Performance Stats for Baja Turbo

[John Opezdol]

What's wrong with the 2.0l turbo?

I was implying WRX engine is inferior to the engine in the Forester XT for
the purposes of normal street driving and there is no reason to keep it for
the US market. I don't care much if they'd even rename WRX into Impreza XT
after the switch. Most people who wanted WRX have it already anyway. I hope
the wrx sales will taper off soon to support my argument. Then the engine
swap is a way to go to find yet another niche market (something Fuji was
good at so far .

 

[David]

How far is everyone looking to go on a tank of gas?

On road trips in my XS, I think I get in the low 300s. I've done 470 or
(slightly) better in my Maxima.

 

[John Opezdol]

On road trips in my XS, I think I get in the low 300s. I've done 470 or
(slightly) better in my Maxima.

That's because your Maxima probably has a 18 gal tank. And so does Audi A4.
I'd rather have an 18 gal. tank and a spare with the width of a bicycle
wheel than the 14.9 gal tank and a 4 inch spare
Now, if they could retrofit the seats from first generation Legacy to fit
into Impreza
the only thing left on the wish list for the new TS and WRX would be the STi
transmission and suspension. Oh, upgraded front brakes would be nice to have
too, which would require
to bring 17" STi wheels also. They could label them differently and paint
black for all I care. I think that's it Front LSD is optional. Oh, did I
forget to ask for stiffer chassis?

 

[xymergy]

That's because your Maxima probably has a 18 gal tank. And so does Audi A4.

Not true for all Audis: my 1998 2.8 A4 Quattro 5-speed has a 15.6
gallon tank. I think the automatics have a 16.2 gallon tank, but
none, to my knowledge, have 18 gallon tanks. I get about 25 mpg on
the highway (sometimes as high as 28 on really long drives), 20 in the
city in the winter, 22 in the summer.

 

[BlueSTi]

On road trips in my XS, I think I get in the low 300s. I've done 470 or
(slightly) better in my Maxima.

470 miles is a long way to go in one stretch! That works out to be
about 6 hours of drive time. I have to get out and stretch my legs a
little more often than that. I usually don't go much more than about
4 hours without pullling over to get something to eat or hit the
bathroom.
BlueSTi
"Scary-Fast"

 

[BlueSTi]

Now, if they could retrofit the seats from first generation Legacy to fit
into Impreza
the only thing left on the wish list for the new TS and WRX would be the STi
transmission and suspension. Oh, upgraded front brakes would be nice to have
too, which would require
to bring 17" STi wheels also. They could label them differently and paint
black for all I care. I think that's it Front LSD is optional. Oh, did I
forget to ask for stiffer chassis?

Sounds like you just need to go buy an STi ; - )
But, IMHO, the STi ride is a little stiff and noisey say compared to
my old Subaru Legacy. But, the trade is worth it.

BlueSTi
"Scary-Fast"

 

[David]

470 miles is a long way to go in one stretch! That works out to be
about 6 hours of drive time. I have to get out and stretch my legs a
little more often than that. I usually don't go much more than about
4 hours without pullling over to get something to eat or hit the
bathroom.

You can pull over when you want, but gas isn't always convenient, and it's
nice to not go hunting for it as often. Oh, and it has a 16 gal. tank, compared
with I think around 14 in my Forester.

BTW I've only checked fuel economy on two road trips in the Forester.
For the first (29.5MPG), I had left the tires at 32PSI from the oil-changer.
For the second (~27MPG) I had lowered them to factory specs (29/28). It isn't
clear how accurate those measurements are (gotta do several tanks, or have
some precision in the topping up point), but I think I'll go back to higher
pressure. Oh, and they're quicker to squeel at the lower pressure.

 

[Ken Gilbert]

It's weak. As in, physically weak.

For the previous generation of cars, the WRX had basically a detuned STi
engine. The current WRX has a weaker engine, the main difference being
that it has cast pistons compared to forged pistons in the STi, which
make it much less tolerant of tuning and abuse. You can't get super HP
out of a stock-block WRX the way can with, say, the Lancer Evolution
engine (cast iron block, forged pistons, etc, etc) and expect it to live.

it's not as weak as you think... how about ~450hp out of the stock block?

see http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=511442

twice oem hp (and well over 200hp/liter) is pretty damned good, imho!

also, be aware that the usdm sti engine (the ej257) does NOT use forged pistons.

jm2c
ken

 

[John Williams]

You can pull over when you want, but gas isn't always convenient, and it's
nice to not go hunting for it as often. Oh, and it has a 16 gal. tank, compared
with I think around 14 in my Forester.

My (US) 2004 Forester XS has a 15.9 gallon tank.

 

[David]

My (US) 2004 Forester XS has a 15.9 gallon tank.

Interesting. Have you added that much fuel before?

I've only had my US 2003 XS down to where the refuel light comes on once,
and I think it took about 13.5 gallons to fill it. I wouldn't think they would have
changed the tank from '03 to '04. Maybe I had more gas left in the tank than
I thought, or maybe the pump auto shut-off cut off too early (I think I read
something about that happening on some Subes).

 

[John Opezdol]

Sounds like you just need to go buy an STi ; - )
But, IMHO, the STi ride is a little stiff and noisey say compared to
my old Subaru Legacy. But, the trade is worth it.

I was thinking about something with less flash and trash and less power to
fly under the radar of most insurance companies

My ideal car would be
WRX wagon body
STi suspension, tranny and brakes
an engine producing 500 ft.lbs torque at 2000 rpm and 140 hp at 6000 rpm

"Yes, it's a station wagon... Rated at 140 hp. $500 a year? Full coverage?
Yes, I think I'll take it" ))

Seriously, if Subaru takes XT engine, puts it into WRX and detunes it
further to get more
torque and less hp it will probably help with the insurance because younger
drivers
maybe more readily afford it.

Next item on the laundry list for TS/WRX/Sti: lower drag.

 

[Dan Duncan]

Interesting. Have you added that much fuel before?

My 2003 Forester XS also lists the 15.9 gallon tank. I've put
in 15.4 or so before, and this was after it got jerky around
corners, so I believe it.

I used to have a GMC Safari minivan with a 27 gallon tank and
highway mileage in the low 30's. It was a conversion van
with the captain's chairs in front and rear and cruise control.
If I'd owned it during my road trip days, it's quite possible
I'd have carried a small bucket AND driven in shifts to make
non-stop trips that used the entire tank.

-DanD

 

[John Williams]

Interesting. Have you added that much fuel before?

I've only had my US 2003 XS down to where the refuel light comes on once,
and I think it took about 13.5 gallons to fill it. I wouldn't think they would have
changed the tank from '03 to '04. Maybe I had more gas left in the tank than
I thought, or maybe the pump auto shut-off cut off too early (I think I read
something about that happening on some Subes).

According to the user's manual, the fuel light comes on when there is 2.3
gallons left in the tank. So your observations sound about right.

 

[David]

According to the user's manual, the fuel light comes on when there is 2.3
gallons left in the tank. So your observations sound about right.

Manual? I shouldda read the manual?
Anyway, I think now I could update my cruising range expectations for the
Forester. Thanks guys!

 

[Lord Drool Rockworm]

Ummm.

Mine sure as hell does.

Cheers!

 

[Hal Whelply]

My '01 Volvo 2.4T holds almost 22 gallons. Very nice for summer trips. Given
moderate speeds, the car will easily do in the upper 20s MPG. We've been
over 30 several times. Hmmm...times 22....

HW

 

[Ian Firth]

Seriously, if Subaru takes XT engine, puts it into WRX and detunes it
further to get more torque and less hp it will probably help with the
insurance because younger drivers maybe more readily afford it.

Torque and horsepower are mathematically related. You can't decrease one
and increase the other. Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

Your 500 ft.lb.-140HP engine would be a 7.3 Powerstroke diesel, which
would suck guite a bit in a Subaru with such a steep drop in the torque
curve.

 

[BlueSTi]

My (US) 2004 Forester XS has a 15.9 gallon tank.

Ditto for my STi 15.9 gallons. I am assuming with a 1/2 gallon of gas
safety margin i could go 387 miles on a tank on the freeway and about
299 if I'm lead-footing it.
I'm going on a 300 mile drive tomorrow and I will have to see what
kind of mileage I getting. I will be averaging 80 mph so that may
affect the gas mileage a little.

BlueSTi
"Scary-Fast"

 

[Rob Munach]

did I


I was thinking about something with less flash and trash and less power to
fly under the radar of most insurance companies

My ideal car would be
WRX wagon body
STi suspension, tranny and brakes
an engine producing 500 ft.lbs torque at 2000 rpm and 140 hp at 6000 rpm

"Yes, it's a station wagon... Rated at 140 hp. $500 a year? Full coverage?
Yes, I think I'll take it" ))

Except 500ft-lbs of torque at 2000rpm = 190hp!

 

[Diesel]

Torque and horsepower are mathematically related. You can't decrease one
and increase the other. Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

Your 500 ft.lb.-140HP engine would be a 7.3 Powerstroke diesel, which
would suck guite a bit in a Subaru with such a steep drop in the torque
curve.

Why? Shuffle thru the gears quick to get up to speed fast and that's it.
Are you implying you need an 18 speed geatbox to go with it?

But it's not possible to build a light and compact dieses with these specs.
Is it?
I'll settle for a super powerful electric motor teamed up with a wimpo
gasoline
engine for cruising above 50 mph then :-(