Since everyone wants their cars (read trucks)for adventure these days, I have another idea. A Torchlopnik good idea.
Since everyone wants their cars (read trucks)for adventure these days, I have another idea. A Torchlopnik good idea.
The one? As in not everyone? But no, I haven’t owned a subaru for a while though when I did my EJ25 consumed more oil at 60k miles than my 300,000 mile Toyota I6 does now. The like their oil.
They’ll both outlive the CVT.
My kids would probably enjoy riding in the Thule box, but my wife says they need to be in their booster seats. *shrug*
How does it impact your MPG though? My manual only gets 22 city/~28 highway now. I imagine the Thule knocks that down quite a bit.
“... can anyone open it, put a possum porkypine skunk in your truck and go home?”
Lesbians will still buy one regardless if it doesn’t have a turbo or not.
The new Rav4 looks like a Subaru, but the new Subaru looks like a Rav4.
It’s just the homeless, why should they care.
This is not true anymore. Especially in America, with the heavy sales of the Ecoboost engines, people are open to turbo charging. The NA V6 is almost dead to the U.S.
I normally would agree with you. Hear me out. The 1.5L CVT has an actual shifter like you mentioned. The 2.0L has the buttons and a 10 speed auto. If you test drove both you would quickly tell yourself, “I will learn to deal with not having a shifter.” Really is a great car to drive.
Per Motor Trend, the base motor is 188hp/180 lb-ft tq, The turbo motor is 248hp (22 hp less than the outgoing V6)/273 lb-ft tq.
I’ll turn it back to you, TLDR...
Not for a turbo— lower compression means you can run more boost and dump in more fuel without detonation, leading to increased power output levels...
No.