The XT should be able to outrun just about anything 2wd, at least in an 1/8th mile. I should buy an XT and go visit my brother-in-law who has a Vette Z-06. When is the rainy season in Kentucky?
gotcha. yeah, I can't think of a wagon that meets all of your points. This is a nice offering for those who need a versatile, roomy vehicle, but don't want to give up fun. My wife drives a 2002 CRV, which I plan to keep for a long time. but...if the XT was available when we made the purchase, I definitely would have voted for the XT. She made the final decision, though, so who knows what the outcome would have been
rob says, "This is a nice offering for those who need a versatile, roomy vehicle, but don't want to give up fun."
I'm into my 3rd XT week, and haven't quite rolled up 550 miles yet. My ultra-disciplined break-in broke down briefly this morning on the way to work...I floored it in 2nd and 3rd for the first time. Shifted at < 4,000, but still the XT gave quite a shove in the backside.
juice says, "If we stick with C&D as a reference, I think the SRT-4 took 5.6 seconds, something like that."
Yes, but with front-wheel drive and a large rearward weight shift coming off the line, I'd imagine the SRT-4 would have major difficulty getting hooked up to actually apply all that power, at least in first gear. So the 0-60 time wouldn't be as impressive as the WRX or XT. But farther along (as the QM), where the SRT-4 would really be hitting its stride, it's extremely quick. Anybody have C&D's QM time and speed for the SRT-4? I think it beats the XT.
By the way, ballistic, could your mileage be so poor because you’re not only avoiding high revs, but you are also light on the pedal? The best mileage in any combustion engine is achieved with wide open throttle at low rpm – admittedly difficult to achieve in a turbo geared like the XT.
hello all, this is my first post on this board. i've been a car geek (enthusiast) for years and just got laid off from a nice little engineering position. i parlayed this downturn of events into a chance to sell subarus. anyway, here are some little nuggets from my very sore brain (migraine today). the SRT-4 is a 1 wheel drive car at best. rumor has it that a qualife lsd will be an official mopar option soon. without it the car will be very difficult to drive quickly other than on the freeway. i autocross a 94 jetta vr6 and wish everyday that it had a lsd and i've only got 190hp. the fact that an installed quaife is around $1500 puts that out of reach. my diobolical grand plan (my wife hates it) is to pick up a forester xt manual with moonroof when they become available. then i can have the shop guys fit some leda coilovers for the wrx or sti and some adjustable sway bars. then the engine can either be upgraded to sti specs or treated to some aftermarket goodies. its not official in any way but rumor has it that the sti's turbo, intercooler, and an ecu reflash will put the xt well over 300hp. this is partly based on the fact that the sti is relatively low strung and could use a little more boost without hurting anything. put some snow tires on the factory rims and get some lightweight (volks or rojas would be nice) 18" wheels with some falken azenis and this will will rock at the local track days and autocrosses. when winter comes i can just crank the coilovers up to max height, lossen the swaybars, get re-aligned, and toss the snow tires on. basically i would have an impreza sti with a giant moonroof and room for my family. what does everybody think about my insidious scheme?? i've got everything worked out but how to pay for it. -jim t
one more thing, my old boss paid $46,000 for his 2001 audi s4 avant and is paying about $950 per month on it. the car has been tested bone stock at 0-60 5.0 sec and i believe a 13.5 quarter mile, maybe quicker. although it is the finest car i've ever driven or ridden in, maintenance costs are insane. it has been apr tuned to 310hp and has their short shift kit and is a complete monster. my original goal was to get a wrx and with a few mods smoke his car for half the money. i think doing it in a baby suv would be so much more fun. -jt
allhorizon says "The Neon SRT-4 rips to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds, to 100 in 13.8, covers a quarter-mile in 14.2 seconds at 102 mph, and keeps on huffin' all the way to 153 mph."
So the FWD Neon is much slower on the launch slower than the XT , and to 60, and even takes longer to reach the 1/4, but is traveling 5mph faster through the traps. That makes sense; the XT's AWD plus stump-pulling 1st gear sucks the Neon's doors off coming off the line, building such an advangate that it can stay ahead all the way to the 1/4 - but by then the Neon is rapidly closing the gap and flashes across the line a bit behind the XT but at a higher speed. After that, it's all Neon the rest of the way.
..."By the way, ballistic, could your mileage be so poor because you’re not only avoiding high revs, but you are also light on the pedal? The best mileage in any combustion engine is achieved with wide open throttle at low rpm – admittedly difficult to achieve in a turbo geared like the XT."
The closest one can get to that ideal is to always shift into higher gears as early as possible, and then get the desired acceleration (modest, in my case) using the tallest gear the engine can handle along with more throttle, rather than lower gears at higher revs with less throttle. That, as it happens, is pretty much how I'm driving...
onemoremile, as you point out, your boss got smoked at the time of initial purchase, gets smoked again each time he needs non-warranty parts or service, and the biggest flame out of all will be when he tries to sell that S4! he will literally eat more at trade in than you will pay for a turbocharged subaru, WRX or Forester XT. to make matters worse, his '01 S4 with the 2.7 twin turbo is about to become a has been...the new S4 has a 375 hp V8 !for only $58,000, he can upgrade!
Trickling in is exactly right! I've been scanning dealers' online inventory for a silver XT Premium for weeks now. Tuesday I finally spotted one at a dealership about 30 miles from my local dealer, who in turn got right on the case and prepared to acquire the car for me through a dealer swap. It all looked like a done deal; I got home that night ready to list my Outback Sport for sale when the sales guy called me back and told me that the XT had already been sold to someone else. D'oh!!
My husband is convinced that I will not be able to get an XT at dealer invoice price (through VIP program) anytime soon, since they will be snapped up by people willing to pay MSRP. I'm sure the C&D article and performance numbers didn't help the situation at all. This car is quickly advancing to a very hot ticket!
Now if I could only prove my husband wrong - the wait is slowly killing me...
Ditto here. I'm waiting for when the premium package and 5MT are available also. What's funny is that the new Forester brochure shows the infamous photo of a shot through the moonroof showing the leather and 5MT! Perhaps they thought the photo would be too small to pick out that detail. Not for our OCD eyes.
I'm also patiently waiting on the Legacy GT. It should be getting a higher output version of the XT engine and a newly revamped 5MT. That should be sweet.
In any event, Subaru has consistently upped something in the second year of a new model so I'm hoping they'll do the same with the XT. With the previous generation Forester, it was a new clutch and the Phase II engine. With the previous generation Legacy, it was the switch from the Phase I 155HP requiring premium to the 165HP on regular switch.
and not to be a blasphemer - but just wondering - has anybody run a tank of regular (87) through their XT? Results? FWIW, local Premium (2.03/Gal in Morro Bay CA) is only 91 octane and (like reg 87 and super 89) is laced with that damn envion-MENTAL MTBE (but that's another OT story...)
Ken says, "I'm also patiently waiting on the Legacy GT. It should be getting a higher output version of the XT engine and a newly revamped 5MT. That should be sweet."
Sweeter still would be a re-ratioed version of the STi's 6-speed. Imagine the possibilities. They could treat it as a close-ratioed 5-speed with a TALL final drive (for economy), plus a *really* low 1st-gear (for off-road use and/or for getting towed loads moving uphill, as in pulling a boat out of the water) - OR - a close-ratioed 5-speed with a SHORT final drive (for performance), plus a *really* tall 6th-OD gear for relaxed, economical, quiet freeway cruising. Either way, you'd have a transmission that would meet the needs of just about any MT buyer.
Come to think of it, one or the other of those would be exactly what the XT needs...
The idea of a granny first gear is not new. Trucks have been doing this from day one. Closer to home, the decade-old Civic 4WD wagon also had this feature. Essentially you started off in second gear, and only used first gear for difficult situations.
Personally, I would prefer a true dual-range setup, with 6 lower and closer spaced gears, but this would be a reasonable alternative.
akasrp asks, "has anybody run a tank of regular (87) through their XT?"
I wrote here awhile ago that once I have a good record of my XT's fuel economy in actual driving on premium, I would then try 89-octane for awhile, and then 87-octane, to discover just what trade-offs the latter fuels impose in reduced performance and mileage. This is the approach I've always taken with prior vehicles.
Someone who knows Subarus far better than I said this was asking for trouble. He indicated that the maximum range of spark advance/retard available to the ECU is insufficient to retard the XT's spark far enough to avoid damaging detonation while using the cheaper, lower-octane fuel grades.
That seems unlikely to me, but on the possibility it's true, I'm not planning to conduct these experiments anytime soon. If I can find a reliable, reasonably-priced device (perhaps similar to the 'KnockLink') that would give visible indication whenever detonation occurs that the ECU cannot correct, then perhaps I'll try the cheaper fuel grades.
Bob says, "Personally, I would prefer a true dual-range setup, with 6 lower and closer spaced gears, but this would be a reasonable alternative."
If the dual-range gearset that Subaru offers with Foresters everywhere but North America became available here, then of course that would be the best solution - either with the 5-speed (ideally then with closer ratios than now) or with the STi's 6-speed. Unfortunately, Subaru in its infinite wisdom has decided that none of us in their largest, most profitable market want (and would willingly pay for) that major, already-existing enhancement...
We've had this dual-range tranny discussion here many times over the past few years. As you probably know, Subaru used to offer it here, but pulled the plug several years back.
Same was true with the Hill-Holder clutch. All US-spec Subies with manual transmissions had this feature, but SOA pulled the plug. The Forester got it back, so maybe there's hope for the DR tranny too.
Bob says, "Same was true with the Hill-Holder clutch."
I guess most of you must like this particular feature, but after giving it two weeks, I've decided that I intensely dislike it. I suppose it has its place on REALLY steep grades, but my experience has been that it sets itself even on the mildest of slopes - and in every case, it requires too much throttle and way too much clutch slipping before the brakes release and the car can move ahead.
I can do a much better job than the hill-holder by simply doing what I've always done - using the handbrake to hold the car in place on hills, releasing it as the clutch begins to engage. Unlike the hill holder, this imposes no extra wear and tear on the clutch.
One way or another, on my XT, the hill holder will soon be extinct.
I've driven a few with the Hill Holder, and I did like it; but I haven't lived with it, like you have Jack. So I'll reserve judgment for now.
As I recall, it only works with the nose of the car pointed up hill, and won't work if the car's nose is pointed downhill. So, if the car is pointed downhill, and you want to backup, it's no different than a conventional clutch.
bob says, "As I recall, it only works with the nose of the car pointed up hill, and won't work if the car's nose is pointed downhill. So, if the car is pointed downhill, and you want to backup, it's no different than a conventional clutch."
That's generally true, although I'd swear it also "sets" on a side-to-side slope! My driveway slopes steeply upward from the street, and (due to 3-car garage) it's also wide. When I back out of the garage, I don't like not being able to see behind me (due to the steep downward slope). So after I clear the garage, I immediately turn the wheel sharply and wind up cross-wise on the driveway. Then I can turn the wheel the other way and drive the rest of the way (and down onto the street) nose-first. My point is that as I'm backing sideways across the driveway slope and come to a stop, the hill-holder "sets" even though I'm not pointing uphill - I'm just on a sideways slope. Then I have to use more throttle and more clutch-slipping to proceed forward, or else stall the engine (that hasn't actually happened, but it *feels* as if it will unless I use a lot of throttle and clutch-slip).
The same thing is true when I stop at a stopsign or traffic light on the barest slight-uphill slope; the hill-holder sets, and then I have to use more throttle and slip the clutch more than I'd like to proceed.
I don't like it at all. I don't need the anti-rollback feature, because it's so simple to accomplish the same thing with the handbrake AND be in complete control as to how 'hard' the (hand)brake sets and exactly when it releases, whereas with the hill-holder I have almost no control over it.
I just haven't gotten over the 'startle' factor of starting to engage the clutch and having the car go nowhere until I apply more throttle and let the clutch bite even more.
This weekend I'm going to start my experimenting with placing a 1" to 2"-thick block under my clutch pedal so it can no longer go all the way down, but still goes down far enough to *fully* disengage the clutch plus just a little more. This should do away with the hill-holder, which engages only when the clutch goes all the way down.
You're not the only one who has been complaining about the sensitivity of the Hill Holder clutch. I've read other complaints of how easily it engages even on the slightest slopes. Your situation of it engaging on a sideways slope is certainly new.
Perhaps there is a way to adjust the sensitivity of the mechanism.
On my test drive of the XT, I was strictly on flat roads so I didn't get to see first hand how the Hill Holder works (or doesn't work). Does it require clutch slipping every time you disengage?
I'm wondering if it would be possible for SOA to incorporate a kill switch for the Hill Holder?
What I'm thinking is, when you start off, by default the Hill Holder would be in effect. However, for those times you don't want it, hit a button, and it would work like any other clutch.
The Outback H-6 VDC has a switch to turn off the VDC when it's not wanted. I'm wondering if something like that could work with the Hill Holder? For example, if you hit the HH kill switch, perhaps it won't allow you to fully depress the clutch to the floor, such what Jack is planning to rig up.
does make an extra drag on ocassion, but nothing that is annoying to me. The bad thing about using the parking brake is that it also activates/deactivates the daytime running lights. I personally like the DTRs, but I wouldn't want them blinking on and off whenever I used the parking brake as a hillholder.
Ken asks, "I didn't get to see first hand how the Hill Holder works (or doesn't work). Does it require clutch slipping every time you disengage?"
Certainly more than would be necessary for a skilled driver withOUT the hill-holder. My impression is that how hard the hill-holder engages is a direct function of how hard you're on the brake pedal as the Forester comes to a stop. If you feather the brake the last few feet, then the hill-holder will maintain only that amount of brake pressure, and the subsequent release (by driving forward) will require relatively less throttle and clutch-slip. But if for some reason you happen to be on the brake pretty hard as the wheels stop turning (maybe you misjudged the distance and had to brake extra hard the last few feet), then THAT becomes the amount of brake-line pressure that the hill-holder's check-valve keeps applying to the brakes. Accordingly, to get rolling forward again, you will now need a LOT of throttle and a LOT of slip. To any observer, the effect is that you have no idea how to drive a stick.
As I said, the hill-holder is not long for this world on my XT...
John says, "The bad thing about using the parking brake is that it also activates/deactivates the daytime running lights. I personally like the DTRs, but I wouldn't want them blinking on and off whenever I used the parking brake as a hillholder."
That wasn't a problem for me, because I detest daytime running lights. So, the very first thing I changed on my XT was to disconnect 'em!
The Subaru Crew chat is live - link's on the left.
Just in case you find yourself in a chat room alone, check to see if there are multiple rooms on the drop down list at the bottom of the chat window, then click on the first one. That's where the Crew is meeting.
Bob says, "...by default the Hill Holder would be in effect. However, for those times you don't want it, hit a button, and it would work like any other clutch."
From my brief review of the shop manual, the H-Holder has little if anything to do with the clutch. It's essentially a check-valve in one of the diagonal braking circuits. If the car is tilted upward, even slightly, when the wheels come to a halt and the clutch pedal is on the floor, the check valve holds the final braking pressure in the line. The check valve is supposed to release when the vehicle moves forward; unfortunately, it takes quite a bit of forward . I've forgotten exactly how the check-valve gets released; I'll have to review that page of the manual.
but if there were some way to electronically limit the clutch pedal travel (instead of using a piece of wood), that would work too. As you said, it only engages if the clutch pedal goes to the floor; but if the pedal could be controlled to stop a 1/2" or so before hitting the floor...
I have yet to try the MT out, but am curious as to how the HH works as I've never experienced an MT with one.
Couldn't you come to a stop, but shift to neutral before coming to a complete stop and release the clutch? Once stopped, you could release the brake and then push the clutch in. Would that still activate the HH? Granted you have to do more to 'fool' the HH into not activating, but at least it would be easy to try.
Another variation would be to shift to neutral once stopped, release the clutch and brake and then reapply the clutch. Of course, then you could use the parking brake when needed as the HH.
Ken- I looked at the pic too [SoA site] and it does look like a MT shifter; however, the angle and position of the shifter appears similar to when it's in the Drive slot and there's that curious little speck of 'light' at the twelve o'clock position of the steering wheel which seem to coincide with the 'D' position indicator on the Fuel/Temp Gauge.
I have a feeling the taller gear ratios will indeed make it to the US in the STi 6-speed, even. The ratios were designed for a car with an 8000 rpm redline, so their magazine reviews are suffering with an extra 0-60 shift and quarter mile shift.
I'd love to have a nice tall 6th to bring the rpms down for some better highway mileage. Redline in 5th is plenty fast enough for me, so I'd love 6th to be a fuel economy gear. I'm getting around 22 right now, with ~1200 miles on the odometer.
Ballistic, Before you invest too much work in modifying your clutch travel, you may want to check to see if your Forester's starter will engage without the clutch fully depressed. Both my current Toyota and previous Nissan pickups required that the clutch be FULLY depressed before the starter circuit is "live".
the dw wanted to move the Forester the other day and couldn't get it started because the clutch had to be bottomed out. I had great will power and didn't throw anything through the wide open door she left .
if pedal pressure is what determines the hill holder engagement level--obviously, if you put all your weight on the pedal at complete stop, it would be really difficult or impossible to get things rolling without killing the engine. On the other end, if you are stopping on a hill, very little brake is actually needed, but the hill holder still works. The system is more complicated than a simple check valve.
Brian suggests, "Couldn't you come to a stop, but shift to neutral before coming to a complete stop and release the clutch? Once stopped, you could release the brake and then push the clutch in."
This works, because it prevents the H-Holder from getting 'set' in the first place; I sometimes do just what you suggested. But it's not the typical routine, and every time you forget, you're back fooling around with the H-Holder.
"Another variation would be to shift to neutral once stopped, release the clutch and brake and then reapply the clutch."
Sounds logical, but it doesn't work. Merely shifting to neutral, releasing the clutch, then declutching and going back into gear does *not* release the H-Holder. Once it is 'set', the only way to get it to release is to actually make the vehicle move - meaning applying throttle and slipping the clutch until the H-Holder lets go.
robmarch says, "I'd love to have a nice tall 6th to bring the rpms down for some better highway mileage. Redline in 5th is plenty fast enough for me, so I'd love 6th to be a fuel economy gear. I'm getting around 22 right now, with ~1200 miles on the odometer."
Not only better highway MPG, but also quieter, less "buzzy", more relaxed freeway travel. The XT has *plenty* of torque and flexibility to handle a top gear providing as much as 30mph/1000 rpm. That would mean just 2500rpm at 75mph instead of the 3300 that mine requires. Big difference.
james says, "Before you invest too much work in modifying your clutch travel, you may want to check to see if your Forester's starter will engage without the clutch fully depressed."
Rats. Thanks for raining on my parade. I think you're right, and I think that may be true even if the gearbox is in neutral. I'll experiment by turning the key to 'start' with the clutch fully up, and then slowly push it down until the starter engages. If indeed it has to be all the way to the floor, then to use my block-of-wood hill-holder workaround, I'll also have to track down and disable the associated starter-disable interlock, which I think is a brain-dead idea anyway.
john says, "don't know if pedal pressure is what determines the hill holder engagement level--obviously, if you put all your weight on the pedal at complete stop, it would be really difficult or impossible to get things rolling without killing the engine."
Precisely - and that's exactly what many of us are experiencing, and it's why the H-Holder can be really annoying.
I've seen on a Japanese Impreza owner's website a modification to rewire the clutch/starter switch to a dash mount button. It didn't look too difficult.
The link's below, BUT I don't think you'll be able to read the text (the crude drawings might give you some ideas).
Ken's link to the hill-holder mechanism (which I'd seen before) does indeed show a classic one-way check valve, in which a slope-sensitive (gravity-activated) ball moves against an orifice during uphill stops, preventing pressure in the brake lines from being released. The two lower images show what appears to be a master-cylinder pushrod that 'activates' or deactivates (by pushing the ball away from the orifice). Those functions, and how they relate to breaking the hill-holder free, are not entirely clear to me.
"modification to rewire the clutch/starter switch to a dash mount button. It didn't look too difficult."
Thanks. What looks even simpler is to forget the button or switch and just screw something down over the clutch-starter interlock so its plunger is permanently depressed regardless of whether the clutch pedal is up or down, defeating the interlock. Then the starter will operate as they always did before these dumb interlocks came along; the starter will engage in neutral with clutch up, or in gear with clutch up or down. Nothing about that bothers me. Anybody careless enough to engage a starter while the transmission is in gear without first disengaging the clutch oughtn't be driving in the first place.
Comments
The XT should be able to outrun just about anything 2wd, at least in an 1/8th mile. I should buy an XT and go visit my brother-in-law who has a Vette Z-06. When is the rainy season in Kentucky?
-james
The SRT-4 would be great with AWD and Subaru reliability. But then it would be a WRX! LOL
-juice
I'm into my 3rd XT week, and haven't quite rolled up 550 miles yet. My ultra-disciplined break-in broke down briefly this morning on the way to work...I floored it in 2nd and 3rd for the first time. Shifted at < 4,000, but still the XT gave quite a shove in the backside.
jb
Yes, but with front-wheel drive and a large rearward weight shift coming off the line, I'd imagine the SRT-4 would have major difficulty getting hooked up to actually apply all that power, at least in first gear. So the 0-60 time wouldn't be as impressive as the WRX or XT. But farther along (as the QM), where the SRT-4 would really be hitting its stride, it's extremely quick. Anybody have C&D's QM time and speed for the SRT-4? I think it beats the XT.
jb
-juice
The Neon SRT-4 rips to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds, to 100 in 13.8, covers a quarter-mile in 14.2 seconds at 102 mph, and keeps on huffin' all the way to 153 mph.
By the way, ballistic, could your mileage be so poor because you’re not only avoiding high revs, but you are also light on the pedal? The best mileage in any combustion engine is achieved with wide open throttle at low rpm – admittedly difficult to achieve in a turbo geared like the XT.
- D.
the SRT-4 is a 1 wheel drive car at best. rumor has it that a qualife lsd will be an official mopar option soon. without it the car will be very difficult to drive quickly other than on the freeway. i autocross a 94 jetta vr6 and wish everyday that it had a lsd and i've only got 190hp. the fact that an installed quaife is around $1500 puts that out of reach.
my diobolical grand plan (my wife hates it) is to pick up a forester xt manual with moonroof when they become available. then i can have the shop guys fit some leda coilovers for the wrx or sti and some adjustable sway bars. then the engine can either be upgraded to sti specs or treated to some aftermarket goodies. its not official in any way but rumor has it that the sti's turbo, intercooler, and an ecu reflash will put the xt well over 300hp. this is partly based on the fact that the sti is relatively low strung and could use a little more boost without hurting anything. put some snow tires on the factory rims and get some lightweight (volks or rojas would be nice) 18" wheels with some falken azenis and this will will rock at the local track days and autocrosses. when winter comes i can just crank the coilovers up to max height, lossen the swaybars, get re-aligned, and toss the snow tires on. basically i would have an impreza sti with a giant moonroof and room for my family. what does everybody think about my insidious scheme?? i've got everything worked out but how to pay for it.
-jim t
-jt
So the FWD Neon is much slower on the launch slower than the XT , and to 60, and even takes longer to reach the 1/4, but is traveling 5mph faster through the traps. That makes sense; the XT's AWD plus stump-pulling 1st gear sucks the Neon's doors off coming off the line, building such an advangate that it can stay ahead all the way to the 1/4 - but by then the Neon is rapidly closing the gap and flashes across the line a bit behind the XT but at a higher speed. After that, it's all Neon the rest of the way.
..."By the way, ballistic, could your mileage be so poor because you’re not only avoiding high revs, but you are also light on the pedal? The best mileage in any combustion engine is achieved with wide open throttle at low rpm – admittedly difficult to achieve in a turbo geared like the XT."
The closest one can get to that ideal is to always shift into higher gears as early as possible, and then get the desired acceleration (modest, in my case) using the tallest gear the engine can handle along with more throttle, rather than lower gears at higher revs with less throttle. That, as it happens, is pretty much how I'm driving...
jb
jb
as you point out, your boss got smoked at the time of initial purchase, gets smoked again each time he needs non-warranty parts or service, and the biggest flame out of all will be when he tries to sell that S4! he will literally eat more at trade in than you will pay for a turbocharged subaru, WRX or Forester XT. to make matters worse, his '01 S4 with the 2.7 twin turbo is about to become a has been...the new S4 has a 375 hp V8 !for only $58,000, he can upgrade!
Plus, it's the shape. The same engine in the PT Cruiser, which is closer to the Forester, doesn't even come close to the XT.
but how to pay for it
Sounds familiar. I'm waiting for the MT5 Premium too.
XTs are just trickling in, they only arrived a couple of weeks ago.
-juice
My husband is convinced that I will not be able to get an XT at dealer invoice price (through VIP program) anytime soon, since they will be snapped up by people willing to pay MSRP. I'm sure the C&D article and performance numbers didn't help the situation at all. This car is quickly advancing to a very hot ticket!
Now if I could only prove my husband wrong - the wait is slowly killing me...
I'm also patiently waiting on the Legacy GT. It should be getting a higher output version of the XT engine and a newly revamped 5MT. That should be sweet.
In any event, Subaru has consistently upped something in the second year of a new model so I'm hoping they'll do the same with the XT. With the previous generation Forester, it was a new clutch and the Phase II engine. With the previous generation Legacy, it was the switch from the Phase I 155HP requiring premium to the 165HP on regular switch.
Ken
Results?
FWIW, local Premium (2.03/Gal in Morro Bay CA) is only 91 octane and (like reg 87 and super 89) is laced with that damn envion-MENTAL MTBE (but that's another OT story...)
XTitis getting bad - real bad...
-srp
Sweeter still would be a re-ratioed version of the STi's 6-speed. Imagine the possibilities. They could treat it as a close-ratioed 5-speed with a TALL final drive (for economy), plus a *really* low 1st-gear (for off-road use and/or for getting towed loads moving uphill, as in pulling a boat out of the water) - OR - a close-ratioed 5-speed with a SHORT final drive (for performance), plus a *really* tall 6th-OD gear for relaxed, economical, quiet freeway cruising. Either way, you'd have a transmission that would meet the needs of just about any MT buyer.
Come to think of it, one or the other of those would be exactly what the XT needs...
jb
Personally, I would prefer a true dual-range setup, with 6 lower and closer spaced gears, but this would be a reasonable alternative.
Bob
I wrote here awhile ago that once I have a good record of my XT's fuel economy in actual driving on premium, I would then try 89-octane for awhile, and then 87-octane, to discover just what trade-offs the latter fuels impose in reduced performance and mileage. This is the approach I've always taken with prior vehicles.
Someone who knows Subarus far better than I said this was asking for trouble. He indicated that the maximum range of spark advance/retard available to the ECU is insufficient to retard the XT's spark far enough to avoid damaging detonation while using the cheaper, lower-octane fuel grades.
That seems unlikely to me, but on the possibility it's true, I'm not planning to conduct these experiments anytime soon. If I can find a reliable, reasonably-priced device (perhaps similar to the 'KnockLink') that would give visible indication whenever detonation occurs that the ECU cannot correct, then perhaps I'll try the cheaper fuel grades.
jb
If the dual-range gearset that Subaru offers with Foresters everywhere but North America became available here, then of course that would be the best solution - either with the 5-speed (ideally then with closer ratios than now) or with the STi's 6-speed. Unfortunately, Subaru in its infinite wisdom has decided that none of us in their largest, most profitable market want (and would willingly pay for) that major, already-existing enhancement...
jb
Same was true with the Hill-Holder clutch. All US-spec Subies with manual transmissions had this feature, but SOA pulled the plug. The Forester got it back, so maybe there's hope for the DR tranny too.
Bob
I guess most of you must like this particular feature, but after giving it two weeks, I've decided that I intensely dislike it. I suppose it has its place on REALLY steep grades, but my experience has been that it sets itself even on the mildest of slopes - and in every case, it requires too much throttle and way too much clutch slipping before the brakes release and the car can move ahead.
I can do a much better job than the hill-holder by simply doing what I've always done - using the handbrake to hold the car in place on hills, releasing it as the clutch begins to engage. Unlike the hill holder, this imposes no extra wear and tear on the clutch.
One way or another, on my XT, the hill holder will soon be extinct.
jb
As I recall, it only works with the nose of the car pointed up hill, and won't work if the car's nose is pointed downhill. So, if the car is pointed downhill, and you want to backup, it's no different than a conventional clutch.
Bob
That's generally true, although I'd swear it also "sets" on a side-to-side slope! My driveway slopes steeply upward from the street, and (due to 3-car garage) it's also wide. When I back out of the garage, I don't like not being able to see behind me (due to the steep downward slope). So after I clear the garage, I immediately turn the wheel sharply and wind up cross-wise on the driveway. Then I can turn the wheel the other way and drive the rest of the way (and down onto the street) nose-first. My point is that as I'm backing sideways across the driveway slope and come to a stop, the hill-holder "sets" even though I'm not pointing uphill - I'm just on a sideways slope. Then I have to use more throttle and more clutch-slipping to proceed forward, or else stall the engine (that hasn't actually happened, but it *feels* as if it will unless I use a lot of throttle and clutch-slip).
The same thing is true when I stop at a stopsign or traffic light on the barest slight-uphill slope; the hill-holder sets, and then I have to use more throttle and slip the clutch more than I'd like to proceed.
I don't like it at all. I don't need the anti-rollback feature, because it's so simple to accomplish the same thing with the handbrake AND be in complete control as to how 'hard' the (hand)brake sets and exactly when it releases, whereas with the hill-holder I have almost no control over it.
I just haven't gotten over the 'startle' factor of starting to engage the clutch and having the car go nowhere until I apply more throttle and let the clutch bite even more.
This weekend I'm going to start my experimenting with placing a 1" to 2"-thick block under my clutch pedal so it can no longer go all the way down, but still goes down far enough to *fully* disengage the clutch plus just a little more. This should do away with the hill-holder, which engages only when the clutch goes all the way down.
jb
You're not the only one who has been complaining about the sensitivity of the Hill Holder clutch. I've read other complaints of how easily it engages even on the slightest slopes. Your situation of it engaging on a sideways slope is certainly new.
Perhaps there is a way to adjust the sensitivity of the mechanism.
On my test drive of the XT, I was strictly on flat roads so I didn't get to see first hand how the Hill Holder works (or doesn't work). Does it require clutch slipping every time you disengage?
Ken
What I'm thinking is, when you start off, by default the Hill Holder would be in effect. However, for those times you don't want it, hit a button, and it would work like any other clutch.
The Outback H-6 VDC has a switch to turn off the VDC when it's not wanted. I'm wondering if something like that could work with the Hill Holder? For example, if you hit the HH kill switch, perhaps it won't allow you to fully depress the clutch to the floor, such what Jack is planning to rig up.
Bob
John
Bob
Certainly more than would be necessary for a skilled driver withOUT the hill-holder. My impression is that how hard the hill-holder engages is a direct function of how hard you're on the brake pedal as the Forester comes to a stop. If you feather the brake the last few feet, then the hill-holder will maintain only that amount of brake pressure, and the subsequent release (by driving forward) will require relatively less throttle and clutch-slip. But if for some reason you happen to be on the brake pretty hard as the wheels stop turning (maybe you misjudged the distance and had to brake extra hard the last few feet), then THAT becomes the amount of brake-line pressure that the hill-holder's check-valve keeps applying to the brakes. Accordingly, to get rolling forward again, you will now need a LOT of throttle and a LOT of slip. To any observer, the effect is that you have no idea how to drive a stick.
As I said, the hill-holder is not long for this world on my XT...
jb
That wasn't a problem for me, because I detest daytime running lights. So, the very first thing I changed on my XT was to disconnect 'em!
The next thing to go will be the H-holder.
jb
Just in case you find yourself in a chat room alone, check to see if there are multiple rooms on the drop down list at the bottom of the chat window, then click on the first one. That's where the Crew is meeting.
Steve, Host
From my brief review of the shop manual, the H-Holder has little if anything to do with the clutch. It's essentially a check-valve in one of the diagonal braking circuits. If the car is tilted upward, even slightly, when the wheels come to a halt and the clutch pedal is on the floor, the check valve holds the final braking pressure in the line. The check valve is supposed to release when the vehicle moves forward; unfortunately, it takes quite a bit of forward . I've forgotten exactly how the check-valve gets released; I'll have to review that page of the manual.
jb
Bob
Couldn't you come to a stop, but shift to neutral before coming to a complete stop and release the clutch? Once stopped, you could release the brake and then push the clutch in. Would that still activate the HH? Granted you have to do more to 'fool' the HH into not activating, but at least it would be easy to try.
Another variation would be to shift to neutral once stopped, release the clutch and brake and then reapply the clutch. Of course, then you could use the parking brake when needed as the HH.
-Brian
Ken-
I looked at the pic too [SoA site] and it does look like a MT shifter; however, the angle and position of the shifter appears similar to when it's in the Drive slot and there's that curious little speck of 'light' at the twelve o'clock position of the steering wheel which seem to coincide with the 'D' position indicator on the Fuel/Temp Gauge.
-Dave
I'd love to have a nice tall 6th to bring the rpms down for some better highway mileage. Redline in 5th is plenty fast enough for me, so I'd love 6th to be a fuel economy gear. I'm getting around 22 right now, with ~1200 miles on the odometer.
Before you invest too much work in modifying your clutch travel, you may want to check to see if your Forester's starter will engage without the clutch fully depressed. Both my current Toyota and previous Nissan pickups required that the clutch be FULLY depressed before the starter circuit is "live".
-james
John
John
This works, because it prevents the H-Holder from getting 'set' in the first place; I sometimes do just what you suggested. But it's not the typical routine, and every time you forget, you're back fooling around with the H-Holder.
"Another variation would be to shift to neutral once stopped, release the clutch and brake and then reapply the clutch."
Sounds logical, but it doesn't work. Merely shifting to neutral, releasing the clutch, then declutching and going back into gear does *not* release the H-Holder. Once it is 'set', the only way to get it to release is to actually make the vehicle move - meaning applying throttle and slipping the clutch until the H-Holder lets go.
jb
Not only better highway MPG, but also quieter, less "buzzy", more relaxed freeway travel. The XT has *plenty* of torque and flexibility to handle a top gear providing as much as 30mph/1000 rpm. That would mean just 2500rpm at 75mph instead of the 3300 that mine requires. Big difference.
jb
Rats. Thanks for raining on my parade. I think you're right, and I think that may be true even if the gearbox is in neutral. I'll experiment by turning the key to 'start' with the clutch fully up, and then slowly push it down until the starter engages. If indeed it has to be all the way to the floor, then to use my block-of-wood hill-holder workaround, I'll also have to track down and disable the associated starter-disable interlock, which I think is a brain-dead idea anyway.
jb
Precisely - and that's exactly what many of us are experiencing, and it's why the H-Holder can be really annoying.
jb
I've seen on a Japanese Impreza owner's website a modification to rewire the clutch/starter switch to a dash mount button. It didn't look too difficult.
The link's below, BUT I don't think you'll be able to read the text (the crude drawings might give you some ideas).
http://homepage1.nifty.com/TARAO_O/suitti.htm
Ken
jb
Thanks. What looks even simpler is to forget the button or switch and just screw something down over the clutch-starter interlock so its plunger is permanently depressed regardless of whether the clutch pedal is up or down, defeating the interlock. Then the starter will operate as they always did before these dumb interlocks came along; the starter will engage in neutral with clutch up, or in gear with clutch up or down. Nothing about that bothers me. Anybody careless enough to engage a starter while the transmission is in gear without first disengaging the clutch oughtn't be driving in the first place.
jb