WHY does Subaru only offer the forester with 2.5 or 2.5+turbo models here when in Europe - HI mileage - full emissions versions are offered - with smaller engine displacement and radically better mileage. I have asked DEALERS and SUBARAU America - but NOBODY will explain to me WHY?
anybody ?
Make sure you’re comparing apples to apples. The imperial gallon is about 20% larger than a U.S. Gallon, so you have to reduce the mileage of the Euro-spec car by 20% to get an accurate comparison. Also make sure you’re comparing a gas model to gas model. If you compare a gas Subaru to a diesel Subaru, the diesel will get better mileage.
Also it’s worth pointing out that the base model 2 liter Forester in the UK costs the equivalent of about $26,600 USD . The Turbocharged XT mode costs 21,900 pounds or about $35,000. For comparison sake, the base model U.S. spec Forester (2.5L) costs about $20,300 and the XT model costs about $26,500. The multi-thousand dollar price differences in the Euro spec Vs. U.S. model buys alot of fuel.
The real reason though is demand and taxation. In the U.S. we have cheap fuel. People are far more willing to exchange extra power and performance over saving a few MPG. In Europe a car that goes from 0-60 in 9 seconds is considered pretty quick, in the U.S. it’s barely tolerable. Also in the U.S. we are fortunate enough to have government that doesn’t have a hard-on for ridiculous fuel taxation. In Europe fuel is taxed heavily, so it makes sense for the automakers to offer smaller, more efficient engines. We don’t have that problem in the U.S…yet.
BTW I find it comical that someone could come to the conclusion that an AWD wagon that gets a combined 22 MPG is bad. My 4WD vehicle struggles to get 11 MPG.
actually as i said - i’m an engineer- AND
i was comparing Liters-km - converted to MPG using info from subaru SPAIN web site
comparing merely the 2.0 liter version.
the 2.5 STILL sucks compared to the CALCULATED mileage after units conversion.
The Extra-Urban EU cycle is notoriously generous. What is the real-world estimate?
actually my question is getting LOST amid the fresh agendas being posted.
Why does subaru oNLY offer 2.5 amd 2.5 TURBO here - when everywhere else in the WORLD+ there are 1.7 Liter Diesles - and 1.8 and 2 liter gasoline models with superiormileage - as well as the GAS HOG 2.5
THaT was rhe question - is anybody able to speak to THAT ?
or will it be just more opinion ?
It’s all opinion here,my opinion on the engine restriction is that a grand conspiracy exists to force Americans to buy more gas so all that’s offered are “22mpg gas guzzlers”
Really the decisions on what engines to offer a probably made after marketing reasearch with a little production capability and ease of meeting emmision requirements (not just levels of pollutants) but mostly market reasearch. Could a engine be offered that only a few want? I don’t sit in on board meetings.
when gas crosses $4 a gal AGAIN - as it surely will
better mileage will be be desired.
i just want to beat the rush - but no help from Mitsubishi heavy Industries on that
I addressed that very issue in my first response. There is no demand for an extra-high MPG 2 liter Forester in the North American market. The 2.5L model has been determined to be more than frugal enough at the pump for the vast majority of North American Subaru owners. People here would rather have extra power than a few extra MPG.
Furthermore diesels in cars are nearly as popular in the U.S. as they are in other countries. This ties directly into my first post (again). Fuel taxes are such in the U.S. that’s there’s little reason to pony up the extra upfront cost for a diesel. Also the U.S. public is distrusting about diesel cars, our first go-round with them in the early 80’s didn’t go over so well. Of course modern diesels are worlds better than the ones of 30 years ago. But the stigma still remains.
After doing a little research, according to Top Gear Magazine (UK edition), the real world fuel mileage for the petrol 2 liter Forester is 33.6 MPG. Of course this is the imperial gallon, so we will reduce the 33.6 MPG by 20% with leaves use with about 26.88 MPG overall when using the U.S. Gallon. For the 2.5L Forester, the EPA estimates are 20 MPG city and 26 MPG highway. So let’s figure about 23 MPG overall. So there’s about 3 to 4 MPG defense, noticeable, could be an issue in a area with high fuel costs. But again the U.S. it’s not a big enough deal for Subaru to warrant bringing in a 2 liter model to sell here.
speak for yourself. IMHO 15 MPG is quite frugal 
IMHO the Forester(US) with 2.5 is decent coupled to a manual tranny it is not wonderful with an automatic but usable. Have you ever noticed in Europe how many people drive manual tranny’s over automatics? A 2.0L coupled against an automatic would be anemic due to simple lack of torque and not an appealing case for the US.
The 2.0L(albeit turbo) used in the Subaru WRX was absolutely anemic in traffic coupled to Subaru’s automatic transmission which was not really designed to keep a higher strung turbo engine revving optimmaly and failed miserably.
Another reason for 2.0L size beyond economy is many EU countries tax vehichle more heavily with engines larger than the arbitrary 2.0L.
I don’t work for Subaru so I can’t answer the question with facts, just opinion.
We know the certification process in America is stringent and expensive. I figure Subaru only wants to spend money getting engines certified to sell here that will pass the criteria and sell to the US driving public.
Perhaps the Euro versions would need more modifications to pass the US tests? Then if they did pass would they have the power that mfgs’s believe will satisfy the US consumer? When in doubt go with what you know. I think Subaru is playing it safe and bringing the cars into the US it believes will sell.
If US driver’s start measuring performance as high mpg and devalue fast 0 to 60 acceleration perhaps Subaru will sell slower cars that get higher mpg.
While I am a fan of Subarus, nobody has ever accused the normally-aspirated 2.5 liter models of being overpowered. On the contrary, whenever an auto magazine tests a Subie with a 2.5 liter normally-aspirated engine, their kindest description of the engine power is “adequate”. Some say it is inadequate by the standards of the 1990s and beyond.
So, the answer to your question is that Subaru of America has determined that few Americans would be interested in driving one of their vehicles with the smaller engines–and I think that they are correct in that determination. While the OP might not mind driving something that is very “pokey”, that preference is not typical of most Americans.
In the auto industry, it is all about sales and competition. If Subarus were at a major acceleration disadvantage in comparison to their competition, sales would be really anemic, and so I believe that Subaru has made the correct marketing decision regarding their vehicles for the US market.
You might say that Subaru of America should at least offer the smaller engines as an option, but you have to consider that when a company is one of the smaller manufacturers, it is not practical to have too many production variations taking place on the assembly line. Too many variations lead to increased production costs, and this translates into either higher sticker prices or lower profit, and neither of those scenarios is good for a company’s fiscal health.
Incidentally, my first Outback had a normally-aspirated 2.5 liter engine, and while the car was incredibly reliable (it recently passed to its third owner, with over 180k on the odometer), there were times (such as when accelerating onto an interstate highway) when I really wished for greater power.
My present Outback is the 3.0 liter six cylinder, and this engine is very much quieter and smoother, as well as very powerful. And, by driving it in a prudent fashion (most of the time), I find that it achieves only 1 mpg less than my old 4 cylinder Outback! In about a year or so, I will probably buy a 2010 Outback, and I am eyeing the models equipped with the 3.6 liter engine.
In essence, I don’t think that my preferences are very different from most Americans, whereas the OP’s preferences are more in line with those of Europeans.
Perhaps the OP is living on the wrong continent.
;-))