Howdy, Stranger!

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





2009 Subaru Forester

134689124

Comments

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    You will need to use your original mirror glass.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • batman47batman47 Posts: 606
    Thank you for the comment.

    The 2009 Forester is not still in Europe. Perhaps the car will be in Europe after April 2008. Let's see.
  • batman47batman47 Posts: 606
    Yes they will fit but they will be mutually upside down.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I know we had some modifications to do when we installed a set of JDM power retracting mirrors on the 2000 2.5RSes we used to modify in the day. I don't remember the details but we used the USDM glas for sure.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • batman47batman47 Posts: 606
    If the JDM glass mirrors are taken out of their case and replaced them with US glasses that will be OK. It will not work if JDM glasses are swapped, i.e. right to left and vice versa.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Right, that's what I was saying you need to use your OEM USDM glass plates on the JDM mirrors. The other issue though is that IIRC the angle of the case itself is different L/R on the JDM v. USDM

    Like I said best bet would be to get the WRX mirrors and put em on your Forester if they fit, heck the Tribeca mirrors may bolt on as well.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Posts: 504
    I have just gone over to subaru.co.jp. Here is what I saw:

    J2717FG000: A whole mirror assembly with LED turn indicator for Impreza
    J2717FG001: Same thing, except that it's a heated mirror, price = 52,500 yen

    For Forester....

    E3617SC550: "System Carrier Base," which requires roof rails
    H4717SC100: "Puddle Lamp Kit"
    E5517SC000: "Front Underguard" - plastic
    E5517SC100: "Rear Underguard" - plastic

    SAA3280000: "Sport Auto Filter"
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,395
    17" wheels, roof rails, panoramic moonroof, reclining rear seats, retractable rear center console w/cupholders, to name a few things you get with the PP over the base model.

    Can someone tell me where they found the 09 trim/spec levels? I'd like to compare the X vs. X w/PP vs LLB... :)

    15 Leaf / 08 RDX

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    There was a Forester-at-a-glance document, I think a PDF that was linked above.

    It's similar to last year, except the Sports models are gone and no more manual on the turbos. Nav is a stand-alone option on the top end model of each drivetrain.
  • exit123exit123 Posts: 136
    The Sports models are gone??? That was the best one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, that was the model they used to introduce stability control. Now that all models have it, there's less of a need.

    I do expect them to bring it back in a year or two. In fact they already have the perfect grille for it on some JDM models.

    I say bring back a Sports XT with a manual trans, that grille, and WRB paint. Lowered, even.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,395
    Found it Juice; thanks.

    Interestingly, the overall height with roof rack is 66.9 inches; this is good news. There are cargo boxes on the market under 10" tall, meaning you should be able to have a box on the roof and still fit in most garages. Big factor for me...I could see a 09 X w/PP 5MT in my future. Nice work, Subaru. ;)

    15 Leaf / 08 RDX

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I say bring back a Sports XT with a manual trans, that grille, and WRB paint. Lowered, even.

    You won't see it lowered. Heck SPT can't even make side-skirts for it due to ground-clearance regulations (I'm guessing cause it's classified as a truck?)

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • saedavesaedave Chicago, ILPosts: 685
    You won't see it lowered. Heck SPT can't even make side-skirts for it due to ground-clearance regulations (I'm guessing cause it's classified as a truck?)

    So what about a set of Impreza springs and spring mounts? Of course, that's a lot of money for squaring up the rear profile of an Impreza wagon. :D
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Posts: 709
    Any legroom specs published yet? Can we extrapolate from the Japanese models?
  • lark6lark6 Posts: 2,565
    Hello all,

    Former frequent poster here. I'm currently on my second Forester. First was a 2000 S with 4EAT; current is a 2005 XT with 4EAT. If my past two purchases are any indication I'd be looking at this car in 2011 (third year of cycle as were the first two).

    Right now I'm willing to reserve some judgment until I actually see the car in the metal and drive one. Improvements look to abound but photos don't communicate quality and durability of materials. Styling is subjective - I miss the squareness of my two Foresters and this one looks more like my wife's Honda Pilot. However I didn't buy either of these cars for their looks.

    Too many things could happen between now and then to even say whether I'd consider a regular or high-performance Forester variant next go-round. I will say this much, however; the next one will continue to have only two floor pedals. My arthritic knees aren't getting any better so barring knee replacement surgery I don't see myself ever owning a car with a conventional clutch pedal again.

    I am really tired of all the automatic transmission bashing on this and other car forums. People who view the presence of a clutch pedal as some gauge of manhood, and fail to comprehend that people who drive automatics may desire performance need to get over themselves. There are more automatic XT owners than manual XT owners; are they happier with their cars, therefore less likely to complain about them on internet forums?

    All that said, I was disappointed that I couldn't get the 5EAT/Sportshift combo on my XT (for that matter, on the SG generation as a whole), and I'm appalled that it's not available on the upcoming model. I must profess ignorance when it comes to CVTs and so again must reserve judgment until I drive one. I have driven clutchless manuals (exclusively in German cars to date) and I think they'd make a great compromise for someone like me while still satisfying manual transmission enthusiasts. In any event I hope it won't be long before Subaru offers more than just the 4EAT/5MT option to Forester owners.

    Ed
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,724
    Ed, if you get a chance, go drive a Nissan Murano or new Altma. They have excellent CVTs. The biggest thing you'll notice is no shifting of gears, which may seem strange. However they (the new and better CVTs) are quicker and more economical than conventional automatics.

    Bob
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I happen to agree with all of your points. When I'm ready for my next vehicle, unless a 5 or 6 speed AT is offered, this Forester will be my last Subaru. While I don't do much highway driving, those times I am on the highway I would like to be cruising in 5th gear instead of 4th.. even at the expense of some performance.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I have to say that having an MT in the new Forester would be kinda useless. It's not meant to be taken on a track or driven extremely agressively on a twisty backroad that would require an MT. I know the organizations I track with wouldn't allow it on track, I have no issues with no MT offered in this itteration of the Forester.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • lark6lark6 Posts: 2,565
    I know the organizations I track with wouldn't allow it on track,

    Do those organizations still allow them to autocross, or have the rules changed since I was able to autocross mine?

    Ed
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Dunno, haven't auto-xed in a few years.

    It's usually judged on a case-by-case basis, if I wanted to take one out for a few laps I'm sure they'd let me, however I doubt they'd just allow em to run in general.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • ecotrklvrecotrklvr Posts: 519
    Granted, a vehicle with an Automatic Trans is more Useful than one with a Manual Trans. More different people can drive it! But it isn't about increasing the usefulness anyway. A small Wagon / CUV is pretty useful as it is. It's about the fun of shifting for yourself, and getting all the torque from the engine delivered to the ground, without having to wait for the torque converter to deliver it. And shifting when YOU want to - up AND down.

    I doubt if many here are going to be disappointed that they can't Race or Rally the Forester in sanctioned events. But many will miss the sense of involvement in the driving experienced that driving a stick allows.

    As for me, I'd be getting the NA version anyway, so not having a stick in the Turbo versions is no big deal for me. What ticks me off is that apparently you have to get the Turbo to get the telescopic steering wheel. A Tilt and Telescopic wheel really is a useful item. If the tilt-only wheel won't allow me to lift off the gas to hit the brake, without hitting my knee on the bottom of the steering wheel, that will kill the deal right there.
  • AWD isn't very helpful without decent tires and the ones that came on my '07 2.5X sucked.

    I replaces them before this winter with Goodrich Traction T/A's. I ran these tires on a V8 Taurus SHO and an old 535i with great results.

    The tires that came on the car (Yokahamas?) slipped and slid all over in the rain and snow. They were worse than the Goodyear gatorbacks that came on my '87 Mustang 5.0.
  • "Borrego is not going to give you the milage you want though. It's going to be heavy and have a V6 or V8 engine in it. Borrego will be fine for offroading but milagewise it'll be lagging, similar to the Sorrento. Unfortunately here 99% of the people have no need for offroad capabilities that it will give. Also there is no "silver bullet" that will give you offroad capabilities, towing, seating for 7 and milage all rolled into one vehicle."

    I don't know about anybody else, but I don't get particularly great gas mileage. Especially for a relatively low powered 4 cylinder. I get close to the EPA rating on the highway, so I can't complain I was mislead or anything. But still, low 20's from a mid size 4 cylinder vehicle, AWD or not, is pretty pathetic. I got 25-26 from my '87 V8 Mustang (5MT) at 75mph on the highway, about the same as I get from my Subie.

    Around town (most of our driving here in Chicago) we prob avg high teens.
  • exit123exit123 Posts: 136
    "I have to say that having an MT in the new Forester would be kinda useless. It's not meant to be taken on a track or driven extremely agressively on a twisty backroad that would require an MT. I know the organizations I track with wouldn't allow it on track, I have no issues with no MT offered in this itteration of the Forester."

    Hmmm, there's more to having a MT than going to the track or driving agressively on a twisty backroads. Some of us just like a MT for the control that no AT (with the possible exception of a VW DSG or similar) can give you.

    "Usefulness" is in the eye of the beholder.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Couple this with the fact that only 2% of the turbo forester buyers bought the MT, can you really blame them? If I had a business and only 2% of my sales went to an item, I'd probably drop it too.

    Unfortunately the previous Forester owners voted with their pocketbook and you guys ended up off the island :(

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I am really tired of all the automatic transmission bashing on this and other car forums. People who view the presence of a clutch pedal as some gauge of manhood, and fail to comprehend that people who drive automatics may desire performance need to get over themselves.

    Ed- I think you're being a little too defensive. I don't think anyone disputes that the automatic was a wonderful invention and is a great convenience for many drivers. However, manuals are still preferred by some drivers such as myself and we resent not being able to get the vehicle of our choice with a manual transmission as an option.

    -Frank
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Couple this with the fact that only 2% of the turbo forester buyers bought the MT, can you really blame them?

    I know we got that statistic from Bob but I really have to question it. Anecdotally at least, the number of MT Forester's I've seen on dealer lots has been far higher than 2%. And it's not like the MTs sit on the lot forever either.

    -Frank
  • lark6lark6 Posts: 2,565
    Ed- I think you're being a little too defensive. I don't think anyone disputes that the automatic was a wonderful invention and is a great convenience for many drivers. However, manuals are still preferred by some drivers such as myself and we resent not being able to get the vehicle of our choice with a manual transmission as an option.


    No dispute here, Frank. I'd often like to be able to get back into a traditional manual; maybe if I dedicated myself to some intensive physical therapy I could. Any loss of choice is a bad thing in my eyes.

    I don't dispute the advantages of driver involvement and control as well as, in most cases, better fuel economy offered by manuals, either. What I find bothersome is the view that somehow the lack of a clutch pedal - even when the driver can still select gears manually - makes a car somehow less performance-oriented.

    I have read some rumors that Foresters may get 6-speed manuals in the not too distant future, so maybe instead of 4EAT/5MT we'll see CVT/6MT as options. I'm willing to be patient in all respects; hopefully consumer demand will dictate that both manual and automatic options are made available.

    Ed
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,724
    Frank, I'm working from memory here, but I believe the figure that was given to me was that XT manuals accounted for 2% of all Forester sales, not just XT sales.

    My original posting alluded to just XT sales, but that was incorrect. I thought I had posted an update on that?

    Bob
134689124
Sign In or Register to comment.