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
Truly exceptional. I realize that many owners (not so much here, but certainly on other forums) are busily installing expensive high-performance replacment tires on 18" rims and beefing up swaybars, struts, etc. Undoubtedly my demands are lower, but I could not ask for a better all-around package. It's an absolute ball to drive.
Some say the current Legacies are duller than the Impreza-derived Forester. I wonder how the lightened next-gen Legacy will do on that score?
the forester is less cookie cutter. i wished it looked like the infiniti fx series though, that fx series makes me hot and bothered each time with its great lines. but the fxt just says i am basic utility type vehicle that will, btw, smoke your car/truck/suv.
-Frank P.
Agreed - but that's not necessarily bad. If the blend takes the very best of what's out there, while avoiding the worst, the end result can be extremely attractive. That's how I see the new Legacy.
the forester is less cookie cutter.
So is the Hummer H2, the Pontiac Aztek, the Chev Avalanche, and the next Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum - but you couldn't pay me to own any of them.
i wished it looked like the infiniti fx series though...
I guess this is why automakers build such a variety, to appeal to widely differing tastes. I think the fx looks huge, heavy, ponderous, and awkward. I detest the coming Hummer-ish trend to very high fenderlines with mailslot windows above. Give me light, airy cabins with large, deep windows anyday.
Come to think of it, just like the Forester
Although you don't seem like the type to modify your vehicles...Cobb tuning has maps that tailor to economy as well as performance. Maybe running 87 octane with their economy map may give you improved mileage at the cost of some power.
Don
Larry
However - you pegged me exactly with the idea of a reprogrammed ECU that might squeeze out a few more miles per gallon and/or operate successfully on 87 octane if the performance hit wasn't too severe. For that, I'd pry open my wallet and shell out some dough.
I would expect the GT to perform similarly to the XT. Similar hps (listed v. dyno'd), similar weight (but I will not be surprised if the GT is substantially heavier)...the GT should corner better and be considerably more expensive. We should get a pool going but I'm going to guess it'll run $32k+.
I waited until Jan. 5th to pull the trigger on the XT because I wanted to see the specs on the GT. Looks like its going to be a great car but it didn't add much (if anything) over the XT and was obviously going to cost more. I signed the deal on the XT about 5hrs after that press release :-).
overtime
I have to agree with those saying the Legacy GT just looks very plain.
Plain isn't the word I'd use; I'd say 'clean'. The Aztek, Baja, Chev Avalanche, Hummer H2, Crossfire, et al) are the opposite of clean. Ribbed, tacked-on cladding is an abomination, and overdone, purely-for-effect nonfunctional styling elements repel me. This would also include all of the latest from BMW.
On the other hand, the Passat, Audi A4/A6/A8, and several others are paragons of 'clean'. Smooth, sophisticated, refined. That's the look I like best. The new Legacy scores a big hit with me. I hope I can persuade the wife to buy one in a year or so.
That said, if the chance came up to trade the XT for an S4 Avant I might have to go a different direction ;-).
Our other car is one of these two ton behemoths people here are talking about - an Acura MDX - but we need and use all the storage space and 7 seats. Its an amazing vehicle. As much as I love my new XT, the MDX is still king in our house :-) (as it should be for almost 20 grand more!).
overtime
The car I helped my sister select a year ago was an '03 A4 Avant - V-6, 6-speed, leather, sunroof, and an exquisite shade of bright red. Talk about a love affair...
The GT's styling looks great in person, it's the details that stand out. The project beam headlights are particularly cool. It gets a lot of new features, too.
XT still has better clearance and a more stealthy look.
GT will handle better, with similar acceleration.
XT will cost less.
GT is newer and has 17" rims.
Tough call, eh? I'll be going back and forth for 2-3 years before I decide.
-juice
The WRX wagon/sedan's swaybar will not be wide enough. The track on the XT is the same as the STi's, so the 20mm STI bar fits nicely. Check out other North American Subaru enthusiast sites for more info. :-)
-Dennis
Ballistic, When I got the reflash, it was to bring the powerband down more than for more power. At the time I had to send in my ecu to Cobb to have it reflashed (had to pick 91 or 93 octane), now that they have the handheld programmer/map selector available, they will sell me the unit at the diff. in cost of the original reflash. I wasn't going to shell out another $166 but this unit now comes with 93,91 and 87 octane maps plus economy and 6 or 7 other maps including security (was that you Dennis that got your wrx stolen?) and all future updates for free. I am going to wait to hear some feedback and if the economy and/or 87 octane programs work, I'll send for the unit.
Unlike you, I want my mileage but I am not willing to give up any performance in exchange!
Don
-Nav option
-Sportier seats and steering wheel
-Better gauges (XT's are bad, GT has Lexus style ELD)
-Better Stereo (McIntosh)
I may have selected differently if they were both out at the same time. However, I like my XT...but I might liked the GT better.
Personally, I would have paid the ~5k difference if I liked the GT better.
Does anyone have the side or rear seatback cargo nets? In the pictures they attach to a hook on the wheel wells. I've not seen this hook in any XT at the dealer or my own. If you have the nets how are they attached? Do you like them?
Regarding the dog guard....I was going to purchase one but was told they are truly a hassle. I've found that the cargo cover in retracted mode keeps my dog from drooling over the back seats or trying to advance her way forward in the car. It creates just enough separation that the dog understands where she's supposed to stay for the duration of the ride.
Depending on your dog's temperment, you may want to try just the cargo cover first.
My wife can't get past the gas mileage thing, but it sounds like it just might be worth it. Speaking of on the fence. That's me. BUT, I still have time before I have to decide.
Jack, you'd buy it again? Even the 5-speed?
Juice, all things considered, would you take it even over the new GT? (about which I have said I don't like the new styling, and it looks like I'm not alone--actually I think the Forester is really good looking. I must be weird.)
By the way, I have to have the road clearance, so the Audi is out (except the AllRoad, and whose got the money for that?)
Also, I found the shifter a bit rubbery...I understand there are aftermarket products for short shifter and bushings that improve the feel of the shifter. Does anyone have these installed? Would they recommend any?
TIA
-Frank P.
Yep.
-Dennis
If I needed to buy a car today and couldn't wait for the next Legacy GT, yes, I would buy the XT. Whether or not I'd get the 5-speed or the automatic is a little tougher; ordinarily I wouldn't consider an automatic. However, it's well known that I have issues with the 5-speed, and the automatic in the XT is exceptionally sweet. So that would come down to a coin flip.
If I didn't need to buy immediately, I'd wait to drive and evaluate the GT (both 5-speed manual and 5-speed automatic). Then I'd face a very difficult decision. If the GT turns out to be appreciably quieter than the XT, that alone would be worth several thousand to me.
The choice would be between those two vehicles and those gearbox options. No current vehicle from any other manufacturer would even be in the running.
If a wizard was able to produce new ECU code that maintained current power levels while at the same time allowing better MPG or 87-octane fuel, believe me, I'd jump on it. However, if someone produced code that both improved the mileage and worked with 87 octane, I'd be willing to accept a 10% performance hit (0-60 in 5.8 seconds vs 5.3) as a reasonable tradeoff.
I never considered mine too stiff. Initially I didn't like the engagement point (too close to the floor in the long range of pedal travel), but I've become used to it.
Lots of people don't seem to like the stock shifter. Except for the 5th gear gate being quite a ways off to the left (a minor item that just takes getting used to), there isn't anything else about the shift linkage I dislike. Once things get broken in, shift action is light, throws are reasonable, and I don't feel any need to change anything about it.
I guess I will get used to XT's shifter and clutch but it raised the question maybe AT isn't such a bad thing on XT either. I did not notice a huge difference in performance I was expecting with the MT, although I drove the XT AT few days ago. For those of you who have driven both and contemplated the same thing, where did you end up and why?
Sorry if this is a redundant question but I did a quick search and couldn't find a good answer.
The XT manual gearbox provides some but not all of those expected advantages, whereas its automatic is a particularly good one. That makes the choice of one over the other a much closer call than with most cars.
I found the manual to be "more fun" (because it is more fun to have more control) but the performance felt almost exactly the same. I liked the slightly lower revs of the AT at freeway cruising speeds even though that didn't matter to me too much. The AT does seem to be perfectly mated to the engine and shifts at appropriate times.
I drove a LOT of higher end SUVs when shopping for a family hauler last year and the only AT that I found to be better than the XT is the one on our MDX - that 5spd tranny/drivetrain is poetry.
overtime
Are the high revs what's causing the excessive noise?
The '05 Legacy GT. Anyone know what it will have for road clearance?
The XT 5-speed shows almost exactly 3,000 RPM at 70MPH. The automatic should be around 2,800 - certainly not a huge difference, but in my view any reduction is better than none. I don't think the 200 RPM difference, by itself, has any perceptible difference in the total noise level, because the engine itself doesn't seem to be a big contributor to the total noise at highway speeds. Nevertheless, the automatic XTs do seem to be quieter. Because everything else remains the same (wind noise, tire/road noise, etc), I can only surmise that some part of the total XT sound level is gearbox noise, and perhaps the automatic transmission itself is somewhat quieter in operation.
There is so much acceleration available at freeway speeds in 5th, and the tach reading is high enough, that I never feel as if I've reached top gear yet and frequently find myself reaching to upshift again.
If you haven't yet driven the XT 5MT, be aware that 1st gear is very low, and the gap or step between 1st and 2nd is very large for a car with this level of performance. In normal driving, unless you use a lot of revs, you'll find yourself having to shift to 2nd sooner than most cars around you, and the large rev drop going to 2nd can sometimes be awkward. The redline in 1st is reached at only about 30 MPH, and under full throttle that comes up in only about 1.5 seconds.
These are some of the XT 5MT attributes that I dislike. Most other XT owners either have no problems with these characteristics, or like them. My recommendation: Drive both versions, spending as much time with each as your dealers will allow.
Is there any firm pricing data out there yet? Anybody heard anything?
It seems to me the Legacy would likely address the (minor) issues I have with the XT, notably a general lack of refinement, ultra low gearing and excessive road noise.
If my hunch proves to be true, I'd find myself hard-pressed not to purchase a Legacy GT on the spot. A better(?)-than-XT power delivery combined with the refinement and handling of a car?
Yowza!
BTW, I think the XT is sweet, and the engine alone almost convinced me to buy one. I just couldn't pull the trigger. I just like the feel and handling of cars too much.
Johnny
If, like me, you think the XT is geared too 'short', don't expect the Legacy to improve that. While it's true it has a taller 4.11 final drive, it loses all of that advantage due to smaller-diameter 45-profile tires. The highway RPMs per mile for the MT Legacy will be virtually identical to the XT. I don't yet know the gearbox ratios for the Legacy 5-speed automatic, so I don't know how it will compare.
One big Legacy improvement is that even if its overall RPMs/mile are unchanged, its first, 2nd, and 3rd gears are taller than the XT's. That alone ought to make a significant difference.
Again, I'm picking nits with regards to the XT, but with so many choices available to the automobile consumer, it's hard not to.
It's also quite maddening at times. :-)
Johnny
Is starting out in 2nd gear a reasonable option?
I learned to drive a stick on a Jeep when I was in the Army many years ago.
On that 4-speed 1st gear was very low. We were told to start out in 2nd, except when the ultra-low 1st was really needed.
In my '02 MT, if I'm starting out facing downhill I often coast for a couple of seconds before engaging in 2nd.
Of course, even if that does work, the six-speed or dual range option would still be much better.
Juice, any signs of either of those features in the Forester's future?
Guess that cuts your list in half, so go for the XT. :-)
For me, GT vs. XT? The GT can get a moonroof with a manual tranny, but only the GT Limited. That might put the price out of my range. I think the base GT will cost $1500 more than the XT, so a GT Ltd might cost $3500 more, and that's hard to justify. I would have to drive a GT, but I'd lean towards the value of the XT.
If I chose an automatic, the decision would get even tougher, because GTs get SportShift. In that case the leap would be more likely.
I'd still have to drive both back to back, I'd very split on the two.
-juice
I could go to Maryland, but that's a little out of the way.
What about the Impreza WRX wagon? I know there's limited cargo space and the seating is lower. But, it gets reasonable gas mileage, though I hear the reliability is suspect. How does it drive (MT)?
Reliability is still average or better, it's just that people seek out these forums to complain about something and get help.
-juice
Nice to know that the XT has more torque down lower in the rev range ... something I've gotten used to driving my V6 Saturn L300.
can you say "q-ship"? Seems like the XT is a perfect go-fast, stay hidden from the cops vehicle.
I know that in my pewter colored 4-door Saturn, I can hide pretty well in traffic. I'm starting to call it "anon-a-car", since it's so damned difficult to find it in a parking lot!
XT will cost you at least $2 grand more, plus use about 10% more fuel, roughly.
-juice
And, at least for the time being, hidden from insurance company performance surcharges too! Don't know how much longer that'll last, though.
I guess that's the mindset I ought to adopt, too. Or maybe I already have.
-Frank P.
FYI: Just filled up and with the majority city driving and with several trips to the red-line thrown in, I got 21.2 mpg.
Never felt the Subie slip one time!!Got about 24.8MPG on the way up (about 60-65) and on the way home , got 21 + at 70-75mph.Only minor gripe was the wind noise.Next trip i plan to peel the rubber back some and insert a small cord in the seal to see if it reduces the wind noise, ?? Anyone else able to cure the prob.? and/or what does the dealer do to reduce the wind noise ????
Deadeye
Brraaaaapp.
-juice
Reading reviews of the Geolander 900's (XT OEM tires) on tirerack reassured me that my mediocre assessment of these tires was not a mistake. I tested an Outback before trying the XT. I was told that my opinion that the Outback handled better was due to the "SUV" crappy Geolanders on XT. As I doesn't snow/ice here near San Francisco I'm thinking of not waiting for the Geo's to wear out; doing a switch right now.
I thought of going the Plus One (17") route with buying new wheels. There are more choices in nice 17" than 16" (OEM is 215/60R16). This would cost $1,500 to $2,000. I read really the very positive review that Consumer's Report (Nov 93 issue on Performance and Ultra-Performance tires)gave cheap Falken Ziex 512. Changing to the Falken's without a wheel size change would only cost ~$400 and would make me feel less guilty about not wearing down the Geolanders than spending 2 grand. I learned that Costco has a Michelin/Bridgestone sale now. I could get the other tire CR rates hi, Bridgestone Turanza LS-H for ~$500. CR says both tires are "Best for most [people]; fine grip with comfort", and says the "Falken emphasizes braking and ride, the Bridgestone handling".
Anyone have any experiences with these two tires? I'm leaning to the Turanza's right now -- the Costco sale ends at the end of the month ($60 off a set of 4).
Now, on gas mileage some have reported:
Like many others, I'm getting around 20 with my AT XT. What I don't get is how/why some have gotten as much as 25-26 mpg (NOT AVERAGE) on a few tank fillups. I've never gotten anything like this and I'd be real curious to know why. I don't think some XT's are superior and many others have a defect.
Could some of those 26mpg readings be because of error? I've noticed a propensity for the auto gas shut off to trigger prematurely at times at the pump. Reading mpg from fillup to fillup can introduce errors because of differences in amounts deemed to have filled the car. Could all the high mpg be guys with MT? What about roof racks? Do any of the hi mpg people have a Yakima setup on top? What about babying? Have any of you been playing "egg shells under the foot" to try to game how much mpg you could get (doing stuff like coasting, drafting trucks on the freeway, etc.)?
As even the people who HAVE achieved the 26mpg mileage report it as a very occasional anomoly perhaps THEY can report on why they suspect they got that unusual reading (if it was the car itself it should have been more than an occasional thing).
I've been installing a few accessories I bought from SubyGal. I got oil filters/crush washers (a local dealer wanted $16 for these !!!!-- SubyGal has them in "six packs" for ~$6),air filter, a moonroof wind deflector, differential guard, Wheel Locks, an antiskid mat for the cargo area (this is really nice! It's like a big square of rubber non-slip shelf liner; keeps things from shifting around back there), a rear seat back cargo net and some touchup paint. All this was "free" as I used a few Suby Bucks that I got for moving some cash from 0.5% money market to 4.66% I Bonds (US Savings Bonds) a few months ago. WHAT A DEAL!!! [You get the Suby Bucks for using the CHASE SUBARU CREDIT CARD [3% rebate on purchases]. I still have some Suby Bucks left over -- they are good for 4 years-- and I'll be getting still more in ensuing years.... SubyGal did a great job allowing me to use these for my "Internet Purchase" of the accessories! THANKS SUBYGAL!!!!
Bob