Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Premium Or Regular Gas ?
824 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob
May 29, 2013, 3:40:21 PM5/29/13
to
Hi,
Thinking of a new Forester, or possibly an 2014 Outback when they become
available.
I read something regarding that
the Forester is recommended for Premium gas "for optimal performance" by
Subaru.
Huh ?
Don't the Forester and Outback use just the plain "Regular" gas ?
Details would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
Thinking of a new Forester, or possibly an 2014 Outback when they become
available.
I read something regarding that
the Forester is recommended for Premium gas "for optimal performance" by
Subaru.
Huh ?
Don't the Forester and Outback use just the plain "Regular" gas ?
Details would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
Frank
May 29, 2013, 4:13:58 PM5/29/13
to
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2014/features-specs.html?style=&sub=
John McGaw
May 29, 2013, 5:55:24 PM5/29/13
to
On 5/29/2013 3:40 PM, Bob wrote:
it up right now but I'm sure that there are dozens of articles about it online.
Patty Winter
May 29, 2013, 6:39:40 PM5/29/13
to
In article <ko5lck$e41$1...@dont-email.me>, Bob <rgs...@notme.invalid> wrote:
>
>I read something regarding that
>the Forester is recommended for Premium gas "for optimal performance" by
>Subaru.
If not, did you check that site? The information there seems very clear:
Fuel requirement: Unleaded gasoline (87 octane)
Also Standard on: 2.5i Premium, 2.5i Limited, 2.5i Touring
Fuel requirement: Premium unleaded gasoline (91 octane). 93 octane recommended.
Standard on: 2.0XT Premium, 2.0XT Touring
Patty
cl...@snyder.on.ca
May 29, 2013, 10:31:01 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:55:24 -0400, John McGaw <Nob...@Nowh.ere>
wrote:
MOST turbos DEMAND premium fuel.
wrote:
Davoud
May 30, 2013, 1:55:35 AM5/30/13
to
Bob:
On the inside of the gas-filler door on my 2014 Forester 2.0XT (turbo)
Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know
about the non-turbo. It's something I considered before I bought my new
Forester in March. This is not an inexpensive vehicle to operate, but
we all rationalize. My rationale was this is my occasional hauler,
while my daily driver is still a Prius. And that's true. My wife and I
drove the Forester a lot for the first couple of weeks or so, but once
the new-car novelty wore off we went back to the Prius as our main ride
for everything except the big trips to the home center and the garden
center (I'm a woodworker, we have two acres of
yard/trees/flowers/shrubbery surrounding our home, and I have several
astronomical telescopes and mounts to carry about from time to time.) I
off-road and back-road occasionally--not often--in my other life as a
nature photographer We have three other cars--Acura, Toyota Avalon, and
the '92 Miata that I bought new and that has 45,000 miles on it.
On a recent trip to my home town in Pennsylvania I bought mid-grade
petrol before making the 250-mile trip home to eastern Maryland because
the station where I filled up--which is owned by a friend of mine, so
it's the only place in town where I fill up--does not sell premium
fuel. There is too little demand for it in my small, economically poor
hometown. The Forester ran just fine on mid-grade petrol.
We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation
displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but
other than that it is been great over the past two months. Hard seats
and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we
expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by
it. My aged mother-in-law likes it for the high seating position and
lots of glass, and says she is not bothered by the rough ride.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know
about the non-turbo. It's something I considered before I bought my new
Forester in March. This is not an inexpensive vehicle to operate, but
we all rationalize. My rationale was this is my occasional hauler,
while my daily driver is still a Prius. And that's true. My wife and I
drove the Forester a lot for the first couple of weeks or so, but once
the new-car novelty wore off we went back to the Prius as our main ride
for everything except the big trips to the home center and the garden
center (I'm a woodworker, we have two acres of
yard/trees/flowers/shrubbery surrounding our home, and I have several
astronomical telescopes and mounts to carry about from time to time.) I
off-road and back-road occasionally--not often--in my other life as a
nature photographer We have three other cars--Acura, Toyota Avalon, and
the '92 Miata that I bought new and that has 45,000 miles on it.
On a recent trip to my home town in Pennsylvania I bought mid-grade
petrol before making the 250-mile trip home to eastern Maryland because
the station where I filled up--which is owned by a friend of mine, so
it's the only place in town where I fill up--does not sell premium
fuel. There is too little demand for it in my small, economically poor
hometown. The Forester ran just fine on mid-grade petrol.
We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation
displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but
other than that it is been great over the past two months. Hard seats
and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we
expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by
it. My aged mother-in-law likes it for the high seating position and
lots of glass, and says she is not bothered by the rough ride.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Patty Winter
May 30, 2013, 12:08:23 PM5/30/13
to
In article <300520130155351106%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>
>On the inside of the gas-filler door on my 2014 Forester 2.0XT (turbo)
>Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know
>about the non-turbo.
XT models require premium. I'm still curious where the OP read
that premium gas is recommended for all Foresters.
Even my Porsche would have run on regular had it not been a turbo.
Take away the turbo, and it's just an ordinary 2.5l four-banger.
Well, maybe not ordinary. :-) It's amazing what good engineers can
do with small engines... :-)
>We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation
>displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but
>other than that it is been great over the past two months.
but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.
I plan to buy an aftermarket nav system from Crutchfield, and they
also sell backup cameras--sometimes they even throw them in for free
with the purchase of a nav system.
>Hard seats
>and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we
>expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by
>it.
the Legacy platform as the Outback is?
Patty
Davoud
May 30, 2013, 3:00:53 PM5/30/13
to
Davoud:
the main nav display. Please see the link to the pathetic nave display
in my upcoming post.
> I plan to buy an aftermarket nav system from Crutchfield, and they
> also sell backup cameras--sometimes they even throw them in for free
> with the purchase of a nav system.
> >Hard seats
> >and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we
> >expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by
> >it.
> Is that because it's based on the Impreza platform instead of on
> the Legacy platform as the Outback is?
You've asked the wrong guy. This is my only Subaru purchase and I know
nothing of other Subaru models. If you've had a Porsche, the harsh ride
won't bother you in the least. It feels like a Rolls compared to my
Miata.
> >On the inside of the gas-filler door on my 2014 Forester 2.0XT (turbo)
> >Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know
> >about the non-turbo.
Patty Winter:
> >Touring it says, inter alia, "Premium Fuel Recommended." I don't know
> >about the non-turbo.
> As I posted yesterday directly from the Subaru website, only the
> XT models require premium. I'm still curious where the OP read
> that premium gas is recommended for all Foresters.
>
> Even my Porsche would have run on regular had it not been a turbo.
> Take away the turbo, and it's just an ordinary 2.5l four-banger.
> Well, maybe not ordinary. :-) It's amazing what good engineers can
> do with small engines... :-)
> >We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation
> >displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but
> >other than that it is been great over the past two months.
>
> Davoud, I'm not getting the Outback model that offers a backup camera,
> but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.
Not the camera, but the display. Small, dim, low contrast. Should be on
> XT models require premium. I'm still curious where the OP read
> that premium gas is recommended for all Foresters.
>
> Even my Porsche would have run on regular had it not been a turbo.
> Take away the turbo, and it's just an ordinary 2.5l four-banger.
> Well, maybe not ordinary. :-) It's amazing what good engineers can
> do with small engines... :-)
> >We really like the Forester, BTW. The backup camera and navigation
> >displays are all but worthless compared to those in the Prius, but
> >other than that it is been great over the past two months.
>
> Davoud, I'm not getting the Outback model that offers a backup camera,
> but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.
the main nav display. Please see the link to the pathetic nave display
in my upcoming post.
> I plan to buy an aftermarket nav system from Crutchfield, and they
> also sell backup cameras--sometimes they even throw them in for free
> with the purchase of a nav system.
> >Hard seats
> >and somewhat rough ride on all but the best of road surfaces, but we
> >expected that would go with the territory and we are not bothered by
> >it.
> Is that because it's based on the Impreza platform instead of on
> the Legacy platform as the Outback is?
nothing of other Subaru models. If you've had a Porsche, the harsh ride
won't bother you in the least. It feels like a Rolls compared to my
Miata.
Patty Winter
May 30, 2013, 3:57:07 PM5/30/13
to
In article <300520131500534387%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>
>Patty Winter:
>>
>> Davoud, I'm not getting the Outback model that offers a backup camera,
>> but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.
>
>Not the camera, but the display. Small, dim, low contrast. Should be on
>the main nav display.
Goodness, they don't even integrate them?? Yikes. Whatever backup camera
>> Davoud, I'm not getting the Outback model that offers a backup camera,
>> but I'm curious what's deficient about the Subaru cameras.
>
>Not the camera, but the display. Small, dim, low contrast. Should be on
>the main nav display.
I buy from Crutchfield will show up on the large nav system's display.
> If you've had a Porsche, the harsh ride
>won't bother you in the least. It feels like a Rolls compared to my
>Miata.
okay. ;-) I had to explain about the hard suspension systems in sports
cars. The 944 is quite cushy compared to that one! I'm guessing that
the Outback will be more comfortable than my 20-year-old Legacy.
Patty
rll_sb
Jun 2, 2013, 3:35:44 PM6/2/13
to
There is a review of the 2014 Forester on the Motorweek site at:
http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2014_subaru_forester
I included the text below, the web site also has a video test.
Motorweek complained about the premium gasoline requirement and also noted
the new turbo Forester is still not fast. Time from 0 to 60 mph is 7.6
seconds -- and they only got 24.6 mpg in their mixed driving test.
We have a 2011 Outback that gets comparable gas mileage and it is
considerably larger. Our only complaint is the air conditioner is marginal
when temperatures get above 75 degrees.
Good luck,
- Russ in Santa Barbara
Motorweek 2014 Forester review:
More than any other Subaru, the Forester has succeeded in attracting hordes
of mainstream buyers to the brand without losing any of its Subaru-ness. But
this all new 4th generation Forester is facing a slew of new compact
crossover rivals. And, to meet that challenge, has in our eyes become more
like them. So, does the Forester still standout or now just blend in?
The 2014 Subaru Forester does indeed have a lot on its shoulders. It must
not only appeal to the Forester faithful, but also draw new buyers to the
brand by offering what is expected in a compact CUV without too much Subaru
quirkiness. That’s a strategy that has worked well so far as there are a lot
of Foresters on the road.
As to brand kinship, let’s go inside this new Forester where we found lots
of recognizable Subaru cues. Their parts bin approach to interior design has
blurred the lines between Forester, Impreza, and Crosstrek. If you closed
your eyes and climb in, opening them still might not tell you what you’re
in.
But, adding room always seems a good utility strategy and the Forester does
get a substantial boost in space up front and even more so in the rear,
where legroom grows to 41.7-inches, besting both RAV4 and CR-V. Maximum
cargo room beats them too, with 74.7 cubic-ft. of space; that’s more than
many mid-size CUVs; and 34.4 with rear seat backs upright.
The interior is also very comfortable and very functional, but we still feel
that some materials could use further updating as they don’t quite depict
the more premium feel that Subaru seeks. In addition, base Forester models
are sparsely equipped. You have to step up to Limited-trim for the automatic
headlights and gauge cluster with LCD display that some rivals have
standard.
The last gen Forester lost its boxy shape for a Crossover profile, and that
morphing continues, but only now it looks to be moving in a more wagon-like
direction. Like a teenager maturing into an adult, the Forester is bigger in
every dimension. Except in the engine bay. The base engine remains an
adequate 2.5-liter. But, like several rivals, Forester has added a 2.0-liter
turbo option. While it’s not exactly a hot rod, it definitely punches things
up with 250-horsepower and 258 lb-ft. of torque.
Unfortunately, with the turbo you can only get a CVT transmission. But it
seems less noise inducing than in the Impreza, probably due to the turbo’s
increased power. And once you do get going, it doesn’t take long to
appreciate the Forester’s more substantial ride characteristics, especially
at higher speeds. All weather capability is a Subaru hallmark and the
standard all-wheel-drive system works well in both wet and winter driving
and continues to be one of the best systems on the market.
But on this Forester, Subaru introduces a new X-Mode all-wheel-drive system
available in all 2.0XT models that makes the Forester even more capable off
road; working in conjunction with VDC and ABS braking for more comprehensive
approach to delivering traction.
Whether on or off pavement, Subaru’s Intelligent Drive System lets you chose
to drive sportily or more efficiently and adjusts throttle response and CVT
operation to help you accomplish it. It certainly does make a difference in
acceleration, where you’ll want to be in Sport Sharp mode for getting off
the line with any sense of urgency. We did, and reached 60 in a solid
7.6-seconds. Shifting manually didn’t really improve on the ¼-mile time of
16.0-seconds and 87 miles-per-hour, but the CVT does have well placed
simulated gear shifts.
True to its heritage the Forester displays an overall fun to drive nature
that is itself a class benchmark. The one flaw is steering that now feels
anesthetized. On the up side, even in tight switchbacks body roll is held in
nicely in check.
Government Fuel Economy Ratings are much improved over last year, with an
all-wheel-drive 2.0-turbo averaging 23-City, 28-Highway, and 25-Combined. We
were a little disappointed with our results however, achieving just 24.3
miles-per-gallon, and having to use Premium fuel at that. The Energy Impact
Score is fine though, at 13.2-barrels of yearly oil expenditure, with CO2
emissions of 5.9-tons.
The new turbo engine is great fun in the Forester, but we wonder how many
buyers will want to pay the additional price to get it. Most buyers will
probably opt for the base 2.5, which starts at $22,820, while the turbo
starts at $28,820.
So, back to our questions. Is the new Forester the same yet better, or has
it become even more like the rest of the compact CUV crowd? Well it clearly
does blend in a bit more, yet it also remains distinctly a Forester with
great practicality, and one of the most entertaining drives of its type. To
us, that shows their strategy is still working, placing the 2014 Subaru
Forester if not above, a bit off to the side of its class.
"Bob" wrote in message news:ko5lck$e41$1...@dont-email.me...
http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2014_subaru_forester
I included the text below, the web site also has a video test.
Motorweek complained about the premium gasoline requirement and also noted
the new turbo Forester is still not fast. Time from 0 to 60 mph is 7.6
seconds -- and they only got 24.6 mpg in their mixed driving test.
We have a 2011 Outback that gets comparable gas mileage and it is
considerably larger. Our only complaint is the air conditioner is marginal
when temperatures get above 75 degrees.
Good luck,
- Russ in Santa Barbara
Motorweek 2014 Forester review:
More than any other Subaru, the Forester has succeeded in attracting hordes
of mainstream buyers to the brand without losing any of its Subaru-ness. But
this all new 4th generation Forester is facing a slew of new compact
crossover rivals. And, to meet that challenge, has in our eyes become more
like them. So, does the Forester still standout or now just blend in?
The 2014 Subaru Forester does indeed have a lot on its shoulders. It must
not only appeal to the Forester faithful, but also draw new buyers to the
brand by offering what is expected in a compact CUV without too much Subaru
quirkiness. That’s a strategy that has worked well so far as there are a lot
of Foresters on the road.
As to brand kinship, let’s go inside this new Forester where we found lots
of recognizable Subaru cues. Their parts bin approach to interior design has
blurred the lines between Forester, Impreza, and Crosstrek. If you closed
your eyes and climb in, opening them still might not tell you what you’re
in.
But, adding room always seems a good utility strategy and the Forester does
get a substantial boost in space up front and even more so in the rear,
where legroom grows to 41.7-inches, besting both RAV4 and CR-V. Maximum
cargo room beats them too, with 74.7 cubic-ft. of space; that’s more than
many mid-size CUVs; and 34.4 with rear seat backs upright.
The interior is also very comfortable and very functional, but we still feel
that some materials could use further updating as they don’t quite depict
the more premium feel that Subaru seeks. In addition, base Forester models
are sparsely equipped. You have to step up to Limited-trim for the automatic
headlights and gauge cluster with LCD display that some rivals have
standard.
The last gen Forester lost its boxy shape for a Crossover profile, and that
morphing continues, but only now it looks to be moving in a more wagon-like
direction. Like a teenager maturing into an adult, the Forester is bigger in
every dimension. Except in the engine bay. The base engine remains an
adequate 2.5-liter. But, like several rivals, Forester has added a 2.0-liter
turbo option. While it’s not exactly a hot rod, it definitely punches things
up with 250-horsepower and 258 lb-ft. of torque.
Unfortunately, with the turbo you can only get a CVT transmission. But it
seems less noise inducing than in the Impreza, probably due to the turbo’s
increased power. And once you do get going, it doesn’t take long to
appreciate the Forester’s more substantial ride characteristics, especially
at higher speeds. All weather capability is a Subaru hallmark and the
standard all-wheel-drive system works well in both wet and winter driving
and continues to be one of the best systems on the market.
But on this Forester, Subaru introduces a new X-Mode all-wheel-drive system
available in all 2.0XT models that makes the Forester even more capable off
road; working in conjunction with VDC and ABS braking for more comprehensive
approach to delivering traction.
Whether on or off pavement, Subaru’s Intelligent Drive System lets you chose
to drive sportily or more efficiently and adjusts throttle response and CVT
operation to help you accomplish it. It certainly does make a difference in
acceleration, where you’ll want to be in Sport Sharp mode for getting off
the line with any sense of urgency. We did, and reached 60 in a solid
7.6-seconds. Shifting manually didn’t really improve on the ¼-mile time of
16.0-seconds and 87 miles-per-hour, but the CVT does have well placed
simulated gear shifts.
True to its heritage the Forester displays an overall fun to drive nature
that is itself a class benchmark. The one flaw is steering that now feels
anesthetized. On the up side, even in tight switchbacks body roll is held in
nicely in check.
Government Fuel Economy Ratings are much improved over last year, with an
all-wheel-drive 2.0-turbo averaging 23-City, 28-Highway, and 25-Combined. We
were a little disappointed with our results however, achieving just 24.3
miles-per-gallon, and having to use Premium fuel at that. The Energy Impact
Score is fine though, at 13.2-barrels of yearly oil expenditure, with CO2
emissions of 5.9-tons.
The new turbo engine is great fun in the Forester, but we wonder how many
buyers will want to pay the additional price to get it. Most buyers will
probably opt for the base 2.5, which starts at $22,820, while the turbo
starts at $28,820.
So, back to our questions. Is the new Forester the same yet better, or has
it become even more like the rest of the compact CUV crowd? Well it clearly
does blend in a bit more, yet it also remains distinctly a Forester with
great practicality, and one of the most entertaining drives of its type. To
us, that shows their strategy is still working, placing the 2014 Subaru
Forester if not above, a bit off to the side of its class.
"Bob" wrote in message news:ko5lck$e41$1...@dont-email.me...
Davoud
Jun 2, 2013, 9:42:29 PM6/2/13
to
rll_sb:
time? I think it's tied to the high compression ration of the 2-litre
turbo engine. Did they complain that the Corvette cannot carry five
passengers plus cargo? And lacks a rear-window wiper? Perhaps those
clowns are a little bit confused over the intended use of the Forester.
I know that the industry calls these "sport" utility vehicles, but the
consumer would be well advised to think of them as utility vehicles.
They're not sporty, in the Forester price class they're not luxurious,
and they're not stylish. But my 2014 Forester 2.0XT Touring seems to be
well suited for its purpose, which I understood before I bought it.
As for fuel economy, if the Motorweek clowns consider rapid
acceleration from stop to be important in a utility vehicle, that could
explain their disappointing results. The EPA rating should give a feel
for what to expect -- something between the 23mpg city and the 28 mpg
highway rating. I'm getting about 27 overall, but I only keep up with
traffic; I don't try to be the fastest car on the road and I /never/
challenge Corvettes to a drag race. If Motorweek is looking for
versatility /and/ economical driving they should try a Prius V.
> Motorweek complained about the premium gasoline requirement and also noted
> the new turbo Forester is still not fast. Time from 0 to 60 mph is 7.6
> seconds -- and they only got 24.6 mpg in their mixed driving test.
Really? Do they think that fuel grade has a connection to acceleration
> the new turbo Forester is still not fast. Time from 0 to 60 mph is 7.6
> seconds -- and they only got 24.6 mpg in their mixed driving test.
time? I think it's tied to the high compression ration of the 2-litre
turbo engine. Did they complain that the Corvette cannot carry five
passengers plus cargo? And lacks a rear-window wiper? Perhaps those
clowns are a little bit confused over the intended use of the Forester.
I know that the industry calls these "sport" utility vehicles, but the
consumer would be well advised to think of them as utility vehicles.
They're not sporty, in the Forester price class they're not luxurious,
and they're not stylish. But my 2014 Forester 2.0XT Touring seems to be
well suited for its purpose, which I understood before I bought it.
As for fuel economy, if the Motorweek clowns consider rapid
acceleration from stop to be important in a utility vehicle, that could
explain their disappointing results. The EPA rating should give a feel
for what to expect -- something between the 23mpg city and the 28 mpg
highway rating. I'm getting about 27 overall, but I only keep up with
traffic; I don't try to be the fastest car on the road and I /never/
challenge Corvettes to a drag race. If Motorweek is looking for
versatility /and/ economical driving they should try a Prius V.
lykwi...@gmail.com
Mar 15, 2017, 12:43:45 PM3/15/17
to
Thank you.
在 2013年5月29日星期三 UTC-4下午6:39:40，Patty Winter写道：
T
在 2013年5月29日星期三 UTC-4下午6:39:40，Patty Winter写道：
0 new messages