2009 Subaru Forester

redherring1 · May 2008

Lest anyone misinterpret, kd and I basically agree--the Forester ultimately got both of our votes. Where we differ, however, is in our opinion of the RDX, and maybe that's not for this forum, but I think it's an interesting discussion here because my intent is to let '09 Forester owners know that you could have ended up with a better value than you realize when you compare it to something that's perceived to be a significantly better vehicle.

One gets the Acura experience when driving the RDX, no doubt about it.

As someone who has owned 4 Acuras and still has an '04 TL, I don't feel that statement is true at all--if it were, I'd have an RDX in my driveway. It's cramped for everybody except the driver, short on storage space, has a worse power to weight ratio and 2.6 inches less ground clearance than the XT, is not particularly quiet, and as I noted earlier, rides like a coal cart. Other than a better stereo and 4 wheel drive system (for handling at least), I didn't find it superior in any way. My TL is a superbly balanced, comfortable car and very refined--that's the Acura experience. The RDX actually aggravated me because it did not deliver that--and before spending the day with it I was almost sure I was going to get one.

ateixeira · May 2008

Congrats to you, I've been off line for a few days but I read that you got yours. Nice.

Congrats also to firstsub and tkay.

tkay: finally, eh? :shades:

Still, you beat me to it. Fitz still cannot find a Blue or Silver Bean model. There are only 2 in the entire region, and dealers are not willing to trade because they can easily sell this most popular model.

So looks like we may actually do a factory order! Can you believe that?

We'll have to wait 6-8 weeks.

The good news is that if it comes in June or July, any incentives that appear will apply to our deal.

rsholland · May 2008

If you order one, it likely won't be a LL Bean, but rather a Limited model.

Bob

ateixeira · May 2008

Thanks for looking that up.

5hp and partial zero emissions for $211 at invoice cost (for the LL Bean model).

I'm in. :shades:

Aftermarket modifications to gain 5hp would probably cost more tha $211 alone. The PZEV status is icing on the cake.

This is really cool. I remember when you lost a couple of HP for the PZEV.

We'll order a PZEV model for sure.

Plus, I believe the emissions controls are designed to last for the whole 150,000 mile warranty that covers emissions equipment in CARB states. Even if it's not covered here in MD, the equipment was designed to outlast that warranty. :shades:

ateixeira · May 2008

Yeah, guess so. Limited it is. Oh well, no biggie. I like LL Bean but I'm sure the wifey cares more about the color choices.

jeffmc · May 2008

You could just buy an LL Bean badge & slap it on the rear hatch to make your own unique Subaru Forester LL Bean Limited PZEV edition. (You'd have 5 badges on the hatch!!!)

I'm sure you could order the LL Bean floormats as well. All you'd be missing would be the embossed logos on the seats.

rjweiss · May 2008

Noticed the new 09's have some more space and larger engine, my wife and I have been thinking about taking a look at one.

We presently own an 03 non-turbo and have been happy with it but the 09 looks inviting.

We would like to know what the mpg's have been running on the 09's with and without turbo?

Does the engine require high test (major reason we didn't opt for an 03 turbo)?

Would the increase in engine size make up for the 03's lack of power for passing or is that still an issue with the 4 speed auto???

We HATE the climate control on the 03, have they improved on that?

Thanks

Ron W.

kurtamaxxxguy · May 2008

For '09 XT Limited (has turbo), my mileage is around 19 - 20 mpg. This is nearly all city driving. There is plenty of power for passing and the turbo has much less lag than before.

Turbo wants 91 octane, will run on lower grades as "emergency" (you could cheat by mixing Premium and Intermediate grades). Lower grade fuel will cut power and may make "check engine" light come on.

Space utilization is much better. Rear seat has decent legroom, turning radius is smaller than before.

ateixeira · May 2008

Engine size is still 2.5l, but it now makes 170-175hp.

I would recommend the PZEV models, which make 175hp. That's 10hp more than your 2003 has now.

As for labels, Subaru seems to love them, maybe mine could be a "Subaru Forester 2.5i Limited LL Bean Edition AWD" or something like that.

samiam_68 · May 2008

We HATE the climate control on the 03, have they improved on that?

We won't really know that until next Januray and one winter season.

Personally, I doubt it's any better.

p0926 · May 2008

major reason we didn't opt for an 03 turbo

Well there was one other reason... the turbo wasn't offered until MY-2004

-Frank

comet48 · May 2008

I'm thinking seriously about the 2009 Forester and I specifically asked about this via the Subaru website and received the following reply:

"Thank you for your reply. Yes, the iPod interface is available on the
2009 Forester LL Bean Edition, without NAV."

I relayed the response to my dealer, who said their tech said it "should" work. I am still not entirely convinced. Also after seeing a number of very negative comments about the performance of the Ipod interface in other Subaru models, I decided to wait and see. If this situation is clarified and proves to work well, it should not be too big of a deal to install later.

ericbecho · May 2008

Bought the L.L Bean 2009 a couple of weeks ago. So far gas mileage is 25.5 mpgs city driving. Went as high as 30 mpg on the highway. The vehicle handles very well on dry and wet pavement. The storage area is just about perfectly sized. The interior is very functional. Three changes I would have made: 5 speed Auto trans, deeper glovebox (higher sides), different design of armrest.

After about 700 miles so far I would do it again.

Previous vehicle was a 2006 4Runner V8.

firstsub · May 2008

Picked up my 2009 Forester 2.5X w/premium 4/24/08.. I noticed a "rolling" noise while driving. Brought back to dealer to check & thought it was the tires and suggested I might call yokohama to see what they would do. Well I did call & yoko was very helpful and offered to switch out tires. I changed to Avid H4s and suprise, still had the noise. Went back to dealer & asked to drive another 2009 forester .. It also had the noise but not as pronounced. The service manager suggested I leave the car for a day & he would have several techs check it out. They called back today saying they also drove another forester & said the noise was more evident in my car. They called for a subaru tech to come & look at the car to see where we're going with this. this is not for another week.. I also called subaru corp & started a case. So far everyone seems accommodating but I'm skeptical as to what's going to happen if I'm still disatisfied. Please let me know if anyone else has experienced this "rolling " noise ( similar to a tire rolling noise) .. I have a feeling this is inherent to AWD with subaru.. I have not owned a AWD before, however I expect the vehicle to be quiet . this is a crossover and not a truck...

p0926 · May 2008

Previous vehicle was a 2006 4Runner V8.

A 4-cyl Forester is a pretty radical change from a V8 4Runner. I know you're liking the Forester's gas mileage though

-Frank

p0926 · May 2008

I have not owned a AWD before, however I expect the vehicle to be quiet

The AWD system shouldn't make any noise. Not in a Subaru or any other modern AWD on the market.

-Frank

jeffmc · May 2008

Ummm... wait a minute... so, when the vehicle is moving you get a noise that sounds like rolling tires? :confuse:

Sorry, couldn't resist. :P

firstsub · May 2008

that's the KIND OF NOISE it makes , but it's not the tires. something up front.. any ideas???? joke taken!

tkay · May 2008

Thanks Axman for the Kudos. Who in the heck is buying up all these Beans .I did have a 2001 Outback Legacy that we kept till 2005.Looked at the Forester and test drove the X model,but was not impressed. Did not really care for the styling. So opted for the 05 Cr V. Then are Subie bucks were going to start to expire (1800.00) starting 04/.08,Heard about the new Subie coming and went to the auto show Feb 08 and liked the new look. Dealer gave me a pretty good price along with free scheduled maintenance (3 Years) so-long 05 Cr V.. Good Luck on getting the 1 u want. Sooner than Later!!!!

speedingticket · May 2008

The only other possibility is a defective wheel bearing. Have they checked that possibility?

kurtamaxxxguy · May 2008

According to Subaru, the Forester is off to "a great start". Per the Auto Observer columm here:
"Forester sales of 5,339 units were 49 percent over year-earlier sales of the previous version of the vehicle."

firstsub · May 2008

dealer did check bearings. Just drove car and put the car in neutral and turned engine off. Sounds like something on driver side .. Perhaps defective bearing or axil.. Subaru rep is going to look at car on or before 5/12. However , im not driving car so I can keep milage low.. Want to keep my options open. Have not read many post on driving experiance of new 2009 Forester..;

birdboy · May 2008

picking up my Camelia Red LL Bean 2.5x Forester on Friday after a long search and many test drives of the competitors. Just curious, does anyone know why the large sunroof glass isn't tinted? Also , does it have a tilt up feature?
Thanks for any info and all the past info. This forum has proven to be both very informative and useful.

volkov · May 2008

We are still tire kicking Leg vs OB vs For. Just a couple of 08 Leg tourings on the lot and very few available province wide and no Limiteds in Leg or OB so no big discounts from dealers and given the lack of VDC they are a no brainer to pass up till next model year.
We can't get the PZEV here. They are introducing a Leg and an OB model coming in the next month but in mid level trim only. Subaru will probably wait to see how they sell and then expand to include Forester next year. A shame really, because if we buy a Forester we'd definately want that option. The Leg PZEV is still in the running for Sandra due to that option as she tries to be enviro conscious, but I honestly find it less car for more money next to the Forester from our needs/wants standpoint otherwise. I would be frustrated if we have to get a lesser car just for that one option but that's FHI for you.
"Frustrated Love.... it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru"

leseuldaniel · May 2008

There is another option: Get both PZEV and save thousands by buying in the US....

redherring1 · May 2008

"Thank you for your reply. Yes, the iPod interface is available on the
2009 Forester LL Bean Edition, without NAV."

Thanks, Comet--exactly the opposite of my dealer eventually told me. He checked and was told that it's incompatible with the upgraded radio in the Beans and Limiteds. As you suggest, I guess the complete answer is that nobody's sure whether it works or not, so I'm also inclined to wait.

cshopper · May 2008

I found the CR-V / RAV4 vs Forester comparisons interesting but in some ways I think the Tribeca is a closer competitor due to the interior size differences. Both the CR-V and RAV4 have much more cargo volume than the Forester and about the same volume as the Tribeca. Toyota and Honda have managed to keep the exterior dimensions small while maximizing interior volume. Of course they don't offer the amenities/appointments of the latter, but are also cheaper. I think size-wise, the bump-up for the Forester is great, but if the Tribeca has less legroom than the CR-V and RAV4, then what about the Forester? What makes the '09 Forester the winner would be if you like the smaller size and also appreciate the superior AWD performance to the CR-V and RAV.

skeleton · May 2008

Subaru actually makes a point to show how the Forester's cargo volume is more functional than that of the CRV and RAV4. There's a Youtube video that shows how a container full of granola bars fits in the Forester but does not fit in the CRV and RAV4.

From a pure spec perspective, the CRV and RAV4 have max volume of 73 cub. ft. Forester has 68.

volkov · May 2008

Have to disagree here. Not sure where you get your data, but the cargo and passenger volume of Cr-v and Forester X are almost identical. With slight edge to the CR-V, but passenger volume has slight edge to the Forester. So they didn't achieve "much more" interior volume. Now the Forester interior numbers drop for the upper trim levels due to the loss of height from that big sunroof. Unless you routinely stack your cargo to the roof or have headroom issues, that loss is irrelevant. I found that with the cover open, the upper glass gives a feeling of much more room than the CR-V. I'd gladly give up spec sheet volume bragging rights for that.
Toyota specs are more limited on their web-site. While it's true the Rav4 has great cargo room, the Forester has more headroom and more front legroom and rear shoulder room. Despite the slightly longer rear legroom in the Rav, the front seats sit low. As has been mentioned the new Forester gives a nice amount of foot room - something not reflected in interior measurements. That is very useful for kids with big snow boots.
In the end, Honda and Toyo haven't achieved something Subaru didn't, it's just different organizing that's all. The rear cargo capacity is not the single most important feature of these vehicles for most buyers, so a slight edge in that department does not put them in a different class.

ateixeira · May 2008

Simple - the Forester is almost as big as the Tribeca, too. In fact I wonder if the box from that video would fit in the Tribeca with the hatch closed - my honest guess is "no", due to the angle of the hatch.

The main reason the Tribeca does not compete with the CR-V and RAV4 (and Forester while we're at it) is because of the interior upgrades you don't find in this class. Check out the headliner - same material used in the $70,000 VW Phaeton. Identical. It also has softer plastics, thicker carpets, etc.

The Tribeca's achilles heel is that it really is not very space efficient. That plus visibility is only so-so.

The Forester is the opposite. Space efficiency is great, it's one of the smallest entries in the segment on the outside, yet inside it has a ton of useable space. Look at the floor width, for instance. And visibility is the best in class, perhaps the best crossover period.

The new Forester bodes well for the next-generation Tribeca. I'm sure they will make similar improvements.

ateixeira · May 2008

25.5 mpg around town and up to 30 on the highway sounds good, especially given it's probably not even broken in yet. You should see a 1-2 mpg improvement as it breaks in.

Still cannot find an LL Bean model, time to give up and order one?

Thing is, we really want the PZEV model.

Angel on my left shoulder: That is because we care about the environment and wish to minimize emissions as much as possible for our children.

Devil on my right shoulder: Nonsense. We want the extra 5hp that comes with no penalty in fuel economy.

So the odds of sitting back and finding a PZEV in Blue or Silver, LL Bean model, no Nav, are about .... zero.

ateixeira · May 2008

OK, I apologize to the Tribeca.

I checked and cargo width is similar, per cars101 the Forester is 42.2" between the wheel wells and the Tribeca has 43".

Tribeca wins easily on length, 44" to 35.5". So even though the hatch has more rake to it, the box I was referring to should easily fit inside.

I should have known, given Subaru used the same compact rear suspension from the Tribeca for the Forester.

cshopper · May 2008

I agree that "rear cargo capacity is not the single most important feature", but I am just trying to say that people naturally compare RAV/CRV to Forester based on exterior dimensions and the real comparisons should be based on interior dimensions. But maybe its price class that draws the comparison (that's why Tribeca is a diff. class). Subaru is definitely not space efficient in their design- both the Tribeca (34.3")and Legacy (34"), they're largest sedan, have less rear legroom than the 2007 Corolla (35.4") and about the same as a Civic. The Legacy is way bigger on the outside than a Corolla, almost 10".
"the cargo and passenger volume of Cr-v and Forester X are almost identical"
These are the manufacturer, per SAE guidlines, figures I saw:

Tribeca: 2nd row seats folded=74 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 37.6 cu ft
Forester: 2nd row seats folded=63 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 31 cu ft
CRV: 2nd row seats folded = 72.9 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 35.7 cu ft
RAV4: 2nd row seats folded = 73 cu feet

per these numbers, the CRV has almost 10 cu feet more cargo volume, that seems like a lot more. Honda spent a lot of time on rejiggering their interior panels to eke out more interior space on the CRV, I think that shows. Subaru also has a different drivetrain layout (boxer, AWD) than other manufacturers that may/may not impact how much wheelbase gets translated into legroom etc... I haven't seen all the numbers on the Subaru but perhaps they are getting much better than they were.

tinycadon · May 2008

Juice, hate to bust your oranges, but I had to say something. If you're truly worried about emissions then you will not buy a new car and drive the one you have into the ground. The most PZEV you can buy is the one you already own because the environmental damage that was done to build that car has already been done. From extracting the raw elements from the ground, to the processing, to the construction and then delivery, the amount of emissions that were released in that process FAR outweighs any emissions savings from a brand new PZEV that you can buy. Yes that new car is built, but if it sits then another new car might not get built next year, and so forth. Not to mention, Subaru only builds a certain # of PZEV for sale in Cali and the Northeastern states, meaning that if you buy 1 they're not building another one for the state you buy it from, so it's really a no win solution.

Now, if you were to say that you want to buy 1 and bring it to Maryland to help spread the gospel to states that don't have PZEV, the world is yours

!!!

paisan · May 2008

Yup but then we'd all still be driving circa 1975 American gas hogs that get like 12mpg and have 3 speed transmissions with engines like the 455 Rocket and names like Oldsmobile 98 Regency!

-mike

lucyinfiniti · May 2008

and I was a tad disappointed. I like the styling of the car and I really liked the interior. But there were some little things I want in my next car and if I'm going to pay that much for anything I want to get exactly what I want. First I was a little perturbed that Subaru only offers a "ivory" colored with the Newport Blue exterior. Most automakers today offer at least two choices of interior color with almost all exterior colors. I also want a vehicle with separate flip-up glass hatch window, as well as reclining rear seats. I also was shocked that Subaru hasn't begun offering a keyless entry/ignition system. i also can't but help but wonder why Subaru is still using a 4-speed automatic what with everyone wither switching to CVT's or 5,6, or 7 speed automatics...get in the game guys! Maybe I'm also a little biased because of the awesome torque from my Jeep Cherokee's 4.0 six, but the 4 cylinder didn't have enough oomph for me, especially at the low end. I engine when pushed seemed to take a few seconds to respond, "oh, you want to go now, ok just give me a moment" like it was distracted or something. Other than those things I thought the car was very nice, just not right for me.

kdshapiro · May 2008

Did you test drive the XT (turbo)? It'll dust the Jeep.

jeffmc · May 2008

Yep, Subaru's color combos are limited compared to most... one of the penalties of being a smaller company.

Forester does have reclining rear seats in every model but the base.

The 4-spd tranny is in use because it's an economical and reliable choice while Subaru is preparing its CVT, due out soon. Lack of more gears doesn't really seem to hurt Forester, though... gas mileage is class-leading, equal with CR-V. 5 speeds would sure look better on paper and probably feel better when driving, though.

volkov · May 2008

Forester X (without sunroof) seats folded 68.3 / seats up 33.5 which is close IMO. On the other hand, passenger volume in the Forester is 107.6/102.1 with/without sunroof versus 103.8/100.9 for the CR-V . So a Forester with no moonroof has 5 Cu ft less cargo room but 4 cu ft more passenger room than a roofless CR-V. 1 cu ft of total interior room difference is a fraction of 1%, I'll let you draw conclusions as to whether or not that is significant.
The other numbers you are giving apply with the sunroof, so as I said, the volume loss is purely a height issue. In the end though, the numbers are rarely the full story and preferences relate more to how people feel about the space. I will admit that the trunk of the CR-V seemed a little bigger subjectively, but the Forester didn't feel small so it wasn't a factor in preference. OTOH the Forester really felt bigger the moment I sat in it YMMV.
Juice and I have a similar argument before regarding cargo volume in the Yukon XL versus the Sienna. By the numbers they are the same, but our 2 dog crates can't fit in the Sienna trunk which they do in the XL, and we've previously loaded all our luggage in the back of the XL with ease, only to find it won't fit in the rental Sienna.

p0926 · May 2008

if I'm going to pay that much for anything I want to get exactly what I want

Good luck! In this price range there are always compromises.

Your right about the limited choices of interior colors. Small market share aside, I do wish Subaru would expand their offerings.

I also want a vehicle with separate flip-up glass hatch window

That's the drawback of having such a huge moonroof. Personally I think the trade-off is worth it

Maybe I'm also a little biased because of the awesome torque from my Jeep Cherokee's 4.0 six, but the 4 cylinder didn't have enough oomph for me

That's hardly comparing apples to apples though. FYI, I went from a 4.0L Cherokee to a 2.5L Forester and didn't notice a huge drop-off in performance. Certainly not as big as the increase in mpg :P

-Frank

redherring1 · May 2008

Honda spent a lot of time on rejiggering their interior panels to eke out more interior space on the CRV

To the extent that implies that the new CRV is more space-efficient than the last generation, that's not the case. I owned an '02 CRV, and it felt significantly roomier than the current model, both in passenger and cargo space. The cargo space may measure out similarly, but the old car was more useful since the roof and hatch were more square. The stylish "rake" of the new rear hatch compromises usable space. As far as passenger room, I was very comfortable in the old car (I'm 6'4", 250 lbs) and do not fit nearly as well in the new--one of the reasons I bought a Forester.

leo2633 · May 2008

juice,

I found you a blue Bean at Lester Glenn Subaru, in Tom's River, NJ. http://www.lester.subaru.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&make=Subaru&model=F- orester

We bought two Hyundai's there in the last few years, and were very satisfied. Internet sales; no nonsense, no games.

Give them a call.

Len

cshopper · May 2008

The stylish "rake" of the new rear hatch compromises usable space
totally agree, one of the reasons why the new Rogue is nice to look at, more aerodynamic (squarer drop off in back is less aerodynamic), but not terribly space efficient.
I'm guessing the new CR-V gave up some legroom. also by putting the spare inside they gave up some space- I actually didn't mind the external spare on the old CR-V and RAV- heckuva lot easier to change the tire on a fully loaded vehicle, plus the busted tire wouldn't fit in the internal compartment but easy to mount on the back. much better utility IMHO.

ateixeira · May 2008

Thanks but I doubt the wife will want to go all the way to Jersey. I think we'll just order one. Plus I doubt it's a PZEV model.

I realize ordering a new car uses up a lot of energy but the wife is going to and I can't stop her. May as well at least influence her towards the greenest choice.

volkov · May 2008

No doubt, I would like a separate lift glass on the Forester. Couldn't live without it when packing the back of our Yukon to the gills. For us though the CR-V putting the spare inside was a big plus back in its favour for us.
I liked the external spare on our old pathfinder, but that had the advantage of a separate swing mount and then lift glass or vertical door opening and we were in a different life situation then. With 3 boys in different activities we are often running a family shuttle. Our normal drop off drill has them jump out/in curb-side and load/unload their gear from the trunk themselves. The external spare arrangement on the RAV looks very stylish but was a major negative for us because two of our boys could barely wrestle that heavy door open and closed. With the RAV all that fiddling is happening on the traffic side of the vehicle too which isn't reassuring. I still can't believe that Toyo hasn't switched the hinge on that door for NA and Euro roads. Visions of my wife with a toddler in on hand and grocery bags in the other in a crowded parking lot trying to manoeuvre that door open soon came to mind too and quickly knocked the RAV out of the running.

ateixeira · May 2008

OK, responding to several comments made above, let's see...

Corolla - yes, they have a wide cargo area, but doesn't Toyota use a complact torsion beam suspension? Cargo space trumps performance, basically. I expect that in a minivan, but it is any wonder people say the Corolla handles kind of soft?

Someone already pointed out the 63 cubic feet becomes 68 when you delete the moonroof. I'm willing to make that trade off. It's 5 cubic feet you'll never use, because it's up at the ceiling level, and you'd probably bang up the headliner even trying to use that space.

So despite the loss of 5 cubic feet, the useful space is about the same.

I still want the moonroof.

lucy: you sure you drove a Forester?

The seats recline in most every model, X Premium, soon to be X Limited, LL Bean, XT, and XT Limited all have reclining seats.

No keyless? I don't even understand that comment. Of course it has keyless.

volkov · May 2008

I beleive she means the key-less proximity key set-up where justhaving it in a purse or pocket unlocks the vehicle. I thought it was a gimmick at first, but in the grocery store with a toddler scenario it would be very useful. I wasn't aware of that feature in any comparative vehicles in this price range.

ateixeira · May 2008

Oh, keyless go, or whatever it's marketed as.

My friend's Altima has that, I thought it was a bit gimmicky. The Rogue must have it, since Nissan offers it.

I found out Subaru offers remote start for the automatics. I don't want that, as it only wastes fuel and the heated seats work right away so no need to wait for it to warm up.

p0926 · May 2008

I wasn't aware of that feature in any comparative vehicles in this price range

I wasn't either but I'm not familiar enough with the current offerings to call her on it. I know that feature is becoming a fairly common option in luxury vehicles so I'm sure it will eventually trickle down to the rest.

-Frank

lucyinfiniti · May 2008

Yea, it may but I'll also have to pay twice as much in fuel cost for the premium grade!

2009 Subaru Forester

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles