Subaru Outback Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the 2013 model year Subaru began using a different engine in its Outback than in previous models. Among the changes to the engine was a small bump in horsepower and torque. It may be too early to ask but, does anyone that may have had a chance to evaluate both Outback engines notice a difference in performance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,819 Posts
A change in font size might be in order.
The FB/FJ difference is not so much a performance difference but a maintenance difference.
The FB timing chain is better than a FJ timing belt. Head gasket design is improved too. The FB also gets a bit better mpg .
 

·
Registered
2013 Legacy Lim CVT Car: 2011 OB Prem 6MT Car: 2006 Miata GT 6MT mc: 2003 Honda GL1800A * Reunite Gondwanaland *
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
...does anyone that may have had a chance to evaluate both
Outback engines notice a difference in performance?
Uhh, a 1.7% horsepower difference should have the same
performance effect as a 60 lb weight difference. That's 8-9
gallons of gasoline....

...or cleaning (some of) the junk out of the back seat,

Looby
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
With the change to the bore and stroke (from very over square to more square) I wanted to know if a low and mid range torque improvement was noticeable.
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
Maybe poke around the Forester boards- they got the FB engine sooner, more time to comment about it.
 

·
Registered
2013 Limited w/EyeSight
Joined
·
352 Posts
With the 2013 model year Subaru began using a different engine in its Outback than in previous models. Among the changes to the engine was a small bump in horsepower and torque. It may be too early to ask but, does anyone that may have had a chance to evaluate both Outback engines notice a difference in performance?
No need to shout!

I have 2013 with FB, mother in law the EJ in a year old Limited much the same except EyeSight. For the most part I have to look under the hood to really tell a difference.

Handling is a much bigger difference.
 

·
Registered
2013 Legacy Lim CVT Car: 2011 OB Prem 6MT Car: 2006 Miata GT 6MT mc: 2003 Honda GL1800A * Reunite Gondwanaland *
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
I wanted to know if a low and mid range torque improvement was noticeable.
Peak power and torque increased by 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively,
while displacement increased by 1.7% (2.457 versus 2.498 liters).
So, 'improvement' in specific output (hp per liter) is less than 0.1%.

The new engine's torque peak actually moved 100 rpm higher, so
it seems extremely unlikely that the new torque curve has been
moved toward the low and mid rpm range.

All new!!! ...but essentially unchanged,

Looby
 

·
Registered
2013 Outback 2.5 Premium 6mt
Joined
·
187 Posts
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the FB25 is very easy to perform maintenance on, if you do your own maintenance.
 

·
Registered
2013 Limited w/EyeSight
Joined
·
352 Posts
With the change to the bore and stroke (from very over square to more square) I wanted to know if a low and mid range torque improvement was noticeable.
Driving the two in our family have me thinking the CVT programming is more obvious than engine design when it comes to these two.
 

·
Registered
2002 Outback Wagon 2.5L Auto Weather Package
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
...a 60 lb weight difference...

...or cleaning (some of) the junk out of the back seat
You keep over 60 lbs of junk in your back seat? Is this a new form of hoarding? :D

Forget HP numbers and curves, I wonder if the responsiveness of the engine has changed. Not that mine is horribly unresponsive, but the way an engine responds to throttle input is about as important on the street as anything.
 

·
Registered
2013 Legacy Lim CVT Car: 2011 OB Prem 6MT Car: 2006 Miata GT 6MT mc: 2003 Honda GL1800A * Reunite Gondwanaland *
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
You keep over 60 lbs of junk in your back seat?
Don't take the dogs to the drag races. ...or the Outback.

the way an engine responds to throttle input is about as
important on the street as anything.
More than anything else, throttle response depends on
gear selection.

...in a hurry? DOWNSHIFT!

Looby
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Peak power and torque increased by 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively,
while displacement increased by 1.7% (2.457 versus 2.498 liters).
So, 'improvement' in specific output (hp per liter) is less than 0.1%.

The new engine's torque peak actually moved 100 rpm higher, so
it seems extremely unlikely that the new torque curve has been
moved toward the low and mid rpm range.

All new!!! ...but essentially unchanged,

Looby


Which engine (the short or long stroke) would you say would have the better performance numbers?
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
From Looby's post, it's right there- the FB is about 2% better in the numbers department.

That's a really tiny difference. I would not use it as criteria to choose between the two, as there are plenty of other factors to choose from.
 

·
Registered
2013 Legacy Lim CVT Car: 2011 OB Prem 6MT Car: 2006 Miata GT 6MT mc: 2003 Honda GL1800A * Reunite Gondwanaland *
Joined
·
3,567 Posts
Which engine (the short or long stroke) would you say
would have the better performance numbers?
The one with less fuel in the tank or fewer dogs in the wayback.

...performance = power/weight = languid/portly,

Looby
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
The real news with the FB engine is the reduced maintenance costs. I just did a bit of back-of-envelope math.

Depending on your definition of a "timing belt job," the FB will be between 0.5 and 1 cent per mile cheaper to operate as it uses a permanent chain instead.

If the FB has no head gasket issues over its life, that's another cent, maybe cent and a half cheaper.

Also a base-model 2013 (with FB engine) is about 40lbs lighter than a 2012 (EJ)
 

·
Registered
2013 Outback 2.5 Premium 6mt
Joined
·
187 Posts
I bet the biggest advantages with show up in a year or two. I bet the FB25 will get direct injection and other goodies which will bump up the power levels even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I was surprised the EJ to FB change didn't include DI. I wonder if the current head geometry can't incorporate DI?
 

·
Registered
2013 Outback 2.5 Premium 6mt
Joined
·
187 Posts
I was surprised the EJ to FB change didn't include DI. I wonder if the current head geometry can't incorporate DI?
My opinion is that it will be a selling point for future models. Subaru gets a double bonus by waiting for DI. They get to see how the FB25's quality is for a couple more years plus they will be able to use DI as a sales tactic.
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
I think they're just taking their time to make sure the EGR & PCV systems don't turn DI into a big headache like it did for all those BMWs and Audis.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top