By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I will say this, it would be nice if Subaru could offer a bigger gas tank, so range was better. Even for the non-turbo.
-juice
Can't draw that conclusion from final drive ratio alone; the overall multiplicative gear ratio is what matters. 5th is an extremely tall overdrive. Calculated redline for an XT in 5th is nearly 160mph. In no way can that be considered a "short" (high numerical) overall ratio, yielding over 24mph per K rpm.
one.
"Instead of comparing (relatively) GROSSLY underpowered, slow, 2WD cars, let's compare a few AWD vehicles that might actually be able to keep up with the Forester, shall we?
Infiniti FX45: 15/19
Porsche Cayenne: 14/18
Mercedes ML500: 14/17
BMW X5 4.4: 13/17"
Those aren't good comparables, either. The lightest curb weight in that bunch is the Infiniti at more than a thousand pounds above an XT, and the other three average nearly 4,900 pounds. Of course they have to generate a huge amount of power (and burn a ton of gas) to meet or beat a 3,200 lb XT's zip.
I maintain that the best and objectively most-closely-matched comparables for benchmarking the XT's EPA ratings are the WRX sportwagon and the STi. Both are close enough in weight, the WRX is very close in power, the STi is heavier, both have somewhat less frontal area (which has little effect in city driving) and somewhat lower c/Ds (though the latter has no effect on EPA ratings and can be disregarded completely when EPA ratings are the topic). The XT's newer, superior engine technology (AVCS, ECT) give it advantages the WRX can't match, while the XTi has higher boost and a considerably hotter state of tune. Yet it slightly beats the XT's EPA, while the WRX flat-out trounces it. Sorry, but there simply is no rational (and objectively supported, point by point) explanation for this that I've heard yet.
jb
Way to go, Juice. That's an interesting point no one has previously raised. If true, it could also account for <some> difference between the XT and the WRX and STi. BUT - are the XT's tires really rated All TERRAIN, or just All SEASON? I would guess the latter, and I'd guess that the Volvo also has all-season tires. Anybody know for sure, so we can either elevate this point to the stature of a "real" difference or dismiss it? How/where can we obtain factual data to compare the XT's tire rolling resistance versus the Volvo / WRX / STi / etc.?
jb
I'm unsure about the first (until more facts are presented), agree with the second (but only with respect to EPA highway tests, NOT slow-speed city where frontal area is largely irrelevant), and for the upteenth time, coefficients of drag are completely disregarded by EPA. They have no bearing on a conversation about EPA ratings. Period, end of that diversion.
jb
Actually, I definitely remember seeing someplace in the announcement info for either the XT or the 2nd-gen X/XS that Subaru did indeed adopt low-rolling-resistance tires. Don't know whether I can backtrack to the citation, but I'll post it if I can find it.
- jb
2.65 STi = 3.90 VDC = 4.11 GT = 4.11"
Juice replies, "Well, nice catch, there is the answer - the STi has a 3.9:1 final drive ratio! Bingo, same ratio as in the Legacy L (GT and Outback get shorter gearing, like the Forester). That must be why throttle response is so immediate in the XT."
You cannot compare axle ratios, by themselves, and draw any meaningful conclusions. At least three factors must be considered: (1) axle ratio, (2) top-gear (overdrive) ratio, (3) tire rolling radius. All three have to be factored in to get what the only meaningful, comparable figure is for any given vehicle: MPH per 1000 RPM in top gear. I don't have time to recalculate for the other vehicles, but for the Forester with its very tall 0.78 5th, 4.11 axle, and tall 60-profile tires, this works out to 24.3 mph per thousand. Contrary to your inference about the 4.11 axle ratio, that 24.3 is a rather relaxed, long-legged overall figure. Only if somebody has the time to calc the numbers for the other vehicles (WRX, STi, Legacy, Volvo, etc) can we have a meaningful discussion about this point.
>Another thing - the STi has a 6 speed, so I'm sure the highway EPA number has a huge advantage, with much lower revs/mile.
Again, what seems obvious can be deceiving. The hard numbers don't lie: The STi's 6th gear ratio is 0.76 - barely 2.6% "taller" than the Forester's 0.78 5th. That's what I mean when I say the Forester has a very long-legged 5th gear (and hence overall drive ratio, as reflected in its 24.3 mph/1000rpm statistic).
The STi's mere 2.6% taller 6th gear is probably more than offset by its much lower-profile tires, even given their 17" rim diameters. I don't have time to chase it down, but I'll be very surprised if the overall mph/1000 number for the STi is more than 4 or 5% taller than the Forester's - if that!
jb
EPA rated at 19/28.
The XT is not even close in acceleration, yet still uses much more gas with half the number of cylinders. Yes the Vette has tall gears, but who cares it has enough power to make up for it.
ROTFLMAO. That oughtta get at least a grin from all who've been batting this subtopic back and forth! And the Vette even weighs about as much as a Forester. I wouldn't even be too surprised if it has as much or more frontal area, given its width.
OTH, it's not all-wheel-drive, and where are you going to put the kids, the kayak, the bicycles, the dogs, and all the other stuff people will stuff into their XTs? Maybe the Corvette could tow a small trailer for all the gear and STILL get better MPG than a Forester!
jb
-les
Does the AT kick into OD at ~35mph?
-Brian
That's why I compared it to those others also quick SUVs. The CR-V, Escape, and Vue just don't come close to that kind of acceleration. Vue Redline will give us the only meaningful benchmark.
I replaced my OE Dueler tires with quiet touring tires. It's night and day. I'm sure the touring tires have far less rolling resistance, FWIW, you can definitely hear it.
Now Subaru uses Yokohamas, but they are still rated for M&S. The STi uses summer tires, quite different. The WRX is closer but still more pavement biased.
dudley: sorry, but I'm all over that Corvette statement. Chevy employs a *lame* 1st-to-4th shift skip feature that tricks the EPA into awarding it with better scores. Without it, it would actually have to pay gas guzzler taxes, I read. Also, 6th gear in that car is extremely tall, great example of a fuel-saving ratio actually.
Maybe the Forester needs a 6th gear? I'm sure noone here would object to that! :-)
Les: thanks for sharing. Your average on a green engine was better than the EPA highway number, so that's fantastic. And I'm Acadia Green Metallic with envy by the way.
-juice
Bob
I'll bet that a turbocharged smaller displacement engine will achieve its mileage claims where a bigger engine can't.
That's a really iimportant factor.
-juice
raybear: try an auto if you get the chance. The 5 speed gets universal thumbs up, but the auto is sort of controversial, with people being split on its performance.
-juice
That's pretty good news. My XT will almost surely be driven less aggressively than just about anyone else's, and my daily driving is at least 50% freeway, remainder urban/suburban. If mine winds up delivering 23-24 in that scenario, that would probably be only 1 or 2 less than an XS would have delivered - and I'll quit yapping, to the great relief of everybody.
I haven't used my cruise control yet, to avoid constant speeds during break-in. But I'll tell you this: Using the cruise control will be darn near mandatory. I've never been in a car before where the slightest nudge of the accelerator can add 10-15mph to your speed, without intending to and without even realizing it. This car will definitely be ticket bait if you're not paying attention.
I mentioned before that the 5-R gate is quite a distance off to the right from the 3-4 gate. When going from 4th to 5th, I have to consciously push the shifter well to the right to avoid bumping up and stopping against the separator between 3rd and 5th, which I've done a number of times now. Apart from the vagueness that Kartboy-type hard bushings will probably solve, this is my only criticism of the shift linkage.
The steering (IMO) is still way, way, way too light.
We've had low-80 direct sun the past two days, and that big flat-black dashtop gets hot enough to bake bread, toasting the interior while parked. I finally had time to get a large silver sunshade, which will be mandatory in warmer climes.
I have to stop a few feet back from the stopline at traffic lights; otherwise, the top of the windshield is a bit too far forward and a bit too low to readily see the overhead lights.
Has anybody figured out where the horns are in these things? I was thinking of putting in a pair of Fiamm Highway Blasters. My best guess is that the horns might be squeezed into about 2" of space in front of the radiator and behind the body-color plastic panels that separate the main radiator air intake from the headlamps. If so, there doesn't appear to be any extra space for anything any larger/thicker than the stock beep-beep horns, and any replacements, even if only slightly larger, will have to mount elsewhere.
It's a minor point, but I really like the way the doors close. They are quite lightweight, yet they close with a very solid, satisfying thud, and that's not easy to accomplish. Nothing tinny or cheap sounding at all.
On the other hand, the frameless glass (which I always admire on Subarus, both for smooth, uncluttered appearance and for ease in washing inner and outer surfaces) sound almost breakable if the windows are down a half-inch or more (thus unsupported at the top) when you close the door. Is this anything at all to be concerned about, or does it just go with the frameless territory? Does the fact that there's nothing but the guide tracks inside the doors preventing the glass from being pulled out away from the doorseals make Subarus easier break-in targets than cars with conventional framed windows?
You're all gonna guffaw at this, but as I indicated in another forum, I may try a temporary, experimental Rube Goldberg solution to my clutch complaints (far too much travel, and the engagement doesn't begin until the clutch is much too far above the floor). At the same time, this might eliminate a concern several of us have about the Hill Holder: that it sometimes "holds" too hard and takes too much throttle and clutch-slipping to overcome it when you're ready to move forward after it engages.
In order to "set" the hill holder, the clutch has to be pressed clear to the bottom while the brakes are applied. I plan to experimentally place a 2" or 3" block someplace under the clutch pedal (on its backside, or on the floor) that will stop the pedal from completing its bottom-most 2" or 3" of travel. This ought to completely eliminate the Hill Holder (which I really don't need; I'm perfectly satisfied using the handbrake to prevent a car from rolling back when stopping/starting on uphill grades), and I don't like what seems to be excessive wear and tear on the clutch that overcoming the hill holder sometimes imposes.
At the same time, and more importantly (for me) this will remove several inches of the 4 or 5" of excessive pedal travel from the floor up to the point where the clutch finally begins to engage. So long as the clutch can go far enough down to *completely* disengage the clutch plus just a little more, any further travel is just annoying and makes the clutch needlessly difficult to re-engage smoothly. Laugh all you want, but one way or another I'm going to remedy this irritant.
I just wish I could identify a fix for the too-light steering.
jack
I washed it (twice). I clayed it. I used a very mild compound.
Ideas that have worked for you?
Thanx. JW
Unfortuantley, the non VTD 4EAT AWD system can't sustain a 50:50 split for extended periods of time. I've read somewhere that the clutch pack isn't designed to remain engaged for that long.
Ken
Anyone have a hp/torque curve picture for the new motor? Hopefully the auto rags will have tested the XT for the new issues coming out in the next few days...
-Brian
I'm with you 100% on the XT's head-of-the-class peformance, especially at the price. It's why I pried open my moth-eaten wallet and bought one.
"...I compared it to those others also quick SUVs. The CR-V, Escape, and Vue just don't come close to that kind of acceleration. Vue Redline will give us the only meaningful benchmark."
It's highly unlikely that the Vue Redline will be available with a MT (current V-6 Vues come only with automatics). Because of that and its heftier weight (almost 3500 pounds with AWD), it probably won't match the automatic XT's acceleration, and will trail far behind the XT 5-speed.
"I'm sure the touring tires have far less rolling resistance, FWIW, you can definitely hear it.
Now Subaru uses Yokohamas, but they are still rated for M&S. The STi uses summer tires, quite different. The WRX is closer but still more pavement biased."
I think there's merit in the rolling-resistance point you raised. I wish we could somehow quantify it so as to determine just how much of the XT's inferior MPG (compared to WRX and STi) can be attributed to this. On the other hand, the X/XS use the same tires (except for their white lettering) as the XT, so the rolling-resistance point is inapplicable in discussing why the XT did so much worse than the X/XS when completing the exact same EPA routines with the same accelerations, same speeds, same everything.
"Maybe the Forester needs a 6th gear? I'm sure noone here would object to that! :-)"
When I initially saw that the XT's engine is merely a detuned STi unit, I hoped for awhile that the latter's 6-speed would also be included. The Forester's 5-speed has what I consider to be rather wide ratio spacing. Spreading the same bottom-to-top range across one more gear would have closed up the large gaps, definitely enhancing the XT's appeal to enthusiast drivers. Too bad it isn't at least an extra-cost option.
jack
Emotion-free??? Have you so soon forgotten my infamous foaming rants in the SUV-vs-wagon forum?
No doubt everybody there thinks I'm a tree-hugging ultra-left-wing rabid environmentalist. Truth is, except for the rabid part, I'm the opposite.
As for being very (some would say overly!) detailed, it's an unavoidable occupational hazard of too many decades as a CPA.
jb
I think this is a definite possibility. A large, naturally-aspirated engine operating most of the time at relatively light load is not a terribly efficient proposition from the standpoint of efficiency at converting the fuel's BTUs into useful energy. Otto-cycle engines tend to be most efficient when operated nearer the upper end of their powerbands.
This, in fact, is why turbochargers were developed: Take a comparatively small,, lightweight, moderately-powered engine that will in any given vehicle) by definition run much closer to its maximums (closer than a big, lazy engine) - and then add an exhaust-driven turbocharger to provide equivalent power capacity BUT ONLY when demanded; otherwise, the turbo is along for the ride. When called upon, the turbo is driven entirely by what would otherwise be waste heat energy in the exhaust stream (thereby recovering some of that waste, actually improving the engine's peak efficiency at transforming the fuel's chemical energy into mechanical). The rest of the time, the small engine
Bob
Anyway, ...the small engine works relatively harder than an equivalent big one would, thus spending more of its time operating in the more-efficient higher-load ranges than the loafing big one would. This efficiency-enhancing aspect of turbochargers is exactly why they are found on so many marine and large-truck powerplants.
jb
Don't increase showroom traffic by having them available. Don't increase the chance of selling the 03 Forester to someone who heard about them and stopped in, but gor whatever reason can't get into an XT...
Nope, can't argue with logic like that...
Tell you what, if yours disappoints, we'll trade, you can have mine, which averages 24.7 mpg. Think of all the savings in gas money! I think we should trade now, actually, LOL.
I'm surprised about your opinion on the steering. While it's not heavy, the ratio is quick. Also, it's heavier than the CR-V. You should drive a Vue, that has much lighter steering. In fact if you drove it back-to-back I think it would change your opinion about the Forester's steering. There's one possible cure.
Check the air pressures, it may be high if it feels that light. Also consider wider, grippier tires. I bet 235/55R16 gumballs with a summer tread would alleviate that and handle like a champ, too.
The windows will rattle if they are not fully closed or all the way open when you slam the door, yes, that goes with the territory with frameless doors. But look at the IIHS side-impact scores for structure - Forester is solid.
By the way, I agree completely that this would be hard to drive slowly. The throttle is very sensitive, the opposite of what you expect from a turbo. What lag? Hit the gas and you are going too fast before you look at the speedo.
In another thread, someone mentioned 2nd gear redlines at 53 mph. That's short gearing, at least for a manual tranny. Most vehicles can reach 60 mph in 2nd gear, the XT needs 3rd. That might have hurt the EPA city numbers. Indeed, the auto does 1mpg better, 19 vs. 18, probably for that reason.
The funny thing was in that thread the concern was the opposite, i.e. was gearing too tall to tow a 2400 lb load. See? Subaru just can't win! ;-)
-juice
Just yesterday, my wife commented on the lack of punch when trying to pass a bus on the freeway. She may not have depressed the accelerator enough to get to 3rd. Also, she had a hefty passenger in the back. (Won't go into details)
I read a previous post on the ECU and that it will actually become accustomed to your driving style over time. Is that true?
Quick note on MPG, I have yet to get anything better the 24 mpg, mostly freeway. I know it will get better over time and maybe that will be the case with the XT. I sure hope not, since I based my purchase on economical reasons.
Hoping that the XT will bomb, (because I'm envious;>)
Matt
Just teasing. The mileage should improve with age, mine did by about +2mpg. In the real-world the autos aren't as efficient as the 5 speeds.
-juice
I realize that there are, sadly, many (too many) who share your perspective, but your cavalier statement bespeaks an attitude that is utterly alien to me. Relatively few people truly have more money than they can ever possibly spend. Other things being equal, lower fuel consumption wastes less money - your money - than greater fuel consumption. Money spent on fuel cannot ever be spent on anything else. Even if that doesn't matter to you, lower fuel consumption usually implies lower atmospheric pollution emissions. If that doesn't matter, lower fuel consumption reduces dependence on foreign oil. If that doesn't matter, lower fuel consumption leaves more domestic oil for other important non-combustion uses. If that doesn't matter, lower fuel consumption delays the need to drill more wells in environmentally sensitive areas. The list goes on. I won't continue with more, because I suspect I'm just wasting my time.
Are you really unable to identify with even one single reason why it is important to be concerned about fuel consumption? If so, in what way does that reflect mature, thoughtful, rational, socially-responsible judgement?
-jb
I think what johnb2251 meant was "Holy crap, this car is fun to drive. Who cares if it's mileage isn't as good as the normally aspirated version?"
Regardless of its bottom-line effect on performance, I personally just happen to enjoy driving more with a stick - it's like the difference between preparing my own scratch gourmet meal compared to microwaving a frozen dinner.
Otherwise, my exhilarating drive in an XT automatic was so thoroughly impressive and satisfying that I wouldn't have hesitated to buy it for an instant. Nobody who prefers automatics ought to be deterred at all by the frothy comments being made by me and others about the 5-speed XT. The automatic XT is superb.
jb
Now thats "fuel" for thought!
Matt
If you consider performance, it might actually prevent you from buying a far less efficient sporty car.
If you look at torquey competitors, it's better than the XTerra S/C or the Liberty or Sante Fe with the new 3.5l V6. So you might look at those as being wasteful, especially given they're not particularly fast.
Although...one concern I'd have is range. We already prefer my wife's Legacy, and it's just 1 gallon bigger in fuel capacity. I feel like on the Forester I have to get gas every 5 days, at least it seems that way (it's not, really).
With the XT, if you're driving hard, let's say you average 20mpg, then you're max range is about 320 miles, that's not much. Subaru says you should fill up when the low fuel light goes on, that would happen at 272 miles.
Plus, consider that the octane requirement makes it more important to shop around for fuel, and you have less flexibilty to get to cheap fuel with less range.
-juice
Guilty. But it's less a complaint (especially since I haven't yet refilled my tank and don't yet know for certain what I'll get) than a simple intellectual puzzlement over the XT's mediocre EPA ratings. I've put forth a host of reasons why I was expecting better. Not until your rolling-resistance point (which we still can't evaluate in any rigorous way) have I seen any convincing rebuttal that actually deals with germaine issues, as distinguished from the knee-jerk all-encompassing "hey, it has more power, of course it's going to use more fuel." 'Tain't necessarily so.
"I'm surprised about your opinion on the steering. While it's not heavy, the ratio is quick."
Which I certainly appreciate.
"Also, it's heavier than the CR-V. You should drive a Vue, that has much lighter steering. In fact if you drove it back-to-back I think it would change your opinion about the Forester's steering. There's one possible cure."
I haven't driven any of those, but it's almost unimaginable that they could be lighter than my XT. I can't think of why anyone would want steering even this light, let alone lighter! Any time you can sit in a stationary car and move the wheel lock-to-lock almost effortlessly with a single finger, I call that *way* overboosted. There is simply no way that some degree of road feel hasn't been sacrificed, and to gain what? ?
"Check the air pressures, it may be high if it feels that light."
When I made the same light-steering complaints a month ago after testing an X and an XS, people pointed out the tendencies for dealers to not correct overinflations. So when took delivery of my XT on Monday, I checked myself. They were all at 34 cold, and I lowered them to 31 all around. So what I'm describing is on just 31psi. I'm not sure I want to go much lower, because even an old fart like me will scrape off the tire shoulders if they get too soft.
"lso consider wider, grippier tires. I bet 235/55R16 gumballs with a summer tread would alleviate that and handle like a champ, too."
That might indeed help, both with the steering and with ultimate adhesion. Unfortunately, skinflint that I am, that'll have to wait until the Geos are down to their belts. (well, not quite that far). Do you think the stock alloy 6.5" rim width is sufficient to support a 235-wide tire in the twisty bits?
"By the way, I agree completely that this would be hard to drive slowly. The throttle is very sensitive, the opposite of what you expect from a turbo. What lag? Hit the gas and you are going too fast before you look at the speedo."
Imagine my feeble attempts to stay under 2500-3000rpm during at least the first few weeks of my long break-in. Damn near impossible.
"In another thread, someone mentioned 2nd gear redlines at 53 mph. That's short gearing, at least for a manual tranny."
Then you also saw my reply. I frankly don't believe the max speeds-in-gears published in the owner's manual. For all the reasons I gave, I think they have to be incorrect. I'll check my speedo's calibration soon (maybe this weekend), and that will let me either prove or (slightly) adjust my calculated 24.3mph per 1000 rpm in top gear. Unless I somehow blew the math (not impossible, but not likely) and arrived at a number is somehow off by a substantial amount, OR unless the XT 5-speed's first four transmission ratios are completely different from those of the X/XS (which would be contrary to everything I've seen), then I assert that there is no way the maximum speeds in gears listed in the manual for the XT 5-speed can possibly correspond to its 6500rpm redline.
Frankly, I'm hoping that those speeds are misprints. It would make zero sense to put 30 to 40% more horsepower and torque into a Forester, keep the axle ratio and tire sizes the same, and then LOWER the 1st-thru-3rd transmission gear ratios by 15 to 20%. But that's exactly what would have to be true for Subaru's numbers to be correct. The X/XS transmission is already a rather wide-ratio box; why on earth would they change that in the wrong direction?
jb
Man, oh man - few men's wives EVER give them an opening as large as yours just gave you. POUNCE on it! Sheesh, if you play your cards right, you can probably even convince her that it's an urgent life-or-death safety issue. If you're really good, you can probably even get HER to pay for your new XT - and feel good about it! (-;
- jack
Take it from me - the XT definitely IS a bomb...
jb
You continue to be the angel on my right shoulder. Or is it left? Fuel consumption/type was always the deciding factor on the XS. However, my fill-ups have always been with Plus & Premium. (I'm sure that will change once the "new car" feel wears off.)
Matt,
ps. The devil on my right shoulder, or left, says "you should've got an XT!"
It contributes to the Gross Domestic Product? :-)
tidester, host
In all fairness to automatic drivers, I think it's more like the difference between preparing your own scratch gourmet meal or ordering take out from a gourmet restaurant.
In the end you get a satisfying meal, but with stick you get to enjoy all the nuances of the power delivery and have it cooked just the way you want it.
Ken
I never doubted that you were; we're just approaching this from different perspectives, and somehow we're failing to communicate:
"I just don't think that 18/23 or 19/23 is bad in the big picture."
I agree that the XT will deliver better MPG than probably any other (heaver and costlier) 4WD or AWD SUV (or even crossover) having anywhere near the XT's performance. I applaud the XT for doing this. OK? I realize that the rest of you think that fact alone is sufficient to overlook (or accept) the XT's EPA numbers. But I am not comparing it to any of those vehicles; I think that's apples-to-oranges, and doing so misses the central points that I've repeatedly stressed. Skipping most of the detail, my points are:
1. The identical body with identical drag characteristics (including your rolling resistance) but with the older, lower-tech X/XS engine, completed EPA's test cycles achieving 21/27mpg. I don't know many people who think these are spectacularly oustanding numbers.
2. Remove the X/XS engine. Take an improved, newer-design 300HP STi engine. DE-TUNE it, substantially!
But retain its much-ballyhood claimed-to-IMPROVE-fuel-efficiency technologies, specifically including AVCS (to optimize valve overlap at all RPMs and loads, resulting in LESS overlap than a fixed-timing cam at moderate speeds and loads <read: EPA tests>, leading to less unburned fuel flowing out the exhaust, wasted, without ever contributing to power).
Also retain its electronic throttle control to most-efficiently match throttle opening to any given demand.
Add a small turbocharger, a device well-known among combustion engineers to IMPROVE an engine's efficiency at converting fuel's chemical energy to mechanical energy by driving itself entirely on WASTE heat energy contained in all I/C engine exhausts (unlike power-sapping mechanically-driven superchargers).
3. Put that engine, with all those efficiency-ENHANCING improvements, into that same X/XS body, adding less than 4% total weight. Leave everything else the same: same tires, same axle ratio, same gearing, everything. Repeat the lab-controlled EPA tests, which AT NO POINT ever demand any more actual power output than the X/XS engine was easily able to provide. Power ACTUALLY demanded during the controlled dyno tests (NOT surplus power available but not used) is directly proportional to fuel burned to produce it.
4. Analyze the results, and compare them to those attained by the X/XS. If the newer engine's multiple technological improvements actually do (as claimed by Subaru) reduce fuel waste by improving the engine's efficiency even slightly, then you could make a plausible case that the improved engine might actually do as well or <gasp> better than the older one on the non-peformance-oriented EPA tests.
5. As a doublecheck, compare the XT's EPA results to the WRX's and to the 300hp STi's - cars by the same maker. The WRX has a bit less frontal area and weight, a much hotter state of tune, slightly more power capability, and got 20/26. The STi has a bit less frontal area, MORE weight than the XT, a much hotter state of tune, far more power capability, very similar overall gearing - yet produced better-than-XT EPA ratings.
When explaining these outcomes, please try to stay focused on, and to fully consider, the relevant factors identified above, instead of comparing the small, lightweight XT to bigger, heavier, much-more-powerful SUV gas-guzzlers. The explanation of the XT's EPA numbers somehow has to account for these factors.
If you consider performance, it might actually prevent you from buying a far less efficient sporty car.
"If you look at torquey competitors, it's better than the XTerra S/C or the Liberty or Sante Fe with the new 3.5l V6. So you might look at those as being wasteful, especially given they're not particularly fast."
I do indeed, which is why I would never have considered any of those vehicles.
"Plus, consider that the octane requirement makes it more important to shop around for fuel, and you have less flexibilty to get to cheap fuel with less range."
Aha - my penny-pinching ways are beginning to rub off on you!
jb
On a totally separate topic, I'm curious, what do people normally carry in their cars? Aside from the normal spare tire and passengers.
I usually carry a first aid kit, a power inverter, couple of flashlights, some rope to tie stuff on top, and a moving blanket.
So it does. So would spending the same money some people waste on excessive fossil-fuel consumption on other, less problematic things instead.
jb
tidester, host
Ken responds, "In all fairness to automatic drivers, I think it's more like the difference between preparing your own scratch gourmet meal or ordering take out from a gourmet restaurant."
I can't argue with that, especially when the XT automatic is SUCH a delectable morsel. If my wife had put her foot down and said no to the 5-speed, I would have been delighted to get the automatic.
jb
OK, digging into my long term memory. I think the Forester's EPA numbers changed in 2000. But the engine went to the Phase II in 1999. So at a minimum the EPA lagged by a year in updating their numbers, which went down slightly I believe.
Hmm, good point about the 235mm tires on a 6.5" rim. Mine are 7", aftermarket, so I could probably do it. It may be pushing it for the stock rims.
Why is it I get hungry after every visit to Edmunds.com? LOL
-juice
I remember from my hot-rodding days that there was a commercially made device that clamped to the clutch pedal to prevent it from going all the way to the floor. It had a small pad at the bottom that would contact the floor to stop the pedal travel. It was adjustable to allow you to set the travel for only what was needed to fully disengage the clutch without excessive travel (and time spent shifting). I'm sure you can find this device somewhere in cyberspace.
I hope this helps (or at least gives you something to do when the XT is resting!).
Len
As little as possible around town. Less weight for better mpg and fewer projectiles to fly around.
Well, the van does get the jumper cables and the "4-way" lug nut wrench and a piece of outdoor carpet and a hank of cord. All nicely bagged and tied out of the way.
Steve, Host