Subaru XT Turbo Forester

akasrp

this is the exact reasoning that got me to buy my V6 Camry instead of the 4cyl. everytime I pass on these blood-alley california backroad 2 lane blacktops, i'm so glad i popped for the V6. no regrets.
if i got an XT i doubt i'd ever look back and say 'sure wish I woulda got that X'... ;-)

-srp

hypov

juice-

High Density PolyEtherlyn (sp) something like that, some kind of plastic.

Just saw those initials under a spent tub for kitty litter.

-Dave

edit: High Density Polyethylene

ballistic

The August issue of Car & Driver finally arrived at local newsstands today...

jb

ballistic

After giving akasrp the reasons for choosing an XT instead of an X/XS, the other shoe drops: Here is the main reason for going the other way. I finally filled my tank for the first time. Not to be repetitive, but I'm fanatical about long, gentle break-ins. For this entire tankful, I've generally observed a 3000 rpm self-imposed redline (more like 2500 on the highway), with light to moderate throttle - not unlike economy-run driving. And, my daily driving is 2/3 freeway, 1/3 suburban. So, except for the single offsetting fact that the engine is new, this tankful covered driving demands and conditions that are just about as conducive to good MPG as are imaginable. Once fully broken in, my XT will probably never again be driven this conservatively.

The tank took 14.27 gallons for 284 miles. That is only 19.9 MPG. That's about 10% lower than I expected for the type of driving I was doing, even after the XT's mediocre EPA ratings were announced. And that's on 92-octane fuel that cost 35 cents per gallon more than regular. The fuel cost works out to nearly 9 cents per mile.

An XS, driven the same way on regular, would have cost about $16.40, or less than 6 cents per mile. Based on this, I will project that over its lifetime, fuel for an XT is going to cost 50% more than for an X/XS, and there is probably nothing an XT owner will be able to do to close that gap.

I recognize that some people couldn't care less about ownership costs. For anyone who cares even slightly about operating expenses and fossil fuel consumption, that is a very big difference. Over its functional lifespan, an XT's fuel cost will exceed that of an X by about as much as the original purchase-price difference between the two models.

I'm certain I will enjoy my XT for many years to come, but its fuel cost is (for me) by far its most disappointing attribute.

jb

ateixeira

First tank, it's green, be patient. I bet you'll average 22 mpg by the time it breaks in.

My first tank was 22mpg or so.

-juice

corkfish

Ballistic is right, the beauty of this thing is that you don't have to rev it to extract performance. There's so much torque that you don't even have to take it passed 3000 rpms to go very fast. It makes break in fairly easy because the engine doesn't have to work very hard to really haul (could this help engine longevity?). The fuel consumption is a little scary though. After driving a few short trips I used half a tank. I guess thats the price you pay for so much fun. Keep in mind that gas is still cheaper than water ( a 1 quart bottle of Poland Spring is $.79 at my local Stop and Shop).

chassol

At 2600 miles......yep.....2600 miles I'm averaging 22.3 MPG. I usually use WalMart super unleaded (you get an extra 3 cents off per gallon using WalMart gift card) Cost in Kingsland, Georgia (just across border from us) is $1.399 Gal - at Sam's Club in Jacksonville, Florida (using same card) its $1.529 Gal.

I'm getting better mileage now than what we got in the 2001 Forester S Premium (Automatic) we traded (21 MPG). And remember this is an Automatic XT. Cruising at 3000 RPM its at 75 mph. I use cruise control and have no problem. Give your vehicle time to break in (2000+). I'm going to either put in a K&N or Green Air Filter in August. Trying to decide which is better I know K&N, but not too much about Green Filter - this should improve mileage a little (1.0 - 1.5mpg) - it did in the 2002 VDC Sedan we have and you feel (and hear) the difference the better breathing it provides the engine.

BTW I will be doing less miles per month - as I will be car pooling with another person from work, so it will cut (hopefully) my annual mileage in about half.

Anyone looking at the 2004 X versus XS get the XS you will get the best value for the buck. If you want the "non-white knuckle passing" - spring for the XT - either MT or AT. Dealers have new 2004 Forester Sales literature in stock get one and really read it cover to cover - it gives you all the information you will need to make an informed choice......rather than guessing.

Hope this helps.................. Man I love this car, but remember to watch your speedometer, this thing is deceptively fast.

subewannabe

a reality of modern life on the roads is 70' tractor-trailer rigs and even longer tandem rigs. put a bread truck , a truck towing a horse trailer or a senior citizen who likes to keep it well below the speed limit in front of that tractor-trailer , add a hilly,winding 2 lane road where there is a solid white line on your side for all but one 300 yard stretch in 24 miles, and you are gonna want the turbo or a class in zen spirituality to get you through that drive.
I remain solidly in the camp that believes that a well-built car with excellent acceleration, handling and braking will serve you well over its lifetime.
mark

pleiad7

chassol - you mentioned (in previous posts also) that the K&N Filter has improved gas mileage and performance in your VDC Outback. I'm curious what your daily driving habits are and whether you do a lot of highway cruising vs. city driving.

I've been using a K&N in my Outback Sport for a little over a year now, and my gas mileage went from mediocre to abysmal (I rarely get over 21 mpg these days, I used to get around 24-26); low-end torque has also suffered somewhat. The K&N sure makes one heck of a racket at high revs (Imprezas have bad sound insulation to start with), but I have not observed any actual performance gains. Just thought it was odd that my experience is quite the opposite of what you described. I should add that I'm not exactly a conservative driver and that my commute consists of 100% city driving.

Speaking from my own experience, I seriously doubt that I will consider installing a K&N in the XT, which already gets fairly low gas mileage.

ballistic

Juice and Chassol both are attaining 22+ mpg, chassol with an automatic. There is no question in my mind that both are driving their XTs considerably more 'enthusiastically' than I am. This certainly adds to the puzzle. I now think it is highly likely that the automatic XTs have a taller axle ratio. This would explain both their somewhat less explosive performance as described by people who have driven both. It also accounts for Chassol's 75mph-at-3000 rpm comment. 5-speed XTs will (according to C&D) be buzzing along at nearly 3500 at that speed - overcoming significantly more friction.

I dunno. I have no reason to think my XT is running badly, but 19.9mpg over an entire tankful of VERY constrained, judicious driving is not easy to understand.

Oh, and by the way - compared to Chassol's $1.399 per gallon, I bought my 92-octane at the lowest-priced name-brand gas outlet in Portland - and paid $1.749 per gallon. I can see why people paying only $1.399 for the same stuff might be more sanguine about the XT's appetite than I am...

jb

ballistic

subewannabe nails what the XT is made for: "winding 2 lane road where there is a solid white line on your side for all but one 300 yard stretch in 24 miles, and you are gonna want the turbo" to avoid white-knuckle passing.

That in a nutshell is why I bought mine. We have lots of those 2-lane roads going up one mountainside and down the other, and lots of triple-trailer trucks, motorhomes, pickup campers, and suchlike traveling (slowly) on them. A really powerful vehicle in the wrong hands can be lethal. In the right hands, it can add a large margin of safety.

jb

jason_els

For that kind of price difference you could install the lower ratio final drive from the WRX and save half. Get it done when you're installing the front LSD and kill 2 birds with one stone.

Also, any reason the clutch uptake couldn't be adjusted by a mechanic? Every manual transmission car I've driven has had that ability. Anything about the Forester that prevents that?

ballistic

Jason suggests, "For that kind of price difference you could install the lower ratio final drive from the WRX and save half. Get it done when you're installing the front LSD and kill 2 birds with one stone."

I plan to seriously explore whether it's feasible to change the final drives to 3.9. I think the XT would be a much more pleasant car with longer legs, even if there was no gain in MPG.

"Also, any reason the clutch uptake couldn't be adjusted by a mechanic? Every manual transmission car I've driven has had that ability. Anything about the Forester that prevents that? "

I haven't yet been back for any service, but my sales guy phoned his service manager while we were completing the paperwork, and he was told that there is no adjustment that would lower the engagement point. Seems hard to believe, so I'll be looking into that, too.

jb

krccrk

I averaged 23.8 mpg with my XT 5-speed on its first full gas tank. This is with half city driving and half mountain/canyon driving at 40-50 mph.

Ken

Karen_S

This discussion now resides on the SUVs board. If you have subscribed to it, the move should not change your subscription. A link will remain on the Maintenance & Repair board for a few days.

If you have any questions/concerns, please contact me (karen@edmunds.com) or one of the SUV hosts.

KarenS/Senior Host

chassol

pleiad7 - Driving was (I am now driving the XT and wife has the VDC) 75%+ highway back & forth to work and 25% city. Possibly your 100% percent city driving has something to do with it. Also you could put the pre K&N filter back in and see if your mileage reverts back to what it was previously.

stever

Why would you think K&N would help your mpg? They don't make any mpg claims on their website last time I checked ....

Steve, Host

pleiad7

Steve - you're correct, I never expected any mpg gains from the K&N. What I did expect was some sort of a trade-off between mileage and mild performance gains. I am just somewhat disappointed that my gas mileage has worsened by that much without any noticeable increase in performance.

chassol - I will probably put the stock filter back in soon and reset the ECU (disconnect battery terminals), as I'm getting ready to prep the car for sale. I'll see if that makes any difference in terms of mpg.

jason_els

If you go to the Subaru discussion thread by following this:

You are here: Town Hall/Subaru/Forester (In All Boards )

The XT discussion doesn't show up at all. Any way it could be included in that listing? That's how I, and I would think, others get to it. Finding this thread now that it's missing from the Forester list was a real pain.

tidester

We'll check it out - meanwhile, you can "subscribe" to this discussion by clicking on the blue "BOOKMARK" button just below the "What's this discussion about?" near the top of this page. That way you can avoid all the navigation and come straight to this page.

tidester, host

tinytoo

I ordered a red XT with a MT today, and it's loaded with options. Got it for $500 over invoice through the Costco Auto Program (just over $24,500, MSRP was over $26,700). I know it's not the great deal one can get via the VIP program, however the dealers in my area (So. Cal.) were not willing to budge much under MSRP, so I am thrilled. Also, any additional options were offered at dealer cost.

The dealer I purchased through had a red MT XT on the lot but it had nearly 200 miles on it! The fleet manager tried to assure me that their sales reps don't let folks drive hard, but I was not going for it. (This after our own sales rep had just told us about a woman who test drove one of their WRX's at over 100 mph!) Also, all the radio presets were programmed with hardcore rock stations...that wasn't a good sign. I have nothing against rock music, I love it. However, when ALL the presets have been programmed, I have to think that it's been more than just a new car with lots of test drives on it. So, I ordered mine new and will have to bear waiting for it to come in, but ohhhhh it will be worth the wait!

One last note.... I test drove both an MT and AT. I can't call myself an "auto aficionado" as are many of the people in this forum, but for me there was no comparison. The AT performed exceptionally well, but that "fun to drive" feeling just wasn't there like it was in the MT. Just my opinion.

Happy 4th!

stever

We also fiddled with the "category" under "What is this discussion about?" so that should hopefully get it listed under the Forester index. Nice slow holiday weekend to swat bugs :-)

Tinytoo, I can just picture someone cruising in a demo a bit over the speed limit listening to the 1812 Overture and popping the gas at every crescendo. All the hard rock fans are mellow geezers now :-) Happy 4th to you too!

Steve, Host

brady222

I test drove the AT and loved it. They didn't have a MT in stock, so I have no way of knowing. I'll most likely buy the AT due to traffic, etc. Just curious...thanks!

Mike

kullenberg

Somebody, maybe it was jb, was looking for a set of wheels for winter tires. Ebay has a set right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...item=2421707349

Cheers
Pat

ballistic

kullenberg says "Somebody, maybe it was jb, was looking for a set of wheels for winter tires. Ebay has a set right now: "

I wasn't able to get your link to work, but I've had an eBay set of four on my watch list for a day or two, so its probably the same set. Thanks for the heads-up.

Unfortunately, my cheapness probably cost me a good deal. A local auto salvage yard had a set of 4 at $160, and I didn't buy them hoping something better would pop up someplace. Now they have only two. Grrrr.

jb

ballistic

krccrk wrote, "I averaged 23.8 mpg with my XT 5-speed on its first full gas tank. This is with half city driving and half mountain/canyon driving at 40-50 mph."

After nearly 2 weeks of driving mine as if my (and its) life depended on using the least possible amount of fuel, I recorded 19.9. Yours is fully 20% better, with what would appear to be more demanding driving! If I were getting numbers like yours, my satisfaction with my XT would be considerably higher than it is.

jb

jb

kullenberg

jb says: " wasn't able to get your link to work"; it worked when I previewed it, however, it doesn't work now. That ebay set goes away in a day or so. "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick!!". I wish I had my XT now, I'd snap them up, and put the Nokian, Hakka 1's on them. They seem to come round with some regularity. I have to go thru another winter with the ML, before the lease runs out. NEVER AGAIN!!!
Cheers
Pat

kens

So this is where you guys were hanging out! I've got a lot of catching up to do!

Ken

ballistic

Ken says, "So this is where you guys were hanging out!"

Jeez. We didn't realize you needed a personalized, engraved invitation! Where ya been?

You've probably seen the Forester thread on NASIOC where it's now (finally) been revealed that the XT's transmission ratios are NOT (as previously widely reported) the same as the N/A Forester. The XT service manual lists the same ratios for the XT as for the WRX. So, the XT's top 4 ratios are taller, whereas its 4.44 axle ratio is shorter. The net effect is around 22.75 (on an error-corrected speedo) or 23.3mph/1000 (without correcting the speedo error) in top gear compared to C&D's published 21.8 (which, it now turns out, was based on incorrect tranny ratios). Also, while the automatic XT apparently does have the same 4.44 final drive, its top gear is even taller than the 5-speed's, so it produces about another 5.5% increase in mph/1000 compared to the 5-speed XT.

jb

once_for_all

is 2700 (maybe 2710 or 2720) at 65 mph in 5th, this with 34 psi fronts and 32 psi rears.

Juice, did I miss something? Did you go to the dark side, or was the 22 mpg refering to your 98? Forester?

John

kens

jb:

LOL. I typically just check my subscriptions so new topics often slip by my radar.

So 4.44 it is. Does that make it even more suspect that C&D received a "ringer" XT to test?

Ken

stever

This discussion was "hiding" in the Maintenance & Repair board during its early life. Lots of us missed it for a while....

Steve, Host

iluvsubaru2

Recently tested an XT with AT. Liked it a lot but have a couple of questions dealer couldn't answer about the scoop. We have bugs in great abundance here (ND). Is XT scoop likely to suck zillions of insects into the engine compartment? Same question for snow. And if so, will it matter (ie fried bugs and vaporized snow)? Engine compartment of XT I tested got VERY HOT vs 2004 NA Forester. Will that extra heat reduce component longevity of XT vs NA Foresters?

chassol

I found out the hard way the dash is not solid colored plastic... it's painted and it's white underneath. I accidently hit the edge with my watchband and it left a dig about an inch long. At first I thought it was just a mark. I get very upset with them doing this instead of using a solid colored plastic all the way through. I sincerely hope they have anticipated that paint will scratch and have touch up paint that will match the color of the dash. Upon closer inspection I have a dig (1/2" dot size that I didn't notice before) on the panel section when you open the drivers side door. Do they really save that much by painting the dash area rather than making it of a solid colored plastic that would not show a different color if scratched? I'm hoping my dealer can fix this, if so I'm going to break down and get one of the dash covers that is sold after market. Whatever happens Subaru is going to get an earful from me on painted surfaces versus solid color all the way through.

ballistic

Ken says, "So 4.44 it is. Does that make it even more suspect that C&D received a "ringer" XT to test?"

No; the opposite. We indeed do have what they tested - XT 5-speeds with 4.44 final drives. The mystery caused by the large mismatch between their calculated and reported speeds in gears at redline and the speeds we're observing was caused because C&D apparently reported transmission gear ratios incorrectly. Instead of trans gears matching other N/A Foresters, it has now been pretty well established that XT ratios are those of the WRX (identical first gear, then successively taller in each upper gear). That's why our observed speeds in 5th (approx 3,000 rpm at 70mph, equalling about 23.3 mph/1000) are greater than C&D's reported 21.8mph/1000. They got the axle ratios right, but not the transmission ratios. End of mystery.

jb

ballistic

iluvsubaru2 wrote, "Is XT scoop likely to suck zillions of insects into the engine compartment? Same question for snow. And if so, will it matter (ie fried bugs and vaporized snow)?

I wouldn't think snow would be any problem at all; it'll melt on contact and be not unlike the rainwater that is apt to splash up into any engine compartment. Bugs might be another matter. If they're thick where you live, I'd consider putting a screen (similar to what people in bug-infested areas place in front of their radiators) over the top of the intercooler to intercept the bugs. It would be easy to remove the screen and hose/brush it clear every so often. I'm considering doing this with mine. If the screen is kept clear, it shouldn't obstruct airflow through the IC any more than a layer of bugs would, and they'd be harder to remove from the IC than from the removable screen.

iluv cont'd: "Engine compartment of XT I tested got VERY HOT vs 2004 NA Forester. Will that extra heat reduce component longevity of XT vs NA Foresters?"

I hadn't mentioned it before, but I always pop the hood after arriving home, and too have noticed an amazing amount of heat that surges up when the hood is lifted. For the size of the engine, this powerplant does seem to generate a disproportionate amount of heat. I could understand that if it had just finished a few hot laps around a track, but that's not the case. Anybody else notice the same thing with other XTs?

jb

leo2633

Set of 4 new 16" steel wheels from a 2003 Forester X for $100? Good deal?

Len

tidester

I hope you're seeking advice because buying and selling aren't permitted on the Town Hall boards. Consider spelling it out more plainly next time!

Thanks.

tidester, host

laude

Is there an available K & N air filter for the XT?

rsholland

I bet they change that to a 3.90:1 next year. I suspect SOA will get more than a little grief over the XT's mediocre EPA ratings, and that they will take measures to rectify that.

 The 5-speed Baja turbo (according to the SOA specs PDF) and the STi have 3.90:1 final drives.

Bob

ballistic

leo2633: If you're asking for affirmation as to whether $100 is an OK price for a set of '03 X wheels you plan to buy, I think it is. If you're offering a set at that price, contact me at jackbrown@freightliner.com .

jb

ballistic

Bob sez, "I bet they change that to a 3.90:1 next year. I suspect SOA will get more than a little grief over the XT's mediocre EPA ratings, and that they will take measures to rectify that."

Or at least 4.11...although even if your rational prediction comes true, it will come too late to do anything for early buyers like us. The thing is, I can't imagine why Subaru chose such a ridiculously short, stump-pulling final drive in the first place. An XT with 4.11 or even 3.9 would still have *easily* produced sub-6-second 0-60 times and would still have charged through the quartermile in the low 14s and low 90s. People would have universally regarded that to be *brilliant* performance for a $24-$28K AWD wagon/SUV with the handling and all-around versatility this car provides. Plus, highway cruising and all-around fuel consumption would have been appreciably better.

If on the other hand they chose the very-short gearing to improve the XT's off-road useability, a far better approach would have been to go with the 3.9 or 4.11 and then also make the dual-range gearset (available everywhere else) standard or at least optional here - getting the best of all worlds! That would have raised the price of a dual-range-equipped XT somewhat, but I don't hear any serious XT buyers complaining about its price point.

The only rationale for the 4.44 that I can identify is that Subaru might have been just a little insecure about whether or not a turbo Forester would really attract buyers in the numbers they seek - and so the 4.44 axle was chosen in order to explode onto the market like an H-bomb by producing such spectacular, eye-popping, jaw-dropping acceleration numbers that no jaded magazine tester or high-performance SUV buyer would be able to ignore them. Subaru certainly achieved that, but at what cost in terms of day-to-day ownership appeal, long-term durability, and operating expense?

jb

akasrp

this is really surprising! paint!? so, is it safe to Armoral this painted dash? i've always kept my dashes showroom here in the desert with a semi-annual spritz of Armoral or the like...now have visions of black inky goop dripping all over as I spray & scream!

=;-O

ballistic

To chassol (and akasrp, who said "this is really surprising! paint!?"...

I understand your irritation (I'd be mad, too, if my brand-new dashtop now had a bad scratch), but I've never seen a color-all-the-way-through plastic dashtop that was truly free of annoying and unsafe reflections in the windshield. It's easier and more effective (from an antiglare perspective) to apply a really flat, no-sheen paint than to get the same effect in a molded plastic part, no matter how textured the surfaces of the mold are.

I haven't any trace of dashtop reflection in my XT windshield on even the brightest days, and that's worth something. Probably won't diminish your understandable irritation, though...

jb

rsholland

As to the final gearing, the funny thing is: The '04 Baja turbo has more ground clearance, presumably for better off-roading, yet (assuming the PDF is correct) has a 3.90:1 final drive (worse for off-roading) for the 5-speed.

Something's goofy here IMO. The only thing I can figure is that the Baja's extra curb weight, if it had the 4.44:1 final drive, would have given even worse EPA figures than the XT's. So I expect the Baja turbo, because of the extra weight and final gearing, to be slower than a comparable XT.

Bob

bobshiftright

Honda does this too, and after I stuck some Velcro squares on the dash of my wife's new Odyssey to route the wire from my radar detector, I discovered that 1.) Velcro adhesive backing will remove Honda dashboard paint, and 2.) Goof-Off will remove even more of the Honda paint.

I also found that minor interior damage is fairly common and my dealer recommended a vinyl repair guy who operates out of a minivan servicing dealer's used car departments. He retouched the paint defects with an airbrush, it still looks perfect after more than a year and it was a lot cheaper than replacing the dashboard!

bobshiftright

If the XT C&D tested wasn't a "ringer", the .75g skidpad figure still wasn't nearly as impressive as the acceleration numbers! I see that a 17" wheel is available for the WRX. Is the offset the same as the Forester's? One of the online tire vendors suggests a tire upgrade size of 215/55-17. Unfortunately, there are only a few tire choices available in that size. Are there any other sizes that would work without rubbing? Those acceleration numbers might dazzle the Bimmers shooting out of the toll plaza, but that .75g sure won't impress at the first corner.

kens

I posted this over at NASIOC, but I looked up the gearing ratios for the JDM Foresters and guess what -- the Cross Sports and USDM XT use the same gear ratios and final drive of 4.44. The JDM XT uses a final drive of 4.11.

Ken

once_for_all

a 4.4 axle ratio means that everything is spinning faster...which means that there is less torque stress on all components (equivalent diameter shafts can handle more torque when the rpms are up). My guess is that this is a quick way for Subaru to reduce mechanical difficulties associated with first and second gear dumping. At the higher speeds, engine torque is not as much of a problem so gear ratios can go the other direction to compensate for the 4.4 axle.

John

rsholland

also have the 2.0 turbo engine, not the 2.5. So my guess is, even with the low gearing, are still more economical than our 2.5 turbo.

Anybody know what the final drive ratio on the US-spec 5-speed WRX is? I know the 2.5 STi uses a 3.90:1 final drive.

Bob