Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2009 Subaru Forester

13637394142124

Comments

  • redherring1redherring1 Posts: 66
    Honda spent a lot of time on rejiggering their interior panels to eke out more interior space on the CRV

    To the extent that implies that the new CRV is more space-efficient than the last generation, that's not the case. I owned an '02 CRV, and it felt significantly roomier than the current model, both in passenger and cargo space. The cargo space may measure out similarly, but the old car was more useful since the roof and hatch were more square. The stylish "rake" of the new rear hatch compromises usable space. As far as passenger room, I was very comfortable in the old car (I'm 6'4", 250 lbs) and do not fit nearly as well in the new--one of the reasons I bought a Forester.
  • leo2633leo2633 Posts: 589
    juice,

    I found you a blue Bean at Lester Glenn Subaru, in Tom's River, NJ. http://www.lester.subaru.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&make=Subaru&model=F- orester

    We bought two Hyundai's there in the last few years, and were very satisfied. Internet sales; no nonsense, no games.

    Give them a call.

    Len
  • cshoppercshopper Posts: 7
    The stylish "rake" of the new rear hatch compromises usable space
    totally agree, one of the reasons why the new Rogue is nice to look at, more aerodynamic (squarer drop off in back is less aerodynamic), but not terribly space efficient.
    I'm guessing the new CR-V gave up some legroom. also by putting the spare inside they gave up some space- I actually didn't mind the external spare on the old CR-V and RAV- heckuva lot easier to change the tire on a fully loaded vehicle, plus the busted tire wouldn't fit in the internal compartment but easy to mount on the back. much better utility IMHO.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks but I doubt the wife will want to go all the way to Jersey. I think we'll just order one. Plus I doubt it's a PZEV model.

    I realize ordering a new car uses up a lot of energy but the wife is going to and I can't stop her. May as well at least influence her towards the greenest choice.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    No doubt, I would like a separate lift glass on the Forester. Couldn't live without it when packing the back of our Yukon to the gills. For us though the CR-V putting the spare inside was a big plus back in its favour for us.
    I liked the external spare on our old pathfinder, but that had the advantage of a separate swing mount and then lift glass or vertical door opening and we were in a different life situation then. With 3 boys in different activities we are often running a family shuttle. Our normal drop off drill has them jump out/in curb-side and load/unload their gear from the trunk themselves. The external spare arrangement on the RAV looks very stylish but was a major negative for us because two of our boys could barely wrestle that heavy door open and closed. With the RAV all that fiddling is happening on the traffic side of the vehicle too which isn't reassuring. I still can't believe that Toyo hasn't switched the hinge on that door for NA and Euro roads. Visions of my wife with a toddler in on hand and grocery bags in the other in a crowded parking lot trying to manoeuvre that door open soon came to mind too and quickly knocked the RAV out of the running.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    OK, responding to several comments made above, let's see...

    Corolla - yes, they have a wide cargo area, but doesn't Toyota use a complact torsion beam suspension? Cargo space trumps performance, basically. I expect that in a minivan, but it is any wonder people say the Corolla handles kind of soft?

    Someone already pointed out the 63 cubic feet becomes 68 when you delete the moonroof. I'm willing to make that trade off. It's 5 cubic feet you'll never use, because it's up at the ceiling level, and you'd probably bang up the headliner even trying to use that space.

    So despite the loss of 5 cubic feet, the useful space is about the same.

    I still want the moonroof.

    lucy: you sure you drove a Forester? :D

    The seats recline in most every model, X Premium, soon to be X Limited, LL Bean, XT, and XT Limited all have reclining seats.

    No keyless? I don't even understand that comment. Of course it has keyless.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    I beleive she means the key-less proximity key set-up where justhaving it in a purse or pocket unlocks the vehicle. I thought it was a gimmick at first, but in the grocery store with a toddler scenario it would be very useful. I wasn't aware of that feature in any comparative vehicles in this price range.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Oh, keyless go, or whatever it's marketed as.

    My friend's Altima has that, I thought it was a bit gimmicky. The Rogue must have it, since Nissan offers it.

    I found out Subaru offers remote start for the automatics. I don't want that, as it only wastes fuel and the heated seats work right away so no need to wait for it to warm up.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I wasn't aware of that feature in any comparative vehicles in this price range

    I wasn't either but I'm not familiar enough with the current offerings to call her on it. I know that feature is becoming a fairly common option in luxury vehicles so I'm sure it will eventually trickle down to the rest.

    -Frank
  • Yea, it may but I'll also have to pay twice as much in fuel cost for the premium grade!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    But the F/e will be better, so it's probably a wash. Premium fuel does not cost twice as much per tank. At $.20 spread it's a couple of bucks per tank.
  • samiam_68samiam_68 Posts: 775
    JDM Foresters have keyless start, SI-Drive, and other goodies. U.S. always gets the cheapest watered down cars from Subaru.
  • redherring1redherring1 Posts: 66
    I decided to do what comet48 did and eMailed Subaru about the iPod interface and compatibility with the upgraded audio system. Here's what they said:

    Thank you for visiting the Subaru Web site and for your message. The information provided to you by your Subaru dealer is correct. The current iPod Interface is not applicable to your 2009 Forester 2.5XT Ltd model.

    The stereo system in our 2009 Forester 2.5X and 2.5X Premium Package models is from a different manufacturer than the system in our other 2009 Forester models, including the 2.5XT models. The system in your Forester is not compatible with the current iPod Interface. We are working on an iPod Interface that will be compatible with the stereo system in your Forester. I have been advised that this should be available for purchase this summer.

    Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

    Sincerely,

    John J. Mergen
    Subaru of America, Inc.
    Customer/Dealer Services Department


    My first thought was that this resolves the issue, but since this is a different response than comet48 got as to the same system (in the LL Bean and the XT Limited), I think I'll just wait for them to work it out this summer.
  • redherring1redherring1 Posts: 66
    But the F/e will be better, so it's probably a wash. Premium fuel does not cost twice as much per tank. At $.20 spread it's a couple of bucks per tank.

    It's actually more than a wash--it's substantially in favor of the Forester. According to fueleconomy.gov (the government's official gas mileage site), a Cherokee with the 4.0L six got 14 city, 19 hwy, with an annual fuel cost of $3384; the Forester XT gets 19 city, 24 hwy with an annual fuel cost of $2742 (annual fuel cost is based on several assumptions re city vs. hwy driving and fuel prices that may not be how Lucy drives, but at least the comparison is apples to apples).
  • leo2633leo2633 Posts: 589
    juice,

    I can understand her not wanting to come to Jersey!

    According to the Subaru website, all Foresters sold here are, in fact, PZEV rated.

    Len
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,721
    Apparently Subaru has resumed production of Turbo engines. The problem appeared to be lower bearing wear in a tiny number of engines.

    My dealer contacted me and told me my vehicle, build around Jan 8 or so, was not affected by the recall. And given it's gone over 1000 miles without knocking sounds, perhaps it will be fine. Its noises are a flap of the (I think) air pump valve after startup, and the overhead creaks (where the latest trick of applying silicon lube to all the cables and inner upper roof surface is waiting for verification - I__despise__creaks :mad:
  • bbthomasbbthomas Posts: 24
    "i also can't but help but wonder why Subaru is still using a 4-speed automatic what with everyone wither switching to CVT's or 5,6, or 7 speed automatics..."

    I was also surprised by this and was hoping for the 5EAT. MT just had a base model comparison in which the Forester placed 1st. Based on their data it has the highest RPM in top gear.

    Top-gear revs @ 60 mph:
    CR-V - 1900 rpm (5AT)
    Rogue - 2000 rpm (CVT)
    VU - 1900 rpm (4AT)
    Forester - 2450 rpm (4AT)
    RAV4 - 2200 rpm (4AT)
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Was about to say all the cars in NJ and NY are PZEV

    -mike
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    and as your list shows, the majority of comparable vehicles come only with a 4AT. To be fair, the list does miss the Mitsu with a 6. Tuscon runs a 4AT, Santa Fe a 4 or 5 AT. I think though that while the 4AT is acceptable in the n/a engine, the XT should have the 5EAT subie already makes.
  • tkaytkay Posts: 99
    Good news on your ride..Thats Cool!!!!!! does anyone know if they sell Blue Pearl Spray can paint.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,721
    from cars101.com:

    X: Automatic (and in LL, Automatic Sportshift 4speed):
    1st 2.785, 2nd 1.545, 3rd 1.0, 4th 0.694 reverse 2.272; final 4.444

    XT: Automatic SportShift 4speed:
    1st 2.785, 2nd 1.545. 3rd 1.0, 4th 0.694, reverse 2.272. Final 4.111

    Note XT's final drive ratio is lower. This explains why the Turbo keeps its engine revs down at freeway cruising speeds (at 60 mph, I see around 2K revs.).

    Motor Trend claims the XT gets from 0 to 60 in about 6.6 sec, ..vs.. 9.9 sec for the X series. They also remark that the turbo is a twin scroller, and doesn't have the usual turbo rush (latter seems true for me).

    You will use more fuel with the XT. I have yet to break 20 mpg with mine, though nearly all my driving's on local streets with plenty of traffic lights. At least the engine doesn't burn oil :shades:

    And as for the magic foam, tkay, a lot of that went away in lieu of silicone lube on the wiring harnesses in the roof (wires like to move around up there and they kept rubbing the roof or the plastic light housing). Once it warms up here I'll know whether or not the new setup works.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    PZEV? Hmm, tempting.

    What exit?

    :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Glad to hear that, kurt.

    I guess a certain person who called your engine a lemon now has his foot in his mouth. :D

    image
  • leo2633leo2633 Posts: 589
    juice,

    Exit 82 on the Garden State Parkway. If you are interested, go to their website, and print yourself out a $250.00 coupon. It'll pay for your gas and tolls! Seriously, though, it's probably only a few hours away for you.

    Len
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Keep in mind the Forester was the only AWD model in that test. I'm not sure if the AWD option on the others affects the gearing. Probably in some cases, because manufacturers gear AWD models shorter to offset the extra weight and drivetrain loss.

    Edit: Toyota does use a shorter final drive for its AWD Sienna, compared to the FWD model. So it's likely they do the same for the RAV4.

    Make sure you read the whole review, though. You might miss some highlights:

    * most lateral grip (tied)
    * most HP
    * lightest
    * best ride
    * best visibility
    * 2nd best braking
    * most ground clearance
    * tightest turning circle (despite AWD)
    * most balanced weight distribution
    * highest towing capacity
    * most headroom front and rear
    * most front legroom
    * 2nd best figure 8

    The funny part was this:

    this rare thing called "great outward vision."

    So true! :shades:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,721
    But in Los Angeles CA :shades: , people don't __want__ vision! They want gun slit windows tinted almost opaque! That way they're "invisible" and can drive like crazy - until they pile into someone else !! :sick:

    And (perhaps :confuse: ), big vehicle sales, along with gansta specials, are doin' fine down there.

    Seriously, good visibility is great to have (if nothing else, to help avoid the "fools") and the '09 Forester stacks up very well there.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's brilliant, though, if you think about it.

    You build a car with terrible visibility to the rear, then market a $2000 Navigation system with a backup cam! Win-Win! :D

    Subaru was guilty, too, on the original Tribeca. It's much better now.
  • bbthomasbbthomas Posts: 24
    I agree with the review having test drove the 09 a few weeks ago. I think it's the best overall package, but they missed a few details. I'll probably end up getting an LL Bean/Limited once they become more plentyful.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,721
    referred to by an Edmunds Straightline blog link:

    http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/winners_08/2_25.html
Sign In or Register to comment.