Wow...
carrrnuttt
07-07-2003, 01:18 PM
Look at the times the new Subaru Forester is running:
http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=277&id2=0
Year 2004
Make Subaru
Model Forester
Trim 2.5XT Turbo
Transmission 5-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 134 mph
Limited Top Speed 129 mph
0-30 mph 1.48 s
0-40 mph 2.59 s
0-50 mph 3.69 s
0-60 mph 5.25 s
0-70 mph 6.96 s
0-80 mph 9.23 s
0-90 mph 11.81 s
0-100 mph 15.52 s
0-110 mph 19.97 s
0-120 mph 26.40 s
0-130 mph 39.69 s
30-50, 2nd gear 1.97 s
100 ft 2.66 s @ 40.72 mph
500 ft 7.38 s @ 71.24 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.83 s @ 78.24 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.94 s @ 96.38 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 22.44 s @ 114.39 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 37.08 s @ 128.8 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 50.80 s @ 132.84 mph
Look a this too:
Closest in Performance
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1
1970 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 W-30
2001 Porsche Boxster S
2001 Jaguar XKR
A recent C&D test hed them running the XT with a 13.8 1/4.
That's a freaking mini sport-ute!
http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=277&id2=0
Year 2004
Make Subaru
Model Forester
Trim 2.5XT Turbo
Transmission 5-speed Manual
Theoretical Top Speed 134 mph
Limited Top Speed 129 mph
0-30 mph 1.48 s
0-40 mph 2.59 s
0-50 mph 3.69 s
0-60 mph 5.25 s
0-70 mph 6.96 s
0-80 mph 9.23 s
0-90 mph 11.81 s
0-100 mph 15.52 s
0-110 mph 19.97 s
0-120 mph 26.40 s
0-130 mph 39.69 s
30-50, 2nd gear 1.97 s
100 ft 2.66 s @ 40.72 mph
500 ft 7.38 s @ 71.24 mph
660 ft (1/8 mile) 8.83 s @ 78.24 mph
1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.94 s @ 96.38 mph
2640 ft (1/2 mile) 22.44 s @ 114.39 mph
5280 ft (1 mile) 37.08 s @ 128.8 mph
7920 ft (1.5 mile) 50.80 s @ 132.84 mph
Look a this too:
Closest in Performance
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1
1970 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 W-30
2001 Porsche Boxster S
2001 Jaguar XKR
A recent C&D test hed them running the XT with a 13.8 1/4.
That's a freaking mini sport-ute!
turbo2nr
07-07-2003, 01:30 PM
:eek7: :sly:
:eek:
:eek2:
thats fast..
1
:eek:
:eek2:
thats fast..
1
76_cobra
07-07-2003, 02:34 PM
Type Horizontally opposed 4-cylinder intercooled turbo with die cast aluminum-alloy block and heads and Active Valve Control System (AVCS) variable valve timing.
Displacement 2.5 liters (150 cubic inches)
Horsepower 210 @ 5600 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft.) 235 @ 3600 rpm
Valvetrain 16-valve with Dual Overhead Camshaft design (DOHC)
Fuel System Sequential multi-port fuel injection system.
Wheelbase/Length 99.4/175.2
Width/Height 68.3/65.0
Track: front/rear 58.9/58.5
Minimum Road Clearance (at curb weight) 7.5 (at curb weight)
Headroom: Front/Rear 39.0/37.0
Legroom: front/rear 43.6/33.7
Shoulder room: front/rear 53.5/53.6
Curb Weight (pounds) (w/Automatic Transmission) 3300
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
Displacement 2.5 liters (150 cubic inches)
Horsepower 210 @ 5600 rpm
Torque (lb.-ft.) 235 @ 3600 rpm
Valvetrain 16-valve with Dual Overhead Camshaft design (DOHC)
Fuel System Sequential multi-port fuel injection system.
Wheelbase/Length 99.4/175.2
Width/Height 68.3/65.0
Track: front/rear 58.9/58.5
Minimum Road Clearance (at curb weight) 7.5 (at curb weight)
Headroom: Front/Rear 39.0/37.0
Legroom: front/rear 43.6/33.7
Shoulder room: front/rear 53.5/53.6
Curb Weight (pounds) (w/Automatic Transmission) 3300
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
carrrnuttt
07-07-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by 76_cobra
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
It's underrated. Subaru is afraid that it might undercut sales of WRX wagons.
If you think about it, it's not THAT much changed from the 300HP STi motor, and doesn't weigh too much more, which also says a lot about this car's potential.
BTW, the curb-weight you listed is for an automatic. The M5's weigh in around 3180 to 3230lbs. The base XT's with no options come in at slightly under 3100lbs.
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
It's underrated. Subaru is afraid that it might undercut sales of WRX wagons.
If you think about it, it's not THAT much changed from the 300HP STi motor, and doesn't weigh too much more, which also says a lot about this car's potential.
BTW, the curb-weight you listed is for an automatic. The M5's weigh in around 3180 to 3230lbs. The base XT's with no options come in at slightly under 3100lbs.
94svt5.0
07-07-2003, 04:48 PM
Im a little skeptical about the times too. But if there accurate then thats one fast suv thingy. I was looking at one in the showroom last week when I was buying the Imprezza and it looked very plain. I really could tell no difference between it and the regular forester. Going to be quite the sleeper.
tino
07-11-2003, 03:37 AM
dang
tino
07-11-2003, 03:37 AM
have u seen the porsche suv v8 twin turbo
tino
07-11-2003, 03:38 AM
its top speed is like 165
R1-rider
07-11-2003, 04:22 AM
yes, but its ugly as all hell, who would buy a porsche suv...
Jetts
07-11-2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by R1-rider
yes, but its ugly as all hell, who would buy a porsche suv...
class
yes, but its ugly as all hell, who would buy a porsche suv...
class
LjasonL
07-11-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by 76_cobra
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
There are so many more factors than just power and weight.
I have a hard time believing those #'s with 210hp and 235tq at 3300lbs that's less hp and tq than an old 5.0L and the 5.0L weighs less and they couldn't run high 13's I know it has AWD but that isn't going to give it better #'s than a WRX or a mustang 99+ mustang GT.
There are so many more factors than just power and weight.
RACER D12
07-11-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by R1-rider
yes, but its ugly as all hell, who would buy a porsche suv...
I totaly agree what is the point of the porsche suv? If you want a nice SUV get a Range Rover or H2. I mean an SUV is suspost to be some what off road capable. The only thing the porsche can do is go fast. If I wanted a fast car I would just buy a 911 or boxster.
yes, but its ugly as all hell, who would buy a porsche suv...
I totaly agree what is the point of the porsche suv? If you want a nice SUV get a Range Rover or H2. I mean an SUV is suspost to be some what off road capable. The only thing the porsche can do is go fast. If I wanted a fast car I would just buy a 911 or boxster.
Polygon
07-11-2003, 01:39 PM
Very impressive! :bigthumb:
BTW: Carrrnuttt your avatar is dancing along with the song I'm listening to right now. It is funny, yet creepy at the same time. :biggrin:
BTW: Carrrnuttt your avatar is dancing along with the song I'm listening to right now. It is funny, yet creepy at the same time. :biggrin:
carrrnuttt
07-11-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Polygon
Very impressive! :bigthumb:
BTW: Carrrnuttt your avatar is dancing along with the song I'm listening to right now. It is funny, yet creepy at the same time. :biggrin:
Let me guess:
You sprained your back again trying to copy his moves, huh??
:comprage1 << Polygon wishing he could dance like my dancing MIB...
:icon16:
Very impressive! :bigthumb:
BTW: Carrrnuttt your avatar is dancing along with the song I'm listening to right now. It is funny, yet creepy at the same time. :biggrin:
Let me guess:
You sprained your back again trying to copy his moves, huh??
:comprage1 << Polygon wishing he could dance like my dancing MIB...
:icon16:
Polygon
07-11-2003, 01:57 PM
Yeah, at the ripe old age of 22, I'm not as limber as I used to be. :iceslolan
Jimster
07-19-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by RACER D12
I totaly agree what is the point of the porsche suv? If you want a nice SUV get a Range Rover or H2. I mean an SUV is suspost to be some what off road capable. The only thing the porsche can do is go fast. If I wanted a fast car I would just buy a 911 or boxster.
TheCayenne woops both offroad- the 911 Carrera 4 can do things some SAV's (Sports Activity Vehicles) can't do- so that speaks volumes for the Cayenne- The Touareg that it is loosely based upon has already proven itself to be as good offroad than a Range Rover- The Cayenne is the Touareg- with a little better on-road performance- without losing out in off-road performance.
The Cayenne is a true mudplugger- too bad no one will use them as one :frown:
I totaly agree what is the point of the porsche suv? If you want a nice SUV get a Range Rover or H2. I mean an SUV is suspost to be some what off road capable. The only thing the porsche can do is go fast. If I wanted a fast car I would just buy a 911 or boxster.
TheCayenne woops both offroad- the 911 Carrera 4 can do things some SAV's (Sports Activity Vehicles) can't do- so that speaks volumes for the Cayenne- The Touareg that it is loosely based upon has already proven itself to be as good offroad than a Range Rover- The Cayenne is the Touareg- with a little better on-road performance- without losing out in off-road performance.
The Cayenne is a true mudplugger- too bad no one will use them as one :frown:
-The Stig-
07-19-2003, 04:50 PM
Cause nobody will take a $90,000 SUV offroad to destroy it.
Take that thing out on any trail and with in 3 hours it'd look like my truck. Minimal Resale value. :iceslolan
Take that thing out on any trail and with in 3 hours it'd look like my truck. Minimal Resale value. :iceslolan
EJ20
07-20-2003, 12:14 AM
it has the same tranny like WRX= not worth the money, I will not buy another subaru until they put everything into STi tranny.
at 350whp, my tranny on my WRX is dying ( 1st and 4th ), and I only have 40,000km on it.
at 350whp, my tranny on my WRX is dying ( 1st and 4th ), and I only have 40,000km on it.
DkShadow
07-20-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by EJ20
it has the same tranny like WRX= not worth the money, I will not buy another subaru until they put everything into STi tranny.
at 350whp, my tranny on my WRX is dying ( 1st and 4th ), and I only have 40,000km on it.
Why dont you just upgrade/beef up the transmission?
it has the same tranny like WRX= not worth the money, I will not buy another subaru until they put everything into STi tranny.
at 350whp, my tranny on my WRX is dying ( 1st and 4th ), and I only have 40,000km on it.
Why dont you just upgrade/beef up the transmission?
RazorGTR
07-20-2003, 01:29 PM
It's not that easy. The only real upgrades available is by OS giken and the gear set starts at $2,500 USD. That is about the cheapest options.
Subaru's are fine as long as you're not launching them on the street.
Subaru's are fine as long as you're not launching them on the street.
EJ20
07-20-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by RazorGTR
It's not that easy. The only real upgrades available is by OS giken and the gear set starts at $2,500 USD. That is about the cheapest options.
Subaru's are fine as long as you're not launching them on the street.
launch slow makes wrx slow..............
saving for 6sp swap $6K but well worth it.
It's not that easy. The only real upgrades available is by OS giken and the gear set starts at $2,500 USD. That is about the cheapest options.
Subaru's are fine as long as you're not launching them on the street.
launch slow makes wrx slow..............
saving for 6sp swap $6K but well worth it.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026
