Subaru XT Turbo Forester

stoner420

Well I finally got to drive the XT again today..

MPG: not looking great, gotta agree with ballistic somewhat on this. 99% city driving (urban/suburban/whatever you want to call it, it's not-highway), looks like we're raring to get a whopping 15 mpg for the first full tank (stupid dealer didn't fill it all the way for the first tank). Well we did have the A/C running non-stop and it's 'normal' according to the specs, but sheesh. I kinda figured 17-18, well maybe it'll bump up a bit over time (though personally I've never been a real big believer in that theory) and as the weather cools.

Well we knew what we were getting into when buying this car. If we wanted better mileage, we would have gotten the XS, or better yet, just stuck with the Honda Accord! Well my wife doesn't drive a whole lot so it's not that big a deal anyhow. Looking forward to seeing what kind of highway miles we get. Anyhow, ya gots to pay to play.. VROOM VROOM BABY!

Everything else: just awesome.. the engine is really smooth and quite, the exhaust note sounds very close to my WRX which has a Prodrive exhaust, and while "boost on all the time" might be a *smidgen* inaccurate, you can definitely hear/feel it spool up before 2000 rpm... coming from a WRX background, to me that is pretty much "all the time".

Brakes feel a bit squishy, might be a good area for a first mod.. could install some stainless brake lines and firmer pads. Tires seem ok (dealer had em inflated to 42 all around, even though it specifically says 29/28 on the door plate.. I lowered em to 33/32 as a compromise -- which did seem to enhance the brake squishiness, but oh well)

I don't really believe in babying the engine (this is not a Detroit special); while I try to avoid going over 4000 in the very beginning, I do see myself taking it up to 5000 a couple of times for short bursts after the first 500 miles.. The manufacturer is just trying to cover their [non-permissible content removed] with the 1000@4000 guideline. I don't really buy that motorcycle guy's theory about revving it to the extreme within the first 20 miles either (considering he is not even talking about cars, but bike engines), but I don't really believe 1000+ miles @ 4000 is really going to make a big difference in the long run nowadays.. something in the middle of the two camps is where I am at. More power to you if you want to take it easy though (I don't know how you can have the restraint though!! ;-). I hope everyone's engines will last until 200,000 miles. I know the engine in my WRX will be the last part of the car to die, of that I am certain (I broke it in the same way, and I don't burn any oil @ 21k), and I don't hold out any lesser hope for the XT, given my experience so far. If the engine is good, it'll be good, and if it has problems, it'll have problems.

PS, I recommend everyone reset their ECU after they are done with break in and ready to start winding it out, to break it of the granny-driving habits it will have learned..

forestergump

Stoner, good idea about the ECU re-set after break-in.

jrobson

I've been reading some of the comments/complaints about how Subaru appears to have dropped the ball on the XT... well, I just returned from our annual family trek to the Canadian Rockies in our MT-Silver XT w/RoofWindow. It was an effortless 1000 miles over 2-lane mountain roads, typically littered with RV's/Trailers, plus another 130 miles of logging roads. Averaged almost 27mpg for entire trip with A/C on almost entire way while typically cruising @ 70-75 mph [3000rpm]. Found myself well over 100mph on several occasions passing those 'wagon-trains'.. Note - the power is very linear without any significant engine/tranny noise to alert you to your triple-digit status!

My expectations were more than met; as the XT got better mileage [27-vs-22], was quieter and way-more fun to drive than the V6 Ford Escape that we did the trip in last time.
I'm now looking forward to the next 200,000 miles in this vehicle.
Jim

fryingbologna

With AC, high average speed and frequent accelerating to pass on 2 lanes and (I assume) loaded with luggage/people? Quick, get some DNA and clone that car!

Waitaminute, Jim, are you from BC? Are you burning some of that potent "BC Premium" in that car?

subearu

He's getting about 22 US MPG for us folks below in the lower 48.

Some useful conversions:
Imperial MPG * 0.354 = Kilometers per litre (km/l)
US MPG * 0.425 = Kilometers per litre (km/l)
km/l * 2.352 = US MPG
km/l * 2.825 = Imperial MPG

27 * 0.354 = 9.558 * 2.352 = 22.5 MPG

-Brian

fryingbologna

http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html

stoner420

Stupid gas gauge tricked me! I think it's even worse than my WRX.. looks like you're running on vapors, so you run to fill up and it only takes 12 gallons.. sheesh. Actual results were about 18 mpg, mostly city driving.

I'm liking that "well over 100mph" bit.. ;-) Oh wait, this is my wife's car, no I'm not!! I think all this power is going to go to her head..

kens

Just watched the Motorweek episode with the XT. Overall, the review was positive -- then again when is a review ever negative on Motorweek?

A few things that caught my attention:
-Subaru gave them a 5MT to test
-0-60 clocked at 6.2 seconds (same as their result for the Infiniti FX45!)
-Thumbs down on the HH clutch -- it didn't release quick enough
-22mpg with mixed driving -- no mention of the gear ratios being too short, however

Oh, and I should throw in that the XT looked great! I especially like the way it looked on the opening shot parked on grass.

Ken

ace1000

MotorWeek's 0-60 mph time of 6.2 seconds is about the same as the 6.4 seconds for 0-100 km/hr reported in the Australian Technical Supplement.

Makes one wonder about the Car and Driver figures. Does C/D have a TV program that shows how it does acceleration tests?

Interestingly, when Consumer Reports tested the WRX in 2001, it reported the 0-60 time as 6.2 seconds. Also, CR reported the 60-0 braking as 136 feet for the WRX and 137 feet for the Forester X, and MotorWeek got 136 feet for the XT. Can't get much closer than this.

kens

Interesting. What did Motorweek get for the WRX 0-60?

The braking doesn't surprise me though -- the XT and WRX are close in weight and have basically the same braking hardware.

Ken

imyodaddy

I read the review of the Forester on another website, and one of the negatives mentioned was the headlights not being very bright. Is this true? Have you found the lights to be weak? This is an important point for me.

Thanks.

p0926

Re hill holder: When I test drove the XT I totally forgot about it until I went to engage 1st gear after stopping on a steep hill, the clutch worked perfectly, preventing any roll-back and it released seamlessly.

Re braking distances: According to the brochures, they have identical braking hardware.

Re headlight brightness: Huh? They're just as bright as on any other vehicle (you don't really think that Subaru has special bulbs made just for the Forester).

-Frank P.

corkfish

I also wonder about what the temperature differences were. I think Car and Driver did their testing in upstate New York or Michigan in early May. Motorweek does theirs in the hottest part of the summer in Maryland ( I think). Hopefully Road & Track and Motorend will wait until fall to do some tests. Heat can really sap a turbo charged engine.

rsholland

6.2 seconds is what most people can expect. I suspect most 2.5XT road tests 0 – 60 times will be in the low 6-second range, and not as low as what C&D got. I really think C&D's 5.3 second run was done by abusing the vehicle. Yes, it can be done, but ultimately at what cost?

BTW, 6.2 seconds is still very quick. I have no complaints with that figure.

Bob

lbhaley

I have been reading Car & Driver for many years and have noticed that their 0-60 times are almost always lower than any other publication. I think their test procedures are probably a lot harder on the drivetrain than most of us would want to be. A better indicator of real world acceleration is their 5-60 street start number where they get it rolling and then punch it. I believe the number for the XT in that test was 6.2. This would be consistant with what other tests are showing. Car and Drivers numbers are good in that they show what a car is capable of it you don't mind punishing it, and they are valid for comparisons with other cars that they have tested.

I now have 2600 miles on my black MT XT and I like it even more than when I first got it. It is getting smoother and faster as the miles accumulate. I have gotten used to the gearing and can now shift smoothly even under hard acceleration. I am averaging just about 22 mpg overall. I have never got under 20 and only break 23 on highway trips. I was getting around 24 mpg overall with my 98 Forester so I am not unhappy with the XT's mileage given the huge increase in performance over the 98.

I really can't understand why some people find the Forester ugly. I think my XT is above average in looks compared to similar vehicles. I think that taking the cross bars off the roof helps to eliminate any 'dorkyness'. If any of you out there think the Forester is ugly I would really like to hear what features you find unpleasant. I am just curious.

Nice to see your posts again Jack.

-les

ateixeira

C&D 5-60 was actually 6.3s, an easy to obtain real-world number. I'm sure Motorweek was gentle on the hardware. If you watch their show, they usually have very little (if any) wheelspin at launch.

6.2 actually beats their time for the FX45 (6.3).

If Subaru indeed changes the final drive, think about it, that was pretty smart. All the car mags test the first year models, right? So everyone is talking about the 5.3 number, how impressive it is. Few will forget.

So, maybe for MY2005, they can relax the gearing. Most car mags will not retest, they'll still use the 5.3 figure. But EPA mileage would be better, and consumers will notice that.

If Subaru does that, and it was intentional, I think it's pretty ingenious.

Highlander bug? You know, they are fine, but can you love one? No. The XT is easy to love. The HL is just plain dull after driving an XT.

22.5 mpg is still quite good for those speeds and conditions, especially with the A/C on.

-juice

kens

The Forester's headlights have always been a strong point, IMO. The Forester has always used H4 bulbs which are far better than some other bulbs used in today's cars. Also, the beam patterns have very nice sharp cutoffs -- almost like European e-codes.

Watching the Motorweek review again, I couldn't help to noice the dive/squat under braking and acceleration.

Ken

jrobson

Ummmm.. hold the phone guys, I had already done the gas mileage conversion from 'Metric to Merican' for you'al. My Canuck fuel usage for the trip was 8.9 Liters/100 kilometers [26.6 mpg-US]. Note that my trip usage approaches the Aussie spec measurement of 8.7L/100 Kms for their extra-urban cycle, although the Aussies are running 95 RON fuel, which should return better performance/mileage than the 91 RON that we have up here and I wasn't trying to set any mileage records.

I as well as some others here, follow the BMW approach to good gas mileage, which means getting to your top gear asap. They found their best efficiencies under hard acceleration shifting around 2500 rpm, with the next best shifting at 4500. Their poorest performance was found with the longest time to reach the intended cruising speed... ymmv.

From my perspective, the MotorWeek review was dead-on. One of the reasons we bought our XT instead of a Murano/X5/MDX/etc. was its distinctive but stealthy looks.. many of my friends are now dumping out of their look at me cop-catchers for something less visible.

subearu

Must be the thinner air up there then ;-)

Do you guys use reformulated fuel at all? Like MTBE (not as much anymore) or ethanol additives like we do here in the states?

-Brian

ace1000

MotorWeek's 0-60 time for the WRX sedan was 5.6 seconds. The WRX test is at: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2036a.shtml

jrobson

Brian.. I tend to use Husky brand gas way up here that has up to 10% ethanol added... I believe the owners manual says up to 12% is acceptable. Otherwise only Shell or Esso.
BTW - I would suggest that it's not the thinner air, but rather the diminished gravity that one finds at high latitudes that likely accounts for our seemingly better fuel efficiency!?

Have just used the 91-92 RON so far over the 3400kms/2100miles of usage, but I'll try dumbing-down to 89-87 when the weather cools off .
Jim

ateixeira

Cop-catchers, that's one way to look at 'em! Gimme a Sleeper any day.

OK, 26.6 US miles per US gallon! That's a record, for now, sounds sweet! )

If you're doing that well, I would not change anything, including the octane or even the gas station you buy from. I agree that your engine should be cloned.

-juice

subearu

Thanks Jim. That 10% is the same as what we have here in the Chicago metro area for reformulated fuel. If that mileage holds up over a number of additional tanks, you will probably make some XTers quite jealous! ;-)

Jack - you feeding your XT reformulated stuff?

-Brian

kens

Interesting. MotorWeek measured a 5.6 second 0-60 time for the WRX but only managed a 6.2 for the XT.

Could it be driver and weather conditions that caused the difference?

Ken

ateixeira

Could be, the temps have been close to 90 degrees and very humid in MD lately. We've had record rain, including the period since the XT was launched.

C&D tests, where, in Michigan?

-juice

ballistic

"Jack - you feeding your XT reformulated stuff?"

Whatever comes out of the 92-octane Union-76 pump.

stoner420

I think the XT lamps are brighter than my WRX (not a fan of the 9007s anyhow).

jmulholl

In my testride of the xt I noticed that the wind noise was very high with the roof fully opened. Will an air deflector correct this? How much does it cover the moonroof?
 I am trying to choose between the XT and the TSX and the moonroof is an issue. For some reason, the open moonroof on the TSX is very quiet (with no deflector) Thanks.
               Joe

imyodaddy

I test drove an XT auto about 2 hours ago. I have had 4 different test drives at different dealerships, but today was different than the others. I took the car on the highway, and what happened was that when I was accelerating (and it wasn't hard acceleration, because I feel that I am not going to abuse a non-broken in car) the car would pull noticeably to the left. Remove you foot from the gas and it would pull to the right. The others did not do this. What could be wrong with this particular sample?

Also I have noticed at 3 of the dealers that the cars I looked at were already dinged and scratched! Why are they not more careful?

pleiad7

The XT you drove may have had alignment problems caused by the truck transport to the dealership - it happens quite frequently. I had the same problem with my MY00 OBS - it had a significant pull to the left from the day I drove it off the lot; I took it in to have it looked at and it turned out that the alignment had been out of whack all along. Something about the way they chain down the wheels while the cars are on the truck. My OBS also came with a paint blemish on the passenger side front quarter panel which is only obvious when the light hits it at a certain angle - but then it is very noticeable! Probably a cheaply fixed ding incurred on the dealer's lot, just like you mentioned.

Lot damage is all too common, I would do a careful walk-around before signing on the dotted line...

subewannabe

ever notice how close they park those cars together? thats about five times more room then they have on the ship coming over...i swear they must leave the back htch unlocked and climb in that way! then the the salespeople let drivers who are unfamiliar with the cars open the doors into the car next to them ( oops! sorry about that....) then back or pull forward and snake their way out of the lot...
mark

ateixeira

Joe: about 1/4 the size means 1/4 the noise.

No, but really, try cracking the rear windows open just a tab. You get a buffeting that happens, you might hear whoop-whoop-whoop sound, but the open rear windows creates a turbulence that disrupts this pattern.

A deflector is not enough, not on a moonroof that big. I have one and my 15"x30" aftermarket roof has that buffeting to some extent. Plus opening the windows is free.

Nino: either the tire pressures were way off side to side, or the alignment was. I hope they catch that during the PDI when that particular XT is sold.

Take delivery in the day time, and walk around your exact car twice before signing.

-juice

p0926

Just noticed that there's an Edmunds topic called Infiniti FX35/45 vs VW Touareg vs Porsche Cayenne vs BMW X5 Shouldn't we consider andding vs Forester XT to the title? Hey don't laugh, after all, 0-60 it's as fast as or faster and the Forester has as much as or more in the way of cargo space. But then it gets much better gas mileage and costs a fraction of what the others do ;-)

-Frank P.

imyodaddy

that will allow me to be the one to wash the car before pickup.

OK, OK, I know it's a sickness, but all too often I have seen cars come out of pre-delivery with swirl marks and other indications that the guy who washes a car for the first time gets minimum wage and doesn't care about the car.

By the way, it is silver with less than 2 miles. Ooooh, I'm getting goose bumps.

samlater

Have just about 500 miles on my 5-spd silver XT. First full tank of gas - got 20.5 MPG mixed city/ highway. Car is a hoot to drive, still breaking it in gently, though. The shifting got better and smoother, especially the 1-2 shift. The hill-holder is still a pain in the neck, but it's less sticky now. I ordered and installed the security system, air filtration, and wheel locks - very easy installation for all three. Also ordered the trailer hitch - will update on the install when it gets here. Need recomendations for a decent inexpensive hitch mount bike rack.
Other rants: seatbelt is waaaay too tight and keeps locking all the time.
Other raves: a hoot to drive - can't wait till the break-in is over ;-)

john284

About the hitch mount bike rack: I have a Sagman's 3 bike rack got new around $150, it could handle woman's frame easily without adapter. Very good indeed.

BTW, when will you gonna try the 0-60 thing?:)

-Water

ateixeira

Yeah but you don't get Corinthian Leather, LOL!

2 miles on the odo? That's the least I've ever heard of. Buy it.

The seat belts have locking retractors. Don't pull it all the way out, or it ratchets and locks as you tighten it. Could that be it?

-juice

once_for_all

air filtration system that you bought? I was under the impression that all the Foresters have a cabin air filter.

John

raynist

I am sure we have all heard that motor week did a test of the XT and had nearly a one second longer 0 - 60 time (6.2) than did C&D (5.3). It is easy to see why if you watched the program. The 1-2 shift was slow, and the 2-3 shift was painfully slow, it seemed like nearly a second. They granny shifted the car.

--Ray

stoner420

You don't want to be slamming the shifter between gears, esp. 1->2, or you will just kill your synchros. Just push it gently and let it fall into gear at its natural rate. Didn't see the show, but when you get good at it, the shifts don't really take that long anyhow. C&D is probably slamming it from gear to gear, and dropping the clutch at high rpms too, just killing the poor car, but oh well it sure is good publicity!

ateixeira

I agree, power shifting 1-2 is how some early WRX owners shredded their tranny teeth. OK, they were modified with 250+hp, but still. XT has more torque to begin with, and it's heavier, both strain the tranny.

Interestingly, for 2003 WRXs Subaru is supposed to have included some sort of force-limiting valve on the clutch. Sure enough, when I researched it all the tranny failues I saw were on 2002 models with modified engines.

-juice

rsholland

I posted over there a couple of weeks back, when the Forester (or Subaru in general?) was brought up. Several of those folks over there snicker when you mention Subaru in the same breath as those exalted brands.

Bob

stever

We've been trying to gently convince those guys that perhaps it's not the best idea to go 145 mph on the public roads and highways.

Maybe y'all should invite them to a pro/am Subaru rally with a closed course.

Steve, Host

samlater

once_for_all:

Air filtration is just a filter that you slide into the ductwork behind the glove box. Cost about $30. It's not standard on Foresters - it's an option.

Water:

I may try a 0-60 after 1500 miles or so. I have a G-tech accelerometer, so the results should be fairly accurate.

Where did you buy the Sagman bike rack? Does it fold away or tilt for tailgate access? Does the top part fold down?

Regards,
Sam.

akasrp

http://www.allenracks.com/hitch.html

fwiw, I use an Allen trunk mount rack (A104) now - excellent quality. Also fits Forester.

If I ever need a hitch mount, Allen will be my first choice...

srp

raynist

I totally agree that I would not want to powershift the manual, I never powershift any of my MT cars, but they were shifting waaaayyy to slow. In C&D's road test section I believe it says that all MT shifts are done by lifting off the gas and then depressing the clutch and shifting, they just must do it quicker than Motorweek does. It also says that they keep trying different launch RPMs until they get the optimal time. Perhaps they spend more time trying to extract the best times than Motor Week does.

--Ray

once_for_all

now I remember. The local dealer does cabin air filters on everything, they are officially an option but not offered that way here.

Thanks, John

rsholland

http://www.subaru.co.nz/models/forester/

Australia got it a few weeks back, so that now means four countries now get the 2.5 turbo Forester.

Bob

samlater

Is it just me or are the seatbelts in the 2004 Forester ridiculously tight? They keep tightening while driving to the point where I feel like I'm being held snug on some wild roller coaster ride...
Anyone else experiencing this?

Sam.

chassol

Sam,

 Oh Yea...

All kidding aside I feel more secure than I have in most cars lately.............