Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why Subaru? For starters, it will be too small. Next, there is no such thing as "powerful" 2.5L engine, unless you seriously turbo it. You will end up with chitty mpg, typical for any Subbie.
So why Subbie? Indeed it has best symmetrical AWD system, bested likely only by the Rovers and some Mercedes. But do you MUST HAVE that? Your chances of off roading are slim to none, and regular Japanese AWD is more than adequate on all of their vehicles.
Get a Toyota Sienna with AWD or, if it's "too big", Venza with AWD.
My wife is considered critical personnel and must go to work no matter the conditions. Not a big deal in DC or Las Vegas, but we need a capable vehicle for the next assignment and since we are also in need of a kid hauler now we thought we'd get a car to do dual purpose (kid hauler except when it's going to be nasty out, then it's moms car).
We are a fairly active family and very much enjoy west coast car camping (driving on fire roads of various states of repair to get to nice campsites where you are away from it all). I used to own a jeep wrangler for this purpose.
The Forester also creamed the newest safety tests, and that's now huge with the kiddos.
That sienna does look like an option, but I can't say I'm ready for a minivan just yet (only planning on two kids).
Last edited by MDrenter223; 02-26-2014 at 08:20 PM..
It's gutless. If you are loaded down with stuff and you need to pass someone or merge into traffic quickly, it just sort of gets a lot louder. It needs a turbo 4 or the flat 6.
Here is a real life 0-60 run of the Forester 2.5L at mile high in Colorado. They get 12 seconds with just a driver in the car. This is what happens at altitude.
They get 7 seconds with the twin turbo Ford Explorer Sport at mile high with two big dudes Turbos rule! They even say it would be close to a 6 second flat at sea level.
While you are correct re density altitude affecting volumetric efficiency on all naturally aspirated cars ...
IMO, what is telling here is not that the actual HP numbers would be reduced per the altitude for Mr5150, but that their perception of driving their car is that the HP loss is not a big deal.
"we live in the Sierra Mtn range and notice no difference in performance" is all about subjective expectations for a vehicle to perform it's tasks.
Obviously, Mr5150 is not concerned about drag racing, but simply keeping up reasonably with the flow of traffic. Apparently, his car does so to his satisfaction even at 8,000' elevation.
And that's the essence of this thread ... does a NA 2.5 ltr Subie deliver adequate performance for it's owners in normal driving, even when faced with the challenges of driving at altitude?
It would appear to do so for Mr5150, and I find that to be so for me, my wife, and our numerous neighbors who drive them here at altitude.
Consider this: with all of the competition in the automotive marketplace today vying for the consumer's dollar ... Subie has a very strong market presence with NA cars in areas with severe driving conditions. If they failed to satisfy most of their buyers, they'd not have the marketplace sales that they do against some strong performers from other brands in this segment. It doesn't appear that everybody "needs" 250-300 HP cars to get around in these places or can justify the incremental cost aquisition and operating cost difference to have that higher performance edge in optimal driving conditions.
Pretty much sums it up. I live at 4000 feet elevation. Last summer, our Forester did just fine on a road trip in the western half of the US crusing at 80 MPH on the interstates, Going as fast as we were comfortable on steep windy mtn roads-all with three people and luggage.
And yes, I don't drag race. With that said would I want the turbo model? Sure. Do I need the turbo model? No.
And I drive faster than most in the mtns, because I am used to mtn driving.
I travel between 8,500' and 10,000' for work 5 days a week. Two lane mountain roads with some decent grades. I pass a lot of slow trucks and cars in tight passing zones. No way would I want to do the passing I do with a 175HP 4 banger. I just like having the power there when I need it. But I've owned a lot of fast cars in my days, so I can't go back to something slow.
That 175HP motor is putting out around 130HP at 8,000'. Sucks if you got 4 people and other stuff in there, it will be a dog.
you've perfectly described the typical mountain driving conditions which become the real limiting factor of driving a higher performance vehicle in the Colorado mountains. You don't even need to aggressively seek out these situations, they will find you many times ....
Having higher HP to be able to pass in those limited situations when a passing opportunity presents will get you around the obstruction ... and allow you to quickly catch up to the next obstruction. It might be a few car lengths ahead, it might be a couple of minutes and miles, but you've accurately portrayed what will be ahead: another slower moving vehicle procession of some sort.
Especially on prime weekend driving days ... be it the summer or winter months (esp the parade to the ski country on Sat AM or return on Sun PM) ... having a high(er) performance vehicle will not be able to drive through any faster than the prevailing flow of traffic. If I-70 is a logjam, it is a logjam for your Turbo'ed Subie. Even a Porsche AWD ain't gonna' push their way through these conditions and gain any appreciable advantage, no matter how frustrated the driver is with the prevailing traffic ... you simply cannot push all those other cars, no matter how inadequate they and their drivers may be ... off the road.
The only time I've ever found having higher performance than what my 2.5 ltr standard 160 HP Subie will deliver is when I've chosen to drive in off-hours; ie, I head up to the mountains mid-week during the daytime, or Friday night after 10 PM, or head back down the hill late Sunday night or very early Mon AM, or during the mid-week days when the traffic is much lessened.
Bear in mind that the increased performance capability of the turbo'ed car will be at a full-time cost of fuel and consumables for what may amount to little more than a couple of minutes each year of being able to utilize it.
I feel sorry for anyone who uses the I-70 during peak hours. A bicycle would be faster. But there are alternatives. I've lived in Denver and the mountains and I get to use the XT's power all the time. Just yesterday I drove ~ 200 miles in the high country and must have passed 10 cars/trucks. I've owned a few 4 bangers that have the same power/ratio of the Forester and you can't make safe passes 95% of the time. Maybe if people didn't speed up, but they do creating and incredibly dangerous situation.
Besides, being in Colorado Springs, I doubt the I-70 is a route the OP will use much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit
PS: Hard-packed powder is almost as good a driving surface as being on the pavement; I've never had a problem driving it even when I only had RWD cars in Colorado. But when it's black ice slick ... a common inclement driving surface in Colorado's roadways ... all that extra HP is useless. Your limits of driving are dominated by the traction you can achieve and manage.
BS. Hardpacked powder has nowhere near the grip levels of dry pavement (or even wet pavement). Ice occurs in patches, so you don't floor it when your on a patch of ice. But with a fast car, you can make use of the dry patches to make that pass. Not so with a 160hp car, which is really only 110-120 hp in the mountains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit
I've even outrun many a 4x4 on the Eisenhower tunnel approaches (up and down hill) with nothing more than a 1972 MB 220D (with all of 60HP at sea level, well derated at altitude, slow & heavy personified) and a proper set of Nordfrost snow tires on all 4 wheels ... passing many FWD's too, that were slipping and sliding around, barely able to make it down the road ... in such conditions. Pi**ed off a lot of people who I passed, as I wound my way through all the scattered cars on the road ... in slow motion, but under control.
I used to drive though the Eisenhower each and every day in winter for an entire ski season in my Miata with snow tries. And I used to pass just about everything on the road. That just goes to show you how incompetent most drivers are in the snow. The miata was a real dog at high altitude. The forester XT will leave it in the dust. The XT will easily do over 100mph up that hill from either approach.
You can use *way* more power than a 2.5L can put out even in the middle of a snow storm. I know because I live at 10,000ft and drive in the snow for 6 months of the year.
II used to drive though the Eisenhower each and every day in winter for an entire ski season in my Miata with snow tries. And I used to pass just about everything on the road. That just goes to show you how incompetent most drivers are in the snow. The miata was a real dog at high altitude. The forester XT will leave it in the dust. The XT will easily do over 100mph up that hill from either approach.
You can use *way* more power than a 2.5L can put out even in the middle of a snow storm. I know because I live at 10,000ft and drive in the snow for 6 months of the year.
Hmm...100mph in a snow storm...I think not.
I'm good up 45 or 50MPH on sanded hardpacked snow with winter tires. Maybe 30MPH in blizzard conditions.
170 HP? Way more than what I need in true winter conditions.
I'm good up 45 or 50MPH on sanded hardpacked snow with winter tires. Maybe 30MPH in blizzard conditions.
170 HP? Way more than what I need in true winter conditions.
First off, I never said 100mph in a storm. Colorado does have summers. But depending on the specifics of the storm 100mph is not out the question. I can and do drive 65mph with 1-2" of snow on the road - just gotta slow down a little for the corners.
And once again, you're not getting 170hp. You're only getting 115 going through the tunnel at ~11,000ft.
115hp pulling 3700lb+ up a mountain pass???
I have a diesel truck that puts out ~ 450hp and 1,000lb/ft of torque. In 2wd that puts out more power that I can use in winter conditions (even on dry pavement).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turbos rule! They even say it would be close to a 6 second flat at sea level.
