Forester Turbo in 1 year

forestergump · April 2003

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, after sitting in the XT with the black/gray interior, I like it and the silver exterior. I actually don't like tan interiors - I view them the same way you view gray interiors. Go figure.
-Bob

leo2633 · April 2003

I found that woodgrain keyless remote to be hideous.

Len

allhorizon · April 2003

I like both actually, if they are well done, usually two-tone is better than mono. However, there needs to be a choice of a light interior for those of us who encounter intense sun and 100+ weather for more than a couple of weeks in July.

BTW how can they not offer the traditional Subaru blue exterior?

- D.

ateixeira · April 2003

I have a beige interior and much prefer the gray one in my wife's Legacy. Of course neither has dark seats. But the two-tone look very nice in person.

Keep something in mind - Canada is Canada. They even get different models than we do. The colors might be the same, but that's certainly not a guarantee. Canadian WRXs have heated seats, for instance; they got the cloth H6 6 months before we did, etc.

-juice

jason_els · April 2003

Went to Feder's Subaru in Middletown, NY today and looked at the Forester Premium without leather. The gray wasn't so horrible but it's still not as nice as the two-tone beige/black. I liked what I saw though the armrest extension is cheap hard plastic with no padding. It felt flimsy. I also don't care for the standard roof rack. Soon as I'd get mine I'd take it off. I don't use them and they make noise and block the view. The sunroof is HUGE! and I really liked that.

Was reading the news release for the XT though and it mentions a "Direct Control" automatic tranny. Was wondering, you think this might be like the SportShift feature on the Legacy or might it just be a plain old auto?

And btw for anyone in the area, the sales guy (Yuri) didn't know when they'd be in.

rsholland · April 2003

Was reading the news release for the XT though and it mentions a "Direct Control" automatic tranny. Was wondering, you think this might be like the SportShift feature on the Legacy or might it just be a plain old auto?

The '04 Baja turbo also has a Direct Control trannyand Sport-Shift; not so with the Forester turbo.

Bob

ateixeira · April 2003

I have a '98 with the armrest extension, and it's held up nicely. I can't even complain about the lack of padding. My armrest, though, is hard, and I notice that, but the 2003 models addressed that. I'd be more than happy with the 2003's armrests, both sides.

Dunno about you, but I use my cross bars all the time. They hold a roof top carrier in place, I tie down 6'x8' fencing, 4'x8' plywood sheets, lots of other types of lumber, etc.

In fact mine are pretty worn! I gotta try to polish out a few surface scratches.

One more thing - you can slide them back so they don't block the view, and then slide them into place when you need them.

-juice

jason_els · April 2003

I'm wondering here....

If they have this same engine in the STI pushing out 300hp, but will only be 210 in the XT, then exactly how are they hobbling it? Just the ECU? Any ideas?

allhorizon · April 2003

I think intercooler, intake, exhaust, ECU, VVT, and turbo specs are all good candidates. Look at the 150hp to 225hp spread in the VW/Audi 1.8l turbo engine. Some have more restrictive air flow (Passat) and cannot be upgraded as easily (Jetta, TT). Some have beefier turbos (225hp TT). Given that price is a major concern, I would closely look at the difference more expensive items make (beefier turbo for the TT, for example).

- D.

ateixeira · April 2003

VVT - actually both engines have AVCS, and both act only on one set of valves (intake IIRC).

So it must be intake, exhaust, and turbo boost levels. In other words, it shouldn't be hard to chip and modify an XT to make close to 300hp. Plan on a new clutch if you have a 5 speed, though. The Auto can handle 300hp reliably in the WRX.

-juice

corkfish · April 2003

I'd be willing to bet the XT has a much smaller turbo. Not to mention the fact that the STI has special internals like a forged crankshaft which I sincerely doubt they'd put the in a Forester. I'd bet there's a different head and cam arrangement as well.

allhorizon · April 2003

What I meant was that - at least in principle - the VVT (AVCS) could be tuned more for low-end torque and fuel consumption in the Forester, vs. high-end hp in the STI. They have different redlines, don't they?

- D

ateixeira · April 2003

XT show car had a 6500rpm redline.

-juice

kens · April 2003

One other contributing factor to the difference in HP is the lack of a pre-cat in the STi.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3796- 401

The XT has a pre-cat much like the WRX.

Ken

subearu · April 2003

is here: http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid52/pa865dd73512474ff95d1- 99e81685fee8/fc9abc64.jpg

Or, you can browse the whole album from the Chicago Auto Show: http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4290640109

-Brian

ateixeira · April 2003

And we know that's the XT's redline, because the N/A engine redlines at 6250rpm.

-juice

allhorizon · April 2003

So the XT makes its peak hp about 1000rpm lower than the STi, and the redline is 500rpm lower? Not sure if that is enough of a difference for them to bother changing the VVT. On the other hand, I bet the engines have a very different feel in the 5,500 to 7000rpm range. Not just the obvious (power), but my guess is the STi will go to higher rpms much more willingly.

BTW, the STi of course also has the 6-speed manual transmission - that is nice to have, too.

- D.

ballistic · May 2003

Newbie here. I first heard about the XT a month ago and have been reading everything on the 'net to get up to speed. I think I'll order one, but I wonder why North America (undoubtedly Subaru's most important market) does not get features that ARE available on Foresters elsewhere:
2-speed transfer case - much better for hauling boats out of the water, etc.
Self-leveling rear suspension, useful on small, lightweight cars when loaded with cargo.
Nifty dual front folding armrests built into the inner seatback bolsters.
Headlight spray-washers in the bumper.
...and so forth. I hate it when car companies treat us like second-class citizens compared to other markets.

beanboy · May 2003

Subaru seems to be getting better. The 2.5L turbo is unique to the US market in Sti form, I believe the 2.5L turbo in the Baja and Forester are as well. Hats off to low-end torque!

The dual-range is interesting. Perhaps Subaru is a afraid people will seriously take them off-road because they have a low-range? Certainly would work well with Outback/Forester/Baja image. Heck, make it optional and charge a fair amount for it.

-B

kens · May 2003

Those questions regarding features that never make it to the US have been asked for a long time. Most of the reasons come down to cost. The US has one of the most price competitive auto markets in the world and Subaru isn't alone in "stripping down" USDM models.

The low range was partly due to the fact that the non-USDM Foresters used to get 2.0 N/A engines.

Ken

ballistic · May 2003

Ken,
"Those questions regarding features that never make it to the US have been asked for a long time. Most of the reasons come down to cost. The US has one of the most price competitive auto markets in the world and Subaru isn't alone in "stripping down" USDM models."

I'm not suggesting that Subaru ought to add more standard equipment. I'm suggesting that a lot of people would gladly pay a reasonable price for optional dual-range transfer, or optional self-leveling suspension, and so forth. Make features like these (which are available in other markets) available here, too, as extra-cost options. Everybody wins - buyers get what they want, nobody has to pay for something they don't want, and Subaru gets more revenue. What am I missing?

ateixeira · May 2003

Add factory HIDs and Navigation systems to your list of things cut out of US models. Well, the STi will have HIDs, but that'll be the first.

-juice

kens · May 2003

ballistic,

I completely understand what you're saying, but you're overlooking the operational cost to Subaru of America to offer and support these extra options.

For every unique option any company offers for any product, there are administrative, production, inventory and support costs. For example, to add the self-leveling suspension, Subaru needs to set up: how to allow the dealer to order it, how the factory assembles it, documentation for both service and sales literature, train dealers on how to repair it and keep spare parts on hand.

I know how these are all real costs because I deal with this sort of stuff on a daily basis. I'm a product manager (semiconductor test equipement) and I'm always fighting manufacturing and support to allow more options in our products. They want to minimize options to keep overhead low. I want to offer a plethora of options to keep the customer happy. Ultimately it's decided by what the market can bear.

In the end, Subaru is also out to make a profit and the operational cost of increasing customer selectable options will be handed down to consumer (ie. prices go up).

But I hear you completely -- I'd love to have the self leveling suspension, HIDs, headlight washers etc. I'd even be willing to pay a higher base price to make these options available, but I think we might be the minority for now. However, Subaru has been delivering more over the last few years so lets keep our fingers crossed.

Ken

once_for_all · May 2003

You make some great points there and I fully agree. But what is up with Subaru sending over so many wagon models that compete with each other? That part doesn't make sense.

John

kens · May 2003

John,

Dunno. While I don't think there's rampant cannablism going on, I agree there is some cross-shopping that happens with Subarus.

Forester<->OB Sport (and to some extent OB Wagon)
Forester XT<->WRX Wagon (and to some extent GT Wagon)

I think it has to do with the fact that Subaru is really a one-platform company.

Ken

ballistic · May 2003

A dealer has just notified me that the 2004 XT's base MSRP = $25,520, with invoice = $23,323.

I don't yet know whether or not these include destination charges.

ateixeira · May 2003

Hmm, some one in the Forester thread said $25,700. I'm happy though, I expected $26-28k.

-juice

subearu · May 2003

I was going to say the difference was destination charge, but that is only $525 I belive, more than the difference.

Close enough though. Wonder what the XT premium's will run (mmmm, moonroof) ;-) .

-Brian

lark6 · May 2003

That's MSRP, not invoice. My '00 S had an MSRP of a shade over $25K (would have to go fetch the Monroney sticker to verify) pretty nearly loaded. There are a few things mine has that aren't standard on the XT but they are minor compared to a lot of what's now standard that was extra cost or not available in 2000 (besides the powerplant though that goes without saying).

Again I'm sure there are people who will balk and say that's too much to pay for a Subaru, but those are people who just look at badges and not value for money.

Sounds like a winner - now I just need to be patient...

Ed

ateixeira · May 2003

Selling prices will be at least a grand lower within months, then 2 grand lower by the end of the year, is my guess. So long-term I'm looking at mid 23k range.

That makes it a legit bargain. What else offers that kind of bang for the buck, with enough space for a small family?

-juice

ballistic · May 2003

The "official" XT prices I posted earlier (as quoted by a Seattle dealer) DO include destination charges ($550 for 2004). So the MSRP including destination is $25,520, and invoice including destination is $23,323. These can be seen on a webpage operated by the dealer at:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2004.html

When you consider that a 2003 XS including the extra equipment that comes standard on the 2004 XT (Premium 7-spkr upgraded sound package, rear spoiler <YUCK!!>, and chrome tailpipe cover lists for $24,407, the 2004 XT MSRP is only $1,113 more than last year's similarly-equipped non-turbo XS. And the XT includes the nice monochrome cladding and bumpers, which could be bought on an XS only by also ordering the sunroof. All in all, I'd say that the XT is very fairly priced - big performance gain for eleven hundred bucks IMO.

I still wish the sunroof and leather were available without the damn automatic <sigh>. Brain-dead decision, SOA.

kens · May 2003

$25.5K MSRP is at least a grand lower than I expected. That would be great news.

So, is there yet no official word from Subaru? I wonder why it's taking so long to get the specifics out. I'm still very curious on the drivetrain/suspension changes, if any.

Ken

kens · May 2003

Nice find, Jack. I guess the info is pretty offical, then!

Just a little over $1000 for a huge performance boost. I think the XT is a great deal.

Ken

subearu · May 2003

I have to wait until the end of the year anyway since that's when I'm eligible for the IMBA discount. Maybe Merry Christmas to me! ;-) I suppose I could wait until the spring as well.

-Brian

ateixeira · May 2003

Hot dang, that's a steal. Just $1113? I was hoping for "just" $2 grand.

Hope that dealer has it right!

-juice

allhorizon · May 2003

Good news indeed. Let's hope the weak dollar won't force a price hike before long...

- D.

ballistic · May 2003

I, too was expecting (fearing) the XT would cost more. If (and it's a big if) that 0-60 time of 6.1 seconds (put out by Subaru of Canada?) actually holds up when the U.S. mags start testing the XT, then name for me any (stock) SUV that can out-accelerate an XT for less than TWICE the $25K price.

Looks very appealing to me.

ateixeira · May 2003

$23,323 at invoice is just $755 more than a WRX wagon, for all the extra space plus 0.5l more displacement.

-juice

subearu · May 2003

$25.6k invoice for a XT Premie! Where do I sign?!?!

-Brian

ballistic · May 2003

Do any of you 2003 Forester owners know for certain whether the "X" 16" steel wheels can be used as winter wheels on an "XS" instead of its 16" alloys?

Do the same lugnuts(bolts) work with either type of wheel?

ateixeira · May 2003

Fitment should not be a problem at all.

Lug nuts are actually differnet for alloys vs. steel. Typically alloys have lug nuts that are chrome plated or at least colored to match the rims, while many steelie lug nuts are just open ended nuts (not sure about the Forester since they're styled steel rims with no wheel cover).

My concern is whether the non-open lug nuts are long enough to tighten up against the steel rim.

Check out a X vs. an XS in a dealer parking lot, they might be the same in this case, since they don't use wheel covers.

-juice

beanboy · May 2003

Pricing seems reasonable. Can't wait to test drive it! Curious about drivetrain differences as well.

-B

corkfish · May 2003

I'm still skeptical about the performance of this thing. I can't believe it will break a 15 second quarter mile. If it gets into the mid 14's they won't be able to build them fast enough. Just think what the aftermarket would do.

lumbar · May 2003

Checking the website of the Seattle dealer linked above, there's a slight reduction in cargo space in the XT turbo premium v the XT turbo (as well as for the XS premium v X). The difference--1.4 cu. ft.--is the same for both rear seat down and rear seat up, so if it's a mistake, the mistake is made consistently for both numbers. The obvious question is what upgrade causes this? I'm interested because the lower it goes the closer it gets to the OBS/WRX.

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2004.html#specs

forestergump · May 2003

I believe the difference in cargo space is due to the moon roof. I think the same difference exists between the '03 XS and the XS Premium.
-Bob

ballistic · May 2003

Corkfish wrote:
"I'm still skeptical about the performance of this thing. I can't believe it will break a 15 second quarter mile. If it gets into the mid 14's they won't be able to build them fast enough. Just think what the aftermarket would do."

Who said anything about breaking 15 in the 1/4? I certainly don't expect that! The only actual performance claim I've seen is the 6.1 0-60 from Subaru of Canada. In my opinion, a $25,000 Forester XT doesn't have to get anywhere close to a mid-14 quartermile to be an unbeatable SUV performance bargain. If it can get into the low 15's at anything over 90mph in the quarter, show me another AWD SUV under $50,000 that can keep up! And then show me its lifetime ownership cost, including purchase price, depreciation, insurance, repair bills, and fuel, compared to the XT...

- Jack, a skinflint who's about to pry open his checkbook for a new car for the first time in 14 years!

corkfish · May 2003

Well, a 0 to 60 time of 6.1 seconds would tend to put the 1/4 mile at less than 15. Look at the Altima, 0 to 60 of 6.3 seconds with a 1/4 mile of 14.8. And thats with front wheel drive. The G35 with automatic transmission has similar numbers. Of course, the Forester's aerodynamics are'nt going to help, but this thing should be under 3200 pounds and has a boatload of torque.

beanboy · May 2003

Had a factory 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds when it was first released.

No matter the stock performance of the XT, I've got a feeling a little aftermarket work will bring a great deal of power for fairly little $$$.

I'm thinking high 14s in the quarter stock, without having to slip the clutch from 4K like the WRX. The 5-60 time will be better than the WRX.

-B

ateixeira · May 2003

corkfish: one guy on Nabisco turbo'd his Forester and runs quarters in 13.8 seconds, though he needed a racing clutch to get there. No reason to believe a factory model couldn't at least be in the 14s.

lumbar: it's the moonroof. EPA measures all that space. Useful space is the same.

-juice

ballistic · May 2003

About the WRX, beanboy wrote:
"Had a factory 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds when it was first released."

I thought I saw 6.1 as the "official" Subaru spec. Several people have commented that Subaru of Canada's 6.1-sec XT claim is the same as was claimed for the WRX. Not so?

"I'm thinking high 14s in the quarter stock, without having to slip the clutch from 4K like the WRX. The 5-60 time will be better than the WRX."

That's exactly what I've been thinking. People get mid-5-second 0-60 with the WRX only by being really brutal on the launch. No sensible person drives his own car that way (or not for long!). The XT's extra cubic inches and low-down torque ought to at least match the WRX in normal driving and just might (as you predict) surpass it.

Forester Turbo in 1 year

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles