SRX

According to the reporter the 2.5 liter is a weakness because it is not a rocket ship:
http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-comp...15-ggzsih.html

Surprisingly it is most economical with the fuel.

According to the reporter the 2.5 liter is a weakness because it is not a rocket ship:
http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-compari ... gzsih.html

Nevertheless, you wonder why Subaru doesn’t use the 2.0 liter DIT in the Legacy and the Outback.
With 200 hp it would have the same performance that the Forester 2.5 XT had back in 2005.

And why not a new 3.0 DIT?
The 3,3 liter H6 was created by adding two cilinders to the 2,2 liter from the Legacy.

So, is it that difficult to do that again whit the 2.0 liter DIT?
With 150 hp/l you would catapult the 3.0 liter with 450 hp in Porsche territory.

And even when you limit it to 400 or even 350 hp Subaru would be back keeping up with the german competition.

The 3.0 liter had in 2003 245 hp - a 3.0 liter BMW had what, 231 hp? -; the 3.6 in the Outback has only 15 hp more
with the same extra 600 cc as the Vivio had as a complete engine. And that little car had 44 hp.

And sometimes the fuel consumption was 7,8 l/100 km - that is 30 mpg - with that outdated automatic gearbox;
a downsized 3.0 liter with direct injection and a CVT must do better, or?

Knowing Subaru I fear this will stay wishful thinking, just as a 3 liter H6 diesel or a 240 hp twin turbo diesel.
With such a diesel Subaru could make a WRX, a Levorg or a Forester STI diesel.