Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Subaru XT Turbo Forester
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Cheers
Pat
To be fair, this is one of the more widely-echoed XT criticisms. In other words, on this count (even if on no others), it's not only JB.
I don't tend to group the Forester with SUVs. While it shares some of their characteristics, I think of it as a car with a tallish body.
In any event, I balance the noise levels (to some extent) against other qualities that I value, one of which is light weight. Other things being equal, it is more difficult to provide a quiet interior in a lightweight vehicle than in a heavy one. However, as others have said before, if Subaru is as serious about moving up-market as they say, interior noise levels must come down.
I'll eventually get around to shimming the front of the seat. I'm coming around to agreeing that the seat itself, in all other respects, is quite good. If only the $*&@! seatbelt would hold the hips snugly in place - but that's a complaint that applies to every contemporary car. I do not want the lap portion to decide how tight (or loose) it should be. Leave that to me.
- needs longer wheelbase. Keep the same size, but increase wheelbase.
- suspension - i personally think it does not take bumps well (think highway expansion joints), and at the same time feels too soft in handling. Check a Lexus IS300, or even a Honda, to see how it should be done.
- too small for the price, at least here in the US...
This is a prime example of how one person's steak is another's gristle. I have repeatedly complimented the Forester's ride, and one of the things I like best is how well they were able to accomplish that with the short (or, put another way, just-barely-long-enough) wheelbase. If you lengthen the wheelbase, then (for any given maximum steering angle) the turning circle gets larger, and the Forester becomes slightly less maneuverable in tight quarters. Would backseat space and ride quality improve with a lengthened wheelbase? Very likely. Would another attribute (one that I value) be diminished? Also likely.
As with many other characteristics, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of differing priorities.
I don't correlate size with price at all. An excellent small car is worth far more to me than a merely average large one.
It is kind of like a Forester discussion--- all around a fantastic vehicle, but some of the specifics maybe not as good as another car. Pick what you like the most and go for it. But don't tear down a nice package because it isn't the ulitimate in all categories.
John
If you're going to post or lurk in here, you are welcome to scroll past any messages you don't wish to read. Anyone is welcome to respond to anything posted here however.
More eggnog anyone?
Steve, Host
OK, then let's just let people know you're holding it to a higher standard than the louder CR-V, RAV4, Escape, etc.
I don't think the Forester moved upmarket ... yet. Street prices are actually lower than they were for my 1998! Now that is amazing, and part of my value equation.
get around to shimming the front
Get to it! ;-)
It was easy in the Miata because the seat track is straight and level. The Forester's seat track tilts down at the front. Check it out, though.
I think the Geolanders are a good All Terrain tire, let's just recognize what they are meant for - slightly tougher duties than a road tire. Gravel trails, stuff like that.
If you want quiet, a good touring tire would be better.
-juice
Longer exposure will reinforce those impressions.
I drove a Jeep GC Overland today, and was under whelmed. Steering was vague, requiring constant correction.
I'm a fanatic about steering and road feel through the wheel, which is why I think the Forester's is boosted quite a bit more than even little old ladies would require. Not a lot of feel makes it through the assist. That leads me to wonder how a Forester driver can know what the front wheels are doing on snow or ice - the very conditions that otherwise best suit the car.
Notwithstanding that, the steering is very precise and delightfully responsive. On balance, steering goes into the plus column.
Other than noise transmission, which is my sole nit, I agree.
I've heard of some folk getting 50,000 miles out of them. The way I drive, they'll probably last forever.
We are much better driving Subaru "soft roaders" that can handle as much off roading (forest service trails, etc.) as most people need without compromising the vehicle in daily driving. Did I sufficiently get back on topic?
The way I see it is that the Forester is a "car-on-stilts". Other vehicles that I would categorize in the same way:
--> Mitsubishi Outlander
--> Subaru Outback
--> Audi allroad
Te wife and I will cross-shop it against the small "cute-utes" that are available (CRV, VUE, Escape/Tribute, RAV4). Each person has their own list of what's important and what's irrelevant about the vehicle they are looking for. No sense arguing about them here -- we'll never convince someone else that our list of pros and cons are the only ones that matter.
These are forums that promote the exchange of ideas using a friendly, non-threatening medium. Disagreements are part and parcel of this kind of discussion -- without them, all we would hear is the sound of us patting each other on the back regarding the wonderful choice in vehicle we made!
The comments (both pro and con) are very helpful to someone like me. When the time comes for the test drive, I'll keep in mind the things that I've read on this board, and mention them to the wife as well. Each car we buy is a study in compromise -- we can't get (read: afford) everything we want in a car, so we have to make decisions and settle in certain areas. For example:
low ground clearance - tough to get through big snow drifts, poorer visibility (seeing over traffic)
high ground clearance - probably more weight, less mpg, less maneuverable
Each buyer will have to evaluate what is important to them (and spouse, and family) and decide accordingly.
Happy Holidays to all!
Or should be.
It will be! :-)
tidester, host
A car's price point (or value equation) plays prominently in my definition of 'greatness'. A Rolls is undoubtedly a very satisfying car for some people, but grotesquely overpriced IMO. Considering the value equation as I apply it, a Rolls is nowhere near true greatness, because I don't think there's much of a trick to building a superb vehicle when cost is no object. The challenge is to build a great car on a budget. Ergo, an XT is closer than a Rolls to greatness on my scale.
However, the XT's price point has almost nothing to do with several of what I regard to be its most pronounced shortcomings. For example, it would have cost Subaru literally nothing, in terms of dollars, to specify 3.9 final drives instead of 4.44. By choosing the latter, they emphasized (I would say over-emphasized) one set of attributes to the detriment of others. Some buyers are thrilled with the result; I'm less so. Another example: They're already shipping XTs with 5MT/sunroof/leather to Canada. It would have cost essentially nothing to simply make the exact same combinations available here, just as there. The bi-level heat-low,cool-high heater mode I need is not at all uncommon on cars much lower priced than the XT. White-on-black instruments that quite a few people have said are difficult to read on sunny days don't cost an iota less than black-on-white dials.
It is these kinds of omissions and design decisions that neither added nor subtracted from the cost to build the cars that cause the XT to miss my standard of true greatness. Correcting them would have had zero effect on the price point at which the car sells.
Gear ratio? I think it's great cause you shouldn't be doing like 150mph in a Forester on the public roads, and everyone reads the stupid magazines that say "0-60 times are XYZ" so Subaru did the right thing in that they played to the marketing crowd, they've been not doing that for too long.
-mike
CHEERS!
- it is noisier than the Accord on the highway, probably tire noise, but also some wind noise thrown in. Accord transmits lots of tire noise (you know when you're on asphalt vs concrete)--a switch to different tires helped quite a bit.
- F-XT engine was very quiet and smooth at idle--same as Accord, but you could hear its pleasant growl when accelerating.
- ride quality was similar, no rattles except once when going over speedbump at about 6 mph at the dealership
- even the highly regarded Accord has its share of rattles: sunroof (needs to be lubed around the rubber seal every 1.5 yrs), center storage bin missing a clip and buzzes, drivers door buzzes against the dash
Also, discussion about gearing is interesting. I figure Subaru had to compromise to have low gearing for towing and for offroading (lacking low range). It happens to make it wickedly quick, but I can't imagine that they went for a 0-60 number when they decided on gearing. It's just not in their character to really care (IMHO).
Thanks for everyone sharing their thoughts. It has been useful to me. Good and bad.
Merry Xmas!
Oh, to Forestir, i would love to drive the 4dr, all wheel drive, V6 or Turbo 4, 5 speed Accord if they MADE one. Thanks for the semi-comparison though (ive owned 4 Honda's before)
-Frank P.
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/d/honda03accordcoupe/exv66speedmt/- trim_overview.html
Bob
Completely agree with you on this one.
Some people complained about rear legroom. I am 5'7", wife is 5'3". To us, rear legroom is adequate, to most might be tight at best. That's why a prospective buyer needs to hear all the opinions and decide what's important for him/her.
I do a fair amount of highway driving. So I wish the Forester had a longer wheelbase, a la BMW 3 series - a small car with a longish wheelbase (107" or so, I believe). IMO the short wheelbase makes the Forester a poor cross country vehicle (that is, unless "country" is the size of Andorra or Luxembourg). But for people who don't do much highway driving, this is probably a non-issue...
Anyone drive the Altima, how does it compare please?
What's the big beef with the ATs... I've spanked plenty of cars with the Franken L with a 4EAT
-mike
Happened to me in an XT. Anyone else?
-mike
Pros:
- Powerful engine
- Nice seats
- Very practical
- Good visibility
- Good handling and brakes
- Great in the snow / rain
- Nice all-weather features (heated everything)
- Heater and A/C are VERY powerful and quick
- Gearing and final-drive ration are perfectly fine to me, feels just right, has nothing to do with gas mileage
Cons:
- Terrible, torturous seatbelts
- Oversensitive drive-by-wire throttle resulting in poor gas mileage
- Hood scoop further reducing highway MPG due to drag (Subaru: mount the intercooler upfront below the radiator and ditch the scoop!)
- Gauge needles impossible to read with sunglasses on
- Auto climate control is poorly designed and not very effective / useful
To those who will jump on me due to my MPG comments, take a look at some American cars with tall gearing, lugging around 2K RPM at 70 MPH - why do they get such good gas mileage? Because those engines are WEAK, not because of the gearing. An average GM 3.8L engine is rated at 200hp. That is pathetic by today's standards.
The Forester XT engine is POWERFUL, therefore it uses more gas, especially with that trigger-sharp throttle control. Power comes at the expense of gasoline usage.
Also, from real life comments on these boards, seems the A/T XT is getting lower MPG than the M/T XT despite taller gearing. I just filled up today, clocked in 23.2 MPG in 80/20 hwy/city. Not too shabby for a 5.3 second 0-60 car. Car and Driver observed 20 MPG while beating the daylights out of it. Not bad IMO.
Maybe I missed an answer / opinion with all the recent posts...
The headlight reflective pattern on low-beam emulates the european style cut-off pattern but maybe having more degree rise to the shoulder to illuminate road signs, etc. The cut-off should be exactly, or just slightly lower to being parallel to the road surface. Having driven with euro style lenses, you will get outstanding illumination coverage across the road but you may find at first, that the cut-off is disconcerting until you get used to it due to the very fine controlled output with little stray light rising above the horizontal cut-off (better for driving in low visibility conditions). The high beam pattern, what little I've been able to use it the past 2 weeks, does seem to throw the beam a bit to the high side. Sorry, but I haven't measured the pattern or looked for any adjustment screws yet. I believe the fogs can be adjusted which seem to be aimed slightly low - will have to measure, also.
Overall, I find the beam pattern very good in a stock non-HID set-up though I prefer quad lamps with individual adjustment capabilities.
Neither the presence nor absence of bling matters to me in the slightest; function does. Black lettering on white dials is easier to read under nearly any condition than the reverse.
Gear ratio? I think it's great cause you shouldn't be doing like 150mph in a Forester on the public roads
Agreed. A bit of self-discipline would be good. Whether or not a car can attain xxx mph is no basis for doing so on public roads.
I'm just under 6'. After setting the driver's seat as I've described (won't do it here again to avoid further upsetting the too-much-repetition folks), I have enough front-seat legroom that fully depressing the clutch is a stretch-to-tiptoe operation - and then, without changing the seat position, I can climb out and sit behind myself with at least an inch or two of kneeroom to spare. Given that, and the car's tidy size, I no longer fault the backseat space at all. And that's saying something, because we all know how ready I am to find fault with the slightest XT imperfection.
You're happily in the majority.
has nothing to do with gas mileage
This statement cannot be proved. Axle ratios are certainly not the only factor affecting a given vehicle's fuel consumption, but without question they do indeed influence it. Shorter ratios require more RPM, friction unarguably rises with the square of increased RPM, and it takes fuel to overcome friction.
Heck FMIC on just about any car other than a race car is bad. Why? Road debris. I think Subaru is smart putting it up top no need for another item in the front to get whacked with stones, brush etc.
-mike
-mike
Bob
-Dave
Bob
On another quick note, I installed my Blizzak WS-50 snow tires last weekend. I ordered these from Tire Rack telling them that I owned an 04 Forester X. They wouldn't sell me the steel wheel combo for the XT. They fit fine and are only slightly noisier then the Geolanders. I know they are great in the snow as I had the same package on my 98. I got the #14 wheel covers (they were out of style #15 that I wanted)and like them a lot. IMO they have a similar appearance to the XT alloys.
-Les