Outback/4Cyl Engine In Mountains

Sure. Just don't be afraid to downshift and rev it up a little. It won't be nice and quiet like it is in

5th, but you'll do it no harm.

And in case you don't HAVE 5th (as in, a manual tranny), the automatic will do just fine if you ask it to. I have two 99 Foresters (admittedly a slightly lighter vehicle, therefore a bit more peppy) and I can easily run with nearly anyone (within reason) and usually outclass the field on long or steep hills. (I am not content to drop several mph on long hills as many folks are.) I do ASK the vehicle to deliver what it was made to, however, which means I don't hesitate at all to manually drop it to 3rd gear if it's a long or steep hill. One particular hill I travel frequently is a very LONG hill, over 4 miles long, and if I allow the car to shift back up once it has kicked down to 3rd, it will slow again. I simply drop it "manually" to 3rd, either after it has kicked down on its own or even before that, to keep it from losing the 3-4 mph it may lose before kicking down. Once down there manually, I let the cruise handle it from there and it pulls the hill at

74-75mph as requested. This means running about 4200rpms, I guess, which I let it do for about the last 2 miles or so if needed. I can also usually milk the gas pedal, sort of an assistance to the cruise control, just adding slight pressure to keep it still in 4th gear but not locked out and not yet shifted down to 3rd. This allows it to finish the hill without even downshifting to 3rd at all, in many cases. On another long but steeper hill, I just drop it to 3rd as soon as I start losing any speed (1-2mph) and then it handles that hill in 3rd quite nicely at the speed I want.

We had a 2.2L Legacy wagon and traded it in for the 3.0L Outback, both with auto trannys. A big part of the reason was because we live in Boulder, CO and go into the mountains for skiing, hiking, and running over bicyclists. IMHO, the Subaru auto tranny is miserable but my wife had a chronic sore shoulder/lat when she had a manual tranny so we had to get the auto. Point being, I found the 2.2L inadequate and frustrating and the 3.0 is much better. Yes, the L.L. Bean is more expensive, yes it's heavier, blah blah. Driving over 10,000 foot-plus passes, we were unhappy with the 2.2L/auto tranny combo and testing a

2.5L didn't show enough of a difference to trade up to that so we waited and got the 3.0L 6-cyl and have been much happier.

To answer your question more directly, I was constantly getting passed by V8 jeeps/fords/pick-you-SUV unless I dropped into 3rd and kept the revs around 4500 which I don't think I should have to do for a 5-mile stretch of uphill.

Given all that, if you are happy with a manual tranny, get >> Dick wrote:

If you drive much in the mountains there's nothing like a turbo model. FULL power at altitude. The Forester XT should be one of the best high altitude vehicles available - and my WRX wagon is awesome up in the hills. Zoom!

--------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Peterman al at scn.rain.com Tigard, OR As I grow older, the days seem longer and the years seem shorter.

Yes...we do okay with a '98OBW (2.5l). Down-shifting is sometimes required, especially when fully loaded (three/four people, as many bikes on top, full cargo area and ski box), but the 6cyl. 4Runner (automatic) and Pathfinder (5spd) I've been in didn't do any better.

Now, a supercharged 5spd 4Runner is another matter...that thing would accelerate through 70 on the way to 80 uphill in fifth gear on I70 westbound from Denver whereas the normally aspirated automatic 4Runner would be shifting down and slowing down.

C

Ditto. This exactly what I do on long steep grades in my Forester. The engine doesn't mind this workout, and I sometimes feel as if "breathes" easier after this romp.

James '03 Subaru Forester XS-P '03 Infiniti FX35/AWD/Tech Santa Fe, New Mexico

fifth gear >on I70 westbound from Denver

This is the stretch of highway I had in mind when I asked my question.

I think that if I do buy an outback, the 4 cyl would do the job but that I may be happier with the 6.

Dick

Why don't you think you should have to do that? The 2.2l 4cy EJ22 engine developes max torque at 4500 and max power at 5400. You have to be in the right gear to get the power you need in at the speed you want.

Or are you saying the AT should figure that out for itself and automatically keep it in 3rd? That I agree with. The AT has its own computer, you figure they could programme it to figure this out!

-- Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

Dick, I decided NOT to spend additional money for the 6, then buy gas for the next 150,000 miles just to do better on a 2 mile stretch of highway five times per week.

If losing a little steam on a long hill worries you, try tranquilizers or something! :-)

I don't know what the EPA figures are on on the Subie non-turbo 4 vs. the H-6. I know on recent Honda Accords, there was a one (1) MPG difference, both city and highway, on the fuel consumption ratings between the 4 and V-6. Further, under some conditions--perhaps many--the 4 cyl. will be working harder, and fuel savings may be nil. Between two different Hondas I had, one with each engine, the V-6 at highway speed would be turning over about 500 RPM slower than the 4.

Of course, the 6 cyl. engines will cost more outright, and you have to figure whether or not you can afford that. But, for the slight extra gasoline cost, I'll take that power reserve any day. Further, driving at reasonable speeds (75 or less), and using cruise control, and no hard acceleration, I easily got in the low- to mid-30 MPGs on my Honda V-6---essentially the best of both worlds.

HW

I think you had 40 HP. I had a brand-new '65 Beetle with 40 HP, and the '66 got a slight bump in cubic centimeters, up from 1,100 to 1,200 if memory serves. Maybe you transposed your HP number and meant 43?

Sure, my VW took me everywhere (in potentially imminent peril, as it turned out---that was a VERY unsafe car that you didn't want to be in for an accident), but VERY slooooowwwlly. Except downhill with a tail wind, of course, when I would stupidly drive it 80+. (Hey, I was young and REALLY stupid, OK?!)

I kept that '65 for less than two years. Despite the slowness, it turned out it wasn't all that great on gas mileage (maybe 22-24 overall), and those oil changes every 1,500 miles got old real fast. I remember that and other cars I've had, and think, "They don't make'em like they used to....thank God!"

It took my 1966 34 horspower VW everywhere. A 165 h.p. Subaru will take you anywhere too.

I've lived in the Denver/Boulder area and up in the mountains outside of Boulder, never had a problem keeping up in a 2.5L OBW.

-Mike

Yes, the elegant, transversely-mounted, multiple-balance-shaft-requiring V6. I'll take an opposed engine of _any_ displacement over a V6.

The issue wasn't V-6 vs. H-6 or engines of any other number of cylinders. It was six cylinders versus four, in general. That being said, balance shafts or not, the Honda V-6 is a sweet engine.

HW

Absolutely right. And the percentage of folks who know how to do it is pretty small, amazingly. It's not that tough to do, but you have to get to know your engine and know how to coax it to follow instructions.

automatically

I'll agree with this. Tranny should know enough to do it on its own. Especially since it does know enough to transfer torque to rear wheels on quick take-offs etc. Seems that a slope intelligence functionality would help it hold 3rd longer once kicked down.

As for me, I'm paying attention to the the previous idiot's remark about running over cyclists. I hope he comes to my neck of the woods for a visit. I have something I want to deliver to him.

I was hoping that would pretty clearly be a joke...we ride bikes too. Doesn't everyone who owns a subaru?