Premium Or Regular Gas ?

Says regular, unleaded here:

Could it be that the turbo version wants premium? Don't have time to look it up right now but I'm sure that there are dozens of articles about it online.

When you say you "read something," do you mean on the Subaru website? If not, did you check that site? The information there seems very clear:

Fuel requirement: Unleaded gasoline (87 octane) Also Standard on: 2.5i Premium, 2.5i Limited, 2.5i Touring Fuel requirement: Premium unleaded gasoline (91 octane). 93 octane recommended. Standard on: 2.0XT Premium, 2.0XT Touring

Patty

MOST turbos DEMAND premium fuel.

Bob:

On the inside of the gas-filler door on my 2014 Forester 2.0XT (turbo) Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know about the non-turbo. It's something I considered before I bought my new Forester in March. This is not an inexpensive vehicle to operate, but we all rationalize. My rationale was this is my occasional hauler, while my daily driver is still a Prius. And that's true. My wife and I drove the Forester a lot for the first couple of weeks or so, but once the new-car novelty wore off we went back to the Prius as our main ride for everything except the big trips to the home center and the garden center (I'm a woodworker, we have two acres of yard/trees/flowers/shrubbery surrounding our home, and I have several astronomical telescopes and mounts to carry about from time to time.) I off-road and back-road occasionally--not often--in my other life as a nature photographer We have three other cars--Acura, Toyota Avalon, and the '92 Miata that I bought new and that has 45,000 miles on it.

On a recent trip to my home town in Pennsylvania I bought mid-grade petrol before making the 250-mile trip home to eastern Maryland because the station where I filled up--which is owned by a friend of mine, so it's the only place in town where I fill up--does not sell premium fuel. There is too little demand for it in my small, economically poor hometown. The Forester ran just fine on mid-grade petrol.

We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but other than that it is been great over the past two months. Hard seats and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by it. My aged mother-in-law likes it for the high seating position and lots of glass, and says she is not bothered by the rough ride.

As I posted yesterday directly from the Subaru website, only the XT models require premium. I'm still curious where the OP read that premium gas is recommended for all Foresters.

Even my Porsche would have run on regular had it not been a turbo. Take away the turbo, and it's just an ordinary 2.5l four-banger. Well, maybe not ordinary. :-) It's amazing what good engineers can do with small engines... :-)

Davoud, I'm not getting the Outback model that offers a backup camera, but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.

I plan to buy an aftermarket nav system from Crutchfield, and they also sell backup cameras--sometimes they even throw them in for free with the purchase of a nav system.

Is that because it's based on the Impreza platform instead of on the Legacy platform as the Outback is?

Patty

Davoud:

Patty Winter:

Not the camera, but the display. Small, dim, low contrast. Should be on the main nav display. Please see the link to the pathetic nave display in my upcoming post.

You've asked the wrong guy. This is my only Subaru purchase and I know nothing of other Subaru models. If you've had a Porsche, the harsh ride won't bother you in the least. It feels like a Rolls compared to my Miata.

Goodness, they don't even integrate them?? Yikes. Whatever backup camera I buy from Crutchfield will show up on the large nav system's display.

When I got my Opel GT, my mom asked whether the shock absorbers were okay. ;-) I had to explain about the hard suspension systems in sports cars. The 944 is quite cushy compared to that one! I'm guessing that the Outback will be more comfortable than my 20-year-old Legacy.

Patty

There is a review of the 2014 Forester on the Motorweek site at:

I included the text below, the web site also has a video test.

Motorweek complained about the premium gasoline requirement and also noted the new turbo Forester is still not fast. Time from 0 to 60 mph is 7.6 seconds -- and they only got 24.6 mpg in their mixed driving test.

We have a 2011 Outback that gets comparable gas mileage and it is considerably larger. Our only complaint is the air conditioner is marginal when temperatures get above 75 degrees.

Good luck,

- Russ in Santa Barbara

Motorweek 2014 Forester review:

More than any other Subaru, the Forester has succeeded in attracting hordes of mainstream buyers to the brand without losing any of its Subaru-ness. But this all new 4th generation Forester is facing a slew of new compact crossover rivals. And, to meet that challenge, has in our eyes become more like them. So, does the Forester still standout or now just blend in?

The 2014 Subaru Forester does indeed have a lot on its shoulders. It must not only appeal to the Forester faithful, but also draw new buyers to the brand by offering what is expected in a compact CUV without too much Subaru quirkiness. That?s a strategy that has worked well so far as there are a lot of Foresters on the road.

As to brand kinship, let?s go inside this new Forester where we found lots of recognizable Subaru cues. Their parts bin approach to interior design has blurred the lines between Forester, Impreza, and Crosstrek. If you closed your eyes and climb in, opening them still might not tell you what you?re in.

But, adding room always seems a good utility strategy and the Forester does get a substantial boost in space up front and even more so in the rear, where legroom grows to 41.7-inches, besting both RAV4 and CR-V. Maximum cargo room beats them too, with 74.7 cubic-ft. of space; that?s more than many mid-size CUVs; and 34.4 with rear seat backs upright.

The interior is also very comfortable and very functional, but we still feel that some materials could use further updating as they don?t quite depict the more premium feel that Subaru seeks. In addition, base Forester models are sparsely equipped. You have to step up to Limited-trim for the automatic headlights and gauge cluster with LCD display that some rivals have standard.

The last gen Forester lost its boxy shape for a Crossover profile, and that morphing continues, but only now it looks to be moving in a more wagon-like direction. Like a teenager maturing into an adult, the Forester is bigger in every dimension. Except in the engine bay. The base engine remains an adequate 2.5-liter. But, like several rivals, Forester has added a 2.0-liter turbo option. While it?s not exactly a hot rod, it definitely punches things up with 250-horsepower and 258 lb-ft. of torque.

Unfortunately, with the turbo you can only get a CVT transmission. But it seems less noise inducing than in the Impreza, probably due to the turbo?s increased power. And once you do get going, it doesn?t take long to appreciate the Forester?s more substantial ride characteristics, especially at higher speeds. All weather capability is a Subaru hallmark and the standard all-wheel-drive system works well in both wet and winter driving and continues to be one of the best systems on the market.

But on this Forester, Subaru introduces a new X-Mode all-wheel-drive system available in all 2.0XT models that makes the Forester even more capable off road; working in conjunction with VDC and ABS braking for more comprehensive approach to delivering traction.

Whether on or off pavement, Subaru?s Intelligent Drive System lets you chose to drive sportily or more efficiently and adjusts throttle response and CVT operation to help you accomplish it. It certainly does make a difference in acceleration, where you?ll want to be in Sport Sharp mode for getting off the line with any sense of urgency. We did, and reached 60 in a solid

7.6-seconds. Shifting manually didn?t really improve on the ¼-mile time of 16.0-seconds and 87 miles-per-hour, but the CVT does have well placed simulated gear shifts.

True to its heritage the Forester displays an overall fun to drive nature that is itself a class benchmark. The one flaw is steering that now feels anesthetized. On the up side, even in tight switchbacks body roll is held in nicely in check.

Government Fuel Economy Ratings are much improved over last year, with an all-wheel-drive 2.0-turbo averaging 23-City, 28-Highway, and 25-Combined. We were a little disappointed with our results however, achieving just 24.3 miles-per-gallon, and having to use Premium fuel at that. The Energy Impact Score is fine though, at 13.2-barrels of yearly oil expenditure, with CO2 emissions of 5.9-tons.

The new turbo engine is great fun in the Forester, but we wonder how many buyers will want to pay the additional price to get it. Most buyers will probably opt for the base 2.5, which starts at $22,820, while the turbo starts at $28,820.

So, back to our questions. Is the new Forester the same yet better, or has it become even more like the rest of the compact CUV crowd? Well it clearly does blend in a bit more, yet it also remains distinctly a Forester with great practicality, and one of the most entertaining drives of its type. To us, that shows their strategy is still working, placing the 2014 Subaru Forester if not above, a bit off to the side of its class.

Hi,

Thinking of a new Forester, or possibly an 2014 Outback when they become available.

I read something regarding that the Forester is recommended for Premium gas "for optimal performance" by Subaru.

Huh ?

Don't the Forester and Outback use just the plain "Regular" gas ?

Details would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bob

rll_sb:

Really? Do they think that fuel grade has a connection to acceleration time? I think it's tied to the high compression ration of the 2-litre turbo engine. Did they complain that the Corvette cannot carry five passengers plus cargo? And lacks a rear-window wiper? Perhaps those clowns are a little bit confused over the intended use of the Forester. I know that the industry calls these "sport" utility vehicles, but the consumer would be well advised to think of them as utility vehicles. They're not sporty, in the Forester price class they're not luxurious, and they're not stylish. But my 2014 Forester 2.0XT Touring seems to be well suited for its purpose, which I understood before I bought it.

As for fuel economy, if the Motorweek clowns consider rapid acceleration from stop to be important in a utility vehicle, that could explain their disappointing results. The EPA rating should give a feel for what to expect -- something between the 23mpg city and the 28 mpg highway rating. I'm getting about 27 overall, but I only keep up with traffic; I don't try to be the fastest car on the road and I /never/ challenge Corvettes to a drag race. If Motorweek is looking for versatility /and/ economical driving they should try a Prius V.

Thank you.

? 2013?5?29???? UTC

-4??6:39:40?Patty Winter???

e:

T