anyways.


Originally posted by googe

I think it would do you good to get over your elitist attitude and understand a few things.

You talk like you know more than most people about cars. You do know more than most people about cars. You probably know more than me about cars. Understand that this does not make you superior to anyone, there is no need to start talking down to people. Your initial condescending replies were not provoked.

Come on, we all know that little vein was bursting out of your forehead when you wrote that reply. Why? Chill man. My elitist attitude comes from people who read something in a magazine, especially performance numbers, and can't even interpret them properly, then come on a bulletin board and act like they know everything there is to know about a vehicle without actually driving it. And then when they are shown why they are wrong, they dismiss valid information because it doesn't fit with their world view. To dismiss the gearing differences in the forester and WRX as being insignificant and then to dismiss the difference in torque based on peak values is totally ridiculous. Those two factors are solely responsible for the better acceleration of the 2.5XT Forester. The output numbers are meaningless if you don't look at the other factors. The forester has a way higher numerical final drive than the WRX, which on its own is enough to account for better than half the difference in acceleration. Why would they do this? Because some people do take the forester off roading, and the higher numerical final drive gives far better torque transfer for if you take it rock crawling, not to mention better acceleration for passing. Coupled with a smaller turbocharger and bigger motor, it makes way more torque at low and midrange than a WRX does because the turbo spools up WAY faster. This is enough to account for the other difference. The argument on top speed is a moot point, because the forester is electronically governed anyways. This is reality, right here. Go drive both vehicles back to back and see for yourself.

Like it or not, the numbers you read in a magazine do not tell you everything.

[googe]

Whew. You are a slow one. I have said why you are wrong 3 times now. You are arguing a different point entirely, one that I am not disagreeing with. Please understand this. Here is what I said initially.


Originally posted by googe
So...less power than the WRX, weighs more than the WRX, faster 0-60, faster top speed, and 1/4 mile than the WRX. How does this make sense?:dunno:

I must be missing something.

This is me wondering why that would happen.



Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
It's called gearing.

This is you being a condescending smartass. This is your explanation for why it has a faster 0-60 AND top speed.


Originally posted by googe

Notice I said it has a better 0-60 AND top speed...so, it obviously doesnt have a significantly higher or lower gear ratio to gain an edge in either...it has an edge in both. How does better gearing accomplish this?


This is me understanding that gearing can easily give you an edge in acceleration or top speed, but skeptical that they found gear ratios to give the forester BOTH better acceleration AND a higher top speed. ESPECIALLY using aggressive gearing to accelerate faster, and then gaining more top end out of a car with less power and carrying alot more weight.


Originally posted by googe

So, there is a much more logical explanation to this. No, its not gearing (didnt really make sense for the WRX's gearing to be that unoptimal, the engineers arent morons) and its not torque (nothing to do with top speed).

Its the simple fact that I made a mistake about the WRX's top speed. The WRX top speed is way faster than the Forester.


This is the real explanation.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
It has a higher numerical first, which will give it better acceleration off the line affecting its 0-60, and a deeper 5th and different final drives for a higher top speed. Do the math.

This is you being a condescending smartass again. This is also you being WRONG. The WRONG part is in bold, because you are having trouble with this. I will explain why this is wrong at the end, just in case its not already clear.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
Hey, imagine that, I've driven BOTH MODELS. Maybe, just maybe I know what the fuck I'm talking about, considering I drive a subaru myself, and here's the really fun part it actually sees COMPETITION USE. Yes, I know how to launch an all wheel drive, turbo or non-turbo properly. Do you? Do you know anything about these cars at all beyond what car and driver prints? Apparently not, because you continue to spew out numbers as gospel truth, assuming they are backing up the argument you are trying to make. I'm not just opening my mouth here because I like hearing myself talk. You are wrong, I can prove you are wrong, and I have already done so.

Perish the thought you should let actual facts dilute the unfettered stupidity of your arguments. I use actual fact to back up my argument, you dismiss it and come to whatever conclusion you like, and an incorrect one at that. I'd suggest you wander over to howstuffworks.com and start reading about what effects gearing and torque have on how a car accelerates, and all the answers will become immediately clear on how something that has less power and more weight can be faster than another vehicle with more power and less weight. It's simple physics really.

And, as an FYI the forester is governed to 130mph top speed, regardless of how fast it might be capable of going. With the higher numerical final drive, i doubt it would be able to go as fast as the WRX anyways, assuming it wasn't drag limited. The WRX is drag limited to 145mph, it just won't go faster.

There, now you've seen my militant side. Pleasant, ain't it? I'm going to bed before I say something that will REALLY upset you.

Haha, this is you spazzing. Note the part in bold. UH OH, WHATS THIS? It looks like now youre saying something different, and it in fact does not have a faster top speed! Oh, but didnt I JUST say that?


Originally posted by googe


Haha. Do not cry, it is just a forum. :nut:

And no, youre still wrong, the real reason it was too good to be true is because it wasnt true, like I said.

The Forester XT Turbo governed top speed is 129mph. Ungoverned 134mph.

The WRX top speed is 143mph.


This is me telling you why you are wrong.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
Prove to my why I'm wrong. Go ahead. If you can, I'll concede the point to you.

Well, Im sure you wont. Even though it is very clear, you will probably tell me I am wrong and cite other irrelevant facts.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift

Hey, reality bites doesn't it? So because the forester out accelerates the WRX, and the Forester isn't a "performance vehicle" to your mind the WRX is poorly designed?


No. Not at all. Please scroll up, find where I was questioning the WRX's design quality because it doesnt accelerate as fast. I have never had any doubt that the Forester can accelerate faster. It is being able to do BOTH I was wondering about. Hint: I made the print bold for you. Go ahead, see if you can find it.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
My elitist attitude comes from people who read something in a magazine, especially performance numbers, and can't even interpret them properly, then come on a bulletin board and act like they know everything there is to know about a vehicle without actually driving it.

Ok, I did not come close to doing that when I asked. Here, again, is what I said:


Originally posted by googe
So...less power than the WRX, weighs more than the WRX, faster 0-60, faster top speed, and 1/4 mile than the WRX. How does this make sense?:dunno:

I must be missing something.

As you can see, it was an honest legitimate question, not accusing anyone of not knowing anything, even admitting that I obviously dont know something. I was honestly wondering. This is not 'acting like I know everything'.


Originally posted by 4wheeldrift
And then when they are shown why they are wrong, they dismiss valid information because it doesn't fit with their world view. To dismiss the gearing differences in the forester and WRX as being insignificant and then to dismiss the difference in torque based on peak values is totally ridiculous. Those two factors are solely responsible for the better acceleration of the 2.5XT Forester. The output numbers are meaningless if you don't look at the other factors. The forester has a way higher numerical final drive than the WRX, which on its own is enough to account for better than half the difference in acceleration. Why would they do this? Because some people do take the forester off roading, and the higher numerical final drive gives far better torque transfer for if you take it rock crawling, not to mention better acceleration for passing. Coupled with a smaller turbocharger and bigger motor, it makes way more torque at low and midrange than a WRX does because the turbo spools up WAY faster. This is enough to account for the other difference.

Uh huh. Like I said, never doubted the Forester can accelerate faster. It can be done, and it has been. I know this. Please understand this.

Now, you wanted to know why you are wrong. I will try and make this clear.

The question.

How does the Forester outperform the WRX in both 0-60 and top speed?

Your answer (scroll up if needed).

The Forester has gearing to allow it a better top speed and faster acceleration.

The real answer.

The Forester does not have gearing that allows better top speed and acceleration. It does not have better top speed and acceleration at all. It only has better acceleration. Completely logical.


Now, someone should lock this thread or something :)

[Ekliptix]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

lets just say that the mustang is faster and make peace.

[l/l/rX]

NOOOO NOT THE MUSTANG :O :O *GRRR* LOL id rather have them 2 keep arguing than saying anything bout a mustang. hehe jes jokes ekliptix. :P :P :P

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by googe
You talk like you know more than most people about cars. You do know more than most people about cars. You probably know more than me about cars. Understand that this does not make you superior to anyone, there is no need to start talking down to people. Your initial condescending replies were not provoked. actually, he does. in fact, hes one of the most knowledgeable car enthusiasts ive met. and his condescending replies were provoked by YOUR DUMBASS COMMENTS.

[googe]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
actually, he does. in fact, hes one of the most knowledgeable car enthusiasts ive met. and his condescending replies were provoked by YOUR DUMBASS COMMENTS.

Quiet Jeff, adults are talking.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by googe


Quiet Jeff, adults are talking. werent u just cutting warren down for being condescending?