2019 Crosstrek

Messages
6,770
Location
New England
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by Ws6
The 2013 and 2014 xt was close. The 2017 and 2018? Way off the mark due to retuning.
Say what you want. The block/internals did not change one iota. They gave it to subaru bc of the soundness of the engine and the abiliity to add more mower . Even in its unblown state the FA made 203 HP out of 2L. All the more impressive. The engine is equivalent in strength to the 2.0 Nissan SR20 DE which was known to produce 550HP. The FA20 has produced 650 without modifying the internals. I am sure you know all that. But enough this board doesn't give a rips..t about 2 fanbois (you and me) arguing about 2 very minor players Mazda (ranked 17 in world production) and Subaru ranked #22.
The issue with the 2.0 is its absolutely gutless because pretty low torque figure at 145 ft-lbs at a screaming for everyday driving 4000RPM. I have driven the BRZ which is incredibly fun car if drive like a maniac/track it etc, however as everyday driver the most gutless vehicle you could have. I will note my wife drives a slower CUV vehicle too with the 2018 Tiguan with its detuned VW 2.0T with 184HP. The upside is that wallop of 221 ft-lbs of torque at 1500 RPM which makes everyday driving perfect.
 

Al

Thread starter
Messages
19,277
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
Again..gutless as it is..90% of my driving is back and forth to a town 5 miles away. And I have had equally gutless cars in the past 55 years 200K+ miles. Really not a problem and yes I have driven many many times on the Schuylkill Expressway. And I have no problem going to the shore (Through the Surkill expressway) right now. smile So I'll use the popular theme on here that "Too bad that most drivers are not as skillful as I".....no I'm not serious. Just what we see on this board constantly. thankyou I suppose many folks are fearful of their driving skills..whatever. So if you "need" a car that is not "gutless" than you need to stay away from the XV and the other gutless 80+% of vehicles on the road. cheers
 
Last edited:
Let's look at it this way.... 1/4 mile flat-footed on the gas even in a Crosstrek is enough to get you tossed into jail everywhere except Texas interstates and race tracks. So is it really all that slow? Name for me one place away from a closed circuit that you can stand on the gas for 10 seconds in something with 400HP without getting a suspended or revoked license and serious fines. Al, I get it. It's fast enough for 99.99999% of things any sane person will do. Trying to merge onto the highway after stopping at the end ramp does not point to a slow car, it points to the person behind the wheel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Al

Thread starter
Messages
19,277
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Al, I get it. It's fast enough for 99.99999% of things any sane person will do. Trying to merge onto the highway after stopping at the end ramp does not point to a slow car, it points to the person behind the wheel.
Interestingly enough: Honda Accord 1.5T: 0-60.....7.6 sec 1/4 mile..... 15.9 sec Crosstrek 2.0 0-60...8.3 sec 1/4 mile....16.5 sec. But as we know the Subaru haters can't resist it.. smirk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
40,993
Location
Great Lakes
Originally Posted by Al
Interestingly enough: Honda Accord 1.5T: 0-60.....7.6 sec 1/4 mile..... 15.9 sec Crosstrek 2.0 0-60...8.3 sec 1/4 mile....16.5 sec. But as we know the Subaru haters can't resist it.. smirk
Depends on where you get your numbers. For example, according to Car&Driver: Accord 0-60: 7.3 sec; 1/4 mile: 15.7 sec Crosstrek: 0-60: 9.2 sec; 1/4 mile: 17.3 sec
 

Ws6

Messages
3,946
Location
South Central US
I owned a car that did 0-60 in 10.5ish. It was a 2002 g20 with an sr20de, ironically enough. It was sufficient for me when all was well, but when others stopped and forced me to then merge from a stand still, or in rush hour traffic in Dallas, or on 2 lane country roads with limited passing, it was inadequate and a hazard. Remember, we carry uninsured motorist insurance because other people are screwups. It is absurd to expect them not to also do things while driving that also disadvantage you where horsepower can compensate for them.
 

emg

Messages
613
Location
Canada
When I lived in the UK, 0-60 in ten seconds was a sports car. Mine, I think, was rated at 9.9, and I never had a big problem passing on English roads. I can see it would be a big deal for people who are entering and leaving highways a lot, but there are probably about a dozen times a year when I have to get to 60 from a standing start as fast as that. The vast majority of the time it's the people in front who won't accelerate to join the road who are the limiting factor, not my car's acceleration. That said, the difference in acceleration was one reason we picked the Forester over the Impreza.
 

Al

Thread starter
Messages
19,277
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
@w s6. I owned a 2001 Nissan Sentra with the SR20 engine. That engine my have been the best durable engine ever made. Since the Senate was light it was very sick. Since it was the SE with stuff suspension it was "sports car" like. My granddaughter has it. 170k miles and used no oil.
 
Messages
24,366
Location
Central Florida
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Al
Interestingly enough: Honda Accord 1.5T: 0-60.....7.6 sec 1/4 mile..... 15.9 sec Crosstrek 2.0 0-60...8.3 sec 1/4 mile....16.5 sec. But as we know the Subaru haters can't resist it.. smirk
Depends on where you get your numbers. For example, according to Car&Driver: Accord 0-60: 7.3 sec; 1/4 mile: 15.7 sec Crosstrek: 0-60: 9.2 sec; 1/4 mile: 17.3 sec
Old grandpa doesn't need 0-60 in 5 seconds.... He probably drives to church and his local Piggly Wiggly grocery store. OT: the Accord is butt ugly. Honda did a terrible job with the newest Accord model.
 

Ws6

Messages
3,946
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by Al
@w s6. I owned a 2001 Nissan Sentra with the SR20 engine. That engine my have been the best durable engine ever made. Since the Senate was light it was very sick. Since it was the SE with stuff suspension it was "sports car" like. My granddaughter has it. 170k miles and used no oil.
My SR20 gave me no issues, and was a good little motor. The G20 on the other hand sucked. Lots of design flaws with that car. Ultimately, I can't say the SR20 was or was not any better than any other design, as I only took it to 140K miles or so before I sold the car.
 

Ws6

Messages
3,946
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by emg
When I lived in the UK, 0-60 in ten seconds was a sports car. Mine, I think, was rated at 9.9, and I never had a big problem passing on English roads. I can see it would be a big deal for people who are entering and leaving highways a lot, but there are probably about a dozen times a year when I have to get to 60 from a standing start as fast as that. The vast majority of the time it's the people in front who won't accelerate to join the road who are the limiting factor, not my car's acceleration. That said, the difference in acceleration was one reason we picked the Forester over the Impreza.
All I got from that was "stuff...things...rationale...woolgathering..." ... ... "Faster is better and that factors in my purchases."
 

Al

Thread starter
Messages
19,277
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
@Ws3 Nissan's engines were always top shelf. After the SR20 the QR and QG were total junk. The VQ-V6 on the other hand has been king of all engines (IMHO) for the last 25 years. I am not a Nissan fanboy. I think their products are mediocre.
 

Ws6

Messages
3,946
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by Al
@Ws3 Nissan's engines were always top shelf. After the SR20 the QR and QG were total junk. The VQ-V6 on the other hand has been king of all engines (IMHO) for the last 25 years. I am not a Nissan fanboy. I think their products are mediocre.
My VQ37 was alright. Nothing special, but not a bad engine, either. The valvetrain sounded a bit harsh, so much so that Nissan had a special oil made for it. It was a very high tech way of getting 332hp for 2008. Not the best way, just a very high tech way. BMW's S54 was a much better engine in every respect, IMO, if we are talking 6-bangers. That said, I was never disappointed in my VQ37. It did about what I expected of it. Since you're excited over this sort of thing, there are S54's pushing over 900whp on stock internals + ARP studs. The SR20 series was a great series for boring, yet reliable transportation. Think 3rd world country vehicle reliability. A great engine, within its limits. Personally, the two engines I've owned that impressed me the most are the LS7 in my Z06, and the 2.5T in my CX5. Why? The LS7 was a 7000rpm V8 that simply SANG! And I still got 27mpg on the freeway cruising. Granted, this is in a low frontal area vehicle pushing something like 1500rpm or so at 75, lol! My CX5 2.5T impresses me because it has 310# of torque by 2000rpm. It's flat-out diesel in nature. It moves the vehicle in ways a 4 cylinder shouldn't, and in ways I've never been in a 4 cylinder that did, due to the massive torque at low rpm. The thing bests its EPA rating by a LONG shot, too! I am at a life-time average of 25.6mpg for 8K miles, including having tons of fun in the thing. EPA combined rating is something like 24. If I baby it, I have gotten 28+ mpg on my daily drive on multiple tanks. The engine flat outperforms its ratings, moves the vehicle like a boss, and seems to have licked the turbo+DI/Carbon build-up/Fuel dilution issues so many others have, as none of the CX9's seem to be having issues even at higher mileage. Of ALL the engines out there? I think the LS1 was a historical killer engine! I loved mine. The RX7 FD's rotary. So many good engines. Nothing honestly stands out about the VQ37 though, really, to me. What do you like about yours or what have you read that impresses you so much?
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,133
Location
Tinton Falls NJ
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Al, I get it. It's fast enough for 99.99999% of things any sane person will do. Trying to merge onto the highway after stopping at the end ramp does not point to a slow car, it points to the person behind the wheel.
Interestingly enough: Honda Accord 1.5T: 0-60.....7.6 sec 1/4 mile..... 15.9 sec Crosstrek 2.0 0-60...8.3 sec 1/4 mile....16.5 sec. But as we know the Subaru haters can't resist it.. smirk
Hey, that's for the hybrid which is faster than the regular Crosstrek which is what the VAST majority of sales are and what you're talking about here. From the same article which you clearly didn't read:
Quote
Is it quicker? We've criticized the non-hybrid Crosstrek for is its mediocre acceleration. It took 9.0 seconds for our long-term Crosstrek Premium to hit 60 mph and 16.9 seconds for the quarter mile with a speed of 83.4 mph. A slightly heavier Crosstrek Limited accelerated to 60 mph in 9.8 seconds. On the drag strip, the Crosstrek Hybrid clocked a 0-60 time of 8.3 seconds on its way to a quarter-mile time of 16.5 seconds at 83.5 mph.
If you defended the Crosstrek and your XT for the things they're good at and actually realized what they're not good at. The Crosstrek's acceleration is adequate for a great number of people but the fact that you continue to try and argue it isn't slow is the problem. It would be like me trying to argue that salads are a good meat substitute; salads are good but not a meat substitute.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
227
Location
Central US
My Imp (same engine/tranny/chassis) *was* slow on on-ramps. Otherwise, it wasn't a problem in a car I bought for good fuel mileage, and mandatory travel 35 miles one-way to work, regardless of the snow depth. Worse was the brick-wall MPG drop at 60+ MPH. Still like the styling.
 
Messages
882
Location
USA
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by garlicbreadman
https://youtu.be/kgfOexKClLE 0-60 in 10-11 seconds. That is SLOW by todays standard..very slow.
Honestly, that didn't look too bad. For put-putting around town, I don't see a problem. Not everyone needs a rocket ship to go get their groceries.
I put my baby to sleep and the car wasn't done acceleration... Drive one long term and you'll agree it is slow and gutless.
 
Messages
40,993
Location
Great Lakes
Originally Posted by garlicbreadman
I put my baby to sleep and the car wasn't done acceleration...
I wish I could get my kid to fall asleep in 10 seconds.
Quote
Drive one long term and you'll agree it is slow and gutless.
I'm not disagreeing that it's slow. I'm just stating that not everyone needs/wants a fast car, so the Crosstrek has its place in the market. Driving a slower car requires a little bit of advanced planning in some situations, and sadly, many people seem to have lost that ability. Driverless cars can't come soon enough.
 

Ws6

Messages
3,946
Location
South Central US
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by garlicbreadman
I put my baby to sleep and the car wasn't done acceleration...
I wish I could get my kid to fall asleep in 10 seconds.
Quote
Drive one long term and you'll agree it is slow and gutless.
I'm not disagreeing that it's slow. I'm just stating that not everyone needs/wants a fast car, so the Crosstrek has its place in the market. Driving a slower car requires a little bit of advanced planning in some situations, and sadly, many people seem to have lost that ability. Driverless cars can't come soon enough.
Everyone has a plan until the guy in front of them slams on the brakes at the end of the on ramp.
 
Top