Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Tuesday October 17, 2017
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2017, 10:24 AM   #201
keepclam
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 120244
Join Date: Jul 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Everett, WA
Vehicle:
2006 Legacy SE Sedan
2006 Pilot EX-L 4WD

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
yup
Like the GTI, which is good or adequate in all categories, sometimes, When you are a little good at everything you end up being better overall than anybody
Fair enough.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
keepclam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 08-11-2017, 01:14 PM   #202
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

I saw a white '18 Crosstrek yesterday; I have to say that it's very very pleasing to look at.
IMO, this '18 is going to be an even bigger hit than ever before.
A souped up '18 Crosstrek would be hot as **** !!
neg_matnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 02:58 PM   #203
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Vehicle:
:-{ Pray for wine
country

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neg_matnik View Post
A souped up '18 Crosstrek would be hot as **** !!
Hear that Subaru. Put your V6 in it so we normal Americans can buy it. Don't skimp on the V in that 6.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 03:00 PM   #204
Angelus911
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89967
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sport
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Hear that Subaru. Put your V6 in it so we normal Americans can buy it. Don't skimp on the V in that 6.


It doesn’t even need the v6, the 2.5 would be a nice overall upgrade
Angelus911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 03:23 PM   #205
bugatti0628
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 447323
Join Date: May 2016
Default

Just wait to see what downgraded turbo engines Subaru is working on first.
bugatti0628 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 04:26 AM   #206
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

FB25 versus FB20 confuses me as the Legacy and Outback get decent gas mileage while being significantly heavier than the Impreza. Seems like Impreza would really benefit from 170 hp.
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 05:35 PM   #207
SoDealer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67960
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chanomatik View Post
FB25 versus FB20 confuses me as the Legacy and Outback get decent gas mileage while being significantly heavier than the Impreza. Seems like Impreza would really benefit from 170 hp.
emissions
SoDealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 06:15 PM   #208
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoDealer View Post
emissions
Yeah, I agree.
The "problem" with FB25 and EZ36 is that they are both very slightly oversquare (94 × 90 and 92 x 91, respectively).
They both burn significantly cleaner that the extremely oversquare EJ25 but they can't be as clean as the undersquare FB20, FB16 and FB16DIT.
So, I think the way forward for extra power and cleanliness in a compact Impreza/Crosstrek is FB16DIT.
IMO, it's going to be hard getting FB25 through CARB LEV3 compliance even for midsize Legacy/Outback; again, engine geometry is not ideal.
neg_matnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 06:19 PM   #209
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoDealer View Post
emissions
Fookin emissions. Gets me every time.
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 07:33 PM   #210
sir_wagon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71549
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Anywhere but on Facebook.
Default

If the Forester goes bigger for the next generation, it may provide enough room in the lineup to better justify a higher output engine option for the Crosstrek.

Last edited by sir_wagon; 08-12-2017 at 08:09 PM.
sir_wagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 04:31 PM   #211
esbee
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 31858
Join Date: Jan 2003
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2005 LGT Wagon

Default

The time has come for me to replace the LGT wagon and although I would love another wagon, with the lack of any relatively affordable options, I will need to compromise a bit. I have liked the looks (interior and exterior) of the new SGP since the '17 Impreza came out, so was eager for the new Crosstrek to get her. So, we went to test drove a '18 Limited with Eyesight this weekend.

Pros:
  • The car looks as good in person as I think it does in pictures
  • It drove well and the cabin was quiet
  • Good visibility all around
  • The rear legroom was very good. I'm 5'11" and had more than enough room in the back seat. Hatch space was also better than expected. Not quite as much as my wagon, but I guess you compromise one or the other in that size car.

Cons:
  • It's not quite as slow as I had anticipated, but it's pretty close. I accelerated from a dead stop up to around ~50 and also accelerated and merged onto the highway. From a stop, it felt a little peppy off of the line, but after that, it just tried really hard. I think it's fine for what I have as a daily drive, although I am curious how it would be going up a mountain.
  • I'm honestly not much of a leather person, but to me, the cloth did not feel like it would hold up very well over time.
  • Also, while not a huge deal, it's a little frustrating that you can only get auto driver's seat, the larger screen and push button start in the top trim.
  • I kind of wish they had the power liftgate close button on the hatch. My wife is 5'1" and really had to reach to close the hatch. A button would be easier to press vs. reaching and pulling down. Seems pretty standard these days to include that, but again, not a deal breaker.

Having said all of that, I think that it will be a good daily for me and meet most of my needs. Obviously I wish it had a little more power, but other than that, I think that it will be good. I will most likely end up going with the Limited trim, even though I had initially thought I would be more interested in Premium.
esbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 04:41 PM   #212
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

The push button not in the Premium bugged me too. Limited has more features than I really wanted. So I got a 17 Impreza Sport hatch.

Why not consider the Forester?
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 04:55 PM   #213
rwd_to_awd
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 429584
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Vehicle:
2016 WRX (base)
WR Blue

Default

I test drove the Premium yesterday and the thing that bothered me most in the interior was the fake black stitching on the dash. I assume it looks better in the Limited where the stitching is orange (and possibly not fake). Also fake carbon fiber and A/C controls on the Premium feel pretty cheap.
rwd_to_awd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 05:25 PM   #214
esbee
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 31858
Join Date: Jan 2003
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2005 LGT Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chanomatik View Post
The push button not in the Premium bugged me too. Limited has more features than I really wanted. So I got a 17 Impreza Sport hatch.

Why not consider the Forester?
I'm just not a fan of the styling on the forester, since they stopped resembling toaster ovens and became more of a generic cuv.

And I agree on the premium interior feeling cheaper overall. My wife noted that the lever to adjust seat height felt like it was going to break off in her hand.
esbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 06:17 PM   #215
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

The Forester has the power lift gate option, so I was thinking that if you could get over the looks then it'd probably suit you better. I understand, though. For me I'm willing to compromise amenities and practicality for design. Otherwise we'd all be driving Outbacks!
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 08:47 PM   #216
Zak
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 4148
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Auto Wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esbee View Post
The time has come for me to replace the LGT wagon and although I would love another wagon, with the lack of any relatively affordable options, I will need to compromise a bit.
The VW Golf Sportwagen 4motion or Golf Alltrack are both available at significant discounts that make them pretty attractive options (~$23K). It seems like either one might check off some of your concerns about Subaru's current offers.

They are both available in manual or dual clutch automatics (even quicker than the manual). They also have 1.8L turbo motors that start with 170HP and can be easily bumped to ~210HP with only a piggyback JB4 that avoids any warranty concerns (or quite a bit more with just an APR flash tune if warranty isn't a concern).

While I have concerns about VW's reliability and serviceability, I'm getting much closer to going VW myself. This generation of VW seems to be doing pretty well on reliability. If it looks like Subaru is going to stay sedan only for the 2020MY WRX or my '02 WRX wagon has any major problems before then, VW will be getting my money. They'd probably already have it if there wasn't such a huge difference in OTD price between the Alltrack and Golf R. My practical side keeps making it too hard for me to justify the extra $15K for the Golf R, while my fun side keeps telling me not to settle for the Alltrack .
Zak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 09:28 PM   #217
lionken07
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 13660
Join Date: Dec 2001
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
16 BRZ Limited 6MT
04 WRX 5MT

Default

Anybody know if the 2018 crosstrek is still 5x100 bolt pattern for them wheels?
lionken07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 09:45 PM   #218
Zak
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 4148
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Auto Wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoDealer View Post
emissions
How are emissions an issue if they continue to offer the FB25 in their larger cars?

While there could be some reason behind going with the FB20 for other countries (like lower taxes for smaller engines), it seems like the US market is large enough to justify its own engine options (which we get for some of their offerings already). For the US - I could understand it being an issue if the FB20 got better MPG, but based on the MPG numbers from the larger FB25 cars, it doesn't seem like that would be the case.

I can totally understand Subaru not wanting to put the 1.6L DIT into these cars with the additional expenses a turbo would add. It doesn't seem, however, like there could be much, if any, difference in Subaru's cost between the FB20 and FB25 engines.

Even if Subaru was worried about the future compliance of the FB25 engine, it seems like they'd be into their "DIT engines in everything" phase by the time that happened, and they would be switching to a DIT option at that point anyway.
Zak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 10:35 PM   #219
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak View Post
How are emissions an issue if they continue to offer the FB25 in their larger cars?

While there could be some reason behind going with the FB20 for other countries (like lower taxes for smaller engines), it seems like the US market is large enough to justify its own engine options (which we get for some of their offerings already). For the US - I could understand it being an issue if the FB20 got better MPG, but based on the MPG numbers from the larger FB25 cars, it doesn't seem like that would be the case.

I can totally understand Subaru not wanting to put the 1.6L DIT into these cars with the additional expenses a turbo would add. It doesn't seem, however, like there could be much, if any, difference in Subaru's cost between the FB20 and FB25 engines.

Even if Subaru was worried about the future compliance of the FB25 engine, it seems like they'd be into their "DIT engines in everything" phase by the time that happened, and they would be switching to a DIT option at that point anyway.
Larger/heaver vehicles are allowed to pollute more than smaller/lighter vehicles; at least, that's my understanding.
So, while FB25 NOx+CO2 emissions levels are OK for midsize Legacy/Outback and for an SUV like Forester, these same emission levels MIGHT not be good enough for compacts like Impreza/Crosstrek.
Especially when FB25, because of its slightly oversquare geometry, will emit more NOx+CO2 than an undersquare FB20 (even if we account for the 25% of extra displacement).
In any case, that's my own guess/take :-).
neg_matnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 09:33 AM   #220
SoDealer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67960
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak View Post
How are emissions an issue if they continue to offer the FB25 in their larger cars?

While there could be some reason behind going with the FB20 for other countries (like lower taxes for smaller engines), it seems like the US market is large enough to justify its own engine options (which we get for some of their offerings already). For the US - I could understand it being an issue if the FB20 got better MPG, but based on the MPG numbers from the larger FB25 cars, it doesn't seem like that would be the case.

I can totally understand Subaru not wanting to put the 1.6L DIT into these cars with the additional expenses a turbo would add. It doesn't seem, however, like there could be much, if any, difference in Subaru's cost between the FB20 and FB25 engines.



Even if Subaru was worried about the future compliance of the FB25 engine, it seems like they'd be into their "DIT engines in everything" phase by the time that happened, and they would be switching to a DIT option at that point anyway.
Because the heaviest crosstrek is still 100 lbs lighter than the lightest forester and a 2.5l is needed for the much heavier Forester, Legacy, and Outback. The last I checked, Subaru was behind on the emissions spectrum. The only thing that matters is what these vehicles emit on the cycle. If real world mattered, there'd be less small displacement turbos.
SoDealer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 05:38 PM   #221
Stanley
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7374
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay, SFCA
Vehicle:
2007 Grandpamobile
BlingBlingBlue

Default

I don't know if it is still the case, but my understanding was that the Outback was conceived to be classified as an SUV in the USA and therefore allowed to have higher criteria pollutant levels.
Stanley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 09:46 PM   #222
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
I don't know if it is still the case, but my understanding was that the Outback was conceived to be classified as an SUV in the USA and therefore allowed to have higher criteria pollutant levels.
AKA "truck", which helps give it a passing grade.
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 08:43 PM   #223
Zak
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 4148
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Auto Wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
I don't know if it is still the case, but my understanding was that the Outback was conceived to be classified as an SUV in the USA and therefore allowed to have higher criteria pollutant levels.
I thought they did that mostly to help their CAFE numbers (MPG) which does take car versus light-truck into account. Their MPG had historically been pretty poor compared to mostly FWD competitors, so they needed all the help they could get to meet the CAFE standard. At the time - I remember they also claimed they did it so that they would be allowed to heavily tint the rear windows which is allowed in a light-truck but not in a car. The PT-Cruiser was the most blatant light-truck classification abuse as it qualified because of its flat load area.

I didn't think cars versus light truck mattered for emissions, but it is moot anyway because the Legacy isn't a light-truck and has that same 2.5L engine in it. It clearly meets the "car" emission standards if they are actually different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neg_matnik View Post
Especially when FB25, because of its slightly oversquare geometry, will emit more NOx+CO2 than an undersquare FB20 (even if we account for the 25% of extra displacement).
In any case, that's my own guess/take :-).
While that might be true for NOx, it was my understanding that CO2 emissions per mile exactly correlated with MPG and one could be directly calculated from the other with a simple formula. If both motors get the same MPG, then the CO2 emissions should be the same as well. I remember when the CO2 mandates were first being considered there was an uproar because CO2 mandates backhandedly set MPG mandates which certain agencies weren't legally allowed to do.
Here is a link explaining the correlation. Even the EPA publishes the formula, but the link to that was a PDF.
https://co2calculator.wordpress.com/...n-co2-and-mpg/

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoDealer View Post
The only thing that matters is what these vehicles emit on the cycle. If real world mattered, there'd be less small displacement turbos.
MPG Ratings from that cycle:
2017 Outback 25 city / 32 highway
2017 Crosstrek 26 city / 33 highway

Based on those numbers, I'd venture a guess that the Crosstrek's MPG (and CO2) would be the same or better with the 2.5L than it is with the 2.0. The Outback does have a slightly better coefficient of drag which would become important for the highway rating, but the increased frontal area would more than make up for that. The 500-600lbs less weight in the Crosstrek should easily bring the city MPG up more than the 1 MPG difference from the Outback.

Last edited by Zak; 08-16-2017 at 09:46 PM.
Zak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2017, 10:11 PM   #224
chanomatik
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Mahwah, New Jersey
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

Now you're just upsetting me more about the Crosstrek and Impreza not having the FB25.
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2017, 02:01 AM   #225
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak View Post
I thought they did that mostly to help their CAFE numbers (MPG) which does take car versus light-truck into account. Their MPG had historically been pretty poor compared to mostly FWD competitors, so they needed all the help they could get to meet the CAFE standard. At the time - I remember they also claimed they did it so that they would be allowed to heavily tint the rear windows which is allowed in a light-truck but not in a car. The PT-Cruiser was the most blatant light-truck classification abuse as it qualified because of its flat load area.

I didn't think cars versus light truck mattered for emissions, but it is moot anyway because the Legacy isn't a light-truck and has that same 2.5L engine in it. It clearly meets the "car" emission standards if they are actually different.


While that might be true for NOx, it was my understanding that CO2 emissions per mile exactly correlated with MPG and one could be directly calculated from the other with a simple formula. If both motors get the same MPG, then the CO2 emissions should be the same as well. I remember when the CO2 mandates were first being considered there was an uproar because CO2 mandates backhandedly set MPG mandates which certain agencies weren't legally allowed to do.
Here is a link explaining the correlation. Even the EPA publishes the formula, but the link to that was a PDF.
https://co2calculator.wordpress.com/...n-co2-and-mpg/


MPG Ratings from that cycle:
2017 Outback 25 city / 32 highway
2017 Crosstrek 26 city / 33 highway

Based on those numbers, I'd venture a guess that the Crosstrek's MPG (and CO2) would be the same or better with the 2.5L than it is with the 2.0. The Outback does have a slightly better coefficient of drag which would become important for the highway rating, but the increased frontal area would more than make up for that. The 500-600lbs less weight in the Crosstrek should easily bring the city MPG up more than the 1 MPG difference from the Outback.
You're right on the money regarding CO2 emissions; but I actually meant to write CO not CO2 (there's also NMOG emissions level in the mix).
In any case, the undersquare nature of FB20 is conducive to lower NOx+*CO; I'd be very surprised if FB25 makes it past MY2019; same with EZ36.
neg_matnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2017 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.