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
No, but that makes the AWD of the Outlander less capable than the full-time AWD of the Forester.
The Outlander appears to be a FWD bias reactive AWD system. The Forester AWD is biased 90/10 front during light throttle, but can vary the torque between front and rear depending on acceleration and/or slippage.
Potential is good to know, no doubt, but it can also be misleading.
An example is best.
I'll use ... myself! :shades:
We have a 2007 Sienna LE, FWD. EPA is 17/24.
Coming back from Dulles airport one night, I got 34 mpg for the trip.
Sounds great, right?
Well, I did it by keeping speeds down to 55-60mph, and I was definitely trying to be as efficient as possible.
Should a prospective Sienna shopper expect 34mpg? Heck no.
Yet that's the fun story to tell - I got 34mpg.
YMMV, as they say. In reality I get anywhere from 19-25 in the city and about 26-34 on the highway. My averages are easily better than what you're hearing for the Outlander V6, and that's a compact.
To me, the whole point of getting a compact is to get something efficient. Or at least uber-fast.
Well you've already made it known that you've decided on the Outlander so I guess it only makes sense that you'd choose to discount data that would contradict your choice. But dismissing EPA figures and Consumer Reports testing (which is about as impartial as you can get) in favor of optimistic reports from a couple of owners? Puh-lease!
FYI, I got over 30 mpg with my 2001 Forester. And yes I did post that here on Edmunds :P
-Frank
-Frank
Yes, you do. Idiots, animals, road debris, and blow outs come out of the woodwork when you least expect them. :surprise:
BTW, do you take off your seat belt on that 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...
You'd only use a bike helmet in a Mitsubishi. A Forester deserves a WRC rally helmet. :P
Peeking under back end of my '09 XT, there is a roll bar attached to the two rearmost articulated suspension arms (the ones connected to the shocks).
So I wonder if that site was testing a pre-production model?
Or do the base and middle line Foresters not have a rear roll bar?
May be, but the Forester's AWD is not a true full-time AWD with its default 90/10 front bias: it delivers more torque to the rear only on-demand, when slippage occurs: a reactive system. It's like trying to put your helmet on, after you got hit on head.
continued: the Outlander vs. Forester thread...
You continue to say this when you don't even understand how Subaru's Active AWD works. :confuse:
The Active AWD adjusts whether accelerating or decelerating or braking.
Well you've already made it known that you've decided on the Outlander...
No, I have not. I have stated that I will be also checking VW Tiguan when it hits dealership in the summer.
But dismissing EPA figures and Consumer Reports testing...
Where did I say that? I have stated that EPA ratings should be considered as a first step while doing a vehicle cross-shoping?
FYI, I got over 30 mpg with my 2001 Forester
I did not ask about 2001 Forester, I have stated that I was yet to see the real MPG numbers from the 2009 Forester owners.
No, I do not. It is against the law.
No one is. When it was pointed out that the Outlander's EPA rating is worse than the Forester's you countered that it was more important to listen to what some owners are reporting. Then when it was pointed out that Consumer Reports mpg results for the Outlander were not all that great you questioned if the conditions were the same.
FYI, I've no problem that you prefer the Outlander, it has a number of things going for it and everyone has different priorities.
-Frank
now have about 2,300 miles on it - purchased in late Feb 08.
Around Town (probably a 60/40 mix of typical urban/suburban): 25-26 mpg
Hwy (I usually drive 65-70): 28 mpg
BTW - this vehicle is a PZEV model.
Another variable that factors into mpg for lighter cars like these is how much weight you are carrying around - ie passengers and cargo. I'm usually pretty light.
Lynn
-Frank
Also (I cannot vouch for this) you probably do not have to buy the Subaru warranty from the same dealer you bought the car from. Try checking other dealers that offer Subaru Gold or the other Subaru plans to see if you can buy the warranty.
http://www.subaruwrxparts.com/products/security.php
One thing that became very clear was their AWD system does not have the hesitations the Subaru system does. On the suspended wheel tests, LR2 wheels never spin aimlessly - the system is always sending power to the other wheels and the vehicle keeps moving. The Subaru Forester system, by comparison, apparently has to detect wheelspin before it brakes the spinning wheel and then the vehicle moves.
Then again, there are videos showing '09 Forester happily playing in the snow and mud with no problems.
Also keep in mind the LR2 weighs 1000 pounds more than the Forester, guzzles more gas, needs 9 sec to get from 0 - 60, leans like a barge in turns, and is one of the most unreliable vehicles on the planet. That negated whatever advantage their AWD had.
One other note; That SI drive seems more and more gimicky. Here is the drill when driving the Outback XT and you want spirited performance for passing:
1. Put vehicle in SI sport sharp mode
2. Slap gearshift lever to left or try to find paddles on steering wheel for shifting.
3. Start shifting gears as SI engages to take advantage of "that turbo rush". :surprise:
..vs.. Forester:
1. Slap gearshift lever over into SPORT mode.
2. Accelerate.
Appearance
Bumper Corner Molding Kit $60 even my salesman said these looked cheap
Front Underspoiler $370 unless you never intend to park in a lot with concrete curbs, forget it--why would you want a car with 8.9" of ground clearance to have a chin spoiler?
Spoiler $335 cool
Sports Grille Kit $277 if you want it to look like a Ford, fine
Tail Pipe Cover - for Dual Exhaust $40 cool
Performance
Momo Shift Knob, M/T $84 unless you're going for a part in the next Fast and Furious, skip most of these
STI Metal Pedal Kit - M/T $160
STi Shift Knob 5MT Black Duracon $80
STi Shift Knob 5MT Leather & Aluminum $170
Severe Weather Companion $40
Short Throw Shifter $295
Wheel Locks $24 these are a good deal at $24
Protection
Bag - Car Cover $10
Battery Warmer $30
Body Side Molding Kit $220 a must
Bumper Underguard Front $240 only if offroading
Bumper Underguard Rear $290 ditto
Carpeted Floor Mats $95
Engine Block Heater $30
Floor Mats, All Weather $60
Forester Car Cover $100
Hood Protector Kit $73
Rear Bumper Cover $60 good idea
Security System Shock Sensor, Individual $100
Splash Guard Kit $100 a must
Wheel Arch Molding Kit $400 depends on color of car, but pricy
Sound all good--I have XM, but only because it's in my other car
$160
Sirius Satellite Radio $398
Subwoofer Kit $270
Tweeter Kit $90
XM Satellite Radio $398
All the rest are personal preference--good luck!
Also all these options add up to quite a bit as well. What is the point of a lower sticker , if you have to then pay ala carte for items that should come with the car such as a cargo cover.
Anyhow, Thanks for any information
Thank You
Speaking of the STi, it strikes me as rediculous that Subaru is offering the STi shift knob and pedal kits with the non-turbo M/T :confuse:
-Frank
I don't think anyone has gotten one for under invoice yet. For that you'll probably have to wait another couple of months.
What is the point of a lower sticker , if you have to then pay ala carte for items that should come with the car
We've discussed this before. The Forester used to come with lots of items standard but we're assuming Subaru made many of them optional in order to stay price competitive. I'd at least ask to pay invoice for any options.
-Frank
-Frank
Here's a link to the post:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef17adb/1793
Logically, when it became time to replace the '02 CRV, I went to my dealers of choice--Honda and Acura. I love the new MDX but don't need anything that big, so even though I had every intention of ending up with the RDX, I thought I should spend a little time with the new CRV. I was able to keep both the CRV and RDX for full day test drives on consecutive weekends, and my conclusions were as follows:
CRV: Plus: Gives an impression of total refinement--the ultimate expression of a practical transportation device. Every detail considered and executed to perfection. Minus: 1) it's even slower than the '02, which in my opinion was barely acceptable (the new one only has a few more horsepower and weighs several hundred pounds more); and 2) I don't fit in it as well as the '02. I'm 6'4" and this is not an uncommon problem for me, but the '02 was very comfortable while the angle of the '08's center stack pushed hard on my right leg.
RDX: Pluses: 1) quick; no turbo lag whatsoever; 2) beautiful, upscale, "techy" interior; 3) handles like a scalpel--truly the sports car of SUV's; 4) very comfortable driver's seat.
Minus: 1) because it spools up so quickly, no way to stay "out of" the turbo, which is significant because, as one poster on an owner's forum put it, "it sucks gas like a cabin cruiser"; 2) "ride quality" is an oxymoron--feels like a coal cart. Every bump and pavement imperfection (and man are there a lot of those in Chicago after last winter) is felt. My wife said it made her need to pee. 3) the passenger seat (manual) doesn't go back nearly as far as the driver's seat (power), and when my wife was driving my knees were smashed hard into the dash--unacceptable.
So, on my way home after returning the RDX, I pass a Subaru dealer with several '09 Foresters in front, and I decided to give them a look. Took an XT around the block. Game over--had what I liked about both the RDX (power) and the CRV (practicality) with none of the negatives--this is the first car in memory that I don't have to put the seat all the way back, and I think it's better looking than either of the Hondas. If it's even 90% as reliable as my stable of Hondas has been, I'm a happy camper. Time will tell.
Although any car company can produce an occasional bad apple, Subaru's got a pretty good track record so there's an excellent chance that your ownership experience will be smooth sailing. I've owned 2 Foresters for a total of 8 years and both were/are essentially trouble free.
-Frank
So apparently (and I think there was an earlier post stating this) - on the boat/at the port they for some reason overinflate the tires. If the dealer doesn't catch this at delivery, then you could be at risk.
The other interesting point that ties to this is that one of my minor complaints about the Forester is that the steering felt a bit too light at slow speeds...well, now I know why! With proper PSI, the steering boost now feels just about right.
Moral of the story: Even if you've just taken delivery of your Forester - check your tire pressure!
Yes the dealership is supposed to check/adjust the tire pressure while doing the pre-delivery checklist but it frequently gets overlooked.
FYI, they overinflate the tires at the factory so the tires won't develop flat spots while sitting on the boat or on the lot.
-Frank
For the price you pay it ought to be. Starting at $33+. It's the most expensive of the bunch.
"The specifications for the 2009 Forester 2.5X models
are:
PZEV model - 175 hp @ 6,000 rpm and torque of 170 @ 4,400 rpm.
Non-PZEV model - 170 hp @ 6,000 rpm and torque of 170 @ 4,400 rpm."
Interesting that despite what one would expect from the added emission components needed, there actually is a HP gain on PZEV model.
True, but they were willing to discount it to $30,500 right off the bat, so not as big a difference as it seems.
I live in WA but bought my Forester in Portland, OR so the PZEV model was mandatory.
But even if it was optional, I would spend the $200 to get an additional 5 hp while also being kinder & gentler to the environment...
My Subaru XT was $1,000 MSRP less loaded and I picked it up for a shade over $25K. So yes, it is a big difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4SN9tXvrRQ
With all due respect, how would you know what the quote included? The quote on the RDX did include body side moldings and splash guards, the only two options I needed. As long as we're comparing apples to apples, an XT Limited with similar content to an RDX lists for about $30,500 (you have to add a lot more options to the XT to get it comparable). I know that would be discounted somewhat, but not as much as the RDX was--the Forester is a new, hot seller, while the RDX is not doing particularly well). I don't think at the end of the day there would be a significant difference.
Plus, my point is not that the RDX is a better vehicle anyway--if it was, I would have bought it, even if it were several thousand more.
I don't know what the quote included, but I do know it was more than $5K more than my XT premium. These cars are not in the same segment. The RDX is a pseudo-entry lux version of the MDX that starts at $33K MSRP. The Forester makes no such pretense and ends at $30K. $5K buys a lot of options.
The RDX is a better vehicle overall and should be for the price and the fact Acura is marketed as a luxury manufacturers of cars. While Subaru markets niche vehicles that makes no luxury pretense at all.
But I'll submit to you while the RDX is a better vehicle overall the Forester does a better job at doing what it does best than compared to the RDX.
That's exactly my point--I'm not sure that the RDX is a better vehicle overall. Yes, it's marketed differently, but better? Not sure. I was looking for the best small SUV under, to pull a number out of the air, $36,000. And I looked at all of them--not just the ones in the Forester's market segment-- including the premiums: X3, Murano, Infiniti EX, RDX, etc. They were either too small (RDX, EX--ridiculously small) or too de-contented at the lower ends of their price range (X3, Murano), or just flat got unacceptable gas mileage for their performance level(all of them). I could have bought any one of them, but I didn't.
Botttom line: the price difference between a heavily discounted RDX and a highly optioned but less discounted XT Limited was immaterial to me--for me, for daily life, even up, I got the Forester. I suppose if I was concerned about what the guy in the next car thought of me I might have gone the other way, but I'm not--I'm just looking for the best car for my purposes.
RDX
1. it's upscale
2. nice amenities
3. nice sound system
4. HID
5. SH-AWD
6. reasonable handling
7. gadgets and doo-dads galore
One gets the Acura experience when driving the RDX, no doubt about it.
The Forester makes no bones about what it does and it does it well for an extremely reasonable price. Price is no object the RDX wins hands down and I would rather drive that. On the value side Forester wins, and that won my $$$.