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.
Don't all the Subaru 2.5 still eventually have head gaskets failures?
I don't believe they ever got that sorted out.
Hasn't been a problem for years.
The issue was primarily with the late 1990's 2.5 DOHC engine series which was replaced by a SOHC engine in 2000. The first few years of the 2.5 SOHC engine had a lesser, non-catastrophic exterior coolant seep head gasket problem ... but these were readily repaired with the updated head gaskets.
The problem was pretty much solved by 2002-3 year models. Subsequent years, it hasn't been a big issue.
sunsprit is about the only poster on this thread who knows what he is talking about. He and I probably have more combined high altitude driving experience than just about everybody else posting put together (I'm guessing around 80 years worth between us). Here's my take. Yes, the turbo Subie will perform well at high altitude--any turbocharged automobile will because the turbo compensates for the loss of horsepower at altitude. Old carbureted cars just ran lousy at altitude and lost power. Carbureted cars sold in high altitude places in Colorado were usually sold with "high-altitude jets"--smaller orifices in the carburetor, so that they would not run too rich at high altitude. Modern EFI engine controls do the same thing--if they sense the air/fuel mixture to be too rich because of the lower air pressure at high altitude, they lean out the fuel mixture. Either way--loss of horsepower as altitude increases with a non-turbocharged engine. Turbocharging can eliminate that problem because it is pressurizing the air charge entering the engine. But, as sunsprit notes, it also means the engine can and will use more fuel when that power is utilized. Most drivers don't have the self-discipline to "keep their foot out of the turbo," so worse fuel economy--a LOT worse for some drivers--is the result.
So, here is the big tradeoff with any turbocharged gasoline engine--they will consume more fuel. And, a turbocharged gasoline engine will almost always require premium fuel to be used. If not, the EFI system will actually "de-rate" the performance of the engine enough to reduce knock. The EPA ratings for combined mileage of the 2.5L normally aspirated and 2.0L turbo'ed Subie Foresters with automatic transmission are only 2 mpg per gallon different, but the combination of that and having to use premium fuel in the turbo will raise the fuel cost per mile a fair amount. It's an individual's choice as to whether that cost premium is worth it or not. The other factor to consider is engine longevity. Most often, a turbocharged gasoline engine just won't have the longevity of a naturally aspirated engine--the turbo can just put too much heat and strain on a gas engine over time. (Turbocharged diesel engines generally don't suffer that problem and will generally be a very long-lived engine when maintained properly.) Is the turbo worth it? For me, and I drive in the mountains A LOT, it isn't. Like sunsprit, I'm not a "slouch" driving in the mountains (I'm constantly plagued by the slowpoke idiot flatland drivers that descend like locusts on many mountain highways in summer just as he says), but I can manage to get around them just fine in a 4-cylinder sedan most of the time because I know how to drive mountain roads to make the most out of a car's performance. My daily mountain driver car--A PRIUS. Interestingly, I've found that a hybrid can sort of act like a "false turbo" in the mountains because the car can call on the hybrid battery for extra power to pass vehicles. And, it can do it without a severe penalty in fuel economy (my Prius still gets 48-50 mpg in mountain driving while easily maintaining the speed limits on the highest Colorado mountain passes). Is it a 0-60 in 5 seconds turbo sports car? No, but I'm only using half as much fuel or less (and regular, at that) as one of them would.
If Subaru would bring their 2.0L boxer turbodiesel to the US, then we'd have something. 40 mpg and great mountain performance. The other option is to spend the bucks on a BMW 328d AWD sedan--terrific performance and 43 mpg highway (albeit on diesel fuel that costs as much or more than premium gas).
My wife has driven a 2.5L Forester for the past three years now. She likes it a lot. I've driven it quite a bit in that time. The 2.5L is adequate, but not a performance motor. Still, it should work for anyone not looking for a sports car. What I really like about the Forester is its handling on the road. It really hugs the curves.
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.
Subaru forester, is the 2.5l powerful enough
