By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
-Frank P.
I have dish, and I looked on my program guide, and Motorweek is not listed at 4pm on Saturday on PBS-U.
I ran a search, and the next time it is on on DISH is next Tuesday I believe.
--Ray
snarks: some of us have families, cargo, and fillings we don't want rattled. ;-)
The XT is a far, far more practical all-around vehicle. Less turbo lag, more tolerant suspension, quieter, airier interior, etc.
Also, it will "perform" better carrying a 900 lb payload, acclerating up hill, or towing.
-juice
-Frank P.
-juice
-juice
Cheers
Pat
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2250.shtml
0-60 in 6.2 seconds with their 5 speed, must've been a conservative launch. Still, that's quicker than their FX45 by a tenth, and 7/10ths quicker than their Cayenne S.
-juice
C&D's Forester XT hit 60 in 5.3 seconds and returned 20mpg for them. I'm sure it was driven aggressively, but still.
Motorweek's XT took 6.2 seconds but returned 22 mpg, pretty impressive for a green engine. Maybe less hardware abuse?
Any how, which would you prefer? The quicker one or the more fuel efficient one?
I say it's a tough call, both are still best-in-class acceleration, and 10% more range sounds pretty good. I might choose the latter.
What about the rest of you?
-juice
but the car rocks when a boast is needed coming out of a corner heading up a hill.
Pure joy.
-Brian
the standard forester was too slow for me but had acceptable mpg numbers. so i was stuck with big gaps in acceleration and mpg.
i chose acceleration but would most definitely trade some of this acceleration for some better mpg numbers.
is that your final answer? well until i smoke that new fx45 around here at the light, then i will trade for mpg.
And yes, as sjswamplands says "i love the impressive acceleration that makes it like nothing else in its class. but this mpg i am getting makes it like nothing else in its class also"
Re survey: I'd take the fuel efficient one if I had a choice. However, I'm hoping to have the best of both. Jaw dropping 0-60 times when launched properly and decent (23 mpg) gas mileage when driven conservatively.
-Frank P.
Yet, through 1,500 miles and 5 tankfuls, this XT has averaged barely 21 MPG on costly premium fuel.
PS: How do you figure 80% freeway but 'little or no city', what is the other 20%??
-Frank P.
I buy cars to keep for the long run...120,000 to 200,000 miles. My break-in periods are never over until at least twice the suggested mileage.
Other cars "in the class" having similar horsepower and worse gas mileage are nearly all substantially heavier, and most have automatics. Apples to oranges.
As for boost: "...always on anyhow in this car"? Nothing could be further from the truth. Mine has the boost gauge. Except when climbing hills, mine is rarely in positive boost territory - never while maintaining steady speed, even at 80mph (highest mine has reached, briefly). Because fuel economy matters to me, I make a point of keeping mine below "0" boost most of the time, even when accelerating.
Bob
I find this very similar to the oil change debate where one side advocates sticking to the manufacturer's recommended interval (usually 7500 miles) and the other adamant about the necessity of changing the oil every 3k.
In both cases, there is tons of anecdotal evidence and opinions but and severe paucity of empirical evidence.
My hunch is that most of the folks who stick to the break-in period also change their oil every 3k and are followers of the "better safe than sorry" school of thought, while the other group is more likely to be from the "live for the moment" school of thought.
Anybody care to comment?
-Frank P.
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2250.shtml
More thoughts on engine break in. Some people will go as far as to say that driving an engine gently for the first 1000 miles may actually result in a loss of horsepower as a result of improper ring seating. I suppose there is some logic to the notion that if you drive an engine gently for 1000 miles and then start running it hard, it has trouble coping after getting "used" to being driven easily. Of course, as you said, this all conjecture. You have to admit though that if it was so crucial, would leased cars or rental cars survive their first year? Would sales people be allowed to take a new car out and hammer it a little? Frankly, the engine doesn't concern me as much as the transmission. I'm a little concerned that this thing may have trouble eating clutches etc.
http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
John
My guess is that the Jeep can flat-tow on all four wheels, is because it has a neutral position in the transfer case. a very nice feature, IMO.
One other thing to consider, when you're flat towing, you are putting wear & tear on the car, even though it's not being driven. However many miles you tow, you can subtract that mileage from the tire life. Not so if you put the vehicle on a trailer.
Bob
Jack: Good to see you again. I definitely sympathize with you and the disadvantages of the XT. It's a shame that Subaru didn't make available more specs on the XT by the time you placed your order. Had they done so, I'm sure you would have leaned more toward the XS 5 speed, or even a completely different vehicle.
Len
Styling on the Forester? While I think the "gussied up pig" deserves to get out and dance sometimes, the look of the Murano/FX35 is quite intoxicating. I still really like the look of some of those Japanese Foresters, though. Give me the option to buy the Crosssports 2.0i model, and my negotiating powers... slowly... fading...
On the plus side - good to see Jack is Back!
srp