New Subaru Engine for 2011 Forester

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Aside from their AWD system, I don't see any reason why one should consider a NA Subaru over its competition. Their MPG and performance are not class-leading, and their technology is needlessly complex.


That's just it. They stand out because they've perfected the AWD system for this price point and their transmissions seem to go on forever as well. All you see is Subees in real snowy parts of the country.

OTOH, I don't see a point in owning one if you don't see snow.

Joel

 

[dparm]

I agree that Subarus have gotten massive. I drove an 05 Legacy GT wagon and when I see the size of it now...so ridic.

 

[WagonBoss]

I haven't driven one, but I would not want to deal with the 0W20 oil requirement or new design, though I may look one over this weekend. Forester's can be very good values in their class of vehicles.

 

[scurvy]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rshunter
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I wonder if they went to a shared crankpin (3 throws/4 mains) as I would design it (and consider proper and elegant).

3 throws and 4 mains on a 2.5 litre 4 ?
That's pretty innovative

ROFL!
Really?
I dont see the humor, smelly pants.

Draw it. A Shared center crankpin with 2 phased throws at each end requiring 4 main bearings. Engine is still in primary balance. Recall this is just two flat twos attached at the spine and splayed 180deg.

That's a 180° V4, not a boxer engine IIRC.

 

[Tornado Red]

Originally Posted By: dparm
I agree that Subarus have gotten massive. I drove an 05 Legacy GT wagon and when I see the size of it now...so ridic.


Not necessarily ridiculous. The size, the roominess, the AWD, the whole package makes this a very reasonable alternative to a full-size SUV. But MPG in the mid-20s instead of mid-teens.

 

[Thermo1223]

Originally Posted By: WagonBoss
I haven't driven one, but I would not want to deal with the 0W20 oil requirement or new design, though I may look one over this weekend. Forester's can be very good values in their class of vehicles.


I think 0w20 is becoming the norm for fuel economy and longevity(since it has to be synthetic to some point).

The new Mazda 2 has it stamped right on the oil cap. I was trolling around the local dealer yesterday and noticed that right away. GOD what have I become I am looking at every oil cap I see now!

Case in point, that is a 1.5l eco engine in a $15,000 car and they require a synthetic basically.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: scurvy
That's a 180° V4, not a boxer engine IIRC.
No it's a Boxer,flat 180 crank, one opposing pair OUT (COMP/EX) the other pair IN (PWR/INT). Actually I like odd firing in a 4 though, and love 60deg v6. Recall that Chevy 2.8 123456 firing order

I owned a subaru 3 cyl Justy with 240 deg firng but way bad primary balance! Hey you love tha 1 lunger briggs vibe, right?

 

[Eddie]

I thought Timing Belts were a good engineering idea because they use less power and are quieter. The joy disappeared when the dealer wanted $600+ to change the belt at ~ 105,000 miles (I changed it & WP for $230). The whir of a roller chain running in oil was music to my ears in my 1995 Saab. Seems much of the comments here are berating Subaru for the no HP gain. I remind those that it is the area under the torque curve and the flatness that is important for the daily driver and I know of no other 4 cyl that does that better than Subaru. Ed

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: Eddie
I thought Timing Belts were a good engineering idea because they use less power and are quieter. The joy disappeared when the dealer wanted $600+ to change the belt at ~ 105,000 miles (I changed it & WP for $230).


I go back and forth on this. I think I still prefer a chain (and am glad all the cars in my household have chains) but I think if any of them ever failed, I'd probably swing back to liking belts. At least with modern replacement intervals around 105k miles as you say, the expense/inconvenience of TB replacement doesn't come all that often.

At least the Subarus have plenty of space in front of the engine when the time comes to replace the belts. I'd hate to change the TB on either of our transverse 4 cyl FWD cars if they had them!

 

[Eddie]

A good point rationull. However; a maintains item that cost many hundreds of dollars anywhere in the normal life of a vehicle is frowned upon. Now if the replacement interval could be brought up to 160,000 miles or until the engine needed a tear-down for an other issue then OK. My Subaru OEM belt looked new at ~ 100,000 but, supposed statistics suggest that that the belts should be changed at 105,000.

 

[Tornado Red]

I had a broken timing chain on a Saab once, and though I had the damage repaired I should have just gone with a fresh rebuilt engine. But I really didn't consider that until the mechanic had already started working on the old one.

A new timing belt every 100k miles is not that big a deal. The parts are never that expensive, only the labor; and as long as one doesn't throw away money by going to a dealership, even the labor is not that bad. The main thing is to use quality parts and have them installed by someone who knows what he's doing.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: Eddie
A good point rationull. However; a maintains item that cost many hundreds of dollars anywhere in the normal life of a vehicle is frowned upon.


Sure, but there are plenty of these already. Tires, of course, are probably the best example. On some cars brakes will be several hundred dollars as well if you use the dealership for service.

Granted the timing belts on some cars are pretty expensive to replace but I don't see a huge problem with $500 every hundred thousand miles if the system is quiet and reliable in general.

Of course, as I said before, I *am* glad my fleet all have chains

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rshunter
ROFL!
Really?
I dont see the humor, smelly pants.

Draw it. A Shared center crankpin with 2 phased throws at each end requiring 4 main bearings. Engine is still in primary balance. Recall this is just two flat twos attached at the spine and splayed 180deg.

Unless I'm visualizing it wrong, what you're describing is basically an inline-four, with cylinders 1 and 4 rotated 180-degrees from their normal position. You then end up with a block shaped something like an "M". That means an engine (and crankshaft) that is unnecessarily long, compared to a "boxer", as well as the weight that comes with it. Plus, you've got that large gap between what would have been cylinders 1 and 4. That's going to take a lot of material for structural reinforcement of the block.

Not to mention the fact that you end up with an absurdly long center crankpin, for what would have been cylinders 2 and 3. Unless you plan to use special con-rods that will allow an offset between the crankpin and wristpin, that is. In that case, you have bearing loadings that I don't even want to contemplate. There is a reason that the inline-four standardized on the five-bearing four-throw design some time ago...

 

[Shannow]

Yep, can't visualise the geometry being particulary advantageous.

Saves maybe 2-1/2 to 3" total crankshaft length, and reduces the rigidity and support (beam strength MY/I) of the crank by at least 50%, probably closer to 60% on the centre two cylinders.

Looking at a subie block, I don't think that they will be able to use that 2-3" anyway.

Could do a much stiffer 3 bearing job using a crank like the old BMC A series engines...

But no-one has made cranks like that for ages...for genuine reason....and still can't get the bores that much closer to make a signinficantly shorter engine, albeit less stiff.

 

[rshunter]

Heh, the BMC A was just the engine I was thinking of...

 

[Shannow]

Here, hold my walking frame, I need to mop up some oil.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here, hold my walking frame, I need to mop up some oil.

ARCOgraphite isn't going to like it, but this gets another ROFL!!!

 

[ethangsmith]

We've had plenty of questions at the dealership about the 11 Forester 2.5. We've also had plenty of sales! Since I work in parts, we are closely watching the new design engines for failures or premature wear so we will know what to stock. The 0W20 FULLY synthetic oil must be used in this engine. Subaru now also will require 5W30 FULLY synthetic oil for ALL turbocharged 2010 and newer engines and highly recommends it for all 2009 and older turbocharged engines. We've had a few instances of people going too long on conventional oil between changes and the turbocharger failing due to clogging of the banjo bolt filters and oil feed lines.
The new design 2.5 is supposed to be the eventual replacement in all 4 cylinder Subarus. It also takes a different oil filter than the current 2.5. It is a 6 cylinder type filter with an additional valve inside it. Chances are Subaru will eventually make the 6 cylinder and "2011 Forester 4 cylinder" filters the same and use 1 part number.

 

[rshunter]

Have you heard anything at all about the EE diesel?

 

[ethangsmith]

If anything is in the works, we have not heard anything about it. There are people asking about it, but there is no information or rumors of it actually happening.