Juice says, "The Subaru Forester XT actually makes power in the 240-260hp range. They only claim 210 to keep insurance rates low. You heard it here first."
I've actually been wondering about that possibility. The local website for a parts house has a routine letting you designate a make/model and supply quartermile time and trap speed; it then returns the horsepower at the wheel necessary to achieve. I cranked in 'Forester' and 14.8 sec at 92mph. It said something like 208 hp at the wheels would be necessary...with a rating of 210hp (if accurate), an XT would come nowhere near that. So-o-o- combined with what Subearu says C&D observed, it would appear that our XTs might be piling sleeper on top of stealth.
Brian writes, "Notable points: the final drive ratio is 4.44:1, not 4.11:1 like the X/XS. 1st: 3.45 2nd: 2.06 3rd: 1.45 4th: 1.09 5th: 0.78 0-60: 5.3 seconds @ 97mph. top speed: 129mph (5900rpm) Well, we at least now know some reasoning behind the lower mpg..."
Yikes. 4.44:1? Why on earth would Subaru do that? Sure, it transforms an XT into the off-road equivalent of a nitro dragster, but I'd rather have had longer legs. 0-60 in 5.3? That's believable with the 4.41. I wonder if they were as brutal with the launch as mag testers were two years ago to get those 5.4-5.6 numbers with the WRX, or if the XT's broad, stump-pulling torque curve produced that figure without abusing the driveline quite so much. You gave us 97 as the QM speed but I don't see the time. Gotta be in the low 14's. 129MPH top speed is lower than I calculated/predicted, but my numbers were with the assumed 4.11, which put 133-134mph right at the HP peak. With 4.41, she's already past the peak and on the downside - but undoubtedly pulls up to that 129 with 'haste'. People on the autobahn would rather have the 4.11, or maybe even the 3.9. So would I.
129 @ 5900 is only 21.9 mph per 1000 rpm. I'm really disappointed in that axle ratio. You're right, this is an unexpected contributor to those EPA numbers. I wonder how difficult/expensive it would be to substitute the WRX's 3.9 final drive ratios front and back, and the speedo drive gear to match.
The odd thing about this is that mine does appear to indicate roughly 24 mph/1000 in top (bear in mind that I haven't yet checked the speedo's accuracy). That led me to believe that my prior calcs of speeds-in-gears (based on 4.11) were in the ballpark. I guess now we know why the 1st-thru-3rd max speeds listed in the manual are so low. Rats.
V-e-r-y impressive peformance numbers, exceeding my projections across the board (except top speed, which is pretty academic anyway). They'll undoubtedly spark a big spike in the interest the XT will attract. I'm just not sure the 4.11's gain is worth the loss in MPG, long-term durability, relaxed highway cruising capability, and so forth.
I wonder if perhaps the automatic XT kept the 4.11? If so, that might provide the answer to those of us who've driven both and immediately felt that the 5-speed was somewhat noisier and less pleasant inside than the automatic...
Can't wait to lay my hands on the full C&D writeup. Thanks, Brian, for the preview. We've all been waiting with bated breaths for a "real" test, and now we have one.
Thanks for the advice on this question. I'll leave it in D from now on and let my feet do the walking.
I got a great deal on a pair of Polk 2-way 4" speakers the other day at Fry's - $14.00 for both. They and the 6.5"ers get installed this Saturday at a local tunes shop run by a bunch of clever kids who are charging me $50 for the whole installation. That means I got a great speaker upgrade for $110 installed! I'll report back on fit and sound later. Happy weekend to all!
Brian adds, for the benefit of a starving audience, ""The shifter was as sweet as a peach,"
I still occasionally hit the blind spot between 3rd and 5th when upshifting from 4th. I almost have to consciously shove the lever WAY over to the right to avoid it. I don't really think I want a short-shift kit, because all of the other throws are fine. Guess I'll get used to it.
Brian: "the clutch nice and light,
Well, the 'light' part is right. Not so sure about the 'nice' part with the engagement beginning so far up from the floor. But that ought to be fixable.
Brian: "and the engine truly heroic. With this kind of power and weight, the little XT ends up as the only real hot rod in the entire small-SUV spectrum"
D-U-H ! Until now I was saying 'name another AWD vehicle that can match the XT's peformance for under $50K, twice its price.' Now that the numbers are in, I think that moves up to at least $60K.
Brian gives the missing QM time: "Standing 1/4 mile: 13.8 seconds @ 97mph"
I had no idea just how fast this minimonster I bought is. Another two months of painstaking break-in, and I'll actually be able to experience it! By then it'll be old hat to the rest of you impatient types.
Goodness. Those performance numbers are incredible. How do these people get their C&Ds so dang early!!!? I can't wait to get mine.
Was there any mention of the 5-60 street start number?
Okay, so could it be that in it's haste to get XTs out, Subaru just a lot more STi internals than it planned on? Remember way back when the first Impreza 2.5 RS rolled out, it had the WRX clutch, then Subaru swapped it out to a lesser version without telling anyone.
Is there a first-mover/early adopter advantage here?
208hp at the wheels is roughly 250hp. See? I'm right on target.
nitro dragster, LOL! I can't believe we're talking about a FORESTER! :-)
4.11:1 on the auto would explain a LOT. You could be right about that.
The street start is still very quick.
The short gearing explains the super quick response at 2000rpm. They wanted to nullify lag, well they did just that. I told you, it's hard to explain how quick it was even at low rpm.
Since the XT is written up in C&D, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's also tested in R&T and/or Automobile this month too. I'm eagerly awaiting my postman's next delivery...
BTW, someone mentioned a 4.44:1 final drive for the 5-speed XT. Well, I checked the Baja turbo specs PDF, which is on the SOA media site, and for the Baja turbo it states the 5-speed gets a 3.90:1 final drive and the automatic gets a 4.44:1 final drive. I'm wondering if C&D has their info mixed up??
I have no doubt what you posted was accurate in terms of what you read. My guess is that C&D was incorrect. I can't imagine that the Forester XT 5-speed would have a 4.44:1 and the identical Baja turbo would have have a 3.90:1 final drive. The PDF did mention a 4.44:1 for the Baja turbo automatic, however.
Of course it's also possible the SOA PDF could be wrong. It's happened before.
Assuming the 0.78 ratio for 5th gear is correct, and the 129mph at 5900rpm is correct, we can calculate the final drive ratio. Trouble is, what is the effective tire radius? If I go with the nominal wheel radius (according to the rim and tire size) I get 4.56. If we lop an inch off the nominal radius due to tire compression, I get 4.21. So, I'm guessing 4.44 is correct. Then again, I just had to do long division, so this could be totally wrong!
I had a previously planned dinner engagement so didn't make the chat. Plus I was thinking today was Wednesday most of the day, so I forgot all about it anyway & forgot to stick a promo/reminder up in here.
Just when you think they get the multiple chat room/html bug fixed, it blows up.
There was a master server disk crash since the last chat and some pointers didn't get fixed. Maybe that was it. In anagram terms, Subaru Chat = hurt abacus.
Brian wonders, "We need someone with an AT XT to figure out the ratio of their axle to see if it's 4.11:1 or 4.44:1. Any takers? I'm guessing since the mpg figures are similar for the MT and AT, that the AT also gets a 4.44:1."
Don't forget that the manual says upshift points for the automatic are (trying to remember) around 78 from 2nd to 3rd, and about 118 from 3rd to 4th. That doesn't sound to me like a 4:44 axle, when the 5-speed can barely break 100 in 4th...
To "Ballistic" et al. Yamaha outboards use a variable cylinder control (re: the old Cadillac 4-6-8 thing you mentioned). My Yammaha 90 hp on the lobster yacht Ann Marie uses 1 cylinder below 2000 rpm then kicks in the other 2 over 2000 rpm. Fuel savings? Who knows? Another safety device is that if there is low oil or overheating --both with alarms--a governor limits the engine to one cylinder and below 2000 rpm. Theory: to get you back to port. How about this on Subarus. Maine waters can be treacherous....kind of like the Queens Expressway ? Let's lighten up here.
Watching the shockwaves reverberate throughout various Subaru discussions about C&D's stunning XT test results, the thought just occurred to me: What if Brian pulled off a monstrous hoax, and there was no C&D test? What a prank that would be!
Are you kidding me? I no longer subscribe, so I don't get the early issue. I stopped at two newstands yesterday, and I'll probably be stopping twice a day until the darn magazine finally hits the newsstands.
We've all been so starved for any real data on the XT, you (or anyone) really could have reeled us right in, though...would have made the perfect April Fool gag except it's not the right date.
CD got 5.4 for the WRX. I still find it hard to believe as well. The horsepower must be substantially understated ( although maybe it's due to the 4:41 gearing), but in any case I applaud Subaru for making a reasonably priced performance car that an adult can drive. Unlike the WRX, EVO, and Neon SRT, a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers. Strangers won't look at me and think I'm an ego maniac, my co workers won't laugh at me and think I'm going through a mid life crisis, and the police will think I'm a soccer mom. Despite the fact that this thing will do the quarter mile in the 13's. Does it get any better?
Brian says, "Better yet, go buy a C&D for yourself as see it in plain view."
See, that's what would have made it such a perfect hoax. Here you have scores of people hanging on every word about the new XT, starved for anything of substance.
Subcribers always get their car mags ahead of the newsstands, so nobody who doesn't subscribe would have any reason to question a subscriber's report. Even other subscribers, not having yet received their new issues, might just think "oh, well, mine's a day or two late, but wow, look at Brian's astounding recap!"
What a fertile field for completely bamboozling everybody in these conferences - make up some unthought-of performance numbers, attribute them to a magazine nobody's seen yet, and whip 'em into a total manic froth.
It would be great while it lasted, but omething like that would probably get you marked for a hit when the other shoe dropped.
Thanks for making me feel like I'm getting flamed.
I am just as interested as anyone else here about the XT. That's why once I got the C&D yesterday I quickly posted EXACTLY what I read about the XT, since it was very exciting news. I have no ambition to make up lies or misinformation about this.
corkfish says, "Unlike the WRX, EVO, and Neon SRT, a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers. Strangers won't look at me and think I'm an ego maniac, my co workers won't laugh at me and think I'm going through a mid life crisis, and the police will think I'm a soccer mom."
You just encapsulated exactly why, when I first heard about the prospect of a turbo Forester, I knew almost instantly that it was my next car.
The WRX offers brilliant (if rather peaky) performance for the bucks, and I repeatedly tried to like the sportwagon version well enough to buy it. But the (can we be honest?) 'exhuberant' WRX styling is just not my cuppa. The XT addresses every single WRX shortcoming, adds a big dose of everyday practicality (well, except for that darn 4.41 final drive), delivers performance that no other SUV under triple the cost can match, and I was able to wangle a good deal on an early one.
As the language manglers say, it don't get no better than that.
Brian: "I have no ambition to make up lies or misinformation about this."
Brian, absolutely no flame intended. Sorry you read it that way. I never intended for you to think I was implying that anything your wrote was unreal. I was just musing on what a piece of cake it would have been, given how nuts we all are for any hard XT data, for some really warped, diabolical person (me, for example, if I'd have thunk of it) to absolutely explode the whole community by dropping a few tantalizing 'excerpts' from a nonexistent major-magazine test. I mean, if ever a group of people was ripe for plucking, all of us were.
aint misbehavin...are you? by subewannabe Jun 27, 2003 (12:34 pm) I stopped by my nearest subaru dealer yeaterday, prestige subaru in Asheville( which happens to be the biggest volume dealer in the southeast with a really great service crew that loves aftermarket tuning). they have sold 4 of the 6 XT's they received last week, and agreed to sell me whatever i want on the VIP plan at invoice . the salesman suggested taking the savings on the price of the car and getting the leather, premium sound, more sound insulation and even a sunroof if i want it on a MT through their aftermarket detail shop, under the MSRP on the Premium Package , and get better leather in the process. they had a 2003 silver XS with the premium package that included a light gray leather, and it looked so much better , IMHO, than the dark gray you can get in the XT. Likewise the beige leather in the cayenne red XS. the salesman offered his personal opinion that the AT is more than adequate performance, though, unless i was a MT purist. one a side note, the seats on the XT are the same shape and structure as the NA forester, i.e. no meaningful thigh and side bolsters like the WRX. I really like the WRX seats and LOVE, not like, the pneumatic adjustable seat bolsters and lumbar supports on the 6-way electric adjustable leather seats, driver and passenger side,in my '94 explorer.maybe i can get an aftermarket seat set rather than just putting leather on the existing seats.( i actually considered pulling the explorer seats out and putting them in an XT and hook them up to the seat heater circuit, but i dont think that will work.)
On a serious note....in an amazing display of restraint, i turned down repeated offers to take his remaining 2 XT's on test drives, one Black AT , the other a Red MT. I decided to "do the right thing", considering all the posts in here about getting a truly "virgin" new XT and making sure it was not abused in the break in period. I was also reacting to my shock, and anger, after reading a few posts of folks who test drove XTs from dealers' very limited supply, just out of curiosity and with absolutely no intent to buy it, then blatantly ignored the manuf. recomm. break in procedures by pushing the cars to redline! somebody else can later buy the car that they have abused, and wonder why their car is losing compression at high RPM, etc., and that dealer who trusted them to test drive a car responsibly can try to appease an unhappy owner of a "new " XT and figure out whats wrong with that car and try to fix it. the posts in here from new BUYERS like chassol and ballistic have been worth their weight in gold to people who are considering buying a new XT or just subaru enthusiasts. now we also have the reviews in the car mags coming out, driving cars provided by Subaru to be driven to the limits. if you are not buying, maybe you should give some thought to whether you would want to be the person who bought the car you test drove. Mark
5.4 was their quicker WRX, they also had one take 5.8 seconds. So 5.4 is with a good launch.
Something else - the 2.5T's favorable torque curve makes it easier to drive, so a pro may be slightly quicker, but odds are the gap actually widens for less experienced drivers (i.e. real-world driving).
a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers
I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
Mark: FWIW, I don't feel that I did anything to abuse the XTs I test drove. I doubt Bob or Ken did either.
And I can assure you I am very much interested in buying, perhaps waiting for Subaru to package that moonroof with the 5 speed, or talking the wife into it, or both.
-juice
PS I have seen posts where people describe taking loaners off road, hitting the rev limiter on test drives, etc. You may be talking about that. On both of my test drives, the salesmen went with me. I did nothing to startle or alarm them, of course.
>>a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers
>I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
I fear that we'll see exactly that, once the insurance raters get the next C&D and magazines to follow. They're not blind - they pay very close attention to this stuff. Even a blah Subaru Forester, if it can do 97 in the QM in 13.8, is going to be squarely in their gunsights.
We might get off easy for maybe the first 6 month policy period. After that...dig out your wallet.
Unlike the WRX, EVO, and Neon SRT, a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers.
Well, it certainly won't appeal as much to the F&F crowd BUT take a quick look at the NASIOC Forester Forums and see the sudden increase in "boy racer" types posting there.
Mark:
You raise an excellent point, but I think it's ultimately the dealer that needs to control and police that type of behavior.
Mark says, "the posts in here from new BUYERS like chassol and ballistic have been worth their weight in gold to people who are considering buying a new XT"
I wish I could provide more than just the surface stuff I've been describing, but I'm still a long way from really experiencing the performance. I don't have a long commute, work ridiculous hours (eating into my drive time!), and so it's taking quite awhile to rack up any miles. I'm only at about 130 miles today since picking up the car Monday. So, I'm still keeping the tach under 3000-3200 with mild throttle for another week or two. Then maybe 3500-3600 for a couple more weeks. Then the 4000 Subaru allows for awhile.
Sheesh - at this rate it'll be a Christmas present to myself to finally take my XT to the redline. <sigh>
Anybody ordering an XT owes it to him/herself to get the $200 (invoice) boost gauge, if only for the entertainment value. It is absolutely amazing how (relatively) little throttle and revs are necessary to swing into boost, even if only the lower range. I've seen positive boost at 1500 rpms!
This thing climbs grades, even in top gear if you're above 1500-2000 rpm, like a Mack truck with no trailers.
I've mentioned before that I'll probably never drive mine the way most of you will. Stoplight races, autocrosses, and suchlike no longer appeal to me. The big deal for me is having a car with enough power in reserve that I may never need all of it. That sort of car can accomplish anything you ask without ever really even breathing hard. For example, if I drive to the ocean up and over the Coast mountain range, or to Mt. Hood, I never like feeling trapped behind a semi or RV on a winding uphill 2-lane mountain road. If a short straight comes along, I want to be able to get around right now, with safe margins, and not have to plod along waiting for the passing lane 2 miles ahead.
The reason for repeating this is that before the XT arrived, and especially before C&D's test (thanks, Brian, really!) I thought these passing operations might occur in 4th, or occasionally in 3rd.
I now think it will rarely require downshifting from 5th! This car is that fast.
<begin quote>a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers
I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
I fear that we'll see exactly that, once the insurance raters get the next C&D and magazines to follow. They're not blind - they pay very close attention to this stuff. Even a blah Subaru Forester, if it can do 97 in the QM in 13.8, is going to be squarely in their gunsights.
We might get off easy for maybe the first 6 month policy period. After that...dig out your wallet.<end quote>
I fully agree on this, in case you missed my post in 2004 Forester XT my premium went up only $15.00 for every six months. I truly hope it stays this way, but only time is going to tell..............................
Finally after lurking in these discussion groups for several weeks, just bought a silver XT. Ready for pick-up tomorrow morning. Had to compromise with my better half by getting AT - but I did treat myself by getting moonroof/leather. Will miss MT (I was able to test drive it and it is exceptional!) but I think I'll be pretty happy with the AT. I'll be sure to share my impressions and MPG results. Thanks for all the helpful posts. Happy motoring to one and all!
Went to Fitzmall in MD to test an Auto XT vs. an Auto XS. The lease on my wife's S Premium ends on Nov. 1. Before driving, the first thing that I noticed was that the optional turbo boost gauge is placed on the steering hub and blocks the view of the fuel and temp gauges and the transmission selector indicator. It's a good thing that this gauge is an option because its placement is terrible. The steering feels slightly heavier than the XS and the car is noticibly faster. But 0-60 in 5-6 second range is impossible for this automatic. I drive an Infiniti G-35 Auto which does 0-60 in about 6.3 seconds and the XT is significantly slower. With the salesman as a passenger we entered a highway from a dead stop and on my timex ironman we timed it at 7.4 seconds. Even if we were off a little bit, there is no way the auto XT can do 0-60 in under 7 seconds. I also noticed about a one-half second turbo lag in stomp the pedal passing from 55-70. The XS auto although quick in 0-30 is a real dog in passing from 55-70. My wife and I love the Forester and it has proven to be both reliable and convenient since we travel from Washington, DC to Emerald Isle, NC, almost every month carrying three cats in their carriers, a load of luggage and occasionally a kayak on the roof rack. We will get an XT auto in November and I hope by then the prices will be near invoice and then we can determine if a new lease or a purchase would be a better value. If I bought the car after yesterday's test drive, the lease would be outrageous. About 500.00 per month for 3 years...that's more than my G-35 lease. The cash price at $25250.00 is reasonable but should come down to invoice at the end of the summer.
Comments
-juice
I've actually been wondering about that possibility. The local website for a parts house has a routine letting you designate a make/model and supply quartermile time and trap speed; it then returns the horsepower at the wheel necessary to achieve. I cranked in 'Forester' and 14.8 sec at 92mph. It said something like 208 hp at the wheels would be necessary...with a rating of 210hp (if accurate), an XT would come nowhere near that. So-o-o- combined with what Subearu says C&D observed, it would appear that our XTs might be piling sleeper on top of stealth.
- jb
Won't work. PITA would still have fits, unless the leather came from old dead human animals.
jb
Finally, common ground. I couldn't have said that any better myself.
- jb
Nice turn of phrase, Corkfish.
Steve, Host
1st: 3.45 2nd: 2.06 3rd: 1.45 4th: 1.09 5th: 0.78
0-60: 5.3 seconds @ 97mph. top speed: 129mph (5900rpm)
Well, we at least now know some reasoning behind the lower mpg..."
Yikes. 4.44:1? Why on earth would Subaru do that? Sure, it transforms an XT into the off-road equivalent of a nitro dragster, but I'd rather have had longer legs. 0-60 in 5.3? That's believable with the 4.41. I wonder if they were as brutal with the launch as mag testers were two years ago to get those 5.4-5.6 numbers with the WRX, or if the XT's broad, stump-pulling torque curve produced that figure without abusing the driveline quite so much. You gave us 97 as the QM speed but I don't see the time. Gotta be in the low 14's. 129MPH top speed is lower than I calculated/predicted, but my numbers were with the assumed 4.11, which put 133-134mph right at the HP peak. With 4.41, she's already past the peak and on the downside - but undoubtedly pulls up to that 129 with 'haste'. People on the autobahn would rather have the 4.11, or maybe even the 3.9. So would I.
129 @ 5900 is only 21.9 mph per 1000 rpm. I'm really disappointed in that axle ratio. You're right, this is an unexpected contributor to those EPA numbers. I wonder how difficult/expensive it would be to substitute the WRX's 3.9 final drive ratios front and back, and the speedo drive gear to match.
The odd thing about this is that mine does appear to indicate roughly 24 mph/1000 in top (bear in mind that I haven't yet checked the speedo's accuracy). That led me to believe that my prior calcs of speeds-in-gears (based on 4.11) were in the ballpark. I guess now we know why the 1st-thru-3rd max speeds listed in the manual are so low. Rats.
V-e-r-y impressive peformance numbers, exceeding my projections across the board (except top speed, which is pretty academic anyway). They'll undoubtedly spark a big spike in the interest the XT will attract. I'm just not sure the 4.11's gain is worth the loss in MPG, long-term durability, relaxed highway cruising capability, and so forth.
I wonder if perhaps the automatic XT kept the 4.11? If so, that might provide the answer to those of us who've driven both and immediately felt that the 5-speed was somewhat noisier and less pleasant inside than the automatic...
Can't wait to lay my hands on the full C&D writeup. Thanks, Brian, for the preview. We've all been waiting with bated breaths for a "real" test, and now we have one.
jb
We'll see. You might be the Lone Ranger.
jb
I got a great deal on a pair of Polk 2-way 4" speakers the other day at Fry's - $14.00 for both. They and the 6.5"ers get installed this Saturday at a local tunes shop run by a bunch of clever kids who are charging me $50 for the whole installation. That means I got a great speaker upgrade for $110 installed! I'll report back on fit and sound later. Happy weekend to all!
I did mention the 1/4 time: Standing 1/4 mile: 13.8 seconds @ 97mph
Here's some numbers you're probably interested in (from Page 113): mph/1000 rpm
1st 4.9
2nd 8.3
3rd 11.8
4th 15.6
5th 21.8
-Brian
I still occasionally hit the blind spot between 3rd and 5th when upshifting from 4th. I almost have to consciously shove the lever WAY over to the right to avoid it. I don't really think I want a short-shift kit, because all of the other throws are fine. Guess I'll get used to it.
Brian: "the clutch nice and light,
Well, the 'light' part is right. Not so sure about the 'nice' part with the engagement beginning so far up from the floor. But that ought to be fixable.
Brian: "and the engine truly heroic. With this kind of power and weight, the little XT ends up as the only real hot rod in the entire small-SUV spectrum"
D-U-H ! Until now I was saying 'name another AWD vehicle that can match the XT's peformance for under $50K, twice its price.' Now that the numbers are in, I think that moves up to at least $60K.
Brian gives the missing QM time: "Standing 1/4 mile: 13.8 seconds @ 97mph"
Jeezuz. 13.8. That is flat hauling @$$. Amazing.
I had no idea just how fast this minimonster I bought is. Another two months of painstaking break-in, and I'll actually be able to experience it! By then it'll be old hat to the rest of you impatient types.
jb
1st 4.9 2nd 8.3 3rd 11.8 4th 15.6 5th 21.8"
At 6500, that works out to:
32, 54, 77, 101, and 142(theoretical).
Those 1st-throught-3rd speeds are still not what's printed in the manual, which shows (for example) a first-gear maximum of only 28.
Also: Note that TWO shifts were required to reach 60, and still they recorded just 5.3 seconds!
Remarkable.
jb
jb
-Brian
Was there any mention of the 5-60 street start number?
Okay, so could it be that in it's haste to get XTs out, Subaru just a lot more STi internals than it planned on? Remember way back when the first Impreza 2.5 RS rolled out, it had the WRX clutch, then Subaru swapped it out to a lesser version without telling anyone.
Is there a first-mover/early adopter advantage here?
Ken
As one of the very first early-adopters (certainly the first in Oregon), I certainly hope so! (-;
jb
top gear acceleration, 30 - 50 mph = 8.4 seconds
50 - 70 mph = 8.1 seconds
120mph in 26.7 seconds
110mph in 19.5 seconds
-Brian
nitro dragster, LOL! I can't believe we're talking about a FORESTER! :-)
4.11:1 on the auto would explain a LOT. You could be right about that.
The street start is still very quick.
The short gearing explains the super quick response at 2000rpm. They wanted to nullify lag, well they did just that. I told you, it's hard to explain how quick it was even at low rpm.
-juice
- Lou
Any takers?
I'm guessing since the mpg figures are similar for the MT and AT, that the AT also gets a 4.44:1.
-Brian
BTW, someone mentioned a 4.44:1 final drive for the 5-speed XT. Well, I checked the Baja turbo specs PDF, which is on the SOA media site, and for the Baja turbo it states the 5-speed gets a 3.90:1 final drive and the automatic gets a 4.44:1 final drive. I'm wondering if C&D has their info mixed up??
Bob
Cohost Steve may know since he often shows up there. Steve?
tidester, host
Hopefully Automobile or R&T will test the AT.
-Brian
Of course it's also possible the SOA PDF could be wrong. It's happened before.
Bob
Craig
Bob
Just when you think they get the multiple chat room/html bug fixed, it blows up.
There was a master server disk crash since the last chat and some pointers didn't get fixed. Maybe that was it. In anagram terms, Subaru Chat = hurt abacus.
Apologies!
Steve, Host
Don't forget that the manual says upshift points for the automatic are (trying to remember) around 78 from 2nd to 3rd, and about 118 from 3rd to 4th. That doesn't sound to me like a 4:44 axle, when the 5-speed can barely break 100 in 4th...
jack
Another safety device is that if there is low oil or overheating --both with alarms--a governor limits the engine to one cylinder and below 2000 rpm. Theory: to get you back to port.
How about this on Subarus.
Maine waters can be treacherous....kind of like
the Queens Expressway ?
Let's lighten up here.
Bob
-juice
I would if I could. Tried to find my manual and associated paperwork last night - can't remember where I put it. Senior moment.
jb
jb
When I get home I'll scan the pages so you have proof.
Better yet, go buy a C&D for yourself as see it in plain view.
-Brian
But that sure would have been funny! :-)
-juice
Still can't get over the 0-60 in 5.3seconds.
What was C&D's times for the WRX?
Ken
Are you kidding me? I no longer subscribe, so I don't get the early issue. I stopped at two newstands yesterday, and I'll probably be stopping twice a day until the darn magazine finally hits the newsstands.
We've all been so starved for any real data on the XT, you (or anyone) really could have reeled us right in, though...would have made the perfect April Fool gag except it's not the right date.
jack
See, that's what would have made it such a perfect hoax. Here you have scores of people hanging on every word about the new XT, starved for anything of substance.
Subcribers always get their car mags ahead of the newsstands, so nobody who doesn't subscribe would have any reason to question a subscriber's report. Even other subscribers, not having yet received their new issues, might just think "oh, well, mine's a day or two late, but wow, look at Brian's astounding recap!"
What a fertile field for completely bamboozling everybody in these conferences - make up some unthought-of performance numbers, attribute them to a magazine nobody's seen yet, and whip 'em into a total manic froth.
It would be great while it lasted, but omething like that would probably get you marked for a hit when the other shoe dropped.
jb
I am just as interested as anyone else here about the XT. That's why once I got the C&D yesterday I quickly posted EXACTLY what I read about the XT, since it was very exciting news. I have no ambition to make up lies or misinformation about this.
-Brian
You just encapsulated exactly why, when I first heard about the prospect of a turbo Forester, I knew almost instantly that it was my next car.
The WRX offers brilliant (if rather peaky) performance for the bucks, and I repeatedly tried to like the sportwagon version well enough to buy it. But the (can we be honest?) 'exhuberant' WRX styling is just not my cuppa. The XT addresses every single WRX shortcoming, adds a big dose of everyday practicality (well, except for that darn 4.41 final drive), delivers performance that no other SUV under triple the cost can match, and I was able to wangle a good deal on an early one.
As the language manglers say, it don't get no better than that.
jb
Brian, absolutely no flame intended. Sorry you read it that way. I never intended for you to think I was implying that anything your wrote was unreal. I was just musing on what a piece of cake it would have been, given how nuts we all are for any hard XT data, for some really warped, diabolical person (me, for example, if I'd have thunk of it) to absolutely explode the whole community by dropping a few tantalizing 'excerpts' from a nonexistent major-magazine test. I mean, if ever a group of people was ripe for plucking, all of us were.
jack
I stopped by my nearest subaru dealer yeaterday, prestige subaru in Asheville( which happens to be the biggest volume dealer in the southeast with a really great service crew that loves aftermarket tuning). they have sold 4 of the 6 XT's they received last week, and agreed to sell me whatever i want on the VIP plan at invoice . the salesman suggested taking the savings on the price of the car and getting the leather, premium sound, more sound insulation and even a sunroof if i want it on a MT through their aftermarket detail shop, under the MSRP on the Premium Package , and get better leather in the process. they had a 2003 silver XS with the premium package that included a light gray leather, and it looked so much better , IMHO, than the dark gray you can get in the XT. Likewise the beige leather in the cayenne red XS. the salesman offered his personal opinion that the AT is more than adequate performance, though, unless i was a MT purist.
one a side note, the seats on the XT are the same shape and structure as the NA forester, i.e. no meaningful thigh and side bolsters like the WRX. I really like the WRX seats and LOVE, not like, the pneumatic adjustable seat bolsters and lumbar supports on the 6-way electric adjustable leather seats, driver and passenger side,in my '94 explorer.maybe i can get an aftermarket seat set rather than just putting leather on the existing seats.( i actually considered pulling the explorer seats out and putting them in an XT and hook them up to the seat heater circuit, but i dont think that will work.)
On a serious note....in an amazing display of restraint, i turned down repeated offers to take his remaining 2 XT's on test drives, one Black AT , the other a Red MT. I decided to "do the right thing", considering all the posts in here about getting a truly "virgin" new XT and making sure it was not abused in the break in period. I was also reacting to my shock, and anger, after reading a few posts of folks who test drove XTs from dealers' very limited supply, just out of curiosity and with absolutely no intent to buy it, then blatantly ignored the manuf. recomm. break in procedures by pushing the cars to redline! somebody else can later buy the car that they have abused, and wonder why their car is losing compression at high RPM, etc., and that dealer who trusted them to test drive a car responsibly can try to appease an unhappy owner of a "new " XT and figure out whats wrong with that car and try to fix it.
the posts in here from new BUYERS like chassol and ballistic have been worth their weight in gold to people who are considering buying a new XT or just subaru enthusiasts. now we also have the reviews in the car mags coming out, driving cars provided by Subaru to be driven to the limits. if you are not buying, maybe you should give some thought to whether you would want to be the person who bought the car you test drove.
Mark
Something else - the 2.5T's favorable torque curve makes it easier to drive, so a pro may be slightly quicker, but odds are the gap actually widens for less experienced drivers (i.e. real-world driving).
a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers
I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
-juice
And I can assure you I am very much interested in buying, perhaps waiting for Subaru to package that moonroof with the 5 speed, or talking the wife into it, or both.
-juice
PS I have seen posts where people describe taking loaners off road, hitting the rev limiter on test drives, etc. You may be talking about that. On both of my test drives, the salesmen went with me. I did nothing to startle or alarm them, of course.
>I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
I fear that we'll see exactly that, once the insurance raters get the next C&D and magazines to follow. They're not blind - they pay very close attention to this stuff. Even a blah Subaru Forester, if it can do 97 in the QM in 13.8, is going to be squarely in their gunsights.
We might get off easy for maybe the first 6 month policy period. After that...dig out your wallet.
jb
Unlike the WRX, EVO, and Neon SRT, a grocery getter like this is not going to appeal to boy racers.
Well, it certainly won't appeal as much to the F&F crowd BUT take a quick look at the NASIOC Forester Forums and see the sudden increase in "boy racer" types posting there.
Mark:
You raise an excellent point, but I think it's ultimately the dealer that needs to control and police that type of behavior.
Ken
I wish I could provide more than just the surface stuff I've been describing, but I'm still a long way from really experiencing the performance. I don't have a long commute, work ridiculous hours (eating into my drive time!), and so it's taking quite awhile to rack up any miles. I'm only at about 130 miles today since picking up the car Monday. So, I'm still keeping the tach under 3000-3200 with mild throttle for another week or two. Then maybe 3500-3600 for a couple more weeks. Then the 4000 Subaru allows for awhile.
Sheesh - at this rate it'll be a Christmas present to myself to finally take my XT to the redline. <sigh>
Anybody ordering an XT owes it to him/herself to get the $200 (invoice) boost gauge, if only for the entertainment value. It is absolutely amazing how (relatively) little throttle and revs are necessary to swing into boost, even if only the lower range. I've seen positive boost at 1500 rpms!
This thing climbs grades, even in top gear if you're above 1500-2000 rpm, like a Mack truck with no trailers.
I've mentioned before that I'll probably never drive mine the way most of you will. Stoplight races, autocrosses, and suchlike no longer appeal to me. The big deal for me is having a car with enough power in reserve that I may never need all of it. That sort of car can accomplish anything you ask without ever really even breathing hard. For example, if I drive to the ocean up and over the Coast mountain range, or to Mt. Hood, I never like feeling trapped behind a semi or RV on a winding uphill 2-lane mountain road. If a short straight comes along, I want to be able to get around right now, with safe margins, and not have to plod along waiting for the passing lane 2 miles ahead.
The reason for repeating this is that before the XT arrived, and especially before C&D's test (thanks, Brian, really!) I thought these passing operations might occur in 4th, or occasionally in 3rd.
I now think it will rarely require downshifting from 5th! This car is that fast.
jack
I hope so, or we'll see insurance rates spike upward.
I fear that we'll see exactly that, once the insurance raters get the next C&D and magazines to follow. They're not blind - they pay very close attention to this stuff. Even a blah Subaru Forester, if it can do 97 in the QM in 13.8, is going to be squarely in their gunsights.
We might get off easy for maybe the first 6 month policy period. After that...dig out your wallet.<end quote>
I fully agree on this, in case you missed my post in 2004 Forester XT my premium went up only $15.00 for every six months. I truly hope it stays this way, but only time is going to tell..............................
I'll be sure to share my impressions and MPG results.
Thanks for all the helpful posts. Happy motoring to one and all!