The new FB engines are the first major top to bottom engine design done by subaru since like the mid 90's. These new engines no doubt are designed with the intention to work with DI tech in the future - no the 2.5 is not going anyplace. If anything the 2.5 FB with various new tech added to it may replace the old 3.6 if the fuel cost and EPA fuel games push Subaru hard enough they need to find added fleet mileage by dumping the older 3.6
is the 2.5i and 3.6r on the way out?
While I am waiting for a buyer of my truck, I have been researching my options for a new vehicle. The 2014 Forester not only looks like a possible option, I cant help but think that the NA 2.0 will replace the 2.5i and the 2.0T to replace the 3.6r.
Do you think buying a 2013 Outback would be a mistake? Is the 2.0 the new and better option of engines? I don't know enough about the 2.5i and 3.6r to know if they have run their course and on the way out or are 2.5i and 3.6r Subaru's version of the Chevy 350 that will be around for another 10+ years?
I understand that most people will not know for sure so I am open to speculation and SWAG's (systematic wild a$$ Guess).
Do you think buying a 2013 Outback would be a mistake? Is the 2.0 the new and better option of engines? I don't know enough about the 2.5i and 3.6r to know if they have run their course and on the way out or are 2.5i and 3.6r Subaru's version of the Chevy 350 that will be around for another 10+ years?
I understand that most people will not know for sure so I am open to speculation and SWAG's (systematic wild a$$ Guess).
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Depends on the time frame you have in mind when you say "-on the way out." Long term, almost certainly. The handwriting is on the wall, an it's written in the laws of physics. Smaller displacement engines are winning the battle, because every cubic inch of that displacement has to be filled with fuel-air mixture, once all the lean burn and valving tricks are applied. After four decades of refinement in passenger cars (beginning in the 1970's in SAABs), the turbocharger has been proven a workable expedient to provide power on tap in small displacement four-cylinder engines that will provide equivalent performance to a six, but that power is only being paid for when passing or another demand situation, while the larger engine must burn more fuel by design.
So- the answer to the question is that current designs like the Subaru 2.5i and 3.6r probably aren't going anywhere until the end of the manufacturer's intended life cycle....but, yes, they are going, and will likely be replaced by a generation of smaller turbocharged engines.
To see the future in the U.S., I suggest you subscribe to Green Car Congress, a newsletter that covers automotive change worldwide. What's going on in Japan and Europe will almost inevitably come here as the cost of fuel relentlessly ratchets up side by side with the emissions regulations.
So- the answer to the question is that current designs like the Subaru 2.5i and 3.6r probably aren't going anywhere until the end of the manufacturer's intended life cycle....but, yes, they are going, and will likely be replaced by a generation of smaller turbocharged engines.
To see the future in the U.S., I suggest you subscribe to Green Car Congress, a newsletter that covers automotive change worldwide. What's going on in Japan and Europe will almost inevitably come here as the cost of fuel relentlessly ratchets up side by side with the emissions regulations.
No doubt, future drive trains will involve diesel, hybrid, and pure electric options. But it won't come overnight.
I'd say that if you want a 3.6, and don't have an acute need to buy a new car right now, then wait for a 2.0t. But if you are leaning towards the 2.5, then it may be a while before there is another alternative.
I'd say that if you want a 3.6, and don't have an acute need to buy a new car right now, then wait for a 2.0t. But if you are leaning towards the 2.5, then it may be a while before there is another alternative.
The 3.6 isn't that old, and there aren't that many around. I really don't see Subaru pulling the plug so fast. I think they'll take another swing at a big Subaru powered by the 3.6 before they give up.
Minivan, pickup or perhaps both from a common new platform? (Yeah that would be weird, but appropriate for Subaru)
Minivan, pickup or perhaps both from a common new platform? (Yeah that would be weird, but appropriate for Subaru)
Given their failures with this that cost them big in recent years I highly doubt Subaru has any reason to offer any of the above. Not to mention their sales increase in just the past couple of years shows that they can easily do very good business without competing with other FAR FAR FAR larger automakers who have FAR LARGER resources to design and build the larger vehicles.The 3.6 isn't that old, and there aren't that many around. I really don't see Subaru pulling the plug so fast. I think they'll take another swing at a big Subaru powered by the 3.6 before they give up.
Minivan, pickup or perhaps both from a common new platform? (Yeah that would be weird, but appropriate for Subaru)
If they ever did offer something in the 7 pass + space I would fully expect it to be in partnership with toyota using toyota running gear and possibly engine to address the size and durability factor that current subaru tech simply can't scale to. Hence why I never see Subaru offering such things at least for the next 5yrs which subaru is in a good spot and clearly selling cars very well.
I will say that when I was shopping for a new car this last fall, and settled on the 3.6R, I was REALLY wishing Subaru had a 2.0t for the OB. If you drive an X3 or a Allroad, you quickly see the appeal of a motor with boatloads of torque without the bad mileage of the the 3.6. Of course, the cost of acquiring the BMW or Audi quickly overwhelms the mileage advantage they offer, so I bought the 3.6R SAP. But if Subaru had a 2.0t along side the 3.6R I would not have even considered the 3.6.
I do think the 3.6 days are numbered in the OB, but then I'm not an automotive product planner so who knows.
I do think the 3.6 days are numbered in the OB, but then I'm not an automotive product planner so who knows.
I would be willing to bet the next OB will have a 4 banger Turbo option instead of the six. The FB 2.5 and 2.0 will get DI. I would hope Subaru could squeeze another 10 HP and 10 LBS of TQ from the 2.5 and the 2.0 that really needs more oomph.
Makes senseI would be willing to bet the next OB will have a 4 banger Turbo option instead of the six. The FB 2.5 and 2.0 will get DI. I would hope Subaru could squeeze another 10 HP and 10 LBS of TQ from the 2.5 and the 2.0 that really needs more oomph.
There will always be a thin line between HP and cost of added items like Turbos in all the auto makers line up.
There are lots of very good reasons people will go to great lengths to avoid a turbo engine for their particular vehicle need. As such all Auto makers need to offer a functional vehicle which can get the job done that does not rely on turbo tech. Having said that even just DI tech added to the 2.5 and boosting the HP to 185hp would be a very big improvement to the OB and even other models in Subarus line up with very little impact on mileage.
Or the age old trick of low boost turbos which more or less have a longer life and might allow the company to tune an engine to offer enough performance difference to attract people without suffering a big impact on reliability. Chrysler not long ago learned this one the hard way nearly every offering as sold with turbo power. LOL
It can be done the right way for the right use - or the wrong way for the wrong use and be a big failure. Turbo 4banger minivan? REALLY LOL Thanks Chrysler
One thing is for sure once fleet mileage impacts automakers set by the GOV of course the large engines will fade into history. 3.6L engine is a big engine when you consider that Mercedes has a 6000lb 7 passenger vehicle rated to tow over 7000lbs that comes in a 3.2L CDI engine putting out around 340hp. Not to mention more or less matches the 3.6 OB in mileage.
I don't think Subaru is going to chuck either engine. It simply costs too much to integrate the 2.0L initially into a lot of vehicle lines.
The limit for the 2.0L is high. BMW ran a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder in the 70's in F1 which put out huge power.
Variable valve timing, direct injection, turbo with intercooler should push the 2.0L to significant hp and torque values which achieving terrific fuel economy.
Tuning plays a large role in this since you don't tune the OB for the same parameters as you do the WRXi.
I would guess that this engine could pull 10% fuel mileage improvement over the current 2.5L which would put it into the 30's someplace.
All conjecture but I am certainly interested in the 2.0L turbo and plan to check the Forester out before ordering a 14 OB this summer...
The limit for the 2.0L is high. BMW ran a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder in the 70's in F1 which put out huge power.
Variable valve timing, direct injection, turbo with intercooler should push the 2.0L to significant hp and torque values which achieving terrific fuel economy.
Tuning plays a large role in this since you don't tune the OB for the same parameters as you do the WRXi.
I would guess that this engine could pull 10% fuel mileage improvement over the current 2.5L which would put it into the 30's someplace.
All conjecture but I am certainly interested in the 2.0L turbo and plan to check the Forester out before ordering a 14 OB this summer...
I don't see the turbo or the 2.0 coming anytime soon to the Outback.
Regarding the turbo:
1. They already had it. And dropped it.
2. Most people that buy Outbacks aren't looking for "sporty" so the turbo name has zero cachet.
3. 93 octane gas requirements suck. The turbo motors need premium... or they knock. 91 works (most of the time) but 87 ain't gonna happen.
Regarding the n/a 2.0:
1. 140 hp. Drive a lighter Impreza with the 2.0 and see how it accelerates... about equal to a 2.5i Outback. No one, not even me, wants a slower Outback. Most prospective Outback buyers don't want a smaller one, either. So it's not going to shed a bunch of weight.
2. Redesigned 2.5 engine is already in place. In both the Outback (now) and the Forester (since the last redesign.) It works, people generally are OK with it, no reason to go smaller.
Here's my take on the Subaru line:
So in the Impreza line, yes, the 2.5 is gone. No need in the super econobox.
In the Forester line, looks a choice between the 2.5 or the 2.0t for that. The 3.6 would be pretty nice... but wouldn't fit very well. The 2.0 likely drops right in with room to spare. The 2.5 make decent power, and the CVT is an improvement.
For the Crosstrek XV... Drove one... Really could use a bigger motor. Or a turbo. Not WRX level, but **** is it pokey. My slow 2.5 Outback never bothers me, but the Impreza platform is lighter and can handle a bit better power to weight ratio.
For the Tribeca: who cares. No one buys Tribecas anyways,
For the BRZ, they're going to turbocharge it... after Scion releases a supercharged FR-S that blows its doors off and embarrasses it. I think they are waiting because they don't want to compete with the WRX.
WRX and STI: Hopefully a shift to the newer Impreza platform rather than just dropping them. I would guess a 2.0T, especially they already have one to stuff into Forester XTs. I think the 2.5T, while it was good, has run it's course.
Regarding the turbo:
1. They already had it. And dropped it.
2. Most people that buy Outbacks aren't looking for "sporty" so the turbo name has zero cachet.
3. 93 octane gas requirements suck. The turbo motors need premium... or they knock. 91 works (most of the time) but 87 ain't gonna happen.
Regarding the n/a 2.0:
1. 140 hp. Drive a lighter Impreza with the 2.0 and see how it accelerates... about equal to a 2.5i Outback. No one, not even me, wants a slower Outback. Most prospective Outback buyers don't want a smaller one, either. So it's not going to shed a bunch of weight.
2. Redesigned 2.5 engine is already in place. In both the Outback (now) and the Forester (since the last redesign.) It works, people generally are OK with it, no reason to go smaller.
Here's my take on the Subaru line:
So in the Impreza line, yes, the 2.5 is gone. No need in the super econobox.
In the Forester line, looks a choice between the 2.5 or the 2.0t for that. The 3.6 would be pretty nice... but wouldn't fit very well. The 2.0 likely drops right in with room to spare. The 2.5 make decent power, and the CVT is an improvement.
For the Crosstrek XV... Drove one... Really could use a bigger motor. Or a turbo. Not WRX level, but **** is it pokey. My slow 2.5 Outback never bothers me, but the Impreza platform is lighter and can handle a bit better power to weight ratio.
For the Tribeca: who cares. No one buys Tribecas anyways,
For the BRZ, they're going to turbocharge it... after Scion releases a supercharged FR-S that blows its doors off and embarrasses it. I think they are waiting because they don't want to compete with the WRX.
WRX and STI: Hopefully a shift to the newer Impreza platform rather than just dropping them. I would guess a 2.0T, especially they already have one to stuff into Forester XTs. I think the 2.5T, while it was good, has run it's course.
The tribeca was a failure so many times over that I think the only reason it sold at all was because people wanted a big Subaru.Given their failures with this that cost them big in recent years I highly doubt Subaru has any reason to offer any of the above. Not to mention their sales increase in just the past couple of years shows that they can easily do very good business without competing with other FAR FAR FAR larger automakers who have FAR LARGER resources to design and build the larger vehicles.
If they ever did offer something in the 7 pass + space I would fully expect it to be in partnership with toyota using toyota running gear and possibly engine to address the size and durability factor that current subaru tech simply can't scale to. Hence why I never see Subaru offering such things at least for the next 5yrs which subaru is in a good spot and clearly selling cars very well.
Everyone hated the name, the styling was viciously panned- hard to beat the Edsel horse collar but they did it! Though big it needed to be bigger, and the MPG was not so hot. With this flock of albatrosses around its neck, they still managed to sell some. I think the demand is there. They have the Exiga for the JDM market but its just too small for the USA, never mind the 3rd row location problem.
I hadn't considered the Toyota angle but that's a great point.
... I cant help but think that the NA 2.0 will replace the 2.5i and
the 2.0T to replace the 3.6r.
Do you think buying a 2013 Outback would be a mistake?
Official Straight Skinny: The 2025 Turbo-Solar OB will be awesome!
...Our Lady Of Perpetual Anticipation, pray for us,
Looby
The 2.0 in the Impreza and XV is 148hp. As far as the application in the Impreza, it borders on being adequate/underpowered. On top of that it has a whiney sound to it that for me (because I had one) was annoying. Timing chain noise I have been told. To top it off, real world fuel economy for me was no better than my 10 Outback. I like the FB motor updates on paper but my last generation updated EJ motor in my 10 Outback is sweet. I do like the 2nd gen CVT very nice but after driving Honda's new CVT it is a more refined IMO.I don't see the turbo or the 2.0 coming anytime soon to the Outback.
Regarding the turbo:
1. They already had it. And dropped it.
2. Most people that buy Outbacks aren't looking for "sporty" so the turbo name has zero cachet.
3. 93 octane gas requirements suck. The turbo motors need premium... or they knock. 91 works (most of the time) but 87 ain't gonna happen.
Regarding the n/a 2.0:
1. 140 hp. Drive a lighter Impreza with the 2.0 and see how it accelerates... about equal to a 2.5i Outback. No one, not even me, wants a slower Outback. Most prospective Outback buyers don't want a smaller one, either. So it's not going to shed a bunch of weight.
2. Redesigned 2.5 engine is already in place. In both the Outback (now) and the Forester (since the last redesign.) It works, people generally are OK with it, no reason to go smaller.
Here's my take on the Subaru line:
So in the Impreza line, yes, the 2.5 is gone. No need in the super econobox.
In the Forester line, looks a choice between the 2.5 or the 2.0t for that. The 3.6 would be pretty nice... but wouldn't fit very well. The 2.0 likely drops right in with room to spare. The 2.5 make decent power, and the CVT is an improvement.
For the Crosstrek XV... Drove one... Really could use a bigger motor. Or a turbo. Not WRX level, but **** is it pokey. My slow 2.5 Outback never bothers me, but the Impreza platform is lighter and can handle a bit better power to weight ratio.
For the Tribeca: who cares. No one buys Tribecas anyways,
For the BRZ, they're going to turbocharge it... after Scion releases a supercharged FR-S that blows its doors off and embarrasses it. I think they are waiting because they don't want to compete with the WRX.
WRX and STI: Hopefully a shift to the newer Impreza platform rather than just dropping them. I would guess a 2.0T, especially they already have one to stuff into Forester XTs. I think the 2.5T, while it was good, has run it's course.
Premium in the new (2014) Forester 2.0T is only recommended, not required.I don't see the turbo or the 2.0 coming anytime soon to the Outback.
Regarding the turbo:
1. They already had it. And dropped it.
2. Most people that buy Outbacks aren't looking for "sporty" so the turbo name has zero cachet.
3. 93 octane gas requirements suck. The turbo motors need premium... or they knock. 91 works (most of the time) but 87 ain't gonna happen.
Any current production turbo vehicle from any manufacturer can easily be made to run any grade of fuel*. All engines have knock sensors, and these will change the engine parameters so that they'll run 87 RON fuel fine, even if the manufacturer recommends premium, albeit at some lower performance level. In our car (see sig), we've never run anything but 89 RON midgrade (have drive it 115K so far, 137K total, everything is running fine), although the manual recommends 93 RON gas. Neither of us can tell the difference in performance.
*It is true that not all vehicle are set up to do this; some manufacturers set up engines to perform so that running grades of fuel other than premium is a no-no, but these will state "premium required."
I think reddoak has the best summation.
The 3.6 won't be brought into new platforms. Mostly because it just won't fit. Also because those platforms can do well and take advantage of a turbo power on demand. The XT sells well enough in the Forester, so there is demand. The XT didn't sell in the OB for the above stated reasons.
I think an Legacy GT Turbo Wagon would be an ideal combination, but they couldn't even keep the turbo alive in the Legacy, and we all know how well "wagons" sell in the US.
I think the 3.6 will hang around for quite a while in the OB because there are too many people that wouldn't trade it for a Turbo. Low end is a big concern there IMO. They don't sell enough for it to impact their CAFE. Especially when you factor in the much more efficient Forester. It's a good engine, and they'll keep the tech around just in case they decide to try and enter the bigger SUV market (or until the OB evolves into a big SUV).
The 3.6 won't be brought into new platforms. Mostly because it just won't fit. Also because those platforms can do well and take advantage of a turbo power on demand. The XT sells well enough in the Forester, so there is demand. The XT didn't sell in the OB for the above stated reasons.
I think an Legacy GT Turbo Wagon would be an ideal combination, but they couldn't even keep the turbo alive in the Legacy, and we all know how well "wagons" sell in the US.
I think the 3.6 will hang around for quite a while in the OB because there are too many people that wouldn't trade it for a Turbo. Low end is a big concern there IMO. They don't sell enough for it to impact their CAFE. Especially when you factor in the much more efficient Forester. It's a good engine, and they'll keep the tech around just in case they decide to try and enter the bigger SUV market (or until the OB evolves into a big SUV).
I can tell you from experience from my 2 STIs that you can run sub-premium fuel... but stay out of boost entirely. My '07 in particular would ping and knock in high gears in boost, even on 93 octane, when it was bone stock. And knock sensors are there, it's true. And the ECU will pull timing, that's true also... but the car will knock and ping its way right into a broken ring landing despite that. Relying on a knock sensor is like relying on a low oil pressure idiot light, by the time it does something, it's too late anyways. Perhaps (and hopefully) the 2.0T will be more forgiving, but running less than premium in turbo 2.5 was an expensive way to save money.Premium in the new (2014) Forester 2.0T is only recommended, not required.
Any current production turbo vehicle from any manufacturer can easily be made to run any grade of fuel*. All engines have knock sensors, and these will change the engine parameters so that they'll run 87 RON fuel fine, even if the manufacturer recommends premium, albeit at some lower performance level. In our car (see sig), we've never run anything but 89 RON midgrade (have drive it 115K so far, 137K total, everything is running fine), although the manual recommends 93 RON gas. Neither of us can tell the difference in performance.
*It is true that not all vehicle are set up to do this; some manufacturers set up engines to perform so that running grades of fuel other than premium is a no-no, but these will state "premium required."
Some cars and engines are more forgiving than others. The engine in the STI... not very forgiving at all.
I am willing to bet they got it right this time. As long as they honor VIP pricing and give me GTP for my Legacy I am ready to order an XT as soon as they begin accepting them.Premium in the new (2014) Forester 2.0T is only recommended, not required.
Any current production turbo vehicle from any manufacturer can easily be made to run any grade of fuel*. All engines have knock sensors, and these will change the engine parameters so that they'll run 87 RON fuel fine, even if the manufacturer recommends premium, albeit at some lower performance level. In our car (see sig), we've never run anything but 89 RON midgrade (have drive it 115K so far, 137K total, everything is running fine), although the manual recommends 93 RON gas. Neither of us can tell the difference in performance.
*It is true that not all vehicle are set up to do this; some manufacturers set up engines to perform so that running grades of fuel other than premium is a no-no, but these will state "premium required."
I would not have even considered the Outback with any 4. I already have a Civic Ex I have to rev the bejezus out of to keep up with DC area traffic.
For what it's worth, newer Turbo engines are running Regular 87 octane just fine. I know a few people with the V6 Ecoboost engines that call for regular. Twin turbo helps it have quick spooling off idle vs my old 2002 WRX that needed to be kept up in the rev bands.
For what it's worth, newer Turbo engines are running Regular 87 octane just fine. I know a few people with the V6 Ecoboost engines that call for regular. Twin turbo helps it have quick spooling off idle vs my old 2002 WRX that needed to be kept up in the rev bands.
From what I have seen they will be releasing a supercharged BRZ and FRS at the same time. It will be a small centrifugal supercharger with around 8psi likley. This should get it over 240 HP. From what I understand there is no turbo planned for the BRZ. My guess is that they will keep it as simple as possible. It is a simple enthusiast car. I see quick spooling low lag superchargers being the next wave rather than turbos. The WRX will stick with a turbo, but a lot of other cars will end up with superchargersI don't see the turbo or the 2.0 coming anytime soon to the Outback.
Regarding the turbo:
1. They already had it. And dropped it.
2. Most people that buy Outbacks aren't looking for "sporty" so the turbo name has zero cachet.
3. 93 octane gas requirements suck. The turbo motors need premium... or they knock. 91 works (most of the time) but 87 ain't gonna happen.
Regarding the n/a 2.0:
1. 140 hp. Drive a lighter Impreza with the 2.0 and see how it accelerates... about equal to a 2.5i Outback. No one, not even me, wants a slower Outback. Most prospective Outback buyers don't want a smaller one, either. So it's not going to shed a bunch of weight.
2. Redesigned 2.5 engine is already in place. In both the Outback (now) and the Forester (since the last redesign.) It works, people generally are OK with it, no reason to go smaller.
Here's my take on the Subaru line:
So in the Impreza line, yes, the 2.5 is gone. No need in the super econobox.
In the Forester line, looks a choice between the 2.5 or the 2.0t for that. The 3.6 would be pretty nice... but wouldn't fit very well. The 2.0 likely drops right in with room to spare. The 2.5 make decent power, and the CVT is an improvement.
For the Crosstrek XV... Drove one... Really could use a bigger motor. Or a turbo. Not WRX level, but **** is it pokey. My slow 2.5 Outback never bothers me, but the Impreza platform is lighter and can handle a bit better power to weight ratio.
For the Tribeca: who cares. No one buys Tribecas anyways,
For the BRZ, they're going to turbocharge it... after Scion releases a supercharged FR-S that blows its doors off and embarrasses it. I think they are waiting because they don't want to compete with the WRX.
WRX and STI: Hopefully a shift to the newer Impreza platform rather than just dropping them. I would guess a 2.0T, especially they already have one to stuff into Forester XTs. I think the 2.5T, while it was good, has run it's course.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Subaru Outback Forums
Welcome to the Subaru Outback Owners Forum, we have tons of information about your Subaru Outback, from a Subaru Outback Wiki to customer reviews.
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
