2009 Subaru Forester

ateixeira

You busted me, Frank.

Bob - it doesn't work like that. The GPS antennae should track 3 satellites and calculate where a straight line from each would intersect on earth.

I succeeded at that task - it knew exactly what streets we were on, accurately, too.

We did a POI (points-of-interest) search for gas stations. It should know where we are, given it's already showing that on the map. So it should find the closest gas stations. Intuitive.

I think what happened is the Region was not set, so the detailed POI database was not loaded for MD.

Even so, that could be automated. If it knows where you are, and the right DVD is in the slot, that could be set automatically. Why should I have to refer to a manual just because I drive outside my Region? If I drive to Florida and don't have the owner's manual, am I out of luck? Or what about going to CT to visit the in-laws?

Think about it, at the high level. You need to tell the GPS what Region you are in. Hello? Isn't that why you got a GPS in the first place?

Garmin crams all the data for all of North America on a 2 Gigabyte space. A single DVD has a 4.7 GB capacity, and Kenwood provides two of them (nearly 10 Gigs total). Maybe they use the Regions to make searches faster, so it doesn't have to look through all 10 Gigs.

I'm sure our address is in the database, in fact every Tribeca I've been in found our address immediately. Even without entering the city.

The Tribeca's voice was also nicer. I had named her Becky. :shades:

ateixeira

There's a nice guy in the "vs." thread with peeling paint on his 2007, can you hop over there and help him out? Tell him how you talked your dealer in to helping you.

red927

My wife's Outback LL Bean is blue, so it's all yours. I really wanted the black, but I also wanted the lighter color interior. Both of my daughters have silver cars so that leaves the dark grey. I don't want the red (what hair I have left is red) and none of the other colors interest me.

As far as the LL Bean partnership going away, I am a little upset. Last time I received a $250 gift card from them which paid for a new winter jacket for my wife and a pair of flannel lined jeans for me. It can get very cold in New Jersey!

Phil

red927

My wife's Outback LL Bean is blue, so it's all yours. I really wanted the black, but I also wanted the lighter color interior. Both of my daughters have silver cars so that leaves the dark grey. I don't want the red (what hair I have left is red) and none of the other colors interest me.

As far as the LL Bean partnership going away, I am a little upset. Last time I received a $250 gift card from them which paid for a new winter jacket for my wife and a pair of flannel lined jeans for me. It can get very cold in New Jersey!

Phil

madisonsgame

I hit the 1000 mile mark on my new baby (L.L. Bean 09). So far I have not heard any creaks (noise) from the dash.

So why is Subaru and L.L Bean not going renew their partnership?

Just curious :confuse:

So what were your color choices? I wanted Silver but I am glad I got the Topaz Gold Metallic.

Since the 09 Bean is so much in demand, I was shock I got such a good deal. I looked at the car on Friday. I wasn't sure if I could get the deal I wanted but I got the call that following Monday stateingthe car was mine :P if I still wanted it.

bigfrank3

I happened to be at my dealership over the weekend and was talking to our long-time salesman. He told me that he was "forced" to go to the Florida event for the new Forester, and loved it.

We talked about the 90/10 split of the automatic Forester and how I liked the 50/50 of the 5-speed better. He told me that he has been to the school that Subaru holds and he was told that the 90/10 is only under light throttle and cruising.

He said that anytime the front wheels slip, OR anytime the vehicle is accelerating, in ANY gear, the clutch pack sends 45% to the rear wheels. This means that the Forester is using a 55/45 split more often that we thought.

red927

They had a red one in stock but I (we) do not like red. Since he was going to order (locate) one for June delivery, I had my choice of colors.

No idea why they split from Bean but money had to enter into the equation.

Sorry about the double post. The brain and right hand were not in sync.

Phil

tkay

Yep, you gotta believe it's about the money. But which one is backing out,Subaru or L.L. Bean?

emt

Just saw the 09 Forester at the Pittsburgh auto show. The car was a winner until my 4' 10" wife sat in the drivers seat and with the manual height adjusted all the way up, could not see over the steering wheel. Looked like "killroy" was sitting there.We don't have this problem in our 04. Just for giggles we tried the "Bean" with the power seat and it went up high enough. We measured the difference in how high the seat went up and there was a 2 inch difference between the manual adjust and power seat, with the power seat being the higher one. We were very disappointed when we found out the the power seat can only be had in the "high end" leather seat packages. I think with the redesigned dash, the "hood" over the instruments is a bit taller, causing the problem. Either that or the new manual adjust for the seat does not go as high as in the previous model. Maybe a combo of the two. While we are not in the market to buy a new Forester now, we will be in another year or so. I hope our friend at subaru reads this and maybe some changes can be made to correct this problem. I know short people do not make up the majority of buyers, but they spend money also, and this a deal breaker for us. Perhaps make the power seat an option in all models, or raise the total adjust height for the manual seat. My wife loves her 04 and she was very disappointed to say the least. This is the best deal out there on a small suv/wagon!

kurtamaxxxguy

I also found the manual seat heigth adjustment lacking, both because it didn't go high enough and that it used an old, tired VW "tilt from the front" approach that VW's given up on. The Power seat definitely puts you higher in the vehicle, at least on driver side (there is no passenger heigth adjustment in any Forester).

skeleton

Well I finally had a chance to drive the new 2009 Forester. I had previously test driven a RAV4, Outlander and Jeep Patriot. We had considered these because what is important to us is size, cost of ownership, towing and off-roading capabilities with comfort and styling playing a more minor role.

The Forester is the winner in our judgement. It has the best combination in all these criteria. Excellent room and cargo volume that is functionally laid out. Best towing capacity compared to all the 4-cyl engines. Excellent off-road with particular strength in snow. Cost of ownership is best in class with strong reliability, best fuel economy and great resale values. In addition to all these, I gave it top marks for comfort and styling.

The RAV4 was slightly larger and the 6 cylinder is a standout engine for its performance and fuel economy. But we couldn't live with the swinging rear door in our area where we parallel park often on major streets. Much too dangerous and inconvenient. The styling was not to our liking and driving it was really unmemorable - as per usual for most Toyotas I've driven.

Mitsubishi doesn't quite have a reputation established here in Canada so I'm a little apprehensive regarding reliability and resale value. There are very few dealers that service these vehicles. The Outlander was decent overall but my biggest complaint is with the folding rear seats that don't go flat. It makes the cargo area much less functional. Also had to call out "BS" on the 4WD-Lock knob that isn't really 4WD-Lock. (What else are they BS'ing me about....)

The Patriot looked promising for its off-roading capabilities and lower purchase cost. But it's a much heavier vehicle (almost 1000lbs heavier when you add the off-roading package) affecting the overall performance of the vehicle, gas mileage and towing capacity. The CVT sounds awful. The 5-Spd would have probably been our choice had the Forester not been around.

We also considered the CRV, Equinox and Tuscon but I don't see these as having any real off-roading capabilities other than basic AWD. I have concerns about getting stuck in "cottage country" snow. The Ford Escape was actually the first vehicle on our list but it suffers from poor cost of ownership including fuel economy and resale so we didn't test drive it. The Hybrid looked interesting but it didn't have the off-roading capabilities and was much too expensive.

So ....

I'll be going out today to purchase my new 2009 Forester. Woo wooo!! Going for a 5-spd Touring Package in Silver with Black interior.

matrsoskin

I also test drove Forester and Outlander last weekend but I had chosen Outlander as a potential replacement for our BMW X3 (lease is up in a couple of months). The vehicles I tested were 2009 Forester with Premium/VDC (could not get XT model because of the stop sell dealer did not have enough time to certify the vehicles) and 2008 Outlander XLS AWD with Premium and Sun and Sound packages.

Here are the reasons:

Forester: Pros- Excellent driver sitting position, excellent cargo room, good steering, good storage compartments and rear leg room. Cons- underpowered engine, jerky automatic transmission, steering wheel vibration, sunroof does not tilt, so-so interior materials, rear seat does not slide, realtively shallow rear cargo area, short warranty (36 months/36K).

Outlander: Pros- Powerfull V6 engine which runs on the regular fuel, MPG similar to the 4 cylinder Forester, smooth highway ride, outstanding first year reliability (per Consumer Reports), flexible cargo accomodation: the rear seats slide for and aft, they do also recline and tumble forward to yield a deep and flat cargo area. Sunroof that tilts, excellent audio system, long warranty (60 months/ 60K miles).
Cons- not so comfortable driving position (the driver's seat does not go lower enough), just above the so-so cabin materials, very limited dealer network, not so stellar off-road performance (see Mud Puppies comparison testing).

Since we are mostly looking for the vehicle with the sufficient cargo space and thehighway driving ability in the inclement weather conditions, Outlander would be a better choice. I will also check VW Tiguan when it hits showrooms in the summer.

batman47

This is a pretty realistic (objective) comment of the Outlander and the Forester. I agree with this comment:

“The Outlander was decent overall but my biggest complaint is with the folding rear seats that don't go flat. It makes the cargo area much less functional”

This is true for me and that is the main reason why I am still holding the decision of buying an Outlander. I also agree with the comment about the Forester:

“Cons- underpowered engine, jerky automatic transmission, steering wheel vibration, sunroof does not tilt, so-so interior materials, rear seat does not slide, relatively shallow rear cargo area, short warranty (36 months/36K).”

davesehome

Still waiting to see the new 2009 Forester here in Halifax. The local Subaru dealer indicated they are waiting for the truck to show up today. When I asked about any introductory incentives they had none to offer and would only provide 5.9% financing for a 60 month term. Not too attractive since the BOC rate went to 3.0% yesterday (lowest in 15 years). Is this the norm for Subaru.The 2008 offer is 0.9% but I find the back seat is too cramped for my teenagers.

Any advice on getting a better deal her in Nova Scotia. Is the MSRP very negotiable? Co-workers indicated it is difficult to negotiate pricing with Subaru dealers. What is a good negotiated price for a 2.5 X with manual?
I am also investigating the pros and cons of going south of the border.

Dave H

kdshapiro

I compared an X3 against Forester XT...X3 wins hands down in all categories except for accleration. I suspect tt engine would take care of that.

As far as your comments, if you dinged the sunroof for not tilting, you need to credit it for being huge. The XT is not the same car as the non-turbo.

leseuldaniel

Hard to negociate in Canada, 5.9% is really high and since the MSRP has already dropped 1500-4000, I don't expect any promotional rates for months. Make your calculations (including personnal financing), but you'll be saving 4-6000 by going to the US. I've looked at this every way and that seems to be the conclusion. Models are slighly differently equipped to make Can foresters more attractive, but they don't have PZEV which I really want and is available in the US.

skeleton

My calculations are about the same: $4-6K. I was told that at about $5K difference, it begins to make sense to buy in the US. Still thinking about it because you'll need to go to the US for service or get it done here and get reimbursed at US rates which is a pain. I would expect the dealer service departments to treat US cars less favourably than Canadian cars. I figure with a new design, I may want my dealer to pay a bit more attention to solving issues so I'm leaning on buying in Canada at the moment.

Feeling the squeeze between my legs...

kurtamaxxxguy

My dealer told me kits are being shipped to dealers to allow them to test for the potential wear issue within the Turbo engine for affected vehicles (pretty much all turbos sold after early Jan. '08).

Hopefully the situation will be resolved soon and the Turbos go back on sale.

Part of all my drives was the Subaru Outback with the 2.5 base engine. While it proved reasonably smooth, the car was weak in accelerating and passing (CU measured around 11 sec from 0 - 60 ).

Wrt XT and auto trans, I've not found the trans to be unusually"jerky", and it is far better than the DCT "auto" in the Audi A3.

tkay

5 grand will pay for a lot of sevice.If you take it to the dealer only for major maintenance also might something to consider say 15K 30K etc. On your price ?? I paid $1200 under MSRP....

matrsoskin

Wrt XT and auto trans, I've not found the trans to be unusually"jerky", and it is far better than the DCT "auto" in the Audi A3.

No way, not even close. I know, I drive 2007 VW GTI.

p0926

X3 wins hands down in all categories except for accleration.

You forget to mention that there's a sizable price difference too

-Frank

skeleton

As far as 4-bangers go, they are all in the same general performance category - 170HP/170ft-lbs torque or so. Factor in their curb weight and you can get a sense for their expected performance.

If you're looking for power, I would think the 6cyl Toyota RAV4 or Forester XT would be hard to beat.

Jerky? Have you tried the RAV4? Had to see the chiropractor after my test drive. Throttle response just takes getting used to really.

kurtamaxxxguy

I never drove VW's DCT, so perhaps they've solved the problems I felt in the A3 3.2 I drove twice during an Audi event.

And yes, the XT could probably benefit from another cog in the box, or its own DCT (when Subaru licenses one from Borg Warner or builds their own.. :confuse: )

bikerguy3

Comparing an X3 to a Forester is pretty much apples to oranges...(I also considered/compared them both as part of my decision recently).

The X3 is a high-end, performance machine. The Forester (XT excluded) is more of an efficient, utility vehicle.

The X3 costs about $16,000-20,000 more. And when you factor in the much lower gas mileage, cost for premium fuel, and way higher depreciation factor - the cost of ownership is at least double for the X3 versus the Forester.

So, if you've got money to burn (or your company pays for your vehicle), then by all means go for the X3. But if you are like me and you would rather spend your hard earned money on important things (like skis, kayaks, bikes, etc) then it's hard to go wrong with the 09 Forester.

kdshapiro

The X3 costs about $16,000-20,000 more.

There's certainly a fair number on the road. I flogged an X3 a few years back in two test drives, one in the snow, and it did a reasonable imitation of the 3 series sedan. A grounded feel the XT will never have. However, as is noted, there is a price difference and I'm sure the X3 will get the tt engine, making it behave like a bat out of you know where. But you pay the price. However the b to b warranty and zero maintenance for four years is some peace of mind. The XT uses premium fuel as well.

The XT is a fairly efficient utilitarian vehicle. It makes no pretenses and does what it does well.

There is an X3 vs XT thread somewhere.

p0926

Yeah I remember going round and round with the X3 owners. Sure it's a nicer vehicle... but it's not $20k nicer

-Frank

kdshapiro

but it's not $20k nicer

20K is an overblown figure, maybe with Nav. The X3 I test drove had about the same options as my 330i was about $41MSRP. XT Prem had an MSRP of just under $30K.

rsholland

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/business/media/24adco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

kurtamaxxxguy

I looked at X3 and lack of footroom, long list of options (many of which are standard on the 'Bu) and few dealers locally sank the X3 for me.

Down the road when my 'bu gets old and tired, the BMW X1 looks promising as its AWD sounds superior to Subaru's. That's assuming it gets to the USA - BMW killed a 3-series hatch here because it didn't sell.

growler5

If you go for a Beemer, be prepared for an uptick in ownership costs. I had a Beemer 525i for 10 years. Loved the car, but it was ridiculous how much I had to pay out for repairs and maintenance. Biggest headache was paying beaucoup bucks to fix stuff that just shouldn't break. Like a new wire harness for the trunk (it kept locking me out of the car when I shut the trunk lid) and a new gas tank (a blocked vent line created a vacuum that collapsed the tank like a squished tin can).

Traded it in on a Subie Forester. It's been a lot cheaper to run, and overall, more quiet, too - I no longer hear my better half in the background :surprise: complaining that I should get rid of the Beemer.

p0926

True the $20k figure was on the high side but then the previous gen XT was cheaper too. However, even if they're now "only" $11-12k apart, I personally still don't think the X3 is worth the difference. And in a couple of months when the prices for the 09s drop down to near invoice, an XT Limited will probably be going for closer to $14k less. Sure having a German badge on the front is worth something but from a strictly value for the buck stand point, the XT wins hands down

-Frank

dsmrno

kurtamaxxxguy ... I have a couple of questions for you. I saw on another forum that a 2009 owner is hearing noise from the rear of his car:

"Compared to my 05 OB, there is a significant amount of noise from the rear of the vehicle when going over bumps. I didn't get the back area retractable cover (missed that it wasn't standard) but the back area is empty. Will be checking the spare to be sure it is secure, but is this common? It just doesn't seem that a vehicle with just 9 miles on it would be so noisy."

My XT also has noticeable rattles/noise coming from the rear when driving over certain types of none-smooth road. It's a little intermittent, and there are two different types of noise. One sounds like I have golf clubs in the back, with a metallic type sound, and the other is more generic. Neither noise happens at speed on the freeway, and both are more noticeable when the car is cold. I took the spare and jack out to see if that was the issue, but I still heard the sounds intermittently. I'm thinking I'll just have to lay down in the back and have my wife drive over some blotchy pavement in the morning to isolate the sounds.

All this would definitely be more bothersome if there was noise when driving on the highway - at speed, its a very quiet vehicle.

Have you noticed any of this from your XT? Thankfully, I don't have any noise/rattles from the dash area like you've experienced. Also, I seem to recall that you may be from my neck of the woods (Northern Nevada). If so, what has your experience been with dealer service here, especially with respect to noise? Also, I haven't heard anything from the dealer with respect to the turbo stop-sale on our cars, but I've read that they have come up with a procedure to check the oil in order to determine if there is a problem. Have you heard anything from your dealer on this issue?

Many thanks ...

skeleton

Are there any differences between the PZEV and the non-PZEV versions of the new Forester other than emissions?

The Subaru website says the PZEV has 175 hp which would make it 5 more that the non-PZEV.

Is this true?

sladeboy

Hey skeleton,

Thanks for the great comparo. These are exactly the same vehicles that I am interested in...but the RAV does tempt me with the two kid's seats in the back, as I might occasionally need to seat six.

sladeboy

I understand that PZEV vehicles have some drivability issues, too, under certain conditions. It is not just the hp loss. I also read that there is a slight loss in mileage.

skeleton

I hear you. Many people I know like three rows. However, both the RAV and Outlander 3-rd row is really not that functional. (The Suzuki XL7 has a decent 3rd row, btw) If you're going to carry that many people, though, I would bet you'll need to carry something along in the back (soccer balls, camping equipment, luggage, etc.) so I don't think you'll feel much better about having it. Maybe you'll need a roof carrier.

skeleton

According to the Subaru website, there is an hp *gain*.

??

deerlake7

Although we have the X Premium, ours also has the "golf club" type of rattle somewhere in the rear. Our dealer says they're commited to resolving the issue and if I find a fix, I'll let the board know. I thought it might be the cheap tray that covers the spare tire, but that's not it.

kurtamaxxxguy

My guess is the "golf club rattle" is due to the rear seat recliners. If you gently move the rear seat tops forwards and backwards, you can feel play in the mechanism as it gives off a "golf club" rattle sound.

Possibly packing towels or foam between seat top and side trim will keep seats from moving around, and reduce that rattle. At least until Subaru comes up with actual fix.

rmanke, if your dealer does come up with a more realistic long term fix, please let us know?

..and yes, I have read on another forum that for the Turbo issue, the dealers will be getting kits to allow them to analyze the affected engines' oil to see if any wear or damage has occured.

tkay

See, another potential customer for your K.M.G.Magic Foam) maybe thats what I need for my other vehicle.(nah,let them figure it out!!!)

ateixeira

MPG similar to the 4 cylinder Forester?

EPA city for the V6 is 17mpg, pretty poor for a compact. In fact some full size crossovers get that kind of city mileage (from GM no less).

The Forester XT gets 19mpg (on premium fuel, though) and the base Forester gets 20mpg.

You can group the turbo and the V6 together under high fuel costs, but the normally aspirated Foresters will be a lot more fuel efficient.

When you account for the bigger gas tank, range is also a lot better on the Forester, even with the turbo.

ateixeira

So let's see who can get one first. We still cannot find an LL Bean without NAV.

Congrats in advance, though.

I've test driven several X3s, and while they handle well, my beef is they have a very stiff ride. Supposedly newer models are better, but a co-worker of mine has one and we rode in it last week and it only reminded me how stiff the ride was.

I drive a 1993 Miata and I swear it's smoother over bumps and road irregularities.

jeffmc

My dealer's got several non-Nav Beans in stock. Here's a sage green one w/puddle lights:
http://www.cartersubaru.com/VehicleDetails/992669324

matrsoskin

MPG similar to the 4 cylinder Forester?

Yes, it is. I would suggest you checking the Mitsubishi Outlander forums to see what the owners are reporting for the real world MPG: it is ~20 mpg for the mostly city driving and close to 30 mpg on the highway. What also helps in the case of Outlander is the ability to switch from AWD to 2WD mode which improves gas mileage in good weather conditions.
Off note, I would not put too much trust into even new EPA estimates: my 2008 Legacy is rated 20/27 mpg (city/highway) and even during a winter I was getting consistently 22/30 mpg.

dcm61

What also helps in the case of Outlander is the ability to switch from AWD to 2WD mode which improves gas mileage in good weather conditions.

Doing that 100% defeats the purpose of full-time AWD. AWD is supposed to be there when you need it, not when you think you'll need it.

p0926

I would suggest you checking the Mitsubishi Outlander forums to see what the owners are reporting for the real world MPG: it is ~20 mpg for the mostly city driving and close to 30 mpg on the highway

Personally I think that's being overly optimistic to "expect" that you're going to get 30 mpg hwy in a vehicle with in an EPA rating of 24 mpg. Sure it could happen but there's no guarantee that you will get it. In addition, to give one vehicle credit for significantly beating the EPA ratings but not another is getting away from what I consider the primary use of the EPA ratings which is to be able to compare apples to apples.

Driving style makes a huge difference in an individual's mpg. If you normally exceed the EPA rating by 2-3 mpg, then you'll most likely do that in any vehicle you drive. So if it were me, for comparison shopping purposes I'd stick with the EPA ratings of 17/24 for the V6 Outlander and 20/26 for the auto equipped Forester.

-Frank

matrsoskin

Doing that 100% defeats the purpose of full-time AWD. AWD is supposed to be there when you need it, not when you think you'll need it.

Seriously? Do you really need the AWD mode while driving on a long highway stretch on a sunny summer day? If you might do it just in case, I would suggest you start using a bike helmet every time you slide the sunroof all the way back. One could never know what is out there...

matrsoskin

If you normally exceed the EPA rating by 2-3 mpg, then you'll most likely do that in any vehicle you drive.

Nope, could not do it with the 2008 Tribeca, 2009 Forester, and my 2006 X3. But the 2008 Outback Sport had better mpg than EPA rating on the same driving course.

So if it were me, for comparison shopping purposes I'd stick with the EPA ratings of 17/24 for the V6 Outlander and 20/26 for the auto equipped Forester.

First, you are missing the point: Outlander, weighing 481 lbs more than Forester and having more powerful engine ( 50 hp), still has a very similar fuel efficiency even when the EPA ratings are taken into account. Second, the EPA ratings is only the first step while doing the comparison shopping. The next, and the most important step, is to get the real-life data by either checking those numbers by yourself or by listening to the car owners who are talking from their personal experience.

This is what this forum is for, isn't it?

ateixeira

Consumer Reports averaged just 18 mpg in their V6.

Their Forester (non-turbo) got 22 mpg (that's 22% better). The turbo got 19mpg (better, but offset by premium fuel costs).

If you opt for the upgrade engine on either of these you'd be wise to budget for fuel accordingly, is all I'm saying.

Owners tend to report their best numbers. That's when it's news - "I got 30 mpg on this tank!".

matrsoskin

Consumer Reports averaged just 18 mpg in their V6. Their Forester (non-turbo) got 22 mpg (that's 22% better). The turbo got 19mpg (better, but offset by premium fuel costs).

Under similar conditions, i.e. same mix of the city/highway driving and the same drivers? We can go on, but please see my post #1061: that is why it would be important to hear from the new Forester owners.

Owners tend to report their best numbers. That's when it's news - "I got 30 mpg on this tank!".

I agree with that but it also demonstrates the one's vehicle true potential. I am yet to hear similar reports from the 2009 Forester owners. Yet, according to several Outlander owners, who are located in the different parts of the country and even accross the border (Canada), they seem can regulary achieve 20-22/26 city/highway mpg values.