0-60 AWD 2.0T, 9.41s

[debyne]

Originally Posted by Mrtheplague

I wonder if the testers who did the 0-60 kept the traction control on. that could keep it from reaching its potential. With traction control on it limits the power to the wheel by adding brakes. this could slow the acceleration to 60. havent tried it myself but who knows. good point Dave Graham.

Is traction control on by default? I'm not in my car now, so I don't remember how I would even turn that on or off. Is there a button?

[Mrtheplague]

There is a button for traction control. It is normally on. If it was off then there would be a light on dash.

[kdw75]

I posted a 0-60 video of mine on youtube and put the link in a thread on this forum. With 600 lbs in the card it was 0-60 in 8 seconds on 87 octane fuel.

[angelo]

Originally Posted by kdw75

I posted a 0-60 video of mine on youtube and put the link in a thread on this forum. With 600 lbs in the card it was 0-60 in 8 seconds on 87 octane fuel.

kdw75, thanks for this info.
I was wondering if this test was done on both directions, back and forth, on the same street, to avoid wind and surface level factors...

My "old" 3.3 Limited does 0-60mph in less than 8 secs and in my test drive I felt the 2.0T equal or more powerful than mine.

I know this may sound "too much" for many. It does matter to many others
My personal impression is not enough for me (yes, really...), I wish the number to be confirmed by specialized magazines and that is not happening for some reason.
I tend to believe that the turbo is introducing a full second delay since when you flat the pedal to when the wheels are actually catching the power from a full stop...

[blackmamba]

A good friend of mine....the local Subaru dealer....just got back from the launch of the 2014 Subaru Forester over in Japan. Japan gets their version before we do. Ours will be available in March.

He quoted the acceleration of the new Forester as being " exhilarating ". According to him, the factory is quoting the Forester as reaching 60 mph in 6.3 seconds. Now, the Forester and the Santa Fe are pretty much equal in weight, size, etc., etc. Assuming the factory numbers are correct ( and Sabaru is historically pretty honest about such things ), that's quite a difference compared to what my Santa Fe can produce. In fact, 6.3 seconds is pretty impressive for any vehicle of this class. The latest issue of AUTOWEEK magazine confirms the factory claim for the Forester.

The new Forester comes with only one transmission....the CVT automatic. I just bought my wife the newest model from Subaru, the Crosstrek, and it has this CVT transmission. It's a little strange and takes some getting use to....but it's known for efficiency ( better gas mileage ) and durability.

The Forester has also gone to a 2 liter engine ( with turbo option ) that's rated at 250 HP and 258 lbs/ft of torque.....slightly less than the Santa Fe. Seems like the Santa Fe ought to compare more favorably in the straight-line performance.

[avitt]

It's shocking (to me) that they can get that type of performance from a CVT...

[dtech]

Originally Posted by avitt

It's shocking (to me) that they can get that type of performance from a CVT...

I think the new Nissan Pathfinder also use a CVT and a V6 engine with somewhere around 250 hp and similar torque, yet the awd is epa mpg is rated at 25 mpg on the highway and I think I saw a 0 to 60 time of 7.5 secs and it's heavier than a Sante Fe.

I think it's interesting the the awd 2.0l is now rated a 24 mpg and 27 mpg for the fwd, highway miles. And previously is was 27 awd and I think 31 fwd

Most manufacturers seem to drop one mpg going from fwd to awd - so does anybody know why the Sante Fe's drops so much more in the awd model ?

Also what does the FWD 2.0L test out with respect to 0 to 60 ?

Is the awd setup less efficient in terms of power delivery to the wheels than competing makes ?

[debyne]

Originally Posted by angelo

kdw75, thanks for this info.
I was wondering if this test was done on both directions, back and forth, on the same street, to avoid wind and surface level factors...

My "old" 3.3 Limited does 0-60mph in less than 8 secs and in my test drive I felt the 2.0T equal or more powerful than mine.

I know this may sound "too much" for many. It does matter to many others
My personal impression is not enough for me (yes, really...), I wish the number to be confirmed by specialized magazines and that is not happening for some reason.
I tend to believe that the turbo is introducing a full second delay since when you flat the pedal to when the wheels are actually catching the power from a full stop...

Yea...there's something going on with the road tests these mags are doing. I have an Accord V6 that does 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, and both of my Santa Fes feel faster.

I think your point about there being a delay from dead stop may be valid. The proper way to get the best time would be to hold the brake and bring RPMs to minimum peak and launch. With the turbo already spun up upon launch, 0-60 times should be well below 9.4 seconds. If you're getting a car whose performance looks great on paper, this isn't it. I've said this already in another thread, but so many people focus on 0-60 times as a reflection of good performance...1/4 mile is a better indicator of acceleration, and passing performance is the best test of functional performance, which the 2.0T does very well...not launching from a dead stop.

[luck11]

Test drove a few CVT vehicles and just did not like it. Perhaps needs getting used to it.

I can vouch for Subarus...had two Outbacks over 9 years, the last one being the Outback XT or Turbo, and that thing had gusto.

[SLVER]

Check this out:
2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Driving Impressions, Performance, Handling and Safety: New Car Test Drive