-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

13468929

Comments

  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I disagree with Bob on this one. Drive the 173hp version first. See if you think it's adequate for your needs. Remember that the original Explorer had just 160hp (with a bit more torque, but a lot more weight as well).

    Now, only drive the turbo if you can afford it and intend to buy it, because you will get hooked. The non-turbo will suddenly seem slow, even though it isn't.

    -juice
  • Options
    jpfkkjpfkk Member Posts: 43
    Bayview6,

    You should be careful with your comments, which are at best unfortunate, and at worst, downright silly.

    For example, suggesting that a Turbo might be too much of a sports car given Cliff's declining reflexes speaks for itself.

    You also suggest--in another master stroke of a blanket statement--"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."

    Wrong. If I wanted to buy a sportier car, I would have bought one (I could have easily looked at the Porshe Cayenne). Second, I never said I needed extra power to pull away from a tailgaiter--that was your assertion. I use the turbo to pull in the left lane, swiftly pass someone who is driving erratically, and then pull back into the right lane to resume my trip. This happens frequently on an incline and the Turbo is very prudent and valuable.

    Wrong again. You assert that the the standard motor has plenty of power to pull away from a tailgater or for doing anything else. Again, I don't use the Turbo to pull away from tailgaiters--that is your scenario. Second, you are only speaking for yourself, not all of us. I tested both the Turbo and the non-Turbo on steep inclines in the Catskill mountains (not the highest peaks, but peaks nonetheless). In my opinion, and the opinion of others that I know, the Turbo was much, much more effective. It may not be for you, but it is for me. It is a matter of opinion and personal choice, not fact.

    Finally, wrong in summary. I do a lot of travel in the Northeast, which includes the Catskills, the Adirondacks and the Laurentian mountains. In all of those the Turbo has real merit.

    The turbo definitely has nothing do to with ego. In fact, I would say the exact opposite. The Turbo is the least ego driven car you can buy. It doesn't have racing stripes. It doesn't look fast. In the end, I bought the Turbo because I wanted a car that met my performance and safety requirements, while not drawing attention to iteself. For me, that is the definition of un-ego.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    jpfkk, To quote you: "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." Doesn't that sound like tailgating to you? And that you are speeding up to get away from the tailgater?

    My comments are proper and correct. While I don't know Cliff's age other than he is a self-described "senior citizen", it is a well-known fact as one reaches a certain age one's ability to drive decreases. At age 60, 1/2 of the retina cells used for night vision are gone. I'm not saying that senior citizens should not drive turbo cars, but that is something that they should be aware of because they are not going to get any younger. Also, I certainly would not want a new 16 year old driver to be cruising around town in a turbo because they ARE very powerful sports cars although in the Forester's case that fact is somewhat concealed.

    Of course I'm speaking only for myself. However, I doubt that you are speaking for anyone other than yourself also. I have stated that I think that the turbo would be the perfect choice for those (even senior citizens) who live at high elevations or who drive in the mountains because of the fact that the non-turbo engine performance declines greatly in those situations. Since you drive in the mountains I can understand your selecting the turbo model.

    The turbo will out-perform the non-turbo model. However, the difference in ordinary driving situations is hardly the reason to pick one over the other. By ego, I mean the person's own view of him or herself. Many people buy the turbo who never drive in the mountains or who live at high elevations. They buy it because it matches the image they have of themselves.

    "The turbo definitely has nothing do to with ego." i have to admit I got a little chuckle out of that blanket statement. BTW, when you are driving your turbo does that hood scope block any of the view of the road?
  • Options
    jpfkkjpfkk Member Posts: 43
    You sure ignore a lot of fact and reason. Therefore this will be my last response to you on this subject.

    The purpose of this forum is to help people make informed decisions about their car purchases and maintenance. Not to jump to irrelevant conclusions about how people drive, etc.

    By the way, as a 40 year old male, I've never gotten a speeding ticket (or been in an accident).

    Going uphill to move away from a large SUV does not necessarily follow that one is speeding to get away from tailgaiters.

    Suggesting that seniors should not drive a turbo is silly (look at how many older men drive Porsche's and do so responsibly). You also contradict yourself. You wouldn't want an old person driving a Turbo, nor a young person. Hmm..should we pass a ban on even making a Turbo? Should we also say that old people shouldn't buy large cars because they can't control them either? Of coure, the older one gets, the safer one's driving as much evidence from the insurance companies supports.

    If you go back and look at my original post, I was not attempting to speak for everyone. Clearly, I was noting reason and logic as they applied to my personal driving situation. By the way, Cliff agreed. You were the one saying no one should drive a Turbo unless they live in the Rockies and anyone driving a Turbo is doing based on ego--totally baseless.

    Glad you got a chuckle out of the statement that the Turbo has nothing to do with ego. You missed every argument to the contrary. Then you ask a question that makes me wonder if it is you who are slow on the response--does the Turbo hood scoop block any of the view of the road? I simple never noticed it.

    On to more interesting conversations. Cliff--did you get your car yet? Do tell!
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    "The turbo definitely has nothing do to with ego." i have to admit I got a little chuckle out of that blanket statement. BTW, when you are driving your turbo does that hood scope block any of the view of the road?

    So the existence of a hood scoop on my FXT correlates to the size of my ego? That's almost insinuating that I spent a couple extra grand specifically for the large gash in my hood. It may surprise you, but I (and likely many other XT owners) would have honestly preferred to enjoy the turbo's performance without the hood scoop, if it were possible.

    Such a rush to judgement is often a sign of one's own insecurities.

    Doug
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Let's stick to the Forester and not ego issues. There are forums for discussing psychology. This isn't one of them.

    tidester, host
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    tidester, you can bet your boots that Subaru's marketing dept. is interested the psychology of its customers!

    Anyway, I do hope that Cliff tell us which vehicle he ultimately decides upon.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Did Santa bring a new submarine package that I don't know about? ;)

    Here's a forum for you guys to continue your discussion about Freudian topics:

    http://www.uncommonforum.com/

    -juice
  • Options
    jeep1988jeep1988 Member Posts: 40
    The other night, someone while I was in my car backed into my 3 month old Forester back driver side bumper. When, I got out to look, I noticed no damage.

    Does Subaru have those buper that bounce back? Is there anything that I should look for other than the suface damage. She was backing, so,probably going about 5 miles per hour.

    Has this happened to anyone before?

    It seems that when I have used cars, this never happens, but a new one, that is different story. :(
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Oooh, sorry about the rotten luck :-( Given how slowly the other driver was going and since you can't see any damage I'm sure your Forester is fine. The bumpers, being plastic with styrofoam behind, do indeed have a certain amount of give. A severe bump would most likely have chipped or cracked the paint.

    -Frank
  • Options
    jpfkkjpfkk Member Posts: 43
    Hilarious. Those who click on the link will find a noteworthy discussion on OCD. Ahem.

    By the way, and with all due respect to our forum host, I think discussions of cars, brand and what they say about buyers (ego being just one of them) should probably be in bounds in a forum such as this. Of course, I take exception to the style of how a certain gentleman (?) chooses to raise that topic in this discussion, but that would appear to be what "uncommon" is for... :)
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I think the message that Tidester was hoping to convey is that this topic is intended for discussing the relative merits of the 2006 Forester (although why we need a separate topic when there's already two other Forester specific ones is beyond me). As such, one would expect to find vehicle facts and performance data along with individual driving observations and assessments of the vehicle's overall capabilities. In comparison, sweeping opinion statements about how others drive etc serve little purpose other than to invariably offend some else.

    -Frank
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    I think discussions of cars, brand and what they say about buyers (ego being just one of them) should probably be in bounds in a forum such as this.

    Let me be a little more direct - personal attacks on other members in these forums will not be tolerated. Click on the "Rules of the Road" link at the left for further clarification.

    tidester, host
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    jpfkk, I would like to respond directly to your post but because of the "Rules of the Road", I won't.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
  • Options
    jpfkkjpfkk Member Posts: 43
    Tidester,

    I understand your point. Respect it and agree. Not arguing with the point (or the rules), which should be upheld.

    I just don't see where there are "personal attacks." I went back and looked through the postings and don't see the specific personal attacks. Calling someone's argument without merit (or even silly) is not a personal attack, for example.

    Not to worry, no further posts on the subject.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Check out the Women's Blog here on Edmunds, I sent them a nice chart that graphed Male/Female death rates by age group. They tend to drop until you're in to the 70s and 80s.

    And yes, Forester has a magic bumper, lots of people have reported bumpers that fix themselves - even after a dent has stuck for a while.

    -juice
  • Options
    chgo29chgo29 Member Posts: 6
    I just got back to the forum after being gone for a few days and I was surprised to see what a lively discussion my question had unleashed. Individual feelings about this issue are obviously very intense. I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and opinions. But, I thought it might help calm things down if I clarified why I asked the question. So ---- Here goes---- For the last 20 years we've been driving Mercury Grand Marquis'. Yes-the "Old People's" car. They have plenty of power. Our current 2003 has a 4.6 L V-8. When I'm cruising on the interstate, come up on a big truck going 70 mph, I like to get by him QUICKLY. I don't like sitting alongside of him for 5 minutes on cruise control while I slowly pass him. With the Grand Marquis I can press on the accelerator and the car really moves out. I like that. Well, why don't I get another Grand Marquis? I'm just really unhappy with Ford Motor Co. They've been making the same car for 14 years now. Very few changes. Especially no upgrades in the interior. Even old people like a little style and the feeling of something new. So, we're looking at other cars and my wife really likes the Forester. If we buy one I was just hoping I'd be able to get that same feeling of available power and quick response that I get from the Grand Marquis. Ego would not come into the equation. At my age(76)I don't have any ego left. And I really don't like the looks of that hood scoop. But, that one guy was right - as you get older your reflexes doslow down. Maybe a turbo would be too much for me. I have never had a turbo engine. I guess I just have to take a extensive test drive in a non-turbo and see if I will miss my Grand Marquis' V-8. Thanks for all the input - Cliff
  • Options
    losthat1losthat1 Member Posts: 93
    Cliff-Something tells me you are a "young" 76. I know a couple in their 70's who love their Forester X. Try the LLBean and the XT. I'm eager to hear your responses and your wifes.

    I suggest you not drive them on the same visit, but try on two seperate days and see how noticable the difference is in the engines. You will notice immediately if you drive them one after another. Have fun! ;)
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    "No replacement for displacement" usually refers to the quick throttle response you get from a big engine, and that's hard to duplicate.

    The base 2.5l is torquey, but peak torque occurs at high rpm. The turbo peaks sooner, but it had to build boost, so it still won't step out the way a V8 does (instantly).

    One thing Ford does to "trick" you is they have a non-linear throttle that is a bit abrupt, i.e. small changes towards the beginning of the pedal travel produce big results. The catch is it's hard to drive smoothly some times.

    -juice
  • Options
    bart0001bart0001 Member Posts: 3
    I think that one has little chance of finding a 4-cylinder, be it normally aspirated or turbocharged, that feels a lot like the V-8's you've been driving for many years. You may well like the X or the XT, but I can't imagine hearing you say "it felt like my 4.6l V-8."

    Just drive the cars and buy one if you like it. Trying to compare a Subaru Forester to a Mercury with a V-8 is a bit too apples vs. oranges for any car enthusiast.
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "No replacement for displacement"

    It's actually no replacement for displacement or volumetric compression. :)
  • Options
    10years10years Member Posts: 48
    Just in terms of gasoline costs based on 12,000 miles per year, guestimate composite MPG, and 20 cents extra in premium vs. regular fuel costs, here's how fuels costs figure:

    12,000 miles YR
    MPG Gallons YR $2 per gal $3 per gal
    X 27 444 $889 $1,333
    XT 23 522 $1,148 $1,670

    Year $259 $336
    Month $21.58 $28.02
    Week $4.98 $6.47

    Have Fun.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    10years, forget about what the epa says, what kind of mileage on you getting with your XT. With my automatic X I get about 22 city and 25 Hwy. Assume equal miles for city and hwy, that gives 23.5 mpg. Read one report by a 2005 XT owner who stated he got about 15 mpg combined, so we need real world data to make a valid comparsion.

    Assume "X" gets 23.5 mpg and the XT gets 17 mpg. Also assume $2.50 a gallon regular gas.
    and an average of 12k miles a year.

    Over a 10 year period, the "X" will use $12, 766 worth of gasoline. The XT will use $19, 059 worth of gasoline. So, over a 10 year period it will cost $6292 more to drive the XT.

    Have Fun.
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    With 4500+ miles on my 06 XT auto and I've never gotten less than 19 mpg. My bests have been around 26 mpg, and most of the time with mixed driving I seem to get around 21 mpg. I'd be curious about the driving style of the poster you remember getting 15 mpg. MPG estimates are higher on 06s than 05s, but not that much higher.

    Something else to consider when it comes to fuel costs - I live less than a mile from a Valero station, a national chain that offers 93 for the price of 86 every single Tuesday. The only time I pay full price for premium fuel is when I'm on a road trip. Looking at the company's website, Valero has locations in more than 30 states, so there is probably one near most of you. For those who don't have access to this particular chain, I'd be willing to bet that similar deals are being offered in your area. Look for them - I save at least $2.00-$3.00 a week.

    Doug
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Thanks for telling us about the Valero Tuesday promotion on premium. One factor that determines mpg are the tires. The OEM tires have a "B" rating for traction. Moving up to an "A" rating on traction will probably reduce mpg. Another factor is AC use. The biggest factor is the driver. I would not be surprise to see some XT's getting better mpg than a regular "X" because of the difference in driving.

    However, anyone who is driving the XT aggressively will know about it at pump time.
  • Options
    dstew1dstew1 Member Posts: 275
    However, anyone who is driving the XT aggressively will know about it at pump time.

    XT drivers know well before pump time when they're driving aggressively. In all seriousness, I can almost watch the needle on my fuel guage fall whenever the engine is revved upwards of 5k rpm.

    I avoid getting an itchy trigger foot more than 3-4 times per tank, otherwise I can easily expect about 15mpg.

    As for tires with better traction, that will probably be something I look into before next winter. I hope to get a year out of the Geolanders (about 20,000 miles) and evaluate then.

    Doug
  • Options
    10years10years Member Posts: 48
    bayview6, I sometimes wish I had the XT. But no, just an 03 X 4EAT. With my driving stye and conditions I get 27 overall, 80/20 highway/city. With current winter gas its now in the lower-25s. With our MPG guestimates we now have two points on the bell shaped distribution curve. Since I drive close to 18K miles a year the gas price differential of X to XT for me currently would be +$7 a week but .....I'm still torn.

    99.8% of the X does just fine but sometimes on mountain roads I might wish ohterwise. Like this fall on a mountain road I was following for some time a gently swaying great big rear end of a Ecal-Pedition. Come the designated, rather short, passing lane and I go to pass. Wouldn't ya know it, that button hole began to accelerate with me. All out floored it just make it as he peers down.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If you stay out of the boost, it'll probably get close to the non-turbo models. Frank manages to get remarkable fuel economy, maybe just 1-2 mpg fewer than I get with my N/A engine.

    Now, having said that, the boost is intoxicating. I remember test driving an XT 5-speed and when I floored the throttle I shouted out a few expletives and scared the car salesman! :D

    I'd probably get into trouble with that kind of power. Maybe it's good that I don't have one. ;)

    -juice
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Doug, I got new tires after about 700 miles. Didn't care for the geolanders at all. Got goodyear comfortred and they are super. No road noise, great traction and handling, and a very soft ride that smoothes out the suspension of the Forester.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Yes, passing uphill on a mountain road is no fun in almost any car except the turbos.

    Some of the drivers on the road today are idiots, especially those who speed up when one tries to pass them. Has happen to me many times.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    juice, that's the main reason I didn't buy the turbo. I'm a spirited driver and there is no way I'm going to be driving the XT and not getting on it even if it is only a 1/2 mile to local convenience store!

    If anyone can drive the turbo in a gentle way except for passing, and doesn't mind the additional up front cost, then that is the best choice for most people. I just think that most people would not drive that way once they had that rush.
  • Options
    kalinkakalinka Member Posts: 3
    I am really interested in where that was in florida, I am getting over 29k and I know that is no good but would love to hear where I can find nice numbers like that down here.

    K
  • Options
    kalinkakalinka Member Posts: 3
    Hi
    I have been reading some posts about the headrests in the 2006xt. I took one on an extended test drive today (2 hours) as I need to check the seat comfort and I can not tell in 15 minutes.

    The head rest indeed pushes your neck forward so the only way to be comfortable is to tilt the seat back which then leaves you with no upper back support. By the end of two hours I was in serious pain between the shoulder blades and neck. It was ruining my otherwise great time testing this very cool vehicle.

    I sat in a 2005 and the head rest was just fine. This is a deal breaker for me :cry:

    I asked the sales guy if we could order a 2005 head rest and replace it and he did not seem open to that idea nor did he know if it would fit.

    This is a total shame because I am ready to buy this car.

    Anyone know if the 2005 head rest would fit into the 2006 model?

    I want the car but I know I will be miserable if I am not comfortable. I found the rest of the seat supportive and was happy with it.

    Any feedback appreciated

    Kalinka
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Put the back seat head rests on the front seats, and vice versa. Nobody will know the difference.
  • Options
    kalinkakalinka Member Posts: 3
    What a great idea, I would have never thought of that thanks!!!

    Kalinka
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That works on the '98 models. I do that. Ironically, it's for the opposite effect - I want to bring the headrest closer to my head for support.

    -juice
  • Options
    kumarikumari Member Posts: 72
    After reading all of the posts on this site, I just had to join up so that I could say my two cents.

    I thought I would get a Honda CRV because I always thought they were cute - or maybe a RAV4. Then, I did my test drives. Unfortunately for Honda and Toyota, the Subaru dealership was the first one in my path and I test drove the Forester X and the XT. I WAS COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY BY BOTH OF THEM. They did not drive like an SUV, or even a small SUV - THEY DROVE LIKE A BMW. But, truth be told, ONCE YOU DRIVE THE XT, YOU WON'T WANT THE REGULAR ONE!!! LOL

    Then I tested the CRV which, no offense to those who bought them, I thought drove like a tin can on wheels!! And, I thought that plastic fold-down cup holder in between the front seats was a JOKE! They even put that tacky thing in the deluxe model!

    Then I went to BMW and drove the X3 (which was really more than I wanted to spend, but I just HAD to check it out). It drove like a powerboat - kinda "floaty" - not like the tight handling I was used to in my old Beemer.

    Last, I went to Toyota. Well, the Highlander 4 cylinder dragged itself down the street and the 6 cylinder was nice, but similar to the BMW X3 - very "Cadillac-y". Then I drove the new 2006 RAV 4 - 4 cylinder, which was the closest in feel and handling to the Forester X. The 6 cylinder (out in February '06) should be on par with the XT. It was very nice, but the back "hatch" opened like a door (sideways, not up), so if someone is parked on top of you, you can't get the back end open to load your cargo (the window is fixed). And, I hate the spare tire on the back (the CRV has a spot inside for it so you have a choice, the RAV doesn't). It may have more cargo space, but the seats don't go down all completely flat, there's an incline. Also, I thought the interior was very "busy" and overloaded with little lighted knobs and multi-levels and things. I test drove it at night and there was just too much going on with that dashboard. Ick!

    I want the XT vs X purely as a safety issue. I read the entire turbo/ego/elderly drivers debate on here. The only 4 cylinder cars I have owned have been stick shifts and I want this one in an auto, so I feel that I need the extra power to pass going uphill, get away from a tailgater or avoid an accident. If I were getting the 5 speed, the X probably would be enough. Hate the hood scoop - I think it ruins the lines of the car and makes it look cheesy and "souped up". Liked the two-tone molded trim on the older ones - no longer available except on the L.L. Bean. I saw an '05 XT that was all chipped up on every side panel. I think the molded trim would have prevented that. Would you believe that the XT is the only way I can get the charcoal interior & carpets (along with charcoal leather seats). The X comes in a very light grey or very light beige interior - my dogs would make both filthy in a week. And, the gigantic sunroof is, of course, standard on the XT!

    Just learned on this board about the donut spare tire - disappointing. And, now I want to go back and pay more attention to the headrests, I didn't notice any discomfort. The only problem I had was with the middle armrest console, which I thought was rickety and badly situated to the point that it was unuseable. Surprised that the rest of you didn't catch that!

    I'm planning on buying the Forester XT Limited in the Steel Grey as soon as I can make the right deal. I'm waiting because I think they're gonna become more negotiable once the RAV 4/6 cylinder comes out. It will be their only real competition. I can't wait to have my "convertible" SUV that drives like a sports car!!!

    Now, I spoke with a top mechanic about this and he told me that if I'm just driving around the city and not using the turbo on a regular basis, that I can fill up with the midrange gas (89) and that it will run great. When I am going on a road trip, then I should put in the premium gas. The premium gas is "recommended" NOT "required". He also told me that if I'm not using the turbo that the gas mileage should be the same as the non-turbo model. And, you can definitely feel when that turbo kicks in.

    Anyone out there ever try this? Well, my current SUV gets 9 MPG, so anything will be an improvement I guess. I was very distressed to read that someone only gets 15 MPG on the Forester. I was expecting at least 19/20 MPG. Anyone out there do all-city driving? And, then what mileage do you get?

    Thanks,

    Samantha
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Just read an article that reported that the EPA gets its mileage figures by using a treadmill contraption called a dynamometer, which "creates a parallel universe where the streets are free of traffic, highway speeds average 48 miles per hour, and a car's wheels never touch the pavement."

    90% of all vehicles get lower mileage than that reported by the EPA, with the worst ones geting as little as half the mileage promised. :sick:
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Interesting post...although I totally disagree about the X3. It has exactly the same road feel as the old E46 3 series.

    Gas mileage: I get about 24 street and 27 city. It really doesn't vary much. If I treat the engine as if it has two speeds on or off, the mileage will drop to 20.

    I don't think anything Toyota does will be able to equal the XT. Light turbos are Subarus speciality. That why they (Toyota) have to stuff a big V6 in there. If I had to do it again, the XT would still win.
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Samantha, you can drive the X automatic like a stick shift because the new automatics in the 2006 have real time shifting. While you can drive the XT like a 76 year old retired school teacher, it must be very boring knowing that you have all that POWER available but don't want to use it because you can't afford it. LOL!! In other words, driving the X aggressively will leave the XT driven without the turbo boost in the dust.. ;)

    The Forester's owner manual says the turbo models REQUIRE 91 octane rating or higher for optimum engine performance and driveability, like passing cars going up hill. Can use regular unleaded if premium is not available.

    If you want lowest cost for gasoline, get the X model. As far as your dogs are concerned, get the LL Bean edition with the black cargo liner and use the screen to keep you dogs there.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Welcome to the boards, Samantha.

    That kind of reaction is great - you've chosen your next car. It's rare that a vehicle can evoke such a strong, positive reaction from anyone these days. Kudos, you ought to be extremely happy.

    As for the spare - the well is big enough that you can buy an extra wheel and tire and put it in there, you only give up the storage cubbies. You might also give up the ability to store the cargo cover under the cargo floor, so check that out.

    But a steel 16" rim and a tire should run no more than $150 or so, if you really want that full-size spare.

    I did just that on my wife's '02 Legacy (pic below).

    -juice
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Juice, are you sure about that? A few days ago I asked the folks at SoA and they said that a full size tire and rim will NOT fit in the spare tire compartment of the 2006 Forester...

    I have about 4700 miles on my 2006 forester and so far I've gotten 2 flats. Fortunately, they both have been close to home. Probably just a bit of bad luck but since I take trips out West, I'm getting concerned about the limitations of the temporary spare tire.
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm not sure, no...but I wonder if they changed the actual well itself? The 03-05 models had a full-sizer in there.

    I have to remove this styrofoam insert on my wife's car, but it fit even though it wasn't designed to.

    -juice
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    That doesn't makes sense. The tire size is the same as last year. An easy way to find out for sure is to take one of your tires off, and see if it fits in the spare tire well.

    Bob
  • Options
    bayview6bayview6 Member Posts: 141
    Bob, I'm about ready to do just that! Are the wheel lug arrangement the same on the 06 Forester as the 03-05 models? If so, I could get a spare from a salvage yard from one of those years.

    Assuming a have a regular tire/rim spare and disconnect the AWD feature, how far do you think I could safely drive the vehicle without damaging it. Did the 03-05 Foresters have any limitations on speed when using the spare tire?
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I believe they are all 5x100mm lug pattern, so very likely yes.

    The rim size has been the same since the 98 Forester S. The spare is actually a non-matching steel wheel, so even that would fit yours. So look for a 98-02 Forester S model only, or any 03-05, and you should see a 16"x7" 5x100mm steelie.

    I don't think there was a mileage limit with the full-size spare, though you do have to consider tire wear. If the other 3 are very worn, you should still limit your driving to 50 miles or less.

    -juice
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Check out your well, remove the foam insert and see how big the hole is.

    Here's a bottom view of mine, from my '98, for comparison:
  • Options
    andrelaplumeandrelaplume Member Posts: 934
    Been away a bit...did a whole topic disapear....'Is Subaru Slipping...' I no longer see it...it was pretty active as I recall!
Sign In or Register to comment.