Subaru shows courage to cut horsepower for fuel economy

[[es vi: eks]]

I saw this on Nasioc.
I hope this doesnt make its way to the FT or the Subaru verson.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/04/2011-new-york-auto-show-subaru-shows-courage-to-cut-horsepower-for-fuel-economy.html


Press conferences at major auto shows have become quite predictable. In recent years, many of the high-dollar stunts have faded away, but execs continue touting carefully selected sales figures, citing awards, targeting “active lifestyle” buyers, boasting of horsepower improvements, adding connectivity and all manner of in-car distractions, and more recently, declaring nominal fuel economy gains. I’ve heard it all through the years, and too often it sounds the same. Bigger, better, more awesome… But at the New York International Auto Show last week, I heard the announcement I had been waiting a career for: Less horsepower and much improved fuel economy.

That’s right, even after hearing Jeep say that the Grand Cherokee SRT8 could race 0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds, by far the more exciting news was that Subaru was introducing a 148-horsepower, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine in the redesigned Impreza line. Sure, power is down 22 hp, but fuel economy is up 30 percent. When I reach into my wallet, staring slack-jawed at the gas pump charging well over $4 a gallon, I’m dreaming of fuel economy, not horsepower, these days.

Sure, horsepower inspired many dreams, purchases, and high-speed automotive adventures through the years. But in 2011, it is the mundane fuel economy and desire to save money to put toward other essentials that is more important to me. I suspect I am not alone.

The current, out-going Impreza line performed well in our tests, and it has an enviable reliability history (assuming you avoid the WRX) and impressive crash-test performance. Where it has come up short is with fuel economy. And this is clearly addressed with the 2012 redesign.



For the new model year, the current 2.5-liter engine and four-speed automatic transmission are replaced with a 2.0-liter engine and continuously variable transmission. As we have witnessed in the Legacy and Outback, a CVT can be a real contributor to improved fuel economy. Despite both those models growing dramatically with their latest redesigns, overall fuel economy improved. Now it is the Impreza’s turn.
The current Impreza is EPA-rated at 20 mpg city, 27 mpg highway with an automatic transmission. Depending on the model, we averaged 23 or 24 mpg overall in our tests. Subaru claims the new car will get 27 mpg city, 36 mpg highway. Those figures best the base Chevrolet Cruze, Chrysler 200, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Suzuki Kizashi, Toyota Corolla, and Volkswagen Jetta - all with automatic transmissions and without all-wheel drive, a feature that traditionally exacts a notable mileage penalty.

Subaru claims the new Impreza feels “more responsive” than before. We’ll find out when we purchase examples to test. Assuming it is at least comparable, this marks a significant advance.

My wish is that other automakers follow suit. The most overt place to shift the balance of power and fuel economy is in the family sedan segment. Many sedans have become downright sporty, with several offering more horsepower than a Ford Mustang GT did about a decade ago. I hope with the next auto show season, as new cars are introduced, we begin to see horsepower edge down without apologies, while fuel economy goes up.
Perhaps following show season, we’ll even hear from automakers that are targeting inactive, couch potatoes and older buyers—those are growing markets, too.

Next time you’re at the pump, ask yourself: Would you accept a 10 percent power reduction for 10 percent more fuel economy?

[iff2mastamatt]

Originally Posted by [es vi: eks]

I saw this on Nasioc.
I hope this doesnt make its way to the FT or the Subaru verson.


Next time you’re at the pump, ask yourself: Would you accept a 10 percent power reduction for 10 percent more fuel economy?

Well, I think the difference is a bit more than 10% in fuel savings but hopefully this won't go into the FT-86. I speculated in an engine thread that this engine might be a possibility, but it needs more hp to be taken seriously (at least by people on this forum). If it gets 40mpg, then it might not be a bad deal.

[Kage]

considering most people buying this car are just looking for a sexy car to get from a-b this would be a great base engine for the car, with the fb20 as the more higher end engine.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Kage

considering most people buying this car are just looking for a sexy car to get from a-b this would be a great base engine for the car, with the fb20 as the more higher end engine.

The FB20 is what they're talking about in the article. We've got to wait still to see what the 'Yamaha-tuned D4-S' version of the FB20 will be numbers-wise.

[Zaku]

I would not mind fuel economy at all

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Zaku

I would not mind fuel economy at all

That's kind of behind my request for a 2420lbs stripped car with the regular 148 bhp FB20, as a $19k economy option to the 200 hp car everyone else wants. I'll mod the handling, and enjoy a great-looking, comfortable, awesome handling, inexpensive to operate car for a while.

When that gets dull in a few years, I'll swap it with one of the better motors (or something else). I'm sure there will be a few noob-wrecked donors available. Also there might be a swappable new-gen STI motor by then as well.

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by Dimman

That's kind of behind my request for a 2420lbs stripped car with the regular 148 bhp FB20, as a $19k economy option to the 200 hp car everyone else wants. I'll mod the handling, and enjoy a great-looking, comfortable, awesome handling, inexpensive to operate car for a while.

When that gets dull in a few years, I'll swap it with one of the better motors (or something else). I'm sure there will be a few noob-wrecked donors available. Also there might be a swappable new-gen STI motor by then as well.

hahaha Dimm, took the words right out of my mouth.

I think a dealer should work on a reverse pull-a-part new car sales category. Wrenchers go in, and PUT ON the parts they want on an extremely base car.

Save thouuusannnddds!!!

[OldSkoolToys]

Originally Posted by [es vi: eks]

Next time you’re at the pump, ask yourself: Would you accept a 10 percent power reduction for 10 percent more fuel economy?

I'd accept a 50% power reduct for a 50% gain in fuel economy.......now if I could only find a Geo Metro that still runs.

Serious note: at this article writer: How about lowering weight? Car's keep getting fatter and fatter because of overly stringent safety regulations imposed by governments. I understand that people want to feel safe while they drive, but if its THAT important to them, then DON'T by the sports coupe maybe? Lowering weight improves fuel efficiency as well. The trifecta that all automobile companies have to fight with is power/weight--->safety---->fuel economy, of which pulling on one takes away from the other, and vice versa.

My 86 is a death box waiting to happen on the streets compared to newer cars. You know how I stay safe? By actually driving the car. I pay attention to everything, EVERYTHING. When I'm still a quarter mile back from an intersection I'm checking both directions of traffic, any entries to the road before-hand (such as entrances to stations or restaurants) and anticipating what I need to do. When I'm pulling out into traffic on a 4 lane road, I wait until BOTH lanes are clear, just incase some jackass lane changes right before me. I NEVER talk on the phone in that car, and most certainly, I would never text.

Improvements to chassis design and crumple zones in the chassis have made the necessity for physical reinforcement less needed than before. The extra weight from those reinforcements is just overkill, imo, at least in sports cars. For the family mundane vehicles, do whatever. Keep the weight, lower the hp. Thats fine. Just don't let it transition to the sports cars.

It is MY decision if I want to drive a car that is less safe for ME (and not endangering others).

[n2oinferno]

Right, but shit happens. Even the best drivers get in unavoidable accidents. You're one of the very few people with the mindset that safety in a vehicle isn't a priority. And if there are cuts made in the safety of sports cars, the general populace takes notice and buys even fewer of them. Then the manufacturer wonders why they're even making them at all since sales decrease, and we see the model axed altogether. Then we just end up with more hulking SUVs on the road cause "hur dur my car can kill yours."

[Exage]

In addition to advanced structures I would also like to see a focus on actually training driver how to drive a car properly with regular test intervals (such as when renewing driver licenses). I know why they don't do this, but still. I like the driving and testing programs they have for youth in some of the Northern European countries, because they take driving very seriously, much more so than North America.

It also like to point out that the 2011 Corolla still uses a 4-speed automatic and runs a 26/34mpg. I have a feeling with a new transmission (and perhaps engine) for the next gen it would hit or surpass the 40mpg hwy mark (much like the gains with the new Impreza) with a similar power rating.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by [es vi: eks]

I saw this on Nasioc.
I hope this doesnt make its way to the FT or the Subaru verson.

They're going from 2.5L->2.0L for North American Subarus so this has already affected the FR-S.

I still think 200PS at 7000RPM would be possible on the FB20. The only question is if they release it with 200PS @7000RPM, 170PS @6000RPM, or 230PS @8000RPM. Those are just my guesses but it should be pretty close to the possible figures, .

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

They're going from 2.5L->2.0L for North American Subarus so this has already affected the FR-S.

I still think 200PS at 7000RPM would be possible on the FB20. The only question is if they release it with 200PS @7000RPM, 170PS @6000RPM, or 230PS @8000RPM. Those are just my guesses but it should be pretty close to the possible figures, .

8000 rpm is a bit of a stretch for the 90 mm stroke, I feel. I'm with you on the 200 hp @ 7000 rpm.

Other cost-saving alternative is the stock FB25, which would be 170 hp @ 5800 rpm, but lots more torque.