Subaru XT Turbo Forester

16465676970131

Comments

  • bobshere1bobshere1 Member Posts: 59
    They were at the top ratings for High Performance All Season M+S in the Snow and on Ice. Nevertheless, they will not perform as well as a dedicated snow tire. All Season tires are a compromise. I'm sure the Falcon Ziex are a better compromise than the Geolanders, in good or bad weather, wet or dry. I don't think anyone is going to get them because they are dissatisfied with the M+S performance of the Geolanders. The reason to plus size to 17" and get these tires (or the Michelin Pilot A/S) is PERFORMANCE -- e.g., better runs thru curves, better braking, etc. They perform much better on our performance FXT's than the Geolanders.
  • lfdallfdal Member Posts: 679
    Sorry for the misinformation - I thought I'd changed the wiper on the rear of the 04 but hadn't. I expected they'd use the same as all their other 03 Foresters and 03 OBW's.

    So whose brainchild was that defunctive little jewel? The one on the 03 used the regular u-hook, so Anco or Trico both fit. Wonder if the 03 arm fill fit? Or for that matter does the regular 04 Forester X or XS use the same rear arm as the XT?

    I really don't want to get locked into a proprietary wiper blade.

    Larry
  • lfdallfdal Member Posts: 679
    Juice - I've got one on my XT, none on the OBW. For collecting a sample the Fumoto is easier - I know because today I put a glass jar in the stream of the OBW while the (hot) oil was draining. Not too messy, but easier with the Fumoto for sure.

    In terms of a regular change I think its a little easier with the Fumoto, but I already had to explain once to the dealer how to operate it for an oil change. Can't imagine the speedy lube places.

    I really like the rig FRAM has which is on the same idea but includes a hose. Last I looked they still didn't make one for Subaru, however.

    JB - don't know what you're using for a collection device but the oil collector I bought from Pep Boys holds 15 qts and is pretty close to 2 ft in diameter - very tolerant if you don't have it exactly under the best spot when you first remove the plug/open the valve. The oil collects nicely, but one does have to remember to open the vent plug first :<) . Forgot to the 1st time and was watching the oil get closer and closer to the rim until it dawned on me that little vent plug was on there for a reason.

    Larry
  • lfdallfdal Member Posts: 679
    The fasteners used on the oil filter access cover are the same ones as are used on the mud flaps - one of the mechs at the Subaru dealer happened to see me with one while the parts guy was trying to figure out how to order one.

    The parts diagram for the plastic plate didn't cross reference a fastener for the cover, other than the one that provides the pivot point for the cover.

    I tried them and they worked - I was a couple short when I went to change the oil after the dealer did the 1k change.

    Larry - who still can't believe the Patriots did it again. For those from the New England area, you know what I mean.
  • stuhallstuhall Member Posts: 59
    Anyone seen this article already???

    http://www.cartoday.com/content/news/singlepage.asp?in=5549

    Sorry if it's a repeat.
  • corkfishcorkfish Member Posts: 537
    If they leave the 444 axles in it, this would probably be faster than the WRX STI!
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Bob - Thanks for the report on the tires!!

    Stu - We've seen it, but we never get tired of it. :-)

    -Dennis
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Larry: I forget the vent plug once also! Oops!

    I wonder if FRAM does not have the right size, or just doesn't know what size the drain plug is for Subies. Anyone know? Is it a 17mm bolt?

    -juice
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    Bob,

    What 17" wheels (brand and offset) did you get?

    - D.
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    Got through my first full tank of gas last night; the numbers aren't great, but a) I'm a leadfoot and b)the car only has 300 miles on it.

    18.76 mpg, 75% city 25% highway.

    There will be a lot of highway driving this week, much of it done by my less-leaden better half, so I will be interested to see the results.
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    D. -
    Bob got Rota SDR's that have a 48mm offset.

    -Dennis
  • bobshere1bobshere1 Member Posts: 59
    Yup, ROTA SDR. The gold color I got looks spectacular with the white FXT (just like the FXT STi ;) +48 offset on these is the exact same as our OEM FXT wheels. I got 225/50R17. 235/50R17 would have been a slightly better match (the 235/50R17 has a 1% odometer error) but we've heard that they might rub on our '04 FXT's.

        I was noticing some bitching by '04 non-turbo owners (on a Subaru newsgroup) regarding their mpg. I had suggested that those potential buyers who are turned off by FXT's low-ish mpg might want to consider an X or XS. It would seem that the actual savings of going that route aren't so much. Maybe 10 or 15% better mpg. No big deal. I suppose anyone that concerned about mpg's is going to look at a Prius ;) (0-60 = 10 seconds).
  • andmoonandmoon Member Posts: 320
    Dennis & Bobshere1,
    Did your Rotas require an unusual amount of weights to get balanced? Are they 7 or 7.5"?
    My Rota Battle's required more weights than I would have liked.
    Don
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Prius took 11.3 with C&D, Loosh. The Forester XT could go 0-60, come to a complete stop, and then accelerate to 60 again, in the same amount of time!

    19 ain't bad on a green engine driving around Baltimore.

    -juice
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    are 7.5.

    -Dennis
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Actually, the X/XS gets about 20% better mpg.

    -Frank P.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    and don't forget the premium vs 87 octane differential of about 10%-- net affect, we are now talking about 30% lower fuel cost per mile.

    John
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    From what I see here and on other forums, most XTs are delivering close to my average, around 20. That, plus the premium differential, makes the per-mile cost difference closer to 40% compared to an X/XS. And that definitely adds up.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    else agree that the long term mpg average (both AT and MTs) for the XT is about 21-22 and the X/XS about 26-27 (based on posts we see here on Edmunds)? I personally get long term about 27-8 with the 5 speed XS, but that is in sunny California.

    If we take 5 mpg differential and use the XT as the base, the X/XS is about 20-25% higher in fuel mileage.

    IMO, the difference can be broken down to about 2 mpg due to the final drive, and about 3 mpg due to the engine/driving habit differences. I am basing this in part on the Baja Turbo that has a 3.9 final drive, 500 lbs more weight, wider body, etc., but still gets 1 mpg better than the XT according to EPA estimates.

    John
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    agree that the long term mpg average (both AT and MTs) for the XT is about 21-22

    Nope. Mine, at about 5400 miles, has averaged about 20.2, and that's on about 80% freeway, 20% suburban driving, hardly ever over 70mph.
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    This time all highway: 22 dead even.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    I don't get what I think is the "average" either for the XS, but I see a number of reports that creep into the 23, even 24 for long trips. Yours does seem low, but 21-22 seems centric for what we hear.

    John
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    You said XS; I assume you meant XT.

    If the average for all XTs is 21-22 in mixed city-highway, I ought to be averaging 23 or better.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    @ 5400miles you are about 4600miles from true break-in on a subie.

    -mike
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Speaking of mpg avgs... I think I spoke too hastily. I Just filled up my XT today after a tank of 80/20 hwy/city and I got 25 mpg. Whoo hoo! And most fortuitously I am in the fairly unique position to do a direct comparison with a tankful from my 01 S (same as XS) which avg'd 27.5 mpg under almost identical circumstances. So... it would appear that driven under similar conditions, the X/XS really do get only 10% better mpg. Add in the 10% premium differential and the true additional cost of fuel is approx 20%. Considering that the XT is 45% faster 0-60 (C&D figures), I think that's a fair trade-off :-)

    -Frank P.
  • chassolchassol Member Posts: 95
    Love the 2004 FXT with auto, but this is unreal -
    chassol "2005 Subaru Legacy and Outback" Feb 3, 2004 6:54pm.

    May have to trade the 2002 VDC Sedan come summer.

    If they keep this up I'm going to have to work another job. 5 speed auto - 17" tires - 250hp -
    0 to 60 5.5 seconds (MT or AT?) - Speedometer goes to 160 MPH

    Man oh man Subaru is really coming to life........
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    My last two fill-ups with the '00 S:

    60:40 hwy:city = 22.7 mpg
    20:80 hwy:city = 21.2 mpg

    No roof rack or crossbars, average highway speeds 65-70 mph. With nasty snow/ice storms, a lot of driving both city and highway has been at a crawl to boot.

    Granted, we have had a much colder than usual January and we get the awful oxygenated fuels for winter. Still, majority reports of XTs in the low twenties (dismissing the high and low outliers) doesn't dissuade me a bit from going the XT route.

    Must resist urge a while longer...at least until '05 color choices/options become known...

    Ed
  • lfdallfdal Member Posts: 679
    20% lower for the XT is just about right for my driving style - that's going from 1 year of XS driving directly to 6 months of XT driving. In my case that would by ~27.x highway for the XS and ~22.x for the XT. Around town it might be more than that - closer to 25%.

    Larry
  • john284john284 Member Posts: 71
    Would it be nice to have FXT turbo turned off at cruising speed to save gas? sort of like V6 deactivation to V3 during cruising? so FXT would be like a XS on the highway? Maybe this has already been done.
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    the exhaust is supposed to go if you do that.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    When you're at cruising speed you should be totally "off-boost" so the turbo has no detrimental effect on the fuel consumption.

    -Frank P.
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    I don't think the XT is ever off-boost!! Well maybe at 500 rpm's.

    If the turbo starts spooling at around 1,500 - 2,000, I don't think you will be at off-boost during cruising speed.

    -Dennis
  • bobshere1bobshere1 Member Posts: 59
    My comments on the mpg of XT vs X/XS were that I had thought X/XS would get hi 20's and that I had seen reports of low 20's (under 25mpg) by many X/XS owners. We've seen XT owners generally report low 20's, with some getting an occasional mid-20's.

       The mystifying thing is that some XT owners report getting 25 and more on occasion and others, like myself, have never gotten anything like that. We've been thru all the quantifiable factors and haven't pinpointed the reason for this. It isn't my roof rack or my lack of highway usage. Hi mileage XT's are not getting babied to get those numbers. Seasonable variations and differences in gas formulations in different areas don't produce consistant differences either. Like I said, it's a mystery to me....

       I don't know anything about weights added to the wheels (whether they were added or whether there are "a lot", but the total weight of the new 17" ROTA's + 17" Falcon Ziex tires is about the same as the OEM wheel/tire. About 38-40 lb.
  • andmoonandmoon Member Posts: 320
    IMHO
    Downshifting a gear and staying off the gas will send rpms up but there will be no boost. Not only does the turbo have to spool, it has to spool at a rate that is fast enough to push rather than be pulled by the intake flow. I think boost is related to load more than rpms (granted there is a minimum required rpm to get boost). A steady speed may or may not cause positive boost. If the speeds are low enough then there will be no boost (65 in my wrx = no boost), if there is enough drag (wind, hill etc) then there will be boost at a steady speed.
    Downshifting will send the rpms higher which reduces the time the turbo takes to go from neg to pos boost but if the car is kept at a lower gear and driven at a steady speed (lets say 55 in 3rd), there will be no pos boost.
    I do not know what the turbo's rpms are during all this.
    Don
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Was going to say, boost isn't 100% tied to RPMs. For instance if you gas it in neutral, you will never hit any boost.

    -mike
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    I don't think the XT is ever off-boost!! Well maybe at 500 rpm's. If the turbo starts spooling at around 1,500 - 2,000, I don't think you will be at off-boost during cruising speed.

    Not correct. As with any turbo, the XT's boost is highly dependent on throttle and engine load. While it is capable of developing positive boost all the way down to 1500 RPMs, it does so only when considerable throttle is applied, i.e. acceleration is demanded.

    Conversely, the XT is perfectly capable of maintaining steady-state level-ground cruising (no acceleration, light throttle load) clear up to 80 or 90 mph, and the XT's turbo will not be generating any positive boost. This is what Frank meant, and he's correct.

    One XT owner on another forum said he maintained a level-ground steady-state cruising speed of around 105mph and still observed negative boost (less than zero) on the gauge. I have not, of course, attempted to duplicate this...
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
  • john284john284 Member Posts: 71
    With a brick shape, there is much load at cruising speed and with cruising RPM around 2,000, the turbo should be work constantly, could someone with turbo gauge in their FXT confirm if there is positive readings on the dial while cruising? My gut feeling is that the turbo kicks in very often, when there is any change or variations in the road and wind. In other words, if you set the turbo at lower RPM, you pretty much turbocharge your system at all time. WRX is an exception in that sense.

    -Water
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    I have the boost gauge, and I can absolutely confirm that at 80mph (the highest speed I've had occasion to travel in the XT) the boost gauge is far below zero on the gauge unless accelerating or climbing a hill.

    Think of it this way: The XT and regular Forester have the same exact body profile, and they each require approximately the same amount of horsepower to overcome all types of drag and maintain a given steady-state speed.

    The naturally-aspirated 2.5 Forester is capable of reaching a top speed of around 110 mph with no boost assist whatsoever. Likewise, the XT will be able to reach and maintain that same speed without going above zero on the turbo boost gauge. Only when the XT's engine is required to make more power than the X/XS versions at any given RPM will the turbocharger spin up and develop positive boost. The rest of the time, the turbocharger is essentially idling. Unlike an engine-driven supercharger, a turbocharger is purely an on-demand device.
  • andmoonandmoon Member Posts: 320
    Water,
    My turbo is set to come on lower and as you mentioned, it is very sensitive to slight load changes but the same rule applies...at steady state cruise it stays off boost.
    Don
  • f1_roxf1_rox Member Posts: 23
    Whenever my XT 5MT goes over a big pothole or a large depression(rear of the car goes up and down), I can hear the rear suspension squeak or some kind of rubbing sound. I originally thought it is due to the extreme cold, but it was over freezing today and it still does it. Does anyone have the same observation?

    Is the sound coming from the strut? Spring? Styrofoam rubbing bumper? Chassis flex? Any idea?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'd say maybe 100mph, as the turbo will cause more drag on the engine even under no-boost conditions.

    -mike
  • krccrkkrccrk Member Posts: 36
    My 2001 S 5-speed use to average around 27 mpg, my XT 5-speed averages 24 mpg.

    Ken
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    I'd say maybe 100mph, as the turbo will cause more drag on the engine even under no-boost conditions.

    True, but the XT/STi engine has other power-improving advantages, such as variable intake valve timing and better-flowing heads, that probably allow this newer engine to make more power at WOT and at any given RPM than the 2.5 naturally-aspirated engine would be capable of.

    It's all academic, anyway. The fact is that the XT can easily maintain flat-ground steady-state cruising speeds reaching into triple digits without any positive turbo boost at all. At more normal highway speeds (70-80mph), it can even provide a moderate degree of acceleration while still showing zero or less (i.e. negative) boost. It's a misconception to think that it necessarily would be running on boost under these conditions. It's not.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    but why does the XT get lower mpg then?

    Either the XT engine is less efficient...

    or, the turbo is putting more fuel/air mixture into the engine.

    "Boost" can be negative too, and still supply a higher fuel/air flow than the 2.5 NA.

    John
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    The XT gets lower MPG than the X/XS for several reasons: (not necessarily in order)

    1. Shorter final drive, requiring the engine to spin faster at any given speed, creating more friction to overcome (which requires burning/wasting fuel). Friction rises with the square of increased RPM.

    2. The XT/STi engine is quite likely programmed to operate at higher fuel/air ratios than its naturally-aspirated brethren to reduce the possibility of overheating and to enhance durability. In other words, Subaru may have traded off optimal air/fuel and fuel consumption in favor of durability.

    3. The forced-induction XT/STi engines have lower compression ratios than the NA 2.5. This reduces their ability to extract the maximum power out of a unit of fuel.

    These and other differentiating factors could and do cause the XT to consume more fuel even when producing identical steady-state power outputs.
  • corkfishcorkfish Member Posts: 537
    I'm probably averaging between 19 and 22 mpg. No offense, but when I hear claims of 25 or 26 mpg I have to roll my eyes. Anyone think that changing to Amsoil synthetic at 6000 miles is to soon? My XT has 4500 miles on it and I changed the oil twice ( with regular Havoline). I'm thinking of moving to synthetic at my next oil change, but since some people claim that these engines don't even need a break in period and others claim they aren't ready for 10,000 miles, I'm not sure how to proceed.
  • ballisticballistic Member Posts: 1,687
    My average is 20.2. When I see the 25-26 numbers (and even occasionally 27-28), I react the same way.

    I haven't decided whether to switch to synthetic. If one cannot lengthen the change intervals, then I'm not convinced that the higher price is worth it.
  • kate5000kate5000 Member Posts: 1,271
    I was almost set to buy FXT (auto) in the next 2-3 months, but all this talk about low MPG and climate control quirks scare me, to be honest.
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.