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
From reading the posts, it seems that you purchased a vehicle from Carr Auto recently for $100 over invoice. I went there the other day to look at a Forester, their $100 over invoice seems to be $1500 over the invoice posted on Edmunds. I know that sometimes dealers add a couple hundred bucks over it for advertising and stuff but $1500 seems excessive.
So, I was wondering when you paid $100 was the "invoice" that they qouted to you anywhere near the Edmunds invoice?
Thanks.
Ed
John
I paid that $23,323, plus $100 over invoice, plus $145 and $177 for two Popular Equipment Groups I desired (bumper cover, cargo tray, mudguards, armrest extension, rear cargo net, and cabin air filter), plus $33 for rubber mats front & rear, plus $200 for the column-mount boost gauge. That adds up to $23,978, and that was my total out-the-door price from Carr's last June 23.
What are the actual numbers you're now being quoted?
but given the price range of the xt nothing is as fast, comes with awd, has a huge sunroof that can also slop thru foul weather with ease. it will leave all of those sedans in the garage or in snow banks.
if you want the nice cabin you will have to spend at least 10k more and i am nost sure even at that price the other sedan will match some of the xt features nor subie reliability.
plus try hauling as much beer as i can in that sedan.
i do miss some of those great features in the near luxury sedan area. but i didnt wanna fork over another 14k for a fx-35 either.
Sounds like you would be the perfect candidate for an OB Bean or VDC.
-Dennis
I can forgive the ride harshness given the vehicles "role".
As regards rattles and pops, I'll be pulling my dash apart again next weekend hunting for the last noise. I know way more about how that dash is attached to the car than any owner should ever have to. BTW I had my friend from the body shop listen to the car and he says the sound is more like plastic popping when it twists. He also said it would drive him insane. Sounds like its related to the steering beam since I know that's cockeyed. That would account for torsional stress on the dash, i.e. twisting.
Fuel consumption - driving with the "sissyist" - new word, :<) foot I can find, if I do a tank full of pure stop and go I'm lucky to see 14.5 MPG. Some to do with the oxy gas we're using now, but still.
I still love the car, its still great for what I want it for, but if Subaru wants to really successfully move their price-point up they're going to have to concentrate on some refinements.
Teaching the dealerships how to set it on a lift properly and use fender covers when they work on the car wouldn't be a bad thing either.
My opinion, worth nothing except to me.
Larry
Ed
I think one of the things that I've noticed is, in general, how much slack we're willing to cut a vehicle that we really like. If we were discussing these problems regarding the average Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable we'd be castigating Ford for not being able to make a 20K car loaded with refinements and quiet. Because the XT's are way more fun to drive we show them more mercy.
Larry
And let's not compare the Accord's mileage, look at the CR-V, mpg numbers are no better than Forester X/XS. Saturn Vue, with a Honda V6, is also no better than the XT, and it's slower. So dream on, I want better mileage too, but know that we are dreaming.
Touring tires would make it quieter. More sound dampening, too, but that would add weight and make it less sporty. Note that many intenders actually wish for a sportier ride, not a more luxurious one.
Try a Saturn Vue Redline. The interior is supposedly much improved (there was lots of room for it), and the Honda V6 replaces the coarse, slow, inefficient V6 that was used before. But look at the panel gaps, plus road noise was worse than in the Forester.
When you compare to Forester's peers, it's among the quietest in its class. In fact, in C&D's two comparisons it had the lowest noise levels of all the models tested.
The new 7 seater will have a refined H6, surely more insulation, more plush interior....and a $35k price, RX330 territory.
-juice
You have to consider the price. Invoice on a base XT is $23.3k. If it feels "cheap" compared to your aunt's RX330, well then that's because it IS cheap compared to your aunt's RX330.
Next to a Syclone, the Forester would feel like a Lexus, though.
-juice
Our expectations of a mid-to-upper $20Ks range vehicle vary widely as a group. Whatever our individual expectations may be, the simple fact is that, in order to compete at a certain price point, a product's levels of amenities and "refinement" need to be on par with those of its competitors at that price point. If they are not, then there needs to be something else the product offers that the competitors do not.
In the case of the Forester XT, that may be performance.
I'll stop for now as I think I may be restating the obvious in far more words than necessary.
Ed
I didn't address akasrp's comment about the XT's ride in my reply, because I don't personally agree with that particular criticism. I am actually thrilled with the balance Subaru struck between ride compliance (softness) and control (handling), especially considering its light weight and short wheelbase. For my particular requirements, this aspect of the XT is perfect. My wife (who has a very bad back and who complained incessantly about the firm ride my tiny, former Suzuki Swift GTI delivered), hasn't yet said one bad thing about the XT's ride.
Lots of other XT owners are busily installing various suspension upgrades to sharpen the handling, but there isn't a thing in the suspension arena that I think needs changing on mine.
I definitely do wish substantially less noise (road, driveline, and engine) was transmitted into the cabin. There isn't much I can do about the last two, but years from now (when the Geolanders finally wear out) I'll put a high priority on quietness when shopping for new tires.
Well, it would have made a big difference (to some of us) if SOA had simply made leather available with the 5MT. That would have spruced up the cabin considerably, and for only about $800. Same goes for the sunroof.
Since we know for a fact that XT buyers in Canada and elsewhere can get these combinations, it was simply stupid to deny them to American buyers.
You're only providing totals. Unless you detail the actual individual numbers, it's not possible for us to say exactly where the difference (between actual invoice prices for vehicle and for options, compared to Edmunds etc) is. What does the $25,700 "invoice" show for the bare XS and for each of the included options?
Mine has never gone that low, but my almost-all-freeway commute rarely involves more than a few minutes in stop-and-go traffic.
On the other hand, I'm sure my foot is even more "sissyist" than yours, and my 5MT XT has never come anywhere close to the 27-28 MPG reported by other XT owners. My best-ever tankful was under 23 (all near-sealevel freeway, all 65-70mph on cruise control, level road, light load, no A/C).
If mine sometimes delivered 27-28 (as others evidently do), I would have no complaint about fuel consumption.
-juice
Have any of you guys with the poor mileage reset your ECU to see what happens if you drive a bit more aggressively while it's learning? Just a thought - most of the complaints seem to be from guys that don't drive it hard.
Big part of my problem is coming from Camry-Accord Land I have this "this is what $20K interior ambience should be like" mindset. My problem, I know.
Sadly, my latest XT had an internal-dash-constant rattle - like a loose cable bundle or something - it never gave up.
Still, something about that damn car just won't let me go...
-srp
Sorry for the lack of details... looking at '04 XS premium with leather with group 2 and group 1c. Invoice at Edmunds is $24,319. They were saying their invoice was $25,734. I left the dealer cause it didn't feel right.
Ed
My (loose) understanding of the ECU is that it continually replaces "old" driving-style data with newer (current) data. I don't know what the time-frame is for it to completely adapt (on its own) to a significantly changed driving style, but I wouldn't think it would take longer than a week at most. Does resetting it do anything more than let it adapt to the new style quickly rather than a bit more gradually? And (especially with manual transmissions) what, exactly, does the ECU change (in terms of engine management) when it relearns an altered driving style?
Regardless of that, it's something of a mystery to me how more throttle (translation: increased fuel-flow rates, and probably more braking than I now do), higher revs (friction rises exponentially with increased RPM), and especially higher sustained freeway speeds (with exponentially more wind and rolling drag to overcome) would result in better MPG than I'm already getting. Total drag at 80MPH is more than 50% greater (meaning 50% more fuel burned to overcome it) than at my pokey 65.
However, I'm definitely open to plausible theories on how these changes would likely reduce fuel consumption.
The extra $4 grand or so goes towards the powertrain and feature content, is that really a bad thing?
In other words, look at Jaguar X-type sales (and prices). They are hard to believe, in fact they have up to $9,000 in rebates to push those things. Luxury without performance is not selling.
What interior from a compact SUV is nicer? Saturn? It was worse, they had to revise it (haven't seen the new one). Ford? Unfinished edges were everywhere, even the upgrades are still no match for the Subaru.
Honda and Toyota are about par, if that. I prefer Subaru's black interior with dimples, it's actually like the one Acura uses for the RSX.
The new Legacy may address many of these complaints, but it'll also cost $2-3 grand more at least, is my guess. Maybe $5 grand.
-juice
Base invoice price including destination: $21,588
Add for automatic: $800
Add for premium package (sunroof,etc): $1000
Add for leather: $750
Add for Group 2: $429
Add for Group 1c: $289
The total of those invoice numbers is $24,856.
I suggest that you print the actual invoice prices (base price plus the separate invoice price for each option, as detailed above), either from Edmunds or whatever other research site you prefer. Take that printout to Carr and tell them to explain why their "invoice" quotation differs.
I would gladly provide the name of their Internet fleet sales manager, who dealt very squarely wiith me, but Edmunds' webmasters won't allow that.
For me, the more troubling aspect of these discussions (and I realize that opinions are far from universal on any score)are issues that may not be apparent until -after- purchase that a buyer might not expect from a Subaru--specifically fit and finish and gas mileage that may (or may not) be noticeably below published estimates. These issues aren't necessarily price related, and I bet one's tolerance for them (assuming that they're present) will depend on how much the level of performance matters to an individual buyer.
I suspect that somebody that bought the XT primarily because of its 0-60 time etc. will love it regardless of whether it gets 17 mpg or has a rattle in the dash. I also suspect that someone who could have lived with an XS but thought the XT would just be more fun might be less tolerant even if they know that it -is- more fun.
I like dimples on blondes, but not so much on upholstery. The dimpled surfaces don't feel as nice (IMO) as surfaces in other similarly-priced vehicles. I also would very much prefer the XS monochrome all-grey interior instead of the XT's can't-quite-make-up-its-mind random combination of blacks and greys.
However, these are minor quibbles compared to the rattles, buzzes, noise levels, and so forth. And having to turn on the cruise control every time I start the engine...no way should that be necessary. Groping for the down-low position of the switch just makes it more annoying.
From what I understand, resetting the ECU does enable it to learn new parameters more quickly.
A few months ago, Sport Compact Car reset the ECU on it's Project WRX after a week or so of hard driving on open desert highway. They actually lost about 10 h.p.
-Dennis
And note that noone has even tried to suggest an alternative. The FX45 costs too much. ;-)
JB: you really don't like the dimples? I think they're great. The two-tone breaks up the monotony of most all-gray or all-beige interiors, I love it.
Every car I've ever owned (including my dad's) required that you turn on cruise, is that not the industry standard?
FWIW, Patrick Bedard, from C&D, likes to mention how small displacement engines are most efficient when you accelerate hard up to speed, then cruise at a set speed.
-juice
This is a truism - but it can be misleading. It doesn't mean that any given gas engine will use less fuel (i.e. deliver better MPG) at large throttle openings than that same engine would at lower throttle.
What it does mean is that to produce a given amount of horsepower, a small engine running near wide-open throttle should operate more efficiently, and thus use less fuel, than a large engine at small throttle openings making the same amount of power (all other things being equal).
Cadillac's big V-8 "4-6-8" engine from long ago was a not-very-successful attempt to adapt this reality to an actual engine, by powering the car with only 4 hard-working heavy-throttle cylinders most of the time, and to tap the next 2 or 4 only when more power was required than the initial 4 cylinders could provide. It didn't work, in part because all 8 cylinders were madly reciprocating away all the time, incurring energy-wasting friction even when their power wasn't needed. GM seems to think they've solved this, because they're about to re-introduce this approach. Time will tell whether they got it right this time.
I don't hate the dimples or the grey/black mix, and obviously I can live with them. I just don't think the overall effect is as appealing as some of the monochrome interiors with grained soft-touch (faux leather) surfaces that I've seen at the same price levels. Probably just me.
Every car I've ever owned (including my dad's) required that you turn on cruise, is that not the industry standard?
While every car I've owned required one to set the cruise control (obviously) before it would kick in, I don't think they've all required that it first be first turned on before it can be set after every engine restart. Something about that strikes me as needlessly redundant; I can't see any compelling reason for that requirement. And even if it is for some reason necessary, putting the on-off button someplace more accessible (like on the steering wheel hub, or maybe a pushbutton on the end of the cruise control stalk) would make more sense and be more convenient than burying it at the bottom of the panel.
In other words, it's an ergonomics thing. Quite a few other marques have a large lead on Subaru in this department. I view the dorky extra-cost armrest "extension" in the same way. Just design a useable armrest into the car and be done with it.
Here's a How Things Work link about cruise control.
Steve, Host
OEM,ECU,BTW,OBW,OB,VDC,FWIW . For us computer nerds and/or "Oldies"-Like me) And, Miamist-you mentioned 5w/30 Turbo oil (SAAB) were you speaking of the Turbo or the Engine.
Slow,but trying..Deadeye5 sends
The STi and the all-new Legacy have the cruise master switch on the end of the CC stalk. It's a much better arrangement. Toyota does the same thing. Why it's taken Subaru so long to do so is a complete mystery.
In addition, I'm been campaigning for ages for the green CC dashboard light to go on only when the CC is actually engaged, and not when you turn on the CC master switch. Nissan has the perfect solution on some of their models: When the CC master switch is activated, a green light on the dash lights up & when you actually engage the CC, an additional green light comes on. Actually they are green lit "words" that lite up indicating the task at hand.
In other words, it's an ergonomics thing. Quite a few other marques have a large lead on Subaru in this department. I view the dorky extra-cost armrest "extension" in the same way. Just design a useable armrest into the car and be done with it.
Agreed!
Bob
WRT acceleration, more gas is burned with the throttle wide open than just slightly open. However gas is burned more effeciently near the wide open position than when near closed. Therefore, if you accelerate briskly you will be using the engine better. Next, you will be up to speed sooner and then can run the engine with a smaller throttle opening and burn less gas. I suspect that running the engine hard also helps keep the spark plug and cumbustion chamber clean for better ignition.
I tend to rev up to 4000 or 5000 rpm quickly rather than slowly speed up. That has given me better than advertised mileage in all my cars. Unfortunately my Outback seems to be the exception to this rule and I am getting worse mileage than advertised. I think that it is because I rarely drive it and found the gas pedal spring stiffer than my Honda, meaning it takes more force to accelerate as hard. I also blame the tires alot. My Honda has a noticably reduction in mileage when I put on winter tires in place of four season tires (10 l/100km vice 8 l/100 km). In contrast, my Outback always gets me around 10 l/100km no matter the season or tire choice. So half the year it is as good as an Accord, and half the year it is worse.
After all that, at what speed is an engine with a CVT programmed to run at while accelerating? I am sure the engineers designed it so that the engine ran at the most efficient and economical speed. I suspect that it would rev around 3500 rpm
MikeF
MikeF
With all this talk about cruise control lately, I thought I'd add that Honda's arrangement seems quite logical: the master cruise does not reset when you turn the car off. Once you turn it on, it's on until YOU switch it off.
I can understand why it might be helpful to have a separate "on" for the cruise to keep it from being inadvertently activated, but to have it reset every time you stop the engine is a silly annoyance.
Brian
Some is just chat shorthand (fwiw = for what it's worth, wrt = with regard to, etc.).
A Google.com or Teoma.com search will find most of them in short order.
Steve, Host
This underscores the large differences among us. I would never want any car that required revving to anywhere near 5,000 RPM in ordinary daily driving just to deliver optimal fuel efficiency. From a sound standpoint, 5,000 RPM in my XT is profoundly unpleasant unless the throttle is pretty much wide-open. In my style of driving, wide-open throttle at high RPMs is strictly for emergencies or occasional uphill 2-lane passing situations. I bought the XT because I wanted abundant power available in those specific circumstances, but I never use it on anything like a daily basis.
The best efficiency is at wide open throttle also if you compare a single engine. But that does not mean you should rev high, at all. In fact, WOT and early shifts are best for fuel economy (but not for the life of the engine - most modern European and Japanese engines need to be revved somewhat high every-so-often, and should never be lugged, for longevity).
The above applies to a situation where you want to attain a certain speed. The acceleration requires a certain amount of energy (to first order this is independent of how you get there except for engine efficiency). WOT at low rpms is the most efficient way to produce this energy. And if you use your brakes a lot in city driving, there is some indication you are not driving the most efficient because you are accelerating more than necessary.
I agree with ballistic, though, if you do mostly low-speed highway driving, there is little room for improvement (except for setting the tire pressure as high as still comfortable). There just appears to be quite a bit of variability in fuel consumption between vehicles. I don't know. Could it be that an engine that has been babied initially has more friction than one that was driven moderately hard from the beginning?
- D.
But I think that most 4 cylinders do require this for best efficiency. I don't rev up around the city often as braking every 100 feet or so for the next red light don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But I live in the country so have many opportunites to rev the car and enjoy whatever power the car has.
I do agree with you that a lower revving car on the highway is preferable.
I don't know about engine life, but I had over 230k km on my Civic and am at 190k km on my Accord with no signs of engine problems or wear. That and ten years of virtualy trouble free driving seems pretty good to me.
Mike
But for most cars (4-cylinder or not) isn't there a difference between how one drives when he wants to enjoy whatever power the car has, and how the same vehicle would be driven to minimize fuel consumption? For all but the most underpowered econoboxes, I'd think the difference would be substantial.
I'm far from ready to accept that a Forester XT, with enough available power to rip off 13.8-sec quarter miles, needs to be driven at 5000 RPM with lots of throttle just to provide its best (lowest) fuel consumption...
Agreed, more or less, and this was very easy to do on my old '57 VW Beetle and a number of other cars I've owned with not a lot of power. I'd say it would be nearly impossible to do smoothly (without inducing whiplash) in an XT in daily driving. And even if it were, I'm skeptical that it would deliver the highest possible MPG from such a potent vehicle.
I guess the way the Cruise Control works is an individual preference. I like the fact the Cruise turns off in the Subaru when you shut down the engine. I don't use Cruise that often but when I do I don't stop and start frequently so I don't mind turning it on again. Placing the switch at the end of the CC stalk also makes sense if the dash button is too far out of the way.
MikeF
I don't drop much below 2,000 unless I need no acceleration and am just maintaining speed with very light throttle; I don't consider that lugging. And then, if I need acceleration, that's what the next-lower gear is for.
On the other hand, I typically don't feel any need to rev my XT above 3,000 and hardly ever exceed 3,500. I've never encountered traffic flow that can't easily be kept pace with within that rev range - without ever even needing heavy throttle.
I agree with you on the cruise control, btw - just about every other car I've driven remembered that setting. I assumed a lawyer somewhere made that choice...
There isn't much I can add. I drive harder as I enjoy it and I get good mileage normally. I sometimes wish I had better mileage with my Outback, but then remember that I'm comparing it to a lighter FWD car with a smaller engine and considerably smaller tires. And in the end, I'm getting the same mileage for half the year.
I guess this exchange ends like many others before it - YMMV.
Cheers.
MikeF