New Subaru Outback XT 2.4L Turbo Vs. Discontinued 3.6L Engine

"When Subaru announced the six-cylinder flat four 3.6-liter Boxer..." Its is a flat six, not four.

I think they will see there err in there ways in doing this. Chevy put a turbo 4 in their full-size truck boasting the same claims of more hp and tq with better fuel economy. Well they found out a turbo engine actually sucks down more fuel because you are always in the boost trying to make that hp. They along with most people who actually understand the dynamics of how n/a vs forced induction engines work will realize there is no replacement for displacement.

Here's my take familiar with turbos and the H6. I am a big fan of the H6 and cry much wish Subaru would make a H8 for their larger vehicles. Yes, turbo can be torquey. I have an EJ25 running E85, high boost and makes the same wtq as the bigger 6.4L in the Challenger. There's several problems though. To make power, you're stuck working the small engine harder more of the time. The H6 is a very mild engine, runs on 87, mundane compression, and mid-range tuned. It's an engine that'll run several thousand miles. For comparison, Nissan makes 100hp more with their VQ engine in the 370Z Nismo. The H6 has always been a slow engine because it's so mildly geared. There's a ton of hp left on the table that could have made these cars so much faster. You'll never match the peak torque of turbo setups, but the torque available is instant right off idle and more linear, responsive, and predictable throughout. The larger naturally aspirated engine is a nicer driving experience. It always was and always will be. I have a H4 turbo that makes about twice my H6, but I prefer the H6 for general driving. It's a better experience.

You run into efficiency problems work turbos too. Turbos are not efficient. You have a low compression na engine when off boost, so you're not as optimized as a true NA engine. Once on boost, you need to run the engine very rich to prevent knock. Again, you're not as efficient an the NA engine. The only way to make it work is to make the engine tiny so you're working it some all the time and try and average around light boost where you can still stick near stoichiometric and be pretty efficient. Now you've got 1L to 1.4L turbos making around 200hp and are run hard almost all the time. The savings comes more from light weight and heavy optimization at highway cruising. But heaven forbid if you are a bit of a lead foot or drive a slightly different speed down the highway because mileage can drop like a rock. Turbo engines are extremely dependent on how you drive. Most people will get worse that rated, possibly considerably. NA engines are far less sensitive. Plus a big engine doesn't mean bad mileage. A big V8 Corvette gets 30mpg. Mpg has a lot more to do with low overall weight and minimizing losses during stop and go through the city and good aerodynamics when slicing though the air down the highway. Most often, the engine under the hood matters much less, unless it's inefficiently using the fuel or is running hot, both problems of turbos.

I'm glad the 2.4L is coming to the Outback. I just wish the H6 stayed too or they think about a bigger H8. However, in the modern world, it's more like H4 turbo plus electric motors, battery packs, regen braking, and all that fun stuff. That's just where the world is going.

My 2011 Outback 3.6R shows a tow capacity of 3,000 lbs. All the documemtation shows this. The smaller 4 cylinder engines of this era aren't really rated for towing, hence the 3.6.

I'll be interested in seeing the real world city fuel economy numbers, when people start reporting in.

While i would really like an Outback with the stronger engine option, city mpg is important to me as well.

If the real world fuel economy is more or less the same as the 3.6r, I'd sooner be shopping for a pre-owned one and save the difference.

I made the change from Ford Escape for just this reason. I tow an enclosed trailer that totals 3000 pounds when loaded. Subaru had the 4 cylinder limited to 1500 pounds and now claim that the 4 cylinder can tow 3500? I fail to see the joke in this. I am also not sure of the CVT for hauling a trailer.

Greetings to you , my first question is what is your credit score ?

If your credit score is still below 700 what are you waiting for ?

I can help you Quickfix your Credit score and clear any bad Credit History for you in 48 hours.

Contact me now if you are interested to boost your Credit score, because with a good Credit score you can easily get any financial help or even buy a car or house easily anywhere in the STATES.

contact me now :[email protected]

Welcome

It all sounds good on paper but...why don't be just make a turbo 1 cylinder engine and get it all over with? Let's face it, the more pressure you put on a smaller engine, the faster it will break down, leak oil, throw a rod, gasket leaks, so on. This way Subaru can make more money. Studies show that the extra cylinder not only give more consistent power, but the extra 2 cylinders balance the engine too. You can't tell me that a perfect running boxer 6 vs a perfect running turbo 4 will last the same before a breakdown. The "better" performance will not last because it is just to little engine for the weight of these vehicles. Very bad move by Subaru.

My main complain about my'17 Outback is the transmission, which is programmed to stay in lower "gears" while the engine warms up in winter. This wastes fuel-about 3MPG. If I turn the heater off, the car warms up at the same distance, but "upshifts" as in summer, using less fuel. Maybe the stop/start feature will help a little. It does for my friend's VW Skoda in the UK. I've asked Subaru for some more youthful, exciting colors. They sure have some brighter reds and blues.

You state the out going 3.6 Outback is rated to tow 2,700 lbs. It is rated for 3,000 lbs and the standard 2.5 is rated for 2,700 lbs.

These are great comments but no one mentioned the direct fuel injection. How long before the valves carbon up because of direct injection bypassing the valves and the cost of getting them cleaned.

Wow! I can't believe all the negative comments regarding turbocharged engines and direct injection. Look around fellows - we are out of the 1980's. The NA engine is DEAD except for perhaps weed wackers and lawnmowers. Or perhaps we should go back to the old gas sucking, polluting huge displacement engines and 4 barrel carbs? Technology moves on. Absolutely no comparison between the engines of old and the newer technologies. And I am being generous in saying "newer". These technologies have been around for at least a couple of decades, proven successful across the board with all major car manufacturers and provide better performance, fuel economy and cleaner emissions.

Do they require better manufacturing? Of course they do. Anyone could slap together a low revving NA V8. It takes careful engineering and quality manufacture to make a sophisticated small displacement, direct injection turbo charged engine.

We have a 2020 Subaru Outback XT Onyx edition in the pearl white. And we love the new turbo engine. We test drove Both the 2.5 premiem and the 2.4 XT Onyx edition. The 2.5 it was all ready it just felt a little under power for us. Plus we live in South Carolina and our neighborhood is on the high hills. So that is why we ended up getting the turbo model. Because the power of the turbo engine really helps us a lot. It really gets up the hills and our long driveway very well. So I say you should test the 2020 Subaru Outback with both engines. Once you test drive the turbo engine you will really love it.

One major thing the flat 6 had over the flat four is greatly decreased NVH. The flat 6's basic design allowed was perfectly balanced in terms of NVH. The flat 4's basic design is perfectly UNBALANCED and experiences much greater NVH that is much more difficult to mitigate. We own a 2019 3.6R Outback Touring and we love it. We have seen as high as 32mpg on highway trips and the engine is smooth as silk. We did test drive an Ascent and while it had good power the turbo flat 4 in that didn't feel as smooth as the flat 6. I also added a Nameless axle-back exhaust and at about 4k and above she sounds like a Porsche flat 6. Ask any Subaru tech which engine is better, the flat 4 or the flat 6, and they'll likely tell you the 6 is better.

I just bought my wife a 2020 Subaru Outback Limited XT. .As stated in the Owner's manual Use 87 Octane (Minimum) OR higher fuel . I have owned a few German turbos in the past that required Premium 93 so I researched this before buying . Traded in a 2018 Outback Limited 2.5L for the 2020 Limited XT and the performance difference is very noticeable. the 2.4L is a great motor.

Can someone pleeeeaaasee do a review on how the XT performs while towing? Specifically it's average MPG. I cant find a like this review anywhere. I am trying to tow a 14ft vintage trailer, it doesn't weight much, likely less than 2000 lbs. I do not trust my 2017 to be able to tow it with a max capacity of only 2500. We've been towing it with our Tundra, but its way overkill and the gas mileage is killer. I can't find any reviews online about the towing MPG of the XT. Any help appreciated!

This is from Motor Trend, their testers trashed the XT:

Those who want to see what the 260-hp XT engine has to offer will need to stick with the Onyx XT, Limited XT, and Touring XT trims. Although we found the Onyx fun to slide around off-road, the 2.4 powertrain proved underwhelming on the road. To 60 mph, the engine impresses, with a 6.1-second time that easily improves on the 2018 Outback 3.6R's 6.9 seconds. That's not the full story, though. On the road, we called the engine "unrefined," and the power delivery proved uneven. For a few MotorTrend editors, the engine-transmission interaction is rough enough that we'd select the 2.5-liter engine to avoid it.