2019 Subaru Ascent Mid-sized SUV - True 3-row vehicle

[SubieDriver]

Considering the Tribeca was 8-9 seconds 0-60, 7.3 will be a nice improvement.

[covertrussian]

Considering the Tribeca was 8-9 seconds 0-60, 7.3 will be a nice improvement.

 

. My 6MT 2010-2012 outback seems to be rated at 8.1 sec, no wonder Tribeca failed . Which means the 2010 Outback 3.6R at 7.1 sec was faster too. What's funny about that one is, I know people that test drove the 3.6R ended up with 2.5i's because it wasn't big enough of a difference to justify the worse MPG and higher price tag.

 

I think the Ascent would need to be in low 6's to aww me. Maybe with aftermarket parts it will get there.

 

 

This brings to the next interesting point, why are non performance cars slowing down and it's widely except as no big deal? Sure in 70's a 9 second car was considered fast, but by 2000's an 8 second Japanese car was considered slow (I used to have a 1.6L Nissan 200sx, felt slower the Outback). We now have 3 sec production performance cars, but non performance market basically gave up

[FLlegacy]

. My 6MT 2010-2012 outback seems to be rated at 8.1 sec, no wonder Tribeca failed . Which means the 2010 Outback 3.6R at 7.1 sec was faster too. What's funny about that one is, I know people that test drove the 3.6R ended up with 2.5i's because it wasn't big enough of a difference to justify the worse MPG and higher price tag.

 

I think the Ascent would need to be in low 6's to aww me. Maybe with aftermarket parts it will get there.

 

 

This brings to the next interesting point, why are non performance cars slowing down and it's widely except as no big deal? Sure in 70's a 9 second car was considered fast, but by 2000's an 8 second Japanese car was considered slow (I used to have a 1.6L Nissan 200sx, felt slower the Outback). We now have 3 sec production performance cars, but non performance market basically gave up

 

I would say you need to look at the average performance across all cars, and compared to the 80s and 90s performance has increased.

[ehsnils]

This brings to the next interesting point, why are non performance cars slowing down and it's widely except as no big deal? Sure in 70's a 9 second car was considered fast, but by 2000's an 8 second Japanese car was considered slow (I used to have a 1.6L Nissan 200sx, felt slower the Outback). We now have 3 sec production performance cars, but non performance market basically gave up

 

The deal is that it's caused by the fuel consumption legislation and that vehicles are a lot heavier now due to the improved safety cage and comfort items installed.

 

If you would make a car that was just having the same chassis and passenger area protection as a 60's or 70's car without a lot of comfort items you'd get a pretty light and fast car.

[covertrussian]

80's were slow times for a lot of cars yes, but mid 90's sped up a good bit. To be fair I've been a Nissan guy up till 2012, Average Nissan's of mid 90's seem to be faster then average Subaru's of the same time period.

 

The deal is that it's caused by the fuel consumption legislation and that vehicles are a lot heavier now due to the improved safety cage and comfort items installed.

 

If you would make a car that was just having the same chassis and passenger area protection as a 60's or 70's car without a lot of comfort items you'd get a pretty light and fast car.

 

Right I call this the great 2000's slow down (for Japanese cars), where cars got heavier for safety reasons and motors stayed about the same power due to emissions. But then with cars like LGT releasing in 2005 it felt like things were speeding up again, but I guess it just plateaued.

[FLlegacy]

80's were slow times for a lot of cars yes, but mid 90's sped up a good bit. To be fair I've been a Nissan guy up till 2012, Average Nissan's of mid 90's seem to be faster then average Subaru's of the same time period.

 

 

 

Right I call this the great 2000's slow down (for Japanese cars), where cars got heavier for safety reasons and motors stayed about the same power due to emissions. But then with cars like LGT releasing in 2005 it felt like things were speeding up again, but I guess it just plateaued.

 

More or less it got to the point of diminishing returns, you can only make so much power without sacrificing drivability and reliability at a fixed price point.

[Brady]

I would say you need to look at the average performance across all cars, and compared to the 80s and 90s performance has increased.

 

Even compared to cars built in the mid 2000's.

 

2006 Civic SI (back then, that was the fast one). 0-60 = 7.3 Seconds

2018 Civic EX (These days, that's the slow one). 0-60 = 7.3 Seconds

 

And if you follow that comparison across the board, it's pretty damn consistent

 

2004 Camry Solara SE V6 (Coupe) - 6.6 Seconds

2018 Camry V6 (Sedan) - 5.8 Seconds

 

2007 Elantra SE - 7.8 Seconds

2017 Elantra ECO - 7.8 Seconds

 

2006 Fusion SEL - 7.3 Seconds

2017 Fusion Ti AWD - 6.9 Seconds

 

And I'm trying my best to find quickest car available in the given earlier years vs. Average car for the later years. All this despite that the cars have gotten bigger, heavier, with more govt. mandated safety nannies and more stringent CAFE requirements and in most cases Fuel Economy improving.

[covertrussian]

Nah I think tech is there (we are extracting 200hp from 2.0L NA now days, see BRZ), it might be that average consumer doesn't care & Insurance companies don't want them having faster cars either.

 

Average consumer seems to care about "feel" more, seat of pants performance, which is torque. My 2.5i wont win any drag races, but it has a ton of low end torque to get around town. Heck it has more torque then the 05LGT. I can go into 6th gear at 30mph and not lug the motor, forget about going into 4th on the LGT.

[FLlegacy]

Not only the amenities but most were now built here in the USA so shipping weight was no longer a concern.

 

I still say cars have never been safer or better performing as a whole.

[covertrussian]

Not only the amenities but most were now built here in the USA so shipping weight was no longer a concern.

 

I still say cars have never been safer or better performing as a whole.

 

Oh that's a damn good point, I didn't even think about shipping weight being a concern. Though my old 1998 200sx was built in US (TN) was mid to low 8's on 1.6l 115hp motor, but it was also 2500lbs so that made it be quick and handle good. God forbid you were in a wreck though. It was based on a JDM model though, so that's probably why it was still low weight.

[dgoodhue]

. My 6MT 2010-2012 outback seems to be rated at 8.1 sec, no wonder Tribeca failed .

 

If you drive you Outback hard it probably does better than that. I did 7.4s 0-60 in my '12 6MT Legacy with 5k launch and normal 6k shifts. I could have probably improve on that if I did flat foot shifts like I had done the one time I brought it to the track. It did low 8's 0-60 with a normal launch rpm (1500-2000)

[covertrussian]

Ha! I don't drive it that hard, I only do 2k rpm pulls really. I wouldn't mind more power in the Outback, but it's wife's car, which gets driven like 10 miles a week, so I don't mind. I get into my red rocket for fun driving, and black rocket when I wanna have fun with understeer in a FWD muscle car .

[dgoodhue]

Nah I think tech is there (we are extracting 200hp from 2.0L NA now days, see BRZ), it might be that average consumer doesn't care & Insurance companies don't want them having faster cars either.

 

Average consumer seems to care about "feel" more, seat of pants performance, which is torque. My 2.5i wont win any drag races, but it has a ton of low end torque to get around town. Heck it has more torque then the 05LGT. I can go into 6th gear at 30mph and not lug the motor, forget about going into 4th on the LGT.

 

Manufacturers have cutting power in most cars as cost savings and warranty reduction for many years now. On many automatic transmission performance cars, you can't fully pull out the power management or the stock transmission will not last.

 

You should buy a 5th Gen Legacy GT, the low mount turbo gives them much better low end torque...

[covertrussian]

Manufacturers have cutting power in most cars as cost savings and warranty reduction for many years now. On many automatic transmission performance cars, you can't fully pull out the power management or the stock transmission will not last.

 

You should buy a 5th Gen Legacy GT, the low mount turbo gives them much better low end torque...

 

Actually the issue with the 05 GT is not low end torque for say it's more like lack of idle torque . It has gobs of torque at 2,000+ RPM, it just has none of it at 1,000-1,999rpm. I do a lot of 30mph driving, in 4th gear I'm at 1,700rpm and lugging, in 3rd I'm at 2,100rpm and car is jerky and lounges forward at slight throttle touch (this forces high vacuum/high pumping loss driving in the city).

 

I've been trying to tune this out, been trying to mod this out, nothing is helping so far. Maybe 6 speed swap will .

 

I drove a friend's 2006 Outback 2.5i, could be in 5th gear at 30mph without lugging. I think it's EJ255 design/compression issue honestly, which probably would hunt the 5th gen too if it wasn't for re-geared 6 speeds.

[FLlegacy]

Actually the issue with the 05 GT is not low end torque for say it's more like lack of idle torque . It has gobs of torque at 2,000+ RPM, it just has none of it at 1,000-1,999rpm. I do a lot of 30mph driving, in 4th gear I'm at 1,700rpm and lugging, in 3rd I'm at 2,100rpm and car is jerky and lounges forward at slight throttle touch (this forces high vacuum/high pumping loss driving in the city).

 

I've been trying to tune this out, been trying to mod this out, nothing is helping so far. Maybe 6 speed swap will .

 

I drove a friend's 2006 Outback 2.5i, could be in 5th gear at 30mph without lugging. I think it's EJ255 design/compression issue honestly, which probably would hunt the 5th gen too if it wasn't for re-geared 6 speeds.

 

Have you driven a 5th gen gt? Doesn't sound like it. Plenty of low end, I cam cruise at 30 in 4th with out lugging.

[covertrussian]

Have you driven a 5th gen gt? Doesn't sound like it. Plenty of low end, I cam cruise at 30 in 4th with out lugging.

 

I haven't, they are pretty rare around here. I would love to if I could find one though!

 

I don't believe the low mounted turbo is the reason why it has better low end though, since lugging starts happening in vacuum and carries over into boost even. I think Dual AVCS and higher compression ratios is probably the bigger contributors: 8.4:1 vs 8.2:1 on the 05.

[FLlegacy]

The EL header helps.

[covertrussian]

Not really, not if it helps it's not equal length that's helping. Personally tested, UEL spools 200rpm faster, but vacuum torque is the same though. What helps is the shorter runners, due to less heat loss. But once again this is for boosting, when your in vacuum it's all moot.

[FLlegacy]

Not really, not if it helps it's not equal length that's helping. Personally tested, UEL spools 200rpm faster, but vacuum torque is the same though. What helps is the shorter runners, due to less heat loss. But once again this is for boosting, when your in vacuum it's all moot.

 

That's what I meant, the design and turbo placement. Vacuum or not the turbo is always spinning and moving air. Even a slight throttle blip gets me out of vacuum.

 

And the EL header on the 4th gen is like a half mile long...

Edited January 5, 2018 by FLlegacy

[covertrussian]

That's what I meant, the design and turbo placement.

 

I figured as so, but wanted to technically clarify, so someone doesn't find this later and think EL is the reason why

 

Log manifolds (on inline engines) tend to spool faster then tubular. Log's are horrendous for flow though . In the end though that doesn't matter since this is off boost and we have a turbo restriction still so scavenging doesn't apply.

 

Anyway, Ascent should be peppy because direction injection which allows for high compression (higher then 8.5) + Dual AVCS.

[Guest]

Considering the Tribeca was 8-9 seconds 0-60, 7.3 will be a nice improvement.

 

Oh, yeah, even the H3.6 was slow as shit (never drove the 3.0 one).

[FLlegacy]

Oh, yeah, even the H3.6 was slow as shit (never drove the 3.0 one).

 

It sounds fast, but its not.

[SubieDriver]

Oh, yeah, even the H3.6 was slow as shit (never drove the 3.0 one).

 

I owned the 3.0 and drove a 3.6. The 3.0 takes a little longer to build power. The 3.6 feels more punchy off the line. But you're right, the 3.6 wasn't really much faster than the 3.0.

 

I can't believe they never updated the 3.6. I remember when it first came out, people were saying it was capable of 300 hp, but they detuned it because the 5EAT couldn't handle the torque. Well, we've had that High Torque CVT for a few years now. They probably could have extended the life of the Tribeca by upping the power and using the CVT.

 

In fact, with the Ascent coming, the Tribeca could have been slotted as just a 5-passenger vehicle. It was great as a 5-pass, just not so great as a 7-pass.

 

It coulda been a contenda!

[Guest]

Dunno, the dash was horrible and made it feel cramped. I had this crazy idea of doing 6MT swap into Tribeca at one point, but I quickly dropped the idea after test driving one.

 

Ascent with a manual would pique my interest, by Subaru is on the mission of eliminating manuals from all their cars, so no chance for that. Don't need a large people mover anymore either.

[SubieDriver]

True, they could have redesigned the dash to open up the interior a bit. 2nd row has loads of legroom. They could have easily moved the steering wheel and pedals back a bit and made it feel more spacious.

 

When I first bought my '07 B9, I liked that it handled a lot like a car. It was pretty easy to toss around, for an SUV.