Howdy, Stranger!

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





2009 Subaru Forester

17980828485124

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're right - I never thought the Forester would outsell the Explorer and being on the cover of Consumer Reports won't hurt. With gas prices dropping the Ford could bounce back...a little.

    Congrats robert, what color did you get?
  • Looks like XT's build near Mid January '08, including mine, dodged the turbo charger oil pipe recall.

    I keep wondering when Subaru actually started building the '09 Forester? :confuse:

    Been quiet here lately...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Everyone is on the phone with their brokers. :cry:

    I'm leaving my leftover $3.00 in the stock market, risking it all! Woo-hoo!
  • New WRX now packs 265hp. A larger turbo was installed. This new engine should find its way into the new forester XT.

    However, there is no auto transmission available for the WRX. Guess the 4 speed auto can't handle the increased torque.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,727
    I think it's more about marketing and positioning the vehicles within the Subaru brand.

    The new Impreza 2.5 GT (basicly last year's WRX automatic) is to the Impreza lineup as to what the Forester XT is to the Forester lineup. My take is that Subaru has taken the position that the WRX should be the second most powerful Subaru, just behind the the WRX STI.

    That's a shift in thinking on Subaru's part, as before the WRX and F-XT shared the same engine, and in a way somewhat competed with each other. Now the WRX is clearly the stronger in terms of power and it moves the WRX away from the F-XT in terms of market position. I agree with this thinking.

    Bob
  • Granted, a "Track ready suspension" (which '09 WRX has) doesn't seem to make sense for a Forester.
    Subaru tried the Forester XT with a manual and few got sold, which further bolsters rsholland's point.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    This new engine should find its way into the new forester XT.

    I dunno, because that engine is mated to the manual only, which the Forester does not get.

    They could mate it to the rumored CVT - that would be a nice combo because the CVT could go right to the torque peak, and keep it there! :shades:

    The current turbo hits peak torque at just 2800 rpm, so it's probably actually better for the 4EAT. The higher HP WRX engine peaks after 4000 rpm, much later now.
  • ...and a peaky turbo seems to be favored by the enthusiasts driving these.

    Still, the Forester could get the more open catalyst and a few other tweaks, should Subaru feel that useful.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    And going back 5 years ago, the F-XT actually had a more powerful engine when it had the 2.5 and the WRX still ran the 2.0L. They tuned it for published tq and hp numbers which were lower, but a quick reflash had folks running 270-280hp. Back then I had thought it was a bad choice to make the Forester with a more powerful engine, but from the standpoint of the potential Forester owners, it was a good choice because it had a much more linear acceleration and didn't bog off the line like the 2.0 can do, but gave performance which trumped the competitions V-6s.
    I think they finally have it right this time and would sell very few high-rev dependant Foresters. I have tried, but cannot find a torque/hp graph for the new 265WRX. What the torque is doing at 2500 is very important wrt daily driveability.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,727
    "I have tried, but cannot find a torque/hp graph for the new 265WRX"

    I think it's in the '09 WRX / STI brochure, which is now just arriving at dealers. I don't see it on the SOA site yet.

    Bob
  • The only major XT complaints I've found surfing the web are rattles and the 4-speed transmission. Mine has both - former are annoying, latter works ok so long as I don't try to drive in S. Calif (80 mpg ave. freeway speed down there, forcing XT to use mucho gas :mad: )
  • These folks rated the '09 Forester surprisingly poorly. They carped about the rear seat not having any room. WTH? Even when compared to the Malibu Maxx I used to drive (which had tons of back seat room), the '09 Forester is a big improvement over the larger Outback and is far better than many small cars.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    You can now find the 265 WRX graph as part of the e-brochure at Subaru.ca. The graph suggests no delay in torque with an almost identical curve shifted up slightly. Very nice flat curve with over 225 ft-lbs from about 2000 rpm onward.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    A lack of rear seat room is not a valid criticism compared to the competition : CR-V, Rav, Rogue.
  • We have a 2005 3.0 Outback which we like very much but find the seats uncomfortable on long trips - would anyone know if the seats in the 2009 forester XT are more supportive?

    Also, are we giving up alot of comforts going to the Forester that we have in the Outback?

    Thank you!
  • To repeat in brief, when I compared '08 Outback and '09 Forester (both XT top of lines):

    Outback has nicer interior trim, SI drive, limited slip Diff, more complex instrumentation, little rear seat foot room, 5-speed auto or manual, turbo surge, more cargo space, quieter. Is 5 year old design.

    Forester is more responsive, nicer seats (outbacks started hurting after 10 minutes),
    less lean in turns, better mileage, more rear seat room, 4-speed auto only.
  • Thank you!

    Would you say that moving from an Outback 3.0 (top of the line) to a top of the line Forester is a lateral move or a step down?
    I know the outback will be re-designed for 2010 and would like to wait for it but we give back our car in Dec and the new outback probably won't be out until next fall - bad timing for us.

    What do you think of the Acura RDX? we are looking at safety first, comfortable seats, cargo space and comfort for long trips.

    Know anything about the toyota venza?

    Thanks again!
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,727
    Moving to a Forester from an Outback 3.0 is a step down. I've had a '09 Forester dealer loaner several times, and it seems to not absorb speed bumps as well as the Outback (drove one on back trails near Las Vegas, and it took the bumps very well), as I recall.

    The RDX has an excellent S-AWD, a 5-speed automatic, a turbo (premium fuel!) and as per all Acuras, the content level is very high and is very well thought out. It's a premium brand, unlike Subaru, so you would expect that.

    Having said that, I hate the styling, and vision out of the rear-quarter windows is limited. The tow rating, if that's important, is much lower (1500 I believe) than the Forester or Outback.

    The Vensa appears to be Toyota's answer to the Outback.

    Bob
  • My experience w/ Outback is it does absorb large bumps better than the Forester and does have an generally plusher ride.
    However, small bumps come though more harshly, possibly because of Bridgstone tires on Outback .vs. Yokohama on Forester.
    Also, wrt Forester, the XT has slightly different ride than the X.

    The Acura RDX is more fun to drive, but tends towards a "flinty" ride and has more turbo lag than the Forester.

    The 2010 Outback is rumored to be larger than the current one, to better match up to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
  • samiam_68samiam_68 Posts: 775
    The RDX has terrible turbo lag. If you like a responsive vehicle, avoid the RDX.
  • Redrose1, weren't you asking basically this same question back in early June? I'll answer it the same way I did then--forget the RDX unless you're a midget with your own kidney pads. Rides like the shocks are missing, very cramped seating for everyone but the driver, sucks gas like a cabin cruiser. I really wanted one--before I drove it.

    After owning the Forester XT Ltd. since May, I have absolutely no regrets--every bit as quick as the Acura, vastly superior ride quality (not even in the same city, much less ballpark), better mileage (averaging 21.3 city/hwy mix since new), and significantly more interior room. The only thing it's missing is the upscale nameplate--and if that matters to you enough on its own to dismiss Subaru (like that ignorant snob on the RDX forum who said "Subaru simply doesn't warrant my attention"--ooh, sorry King Nose-in-the-Air), then just go buy something at a dealer with the most wood in the showroom. You must have some reservations about the RDX if you haven't bought one yet after all this time.

    Venza will be larger than RDX/Forester, but looks nice.
  • yes - that is me - our lease on our 2005 Outback is up in Dec - so it is decision time!

    I have some reservations about the Forester because I was wondering what our outback has (3.0 model) that the Forester won't(xt model), and someone was kind enough to explain the differences earlier. We love the outback in our snowy climate but find the seats uncomfortable on long trips. We are not snobs and do not care about brands - we are all about safety and reliability.

    I think we will wait to see the venza and then decide between the forester and the venza.

    We truly appreciate your feedback. Thanks!

    Happy to hear you love your Forester - what's your opinion of the seat comfort?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I use them as a pricing guide, because I like the way they lay out the pricing info (retail and invoice).

    But I don't get their reviews, either. When the Forester first came out it had a "Recommended" rating from them, but a few model years later then simply lowered their score without explaining why. I didn't make much sense because it wasn't even a face-lift or redesign, they just changed the scores.

    My guess is the cramped back seat is still referring to the 08 model, so maybe they have not seen an 09 yet.
  • Your dogs are so adorable. I see that you live in Tampa. Can I ask where you got them. Our Aussie, Mimosa, which we had for almost 9 years, passed on two days ago. I'm thinking of getting a puppy.

    Hey! Thanks! They are pretty cute, but not necessarily the best dog for the average person. All three come from herding lines (all from different breeders) and are alot of dog -- high drive, high energy, and very quirky -- they make great performance dogs, but are not suitable for most pet owners.

    aj
  • For me the seats are perfectly fine (keeping in mind that we're talking leather with the power adjustment), but everybody's body is different--remember the putz in the reviews section who bought a Forester then determined the seats were so uncomfortable for him he was having custom seats installed. I do agree that the passenger seat is lower than the driver's, but then I'm 6'4" so it doesn't matter to me. Adjustable lumbar support would be nice, but I don't miss it.

    See where I'm going with this? Spend some time in the car before you buy it--try to get a half day test drive (both Honda and Acura let me do that).
  • For those looking, be sure to try out '09's with both the regular, and power seat.
    At around 180 lbs, I found Drivers' manual seat OK for short trips but it lacks lumbar support adjustments and has less padding than the new Power seat.

    You can get power seat in the X-Limited (formerly X-LLBEAN) and XT-Limited. I believe it's the same seat.

    As for limited space in '09 Forester's back seat per Consumer Research: There's more space in the Forester's rear seat than in the Outback, way more than the '08 Forester, and compares pretty well to the huge amount of space in the Malibu Maxx's rear seat!
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    I was confused by your post, but then figured it out. Assuming that there are others as slow as myself it should be pointed out that the passenger lacks lumbar support, but the driver's seat has it.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    Plus what the leg room numbers can't tell you. The 09 Forester allows you to put your feet comfortably under the seats in front, which makes for a much more comfortable seating position. Much better than the Rav4 or the new Jetta for example, or the Outback for that matter. Can't remember for sure now how the CR-V was, but I don't remember being impressed there either.
  • I remember '08 CR-V was pretty decent in back, and has far more footroom in front thanks to thinner transmission tunnel. Also Nicer interior than Forester.

    But... CR-V was a slug during my test drive (5-speed trans was not helpful), and seeing the AWD CR-V tested on Catalina island promptly getting stuck on hills the Forester charged up ended my CR-V consideration.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I didn't like the CR-V's door handles, all that pluminum, but the rest of the interior is nice.

    For us, though, it was the visibility that ruled it out.
Sign In or Register to comment.