I asked a member over at NASIOC who has access to the parts book look up if the XT 5-speed has different part numbers than the X/XS. Unfortunately, it appears as though it is no different. I wonder how the 5-speed will hold up over time with the added torque.
It's strictly a guess, but I would imagine that an XT owner who occasionally does the 4000RPM-and-drop-the-clutch routine is going to experience premature failures - not only of the transmission, but also of CV joints, u-joints, differentials, clutches, and so forth.
Even in more ordinary driving, if the entire driveline is the same as the X/XS, the weakest links (whatever they are) will no doubt give a shorter service life than on the lower-powered siblings.
"The mpg on the sticker is 18 city, and 23 hwy. I would expect to see 20/26 mpg on average based on what the sticker says on the other models and what you really get."
I've never gotten more than 27 mpg from my 2001 Forester S, even on 70mph trips though Texas. This is the one thing that is holding me back from buying an XT.
I wonder if there is someway to disable turbo boost when just crusing down the highway?
krccrk says "I wonder if there is someway to disable turbo boost when just crusing down the highway?"
At light throttle, just maintaining speed down the highway on level road, you should be nowhere near the boost zone. I'll know whether that's true pretty soon, because I ordered the boost gauge on mine, and the car ought to be here within the next ten days or so.
krccrk says "I wonder if there is someway to disable turbo boost when just crusing down the highway?"
At light throttle, just maintaining speed down the highway on level road, you should be nowhere near the boost zone. I'll know whether that's true pretty soon, because I ordered the boost gauge on mine, and the car ought to be here within the next ten days or so.
I now have 432 miles on mine and when we filled it up (remember I'm only letting it go to between 3/4 and 1/2) and the last was 19.6. I am hoping this will go up after 1500 miles. The fastest so far is 85 and that was from using the turbo some :-). I still say its a great rush even for an Automatic (and the temperature here has been 90 - 94 when I did it too).
ballistic - BaDid you mean 32 front, 30 rear? That's what I plan to use for starters. What differences did you observe? Did the steering feel any less overboosted? Any difference in road noise transmitted to the interior? How different is the ride over over pavement irregularities? Did lowering the pressure still leave your XT with sharp, responsive handling, or do the lower pressures take the edge off? (RESPONSE) Finally settled 29 front 32 rear (This feels the best to me - everyone has their own number). - Door jam plate says 29 for light or full load and for rear 30 light load 36 full load. I swear this Forest has tighter handling than the 2001 did and you do feel the feel the pavement irregularities more too.
ballistic - 21.3 is going in the right direction, but this tank was mostly freeway driving, right? (RESPONSE) Nope - this is combo city and highway and every once in awhile tickling the turbo ;-)
ballistic - When you change your oil, how about confirming whether the XT has a magnetic crankcase drain plug (to attract and hold any ferrous particles). Some sources indicate that Subaru preinstalls magnetic plugs everywhere (engine, gearbox, differentials). I've always thought they were a great idea. (RESPONSE) From what I have seen in my past Subarus - no magnetic plug on the oil drain pan (As a side note I've always bought - Fumoto Engine Oil Drain Valve (example at their home page) and put in the last three Subarus. I've never noticed any filings in the oil, and I'm wondering how much of the insides of the engine might be aluminum). I also do some of my own oil changes and use Castrol SYNTEC FULL SYNTHETIC and FRAM X2™ Extended Guard Premium Filter Filter - and do the change every 3,500 - 4,000 miles (BTW Maintenance manual says first oil change at 3,000 second at 7,500 and all others every 7,500 miles - I've always done 3,500 - 4,000 after first one). Or, I take the oil to the dealer and get them to do it using a Subaru filter and they charge $15. Overkill? Maybe, but I never have had a problem with ANY service question or problem when I have my oil filter and oil receipt (when I do the changes with mileage and date written on them or have the dealer do it and its in the computer where any Subaru dealer can pull it up). I know this may be overkill to most folks, but I'm a confirmed Subaru fanatic and to me its the thing to do - oil and filter are like the blood and heart in our body, so to me its worth the extra(?) cost.
Hope I've caught all the questions - if I've missed any let me know............
Mileage is the cost of power and with premium gas...... It's worth it if you want the power..............
rsholland wrote "18 city & 23 highway for the 5-speed. This is lower than I had hoped for frankly. "
That is a major disappointment. Heavy fuel consumption is understandable when the XT is being driven hard, but the EPA drive cycles involve anything but hard driving. For the XT 5-speed to do so poorly does not augur well for owners in real-world spirited driving.
I've commented several times about the unexpectedly poor mileage ratings achieved by the XT in EPA testing (both the automatic and manual versions attained only 18/23). Several people here and elsewhere have responded that a more powerful, turbocharged vehicle will inevitably use more fuel. I pointed out that the EPA tests do not involve any hard driving and are unlikely to demand any more power from an XT than an X or XS would be called on to generate at any given moment. If the XT requires no more power to complete the standardized EPA tests than an X/XS, then UNLESS its engine is appreciably less efficient at converting fuel into power, it should perform similarly on the EPA drive cycles. Clearly, it performs substantially worse. I have yet to see a persuasive explanation.
I've noted that the newer XT engine design, unlike the 2-liter WRX or the Forester X/XS, brings significant new technology that (according to Subaru's own press releases) ENHANCES fuel efficiency among other objectives. These include the variable valve timing which, compared to an engine with fixed timing, will reduce valve overlap at moderate RPMs and load. This diminishes the amount of unburned incoming charge that flows directly out the open exhaust valves. Similarly, the XT's electronic drive-by-wire throttle is claimed to ensure that regardless of the driver's pedal position, the actual throttle opening is optimized to meet the driver's demand in the most efficient way possible.
On the other hand, the XT's compression ratio is lower than in the X/XS engines. Several respondents have indicated that the negative effect of this must have been greater than the positive effects of the foregoing new technologies. I am skeptical that this is the case.
I note that the WRX has an even lower compression ratio than the XT (8.0:1 versus 8.3 or 8.5 depending on which source you consult). As noted above, the WRX also lacks the XT's variable cam timing and electronic throttle. The WRX is only 6% to 7% lighter than an XT and has only slightly improved drag coefficient (which doesn't in any event enter into EPA test methodology).
Despite the WRX's having an even-lower compression ratio, only slightly lower weight, and none of the XT's new technology, the 5-speed WRX (capable of 227hp)still manages to deliver EPA results of 20/27. I'm still seeking any plausible explanation for the 210hp XT's poor 18/23 EPA showing that takes into account (1) the fact that EPA testing will NOT require greater power delivery than an X/XS, and (2) the XT's superior technology compared to either the X/XS or to the even-more-powerful WRX.
These XT EPA numbers are, in my opinion, a major disappointment, and I think Subaru ought to explain them. Combined with the considerably higher price of 91-octane fuel, the cost to operate an XT is going to be substantially greater than I think it was reasonable to expect.
unlike the WRX, which doesn't spool up until 3000 rpm or greater, the XT spools up much lower in the rpm band, which I think accounts for the lower EPA rating.
Turbos are fuel efficient, as long as it's not being used. When the turbo spools up, you use more gas.
ken writes, "Great commentary and analysis. It is confusing as to why the EPA figures are so low."
The pat answer that some folk give is, in effect,"the XT can make much more power than an X/XS; more power = more fuel - what did you expect, dummy?" Not to be repetitive, but this view misses the point that the EPA test cycles are (1) standardized, (2) are far from "high-performance" oriented and much more closely reflect "average" drivers and conditions (thus would never actually invoke the XT's increased power), and (3) a very similar (and even more powerful, even more highly-tuned, even lower-compression vehicle - the WRX) does much better than the XT on the EPA tests.
"What about drag? The Forester is still pretty much a brick."
Agreed, though the 2nd-gen (including the XT) brought a worthwhile c/d improvement over the 1st-gen (.35 or .36, compared to .39).
HOWEVER - EPA testing is not conducted on roads or in wind tunnels; it is done with vehicles sitting stationary on dynamometers. It is my understanding that while the EPA takes vehicle weight into account in setting up their standardized tests, they take NO ACCOUNT of differences between cars in their aerodynamics (drag coefficients, frontal areas, and so forth). These obviously are significant factors in "real-world" results, but unless I'm misinformed or the test procedures have changed, differences in aerodynamics between (for example) a WRX and an XT will have no effect whatsoever on EPA published results. Anyone who is well-versed on current EPA testing procedures is invited to correct this point.
So - absent valid rebuttals to my essential points, it remains (to me) a complete mystery as to why the 227hp WRX (with even lower compression, "hot" cams having no variable valve timing, no electronic throttle control, and only slightly less weight) produced 11 to 17% better EPA results than the lower-powered 210hp XT. And bear in mind that weight mainly affects the power (and fuel) required to repeatedly accelerate a given mass (think EPA city cycle), and has much less effect on fuel needed to keep the mass moving at steady speed (as in the EPA highway cycle).
Call me an idiot, but I expected considerably better fuel efficiency (as reflected in EPA numbers) from the new-tech XT.
bob responds, "unlike the WRX, which doesn't spool up until 3000 rpm or greater, the XT spools up much lower in the rpm band, which I think accounts for the lower EPA rating. Turbos are fuel efficient, as long as it's not being used. When the turbo spools up, you use more gas."
I agree, Bob, that the XT's turbo is CAPABLE of spooling up lower in the band, and that's a big part of why we all want it! But being capable isn't the same as actually occurring. Whether or not the turbo spools up and begins to provide boost (which would proportionately raise the rate of fuel flow) is a function of how much power is being demanded. A lead-foot driver can expect to be "on boost" quite a bit of the time, and will burn gas accordingly. However, my specific point about the methodology of EPA's test procedure is that (except for the very most underpowered cars) it doesn't require most cars (especially high-performance cars) to come anywhere close to using full throttle at any point in the rev range.
Let me put it this way: The actual acceleration forces that an XT (or WRX) would be required to produce during the EPA test cycles would be (unless I'm mistaken) virtually identical to what an X or XS would be called upon to produce. Moreover, the amount of power an XT requires to maintain (say) 60mph is virtually identical to what is required to maintain an X or XS at that same speed. Because the naturally-aspirated X/XS can readily do this with far less than full throttle, it stands to reason that an XT can do so without getting even close to actually invoking boost from the turbo.
If, then, the turbo is just "along for the ride" in all phases of the EPA standard test cycles (if the XT is never called on IN EPA TESTING to dig into its greater power capability) then the turbo ought to have little or no effect on the actual rates of air- and-fuel flows that are required for an XT to complete those cycles. Ergo, in the absence of any factors that would make an XT a much less efficent converter of fuel energy into horsepower than an X, XS, or WRX, there should be little if any difference in their EPA ratings.
But in fact the XT ought to be MORE efficent with fuel than any of them, due to the advantages only it (and the STi) have: optimized continuously variable valve timing and optimized electronic throttle control - plus a moderately higher compression ratio than a WRX.
All things considered, I'm still looking for convincing arguments that put the XT's mediocre EPA numbers into a reasonable range of expectation.
unrealistic before, maybe they are again. I think that the new owners of the XT s will be our best gauge. I was getting 28-30 mpg during conservative break-in of my '03 XS 5 speed, now under "normal" driving I am at 25. The AC and the summer gas affect mpg too. Generally, I am 5-10% higher than EPA numbers, but some Forester owners report low 20's as more common, which is closer to the EPA numbers.
once_for_all writes, "EPA numbers have been unrealistic before, maybe they are again."
True, but I'm not citing them in any absolute sense, as in whether or not they accurately project what any given owner will get. I'm using them (as I believe they're intended to be used) to compare vehicle to vehicle. That's why (IMO) it's relevant to compare the 227bhp WRX (EPA 20-27) to the 210bhp Forester XT (18-23). For any given driver, all other things being equal, this implies that an XT will deliver about 9% worse gas mileage than a WRX. Not to beat a dead horse, but Subaru's claims for the XT's variable valve timing and electronic throttle control would never have led anyone to predict this significant decline.
"Generally, I am 5-10% higher than EPA numbers, but some Forester owners report low 20's as more common, which is closer to the EPA numbers."
I haven't previously owned a Subaru, but for my mix of daily driving across many vehicles I've owned, I typically get slightly better than the EPA city rating. That means about 19 in the XT, on premium gas. I was expecting more like 22, with at least the possibility (given the lower-pressure turbo) that it might operate acceptably well on regular gas. The difference between those two scenarios is considerable.
time will tell...In any case, it is risky to jump into a revised engine with the US mods. IMO, it is best to wait a year or two for the engine/drivetrain issues to be sorted out. The reality is that no manufacturer can anticipate all the scenarios that come out. Just look at the rear bearings, warped disc brakes, and clutch issues on the early impreza lines. Now these things are bullet-proof.
I just spoke to the dealer closest to my office, and they just had an XT arrive today. Looks like I'll be heading over for a test drive in the next couple of days... -Bob
Interesting thing I noticed was how laid back the salesperson at my dealership was at letting me test drive the XT. He simply handed me the keys and told me to enjoy.
In stark contrast, I couldn't even get the same dealership to let me test drive a WRX a year ago. Granted I saw them on a busy weekend evening, but they still don't allow solo test drives on the WRX.
corkfish - my thoughts exactly. I had my eyes on a WRX wagon for two years, which was met with much resistance by my better half... the boy racer image associated with the WRX didn't help my cause at all! Hubby is already much more receptive to the idea of owning a Forester (he didn't get to drive the XT, so I'm assuming he's not yet aware of just how much it goes wheeeeeeee...). Besides, the dog really needs that extra headroom in the way back...
Or is it Variable Torque Distribution Electronic Control AWD (V-T-D) where it's nominally 65% rear, 35% front wheel drive until slippage is detected: http://www.subaru-global.com/about/awd/2323.html
Also, one of you who actually has an XT Owner's Manual in your hands- What does it say about towing a trailer?
No need to dream. The Baja Turbo auto gets VTD. Go to: http://www.media.subaru.com/ and look up the Baja Turbo specs.
I'm not sure about the towing. I think the 5-speed is rated to 2400lbs and the auto 2000. The XT probably won't get a higher tow rating since it's not a function of engine power at this point.
The towing info was relayed from the Car & Driver New Car Buyers Guide earlier in this discussion. Maybe someone with an owner's manual can actually confirm the numbers.
Hi all, I'm a newbie to the discussion boards. I'm obsessing over the arrival of the new XT and plan to test drive the MT & AT as soon as they come in. My question is...
Does the AT or MT offer any mechanical advantages over the other (such as maintenance, performance, etc.)? I'm a huge fan of MTs since that's the only tranny I've ever driven, but I'm wondering if I should consider the AT....
And is Subaru ever planning on giving us the Premium option with the MT???
tinytoo writes, "Does the AT or MT offer any mechanical advantages over the other (such as maintenance, performance, etc.)? I'm a huge fan of MTs since that's the only tranny I've ever driven, but I'm wondering if I should consider the AT...."
You'll get a slew of opinions on this one! Here's mine:
First, assume all factors except for the transmission are identical: Same vehicle, driver skill, loads carried, proportion of city vs highway driving, attention to proper maintenance, the extent to which the transmission is either treated with respect or abused, and so forth. In other words, the only variable is the transmission.
Automatics are costlier to buy, usually delivers somewhat lower MPG (very slight penalty with the newest 5-speeds, considerably more on older 3-speeds), usually delivers somewhat inferior performance (but see prior parenthetical comment), and so forth. The automatic will often recover some part (but rarely all) of its higher original cost via higher resale value, although on a net-present-value discounted basis, dollars recovered years from now are worth less than dollars spent today. Also, this partial-cost-recovery effect is most pronounced on late-model vehicles, where the automatic presumably still has considerable life remaining, but can actually have the opposite effect on old cars, where the automatic may soon need very expensive repairs or replacement. When an automatic (any automatic) requires major repair or replacement, it ALWAYS costs substantially more for parts and labor than manuals. Moreover (again, given the same driving conditions) it is my opinion that the average lifespan of automatic transmissions is always less than manuals.
Therefore, even allowing for the partial recovery at trade-in of some of the automatic's higher initial cost, the lifetime ownership cost (purchase price, fuel, maintenance, repair/replacement, resale value) of a vehicle with an automatic will always be greater than the lifetime cost of a manual.
If you contemplate a lot of towing, most people find automatics more suitable than manuals, because even skilled drivers can find it difficult to get a heavy load rolling from a stop on steep uphill grades without slipping and burning a manual transmission's clutch. The Forester's Hill Holder feature helps in this regard, but doesn't entirely eliminate the issue.
So: The opposite of these comments generally applies to manuals - cheaper to buy, usually some advantage in MPG and in performance, somewhat lower resale value in late-model cars ranging to possibly higher resale value in old ones. Manual transmissions driven and maintained with reasonable care often last throughout the vehicle's entire lifetime - rarely the case with automatics. Depending on how one drives, clutches may require replacement as early as 50,000 miles (even less if the design is faulty or the driver is brutal), or may last as long as 200,000 miles or more (the original clutch, in fact the entire powertrain, in my beloved '79 Mazda RX-7 was still in perfect working condition when I sold it at that mileage after 10 years of very spirited living-at-the-redline driving). And even when clutches do require replacement, it's much less costly than to replace an automatic, or even just a torque converter.
Then, there is the fun-to-drive factor. Somebody who dislikes shifting won't enjoy a manual, but those of us who do wouldn't have it any other way.
Just my .02 worth.
- jack
And is Subaru ever planning on giving us the Premium option with the MT???
Now at 842 miles. If you get the Subaru XT (MT or Auto) make sure you wheel and deal the Splash Guards (and rear bumper cover ($57) - if you can) in the overall deal, they are well worth it. Nice that the Splash Guards are in same color as vehicle - cost me $187 (Splash Guards only) when put on after the deal. Both of these, no longer standard items, but will save more that the cost in wear and tear on your car.
Also, insurance agent called and said VIN did not come up on Nationwide computers. So I have to take a copy of the registration over to show them it is correct - hope this is not a signal for an increase in rate for the Turbo - will keep you posted.
Mileage is still all over the place from 19 to 21.4 (today when I filled up) - hopefully this will settle in the 21.5+ range after 1500 miles or so.
I too like the MT, but believe me the AT is really sweet and the AWD is (IMHO) better in it due to the way it functions.
It really performed beautifully in the heavy rain storm coming home earlier tonight from work.
One thing I forgot to mention is this Forester really seems to have better soundproofing and is much quieter (you can still hear the turbo). The only time you even notice the wind noise is when it is blowing really hard.
I really really like this vehicle. I think folks are going to find out down the, not to distant, road what a nice little "sleeper" it is.
More later, gotta get some sleep to go to work so I can pay for this Forester.
chassol writes, "Also, insurance agent called and said VIN did not come up on Nationwide computers. So I have to take a copy of the registration over to show them it is correct - hope this is not a signal for an increase in rate for the Turbo - will keep you posted."
I've been waiting for that other shoe to drop.
I hope you know how much we appreciate your frequent updates. I've forgotten - did you find that your tires were initially overinflated? If so, how much difference did you notice after adjusting them?
ballistic - "I've forgotten - did you find that your tires were initially overinflated? If so, how much difference did you notice after adjusting them?" - YES - they were inflated to between 45-47 lbs. After some experimenting and reading owners manual (Owners manual Front light load 29 full load 29 /Rear light load 28 full load 36) I am at 29 Front 32 Rear - so far seems a good compromise and I like the "feel" of the resulting ride - so for now thats "my" magic number. (By the way - the mechanic that put the Splash Guards on last night was the one that did the dealer prep on my car. I very nicely advised him of the over-inflation on the tires. He is new to doing the prep, so I think he did the major items OK, but the little things are usually the things you learn from experience. I believe going forward he will now remember the tire pressure, as he seems to be a sharp individual and was glad to find out about the pressure from me directly rather than from me through the service manager (this helps to build a good relationship with the folks that work on your car).
I'm from the old school so far as using the dealer as long as their prices are not much more than the outside repair shops (I've found over the last few years that (good) dealer service prices have held steady while outside shops have gone up and there is not much difference in pricing like there use to be. Also, if you have any complaints or problems its much easier to get the dealer to take care of it if they have done all the work). Keep in mind if you have a neighbor that is a licensed mechanic and he is moon lighting its maybe better on the small things, but if its drivetrain, engine or components that requires special tools to service, I'll bite the bullet and go with the dealer (This doesn't hurt when you trade again too). Keep in mind everyone has their own opinion on this and this is mine.
Charles, I think you need to change your profile to reflect that you are now the proud owner of a vehicle that many of us (including me) are currently obsessed about. -Bob
Air pressure settings will definetly change the ride characteristics. As a rule of thumb, keeping the fronts higher than the rears will increase oversteer. The reverse will tend to understeer. Of course things like weight distribution, torque split and other suspension parts come into play.
My experience has been that independent mechanics will often try harder since they have a reputation to keep in order to maintain a customer base. Their prices tend to be less, too. In my area there's an indy mechanic that specializes in Subarus and he's first rate. Dealer based service departments will get traffic just by the fact that there's a huge SUBARU sign on their roof. However, SOA also has a vested interest in keeping dealer service high so there's probably some pressure from that end. In the end, it's whatever that works best with you.
I took a test drive today in an XT with AT. This unit was silver with a rear spoiler, splash guards and the premium speakers, and was this dealer's first XT (arrived 2 days ago). I drove my '99 Forester S w/AT over there, so I could compare the two.
What nice vehicle! I liked the black/gray two-tone cloth interior, but I intend to get the leather with the mongo moonroof. The gated shifter was different than my 99, but not as awkward as I expected. From the driver's position, the front hood scoop looks bigger than I expected, and for some reason, this Forester feels a little smaller than my '99 when I'm in it. Maybe it's the black interior...
Once you start the XT and put it into gear, then the similarities end! The XT is amazingly quick off the line, and didn't need any coaxing either. Accelleration didn't taper off or end until I took my foot off the pedal. The auto tranny shifted much smoother than my 99. Getting on the highway, the XT gave a constant, smooth surge getting up to 60 mph, and when I accellerated to pass, the power was right there with no hesitation. All this while I made sure to keep the rpms below 5K! I can only imagine what the XT is capable of after the break-in period, and you can really open it up. As mentioned before by others, cabin noise was minimal and noticeably less than my 99 Forester.
Additionally, it felt as though the XT's suspension has been tuned a little more, as it seemed tighter in the turns with much less body roll than my 99. In true Subaru fashion, it turns like it's on rails, but now this one has some tangible power behind it. The powertrain felt much more like a very tight V-6 or small-block V-8, on both the highway and the streets.
This is a fun vehicle to drive, and I can understand some folks' desires to have the manual tranny, as you can much more efficiently manage the turbo boost. But the auto is no wimp by any measure. Which is good, since I'll probably have to go with an auto.
This dealer only had the one vehicle, but they expect to get 3-4 more XT's within the next couple weeks (2 AT, 2 MT), and then 7-8 per month after that. The sales rep that rode with me said this was his first ride in an XT, since the dealer isn't letting anybody but potential customers drive it for now. He seemd as eager as I was to open it up on the highway and around the curves, and we both came back with smiles on our faces. There was no pressure on his part to make a sale either, which was a relief, since I was prepared for the worst.
Since I'm going to have to wait until late this fall to turn in my 99 Forester and pick up a new XT, it might be a long few months. I guess I might have to just test drive another one or two XT's until then...At least a manual! -Bob
forestergump reports, "From the driver's position, the front hood scoop looks bigger than I expected,"
I noticed that immediately; from outside, the scoop doesn't look all that large. From inside, it's really prominent. Imagine what the STi's huge scoop must look like from inside!
I just heard from my dealer. My black XT with MT will be ready for me at 4:30 tomorrow afternoon! I plan to drive it to Albany NY this weekend (about 180 miles each way). I'll post a full report on this forum Monday morning. Les
Yeah I can only imagine what a monster the STi's scoop would look like from inside. I remember reading a post from someone who made that observation after driving an STi! -Bob
so my XT doesnt have so many miles on it from the folks in this discussion going for test drives!!!
anybody want to throw money in a hat and send a spokesperson to FHI for an audience with their CEO so we can get the premium package with the MT???? I promise i'll buy ALL the other options! on the other hand, the AT sounds like a winning combo in this car, too. Mark
I should have driven the auto first. By itself, it's very nice, maybe a B+ at least. This from a serious manual transmission fan. It feels like a 3.0l V6, instead of a 4 turbo.
But I did sense some tranny lag, off the line it was good, but 30-50 and 50-70 is hesitated.
The 5 speed is something else, much quicker, 0-60 or passing acceleration is avialable right here right now no waiting. Hit the gas and you are GONE, passed that innattentive 350Z. In fact you could pass just about anything with confidence. I want one now. A+.
OK, I'll call it an A only because I can't get the moonroof with the 5 speed. Gotta leave room for improvement.
"I just heard from my dealer. My black XT with MT will be ready for me at 4:30 tomorrow afternoon!"
You just streaked to the top of my enemies list, fella. Mine's been on order for a month. No way should anybody else get his first. I guess we'll all just have to live vicariously though you until our ships come in.
Keep up the reporting. Is this more fun than the WRX Wagon? Anxious to hear about the manual tranny so write a full report on acceleration. Does it feel like a mid 14 quarter mile car? Imagine what it could do with some aftermarket items.
Comments
I barely heard the turbo spooling when I drove an auto XT.
Ken
Ken
Please, PULEEZE check out the EPA city-highway ratings on the window sticker and let us know what they are.
"Man, you kind of drove the snot out of that thing. Any noticeable turbo noise?"
My hearing isn't the best at very high frequencies, so I heard no turbo whine at all.
- jack
Even in more ordinary driving, if the entire driveline is the same as the X/XS, the weakest links (whatever they are) will no doubt give a shorter service life than on the lower-powered siblings.
- jb
"The mpg on the sticker is 18 city, and 23 hwy. I would expect to see 20/26 mpg on average based on what the sticker says on the other models and what you really get."
I've never gotten more than 27 mpg from my 2001 Forester S, even on 70mph trips though Texas. This
is the one thing that is holding me back from buying an XT.
I wonder if there is someway to disable turbo boost when just crusing down the highway?
Ken
Bob
At light throttle, just maintaining speed down the highway on level road, you should be nowhere near the boost zone. I'll know whether that's true pretty soon, because I ordered the boost gauge on mine, and the car ought to be here within the next ten days or so.
- jack
Ken
At light throttle, just maintaining speed down the highway on level road, you should be nowhere near the boost zone. I'll know whether that's true pretty soon, because I ordered the boost gauge on mine, and the car ought to be here within the next ten days or so.
- jack
Ken
I now have 432 miles on mine and when we filled it up (remember I'm only letting it go to between 3/4 and 1/2) and the last was 19.6. I am hoping this will go up after 1500 miles. The fastest so far is 85 and that was from using the turbo some :-). I still say its a great rush even for an Automatic (and the temperature here has been 90 - 94 when I did it too).
ballistic -
BaDid you mean 32 front, 30 rear? That's what I plan to use for starters. What differences did you observe? Did the steering feel any less overboosted? Any difference in road noise transmitted to the interior? How different is the ride over over pavement irregularities? Did lowering the pressure still leave your XT with sharp, responsive handling, or do the lower pressures take the edge off? (RESPONSE) Finally settled 29 front 32 rear (This feels the best to me - everyone has their own number). - Door jam plate says 29 for light or full load and for rear 30 light load 36 full load. I swear this Forest has tighter handling than the 2001 did and you do feel the feel the pavement irregularities more too.
ballistic -
21.3 is going in the right direction, but this tank was mostly freeway driving, right? (RESPONSE) Nope - this is combo city and highway and every once in awhile tickling the turbo ;-)
ballistic -
When you change your oil, how about confirming whether the XT has a magnetic crankcase drain plug (to attract and hold any ferrous particles). Some sources indicate that Subaru preinstalls magnetic plugs everywhere (engine, gearbox, differentials). I've always thought they were a great idea. (RESPONSE) From what I have seen in my past Subarus - no magnetic plug on the oil drain pan (As a side note I've always bought -
Fumoto Engine Oil Drain Valve (example at their home page) and put in the last three Subarus. I've never noticed any filings in the oil, and I'm wondering how much of the insides of the engine might be aluminum). I also do some of my own oil changes and use Castrol SYNTEC FULL SYNTHETIC and FRAM X2™ Extended Guard Premium Filter Filter - and do the change every 3,500 - 4,000 miles (BTW Maintenance manual says first oil change at 3,000 second at 7,500 and all others every 7,500 miles - I've always done 3,500 - 4,000 after first one). Or, I take the oil to the dealer and get them to do it using a Subaru filter and they charge $15. Overkill? Maybe, but I never have had a problem with ANY service question or problem when I have my oil filter and oil receipt (when I do the changes with mileage and date written on them or have the dealer do it and its in the computer where any Subaru dealer can pull it up). I know this may be overkill to most folks, but I'm a confirmed Subaru fanatic and to me its the thing to do - oil and filter are like the blood and heart in our body, so to me its worth the extra(?) cost.
Hope I've caught all the questions - if I've missed any let me know............
Mileage is the cost of power and with premium gas...... It's worth it if you want the power..............
Can't wait to try a 5 speed XT. Tomorrow.
-juice
That is a major disappointment. Heavy fuel consumption is understandable when the XT is being driven hard, but the EPA drive cycles involve anything but hard driving. For the XT 5-speed to do so poorly does not augur well for owners in real-world spirited driving.
- jack
I've noted that the newer XT engine design, unlike the 2-liter WRX or the Forester X/XS, brings significant new technology that (according to Subaru's own press releases) ENHANCES fuel efficiency among other objectives. These include the variable valve timing which, compared to an engine with fixed timing, will reduce valve overlap at moderate RPMs and load. This diminishes the amount of unburned incoming charge that flows directly out the open exhaust valves. Similarly, the XT's electronic drive-by-wire throttle is claimed to ensure that regardless of the driver's pedal position, the actual throttle opening is optimized to meet the driver's demand in the most efficient way possible.
On the other hand, the XT's compression ratio is lower than in the X/XS engines. Several respondents have indicated that the negative effect of this must have been greater than the positive effects of the foregoing new technologies. I am skeptical that this is the case.
I note that the WRX has an even lower compression ratio than the XT (8.0:1 versus 8.3 or 8.5 depending on which source you consult). As noted above, the WRX also lacks the XT's variable cam timing and electronic throttle. The WRX is only 6% to 7% lighter than an XT and has only slightly improved drag coefficient (which doesn't in any event enter into EPA test methodology).
Despite the WRX's having an even-lower compression ratio, only slightly lower weight, and none of the XT's new technology, the 5-speed WRX (capable of 227hp)still manages to deliver EPA results of 20/27. I'm still seeking any plausible explanation for the 210hp XT's poor 18/23 EPA showing that takes into account (1) the fact that EPA testing will NOT require greater power delivery than an X/XS, and (2) the XT's superior technology compared to either the X/XS or to the even-more-powerful WRX.
These XT EPA numbers are, in my opinion, a major disappointment, and I think Subaru ought to explain them. Combined with the considerably higher price of 91-octane fuel, the cost to operate an XT is going to be substantially greater than I think it was reasonable to expect.
- jack
Great commentary and analysis. It is confusing as to why the EPA figures are so low.
What about drag? The Forester is still pretty much a brick.
Ken
Turbos are fuel efficient, as long as it's not being used. When the turbo spools up, you use more gas.
Bob
I wonder what the EPA ratings are for the Baja turbo? It should be similar.
Ken
The pat answer that some folk give is, in effect,"the XT can make much more power than an X/XS; more power = more fuel - what did you expect, dummy?" Not to be repetitive, but this view misses the point that the EPA test cycles are (1) standardized, (2) are far from "high-performance" oriented and much more closely reflect "average" drivers and conditions (thus would never actually invoke the XT's increased power), and (3) a very similar (and even more powerful, even more highly-tuned, even lower-compression vehicle - the WRX) does much better than the XT on the EPA tests.
"What about drag? The Forester is still pretty much a brick."
Agreed, though the 2nd-gen (including the XT) brought a worthwhile c/d improvement over the 1st-gen (.35 or .36, compared to .39).
HOWEVER - EPA testing is not conducted on roads or in wind tunnels; it is done with vehicles sitting stationary on dynamometers. It is my understanding that while the EPA takes vehicle weight into account in setting up their standardized tests, they take NO ACCOUNT of differences between cars in their aerodynamics (drag coefficients, frontal areas, and so forth). These obviously are significant factors in "real-world" results, but unless I'm misinformed or the test procedures have changed, differences in aerodynamics between (for example) a WRX and an XT will have no effect whatsoever on EPA published results. Anyone who is well-versed on current EPA testing procedures is invited to correct this point.
So - absent valid rebuttals to my essential points, it remains (to me) a complete mystery as to why the 227hp WRX (with even lower compression, "hot" cams having no variable valve timing, no electronic throttle control, and only slightly less weight) produced 11 to 17% better EPA results than the lower-powered 210hp XT. And bear in mind that weight mainly affects the power (and fuel) required to repeatedly accelerate a given mass (think EPA city cycle), and has much less effect on fuel needed to keep the mass moving at steady speed (as in the EPA highway cycle).
Call me an idiot, but I expected considerably better fuel efficiency (as reflected in EPA numbers) from the new-tech XT.
- jack
I agree, Bob, that the XT's turbo is CAPABLE of spooling up lower in the band, and that's a big part of why we all want it! But being capable isn't the same as actually occurring. Whether or not the turbo spools up and begins to provide boost (which would proportionately raise the rate of fuel flow) is a function of how much power is being demanded. A lead-foot driver can expect to be "on boost" quite a bit of the time, and will burn gas accordingly. However, my specific point about the methodology of EPA's test procedure is that (except for the very most underpowered cars) it doesn't require most cars (especially high-performance cars) to come anywhere close to using full throttle at any point in the rev range.
Let me put it this way: The actual acceleration forces that an XT (or WRX) would be required to produce during the EPA test cycles would be (unless I'm mistaken) virtually identical to what an X or XS would be called upon to produce. Moreover, the amount of power an XT requires to maintain (say) 60mph is virtually identical to what is required to maintain an X or XS at that same speed. Because the naturally-aspirated X/XS can readily do this with far less than full throttle, it stands to reason that an XT can do so without getting even close to actually invoking boost from the turbo.
If, then, the turbo is just "along for the ride" in all phases of the EPA standard test cycles (if the XT is never called on IN EPA TESTING to dig into its greater power capability) then the turbo ought to have little or no effect on the actual rates of air- and-fuel flows that are required for an XT to complete those cycles. Ergo, in the absence of any factors that would make an XT a much less efficent converter of fuel energy into horsepower than an X, XS, or WRX, there should be little if any difference in their EPA ratings.
But in fact the XT ought to be MORE efficent with fuel than any of them, due to the advantages only it (and the STi) have: optimized continuously variable valve timing and optimized electronic throttle control - plus a moderately higher compression ratio than a WRX.
All things considered, I'm still looking for convincing arguments that put the XT's mediocre EPA numbers into a reasonable range of expectation.
- jack
John
True, but I'm not citing them in any absolute sense, as in whether or not they accurately project what any given owner will get. I'm using them (as I believe they're intended to be used) to compare vehicle to vehicle. That's why (IMO) it's relevant to compare the 227bhp WRX (EPA 20-27) to the 210bhp Forester XT (18-23). For any given driver, all other things being equal, this implies that an XT will deliver about 9% worse gas mileage than a WRX. Not to beat a dead horse, but Subaru's claims for the XT's variable valve timing and electronic throttle control would never have led anyone to predict this significant decline.
"Generally, I am 5-10% higher than EPA numbers, but some Forester owners report low 20's as more common, which is closer to the EPA numbers."
I haven't previously owned a Subaru, but for my mix of daily driving across many vehicles I've owned, I typically get slightly better than the EPA city rating. That means about 19 in the XT, on premium gas. I was expecting more like 22, with at least the possibility (given the lower-pressure turbo) that it might operate acceptably well on regular gas. The difference between those two scenarios is considerable.
- jack
John
-Bob
Interesting thing I noticed was how laid back the salesperson at my dealership was at letting me test drive the XT. He simply handed me the keys and told me to enjoy.
In stark contrast, I couldn't even get the same dealership to let me test drive a WRX a year ago. Granted I saw them on a busy weekend evening, but they still don't allow solo test drives on the WRX.
Ken
Another argument that will help me convince my husband that it is time to trade in the OBS for an XT...
http://www.subaru-global.com/about/awd/2322.html
Or is it Variable Torque Distribution Electronic Control AWD (V-T-D) where it's nominally 65% rear, 35% front wheel drive until slippage is detected:
http://www.subaru-global.com/about/awd/2323.html
Also, one of you who actually has an XT Owner's Manual in your hands- What does it say about towing a trailer?
IIRC, the towing limit for the 5spd XT is 2000 lbs., but I think towing is not recommended at all with the AT.
On towing, is this from the owners' manual or internet gossip or??
Thanks, Jim
No need to dream. The Baja Turbo auto gets VTD. Go to: http://www.media.subaru.com/ and look up the Baja Turbo specs.
I'm not sure about the towing. I think the 5-speed is rated to 2400lbs and the auto 2000. The XT probably won't get a higher tow rating since it's not a function of engine power at this point.
Ken
Now you folks may return to Forester discussions while I wait for three long months.
Jim
Dreaming of an ugly yellow car
Same here. In fact, I think it's time to coin a new term to describe the XT and any similar overachievers that follow it.
SSUV - SuperSport Utility Vehicle.
You saw it here first.
- jack
Does the AT or MT offer any mechanical advantages over the other (such as maintenance, performance, etc.)? I'm a huge fan of MTs since that's the only tranny I've ever driven, but I'm wondering if I should consider the AT....
And is Subaru ever planning on giving us the Premium option with the MT???
You'll get a slew of opinions on this one! Here's mine:
First, assume all factors except for the transmission are identical: Same vehicle, driver skill, loads carried, proportion of city vs highway driving, attention to proper maintenance, the extent to which the transmission is either treated with respect or abused, and so forth. In other words, the only variable is the transmission.
Automatics are costlier to buy, usually delivers somewhat lower MPG (very slight penalty with the newest 5-speeds, considerably more on older 3-speeds), usually delivers somewhat inferior performance (but see prior parenthetical comment), and so forth. The automatic will often recover some part (but rarely all) of its higher original cost via higher resale value, although on a net-present-value discounted basis, dollars recovered years from now are worth less than dollars spent today. Also, this partial-cost-recovery effect is most pronounced on late-model vehicles, where the automatic presumably still has considerable life remaining, but can actually have the opposite effect on old cars, where the automatic may soon need very expensive repairs or replacement. When an automatic (any automatic) requires major repair or replacement, it ALWAYS costs substantially more for parts and labor than manuals. Moreover (again, given the same driving conditions) it is my opinion that the average lifespan of automatic transmissions is always less than manuals.
Therefore, even allowing for the partial recovery at trade-in of some of the automatic's higher initial cost, the lifetime ownership cost (purchase price, fuel, maintenance, repair/replacement, resale value) of a vehicle with an automatic will always be greater than the lifetime cost of a manual.
If you contemplate a lot of towing, most people find automatics more suitable than manuals, because even skilled drivers can find it difficult to get a heavy load rolling from a stop on steep uphill grades without slipping and burning a manual transmission's clutch. The Forester's Hill Holder feature helps in this regard, but doesn't entirely eliminate the issue.
So: The opposite of these comments generally applies to manuals - cheaper to buy, usually some advantage in MPG and in performance, somewhat lower resale value in late-model cars ranging to possibly higher resale value in old ones. Manual transmissions driven and maintained with reasonable care often last throughout the vehicle's entire lifetime - rarely the case with automatics. Depending on how one drives, clutches may require replacement as early as 50,000 miles (even less if the design is faulty or the driver is brutal), or may last as long as 200,000 miles or more (the original clutch, in fact the entire powertrain, in my beloved '79 Mazda RX-7 was still in perfect working condition when I sold it at that mileage after 10 years of very spirited living-at-the-redline driving). And even when clutches do require replacement, it's much less costly than to replace an automatic, or even just a torque converter.
Then, there is the fun-to-drive factor. Somebody who dislikes shifting won't enjoy a manual, but those of us who do wouldn't have it any other way.
Just my .02 worth.
- jack
And is Subaru ever planning on giving us the Premium option with the MT???
Also, insurance agent called and said VIN did not come up on Nationwide computers. So I have to take a copy of the registration over to show them it is correct - hope this is not a signal for an increase in rate for the Turbo - will keep you posted.
Mileage is still all over the place from 19 to 21.4 (today when I filled up) - hopefully this will settle in the 21.5+ range after 1500 miles or so.
I too like the MT, but believe me the AT is really sweet and the AWD is (IMHO) better in it due to the way it functions.
It really performed beautifully in the heavy rain storm coming home earlier tonight from work.
One thing I forgot to mention is this Forester really seems to have better soundproofing and is much quieter (you can still hear the turbo). The only time you even notice the wind noise is when it is blowing really hard.
I really really like this vehicle. I think folks are going to find out down the, not to distant, road what a nice little "sleeper" it is.
More later, gotta get some sleep to go to work so I can pay for this Forester.
I've been waiting for that other shoe to drop.
I hope you know how much we appreciate your frequent updates. I've forgotten - did you find that your tires were initially overinflated? If so, how much difference did you notice after adjusting them?
- jack
I'm from the old school so far as using the dealer as long as their prices are not much more than the outside repair shops (I've found over the last few years that (good) dealer service prices have held steady while outside shops have gone up and there is not much difference in pricing like there use to be. Also, if you have any complaints or problems its much easier to get the dealer to take care of it if they have done all the work). Keep in mind if you have a neighbor that is a licensed mechanic and he is moon lighting its maybe better on the small things, but if its drivetrain, engine or components that requires special tools to service, I'll bite the bullet and go with the dealer (This doesn't hurt when you trade again too). Keep in mind everyone has their own opinion on this and this is mine.
More later..............................
-Bob
My experience has been that independent mechanics will often try harder since they have a reputation to keep in order to maintain a customer base. Their prices tend to be less, too. In my area there's an indy mechanic that specializes in Subarus and he's first rate. Dealer based service departments will get traffic just by the fact that there's a huge SUBARU sign on their roof. However, SOA also has a vested interest in keeping dealer service high so there's probably some pressure from that end. In the end, it's whatever that works best with you.
Ken
What nice vehicle! I liked the black/gray two-tone cloth interior, but I intend to get the leather with the mongo moonroof. The gated shifter was different than my 99, but not as awkward as I expected. From the driver's position, the front hood scoop looks bigger than I expected, and for some reason, this Forester feels a little smaller than my '99 when I'm in it. Maybe it's the black interior...
Additionally, it felt as though the XT's suspension has been tuned a little more, as it seemed tighter in the turns with much less body roll than my 99. In true Subaru fashion, it turns like it's on rails, but now this one has some tangible power behind it. The powertrain felt much more like a very tight V-6 or small-block V-8, on both the highway and the streets.
This dealer only had the one vehicle, but they expect to get 3-4 more XT's within the next couple weeks (2 AT, 2 MT), and then 7-8 per month after that. The sales rep that rode with me said this was his first ride in an XT, since the dealer isn't letting anybody but potential customers drive it for now. He seemd as eager as I was to open it up on the highway and around the curves, and we both came back with smiles on our faces. There was no pressure on his part to make a sale either, which was a relief, since I was prepared for the worst.
Since I'm going to have to wait until late this fall to turn in my 99 Forester and pick up a new XT, it might be a long few months. I guess I might have to just test drive another one or two XT's until then...At least a manual!
-Bob
I noticed that immediately; from outside, the scoop doesn't look all that large. From inside, it's really prominent. Imagine what the STi's huge scoop must look like from inside!
- jack
Les
Yeah I can only imagine what a monster the STi's scoop would look like from inside. I remember reading a post from someone who made that observation after driving an STi!
-Bob
anybody want to throw money in a hat and send a spokesperson to FHI for an audience with their
CEO so we can get the premium package with the MT???? I promise i'll buy ALL the other options!
on the other hand, the AT sounds like a winning combo in this car, too.
Mark
But I did sense some tranny lag, off the line it was good, but 30-50 and 50-70 is hesitated.
The 5 speed is something else, much quicker, 0-60 or passing acceleration is avialable right here right now no waiting. Hit the gas and you are GONE, passed that innattentive 350Z. In fact you could pass just about anything with confidence. I want one now. A+.
OK, I'll call it an A only because I can't get the moonroof with the 5 speed. Gotta leave room for improvement.
-juice
You just streaked to the top of my enemies list, fella. Mine's been on order for a month. No way should anybody else get his first. I guess we'll all just have to live vicariously though you until our ships come in.
- jb
ASC has a 19.25" x 33" and a 19.25" x 36.5", but that OEM opening looks bigger than 24".
-Brian