Howdy, Stranger!

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

2009 Subaru Forester



  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,747

    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?

  • 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

  • leo2633leo2633 Posts: 589

    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.

  • 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: 1,747
    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: 1,747
    referred to by an Edmunds Straightline blog link:
  • redrose1redrose1 Posts: 49
    We have narrowed our search for a new car to the Forester turbo or the Acura RDX.We like the ride of the forester, large windows, etc. Howver the RDX is more tempting because of its luxury. Any avdvice? (We are in our mid 50's and occasionally take long road trips).
    Thanks for your help!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I found the RD-X a bit small, plus it's a bit beyond what we want to spend.

    What kind of things were you looking for?

    The stereo opening is double-DIN sized, so the sky is the limit. You can get any of the best aftermarket GPS systems with a lot of features OE systems do not offer. That might more than make up for it.

    Nowadays, they're not cutting and splicing, either. The double-DIN stereos fit with a stock look, and they use harnesses to plug things in. I've installed 2 double-DINs and one single DIN sized stereo myself but you could rely on a retailer like Circuit City if you prefer.

    Let me post up one example:

    Kenwood Excelon DNX8120


    Plays DVDs
    Garmin Navigation
    big 7" screen
    optional Garmin FM traffic receiver
    XM Traffic/Weather ready
    built-in Bluetooth
    compatible with Kenwood iPod adapter, HD Radio tuner
    compatible with most factory steering wheel audio controls

    $1500 from Crutchfield. Wait for a free installation special from Circuit City.

    I know the Acura RL has traffic (RD-X, dunno?), that's why I specifically searched for one that had that feature.

    That is the top of the line model, there are a few cheaper ones with fewer features.

    I guess I just prefer aftermarket stuff. Instead of paying $2000 for a tiny 8" DVD screen on my minivan, I paid $900 and got 12". :shades:
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,653
    Tough choice. I personally don't care for the RDX's styling, but other than that it's a great car. The Acura will likely have a longer warranty, as it's a premium brand. My guess is it would be more expensive too.

    The Acura, from what I understand, has an excellent AWD system. It also has a 5-speed automatic, whereas the Forester has a 4-speed automatic. The Acura's Tech Package is probably more sophisticated than the Forester's NAV unit. The Forester can tow more, if that's important. My guess is the roof rack load rating is also higher on the Forester.

    Of the two you're comparing, I think it would be the better choice—but you'll probably end up paying more for it.

  • sgloonsgloon Posts: 303
    I'm trying to decide between the 2008 vs 2009 Forester. I have a great price on the 2008 and like the visibility, and that it is a little smaller. The cup holders are too small to be useable. I thought the seats seemed a bit hard after being in it for a while. Will they "break in" at all?
    I'd like to hear any comments that 2008 or 2009 owners have pro or con about their vehicles now that they have had time to drive them.
    If anyone has driven both versions, comments comparing them would be helpful as well.

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,653
    The only reason to buy the '08 model is for the price, which you mentioned. However, I'd go for the '09 model. It's more refined and roomier, especially for rear seat passengers. Plus it has VDC, which is stability control, a safety feature, which the '08 model doesn't have.

    ...And yes, I've driven both the '08 and '09 models. In fact I've driven several '09s.

  • samiam_68samiam_68 Posts: 775
    If you take long road trips, the Acura is a better choice - far more comfortable. You have a working dual climate control vs. Forester's out-of-control system, much better NAV with voice recognition, memory settings for seats and mirrors, more comfortable seats.

    The Forester will give you slightly better MPG and better acceleration. The 2.3 turbo in the RDX has poor performance for the mass of the vehicle and very bad turbo lag.

    If you want to spend more for the ultimate long trip SUV, the Lexus RX350 would me my choice.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    If you want to spend more for the ultimate long trip SUV, the Lexus RX350 would me my choice.

    if you're looking at the RX350, might as well look at the X5 as well.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,747
    If your roads are rough, keep in mind the Acura has a much harder (firmer) ride quality than the Forester does, and less suspension travel to deal with the occasional big pothole.

    The Leather Powered seats in the upgrade Foresters are also more comfortable than the base cloth model seats.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,747
    Consumers Union commented that '08 and earlier Foresters had uncomfortable seats for long trips.
    That appears fixed in the '09, especially with the up market Leather Power seats.
Sign In or Register to comment.