-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options

Subaru Forester

1235729

Comments

  • Options
    prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    Figured this would happen. Less than two weeks after I got my '06 Forester X, I'm having some second thoughts, specifically of a safety-related nature.
    I did quite a bit of research into vehicle safety before deciding on the Forester. It has scored very well in the IIHS crash tests and their European and Australian equivalents (the NHTSA tests are worthless), and its IIHS loss-data results are very good too. Even so ... the more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes that vehicle weight is an extremely important safety factor, possibly the single most important one. And at 3,200 pounds curb weight, the Forester is fairly light. In fact I believe it's lighter than any of the competitors (CR-V, Equinox, Tuscon etc.) Yeah, I know, I should've thought about this beforehand, and maybe paid a couple thousand extra for the heavier Outback, but I didn't, and now I'm trying to figure out what to do.
    So here is my question: if I were to add a few hundred pounds of weight to the Forester, perhaps by putting a few (properly secured, of course) commercial bags of cement in the rear, would it have an appreciable effect on safety? Or is the weight that is so crucial to safety limited to the weight of the vehicle structure? I know this sounds like a silly question, but I'm not an engineer nor a physicist - but I *am* very safety-conscious.
    Thanks for any help.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Basically, you can compare results of the crash tests to any vehicle within 500 lbs or so of your vehicle's weight. So going to a model that weighs 200 lbs more will really make no significant difference.

    Should you sand bag?

    In theory, that could help you in a vehicle-on-vehicle crash, i.e. you'd have more momentum on your side.

    However, look at the trade offs - you'd have to overcome more inertia to steer clear of an accident, i.e. it would actually hurt your ability to avoid an accident in the first place.

    Look at CR's car issue from April 2005. Look at their CR Safety Assessment. Right at the top, the first pick, is the Forester. Trading it for anything else, anything in this class, would be a downgrade in their eyes. They look at both passive safety and active safety.

    You have no reason to feel remorseful at all. You bought the safest car in this class, at least in CR's eyes.

    To me, active safety is more important than anything, so I would not load bags of cement in the back. I'd steer or brake to avoid the collision, and the Forester gives you the best chances of doing so.

    Congrats, be happy you made the right choice.

    -juice
  • Options
    lmn908lmn908 Member Posts: 34
    I would have no remorse at all about safety issues and a Forester. Six months ago my wife and I had the unfortunate experience of doing the experiment and crash testing our 2002 Forester. Specifically, we were on our way to a local sporting event when we came around a curve and were struck head on by a speeding driver who had crossed the double yellow line into our lane. We were doing 20 - 25 mph, the other driver probably close to 40 mph. I won't say that we walked away without a scratch (my wife broke her leg, but it has now healed), but neither of us had head or life-threatening injuries. The car was, not surprisingly, totaled. We replaced it with another Forester (2005 LL Bean.) I can understand the desire for something more massive, but there are trade-offs with respect to handling, stopping distances and accident prevention, as well as rollover risk with large SUVs. The Forester is very well engineered safety-wise, and the current generation even better than our 2002.

    No way would I put something heavy in the back for safety reasons. In an accident such as we had such objects, even if apparently well secured, can become missiles with dire consequences.

    Safe driving.

    Larry
  • Options
    cthatchercthatcher Member Posts: 18
    I've accidentally activated the cruise control with my right knee four times since I bought the car in the end of September. I'm going to start keeping a log from now on. It usually happens when I turn the car to the right and take my foot off the gas.

    In fact, in the middle of responding to this post, I went out and deliberately activated the cruise control with my knee while the car was in neutral IN MY DRIVEWAY-- so much for the "it won't activate under 25 mph." The owner's manual is wrong. I also just used my cruise control to drive a steady 15 mph down my residential street.

    Worse, because of power steering, you don't have to turn the car that much to cause the stalk to hit your knee. So you could activate it accidentally at highway speeds as well.

    My wife has a Toyota Prius, and it has a similar cruise control stalk tip. When she gets back from her trip next week, I'll compare the stalks and see what's different, since I've driven her car often and have never accidentally activated the cruise control with my knee.

    Since I can now replicate the knee activation at will, perhaps I will shoot some digital video of it happening at different speeds and then upload it to the Internet so everyone can see what's happening.
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "it won't activate under 25 mph." The owner's manual is wrong."

    There is a safety issue with your Subaru. Bring it in for service. Mine will not activate until about 30ish give or take a mile or two. I know of no car that will activate below 25 or 30. BMWs activate at 35.

    While I don't doubt you are able to do this with your knee, I was not able to duplicate it.

    "It usually happens when I turn the car to the right and take my foot off the gas."

    I[m trying to visualize this. Turning the wheel to the right involves having the stalk move past your leg in a clockwise fashion. Presumably if the stalk brushes your leg the stalk will actually move toward the up direction. On my car up is resume/coast. So 1) unless the button on the stalk is pressed and 2) the stalk is moved toward the "down" or set position, the cruise control on my car will not activate. It will not activate by pressing the button and raising the stalk. Is the 2006 different than the 2005 with regard to the settings on the stalk?

    BTW in general, another safety issue on a lot of vehicles is the transmission shift lever on the console. I've had passengers accidentally knock into it and change the gear or place it into neutral.
  • Options
    prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    Imn908 -
    Scary story, glad it turned out well.
    If you don't mind my asking, what was the other vehicle, and how did it and its occupant(s) fare?
  • Options
    lmn908lmn908 Member Posts: 34
    A Nissan sedan, either a Sentra or Altima. We don't actually have a lot of information (it's now all in the hands of the lawyers). My understanding is the other driver spent some time in the hospital, but I don't know how long or the extent of his injuries.

    Larry
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Glad the potential for worse that could have been didn't happen.

    I know a lot of new drivers and keep telling them it's a very serious thing and not to be taken lightly. Literally danger lurks around every corner.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I think you're fixating a bit too much on this safety issue. You want to be really safe? Drive an M1 Abrahams tank :-) But seriously, the only way to be truly safe is to not drive at all (or ride with anyone either). Since that's not feasible for most people, the best you can do is drive a vehicle that gets excellent crash scores (passive safety) and handles well (active safety). And guess what? I just described the Forester! :-)

    -Frank
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Have you adjusted the seat and the tilt steering to a position where that might not be possible? Could be fixed just by that adjustment.

    Also, i know that VWs won't let cruise set below 35 mph, but to me that's a big negative, because on my drive to the beach I go through a few small towns that have 25 speed limits and they are major fund raisers in terms of speeding tickets. I need to set cruise below 35 because they'd pull me over and happily right me tickets if I go above 28!

    I set cruise at 25 and drive through slowly. They can raise their funds from someone else, thanks.

    -juice
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    cthatcher - just following up, any additional information on the cruise control issue?
  • Options
    andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    After my dealer tried to get me to by an 05 RAV stating that the newly remodeled RAV would not be out until 07, I discovereed the Forester. Well, while we were debating on a Forester or OB I now see the new RAV will be out 12/16!!! Short term it will likely sell at MSRP but long term the price will drop and it looks to be stiff competition for the Forester and CRV. It is almost the exact size as the V, bigger than the Forester--no surprise there. It comes as a base automatic 4 or 6 cylinder with either 2WD or 4WD with or without a 3rd row seat. It also comes in a Sport trim and Limited trim. The base comes with ABS, antilock brakes , Skid Control, Traction Control..side bags optional (Boo!), ac, PW, PL, PM, keyless entry, privacy glass, rear spoiler and more. It appears equiped better the comparable V or Forester. MSRP is $21,700 for the 4WD 4cylinder. Add another $500 or so for delivery. That 22,200...not bad. I think we are going to have to wait another month and see what this sucker looks like before commiting to the Subaru. Eventually, (4 - 6 months???) I'd think the price would drop from MSRP to around 21.5K or so. Add in taxes and I'm at 22,800. Thats is still $1540 more than my out the door price on the Forester X automatic ***TODAY*** (they are selling VERY cheap here by me). My guess is that that cheap price might stay around a while though. If my dealer stops selling at wholesale and/or the Forester rebate goes away, all 3 will be about the same price. I have a new Toyota purchase credit (thats another story) that would as a rebate for me if I purchase before next July....otherwise the Forester is still the best deal if width, leg room and a more truck-like appearance are not important to you.

    Thanks to another poster...here is some info:

    Standard Features - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_f.pdf

    Options - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_o.pdf

    Specifications - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_s.pdf

    See the bottom of the page for pricing.
    http://pressroom.toyota.com/Releases/View?id=TYT2005112114836
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Under $26k for a 4x4 V6 Limited, well below what a Highlander LTD would retail for. Of course then it depends on what that includes...

    -juice
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Recently my wife decided that her next car should be a "soft-roader", as the Brits say. I secured a buyer for her 1997 5er and we soon found an immaculate CPO X3. Unable to leave well enough alone, I suggested that she also check out a 2006 XT(my cunning plan was to build a STi Q-ship on the sly). Unfortunately, she was underwhelmed by the XT and instead fell in love with a new 2006 LL Bean edition. Just great. :mad:
    Since it now looks like the thing is going to wind up in our garage, I have a couple of questions:
    1.The dealer is offering to sell the heap for $1000 under invoice. Can I assume that's a good deal?
    2. Is this site still the best source for reasonably priced OEM parts and accessories?
    At least I've still got my Club Sport and Speed Triple...
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Please tell me that there is a simple way to disable the daytime running lamps.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    I doubt it. Try duct tape for a short term solution.
  • Options
    mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    On a Forester ??
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Yes.
  • Options
    njswamplandsnjswamplands Member Posts: 1,760
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    You might want to see if there is a fuse to the daytime running lights that you could pull. That would turn them off. :P
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Well, I've looked on a couple of Subaru boards and it seems that on a Legacy you disconnect a white plug from the underdash DRL module. On an Impreza you disconnect a resistor pack under the hood. I think I'll tell the dealer that disabling the DRLs is a non-negotiable condition of the deal.
  • Options
    mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    If its a 2003 or newer (I have a 2004) its easy 15-30 seconds. Ok When standing in front of your Forester on the Passengers side above the wheel well in the engine area there in a plug. Mine is dark in color with a slight amount of reddish brown orange just unplug it .One end comes out from the panel wall area hooked on a bracket. You may want to have them on to see if it works but I have no other plugs that could get mistaken in the area. Good Luck let me know if you get it otherwise I can send a pic...
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Thanks! I'll let you know when/if we buy it.
  • Options
    mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    Yea I dont mind them but if I want to turn them on I will but it will be my choice. Hope you make the choice (Forester) after 35,000+ miles later it was a great choice for me... Good Luck
  • Options
    denali_wjldenali_wjl Member Posts: 3
    I am looking for a Forester L.L.Bean in central Texas,
    I have gotten a few first round quote from a few dealers
    around here, the OTD price are all above $28k. Maybe
    partly because I need financing from subaru, therefore no
    $1000 customer cash-back. So I guess my question is
    what's a reasonable price that I should look for?

    I checked the edmunds TMV for Forester L.L.Bean without
    extra options and the price is $25,587 + regional
    adjustment $175 + destination charge $625 = $26387 for
    my zip code. So, should I be looking to pay this
    TMV($26387) + TTL? Or what should be a reasonable OTD
    price.

    Any suggestion would be highly appreciated.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Is a good indicator, try to beat that. In fact print it out and challenge the dealer to beat it, or lose your business. I bet they do (beat the price).

    -juice
  • Options
    div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    Up here in North Central KY a dealer was eager to sell us an LL Bean today with a sticker of $27952 for $26100 OTD(including 6% KY sales tax). That number does include the $1000 customer cash. We walked, but I still thought it was an OK deal.
  • Options
    jsmith11jsmith11 Member Posts: 2
    I've always been a car guy, but in the last few years it has become obvious that is going to change. I've recently taken up hunting and I need a vehicle for Forest Service roads and the occasional logging trail - no problem, get a Jeep. Problem: I can't drive a Jeep 5 days a week on my hour long commute to work.

    What experience do any of you have with you Forrester XT off road? I don't plan on running the Rubicon or going out "mudding." I just want the ability to be comfortable (with power, too if I can get it :=D ) commuting, yet be able to get where I need to be in the back country.

    When I heard about the Forrester XT, it sounded perfect...

    Any experiences along these lines will be greatly appreciated.
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    As a 2006 FXT owner who has taken it offroad, I can tell you that it is quite capable, but certainly has the expected limitations - ground clearance being the primary one for me, along with the lack of a full-sized spare on current models for those especially jagged rocks on the trail (you can always carry along a full-sized spare, though).

    You can easily find underbody protection (in the form of rally armor) on the web, but what concerned me as I traversed more sizeable ruts and rocks was the body paneling running along the underside of the doors. I'm not sure I could convince my insurance company that I'd found an 8 inch curb to "accidently" jump. On the plus side, the underbody of the Forester is quite level with nothing jutting down too far - so when Subaru lists its clearance as 7.9 inches, it's for real - you've got 7.9 inches all the way across (check out the underside of any number of 4x4s if you want to know how unique that is. The Ford Escape is horrible with its suspension barely clearing the bottom of the wheels - even the old Jeep Cherokee's diff hung way down making it a great target for rocks).

    While the FXT doesn't offer a low range, you'll have plenty of access to low-end torque (235 lb-ft at 3600 rpm). The AWD works excellently on dirt and gravel, and the Forester can manage knee-high water crossings without much problem as long as you know what you're doing (and don't stop in the middle).

    Like you said, it's no Wrangler. But as long as you understand its limitations and you'll be ok, given that the terrain your crossing isn't TOO uneven or ungodly steep. And you'll appreciate its more car-like handling once you hit the highway. For a car its shape, size, and height, it corners like it's on rails. Bad weather handling? It's not common for a new car owner to look forward to a heavy downpour, but I can't wait to see those black storm clouds overhead. Then again, I'm a little crazy.

    If you want more first-hand accounts of their offroading abilities, I don't think I can post the link but just google offroadsubuars (all one word) and you should find a site out of Australia with a forum that gets a good amount of traffic from people who really do take their Foresters off the pavement.

    Good luck, and GO DRIVE ONE.

    Doug
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    For entertainment purposes, here is a small photo from the last outing I had, on what was the tamest terrain I saw that day.

    image

    Doug
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Thanks for the photo! :D
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'd actually recommend an LL Bean model.

    It has fractionally more ground clearance (8.1" vs. 7.9"), but more importantly, it also adds self-leveling shocks in the rear suspension. So load it up and it'll maintain that clearance.

    Give paisan a call at http://azpinstalls.com/ and get some skid plates for it, and you should be fine.

    -juice
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    The primary gripe I have with Subaru regarding my FXT is having to shell out the bucks for the top of the line turbo "limited" and not getting the self-leveling suspension or easy-clean cargo area even as options. Particularly the slick cargo area - sure I've got a cargo mat but why do I need carpet back there at all?

    However, I have had my FXT's cargo area loaded down with a fair amount of weekend gear and not noticed much, if any, sag in the back (although 500 extra lbs of people/gear certainly has a noticable affect on the turbo's kick).

    It really depends on how heavy you travel when you're hunting/exploring.
  • Options
    jsmith11jsmith11 Member Posts: 2
    Thanks to all for the input. I drove a 2005 X yesterday. I didn't realize how small the Forrester is - but that is ok, as my Audi A4 is about as big a vehicle as I like to drive and they are roughly the same size. Very car like and decent accelleration even without the turbo. Good info on the leveling shocks - why don't they offer that on the XT, for pete's sake?

    Anyway, I'll give all your comments a lot of thought - my purchase is still a few months away - maybe Subaru will change some options in the mean time! :=}
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    I recently took a long trip in my 2.5x model and had a lot of cargo in the back. Frankly, I didn't notice any sag in the rear part of the vehicle. Doubt that I will ever need self-leveling shocks although when I eventually replace the rear shocks I might go with the self-leveling ones.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They are surprisingly expensive.

    -juice
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    Unless you are using the cargo area of the Forester to haul something extremely dense for its size (i.e. bricks), then there isn't really ample cargo room to so packed with everyday items that the rear is going to sag. What I mean is that it's big but not too big for its own good.

    The self-leveling shocks probably only need to be considered if you plan on doing a good amount of towing with the Forester.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Since I'm not going to do any towing with my Forester, I guess I'll skip paying the extra dough for the self-leveling shocks.

    BTW, does anyone know how long the rear shocks last on a typical Forester, assuming mostly paved road usage?
  • Options
    chgo29chgo29 Member Posts: 6
    We are ready to get serious about buying a Forester but I would appreciate some feedback from Forester owners on the question of which engine to get. My wife and I are old retired folks so we're not looking to "burn rubber" or do a lot of off road stuff. We like the Forester for "All Wheel Drive" on highway driving in inclement weather, and my wife likes the way she sits up high and gets a good view of the road. I just want to make sure we have enough engine "Oomph" to merge quickly onto an expressway, and to accelerate quickly up to 70,75 mph to pass a truck on the expressway. The naturally aspirated engine at 173 hp seems like it would be underpowered for that. If I opt for the turbocharge does that invite more maintenance problems? Does it require premium fuel? Any other disadvantages besides cost? Sure would be interested in your opinions. Thanks - Cliff
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    My advice: Drive both.

    You will find the turbo to be FAST! The non-turbo may also surprise you with its' power, which is why I say drive them both.

    Yes the turbo REQUIRES premium, and will get a few miles per gallon less than the non-turbo. If you live at high elevations, a turbo is better, as it loses less power than a non-turbo. Also, insurance may be higher with the turbo.

    I just purchased a '06 WRX Limited, which has the same engine as the Forester turbo. It's a blast to drive (and I'm a senior too!).

    Bob
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    chgo29, I recently bought a 2006 173 hp forester and after the break-in period, drove it over 3000 miles on an interstate trip. The Forester cruises easily at 80 or 85 or even higher.The vehicle had more than enough power to handle any situation if one is willing to either downshift the tranny (I have auto) and really revving the engine. Above 4k rpm there is alot of torque. The vehicle is actually more of a sports car than an SUV. The turbo model must be awesome but no way to I want to buy premium gas or have less mpg. I recommend the standard engine. :P
  • Options
    jpfkkjpfkk Member Posts: 43
    Cliff,

    I own a 2006 Forester XT (Turbo). I upgraded from my 04 Turbo. I am younger (40), but do not consider myself a speed demon. In fact, my wife, family and friends, find that I drive too slow for their tastes. While I respect many different driving styles, frankly, I only drive on the weekends (I live in New York with a home in the country) and am in no hurry.

    With that background, I love the Turbo. It makes me feel much safer. I've never burned rubber in my life but when people are driving irresponsibly, I need to pass (as you stated), and in general I just want to get away from an annoying driver (on the cell phone, driving a large SUV they can't control, etc.), the Turbo is worth every penny.

    This is my second Turbo and not one maintenance problem at all. Yes, it requires premium fuel--Subaru's manual says keep it above 91, which is not really that much more expensive. I couldn't recommend this car enough. Truth is that if you drive like me (and plenty of people have suggested I drive like a senior), you will still find great value in the Turbo. I know I feel safer. The only disadvantage that I can think of is that a Turbo costs more than a non Turbo at the time of purchase. Frankly, it is money well spent.

    I agree that you should drive both and see if you can get the dealer to let you drive on the highway (to test passing) as well as (and this is very important) try to find several steep hills to climb. You might find the lesser powered engine to be just fine for your needs. I know that one key advantage for me has been the ability to accelerate going uphill with the Turbo while some nut in an Escalade is riding too close to my back bumper.

    Hope that helps and good luck with your decision. You really can't go wrong with a Forester.
  • Options
    jef64jef64 Member Posts: 3
    Today, in my 06 Forester X Manual, I noticed that the speedometer, odometer and tripmeter were not operating. A little later, the "cruise" light was flashing, and the check engine light was on. The secondary cooling fan was running constantly in 15F degree weather as well. A trip to the dealorship had many heads scratching. The "Speed sensor" was replaced and still no fix. There are still more diagnostics scheduled for the first of the week, and the service mgr states that this is never been encountered with the 06. Are there any other encounters with this?
  • Options
    chgo29chgo29 Member Posts: 6
    Thanks to all who responded to my question of standard vs turbo. After reading "jpfkk's" opinion I'm leaning toward the turbo. His thoughts are kind of what I felt in my gut. Thanks everyone. Cliff
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    Cliff,
    I test drove both the Forester X and the XT and decided on the turbo. I'm a bit younger (26) but by no means a speed demon.

    I actually drove the NA engine first, and was surprised by the amount of pep it offered. Most of the time it will probably be more than adequate for your needs, and it's a great value as well.

    I chose the turbo for many of the reasons already mentioned here. I do a fair amount of driving on twisty highways in the hills where passing opportunities are sometimes few and far between. With the turbo I never have to worry about being able to pass another vehicle or even having the acceleration necessary to do so while going uphill.

    Moreso, the car lets me do what exactly what I want, when I want, and I could argue that makes me a better and safer driver because the engine's limitations are one less variable I have to manage. That peace of mind is worth the extra cost.

    Good luck in your shopping.
    Doug
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Cliff, don't be surprise to get a speeding ticket or two driving the turbo. :shades:

    Another angle is that as a senior citizen, the turbo just might be "too much" of a sports car for you given your declining reflexes. The posters who stated that you "need" the extra power for safety reasons such as pulling away from a tailgating vehicle are just making an excuse why they wanted to buy the more expensive, sportier car. The standard motor has plenty of power to pull away from a tailgater and for passing or for doing anyhting else.

    As far as the tailgaters are concerned, the worst thing you can do is attempt to out run them. I usually take my foot of the gas and slow down. They get the message in a hurry.

    I would recommend the turbo if you live in the Rockies (above 4000 ft.) and are always driving in the mountains. There the turbo will give you the extra power you need. If you live at a lower level, the turbo is more of ego thing than anything else.
  • Options
    prosaprosa Member Posts: 280
    I find the normally aspirated motor in my 2006 X to have all the power I could possibly want. I've had no trouble passing vehicles on the highway or getting up the few hills in my area. True, I live near sea level and have a manual transmission, but for most drivers in most areas the non-turbo should work fine.
  • Options
    losthat1losthat1 Member Posts: 93
    Yes, do watch the speeding tickets. Having driven a turbo I can tell you that my invitations to pull over were more frequent. It's easy to hit 80 and not even realize it. With the 06' LLBean I have no problem passing, climbing etc. but am a bit more aware when I start hitting 75!I think the Bean would be a great choice for an "older" couple looking for a little extra luxury. Insurance, etc. would possibly be less too. Plus....28-30 MPG is nice.
  • Options
    growler5growler5 Member Posts: 67
    Cliff - a year ago, I traded in a Bimmer 5-series for a non-turbo 168 hp '05 Forester with manual 5-speed. I've driven 22k miles in the hills of eastern PA, once up to Canada by way of Vermont, and more recently, many trips on the PA turnpike.

    The regular engine responds just fine when I hit the gas pdeal. The only time I'll downshift is when I'm passing on 2-lane roads, in which case I have plenty of acceleration to pass safely.

    Being cheap, I figured that the XT will cost about 26% more per mile to operate when you look at the gas expense. Go check the numbers - I get 28mpg now in the XS, at $2.20 /gal it's 7.8 cents / mile for regular. For an XT, if I got 24 mpg at $2.40/gal, that's 10 cents /mile for gas. That extra 2.1 cents per mile is a waste.

    You didn't say if you were looking at an automatic tranny. That should have some input into your decision. I've always went with the stick shift over the automatic for the fun factor, for better control of the car in snow, and for better overall performance in getting power from the engine to the tires.

    As others have said - try 'em both out! Unless you do a lot of uphill/downhill driving or live in an area where the entry ramps on the fast roads are very short, the plain X should be fine.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I find the normally aspirated motor in my 2006 X to have all the power I could possibly want

    That statement may be true in your case but for many it rings truer if stated thusly:

    I find the normally aspirated motor in my 2006 X to have all the power I could possibly need

    -Frank ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.