Subaru XT Turbo Forester

15758606263131

Comments

  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    They changed my meds. Lithium is great.
  • samiam_68samiam_68 Member Posts: 775
    I got the genuine Subie hitch (mounted it myself) and bought a Hollywood 3-bike rack. Works fine.
  • stuhallstuhall Member Posts: 59
    I would only use the hitch for the bike rack....can I take the hitch part off so that it is flush with the underside of the bumper when I'm not using it or do I always have the dorky hitch with ball stickin' out the butt of my Stubie going forward?

    TIA,
    Stuart
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Most trailer hitches these days are "receiver" type, meaning that the ball bolts to a forged removable bar that slides and locks into a female receiver under the bumper. Just be sure yours is the receiver type, and you can remove the projecting bar with ball when not needed.
  • miamixtmiamixt Member Posts: 600
    not the Hitch, the Free Replacement XT? Inquiring Minds want to know?
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Stuart- Any hitch you get isn't going to come with the ball attachment (you have to buy it separately). However, having a ball hitch and leaving it on provides a significant level of protection to your bumper in the case you're ever rear-ended (speaking from personal experience here).

    -Frank P.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    Actually, the Subaru OEM hitches come with the ball (receiver) attachment but not the ball itself.

    DaveM
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    DaveM- Thanks. Oh well, I'll just chalk it up as another case of CRS ;-)

    -Frank P.
  • stuhallstuhall Member Posts: 59
    In answer to your question on why I have a BLACK XT when I used to have a RED XT....

    First, I need to state that I didn't make it happen. SoA made the call (after some strong suggestions on my part) :-P

    My red one had a serious transmission issue. I don't want to go into too many details as I know the conspiracy theorists on some of these boards may jump on the opportunity to use my example as to why they should get a new car.....

    It was in the shop 15 of the first 30 days of ownership. It stranded me on the highway and scared the crap out of me another time when the flaw acted up a second time after service.

    The reason I won't go into detail is that after EXTENSIVE searching on the Internet I've not found another case of this problem and neither has Subaru. To those of you who would say that skipping the details is counter productive to the purpose of these boards, I disagree. I'm not protecting Subaru so much as refraining from yelling fire in a crowded theater. If you have this problem, you'll know about it.

    BUT, on a related note, that RED XT had numerous other problems beside the bad tranny. Bad sunroof, dash rattles, poorly operating hatch....it was a "Monday" car for sure. (meaning it was built on Monday, when people are still recovering from the weekend and not paying attention to their job)

    This BLACK one on the other hand. It rocks. Had a nasty dash rattle that they isolated to the AC piping in the engine compartment rattling on the firewall. Bolted that down and now it's running great.

    Plus, I think I now like the Black better. :-)

    I still have a few issues open with Subaru regarding this mess. And trust me, it's been MESSY. I'll give the rest of the details when it's over.

    I will impart this advice....when you have a problem of this nature be persistent and remember that the people of SoA are on your side....let them work with you through these problems.

    One last comment, evidently the transmission is a Mitsubushi Transmission. So it's not even Subaru's fault. ;-)
  • samiam_68samiam_68 Member Posts: 775
    The hitch is almost invisible when installed. The bike rack slides into the receiver when needed and is secured by a pin. When not in use, all you see is a tiny receiver opening below the bumper - if you don't know it's there, you won't even notice it.
    I shopped around and the Subie hitch was the best value. For $180 at 1stsubaruparts.com, it comes with all mounting hardware, and all electrical pieces if you ever need to tow a trailer.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    having a ball hitch and leaving it on provides a significant level of protection to your bumper in the case you're ever rear-ended (speaking from personal experience here).

    I hope nobody who drives your car is in the "park by ear" group, backing into a parallel space and continuing backward until something goes "crunch". The protruding ball hitch can really screw things up on the other car. Plus, people walking through the space between your rear end and the adjacent car might not realize you have a protruding ball hitch until it takes a bite out of their shins. Speaking from personal experience here.
     ) - ;
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Jack- Is that "park by ear" or "park by feel"? In either case, I'm the sole driver and backing into objects isn't my specialty but yeah, even I've banged my shin on it once or twice.

    -Frank P.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    once or twice.

    Slow learner, eh? I only have to experience excruciating pain once before eliminating the source.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    You obviously don't snowboard.

    I thought that a hitch with the receiver and/or ball in it could cause frame problems in a low speed wreck vs letting the bumper take the hit?

    Steve, Host
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Snowboards weren't invented 30 years ago when I decided discretion was the better part of valor and ventured out on snowskis for the last time.

    You're probably right that a rear impact against a ball-equipped hitch might transmit impact to areas that, unlike the bumper, weren't designed to absorb it. However, if the resulting distorion is sufficient to be problematic, you'd probably have significant damage with or without the hitch.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "The first real snowboard hit the market during the 1960's in the form of Sherman Poppin's Snurfer." (link)

    Pass the Advil please.

    Another POV re hitches:

    sebring95 "I don't like SUVs, why do you?" Apr 17, 2003 1:09pm

    Steve, Host
  • andmoonandmoon Member Posts: 320
    try etrailer.com for best prices
    Don
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    The first real snowboard hit the market during the 1960's

    Inasmuch as I was underwater during those years, I missed them entirely.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Filled my tank last weekend for the first time since Portland received a foot of snow. Grinding through all that stuff definitely takes a toll on MPG. I recorded my 2nd-worst tankful, down in the mid-18s.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Steve/Jack- I agree that there's trade-offs involved with leaving the ball & receiver bar mounted to the hitch. In my case, I was rear-ended at fairly low speed with the car in the rear hitting at a nose-down angle due to braking. The ball/frame took 90% of the impact and consequently the rear bumper only received a small scratch (I had the frame checked and no damage was done). I'm guessing that because the ball has such a small surface area, in most cases it will simply punch through and the rear bumper will still end up absorbing most of the impact. Again, in my unscientific sample case, the damage to my car was a 3/4 inch scratch on the bumper, the other vehicle didn't fair nearly so well with the hitch ball punching right through the grill :-(
    -Frank P.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Agreed. I think it would be more fluke than anything else if any given rear-ender caused more or less substantial damage depending on whether or not the bar-and-ball are in the receiver or not.

    Shins are another matter entirely.
  • overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    I can't imagine having the ball and hitch on the car would make it any safer. Cars have crumple zones for a reason and it seems like that combo would eliminate that advantage.

    I'm still debating trailer hitch v. roof mount for my bikes as well. I already have a hitch mount rack I use on the MDX so the cost of a hitch v. two roof racks (the kind I'd get...I'm VERY particular with expensive bikes) is very similar. Call me silly but I don't like putting extra weight (of the hitch) on the XT ;-). I also will probably remove the cross bars on the XT and just re-mount them if I need to carry bikes (one bike will fit inside unless I have passengers as well). Decisions. Decisions.

    overtime
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Call me silly but I don't like putting extra weight (of the hitch) on the XT

    Okay, that sounds pretty silly to me. What's your rationale? From a handling perspective 50 lbs on the hitch is a lot safer than on the roof.

    -Frank P.
  • overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    I don't need to carry a bike(s) on a rack very often because I can fit one bike and three people inside the car just fine. So it is 50lbs (of hitch) all the time v. a slightly more awkward load once in a while. I also wouldn't want to keep a bikerack on the roof when not needed so the cross-bars would come off (to reduce windnoise, weight and improve looks). I'm not a 'bike-rack poser' who likes how they look on top of a car because maybe people will think I'm an "active" person. ;-)

    overtime
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    I agree. Weight is the enemy. Howevery IF you are going to add weight, low-to-the-rear is probably the best place for it.

    james
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Weight is the enemy.

    I get plenty of that talk from my wife <sigh>; I don't need it here thankyouverymuch!
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    If anyone is on the fence still, I saw an ad today that Subaru is offering 1.9% financing on FXTs for 60 months. That's a good bit lower than the 3.54% I got (below the 3.99% special offered at the time I bought - I don't know why) and it ought to save a grand or so depending upon how much you finance. At those kind of rates, might as well save your cash.

    The downside to this is that it does not seem to be indicative of a great demand for XTs away from this board.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    does not seem to be indicative of a great demand for XTs away from this board.

    I'm seeing no indications that the XT has become the hot seller we all were sure it would be. It has now been almost 7 months since I bought mine, in a metro area of over 2 mil people and 6 Subaru dealerships within a 25 mile radius - and in all that time, paying close attention, I've seen exactly one other XT on the road, and I've seen that one only once. Yet Subarus in general are so popular here that practically every third car seems to be an Outback or OB Sport or ordinary Forester or whatever. Just no XTs.

    I find this quite perplexing. About 80% (nonscientific) of all pre-XT road tests commented that the NA engine is adequate, but underpowered. The XT certainly rectified that! Yet, not many takers.
  • akasrpakasrp Member Posts: 170
    Impressions of XT on I-5.

    Drove into Los Angeles on Sunday. 200+ miles round trip.
    Arguably one of the worst stretches of concrete in the US - real acid test. (FYI: 14-5-91-57)
    In the worst sections (and if you&#146;ve ever been there - you know these are BAD!) the
    ride was incredibly choppy, harsh and loud and the short-wheelbase
    imparts a bucking bronco element to the mix. One can mollify all this to
    some extent by yelling &#145;Rally Car!&#146; during these extreme passages. In contrast on the rare
    smooth stretches the geolanders meeting the road generated the only significant
    cabin noise - wind noise well controlled even at high-speed.
    On average, the ride and highway noise are reasonable/tolerable and the
    trade offs of handling, instantly available thrust, unparalleled
    visability - all giving one a fine sense of control are IMO worth it. But, honestly if I had to commute this exact route daily I would find another vehicle - or better, find another job!
    Felt safe and secure rumbling alongside the
    big boys and nimbly jockeying for position. Despite the Forester&#146;s relatively small size, I did not feel puny in the least. Love the seat and driving position.

    I am glad I went into this knowing the (IMO) downsides
    to this vehicle and accepting them up front.
    I'm still marvelling at the detailed fit and finish. Rivals/Surpasses any Toyota or Honda I have driven. FWIW, my chudder is seemingly self-healing. Maybe radials were sitting too long on the lot and got 'square'. Anyway, high speeds on smooth roadway not inducing any significant shudder. I'm still keeping a jaundiced eye out.

    Need to know: anyone found the coffee cup/travel mug that makes the perfect fit in the cupholders?

    srp
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Love the seat and driving position.

    I have only two carps on that point. First, when I move the seat to the just-right distance from clutch and deadpedal, it's too close to the throttle, requiring an odd right-leg position - but if I set it right for the throttle, then fully depressing the long-travel clutch is a real toe-tip stretch. Not so on yours?

    And second, the angle of the base cushion is too "flat". Combined with the typical modern seatbelts that won't cinch your hips snugly in place, my butt slides forward (the upholstery doesn't seem very 'grippy'),so I have to frequently re-position myself fully back in the seat. I think about 15-20 degrees of additional seat-base angle (up at front, down at rear) would be very helpful.
  • zmanzman Member Posts: 200
    Jack;

    I'm as good an example of a hesitant XT buyer as there is. I've always wanted the Subaru to have just a touch more power (owned an '82 Loyale Wagon for years and a '97 Outback Wagon more recently). I mentioned I just drove the '04 Forester XS--and, yes, it's still missing something too.

    BUT, the XT forces me to rethink: "why a Subaru?" Its modest fuel economy, premium gasoline, average emissions ratings are "new" issues, ones that many buyers who are inclined towards Subaru are having to adjust to.

    The Forester still appeals primarily as a practical (family?) car, so I not have to convince myself that the trade-off is worth it; more to the point I have to convince my wife (who is a whole lot less taken by power than I am, and a whole lot more committed to economy).

    Zman
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    My wife didn't pose any obstacle; we each buy and drive cars that best match our respective needs. She wasn't happy about my 5-speed requirement, because she prefers an automatic. However, her car has one, and she knows how to drive a stick, so I let my priority dictate the transmission in my car.

    However, for me (and maybe for you) the XT, as delivered, might possibly be overkill. I had in mind a 210HP car (as advertised!), not one with 240-245, as it actually develops. The latter HP figures indicate that the XT is only slightly detuned from STi specs, and that (plus the gearing) accounts for the substantial MPG hit. Obviously, people who want the fastest machine around are very happy. Some of us would have been better served by an "actual" 210HP XT, with the additional de-tuning permitting better MPG and maybe even 87-octane fuel.

    Unfortunately, Subaru gives no middle-ground alternative. If the base Forester's 165HP isn't quite enough, and the XT's 240-whatever is more than you need, you're stuck. Nothing offered by anyone else fills the wide performance gap between the XS and XT any better, IMO.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Good point Jack. What Subaru should do is keep the 165hp engine in the X model and the 245hp one in the XT but offer a detuned (true) 210hp version for the XS. THe later engine should run on regular unleaded and avg 20/26 (city/hwy) mpg.

    -Frank P.
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Sorry in advance for the long post, but it is an important question best answered by looking at the primary competitors. My biases include wanting some off road / inclement weather capability, good performance (acceleration / handling / braking) good equipment levels, good room. Here is my take:

    Honda CRV: Pluses - Honda resale value and reputation for quality. Excellent room for people and stuff. Good price. I passed on it because of no leather (and goofy upholstery), bland looks (I actually liked the first generation better) somewhat tippy handling on the small tires, and just OK power.

    Toyota RAV 4: Pluses - Toyota resale value and reputation for quality. Good looks (best in class IMHO). Good handling. I passed primarily because of its small size (probably perception as much as anything else) and modest power when I was buying. However, if I knew about the new 2.4 l engine, that might have made me think some more. Also, my wife thought the name was goofy and she said she would refuse to drive it.

    Hyundai Sante Fe: Hyundai is really coming around. I think their quality is up, but resale is probably still lagging. Good room. Ok power (would expect more from the V6). Odd looks and the fact that it is a Hyundai kept me away (I know - I am an automotive bigot).

    Mitsubishi Outlander: IMHO, nothing really outstanding about this vehicle one way or another. I used to like Mitsubishi with their subcompacts in the early to mid 1980s, but I think their reputation and resale has sunk below the Koreans (or the Koreans surpassed them). Base Forester beat this in a head to head test in Motor Trend for 2003 models. Like the RAV 4, the new engine makes it a little more interesting in 2004 but not enough to change the equasion.

    Saturn Vue: The available power of the new Honda V6 does not overcome the plastic interior and overall perception of inferior build quality.

    Ford Escape / Mazda Tribute: Actually quite fun to drive with the V6. Good room, decent styling inside (materials are kind of cheap though) and out. Noise vibration and harshness (NVH) worse than Subaru. Concerns about overall quality and resale kept me away.

    Landrover Freelander: Overpriced POS for poseurs.

    Am I missing something? I did not want a truck based model so Xterras, Rodeos, Sorentos were out.

    The clinchers for Subaru: Power, top rated safety, 5 mph bumpers, huge sunroof, and arguably the most capable all wheel drive system as compared to the others. As with everything, there are trade offs, primarily being price, NVH, higher fuel costs but the FXT works for me. I think it would work for more folks if Subaru did a better job marketing.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    keep the 165hp engine in the X model and the 245hp one in the XT but offer a detuned (true) 210hp version for the XS. THe later engine should run on regular unleaded and avg 20/26 (city/hwy) mpg.

    I obviously agree, and my particular requirements would likely have been better met by that intermediate version, but (especially for a car company whose market share is as small as Subaru's) offering 18-gazillion different models is impractical. So, people like zman have to decide on one or the other of the two extremes.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    Truly amazing. Your evaluations of each model you listed are just about exactly what mine are/were - including your view that the RAV-4 is arguably the best looking of the car-based group, but with the dumbest name (not that that alone would have kept me from buying it; the 2-liter engine just lacked cojones). The Trib/Escape twins were ruled out because (stupidly), neither offers a 5-speed MT with the V-6, although I gather that's not an issue for you, else you'd be screaming about no XT sunroof with the 5-speed.

    I think the Kia Sorento has hands-down the best body styling and also a useful amount of room, but the clumsy truck-based underpinnings were unacceptable. I think the Vue is attractive outside, but not inside. The Redline engine wasn't available when I was shopping, but it's highly unlikely that it's available with a stick. However, the 5-speed automatic might have been acceptable.

    Based on my read of your comments, I think you'll wind up with the best combination of virtues offered by any of those choices - the Forester. Your only remaining hard choice will be reasonable MPG with average power (XS) or brilliant performance for not too much more $$, but with mediocre MPG on costly 91-octane fuel (XT).
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    My Assessment of the Freelander was somewhat flippant. Main reason I stayed away was because it has zero cargo room with the seats up and because of the likely high expense of maintaining this vehicle.
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Sorry if I was not clear in the novel that I wrote. I made my choice. We have a FXT PP with AT. I was just trying to help zman, who brought the question up.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Jack- I think you must be having a senior moment :-) George (atlgaxt) already has an AT XT (hence the "XT" in his screen name).

    -Frank P.

    Edit: I see George beat me to the punch :-)
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
  • akasrpakasrp Member Posts: 170
    then fully depressing the long-travel clutch is a real toe-tip stretch

    ahhh - therein lies another beauty of the all-but-wonderful AT. Only one foot to worry about.

    the angle of the base cushion is too "flat"

    I have mine cranked to the full lowest position - and the angle is OK. Anything higher, the seat seems to tilt forward, yes. All in all, I'd prefer a bit of a kick-back to the seat cushion - but again, in full-lowest I'm OK/Happy.

    -srp
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    You're definitely correct that the seat base tilts forward as the height adjuster is raised, annoyingly so. If the base angle remained the same from bottom to top, I'd be happier. As it stands, I'll definitely have to figure out a way to lift the seat front with shims.

    I'd forgotten you bought the slushbox; another senior moment.
  • akasrpakasrp Member Posts: 170
    the less you tend to slide forward in the seats. Must be a physics thing.

    break-in is a bear!

    srp
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    My question is why did Subaru drop the perfectly acceptable fore & aft height adjustment when they redesigned the Forester? Hmm, I wonder if the seats are interchangeable?

    -Frank P.

    Jack- Note how I threw in the nautical terms just for you :-)
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Member Posts: 501
    Frank, I can't believe you would even consider swapping seats after getting that great looking leather addition. :-)
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    George- I'm not. While I miss the dual height adjustment feature, I personally don't have an issue with finding a comfortable seating position in the new seats. I just thought I'd throw it out there for those who do.

    -Frank P.
  • zmanzman Member Posts: 200
    George: I might have a minor quibble or two, but it seems to me that your overall assessment of the Forester and its competition is pretty much right on target. My sampling was a bit smaller because I am interested only in a manual transmission, nor have I driven the XT yet, so I cannot comment as to whether it is overkill (though on paper and to my wife, it is). I may be able to drive it presently, and I'll let you know.

    Zman
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    why did Subaru drop the perfectly acceptable fore & aft height adjustment when they redesigned the Forester

    No doubt somebody like me in the beancounter brigade saw an opportunity to save a whole 28.57 cents per car.
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    so what you're saying is I better buy one now while they are still set up for heel-toe? *clap clap clap....door slams* :-) don't tell anyone, but the only thing holding me back is I'm trying to sell the GT privately, and even though I have a probable buyer, he's still practically a kid and isn't too good about updating me on his financing situation. I have half a mind just to drive to CarMax and take the hit at this point. Now that my mind is made up I just want to get it done.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.