Subaru Forester XT does 13.8@97mph STOCK!

**Ekliptix** · 07-09-2003, 07:06 PM

!!!

http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...rticle_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** · 07-09-2003, 07:35 PM

MY NEW CAR lol.

thtas insane for an SUV under 30 grand.

**spyguy** · 07-09-2003, 07:51 PM

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

**4wheeldrift** · 07-09-2003, 09:08 PM

Such wicked sleepers, I love em

**GTS Jeff** · 07-10-2003, 01:27 AM

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

**l/l/rX** · 07-10-2003, 03:57 PM

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

only 210 hp and 235 tq dayum thats sweet for a family car. the interior too looks pretty cool.

**CRXguy** · 07-10-2003, 06:50 PM

Hmmmm, I wonder if the 5spd tranny is swappable into the WRX?

Or maybe I should just buy the damn thing. My new winter beater!

**googe** · 07-10-2003, 10:59 PM

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?

I must be missing something.

**4wheeldrift** · 07-10-2003, 11:01 PM

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?

I must be missing something.

It's called gearing.

**Boost Infested** · 07-10-2003, 11:08 PM

its a 2.5, more tq...

**googe** · 07-11-2003, 12:16 AM

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** · 07-11-2003, 12:56 AM

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?

**DonJuan** · 07-11-2003, 01:48 AM

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** · 07-11-2003, 07:30 AM

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** · 07-11-2003, 07:37 AM

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

**GTS Jeff** · 07-11-2003, 05:15 PM

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!

**googe** · 07-11-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
googe got ricemath!

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.

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** · 07-11-2003, 08:15 PM

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

**googe** · 07-11-2003, 08:18 PM

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** · 07-11-2003, 08:19 PM

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

Thread: Subaru Forester XT does 13.8@97mph STOCK!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Subaru Forester XT does 13.8@97mph STOCK!

Similar Threads

Does anyone do bodywork here? (or know someone who does)

wtb: body parts for an '88 crx,and anything that can make a stock 88 crx less...stock

used STOCK subaru WRX dual tip exhust f/s

Anyone want to buy a stock dual tip WRX stock exhust?

2003 Subaru Forester

Posting Permissions