Performance Stats for Baja Turbo

[Mike Minerva]

Has anyone found a site that tells the stats for the Baja Turbo. I heard,
don't know where, that the Forester Turbo does 0-60 in 5.4 secs but I can't
find any info on the rest of the fleet.

 

[TT]

By Forester Turbo I assume you mean Forester XT?, there's no way it does 5.4
sec.

-T

 

[Ian Firth]

By Forester Turbo I assume you mean Forester XT?, there's no way it does 5.4
sec.

And you would be dead wrong.
The Forester XT is quicker to 60 than the WRX.

 

[William S. Hubbard]

It weighs a few hundred pounds more and I think it only comes with AT. I
would estimate 7 seconds.

 

[T]

There's no way.

-T

And you would be dead wrong.
The Forester XT is quicker to 60 than the WRX.

 

[Rory]

From CarandDriver.com

"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."

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6854&page_nu
mber=2

There's no way.

-T

does

 

[Jason Kavanaugh]

And you would be dead wrong.
The Forester XT is quicker to 60 than the WRX.

Ahem... perhaps you should get your facts straight. From motortrend the
Forester XT has a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds. While the WRX averages around
5.5 seconds 0-60 in tests. The automatic WRX is much closer with an
average 0-60 of around 7.2 seconds though.

Jason Kavanaugh

 

[Rory]

Url got cut off....

http://tinyurl.com/37p4r

BTW, this is for the Forester, not the baja, but I imagine they will be
pretty close...

From CarandDriver.com

"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."

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6854&page_nu
mber=2

There's no way.

-T

 

[Byron]

Ahem... perhaps you should get your facts straight. From motortrend
the Forester XT has a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds. While the WRX averages
around 5.5 seconds 0-60 in tests. The automatic WRX is much closer
with an average 0-60 of around 7.2 seconds though.

It weighs a few hundred pounds more and I think it only comes with AT. I would estimate 7 seconds.

One would think you're right. And in fact, the 227hp WRX is quicker in
the quarter mile. The XT is offered with either an auto or a manual
transmission.
0-60, where aerodynamics don't take much part, the availability of
torque lower down in the rpm range allows the MT Forester XT to very
slightly edge the lighter WRX. From most accounts, the 2.5 XT is
stronger than the rated 210hp. I guess Subaru lowered the rating for
marketing purposes vs. the WRX.

It's a bit humbling to have a SUV able to outrun my '02 2.0 WRX wagon on
city streets. But at least they're built on the same platform - I don't
feel too bad at all.... And this comparison is only valid with drivers
of equal ability and purpose in the moment. I haven't lost to a
Forester yet (until I reach the speed limit that is).

- Byron

 

[David]

Ahem... perhaps you should get your facts straight. From motortrend the
Forester XT has a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds.

That's not the most useful fact.
1. Others have gone faster, the fact that they didn't only proves that they didn't.
2. Vague reference (no URL or issue number).
3. MT or automatic?

This is has more useful facts:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/sho...6e8b2&threadid=424011&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

Sorry, no tiny URL.

Scroll down to the 13 second timeslip. XT with the intake silencer removed. Otherwise stock.
Look at the 1/8th mile time: 8.789sec at 78 MPH. That suggests it was going a little faster
than 60 at 8.5 sec. You can believe it's all from that one minor mod if you like, but I think that
refutes the "XTs can't do 0-60 faster than 8.5sec" claim you seem to have made.

I've heard of people going faster with a bone-stock XT, but haven't seen a posted timeslip,
so who knows?

David

 

[y_p_w]

And you would be dead wrong.
The Forester XT is quicker to 60 than the WRX.

Are you talking about the US version? The reviews I've read seem
to indicate that it has the 2.5 with a smaller turbo than the STi.
It does seem to be marginally faster in a straight line than a
standard WRX - something about the 2.5 generating more torque/power
before the turbo kicks in. It's probably better suited to
hillclimbing and automatic transmissions.

However - it doesn't sound as if it's a very good handling car.

 

[David]

That's not the most useful fact.
1. Others have gone faster, the fact that they didn't only proves that they didn't.
2. Vague reference (no URL or issue number).

Uh, never mind. I found it. The 8.5sec 0-60 time they give here
is their estimate, not from a timed run:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0308_frst_subs/

According to discussions on http://www.nasioc.com/ , Subaru underrated the
power of the XT, which could lead to a faulty estimate.

 

[The_Incubator]

Don't be so sure.

The XT's engine specs read like a detuned STi. It's a 2.5 with the
variable valve timing. It also weighs about as much as the STi.

I wouldn't expect it to look very good on a track next to the WRX, but
in a straight line they oughtta be pretty close. They give the XT a
higher torque rating than the WRX, but a little less HP, BUT they have
conveniently taken the XT's ratings at lower RPM than either the WRX or
the STi.

The XT is definately a funny little SUV.

Nick

There's no way.

-T

 

[BlueSTi]

From CarandDriver.com

"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."

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6854&page_nu
mber=2

Anyway, the new Forester Turbo is an interesting vehicle. But, given
the option I think I would go with the WRX Wagon.
I guess if you have your heart set on a SUV it is not a bad choice.

BlueSTi
"Scary-Fast"

 

[John Opezdol]

Don't be so sure.

The XT's engine specs read like a detuned STi. It's a 2.5 with the
variable valve timing. It also weighs about as much as the STi.

I wouldn't expect it to look very good on a track next to the WRX, but
in a straight line they oughtta be pretty close. They give the XT a
higher torque rating than the WRX, but a little less HP, BUT they have
conveniently taken the XT's ratings at lower RPM than either the WRX or
the STi.

??? I suppose what you mean by that is that XT top torque and hp are
produced at
lower RPMs thatn for WRX. Why would be surprising? XT has a bigger
displacement
engine and one would expect better driveability from it that from the 2.0
liter wuss in WRX.
I don't know why they kept the 2.0l inepto in the US WRX for 2004.
It's a P.O.S on the street compared to the XT powerplant and people who care
about track performance could get STi now anyway.

 

[John Opezdol]

Ian Firth <(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message

Are you talking about the US version? The reviews I've read seem
to indicate that it has the 2.5 with a smaller turbo than the STi.
It does seem to be marginally faster in a straight line than a
standard WRX - something about the 2.5 generating more torque/power
before the turbo kicks in. It's probably better suited to
hillclimbing and automatic transmissions.

However - it doesn't sound as if it's a very good handling car.

Repeat after me: Forester is a taller Impreza. Forester is a taller impreza

The handling can be rectified by a trip to the cobb tuning suspension
section.
I think the ground clearance for TS/RS, WRX and Forester is simlar and the
center of
gravity for Forester could not be all that higher than that for Impreza.
One thing that can't be fixed is the drag the brick like body of Forester is
producing at
triple digits :-(

Maybe in 2005 or 2006 they'd finally drop 2 liter turbo, eh?
At least for the US. Everyone else in the world can have that piece of crap.

Hmm, how about a larger capacity gas tank while we're on the subject of the
laundry list for turbo models?

 

[David]

Hmm, how about a larger capacity gas tank while we're on the subject of the
laundry list for turbo models?

The normally-aspirated Forester could use a bigger tank too. Cruising range
is about the same as most of the 4cyl vehicles I've had in recent years, but my
Maxima goes a lot farther.

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

Maybe in 2005 or 2006 they'd finally drop 2 liter turbo, eh?
At least for the US. Everyone else in the world can have that piece of crap.

What's wrong with the 2.0l turbo?

florian

 

[The_Incubator]

What's wrong with the 2.0l turbo?

florian

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.

I imagine the 2.0 liter engine used in the non-US STis is still pretty hot.

Nick

 

[BlueSTi]

The normally-aspirated Forester could use a bigger tank too. Cruising range
is about the same as most of the 4cyl vehicles I've had in recent years, but my
Maxima goes a lot farther.

I tend to average a little over 300 miles per tank. Sometimes I've
done as well as 350 miles on a tank. It all depend on how I want to
drive. How far is everyone looking to go on a tank of gas?
Most cars I've owned tend to run about 300 miles on a tank of gas.
BlueSTi
"Scary-Fast"