Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Changes You'd Like To See in the Subaru Forester

13»

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A lot of new info is here as the 2008 Impreza photos and specs are leaking out.

    Impreza's wheelbase is 103.9", and that's probably long enough that the Forester will get the same thing.

    The gas tank is 16.9 gallons, so again, Forester should get at least as big a tank.

    A more compact rear suspension means much less wheel intrustion, so again I'd expect more cargo space on the Forester.

    It'll probably arrive for model year 2009, but calendar year 2008.
  • au1994au1994 Member Posts: 3,358
    Probably been mentioned before, but I would like to see a 5 speed automatic in a future Forester.

    2021 Jeep Wrangler Sahara 4xe Granite Crystal over Saddle
    2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
    2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha

  • bbthomasbbthomas Member Posts: 24
    Things are looking positive for the 2009 Forester, if it gets some of recent items added to other Subaru's:
    VDC on more models
    2 row curtain airbag
    longer wheelbase for rear seat room
    telescoping steering wheel
    audio controls on steering wheel

    A 5EAT would be nice, keep it boxy for cargo, and keep the huge moonroof. An added bonus would be if the front passenger seat folded flat to handle long items like the Jeep Patriot.
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    Had my driver's side window broken but they ran before breaking in when the alarm went off.

    Perhaps if they could have seen the blinking red security light instead of it being hidden behind the steering column they might not have tried in the first place.

    Take a look. If you come up from the back, you can see it, but if you are right at the side, it isn't immediately visible and you have to look to one side of the steering column...

    Grrrr, not at Subaru...just Grrr...
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Security lights don't stop thieves. Unfortunately :(

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    For sure, 5EAT is a big one.

    That's a mistake they made with the 08 WRX.
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    >>Security lights don't stop thieves. Unfortunately<<

    In Topeka they do and sitting in your driveway... LA, NY, maybe not. Heck, sitting in your car doesn't stop them there...
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    I would expect to see something along the lines of the '08 Tribeca grill on the new Forester, along with the concave body paneling and shoulder lines we are seeing on the Tribeca and Impreza.

    Assuming the '09 Forester will get:

    1) A 16.9 fuel tank (up one gallon from the current model)
    2) The double-wishbone suspension, doing away with the strut towers in the cargo area, allowing for a flat cargo floor
    3) Steering wheel controls
    4) More leg and hip room for rear passengers, and
    5)(Fingers crossed) a 5EAT with paddle shifters - at least on the turbo'd version - an update I think we'll probably see on the '09 Impreza as well.

    All of that will address most of my complaints about my 2006 XT. And it goes without saying that if Subaru doesn't preserve the interchangability of the new Forester and Impreza models, like they have now, then they're nuts. A lot of the Forester's appeal, for enthusiasts at least, is being able to scavange the enormous Impreza aftermarket bin.

    Doug
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    Won't the double wishbone reduce height? I see those on Escape's/Tributes if I am not mistaken. Looks like a brush sweeper under there.

    What are the advantages, disadvantages?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Advantages are packaging, they reduce the amount of verticle space required in the rear trunk/hatch section for the struts and springs. They take up more room horizontally toward the center of the car. They also give a lower center of gravity in that they are lower to the ground and weight is lower down in the car. It is also my opinion that they handle a little better but that's debatable.

    -mike
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    It would seem that the lower gravity is taken at the expense of ground clearance. Something I love in our forester. If I want handling, there's the Rex.

    Regards,
    Kyle
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I don't see how it's going to hurt ground clearance. I have great clearance on my Armada and it has Indy rear with double or triple wishbone rear suspension.

    -mike
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    i must have taken your comment about them being lower to the ground as meaning less ground clearance. not my first mistake by any stretch,
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Sorry about that. I didn't actually make it clear. Essentially in a strut-type suspension you have the weight up high and the strut mounting points are higher in the car, near the rear passenger shoulders. With the double wishbone it's lower down near the base of the seat which allows for more room in the cabin and a lower center of gravity.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The new suspension is very trick. Imprezzively compact (get it?). ;)

    Didn't seem like the Forester would sacrifice much clearance. And I understand your concern because our Legacy's control arms are much closer to the ground than any part of the suspension of our Forester.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Now that I've seen the WRX, I'll be thrilled if the Forester gets all those improvements plus two measly extras:

    * VDC across the board
    * 5EAT with Sportshift

    VDC is much, much, MUCH more important in this class. Right now Hyundai has advertisements boasting that they make it standard, and Subaru is behind. Offering it only on some models in an SUV of any sort is suicide.

    I hope the WRX gets a 5EAT phased in for MY2009, so the Forester should get it too, and on all models! :shades:
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    How high up off the ground your tub is, is not the same as ground clearance which is the lowest point hanging down, if I am not mistaken.

    Ford Escapes are higher off the ground than a Forester, but due to those (I think wishbone suspension) things next to the wheels that are part of the suspension, they do not have a "higher" ground clearance. Next time you are behind an Escape/Tribute take a look at what I am talking about.

    I have driven in ruts in Utah on pretty easy off road type stuff where those things would have been carving rocks and dirt or lifting the whole thing up in the air while bending no doubt while a Forester chugged along...

    And thus my earlier question... I can see a better design, but you are still going to need some type of lateral structure you do not need on the straight down strut/spring setup on present Suby's. And that is going to seemingly have some impact on "clear" ground clearance.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    It's all in the design of the vehicle. Don't forget we are talking about a FORD here. As I said I have taken my Armada off-road, done some rock crawling etc. That has double (triple actually I think) rear wishbone suspension and I got hung up on the running boards, not the suspension pieces.

    We'll have to see how it looks and drives when it comes out.

    No offense to Forester owners out there but the Forester is not an "off-road" vehicle, at best it's a dirt-road vehicle, but let's be honest it's no Rubicon.

    They may have different shaped wishbones for the forester v. impreza. Here is a shot I took at NYIAS of the underside:
    image
    image

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Useful pics. You can see the lower links aren't really much lower than the center diffy. Maybe an inch, plus they're closer to the wheel.

    If you look at the same view of an Escape or CR-V, they are several inches lower than the rear diffy.

    Ha ha, found a really funny pic:

    image

    You can see, near the rear wheel, just how low those lateral link are. :D
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I agree that one of the seldom touted advantages of the Forester is it's clean undercarriage. Sure it's not set up for real off-roading but I'd rather drive it on rough forest service roads than a Escape or CRV (even though they technically have a higher ground clearance). Having said that, the strut towers do indeed take up a lot of interior room so if they can manage to make them less intrusive (without messing up the undercarriage) that would be great.

    I don't see the center of gravity issue being of much concern unless you plan on racing one. The Forester already has a much lower CG than anything else in its class. Besides, it's a utility vehicle intended to haul stuff. That the XT can also haul [non-permissible content removed] is just an added benefit :P

    -Frank
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Lower CG will give it a better rollover score, it's all about the scores.

    -mike
  • kavoomkavoom Member Posts: 181
    I think suby's are or were the only "suv" (intentional small case to pre-empt that argument hopefully) that did/does NOT require the rollover sticker right in front of your face presently. I can't be sure about the Tribeca though...

    These "rollover" "lower center of gravity" arguments would be great for other vehicles, but that has always been one of Suby's best features...
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Do the others in the classes against the Forester and Outback have rollover stickers? Not sure though.

    Heck I'm not even sure my Armada has that sticker in it, I'll have to check it next time I'm in it.

    -mike
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I seem to recall that they use a rather simplistic mathematical equation to determine the CG and accompanying rollover score. Something like they don't actually determine the CG but just estimate it based on HT/WT/Ground Clerance/etc. Thus it doesn't take into account the boxer engine's lower CG nor would it care what type of suspension was used.

    I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will set me straight :)

    -Frank
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    No, I think you're correct Frank.

    Bob
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    Great, now Frank gets that huge ego boost hes always wanted with that double confirmation. LOL.

    Kyle
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Sorry about that! One of our servers seems to have hiccuped.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • wybird1wybird1 Member Posts: 2
    I'd like to see the ground clearance increase for those of us who live on dirt roads with ruts.

    A little more knee room for tall drivers.

    Head rests that tilt for long commutes.

    Rear seats that recline a little more.
  • dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    How about rear seats that recline PERIOD? ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Head rests that tilt for long commutes.

    Rear seats that recline a little more.


    Believe it or not my 1998 model has both.

    The rear seats recline almost all the way. The rear head rests also tilt. And they are interchangeable with the fronts, so I swapped them out and have tilting head rests. :shades:
  • djensondjenson Member Posts: 2
    Get rid of the cheap fabric seats... stand by the warranty for wear for 36000. The seats are fraying on the seams in even new cars and Subaru won't admit it is a quality control problem and replace with something more durable. The light color interior is terrible for showing dirt though the car is excellent driving in snow & mud.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Been following these forums for a long time, and yours are the first "worn" seats I've heard of.

    -mike
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I remember there was an issue with the 1st gen Forester regarding the fabric on doors that would show wear from drivers who rode with their arms on the window sill.

    -Frank
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Back then Ed used to complain. Ironically, it was the higher trim line.
  • bayarea_s40bayarea_s40 Member Posts: 19
    I've had a Forester XT Sport (automatic, with VDC) for a little over a year now. Very reliable, but sometimes it's the little things that get to you:

    1) This model has the "high-end" audio system (MP3-capable), but the two front door speakers are simply terrible. When the engine is on, and at normal volume, they vibrate with the panel with such distortion that it is impossible to listen to some music. We also have a 2005 Volvo S40 T5 with a good audio system, and, while it's not MP3-capable, CD's and radio music sounds GREAT. Two Subaru dealer service depts claim they cannot hear the problem, and now the warranty on the audio system is close to expiring. This problem really strengthens the image of Subarus as being (and sounding) "tinny""! :P

    2) I got the heavy duty floor mats with this XT Sport. The driver's mat has a hook that is supposed to prevent the mat from sliding up under the pedals, but, because this mat is so thick, it quickly slips up and off the hook. One dealer's service guy actually thought there was a different hook available for this mat, so, at no charge to me, he ordered and installed it: it was the exact same hook!! If anyone knows a homemade solution to securing the mat to the hook, I'm listening. :confuse:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I can't disagree.

    I replace the base speakers on my Forester with premium sound speakers, and they are only slightly less bad. To be fair that was a 1998 model.

    The pin that holds my floor mat in place broke off the first year I owned the vehicle. I never bothered to replace it.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Subaru certainly isn't known for it's audio systems. The base speakers are pathetic paper cones and while the upgraded ones are somewhat better construction, they're hardly audiophile quality. However, I've got the upgraded audio system and I have to crank it up pretty high to get the speakers vibrating in the door panels :confuse:

    Does the hook go all the way into your floor mat? If so, you'd think that it would provide enough resistance to prevent the mat from sliding. I've never had a problem with the standard mats sliding.

    -Frank
  • bayarea_s40bayarea_s40 Member Posts: 19
    Frank,
    When I swapped it in for a while, the standard mat did not slide at all. The heavy duty mat is much thicker, and the hook is too short to hold it securely. Just wish someone at Subaru had thought this through to where they either: a) re-worked the hole in the mat so the original hook could hold it, or b) offered a bigger hook. :(
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Member Posts: 426
    Now that I have seen and crawled all over the 09 Forester I find that I like it very much, however I am very disappointed that they didn't include a 5 speed automatic in the changes. This would allow lower RPMs at highway speeds. I am not a CVT fan.

    So my first wish would be the transmission. My second wish would be for them to make changes to the 3.0 H6 to allow it to run on regular fuel without compromise, and offer it on the Forester. Some of the changes made to the H6 for the Tribeca, like the cooling system, and valve actuation system, should be easily transferred to the 3.0, and leave it at 3.0 for a good balance of economy and performance.

    I would most likely buy a new Forester if it had the transmission, but would definitely buy one if it had the trans and the H6.

    If I got a 3rd wish, I would like to see the AWD bias for the automatic system changed to the 45/55 as is in the Tribeca.

    The more I think about what I have said I guess what I am asking for is a slightly smaller, more economical Tribeca type Forester.
  • robm2robm2 Member Posts: 53
    A 5th gear does not mean a higher highway gear. More often than not, it means closer gear ratios with about the same final gear ratio.

    At 110 km/h, (~70 mph), the 4EAT is still well below 3000 rpm, (I think it's around 2400 or 2600 ... can't remember for sure).

    I can tell you that the 4th gear in the 4EAT is a lower ratio (0.694) compared to the 5MT (0.738), and compared to the 6MT (0.756). Lower ratio means lower RPM at highway speed.

    More gears ≠ better highway mileage
  • bigfrank3bigfrank3 Member Posts: 426
    More gears CAN mean better highway mileage. What you mention is one scenario but not common. The Tribeca and the Outback 5 spd autos have closer interim gear ratios AND lower top gear ratios. This is much more common than what you suggest. With 5 speeds you can have your cake and eat it too.

    You also neglect final drive ratios and tire sizes too. In the case of the Forester the tire sizes are the same but the final drive ratios are different between the manual and the auto. The manual uses a 4.111 final drive while the auto uses a 4.44. The top gear in the auto has to be lower to compensate for this on the highway.

    The highway RPMs end up being similar on both Foresters. At 75 MPH the manual has 3022 and the auto has 2904. However the Tribeca has 2593. At 70 the numbers are 2820/2710/and 2420.

    Subaru does a great job with gear ratios and final drive ratios, including giving good launch characteristics in 1st gear, but using a 5 speed auto would give them better options for matching what is needed for launch and highway cruising. Somewhere around 350 to 400 RPMs lower at "real" highway speeds would provide for better fuel mileage.

    400 RPMs is roughly the difference between driving at 65 instead of 75 in the Forester. Anyone who has done this knows the mileage at 65 is much better than at 75. This discounts increased drag but that delta is a small part of the equation at these 2 speeds.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A 5th ratio would not hurt, but our auto does shift smoothly and doesn't hunt around. Overall I actually like Subaru's 4EAT as in our Forester better than the 5EAT in our Toyota Sienna.

    So add it, sure, just make sure it performs exactly like the 4 speed currently does.

    I'd like the see them raise the passenger seat an inch or so, and how about round cup holders instead of square ones?

    Minor nit picks, to be fair.

    If you keep the speeds down, you can get phenomenal gas mileage in the Forester - we can break 30mpg fairly easily. Drive fast and it's closer to 27mpg. Good numbers for the class.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,762
    Very good numbers! I have a '98 MT Escort and on a long trip yesterday keeping it at 60 mph, it returned 38.5. 28% better than what you listed for the Forester, but I give up a lot to get there. If I were up to a car payment, I would dump that little econo-car in a heartbeat.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I had a 91 Escort GT back in the day. That averaged about 28mpg or so, not a lot better than the Subaru, though I'm sure I used to drive more aggressively.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,762
    Exactly. For what you get in return, Subaru's vehicles really do provide very good fuel economy.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
This discussion has been closed.