|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-21-2003, 10:29 PM | #1 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 32371
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: formerly known as mem. # 10615
Vehicle:'02 t-rex wagon platinum |
forrester xt 8.6sec 0-60?
i just saw a quick one page review in motor trend. they covered both the turbo'ed baja and xt....and est. a 0-60 time of about 8.6 sec
doesn't that seem kinda slow for a car that's suppose to clock the quarter in 13.8?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
|
07-21-2003, 10:33 PM | #2 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 4562
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: Auburn, WA
Vehicle:2014 Electric Datsun 2005 Adventure van |
the std forester will do 0-60 around that time,IIRC that was autoweek,I dont think they actually tested them
|
07-22-2003, 12:03 AM | #3 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 38524
Join Date: Jun 2003
Vehicle:1998 ROLFLCOPTER white |
well after all it is a estimate.
|
07-22-2003, 12:13 AM | #4 |
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:1957 Taggart Comet atlasshruggedpart1.com |
They screwed up and copied the numbers from the n/a Forester.
|
07-22-2003, 12:28 AM | #5 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 5489
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: The Empire of Seattle
Vehicle:2013 FR-S AVO Orange |
They didn't screw up - they simply don't take any care with their estimates. In another section, they had an article on the new Nissan Triton and the Ford F-150 trucks. Both had an estimated time of 8.0 secs 0-60, despite the fact that the Triton was nearly 1000lbs lighter than the Ford, and had, according to them, some 50-80 more hp.
Cheers, Paul Hansen |
07-22-2003, 12:21 PM | #6 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 20267
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: IL
Vehicle:|'02 GGA WRB| |'03 BH6 PSM | |
welcome
Wow. They did it again!
|
07-22-2003, 12:43 PM | #7 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Vehicle:08 Yamaha WR250R 07 Suzuki DL650 |
That whole WTLW thing is so 2 years ago...
|
07-22-2003, 01:02 PM | #8 |
*** Banned ***
Member#: 20189
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York
Vehicle:2002 WRX Sport Wagon Black |
[color=dark blue]L[/color]et's see how they do with a 5 speed.
|
07-22-2003, 03:12 PM | #9 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 33650
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: Lake County
Vehicle:3005 Ford Thundercougarfalconbird |
W ell, I don't know about anyone else, but i think that until they acutally test it, i'm not believing anything.
|
07-22-2003, 03:12 PM | #10 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 5424
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: not where you are...
Vehicle:BRP STi Version 3 Type RA V-Ltd RHD |
darnit, depeche beat me to the post...
|
07-22-2003, 03:15 PM | #11 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 33650
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: Lake County
Vehicle:3005 Ford Thundercougarfalconbird |
lol
|
07-22-2003, 11:17 PM | #12 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 4562
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region:
NWIC
Location: Auburn, WA
Vehicle:2014 Electric Datsun 2005 Adventure van |
PS there is only One R in forester,
(O.k technically there is two but well you get my point!) |
07-23-2003, 12:08 AM | #13 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 20267
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: IL
Vehicle:|'02 GGA WRB| |'03 BH6 PSM | |
hondaslayer
hondaslayer are you being a smartass?
|
07-23-2003, 02:23 PM | #14 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 40512
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NoVA
Vehicle:11 Forester Red Hot |
I have heard several different 0-60 times. One which I found on site which I believe uses computer simulations and I find very hard to believe is 5.25s and another which I feel is a little more realistic which was done in Canada is 6.1s, both for a 5MT.
|
07-23-2003, 05:00 PM | #15 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 36704
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland OR
Vehicle:2004 Forester XT Silver 5-speed |
To abandonhope16: Check carefully the Canadian citation. It's not 0-60 mph in 6.1, it's 0-100 kph in 6.1. That would translate to 0-60 mph in around 5.7 to 5.8 seconds.
Moreover, that was Subaru of Canada's 'official' claim. It's pretty well established that Subaru is very conservative with performance claims, compared to what magazine road-testers are able to obtain. This was true of the WRX, and it evidently is also true of the XT. So, the 5.7-5.8 seconds I noted above became 5.3 seconds in Car & Driver's August road test, and 5.25 in the table you referenced. Those numbers are evidently legitimate. I can't say for sure, because I'm still in the break-in phase with my XT. jb |
07-23-2003, 06:24 PM | #16 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 32371
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: formerly known as mem. # 10615
Vehicle:'02 t-rex wagon platinum |
i knew i shouldn't hav trusted motortrend on anything
|
07-23-2003, 07:30 PM | #17 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 36704
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland OR
Vehicle:2004 Forester XT Silver 5-speed |
Well, to be fair, when M/T gets around to actually road-testing the XT, I'm sure they'll report reasonable numbers. The 8.5-second thing was an oversight.
|
07-24-2003, 12:06 AM | #18 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 39058
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Albuquerque NM
Vehicle:2004 FXT Premium Pkg Sierra Metallic Gold |
oversight?
Oversight? They were off by 60%. That's irresponsible.
|
07-24-2003, 01:13 AM | #19 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 37322
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland OR
Vehicle:2004 Forester XT Silver 5-speed |
Re: oversight?
Nobody's perfect. Car & Driver's illustrious August XT road test apparently contained incorrect MT gear ratios (using ratios from the normal Forester MT, instead of the WRX ratios that the XT actually has). If that weren't bad enough, C&D's tabulated speeds-in-gears at redline were calculated purely from those incorrect ratios, and evidently were not verified by actual observation (which would immediately have revealed that the published ratios could not be correct).
They listed max speed as 129mph at 5900 rpms, but that works out to 21.8 mph/1000 in top gear. The correct value, using the correct 0.738 5th gear ratio instead of 0.78, is closer to 22.8. Therefore, either the published top speed or else the RPM at which it was reached has to be incorrect. Either the engine was turning slightly under 5,700 rpm at a true 129mph, or else the engine actually was turning 5900, but then the true speed would have been about 134. Which is correct? Who knows? The larger question is, how do these discrepancies slip past and get into print? The automotive pros at both C&D and Motor Trend ought to have caught these before publication. The rule of the game when reading published road tests from any source is "Trust - but verify." jb |
07-25-2003, 03:05 PM | #20 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Vehicle:08 Yamaha WR250R 07 Suzuki DL650 |
Whether the gear ratios were correct or not, [speculation]it's possible that the ECU won't let you go faster than 130mph in 5th gear...[/speculation]
|
07-25-2003, 04:56 PM | #21 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 36704
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland OR
Vehicle:2004 Forester XT Silver 5-speed |
I think that's probably true; C&D's test indicated that their XT was governor-limited to 129mph. My only point was that its engine could not have been turning 5900 at that speed.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WRX: 0-60 in 5.6sec, any truth? | Arithmetic | Newbies & FAQs | 12 | 06-13-2004 04:59 AM |
0-60 in new Outback XT? | R32Guy | News & Rumors | 2 | 04-27-2004 02:11 PM |
0-60 for F-XT 4EAT? | d4d4d4d4 | Proven Power Bragging | 0 | 01-01-2004 11:22 PM |
('93-'01) New WRX ads quoting C&D's 5.8 second 0-60 | dcdomain | Impreza Forum | 1 | 06-06-2001 08:57 PM |