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
The 455-cubic-inch 1970 Olds Toronado I once owned produced 375 BHP and around 480 lbs/ft of torque, and all of it was delivered through the front wheels. Very effectively! The only time I ever felt even the slightest torque steer was when accelerating hard with substantial steering lock dialed in. And even that was barely perceptible. There also was an even higher-output dual-quad-carb, dual-exhaust version with 400 BHP.
-juice
GM spent much money and effort engineering the front-wheel-drive systems on the Toronado and close-kin Cad El Dorado. They worked extremely well. Even though the differential was on one side (left) of the engine (thus nowhere near the centerline), the outer half-shafts were equal length! This was accomplished by running the right output shaft through a tunnel through the oil pan to a rigidly-mounted CV-joint on the right side of the engine; from there a halfshaft equal in length to the left-side one went to the right wheel. The transmission was also alongside the engine; power was delivered to it via a silent chain drive from the crankshaft.
The equal-length halfshafts plus excellent geometry produced a car capable of delivering mammoth amounts of torque to the front wheels with virtually no perceptible torque steer. Even though the front end by itself carried about 2,700 pounds, you could smoke the front tires at will. The lunge was something to feel. It was a remarkable package, but very expensive to build. I doubt GM ever made much if any profit on Toronados and El Dorados.
Makes you appreciate the symmetry (and simplicity) of Subaru's design.
-juice
As for the tires that will wrap around the wheel... that's a different story.
-Dave
Could be wrong about that - going from memory, but you might want to check first - tirerack is a good source of cross fitment. info.
HTH
Larry
Motorweek just tested a Baja Turbo with the Automatic. Their 0-60 time was 7.5. Their 0-60 on the XT with manual was 6.2. And this compared very close to Car and Driver's street start (5-60) of 6.3 when they tested the XT. I don't plan on dropping clutches at high rpm so the street start is more realistic to me then the 5.3 figure that has gotten a lot of attention. I know the Baja is about 3550 pounds compared to the XT at about 3250 pounds. Using some simple ratios I figure an auto XT 0-60 would be about 6.8 to 6.9 seconds. Or about a 1/2 second slower than a manual XT's street start. Seem reasonable? The auto XT seems awfully attractive.
Some owners have said that the automatic XT feels "soft" on initial start, and only begins to pull hard a second or two later. I didn't notice anything like that in the one I test-drove before buying my 5-speed. It felt very strong!
I too am amazed and perplexed by the lack of coverage that the XT has received in the car magazines. Other than the full road test in Car and Driver not one other magazine has bothered to test one, preferring to print some kind of First Look fluff with no measured performance data. I believe one magazine actually estimated the 0-60 time as 8.5! This vehicle offers an incredible combination of performance, utility, price and gas mileage (I know there are some gripes about this, but considering the performance it's really quite good). In real world situations it will accelerate to turnpike speeds faster than about 98 percent of the cars out there. This month's Car & Driver has a road test of the new Pontiac GTO. If you look at the numbers the Forester will beat it up to about 70 mph and actually gets through the quarter mile first although at a lower speed. (That all wheel traction really pays off). I know the few times someone has tried to beat me out of a light the initial first gear surge just catapults me 4 or 5 car lengths ahead. Race over! This is a truly special performance vehicle. Why it has not generated more interest in the enthusiast press is beyond me. Then again, maybe it's a good thing. The stealth factor and all that. I would really like to see a full road test of the XT automatic. Maybe when the Vue Red Line comes out one of the magazines will do a comparison test.
While the review in general (and my own overall opinion) is favorable, the following sections clearly echo several of the criticisms I've raised over the months:
At 100 km/h in <5th> gear, it’s pulling a busy 2600 rpm.
Smoothness and quietness
The XT’s lack of refinement is its main weakness. It’s fairly hard work in traffic, due to the engine’s lack of low down urge, an abrupt clutch, occasional mild drivetrain shudder, an agricultural 1-2 shift and a crunchy reverse.
Under acceleration, the horizontally opposed 2.5’s characteristic thrashing noise is not the most tuneful in the world.
On the highway, excessive tyre roar, the transmission of coarse surface-induced harshness to the cabin, and wind noise also make the XT a less than serene drive.
Agricultural 1-2 shift...that describes it even better than I ever did. The span between 1st and 2nd would better suit a farm tractor than a sport wagon with high-performance attributes.
What makes this resounding silence all the more remarkable is to recall the frothy, orgasmic excitement that the WRX's U.S. introduction produced in the American automotive press. Not to in any way knock the WRX, but a smallish, cramped, oddly-styled high-performance AWD sedan/wagon with a very soft-below-3000RPM engine priced in the lower-mid $20s created a media sensation. We had WRX road tests coming out our ears. No less than Car & Driver named it to their esteemed 10-Best list - at least two years running.
One might logically have thought (certainly I did!) that a roomier AWD sportwagon/crossover SUV with even stronger performance (and certainly better day-in day-out driveability) than the WRX, at nearly the same bargain-basement price (for the performance level), would have been received by the car press with at least the same if not more excitement. Instead, the giant-killer XT - with absolutely no peers - seems to be producing more U.S. media yawns than grins.
There have been at least 10 times as many overseas writeups as here. Why? If the American automotive press is that jaded, what explains the huge WRX splash? Or, for that matter, their lemming-like swooning over the STi?
It's certainly a mystery to me.
The less hype, the better IMHO. Unless sales are negatively affected by less exposure.
-Dennis
Also, a bit more fuss over the XT might help maintain higher resale values. Though that won't be much of a factor when I'm done with mine in 2017 or thereabouts.
Forester XT manual has a 0-100 km/h time of 6.4 seconds, and for the automatic 6.8 seconds, according to manufacturer Fuji Heavy Industries.
0-60 MPH times should be about 5-6% lower than 0-100 km/hr. So, based on the above, Fuji's "official" 0-60 times for the 5-speed and automatic XTs ought to be about 6.1 and 6.4 seconds, respectively.
Why are there not more reviews? I think because the 2003 Forester's styling did not change radically. Consumer Reports went as far as calling it a "face lift".
The bumper beams are now aluminum, so are the roof rails. Add side air bags that protect the head, bigger brakes, EBD, there are so many changes that it's way more than a face-lift.
But...it *looks* like it was just a face-lift, hence no press.
-juice
It makes me think of meeting a fairly "plain" woman at a social gathering , finding her to be pretty easy to talk with, then learning from the guy next to me in the mens' room that she's independently wealthy..somehow, she suddenly looks beautiful!
Mark
Some of the patter and complaints about the XT's various compromises and shortcomings had begun to scare me off. Talk of rattles and hums led to mentions of poor "build quality," and this in reference to a vehicle with the engineering excellence and structural integrity to earn it highest marks in various crash tests.
So, thanks again for your perspective. BTW, I noted that due to popular demand in Australia transmission and final drive ratios in the 2004 WRX now follow those of XT MT.
I've test driven the XT 5 speed and didn't think it that bad. True, the 1-2 shift didn't want to be hurried (strangely, agricultural is a good adjective), but the torque is so abundant that it really didn't matter. I felt the extra low 1st gear was handy for crawling over a curb, around some uneven grassy area, and back over a curb onto a street. The engine is heroicly strong, so you don't have to shift constantly to stay in the power band. Shifting is light and easy.
I must agree that the tire noise over rough roads is relatively high (compared to a popular sedan). I like the engine's growl (and it's very very quiet at idle).
Apologies to all.
Here's re-edited post of mine, hopefully squeaky clean this time.
-----------------------------------------
The NRMA reviewer is wrong.
> At 100 km/h in <5th> gear, it’s pulling a busy
> 2600 rpm.
Gee. A "busy 2600 rpm" ? My friend's Honda Accord
Euro (no sports car by any means) is doing ~2500rpm in SIXTH gear at 100km/h. Most other cars with similar size engines will be closer to 3000rpm at 100km/h in the top gear. What the reviewer is used to is extremely tall gearing in a local cars like Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon with torquey large capacity V6 or V8 engines that normally slog at 1800rpm at 100km/h to conserve petrol.
You have to understand that speed is limited in most states in Australia to 110km/h, so noone will be cruising at autobahn speeds (apart from lucky ones in Northern Territory where there's no LEGAL speed limit, but jumping roos and crossing livestock impose SANITY speed limit to vehicles other than monster roadtrains with armour-like bull bars). That makes reviewer's complaint even further off the mark.
> It’s fairly hard work in traffic, due
> to the engine’s lack of low down urge,
Again, may be so compared to ultra torquey V8's that a typical Aussie has lived with throughout most of his life. Compared to ANY other car with similar capacity, XT's bottom end is a standout. Even my friends STi feels hollow in comparison.
> an abrupt clutch,
Yes, you have to master it. Mainly because engine is SO torquey that you have to match the rpms exactly in 1-2nd or even 2-3rd shifts. But it CAN be done, all you need is to be a good driver.
> an agricultural 1-2 shift and a crunchy reverse.
And this comes from an Aussie, no less !
XT is MEANT to be driven on sand, in mud, on snow and rock. You NEED a low 1st for these. Ideally a dual range should have been fitted, but for whatever reason Subaru didn't do it. Lack of room because thicker gears are fitted (to cope with extra power/torque) ?
Again, IF you know what you are doing, and take care to match the rpms when upshifting to second (you need a bit extra as 4wd tends to bog the engine) the shift will be seamless. But as we all know, you COULD be absolutely catapulted in 1st, so when you ease on gas to change and floor it again in 2nd you WILL be thrown back and forth a bit. Show me a car that will do the acceleration of XT that will not do the same. In normal traffic, you will never feel the gear change in my car. Up or down. It just takes some practice and TLC.
And a crunchy reverse is a trademark of WRX, Outback and STi as well. Are they "agricultural" too ? I don't think so.
> Under acceleration, the horizontally opposed
> 2.5’s characteristic thrashing noise is not the
> most tuneful in the world.
Well, it is in the ear of the beholder, but I do like XTs noises towards the redline. It is no staccato of a 360 Modena, a zing of a headspinning rotary in RX-7 or 8, or even S2000. But to me it sounds at least as nice as engine in STi, 200SX, an EVO or even GT-R. Again, reviewer is a compete idiot - is he comparing a semi off road 4wd to a world's best sports cars ? How many cars in XT's class will sound better ?
> On the highway, excessive tyre roar, the
> transmission of coarse surface-induced
> harshness to the cabin, and wind noise also
> make the XT a less than serene drive.
As others pointed out, XT is marginally noisier than a Lexus. It is certainly quieter than my Commodore (a family sedan) at cruise speeds and MUCH quieter than say WRX. Again reviewer has left the important bit : the benchmark.
"Less than serene drive" - compared to WHAT ? An S class Merc ? Sure is. Compared to same class 4wd ? No way.
> Agricultural 1-2 shift...that describes it
> even better than I ever did. The span between
> 1st and 2nd would better suit a farm tractor
> than a sport wagon with high-performance
> attributes.
Well, horses for courses. I like XT's low 1st.
I know I'll need it on sandy tracks of Fraser Island and on rocky dry riverbeds of the Outback. Would it be better if XT had a taller 1st (or final drive) and a dual range ? YES ! But then I'd also like to have a Porsche to drive to work every day and a big 4WD for days in the Outback.
Reality is - I can't have that. Reality is also that XT doesn't have dual range gearbox. So in the end I'm happy with the compromise that XT is. Really happy.
Bratislav
Thanks to all of you for good info. here that helped with decision making. Local dealer was way high on price so ended up flying from southern Oregon to Seattle to purchase car for $450 under dealer invoice. Even with cost of flight I saved a bundle. One of the best parts is that the night before I left, I realized that I was stupidly planning on driving pretty much straight home with a stop to have dinner with my son who is freshman in college south of Portland. Instead decided to take an extra day and drive out to Mount Rainier about 80 miles east of the dealership. Fabulous way to start breaking in the car and fantastic scenery and roads. Had not been there for 30 years and that was on a motorcycle in the summer. Did a circle around the mountain on some pretty winding two-lane roads and since it has already had a bunch of snow there was even some ice in places to test out traction. Highest pass was at about 5,500' so I got a little sense of how the turbo performs at modest altitude. Did a great day hike in the snow and then drove to see my son and back home - about 600 miles of driving. Prior car is Toyota Avalon and while I've driven a couple of Subarus before, I love the XT.
Treats not listed in any particular order:
1) Driver's seat was significantly more comfortable than I had remembered from test drive. While I miss having the ability to adjust the tilt of the seat pan that I have in the Avalon, the seat is quite workable even on long drives.
2) Power and smoothness of AT is definitely wonderful and I can see it will become addictive. We had a couple of inches of snow here the day after I got back. My Avalon could not make it up the hill to my house, which is actually pretty unusual for it. I might have been able to manage it if I had kept even more momentum going into the turn at the bottom of the hill. Ended up parking the Avalon downhill, walked home and got the XT. First snow exp. was great (with the stock tires no less). It just ate up the hills around here with great traction.
3) Very good visibility
4) No buzz or rattles I hope I continue to be lucky as I find noise to be very tiring and stressful and from posts here it is clear that some XTs are not built as well as we'd hope.
5) Noise Noise is present but really to me quite good; find it similar in quietness to my 1999 Toyota Avalon, which when reviewed then was considered to be very quiet. Current standards for quiet might be a lot higher, but going from a touring sedan to the XT has not been a compromise in quiet, although it is a compromise in seating comfort. Most of it seems to be from the tires, perhaps some from the roof rack. Some have suggested removing the latter unless you use it frequently. The pitch of the noise is at a frequency that I can harmonize with, unlike some of the "wind" noise in other cars that I find very annoying.
Tricks listed in order of disappointments:
1) Climate control The Auto feature has mind of its own and I rarely agree with that mind. Most likely I will resort to manual 99% of the time. The number of controls seems to be about two too many and even with that there are combinations that you can not accomplish. E.G. If stuck in traffic behind a car with really bad exhaust I always go into recirculate mode but this automatically turns on the AC. I understand that this is to prevent fogging but at times one does not need the AC while in recirc briefly. Even more annoying to me is how hot the air is and how slowly it tames down even when turning the temp control to a much lower value. I still have not found a great setting to accomplish what I consider to be my basic climate control need (some air to the foot area; some air to both the left and middle vents so that I can aim that at my hands - to keep them warm in cool weather, or to keep them cool in warm weather; and some air to windshield when heating to help retard any window fogging). Getting good even air to my hands is a challenge, and in auto mode it seems to always choose a setting that will fry my left hand while allowing my right hand to be way too cool. Sort of like riding a donkey down into the Grand Canyon early in the morning with one leg in the sun cooking and the other in the shade pretty cool, but the XT is not a donkey outdoors and this is supposed to be climate control, not extreme weather. Will probably resort to putting some rough texture on the middle dial and buttons so that I can easily tell by feel which knob I have - hitting the right know without looking is getting more reliable, but I find I have my eyes off of the road far too much to be safe. A final annoyance in this area is that the fan speed and air flow choices are not a continuous turn of the knob but are click stops requiring more time and energy with a hand off of the wheel to get to the setting that I want. Again I will get used to it but it seems like a senseless design. Sure hope I am happier with the AC side than with the heating side of the equation. Has anyone found a way to tame the Auto feature, or to work the manual side in a way that is easy and straight forward? I know people have wondered whether the onboard computer or whatever can get re-programmed, that would certainly help.
2)Bad dealer exp with the finance minister Not worth going into detail. Got car at agreed upon $450 under inv. FM did not live upto the verbalized extended warranty gold plus plan pricing. Since I have an alternative dealer who is happy to offer it at that price it is not a financial concern. But it did take some of the excitement out of the purchasing pick-up the car; hit the road exp. However a few miles down the road and it was behind me.
3) The department of redundancy department Have not read much of the manual, but have slogged thru all of the very long section on the climate control system. Just how many times do they think they need to tell us that the numbers on the temp control dial are in F or C degree depending on the country of use? I find the manual to be long-winded and at far from clear. Reminds of some of the computer manuals I read when I had my first computer which used CPM as its operating system. I usually learn important things from reading the manual, hope that will be true once I get beyond the Climate Control area where the manual makes it seem that you are learning to fly a space ship.
4) Security system Got this option because it is so cheap when installs at the port and I get 4% off on my insurance. I immediately turned off the annoying chirp confirmation when using the keyless remote to arm things. But some of the signalling to owner is only through chirping and not duplicated by light flashes. This is getting pretty nit picking with complaints, however it reflects what seems to be a theme for me. I don't think Sub
Your thoughts on miles for 1st oil change. I understand that I should get filter from Subaru even if I do not do the oil change myself and have a quick oil stop place do it. Also understand that some dealerships do not seem to know the correct part number for the XT and you need to check up on them. What is the crush washer that some of the post have referred to? This is my first Subaru so cruch washer is a new concept?
they are a subaru dealer in the south burbs of Chicago, they are part of a large dealership group, I know they do Nissan too plus some other makes.I almost went to them when I was looking for my WRX but the dealer closer to me found the car I wanted.
Would seem they are as legit as you can get.
First oil is a matter of preference - I like the concept of the first one being free, but there's no dealer around here that does that. I had mine done at the dealer at 1000 because I've been doing it that way for 30 years. Okay, so that's not a great reason, but it works for me. Of course he put the wrong filter on.
Keep an eye on the oil level after whoever does the change - since your manual should be newer than mine can you check and see how much oil they say to add when changing the oil & filter? My manual is wrong, and several other people have had the same problem. The XT now takes 5qts with filter, according to the e-mail response I received from SOA.
Regarding oil filter - the correct part number's been posted here. A quick check is to make sure the filter is painted black. It's possible they'll start using the regular white filters later, but the correct PN filter to date is black. Mine even had the word engine stamped on the bottom - must be to differentiate it from the AT spin on filter.
The person I contacted at SOA also recommends changing the oil after the first 1000 miles.
I don't know why they use crush washers instead of nylon or something else. When the washer crushes, it does provide some instant feedback that you've put enough torque on the bolt.
HTH
Larry
TWRX
You might be right. I tend to think of face-lifts as minor new bits & pieces (grille, taillights, trim pieces) on essentially the same exterior sheetmetal. There isn't a single exterior panel on the 2nd-gen '03 Forester that is interchangeable with the prior year, and I don't think any glass pieces interchange, either. To me, that's much more than a mere facelift.
As the owner of a 5-speed XT, I wholeheartedly recommend the automatic version - no reservations whatsoever.
jb
I have trouble believing that anyone -not- operating on the margin with regard to SOA (i.e., fully legit)wouldn't provide more info right up front on their site about who they are, their pricing, etc. Still, as long as they are an authorized Subie dealer selling Subie warranties, and haven't been prevented by SOA from doing what they're doing at the price they're doing it at, I'd imagine bottom line the warranty is good.
It would be interesting to know what the price arrangement between Subaru and the dealer is on these things. Presumably there's something like an "invoice" price, and it looks like the dealer mark-up is pretty significant.
"At 100 km/h in <5th> gear, it’s pulling a busy
2600 rpm."
Is "wrong" the correct word? I think not. It would be more reasonable to say that your opinion differs from the reviewer's. Like him, I think the XT requires far too many RPMs at any given speed. In my view, the XT's gearing should not be compared to high-winding naturally-aspirated 4-cylinder vehicles you cited, because its power (especially power-to-weight) is much more like a 6- or 8-cyl than 4-cylinders, and (IMO) it should be geared accordingly. The fact that you and I completely disagree on this and other points doesn't make you right, or the article's author and me wrong. The most that can be said is that your priorities and frame of reference differ from mine and the author's.
"It’s fairly hard work in traffic, due to the engine’s lack of low down urge," Again, may be so compared to ultra torquey V8's that a typical Aussie has lived with throughout most of his life. Compared to ANY other car with similar capacity, XT's bottom end is a standout.
While the XT's midrange is truly exceptional, it's bottom end is anything but. Note that the author was referring to low down. At bottom-end engine speeds (from idle up to perhaps 1,500 RPM) the XT is nothing to shout about. This is an inescapable reality with moderate-displacement engines that get their power from turbos that don't really begin to kick in in a serious way until above 2,000 RPMs or more.
" an abrupt clutch,"...Yes, you have to master it. Mainly because engine is SO torquey that you have to match the rpms exactly in 1-2nd or even 2-3rd shifts. But it CAN be done, all you need is to be a good driver.
I am an excellent driver and have operated a wide variety of manual transmissions for nearly 45 years. I pride myself on driving smoothly. Yes, the 5-speed XT's gearchanges can be done smoothly (most of the time) - but the combination of its ultra-low first gear, uncommonly wide gap between 1st and 2nd, and (somewhat) abrupt clutch requires more concentration to drive smoothly than any other manual-gearbox vehicle I've ever owned. You may not mind that at all. I, on the other hand, agree with the article author.
"an agricultural 1-2 shift and a crunchy reverse." XT is MEANT to be driven on sand, in mud, on snow and rock. You NEED a low 1st for these.
The Forester is not a Jeep or Humvee. While some owners, like you, will frequently go off-road onto sand, mud, and rock, many Forester buyers (perhaps a majority) won't. I live in hilly terrain where snow and ice are problematic. I didn't buy my XT to crawl over rocks, I bought it to get me to work and back without fail through the hills on snow and ice. I (and many others) have no need for gearing this short, and I'm not thrilled with the sacrifice it imposes on fuel consumption, highway RPMs, and noise. That doesn't make me or the reviewer right or you wrong (or vice versa) - it merely means we have different requirements and priorities.
Again, IF you know what you are doing, and take care to match the rpms when upshifting to second...the shift will be seamless...In normal traffic, you will never feel the gear change in my car. Up or down. It just takes some practice and TLC.
Rest assured, I know what I am doing. I'm confident the reviewer did, as well. You again seem to imply that any driver who doesn't agree with your satisfaction with the XT's gearing and clutch must not be very competent. If that is indeed your view, I think it is inappropriate.
And a crunchy reverse is a trademark of WRX, Outback and STi as well.
How does the fact that these other vehicles suffer from the same trait make it a good thing?
Are they "agricultural" too ? I don't think so.
If it walks like a duck...
"Under acceleration, the horizontally opposed
2.5’s characteristic thrashing noise is not the
most tuneful in the world." Well, it is in the ear of the beholder, but I do like XTs noises towards the redline...to me it sounds at least as nice as engine in STi, 200SX, an EVO or even GT-R. Again, reviewer is a compete idiot
So, your opposing views are the only ones that might have any merit, and anyone who might disagree with you and agree with the reviewer is also a "complete idiot"? Can you be any more condescending and arrogant?
And, to my prior comment ("Agricultural 1-2 shift...that describes it even better than I ever did. The span between 1st and 2nd would better suit a farm tractor than a sport wagon with high-performance attributes."), you thoughtfully and pleasantly reply,
Well, horses for courses. I like XT's low 1st. I know I'll need it on sandy tracks of Fraser Island and on rocky dry riverbeds of the Outback.
So, because you (and possibly even a majority of other XT owners) happen to like it, the differing opinions of others who don't happen to share your priorities are valueless? Wow.
Would it be better if XT had a taller 1st (or final drive) and a dual range ? YES!
Amazing. Finally, a single point on which you and I might actually agree.
But then I'd also like to have a Porsche to drive to work every day and a big 4WD for days in the Outback. Reality is - I can't have that. Reality is also that XT doesn't have dual range gearbox. So in the end I'm happy with the compromise that XT is. Really happy.
And so, just because you're really happy, others (like me, and the article's author) who aren't totally thrilled with the compromises needlessly imposed by the XT's gearing are to be dismissed as "complete idiots", eh?
Thanks so much for your charitable assessment.
Quite ironic coming from you!
My work and recreation requires 4wd or at least all wheel drive. I drive a 4wd Mazda B4000 and my wife had a 4wd Rodeo, but I really missed the feeling of driving a powerful and good handling car and she was getting tired of lumbering around town. So we got rid of her SUV and got an XT for my wife and now we have the best of both worlds. However, in the eyes of all the high riding poseurs out there, we are geeks for driving a boxy little Subaru.
The Xterra guys are the worst offenders. I can appreciate a supercharged Xterra with 4wd, but please, all the guys running around with their underpowered 170 hp (now 180 hp), sloppy handling and rollover prone 2wd Xterras are a joke. Our subie will literally run circles around one of those trucks.
To wrap up my long-winded diatribe, I just had to share what I saw last night. It is the peak of fall now in Atlanta, and we had some rain yesterday. I was going home, and I saw this joker in an Xterra who could not climb his modestly steep driveway, which was covered with wet leaves. I laughed so hard I almost peed myself. I even had to stop and watch, until he gave up, backed out and parked in the street. But as I said, at least he looks cool!
My manual on page 11-13 indicates 4.2 qts of oil, but indicates you must check dip stick after filling as how much is needed depends on how hot the oil was when it was drained and how long draining was allowed. Seems that my "newer" manual is also inaccurate, which I find inexcusable on the part of Subaru. Note just saw back cover of manual indicates an issue date of April 2003 and hence is not all that new. The 5quart figure you got in your email is hopefully accurate. Edward
Steve, Host
Not being sure how level my driveway is, etc, I just measure it cold in the same parking spot in the morning, and use that same spot in my driveway as the reference.
It may not be perfect, but it does provide perfect consistency, the next best thing IMO.
I am surprised Subaru hasn't issued an update to the manual yet. People screamed bloody murder at Ford because they forgot to include a corrected blurb on how to adjust headlights in the Sable/Taurus line. I'll grant adjusting headlights is important, but I hope people change their oil more often than they need their headlights adjusted. Well, maybe not for some of us OCD's in this group.... :<)
HTH
Larry
For those of you who haven't read the Member Agreement lately, please remember that if you wish to take issue with the statements of others, please engage in healthy, mature debate and not name-calling. Civility and respect underlie the success of the Subaru forums here.
hope this helps,
Steve, Host
I think touring tires would quiet the ride down a lot. Still, I bet it's already more quiet than the RAV4 or CR-V, the base Forester is by far.
-juice
I'd rather be driving an RX-8 or G35 Coupe (which is what my wife drives actually), but really need a small SUV or wagon. I was originally looking at a WRX wagon & stumbled across the XT, a test drive of both made it a really easy decision - more useable space for the types of things I carry, way better manners in traffic with the much better low-end torque, and better highway ride. I also drove an FX-35, which was very nice but not worth the price difference to me. So the XT was the best match for my particular situation...
The XT 5 speed is blindingly fast but doesn't attract law enforcement attention, and has cheap insurance rates to boot - makes it a winner to me! Remove the roof bars & the wind noise drops tremendously, I'm betting getting rid of the OEM tires will make a huge difference in that department. The engine is usually turning 3000-3500 at highway speeds for me, but if I don't hear or feel it, it doesn't matter. Getting 25-27 mpg at those speeds is a bonus to me (or actually to my employer, as they are buying the gas!).
BTW, I own a 2002 Forester S, which I like, so I am not trying to bash Subaru or the Forester...
The XT, on the other hand is "just" another trim level in the Forester line up.
But that's okay -- I like it being a sleeper.
Ken
> Is "wrong" the correct word?
Yes ! XT runs 2600rpm at the LEGAL SPEED LIMIT in Australia in its top gear. I wouldn't want it any lower than that. As far as "XT requires far too many RPMs at any given speed" that is again relative. Don't like the revs, change up. In my opinion XT's "natural" revs are around 2500. It will run OK at 2000, but anything lower I feel it's not very happy.
> XT's gearing should not be compared to high-
> winding naturally-aspirated 4-cylinder vehicles
> you cited, because its power (especially power-
> to-weight) is much more like a 6- or 8-cyl than
> 4-cylinders.
Well, its my turn to say that is only your opinion. Subaru has already changed 04 WRX's final drive to 4.444, and considering lower profile tyres, its 1st gear will be almost as low as XTs. Moreover, the step from 1st to 2nd is almost 70%, not that far from XTs 77%. It has even better power to weight than XT, yet its 5th is the same 0.738 . Who exactly is wrong here ? If anyone, I'd think Subaru should know their cars, no ?
> While the XT's midrange is truly exceptional,
> it's bottom end is anything but.
> This is an inescapable reality with moderate-
> displacement engines that get their power from
> turbos that don't really begin to kick in in a
> serious way until above 2,000 RPMs or more.
And you still maintain that 2600rpm in top gear at the speed limit is too high ?
BTW, you are making the same mistake as the reviewer. You omit the comparison reference. I plainly stated that even compared with STi, XT's low end is a standout. Even more so compared to standard WRX. I've driven friend's 200SX (another turbo), no comparison. Revving lunatics like Integra Type R or RX-8 need not even apply. So let's ask again :
> While the XT's midrange is truly exceptional,
> it's bottom end is anything but.
COMPARED TO WHAT EXACTLY ? Which 2.5 liter 4 cylinder, turbo or not, has, in your opinion, a clearly superior low end ? There should be many out there to qualify the statement as "lacking low down urge". _Unless_ you compare it to a V8, which then in my opinion is not a very intelligent thing to do, hence colloquialism.
> "an agricultural 1-2 shift and a crunchy
> reverse." XT is MEANT to be driven on sand,
> in mud, on snow and rock. You NEED a low
> 1st for these.
> The Forester is not a Jeep or Humvee. While
> some owners, like you, will frequently go off-
> road onto sand, mud, and rock, many Forester
> buyers (perhaps a majority) won't. I live in
> hilly terrain where snow and ice are
> problematic. I didn't buy my XT to crawl over
> rocks, I bought it to get me to work and back
> without fail through the hills on snow and ice.
> I (and many others) have no need for gearing
> this short, and I'm not thrilled with the
> sacrifice it imposes on fuel consumption,
> highway RPMs, and noise.
Hmm. Let me put it this way. Forester is a semi-off road vehicle. It has clearance for it, it has tyres for it, all wheel drive, approach and departure angles. It is not a Humvee by any means but it will take you off road. Now, for users like you low gearing is merely a nuissance. For someone stuck in the middle of a sand dune or a big puddle of mud it is a NECESSITY. But let's agree that we disagree on XT gearing.
As far as "majority users" I'll tell you that majority of huge four wheel drives (that is REAL off roaders like Landcruiser, Patrol, Defender etc) never see Outback either. 90% of them transport kids from and to school and lug groceries. Should those be geared taller, their low range and complicated transmissions with locking diffs and hubs abandoned ? That would definitely improve fuel consumption and lower the price a lot!
> That doesn't make me or the reviewer right or
> you wrong (or vice versa) - it merely means we
> have different requirements and priorities.
I've taken the pot shot at the reviewer 'cause he should know better, living in the land of Oz where huge patches of land are NOT covered by bitumen but shallow tracks at best, and where most people tow caravans, horses, bikes, boats and trailers full of stuff a lot.
And then omit the obvious thing, like saying which 4wd in XTs class is exactly superior, why, where and how. Let's bring the X-trails, CRV's, RAV's and like and compare. Feature for feature. Dollar for dollar.
Not a hypotetical rant of sorts "I'd like more bottom torque, more top power, less fuel consumption, lower gearing, taller gearing, better handling, higher clearance and I'll have that with the vanilla flavour thank you".
"Under acceleration, the horizontally opposed
2.5’s characteristic thrashing noise is not the
most tuneful in the world." Well, it is in the ear of the beholder, but I do like XTs noises towards the redline...to me it sounds at least as nice as engine in STi, 200SX, an EVO or even GT-R. Again, reviewer is a compete idiot"
> So, your opposing views are the only ones that
> might have any merit, and anyone who might
> disagree with you and agree with the reviewer
> is also a "complete idiot"? Can you be any more
> condescending and arrogant?
Yes, I can, but not in this forum :-)
What makes reviewer an idiot is not doing his job of COMPARING. He openly complais about the XTs "thrashing noises", yet fails to say compared to WHAT. CRV _might_ sound much nicer while accelerating, but sorry I can't hear it that far behind. And if horizontally opposed engines are "trashing" he better speak to good ol' Ferdinand too. He'd give him an earfull I'm sure.
> So, because you (and possibly even a majority
> of other XT owners) happen to like it, the
> differing opinions of others who don't happen
> to share your priorities are valueless? Wow.
No. They are not valueless. I just thought that we've heard the same tune over and over again a bit too much, and that many people could miss on a wonderful car because of one unhappy owner. Yes we've heard your complaints. Yes we know you expected something else. Yes we understand we all have different requirements, tastes and priorities.
But PLEASE, give it a rest.
XT is a _nice_ car, great value and stupendous performance. It is not perfect, but please don't put people off becasue there are few things you don't like.
And same goes for NRMA reviewer.
(NRMA and RACV are automobile clubs in two of the most populous, and often rivaling, states of New South Wales and Victoria. Last year RACV voted the Forester 'best compact 4wd' for the 3rd year in the row. I've got the feeling there's a bit more to it than objectivity and impartiality in NRMA's review)
Steve, Host