2008 Subaru Forester ,,,,salvage Title ,,,low Miles , on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Subaru WRX and STI meet at the dyno with interesting results

Road and Track recently put the 2015 Subaru WRX and the 2015 WRX STI through a battery of dyno tests to find out not only how much difference there is between their two engines, but what kind of differences there are. The WRX gets the company's new FA20 2.0-liter boxer four-cylinder engine with features like a twin-scroll turbocharger, direct injection and variable valve timing on its two cams. The WRX STI stands pat with the older EJ-Series motor, meaning a 2.5-liter boxer four-cylinder with port fuel injection and carryover turbo lag. Subaru pegs the $26,295 WRX at 268 horsepower, 258 pound-feet of torque and an "extremely conservative" 0-60 mile per hour time of 5.4 seconds. The $34,495 STI clocks in at 305 hp and 290 lb-ft with a 0-60 mph time of 5.1 seconds. Ok, fight.
R&T's dyno runs sussed power numbers at the wheel of 223 hp and 245 lb-ft for the WRX, 247 hp and 243 lb-ft for the STI, then went on to demonstrate in numbers what everyone knew: that the WRX consistently puts out more of its torque earlier than the STI and achieves full boost almost three seconds quicker. On the other hand, on the track, the STI was also shown to have a conservative official 0-60 mph time, stopping the timer at 4.8 seconds compared to the WRX's 5.2 seconds.
The mag says it has comprehensive results coming from its "complete battery of tests," but for now, you can scrutinize their dyno charts and let the battle continue about which one you'd rather put your money down for.

2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross vs. small crossover SUVs: How they compare on paper

In the midst of the crossover SUV boom, each traditional size segment has become saturated. As a result, automakers are beginning to fill the gaps that separate classes, giving us some interesting in-between options. The all-new 2018 Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross jumps right into one of those in-between categories bookended by compact and subcompact crossovers. It's a niche that offers more space and feature content than the smallest vehicles, with an extra dose of style and a lower price than bigger ones. Because of the Eclipse Cross' in-between nature, though, there's not really an obvious direct competitor. As such, we've selected a diverse group of small crossovers that are similar to the Eclipse Cross in some but not all key areas: size, price, feature content, style and likely buyers. The 2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2018 Toyota C-HR and 2018 Nissan Rogue Sport each have elements in common, but are different enough to provide useful points of comparison. A chart of specifications and key standard features is shown below, followed by more in-depth analysis. And if you wish to compare these crossovers with others not listed, be sure to check out our comparison tools. Engines and Drivetrains One of the Eclipse Cross' biggest advantages in this segment will be its engine. Subcompact crossovers, including the other three we've chosen, are sluggish to say the least. This new Mitsubishi should be different as it packs a turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder that belts out a whopping 184 pound-feet of torque. We say whopping, because the C-HR, Crosstrek and Rogue Sport all have between 139 and 147 pound-feet. Horsepower is similarly unimpressive at just 152 horsepower - the same as the Crosstrek - but that torque should make passing and on-ramp runs much more satisfying. The appeal of crossovers for many people is the availability of all-wheel-drive, and this is where the Subaru gets an advantage. Like with all Subarus that aren't a BRZ, the Crosstrek has standard all-wheel drive. The Mitsubishi comes close, making all-wheel drive standard on every trim level except the very base ES trim level. On the Rogue Sport, all-wheel drive is an option on all trim levels. Depending on where you live, though, being able to have front drive on a high-trim crossover could be a plus because it will save some money and improve fuel economy. The C-HR loses this battle as it's only available with front-wheel drive.

The super-sized Atlas isn't the three-row VW should build

In the late '50s and early '60s the Volkswagen Beetle wasn't ubiquitous in my hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, but it came pretty damn close. Fords and Chevys dominated, but beyond the occasional MG, Triumph, or Renault the import scene was essentially a VW scene. When my folks finally pulled the trigger on a second car they bought a Beetle, and that shopping process was my first exposure to a Volkswagen showroom. For our family VW love wasn't a cult, but our '66 model spoke – as did all Volkswagens and most imports at the time – of a return to common sense in your transportation choice. As VW's own marketing so wonderfully communicated, you didn't need big fins or annual model changes to go grab that carton of milk. Or, for that matter, to grab a week's worth of family holiday. In the wretched excess that was most of Motown at the time, the Beetle, Combi, Squareback, and even Karmann Ghia spoke to a minimal – but never plain – take on transportation as personal expression. Fifty years after that initial Beetle exposure, and as a fan of imports for what I believe to be all of the right reasons, the introduction of Volkswagen's Atlas to the world market is akin to a sociological gut punch. How is it that a brand whose modus operandi was to be the anti-Detroit could find itself warmly embracing Detroit and the excess it has historically embodied? Don't tell me it's because VW's Americanization of the Passat is going so well. To be fair, the domestic do-over of import brands didn't begin with the new Atlas crossover. Imports have been growing fat almost as long as Americans have, and it's a global trend. An early 911 is a veritable wisp when compared to its current counterpart, which constitutes – coincidentally – a 50-year gestation. In comparing today's BMW 3 Series to its' '77 predecessor, I see a 5 Series footprint. And how did four adults go to lunch in the early 3 Series? It is so much smaller than what we've become accustomed to today; the current 2 Series is more substantial. My empty-nester-view of three-row crossovers is true for most shoppers: If you need three rows of passenger capacity no more than two or three times a year – and most don't – rent it forgawdsake. If you do need the space more often, consider a minivan, which goes about its three-row mission with far more utility (and humility) than any SUV.