New Subaru Engine for 2011 Forester

[ARCOgraphite]

Supposedly first all new archetecture in 20 years! It's now DOHC with dual timing chains (rather than belts) and VVT. They also increased the stroke almost a 1/2 inch, finally fixing the silly way-oversquare configuration. I agree with the bore /stroke change for a passenger car, unsure about DOHC and the chains. Would have preferred SOHC with roller followers on a 3 or 4V head still with toothed belt cam drive for simplicity.

My Question:
Anyone here test drive a Foz with this new engine and would you care to share your impressions?

 

[dparm]

My Mom drove one when she was car shopping. I rode along. It felt pretty smooth and carlike for sure. Didn't blow me away but it wasn't weird or slow by any means.

 

[edhackett]

All those big chain tensioners bother me. Timing chains are reliable. Chain tensioners have proven to be otherwise over the years.

Ed

 

[rcy]

It's still a Boxer though?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Yep.Still a waterboxer, Not that that's anything good. 2 heads, 2 T-chains, 2 exhaust headers ... on a 4 cyl. Worked well in the A/C beetle in the rear or for any rear engine car needing a pancake engine - not required in the Forester or impreza. Anyway the subaru 2.5 liter was very poor architecture (for normal output variants) and needed revamping. I wonder if they went to a shared crankpin (3 throws/4 mains) as I would design it (and consider proper and elegant).

 

[rcy]

I had a 2001 Outback with the H6. I remember thinking that if the timing chain / tensioner ever needed service, there was going to be about 2 hours of labour just to remove the 65 bolts keeping the timing chain cover on...lol.

 

[kkreit01]

"New", but not much improved:

"The new 2.5-liter engine displaces 41 cc more than before and features dual overhead camshafts in place of an SOHC setup. It still makes 170 hp but gains 4 lb-ft of torque, for a total of 174."

MPG increased by +1. You'd think more output would come with the major changes?

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
"New", but not much improved:

"The new 2.5-liter engine displaces 41 cc more than before and features dual overhead camshafts in place of an SOHC setup. It still makes 170 hp but gains 4 lb-ft of torque, for a total of 174."

MPG increased by +1. You'd think more output would come with the major changes?

I'd bet that the torque and horsepower charts show a much more substantial difference. Peak numbers tell you very little about the whole.

 

[ClarkB]

Torque? Horsepower? Fuel economy? Who cares? This is probably the first engine made with love.

Thank you Subaru for that horrible marketing campaign.

Clark

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Torque? Horsepower? Fuel economy? Who cares? This is probably the first engine made with love.

 

[The Critic]

Aside from their AWD system, I don't see any reason why one should consider a NA Subaru over its competition. Their MPG and performance are not class-leading, and their technology is needlessly complex.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Anyway the subaru 2.5 liter was very poor architecture (for normal output variants) and needed revamping. I wonder if they went to a shared crankpin (3 throws/4 mains) as I would design it (and consider proper and elegant).


3 throws and 4 mains on a 2.5 litre 4 ?

That's pretty innovative

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I wonder if they went to a shared crankpin (3 throws/4 mains) as I would design it (and consider proper and elegant).

3 throws and 4 mains on a 2.5 litre 4 ?
That's pretty innovative

ROFL!

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Aside from their AWD system, I don't see any reason why one should consider a NA Subaru over its competition. Their MPG and performance are not class-leading, and their technology is needlessly complex.

For me, they are one of the few car companies that offer a wagon.

 

[scurvy]

Originally Posted By: whip
For me, they are one of the few car companies that offer a wagon.


We're also bemoaning the dearth of wagons available and giving Subaru a good, hard look.

I will say that I have a big soft spot for Subaru, as I was amazingly lucky enough to have an Impreza as a rental car which was most likely the only reason why I was able to escape from Maryland during Snowpacalypse February 2010. No, it wasn't particularly efficient, class-leading in technology or quick - but it was an amazing all-rounder that did everything well.

 

[Thermo1223]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Aside from their AWD system, I don't see any reason why one should consider a NA Subaru over its competition. Their MPG and performance are not class-leading, and their technology is needlessly complex.


I would like to know what technology isn't needlessly complex?

As far as AWD systems do theirs in manual transmission car is surprisingly simple.

 

[Tornado Red]

My sister bought a 2011 Forester, and got a surprisingly good deal for it. But I haven't driven it yet, or even ridden in it. It's big though, inside and out. When did Suburus get so big?

 

[Thermo1223]

Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
My sister bought a 2011 Forester, and got a surprisingly good deal for it. But I haven't driven it yet, or even ridden in it. It's big though, inside and out. When did Suburus get so big?


When our bottem's did

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I wonder if they went to a shared crankpin (3 throws/4 mains) as I would design it (and consider proper and elegant).

3 throws and 4 mains on a 2.5 litre 4 ?
That's pretty innovative

ROFL!
Really?
I dont see the humor, smelly pants.

Draw it. A Shared center crankpin with 2 phased throws at each end requiring 4 main bearings. Engine is still in primary balance. Recall this is just two flat twos attached at the spine and splayed 180deg.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Subarus are not needlessly complex compared to transverse mounted drivetrain designs - Unless you might want instead part-time AWD with pancake electric drive (or hydraulic) for the rear.