My metric for judging a product: knowing what I do now would I buy it again? I'm pleased to say, yes. I'll likely buy another when Subaru freshens the model in 2006 (eg side air curtains,better lighted instrument panels, a sway bar maybe).
I also count myself among Forester owners who wish for options in VTD, VDC, HID headlamps, and while you're at it, toss in a Sportshift AT. I doubt we'll see any of that until the next generation (2007?).
Until then we have a very good value for the money in the Second Generation Forester. Only defects on my vehicle (so far) have been two guidebars out of adjustment and slight leaks from the same windows: stretched weather stripping, from misalignment of those windows, I'd guess.
For comparision during 4 years and 50k miles with my 2000 S, I had one rattle (regular grease fixed it until Subaru redesigned a noisy latch). Lid on the gas tank that frequently needed adjusting.
In 2000 I found a lot to like. In 2004, much more to like, (even the Geo 900s seem improved over Geo H/T; maybe not best we can buy, but better...).
My only serious issue revolves around Subaru's top management. Are they committed to old core values of safety, quality and performance? If so, do they have what it takes to deliver?
Every Subaru owner has a stake in that. It's more than just protecting resale value of our vehicles. Each of us is a potential buyer too. And it seems to me there arn't many Subaru alternatives. There are more Subaru-wannabes ("me too" vehicles) but I am not persuaded any do it better than a Forester when it comes to safety, quality & performance at competitive price.
We'd miss Subaru if they were gone, or worse, if they lingered in slow death, turning out the kind of inferior vehicles we gave up when we bought our first Forester. My concern is based on what seems an inability and/or reluctance of Subaru to raise standards for all their models to those enjoyed by Forester.
A recent and notorious example was the 2005 Legacy IIHS side-impact test failure, and the recall that test caused. QC failures allowed sale of vehicles with inoperable airbags. Then the second IIHS test in which the 2005 Legacy manages only a "Marginal" (ie major chest injuries, indicative of SAB and/or safety cage deficiencies) for a side-impact crash.
For those of us who have entrusted our safety (and invested our money) with Subaru these failures are of consequence and how they are dealt with will, I believe, tell us the kind of company we keep.
Jake PS: One final thought. For anyone thinking about buying a Subaru Forester, I add one more reason: these forums, the presence of SOA representation on them, and many caring members who give freely of their time and talents.
I've heard that the Contis are difficult to keep balanced. Look at Tire Rack tire reviews on their website. Yokahama make some other tires which might be a good swap. Check out the Avid and DBS
Jake: in that case the OE battery for the XT is a lot better than what Subaru used to put in there. My '98's was pathetic, something like 260 CCAs. Even a cheap WalMart battery was a big step up.
these forums, the presence of SOA representation on them, and many caring members who give freely of their time and talents
..about the '05 XT actual gas mileage - anyone have numbers?
Three fill-ups: 20.9, 20.1, 19.5 mpg. Just went over 1000 miles on the odo earlier this week; a fourth fill-up likely tomorrow. Mostly stop-go-stop-go real fast on US 1 and the PA Turnpike.
saw the first XT on Fresno streets today, a beautiful silver unit. Anxious to check it out, I noticed that there was an elderly lady (PC) driving it at slow speed in the right lane. Life is very interesting!
Do you feel you want better braking, even with your SLs and Pilot Sports? I think braking is one area that vastly improved when I ditched the Geolandars for the summer.
Can you use the SP5000's in the snow? Dunlops are great, but I don't want to have to swap tires around and would like something I can drive all the time.
samiam: No, it's not really. Again, my car only has 1200 miles on it, so I don't consider it broken in yet. My '00 Forester's fuel economy got steadily better up to about 10K miles. In addition my highway driving isn't the nice, steady flowing highway driving at which I'd expect to see max mpg. Finally, it's the XT for goodness sakes - I'm going to have some fun with it! I will make a conscious effort to drive more smoothly and not put a foot into it and see what effect that will have.
Loosh: Yes, I still want better braking. Colin and I chatted a little about brakes and suspension last night; Patti weighed in as well. I've notice that the XT's brake pads give off a lot more dust than my first Forester's did. Patti replied to the effect that perhaps the pad composition has been altered for quieter operation. Odd, I never noticed the old car having loud brakes. I realize there are tradeoffs to be had, and since I often have my family as passengers quiet is good.
It makes me think of a sign I once saw in the window of a lunch counter in South Carolina:
We do things here three ways: good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two.
If you want good and fast, it won't be cheap. If you want good and cheap, it won't be fast. If you want fast and cheap, it won't be good.
Subsitute noisy, dusty and quick stopping, or something to that effect.
At least here in eastern PA. On my old Forester I drove on my SP5000s in up to 12" of snow. I'd really recommend the tire as a good all-rounder in the OEM size - great combo of ride, handling, noise, treadwear and price. No, I am not getting paid to endorse them.
Had them on my GT and still have them on our Outback. They wear faster, it is true, but that is because they are pretty sticky, given their price. I'm happy if I get 30-40k out of them, as they have proven to be great all-rounders for us, too. They got us home through 12-18" 2 years ago, and still perform very well in the summer and in the rain. At around $100 each, I don't mind trading the safety for lower tread life.
Sorry to hear that, but I put 25K on the SP5000s on the last car, with plenty of life left in them when I traded it. Never experienced the problems you describe.
I've used that credo many times when I was teaching software development classes ... I think it is called "Truman's Triangle", with each corner labeled "Good", "Fast" and "Cheap".
Ed, Pick up some cheap 17's to use in winter, and upgrade to the Subaru 4-pots. :-) You could buy some Rota's for nearly what you could sell your OEM Enkei's for.
Ironically, I've used it in that context as well. Over the last 7 years I've taught courses on testing and validation of software for use in pharmaceutical and medical device development, QA/QC and manufacturing. I've also used it when advising software vendors as to what their pharma/medical device customers will expect of their software and the documentation and services they offer in support of it.
It's the good old Scope/Schedule/Resouce triangle of project management.
Ed -- I wonder if Subaru switched brake pad compounds for MY05. My LGT also produces more brake dust than my Forester, even after I had upgraded the front rotors/pads to WRX ones.
It took divine intervention from the fine Web people over at SOA to complete my page, and my XT is now Black, and NO longer an XT Base? I find it hard to imagine that everyone's color is the same, or is it?
I took Corkfish's advice and read some of the reports of Conti Extreme vehicles unable to hold balance. It got me thinking about an urban legend warning us to beware of replacing OE tire, esp on AWD vehicles.
For us the warning would go something like this: Subaru engineers selected Geolandar 900s so as to deliver the optimal handling/performance Forester designers intended. It's marriage. What Subaru has joined together let no autogeek put asunder....
A corollary (and paradox) if that legend is true: OE tires rated mediocre by majority of users may perform better on a Forester than would otherwise be expected. To push the analogy, a hundred people may thinik my wife sings poorly, but she and I may sound much better singing together.
Now lets talk Geo 900 tires. They have low ratings on Tiretrack for snow traction, yet I observed, to my pleasant surprise, good traction for snow and a pretty impressive handling on ice as well. I'm not alone in this observation. I noticed from some old posts that Jack (Ballistic) observed the same when he drove on snow and compacted ice.
I can't say 900s are best available A/S tire for the Forester wrt snow traction but I will say its better than the Geo H/T on my 2000S were during my first year.
Question: how much of snow/ice performance with my 2004 Forester was do to tires and how much was the result of design synergy of tires with the rest of the Forester platform?
I'm wondering what to do when I look at a Conti Extreme Contact, with it's high snow rating. Put Conti or Dunlop on my Forester and it seems I got usual risks of correct tire specs and installation. But what to think about "re-marriage risk"? I don't know.
What would be useful is a review of tires that hurt or help specific makes and models. In other words a Consumer Reports-type testing. Absent that, those that may know (Subaru and Yoko) arn't likely to say (unless, of course, the Yoko Geo 900 really is the optimal Forester tire....).
Jake PS: Juice, I believe Subaru had two OE batteries for First Gen Foresters. Top trim "S" got you a 500-something CCA battery. Low trim (& MTs?)got a battery with much less CCA. Dealer's parts guru told me that OEM (Interstate Battery) is 550 CCA and std on Forester. A OK but not great CCA. (in ND: temps of -20F & WCFs below -60F; circa 800 CCA is optimal around here).
since not every tire is available in every market. For instance, the OEM tire on a Legacy in the US is not the same as in the UK. Only when you get to the supercar level, where the carmaker and the tire maker have collaborated purposefully, does this synergy argument hold water. Otherwise, it's a question of economies of scale and business relationships, not engineering.
Consumer Reports DID do an all weather tire review. See November '93. The Falken Ziex 512's were reviewed so favorably (I have 'em) that they are quite hard to find now. They are HALF the price of the Michelin A/S, another well received tire.
If Subaru intended to "marry" FXT to the Geolandars, it was a poorly arranged wedding. People buying FXT are obviously interested in PERFORMANCE. The tirerack rated "4" out ten Geo's are, perhaps, adequate for X or XS Foresters. FXT should have been outfitted with 17" wheels and much better tires than the Geolandars. How much more would these bits have added to the selling price? One would think, at the very least, the wheels/tires upgrade would have been offered as part of the Premium Package, or at least as an option.
If you were to drive FXT with Plus Sized good tires and the STi Rear Anti-Swaybar you'd understand my consternation with the "union" concocted by Subaru for FXT for wheels/tires.
Lucien, Thanks for the input. I'm pretty cynical too when it comes to any automaker's selection of OEMs (I'm sceptical, for example, of using Mitsubishi ATs as OE for FXT...).
But just because some selections of some OEMs are clearly driven by manufacturer greed or stupidity doesn't prove every OEM is chosen that way. We'd expect (hope?) more "visible" OEM selection would be driven by customer/regulatory agencies demands.
Tires are very visible especially when they don't perform well or fail badly (eg Ford's Explorer).
Bob: The review on my "wish list" would have CR test all major tire brands by class using models from every automaker as test vehicles. It's a big review and to my knowledge it's not been done, by anyone. But if it were undertaken we'd be able to say tire "X" does perform better than tires "A,B etc" on a Forester or OB because those tires were in fact tested objectively on Subarus.
From a cursory read of Tirerack reviews it seems patterns exist among different vehicle makes and models for any given tire. A question that occurs to me is, Will tires rated a "Best" on a Ford, or Toyota, still be a "Best" on a 2nd Gen Forester? It'd be useful to know that answer from a CR test track before we buy a tire.
It took over a month (maybe even two?) before my VIN number was accepted at mysubaru. The color shows up as black - it's a stock photo. My XT is silver. My '01 was white and photo on mysubaru was blue or green... don't recall. Elissa
that is disapointing news. I am still trying to figure out what good this site does, and at least if Subaru could get the Color AND the name of my Car right. I didn't spend 30 Thousand to see the word Forester Base, and a little red x where my Forester should be. Now I see my Black beauty, yet you tell me they all are Black, a sign you should of gone with Black, you know what they say?
My 03 XS had the 320 (not sure if 320, but 3 something less than 350) CCA battery, and my 04 XT has the same battery. I replaced the 04's with a 560 CCA WalMart special.
Re: mySubaru.com, it is a convenient place to keep maintenance records, check service intervals, and see if there are any pending recalls / service campaigns against your vehicle. I agree that it wouldn't be that much effort to show the color of your vehicle, and would add a personal touch to the process.
Had the GEO's on my 03 XS in winter. For the 04 I went with steel rims and a set of Firestone Winterforce snows ($50 per). Noiser than the OEM, but I was happier with them than the GEO's in the foul weather. YMMV
Anyone coast in ther 5 speed? As with engine break in, this seems to another topic of debate. Legality and brake pads aside, does coasting cause any damage to the tranny? I've always coasted and I've never had to replace a clutch or had any transmission problems. I would think that if anything, this would be beneficial in the sense that the transmission and engine are both effetively in neutral. Better gas mileage and less wear and tear. Am I missing something?
Almost all modern cars shut off the fuel injectors if you are in gear and going faster than 35 mph or so. With the car in neutral, you are using gas to keep the engine idling. Not much of a difference, but if you are after gas mileage, keeping in gear is the way to go.
I always "coast" if coming up to a stop. There is less wear and tear on the drivetrain in doing so, plus with the AWD you can end up with a lot of jerking if you have to apply the gas again.
Note, I am talking about a manual, I would never coast (neutral) in an automatic. Nor would coasting be a good idea if going down a hill.
Brian- So you're saying that if I'm going down a long hill, I'd use less gas leaving it in gear at 3k rpm than I would if I put the clutch in and coasted with the engine at the 750 rpm idle speed?
To me, I get value from the site in being able to organize and keep up with my regularly scheduled maint. Granted, I have all the work on the car in a three-ring binder, but seeing it quickly on line and being able to print it on one sheet can be handy at times. It's also useful to see your maint schedule on line, track your annual mileage, get updates on TSBs/recalls. Other than that, that's it. That's all ANY of the manufacturers' "personalized" sites do for you as far as I know. I mean, if I want to see a pretty photo of my car, I'm not going to go to the subaru website! I'll post a photo of MY car someplace; that's not the value of this site. I don't know what to tell you but I think you spent $30K on a CAR not a web site so this is just a 'nice to have' not a 'must'. Hope you can come to terms with it :-( elissa
My concern with coasting would be not in the coasting itself, but in the eventual engaging of a gear. While many of us can probably guess pretty well which gear to pop into when we're done coasting, there is still some risk that you pop into to low or high a gear based on the terrain and either lug your engine or rev it too high. My bigger (and admittedly theoretical) fear is, that while the gears ARE synchro-meshed, I don't know what your engaging gear would mesh TO. I think without double clutching from neutral into a gear, you'd be putting unnecessary wear and tear on the clutch, gears and synchros by popping into any gear from neutral. But I am hypothesizing here. Maybe someone else can tell me that's crazy? Elissa
Yes, thats my fear. For example while driving home from Maine there are several big hills on the highway and virtually no traffic. I coasted down these hills and am certain that it saves gas because I'm sometimes driving half a mile with the engine at idle speed ( also doing a lot to keep the motor/tranny cool). Naturally when I hit the bottom of the hill I shift into 5th gear cause I'm still doing 70 or 75. As I mentioned, I would think this saves gas as well as wear and tear because you're basically traveling without anything engaged. Nonetheless, I've heard people say that it's bad for the transmission, but I can't find anyone who can verify this with any evidence. Does the tranny need to be in gear for the fluid to be properly dispersed?
"Does the tranny need to be in gear for the fluid to be properly dispersed?"
No your tranny is still turning, it's just not connected to the engine. If you blip the gas to increase your RPMs to approx what they'd be if in gear and then let out the clutch (rev matching), I can't see where there'd be a problem.
Coasting down hills with a manual tranny may save an insignificant amount of fuel - length / percent of grade, gearing, RPM dependent. However, you will lose some control of the vehicle if the drive line is disengaged - especially if you need to accelerate / decelerate immediately to avoid a problem. Properly matching drivetrain speed will greatly reduce stress / wear as with any gear exchange.
Yeah, what Frank is suggesting is essentially double-clutching. You want the engine speed to be as closely matched to your tranny's gear speed when you engage the two otherwise there will be some real stress you'd be putting on both components. Imagine an engine at 750 RPM engaging to a gear that brings it up to 3000 RPM in a split second. Ouch. Yes, that's what a clutch is for but rarely in normal synchro-meshed driving is a clutch called upon to mesh 750 to 3000. Hm... unless you like to abuse your vehicle and skip a gear or two when downshifting. Ouch. I'd second what Frank said and try to get the engine RPM to match what it would be in if you HAD been in gear before GOING into that gear.
Of course, my husband likes to coast then slam it into the appropriate' gear when he's done coasting. That's his response to me asking him not to ride the clutch when coasting (sigh). I just don't have the argument left in me to suggest he do this rev matching on our own cars because I know I'll have to listen to an hour of "I've been driving manual transmissions for 20 years...." So, it probably won't KILL the car if you do coast and then just slip it in gear without the double-clutching. By the way, my husband's driving technique earned him two clutch replacements on the same car within 90K miles... I don't know WHY he doesn't listen to me on this stuff...... I rant. :-)
Doesn't matter if you coast or leave it in gear downhill, you're not using much gas in either case, regardless of engine RPM. Why? Because there's no load on the engine, just vacuum uncompressed by the pistons to give some engine braking. The throttle is closed, so, the amount of gas being used is identical to just idling in neutral (or maybe even less, since the tranny is turning the engine now, instead of the other way around). If you have one of those trip computers, watch the instanteneous MPG when going down a decent hill in gear - it will run out of digits at 99+ MPG.
...when your wife knows about synchros, gears, clutches, (I'm starting to infer here....hopefully you get my drift) pressure plates and throwout bearings......(sigh!): it ain't always true.....best...ez
Larry, That's surprising you'd have a 2nd Gen XS with a 300 handle CCA battery. IIRC from my 2000 S manual CCA spec was 500-something and my dealer assures the '04 Forester I own is CCA 550 (thanks SoA for taking the info out of our owner's manual...:-(
BTW I "battle-tested" the battery last winter when I started my Forester in a headwind of 40mph, with a ambient air temp of -minus 20. I'd parked it for a couple hours so the battery was cranking at minus 20F. It turned the engined BUT I doubt I had reserve enough for more than one more crank if the engine failed to turn over. So I'm looking for more CCA than 550.
Jake, PS: I don't recall if there is a "cold weather" option anymore but I'm wondering if all these low CCA batteries I keep hearing about may be due to a geographic/climate decision by SoA.
Hi Steve, I was browsing around the site looking for info on the Forester XT are thinking of buying and discovered that you are from Boise as well...Hello neighbor!
The XT looks great. We looked at a Highlander but agreed with other posts that it is too big a beast. My one hesitation on the Forester was with the wheel bearing issue, but I understand Subaru redesigned that with the 2003 model. Do you know of any other issues with the 04 XT?
He left the Country and never returned? Great State Farm news, my Insurance rates have dropped with the XT, as they are sticking me in another one of their Companies. Of course they made me sign a paper, I no longer have protection in case of a Nuclear attack, and if I hit a pedestrian in Florida, I am covered as long as the Pedestrian is from Florida, WHAT?
Comments
I also count myself among Forester owners who wish for options in VTD, VDC, HID headlamps, and while you're at it, toss in a Sportshift AT. I doubt we'll see any of that until the next generation (2007?).
Until then we have a very good value for the money in the Second Generation Forester. Only defects on my vehicle (so far) have been two guidebars out of adjustment and slight leaks from the same windows: stretched weather stripping, from misalignment of those windows, I'd guess.
For comparision during 4 years and 50k miles with my 2000 S, I had one rattle (regular grease fixed it until Subaru redesigned a noisy latch). Lid on the gas tank that frequently needed adjusting.
In 2000 I found a lot to like. In 2004, much more to like, (even the Geo 900s seem improved over Geo H/T; maybe not best we can buy, but better...).
My only serious issue revolves around Subaru's top management. Are they committed to old core values of safety, quality and performance? If so, do they have what it takes to deliver?
Every Subaru owner has a stake in that. It's more than just protecting resale value of our vehicles. Each of us is a potential buyer too. And it seems to me there arn't many Subaru alternatives. There are more Subaru-wannabes ("me too" vehicles) but I am not persuaded any do it better than a Forester when it comes to safety, quality & performance at competitive price.
We'd miss Subaru if they were gone, or worse, if they lingered in slow death, turning out the kind of inferior vehicles we gave up when we bought our first Forester. My concern is based on what seems an inability and/or reluctance of Subaru to raise standards for all their models to those enjoyed by Forester.
A recent and notorious example was the 2005 Legacy IIHS side-impact test failure, and the recall that test caused. QC failures allowed sale of vehicles with inoperable airbags. Then the second IIHS test in which the 2005 Legacy manages only a "Marginal" (ie major chest injuries, indicative of SAB and/or safety cage deficiencies) for a side-impact crash.
For those of us who have entrusted our safety (and invested our money) with Subaru these failures are of consequence and how they are dealt with will, I believe, tell us the kind of company we keep.
Jake
PS: One final thought. For anyone thinking about buying a Subaru Forester, I add one more reason: these forums, the presence of SOA representation on them, and many caring members who give freely of their time and talents.
-mike
these forums, the presence of SOA representation on them, and many caring members who give freely of their time and talents
Amen, Jake. Thanks, too.
-juice
Three fill-ups: 20.9, 20.1, 19.5 mpg. Just went over 1000 miles on the odo earlier this week; a fourth fill-up likely tomorrow. Mostly stop-go-stop-go real fast on US 1 and the PA Turnpike.
Ed
John
Do you feel you want better braking, even with your SLs and Pilot Sports? I think braking is one area that vastly improved when I ditched the Geolandars for the summer.
-Dennis
Loosh: Yes, I still want better braking. Colin and I chatted a little about brakes and suspension last night; Patti weighed in as well. I've notice that the XT's brake pads give off a lot more dust than my first Forester's did. Patti replied to the effect that perhaps the pad composition has been altered for quieter operation. Odd, I never noticed the old car having loud brakes. I realize there are tradeoffs to be had, and since I often have my family as passengers quiet is good.
It makes me think of a sign I once saw in the window of a lunch counter in South Carolina:
We do things here three ways: good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two.
If you want good and fast, it won't be cheap.
If you want good and cheap, it won't be fast.
If you want fast and cheap, it won't be good.
Subsitute noisy, dusty and quick stopping, or something to that effect.
Ed
Ed
-juice
Ed
Still and all, it makes sense.
Pick up some cheap 17's to use in winter, and upgrade to the Subaru 4-pots. :-) You could buy some Rota's for nearly what you could sell your OEM Enkei's for.
-Dennis
Ed
Ed -- I wonder if Subaru switched brake pad compounds for MY05. My LGT also produces more brake dust than my Forester, even after I had upgraded the front rotors/pads to WRX ones.
Ken
For us the warning would go something like this: Subaru engineers selected Geolandar 900s so as to deliver the optimal handling/performance Forester designers intended. It's marriage. What Subaru has joined together let no autogeek put asunder....
A corollary (and paradox) if that legend is true: OE tires rated mediocre by majority of users may perform better on a Forester than would otherwise be expected. To push the analogy, a hundred people may thinik my wife sings poorly, but she and I may sound much better singing together.
Now lets talk Geo 900 tires. They have low ratings on Tiretrack for snow traction, yet I observed, to my pleasant surprise, good traction for snow and a pretty impressive handling on ice as well. I'm not alone in this observation. I noticed from some old posts that Jack (Ballistic) observed the same when he drove on snow and compacted ice.
I can't say 900s are best available A/S tire for the Forester wrt snow traction but I will say its better than the Geo H/T on my 2000S were during my first year.
Question: how much of snow/ice performance with my 2004 Forester was do to tires and how much was the result of design synergy of tires with the rest of the Forester platform?
I'm wondering what to do when I look at a Conti Extreme Contact, with it's high snow rating. Put Conti or Dunlop on my Forester and it seems I got usual risks of correct tire specs and installation. But what to think about "re-marriage risk"? I don't know.
What would be useful is a review of tires that hurt or help specific makes and models. In other words a Consumer Reports-type testing. Absent that, those that may know (Subaru and Yoko) arn't likely to say (unless, of course, the Yoko Geo 900 really is the optimal Forester tire....).
Jake
PS: Juice, I believe Subaru had two OE batteries for First Gen Foresters. Top trim "S" got you a 500-something CCA battery. Low trim (& MTs?)got a battery with much less CCA. Dealer's parts guru told me that OEM (Interstate Battery) is 550 CCA and std on Forester. A OK but not great CCA. (in ND: temps of -20F & WCFs below -60F; circa 800 CCA is optimal around here).
If Subaru intended to "marry" FXT to the Geolandars, it was a poorly arranged wedding. People buying FXT are obviously interested in PERFORMANCE. The tirerack rated "4" out ten Geo's are, perhaps, adequate for X or XS Foresters. FXT should have been outfitted with 17" wheels and much better tires than the Geolandars. How much more would these bits have added to the selling price? One would think, at the very least, the wheels/tires upgrade would have been offered as part of the Premium Package, or at least as an option.
If you were to drive FXT with Plus Sized good tires and the STi Rear Anti-Swaybar you'd understand my consternation with the "union" concocted by Subaru for FXT for wheels/tires.
Bob
Thanks for the input. I'm pretty cynical too when it comes to any automaker's selection of OEMs (I'm sceptical, for example, of using Mitsubishi ATs as OE for FXT...).
But just because some selections of some OEMs are clearly driven by manufacturer greed or stupidity doesn't prove every OEM is chosen that way. We'd expect (hope?) more "visible" OEM selection would be driven by customer/regulatory agencies demands.
Tires are very visible especially when they don't perform well or fail badly (eg Ford's Explorer).
Bob: The review on my "wish list" would have CR test all major tire brands by class using models from every automaker as test vehicles. It's a big review and to my knowledge it's not been done, by anyone. But if it were undertaken we'd be able to say tire "X" does perform better than tires "A,B etc" on a Forester or OB because those tires were in fact tested objectively on Subarus.
From a cursory read of Tirerack reviews it seems patterns exist among different vehicle makes and models for any given tire. A question that occurs to me is, Will tires rated a "Best" on a Ford, or Toyota, still be a "Best" on a 2nd Gen Forester? It'd be useful to know that answer from a CR test track before we buy a tire.
Jake
Re: mySubaru.com, it is a convenient place to keep maintenance records, check service intervals, and see if there are any pending recalls / service campaigns against your vehicle. I agree that it wouldn't be that much effort to show the color of your vehicle, and would add a personal touch to the process.
Larry
Larry
-B
Note, I am talking about a manual, I would never coast (neutral) in an automatic. Nor would coasting be a good idea if going down a hill.
John
-Frank
I don't know what to tell you but I think you spent $30K on a CAR not a web site so this is just a 'nice to have' not a 'must'. Hope you can come to terms with it :-(
elissa
Elissa
No your tranny is still turning, it's just not connected to the engine. If you blip the gas to increase your RPMs to approx what they'd be if in gear and then let out the clutch (rev matching), I can't see where there'd be a problem.
-Frank
Of course, my husband likes to coast then slam it into the appropriate' gear when he's done coasting. That's his response to me asking him not to ride the clutch when coasting (sigh). I just don't have the argument left in me to suggest he do this rev matching on our own cars because I know I'll have to listen to an hour of "I've been driving manual transmissions for 20 years...." So, it probably won't KILL the car if you do coast and then just slip it in gear without the double-clutching. By the way, my husband's driving technique earned him two clutch replacements on the same car within 90K miles... I don't know WHY he doesn't listen to me on this stuff...... I rant. :-)
If you have one of those trip computers, watch the instanteneous MPG when going down a decent hill in gear - it will run out of digits at 99+ MPG.
#2, lost all boost in the Power Brakes
#3, almost flew off the Freeway
What did we learn, Kids do the darndest things!
PS. My new Rack & Pinion in the XT was a success. Thank you new Subaru Dealer (Bird Road Subaru)!
miamixt: sweet, glad to hear it.
-juice
That's surprising you'd have a 2nd Gen XS with a 300 handle CCA battery. IIRC from my 2000 S manual CCA spec was 500-something and my dealer assures the '04 Forester I own is CCA 550 (thanks SoA for taking the info out of our owner's manual...:-(
BTW I "battle-tested" the battery last winter when I started my Forester in a headwind of 40mph, with a ambient air temp of -minus 20. I'd parked it for a couple hours so the battery was cranking at minus 20F. It turned the engined BUT I doubt I had reserve enough for more than one more crank if the engine failed to turn over. So I'm looking for more CCA than 550.
Jake,
PS: I don't recall if there is a "cold weather" option anymore but I'm wondering if all these low CCA batteries I keep hearing about may be due to a geographic/climate decision by SoA.
If you're regularly cranking a car at twenty below, you probably should be plugging it into a block heater for an hour anyway.
Lots of cars destined for Canada get heavier duty batteries and alternators as standard equipment.
Steve, Host
I was browsing around the site looking for info on the Forester XT are thinking of buying and discovered that you are from Boise as well...Hello neighbor!
The XT looks great. We looked at a Highlander but agreed with other posts that it is too big a beast. My one hesitation on the Forester was with the wheel bearing issue, but I understand Subaru redesigned that with the 2003 model. Do you know of any other issues with the 04 XT?
thanks very much
Welcome to Town Hall!
Looks like our are new to Boise from the Bay Area and you work from home (like me)? Ain't Google grand :-)
Steve, Host