SubOperator Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Derrick be careful, those who have been around long enough remember how guys who leaked even smallest actual info about 5th gen and 5th gen refresh were sacked by SIA. It's not worth it. 2005 LGT Wagon Limited 6 MT RBP Stage 2 - 248K 2007 B9 Tribeca Limited DGM - 258K SOLD - 2005 OB Limited 5 MT Silver - 245K SOLD - 2010 OB 6 MT Silver - 205K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xt2005bonbon Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 aww man. I wanted to hear a bit more info about the engine. Now we have to wait . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Y'all crack me up if you believe the example at NYIAS is the production version. It even says "concept" on the floor. I do believe it's a very close representation to what will be production, but as people have commented on the door handles, just look at the handles on the camouflaged test mule above, and I'd bet lunch that those are much closer the actual production version than those shown on the "Concept" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dga Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Trump will not really impact this much, if at all, and mainly due to the painful lessons certain manufacturers have learned. What happens when you put all of your eggs in one basket and price of gas sky rockets coupled to an imploding economy? The flat-6, as smooth as it is, is a complete let down when it comes to power out of such a large engine. Presumably cheaper, the FA20F does everything the flat 6 was meant to, while the new 2.4L turbo will build on that. Maybe not in the peak power area, but certainly with a greater area under the curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fedaykin Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Supercharged boxer-6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spb Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 I agree, flat 6 is a disappointment. There are so many better performing 6 cylinder cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xt2005bonbon Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Nissan GTR or the Quadrifoglio Giulia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLlegacy Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 I'm still looking for all these SUVs with V6s that are tearing up the street races...sadly haven't found one yet. The H6 was on par for size and specs of what it came in, we drove plenty of v6 SUVs and minivans none of them are any kind of performer either on the street or at the gas pump. Subarus H6 was squarely middle of the pack, not the best or worst at anything. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 I'm still looking for all these SUVs with V6s that are tearing up the street races...sadly haven't found one yet. The H6 was on par for size and specs of what it came in, we drove plenty of v6 SUVs and minivans none of them are any kind of performer either on the street or at the gas pump. Subarus H6 was squarely middle of the pack, not the best or worst at anything. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk How dare you inject rational thought or logic into this pissing match! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laufu Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 The flat-6, as smooth as it is, is a complete let down when it comes to power out of such a large engine. Presumably cheaper, the FA20F does everything the flat 6 was meant to, while the new 2.4L turbo will build on that. Maybe not in the peak power area, but certainly with a greater area under the curve. That would be true if the new 2.4 DIT is based off of the FA engine. But what if it is based off of the FB family of engines? The FB16 DIT used in the Levorg is designed to run on regular fuel. The FA20 DIT will "tolerate" regular, but it needs premium octane for best performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spb Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 How dare you inject rational thought or logic into this pissing match! Here are some examples of 6cyl NA engines in similar displacement range: 268hp (+12hp) with 3.5L - Camry 278hp (+22hp) with 3.5L - Accord 290hp (+34hp) with 3.5L - TLX 300hp (+44hp) with 3.5L - Maxima 335hp (+79hp) with 3.6L - Camaro LT 350hp (+94hp) with 3.6L - TVR Tuscan 350hp (+94hp) with 3.7L - 370Z Nismo 375hp (+119hp) with 3.8L - Boxter Spyder At the very least Subaru should be able to beat Camry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spb Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 This is just embarrassing: "With the sprint to 60 mph taking 7.1 seconds and the quarter-mile passing in 15.5 at 94 mph, the new car is 0.7- and 0.5-second slower than our 2010 [3.6R Legacy]. Even the Mazda 6—184-hp inline-four, six-speed automatic, 3294 pounds—bests the Subaru to 60 and loses by just a tenth in the quarter." And then Accord with A/T blows it out of water with 5.6s 0-60 and 14.1s for 1/4mi caranddriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xt2005bonbon Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 probably tried to find a balance between power and fuel economy, especially given the fact that the car has an AWD system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkshooter Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Some of uze g'eyes is funny. And not nearly as smart as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLlegacy Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Here are some examples of 6cyl NA engines in similar displacement range: 268hp (+12hp) with 3.5L - Camry 278hp (+22hp) with 3.5L - Accord 290hp (+34hp) with 3.5L - TLX 300hp (+44hp) with 3.5L - Maxima 335hp (+79hp) with 3.6L - Camaro LT 350hp (+94hp) with 3.6L - TVR Tuscan 350hp (+94hp) with 3.7L - 370Z Nismo 375hp (+119hp) with 3.8L - Boxter Spyder At the very least Subaru should be able to beat Camry? Car, Torque, 0 to 60 Camry 248 6.1s to 60 Accord 252 5.6s TLX 267 5.9s Maxima 261 5.9s 3.6/5eat 247 lb ft 6.3s I'm not seeing the problem especially given the Legacy and the TLX are the only AWD cars. For all the horsepower these other cars produce the torque is pretty similar to the old 3.6 and performance isn't noticeably better. I'm more disappointed other automakers haven't done significantly better with their large engines. Nissan has tried but failed, especially taking the Maxima to a cvt only platform, unfortunately the same mistake subaru made with the legacy/outback 3.6 trim. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1995 Volvo 850 T-5R 0-60 mph 6.5s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mremteapot Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Here are some examples of 6cyl NA engines in similar displacement range: 256hp with 3.6L Subaru 23mpg regular 268hp (+12hp) with 3.5L - Camry 24mpg regular 278hp (+22hp) with 3.5L - Accord 25mpg regular 290hp (+34hp) with 3.5L - TLX 25mpg premium 300hp (+44hp) with 3.5L - Maxima 25mpg premium 335hp (+79hp) with 3.6L - Camaro LT 22mpg regular 350hp (+94hp) with 3.6L - TVR Tuscan 19mpg premium (2006 model) 350hp (+94hp) with 3.7L - 370Z Nismo 22mpg premium 375hp (+119hp) with 3.8L - Boxter Spyder 20mpg premium At the very least Subaru should be able to beat Camry? I added mpg from fueleconomy.gov and type of gas required to get a better picture. After looking at the numbers, I kinda agree, Subaru should be able to beat camry. (although, my mpg actually does at 24.4 ). However, it the other cars had awd, the numbers would definitely change in Subaru's favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spb Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I understand the reasons why the subaru engine is the way it is, with fuel efficiency concerns and all. But that is exactly the point I wanted to make - it is weak, and we cant really say it is on par with competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLlegacy Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I understand the reasons why the subaru engine is the way it is, with fuel efficiency concerns and all. But that is exactly the point I wanted to make - it is weak, and we cant really say it is on par with competition. What competition is blowing subarus SUVs out of the water? You are cherry picking specs that fit your argument instead of ones that are in actually related vehicles, every "example" you listed is a car or sports car, really wtf? I thought this thread was about a 3 row SUV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 What competition is blowing subarus SUVs out of the water? You are cherry picking specs that fit your argument instead of ones that are in actually related vehicles, every "example" you listed is a car or sports car, really wtf? I thought this thread was about a 3 row SUV? I think you missed the point there. They're comparing cars of similar size and class (for the most part) and comparing power, acceleration, and fuel economy. It's fair to assume that if those figures hold true for midsize/fullsize sedans/wagons, you can draw a similar forecast to a midsize/fullsize SUV in the market. Either way, those who think Subaru is way behind the curve are conveniently picking the stats and figures that support their bias. Echo chamber, people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xt2005bonbon Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 I think we should compare apples to apples though by excluding from that list non AWD vehicles. Not really fair IMHO to include these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Why would you do that? To have a data set of 1? The TLX is the only car I see on that list that is remotely comparable and offered with AWD. Then you have a handful of other cars that are otherwise similar in size and displacement, and then you can consider the power specs. The fuel economy merely illustrates that despite AWD, the gap between Subaru and the others is pretty slim on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dga Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 That would be true if the new 2.4 DIT is based off of the FA engine. But what if it is based off of the FB family of engines? The FB16 DIT used in the Levorg is designed to run on regular fuel. The FA20 DIT will "tolerate" regular, but it needs premium octane for best performance. The FA was developed from the FB engine, with efforts to reduce weight while maintaining durability. That being said aside from the general commonality the two do not share blocks, head, connecting rods, pistons, etc. FB being the older one of the two and FA series having the larger of the two's families turbocharged engines it was just a speculation on my part that the engine would be an evolution of the newer design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLlegacy Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I think you missed the point there. They're comparing cars of similar size and class (for the most part) and comparing power, acceleration, and fuel economy. It's fair to assume that if those figures hold true for midsize/fullsize sedans/wagons, you can draw a similar forecast to a midsize/fullsize SUV in the market. Either way, those who think Subaru is way behind the curve are conveniently picking the stats and figures that support their bias. Echo chamber, people! Even the cheapest of auto makers is not going to pull a v6 out of a 2 door coupe and put it in a 5k lb SUV unchanged. And peak torque/horsepower doesn't even begin to acct for the actual area under the curve, which is where the H series of engines excels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laufu Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 The FA was developed from the FB engine, with efforts to reduce weight while maintaining durability. That being said aside from the general commonality the two do not share blocks, head, connecting rods, pistons, etc. FB being the older one of the two and FA series having the larger of the two's families turbocharged engines it was just a speculation on my part that the engine would be an evolution of the newer design. Good to know, but I thought the FA and FB came out around the same time. Also isn't the FB16DIT the newest turbo engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.