Performance Stats for Baja Turbo

Has anyone found a site that tells the stats for the Baja Turbo. I heard, don't know where, that the Forester Turbo does 0-60 in 5.4 secs but I can't find any info on the rest of the fleet.

Reply to
Mike Minerva
Loading thread data ...

By Forester Turbo I assume you mean Forester XT?, there's no way it does 5.4 sec.

-T

Reply to
TT

And you would be dead wrong. The Forester XT is quicker to 60 than the WRX.

Reply to
Ian Firth
>
Reply to
William S. Hubbard

There's no way.

-T

Reply to
T

From CarandDriver.com

"The force-fed flat-four's combination of torque, gearing, and weight will get you a blazing 0-to-60 time of 5.3 seconds and a quarter-mile of 13.8 seconds at 97 mph, just 0.3 second slower than an $89,665 Porsche Cayenne Turbo."

formatting link

Reply to
Rory

Ahem... perhaps you should get your facts straight. From motortrend the Forester XT has a 0-60 of 8.5 seconds. While the WRX averages around

5.5 seconds 0-60 in tests. The automatic WRX is much closer with an average 0-60 of around 7.2 seconds though.

Jason Kavanaugh

Reply to
Jason Kavanaugh

Url got cut off....

formatting link
BTW, this is for the Forester, not the baja, but I imagine they will be pretty close...

formatting link
mber=2

Reply to
Rory

would estimate 7 seconds.

One would think you're right. And in fact, the 227hp WRX is quicker in the quarter mile. The XT is offered with either an auto or a manual transmission.

0-60, where aerodynamics don't take much part, the availability of torque lower down in the rpm range allows the MT Forester XT to very slightly edge the lighter WRX. From most accounts, the 2.5 XT is stronger than the rated 210hp. I guess Subaru lowered the rating for marketing purposes vs. the WRX.

It's a bit humbling to have a SUV able to outrun my '02 2.0 WRX wagon on city streets. But at least they're built on the same platform - I don't feel too bad at all.... And this comparison is only valid with drivers of equal ability and purpose in the moment. I haven't lost to a Forester yet (until I reach the speed limit that is).

- Byron

Reply to
Byron

That's not the most useful fact.

  1. Others have gone faster, the fact that they didn't only proves that they didn't.
  2. Vague reference (no URL or issue number).
  3. MT or automatic?

This is has more useful facts:

formatting link
Sorry, no tiny URL.

Scroll down to the 13 second timeslip. XT with the intake silencer removed. Otherwise stock. Look at the 1/8th mile time: 8.789sec at 78 MPH. That suggests it was going a little faster than 60 at 8.5 sec. You can believe it's all from that one minor mod if you like, but I think that refutes the "XTs can't do 0-60 faster than 8.5sec" claim you seem to have made.

I've heard of people going faster with a bone-stock XT, but haven't seen a posted timeslip, so who knows?

David

Reply to
David

Are you talking about the US version? The reviews I've read seem to indicate that it has the 2.5 with a smaller turbo than the STi. It does seem to be marginally faster in a straight line than a standard WRX - something about the 2.5 generating more torque/power before the turbo kicks in. It's probably better suited to hillclimbing and automatic transmissions.

However - it doesn't sound as if it's a very good handling car.

Reply to
y_p_w

Uh, never mind. I found it. The 8.5sec 0-60 time they give here is their estimate, not from a timed run:

formatting link
According to discussions on
formatting link
, Subaru underrated thepower of the XT, which could lead to a faulty estimate.

Reply to
David

Don't be so sure.

The XT's engine specs read like a detuned STi. It's a 2.5 with the variable valve timing. It also weighs about as much as the STi.

I wouldn't expect it to look very good on a track next to the WRX, but in a straight line they oughtta be pretty close. They give the XT a higher torque rating than the WRX, but a little less HP, BUT they have conveniently taken the XT's ratings at lower RPM than either the WRX or the STi.

The XT is definately a funny little SUV.

Nick

T wrote:

Reply to
The_Incubator

Anyway, the new Forester Turbo is an interesting vehicle. But, given the option I think I would go with the WRX Wagon. I guess if you have your heart set on a SUV it is not a bad choice.

BlueSTi "Scary-Fast"

Reply to
BlueSTi

??? I suppose what you mean by that is that XT top torque and hp are produced at lower RPMs thatn for WRX. Why would be surprising? XT has a bigger displacement engine and one would expect better driveability from it that from the 2.0 liter wuss in WRX. I don't know why they kept the 2.0l inepto in the US WRX for 2004. It's a P.O.S on the street compared to the XT powerplant and people who care about track performance could get STi now anyway.

Reply to
John Opezdol

Repeat after me: Forester is a taller Impreza. Forester is a taller impreza :-) The handling can be rectified by a trip to the cobb tuning suspension section. I think the ground clearance for TS/RS, WRX and Forester is simlar and the center of gravity for Forester could not be all that higher than that for Impreza. One thing that can't be fixed is the drag the brick like body of Forester is producing at triple digits :-(

Maybe in 2005 or 2006 they'd finally drop 2 liter turbo, eh? At least for the US. Everyone else in the world can have that piece of crap.

Hmm, how about a larger capacity gas tank while we're on the subject of the laundry list for turbo models? :-)

Reply to
John Opezdol

The normally-aspirated Forester could use a bigger tank too. Cruising range is about the same as most of the 4cyl vehicles I've had in recent years, but my Maxima goes a lot farther.

Reply to
David

What's wrong with the 2.0l turbo?

florian

Reply to
Florian Feuser /FFF/

It's weak. As in, physically weak. For the previous generation of cars, the WRX had basically a detuned STi engine. The current WRX has a weaker engine, the main difference being that it has cast pistons compared to forged pistons in the STi, which make it much less tolerant of tuning and abuse. You can't get super HP out of a stock-block WRX the way can with, say, the Lancer Evolution engine (cast iron block, forged pistons, etc, etc) and expect it to live.

I imagine the 2.0 liter engine used in the non-US STis is still pretty hot.

Nick

Reply to
The_Incubator

I tend to average a little over 300 miles per tank. Sometimes I've done as well as 350 miles on a tank. It all depend on how I want to drive. How far is everyone looking to go on a tank of gas? Most cars I've owned tend to run about 300 miles on a tank of gas. BlueSTi "Scary-Fast"

Reply to
BlueSTi

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.