Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
There is an odd lack of any information on this model. If you're not specifically interested in the Forester you probably don't know the model exists. When I called Van Bortel two weeks ago the sales person I talked to kept thinking I was talking about the old XT. It appears Subaru hasn't done any sales training let alone make any announcements on the SOA website. It's a bizarre situation for a new model like this to get so little attention from the manufacturer.
Take a look at the H6 wagon, that still doesn't have its photos or 360 views finished and it's been up on SOA's website for two months! SOA does have comparative specs for the XT on the website but nothing else.
I have to say, if I were sitting in Subaru's corporate offices I'd be more than a little angry that SOA has done aboslutely nothing other than produce a 3 page fold-out (that the dealer couldn't part with because they only had one) on the XT.
Guess that means better prices for buyers but it's a hamfisted way to promote a product.
Nice water repellant red seats...very cool! Will we get them here? I see California plates in the pic!!!! Come on Suburu bring those over here! Why do we American always get stuck with all the boring crap?
Jack: Great -- you did what I was hoping for: test drive a non-turbo Forester. Now you have a baseline for comparison!
Yes, the non-turbo models deliver pretty fun driving especially when mated to a 5-speed. I've upgraded the rear sway bar in my 98 Forester S from 13mm to 18mm and it makes a noticeable difference on dry pavement. You actually need to be a little careful driving in snow since it becomes a bit tail-happy.
The shift linkage in the Foresters do feel a little less direct as a result of the dampening material. The shift lever in the Forester is taller than the Impreza (everything else is the same, IIRC). That can easily be remedied by installing the STi short throw kit, a short shift lever or even by changing out the shift knob.
Jason: All I saw at my local dealer last month was the same 3-page fold out flyer. And it was the only copy too.
orangelebaron: Write to SOA and tell them that's what you want! If enough people ask, who knows?
Ken wrote: "you did what I was hoping for: test drive a non-turbo Forester. Now you have a baseline for comparison!"
This will no doubt mark me as a clod, but even though I prefer 5-speeds, I don't like to be FORCED to row a car along with the gearbox lever. I like a car to have sufficient power and flexibility down low (even down to idle) so that if I'm stopping at a light on level pavement and it goes green while I'm still barely rolling, I can pull away in second. I don't mind downshifting to get strong acceleration, but prefer not being forced to downshift just to pull smoothly away. The '03 X I tested was pleasantly capable of doing this. The XT will have a lower compression ratio (which works against low-RPM power) but will add variable intake valve timing (which ought to enhance bottom-end flexibility). I will be very interested to see whether the XT improves on the NA X in this regard.
"I've upgraded the rear sway bar in my 98 Forester S from 13mm to 18mm and it makes a noticeable difference on dry pavement. You actually need to be a little careful driving in snow since it becomes a bit tail-happy."
I prefer handling to be neutral to slight oversteer. Fortunately, stiffer rear bars are readily available and easy to install, so that shouldn't be difficult to accomplish.
"The shift linkage in the Foresters do feel a little less direct as a result of the dampening material."
Kartboy makes a harder bushing for the shift linkage that supposedly eliminates much of the flex. That will probably be one of my first modifications, along with clear Osram SilverStar +50 headlamp bulbs, headlight relays, and (if I can find anyplace to mount them!) a pair of long-range driving lights. Maybe a pair of small-diameter high-quality projector-beam units will fit someplace, but I haven't yet figured out how.
I noticed that if you click on "Recent Articles" in the middle of the Edmund's home page, at the bottom there is a Coming Soon heading and underneath that it says:
"I noticed that if you click on "Recent Articles" in the middle of the Edmund's home page, at the bottom there is a Coming Soon heading and underneath that it says: First Drive: 2004 Subaru Forester XT (June 2003)"
I saw that too, a few days ago. I hope the host of this conference will alert those of us who are dying for authoritative comments about how the new XT drives will let us all know as soon as the article appears. Please? I'm begging!
I have three kids and currently own a minivan but the arrival of the XT is very tempting. Do any forester owners out there transport three youngsters in the back seat and how comfortable is it? Does the middle seat have a lap belt or a regular shoulder belt?
I have put 3 toddlers in the back seat. The 1998 Forester had a center lap belt, but I think they started using a middle shoulder belt as of the 2001 model year. The 2003 definitely has 5 shoulder belts.
So it'll depend on the seat, and how wide they are. I got 3 of them to fit, but it was a squeeze. I would pick a bigger vehicle if I had 3 kids to haul all the time.
Thanks juice. I wish subaru would consider producing a forester or a legacy with three seats in the back. Other manufacturers have done it, like Toyota with its Verso models in Europe.
I've seen talk of compression ratios and premium fuel requirements for Subaru turbos. Being an unknowledgeable-subaru-turbo-newbie, does this mean that one can only use premium fuel for the XT Turbo? Or is it simply a performance/racing thing?
Thanks for posting the official pricing info. Those prices do confirm what a few dealers started posting a few weeks back.
As for the premium requirement, my understanding is that the turbo boost in this regard acts like the equivalent of a very high compression engine. When not under boost, you have a low-compression engine (8.2:1) that actually runs better with regular fuel. Under boost, you have something like 80% more than normal pressure, so you have an air/fuel mixture density/pressure in there like in a very high compression engine. But your engine is not built like a diesel. To prevent damage from knocking, your engine will retard timing, but it can only do so much.
I have also heard stories of the pistons actually "melting". The high octane fuel will prevent premature ignition, and will make sure that your engine does not self-destruct in a few 10,000 miles.
Thanks for the info, D. Turbo now makes more sense to me. Just to be clear, I'm not interested in racing or pushing the XT to the max., for I am a family with a clean driving record, (will need a new radar detector though)
To simply answer my question, what fuel should the Forester XT run on?
To simply answer my question, what fuel should the Forester XT run on?
The simple answer is premium, as indicated in the owner's manual.
The XT engine was designed to run on premium. While it can run on lower octane fuel, you force the engine to operate at sub-optimum settings which can lead to poor fuel performance. You might end up paying more by skimping on fuel in the end.
While I can understand the motivation for saving some money, I think it would be better saved by buying a non-turbo Forester that was designed to run on regular gas.
Assuming you drive 15K miles a year and average 20mpg, that comes out to 750 gallons of gas a year. Assuming premium gas costs 20 cents more per gallon than regular, that's $150/year difference. Compare that to the $1300 or so you save by going to a non-turbo model plus the better fuel economy.
Subaru specifies no less than 91 octane. Anything less and you void the warranty. Turbos need high octane fuel or they knock under such high compression. Don't fry your engine. Use the good stuff.
...just not mine (yet) <sob, whine> Pulling onto I-5 Wednesday evening after work, I found myself alongside a transporter loaded with 5 or 6 Forester XTs. One silver, one red, one black, one gold, and 2 white. Thinking the silver one might be mine, I immediately phoned my dealer to see whether they might be headed his way. He said no, but that they've already received one in black with automatic - and with fabric seats.
Because I haven't yet seen even a photo of the cloth interior, I immediately drove there. The car still had its white protective plastic sheeting on the hood, front fenders, and roof, and the seats were also plastic-wrapped. We were able to remove it from one seat.
If you're interested, here are my observations.
1. Fuel economy is worse than I expected. The EPA ratings on the sticker for the XT automatic are only 19 and 23. In my experience, that means most automatic owners won't average more than 20 except on trips. I don't know why it should be this low. The lower 8.5:1 compression ratio hurts economy, but the variable valve timing ought to help quite a bit. Evidently not! With its costly 91-octane requirement, this will not be a frugal car. I hope the 5-speed does at least a little better than this, but the salesman said he expected it to be the same. Grrrr.
2. Photos of the exterior are all over the place, and there weren't any surprises. I'm glad the roof rails are bright aluminum (instead of black), but (as can be seen in the Chicago show photos) the end caps are body color. On a silver XT, the bright aluminum flowing into silver end caps will look great. Darker colors (IMO) don't look quite as good because of the greater paint-to-aluminum contrast. But that's a minor quibble.
3. The 12-spoke alloy wheels (why does Subaru call them 6-spoke?) look even better than I expected. I like 'em! A lot!
4.The black-letter Yokos definitely look better (IMO) than the white letters on other Foresters.
5. The "off-black" cloth interior is a mixed bag. To break the monotony of solid, plain black cloth, the seat fabric has tiny pinpoints of another color woven in. This fabric looks almost exactly like the black-plus-pinpoint fabric that I liked in a Suzuki Swift GTI I used to have - except that the Suzuki's pinpoints were red; the Forester's are blue. The seats looked quite nice in this black car, and will also look fine with silver or white - but what if you order a Forester in a color that doesn't work with blue? Everything I've read indicates that there are only two interior choices: off-black fabric and off-black leather. My second-favorite exterior color choice was red, and I'm very glad now that I didn't order it. I don't think blue pinpoints would look even slightly OK in a red or gold XT. Maybe Subaru will actually put different black fabric with different pinpoint colors in those cars, but if they don't, who on earth would want blue-pinpoint-accented seats in a red or gold car? Not me.
The other odd thing is that only the center sections of the seat bases and backrests are covered in the fabric just described. The bolsters (as with '03 Foresters) are covered partly with fabric and partly with vinyl. The odd thing is that the fabric there is NOT the same as the pinpoint fabric on the center of the seat. Instead, it is plain black. Don't ask me why; I thought the difference was fairly conspicuous and not at all logical.
6. I was hoping Subaru would change the cloth covering the door armrests to a more durable vinyl, because it's going to be the very first thing to wear out - but it's still there, unfortunately, in plain black. Maybe this is the same plain fabric that's on the inner part of the seat bolsters; I couldn't tell for sure. The tops of the doors are (as now) covered in the same odd, dimpled, slightly-padded vinyl that runs across the middle of the dash. That vinyl is not quite the same "black" as the fabric on the armrests or the matte black on the dashtop. This didn't bother my wife, but I think the color matching should have been better.
The rest of the door panels, underside of the instrument panel, insides of the pillars, and so forth are grey. I forgot to pay attention to the carpet, but it almost surely is also grey.
Anyhow, I didn't see anything inside the car that I won't be able to live with in my silver XT. But those of you who want red would be advised to find out whether they come with a different fabric before you commit. As for gold, I think Subaru is going to have a tough time selling that color no matter what the interior looks like.
This XT wasn't road-ready yet, so I'm sorry that I can't report on how it drives. I also still don't know when my silver 5-speed will arrive. Maybe another week...
I guess it's time to visit the dealer for a test drive (for those of us who have not ordered, yet)!
The Canadien site has 19/25 for the AT (and 18/25 for the MT). Perhaps they could not meet that with the poor average US fuel?
At any rate, for practical purposes mileage in a MT is always much better than with the AT, no matter what the EPA says. In practical driving, (1) the torque converter kills your mileage, (2) you have one fewer gears in a Subaru, (3) you cannot drive WOT at low rpm in an automatic (which is when the engine is most efficient).
Well, looks like my 6cyl. 4Motion Passat wagon is going to be the gas miser in the family... and there I thought my new second car would save me some money on gas...
With trade-ins as low as they are, I may just keep my old Golf, after all (29mpg average, 35mpg on long trips). I don't really need three cars, though. Oh well.
jack: Nice write up. Now I'm motivated to drop by the local dealer!
19 and 23 are about what I expected given the turbo engine. Manual transmission Subarus usually don't have much better EPA milage estimates, but in real life, they seem to do better.
I was right! Couldn't convince the wife on a premium only turbo. We mutually decided that this wouldn't be the most economic car for a family of 3, especially reading about the EPA ratings.
We have, however, decided to go with the XS, fully loaded, and are in the process of getting quotes.
We'll let you know what we paid once all is said and done.
Thanks to everyone for all of the information. This is a great forum and has allowed me to make some smart decisions.
I think you made a painful but wise decision. The XS should serve your needs very well and still offer decent performance. If you think about it, in many markets outside the US, Foresters had to do with a 2.0 non-turbo engine as standard fare.
Ken sez, "19 and 23 are about what I expected given the turbo engine."
Set me straight. (1) The EPA drive cycle would not be affected much by a large amount of surplus, unused potential power in a car like an XT. The drive cycle would operate an XT pretty much the same as an XS - not like a leadfoot enthusiast would. (2) I'm no thermodynamic expert, but (other things being equal) turbochargers INCREASE the thermal conversion efficiency of an engine. They convert what would be waste exhaust heat into additional overall end-to-end improvement in converting BTUs in the fuel into mechanical output energy. (3) The new variable (intake) valve timing, by reducing overlap at moderate throttle and RPMs (i.e. the EPA drive cycle), ought to noticably reduce the amount of unburned fuel escaping past the exhaust valves. (4) The requirement for premium fuel ought to permit greater spark advance, particularly at part-throttle and light engine loads, than would be possible in an XS. (4) Against all of that, the only material factor operating in the opposite direction is the compression ratio reduction, down to 8.5:1. So it is inexplicable to me that EPA (again, as opposed to leadfoot) city-highway ratings should fall so far. Something is not adding up. Anybody with a better grounding in thermodynamics is invited to shoot down the above points with solid rebuttals and set me straight.
"Manual transmission Subarus usually don't have much better EPA milage estimates, but in real life, they seem to do better."
is probably with imperial gallon, not US. 1 imperial gallon = 1.2 US gallon, so 23 mpg US is = 27.6 mpg Canadian... actually, the Canadian version is less efficient than the US models if they are rated at 25 mpg.
let's not forget the lower rpm for peak torque, my guess is the turbo defintely comes into play at 3000 and under (normal) driving. That would up the fuel consumption considerably.
once_for_all sez, "let's not forget the lower rpm for peak torque, my guess is the turbo defintely comes into play at 3000 and under (normal) driving. That would up the fuel consumption considerably. John"
In real-world driving, especially with a leadfoot enthusiast driver, no doubt that's true. But how would that have much effect at all on the EPA's drive-cycle test results?
I have been following the discussions about the Forester XT for some time now. I current own a 98 Forester 'S' that is one of the all around best cars I have ever owned. (Regardless of how Subaru classifies it, it's not a truck!) When I first heard that the turbo version was coming I knew I had to have one. Like others on this discussion board I have been very frustrated by the lack of road tests and reviews for this car. I have always used the road tests in Car and Driver, Automobile, etc. as a large part of my decision process. I have also always test driven the model that I want before ordering/buying. This time I finally gave up! I went to my dealer last Tuesday and ordered a black (or silver) XT 5 speed. I got it for $24k which I felt was a very good price. If the magazines happen to publish glowing reviews of this car, dealers may well start marking up over sticker. I sure would like to hear from anyone that has test driven one. When I take delivery of mine I will post my 'First Drive' impressions as soon as possible.
The article has some interesting information on how potential engergy in gas is lost in engines. Also they have an interesting chart on external effects that affect fuel milage. Road conditions had a huge impact.
ibhaley wrote: "When I first heard that the turbo version was coming I knew I had to have one."
Join the club. I haven't chosen a new car for myself since 1989, though I've helped my wife choose two since then. I hate what I'm driving now (a '91 Grand Caravan she bought new that is getting old in the teeth). I am overdue for something that fits my requirements. There are lots of exciting rides I'd love to have, but they're all too expensive and/or they lack AWD.
Then came the announcements of the Forester XT. My budget can stretch to cover it (just), should provide strong performance (not only at upper RPMs, like a WRX, but especially at the lower end, which I require), very nimble, reasonably versatile (though rather cramped in back), good reputation for durability and longevity, and acceptable to look at (albeit nowhere near drop-dead-gorgeous, as the next Legacy might be).
"Like others on this discussion board I have been very frustrated by the lack of road tests and reviews for this car. I have always used the road tests in Car and Driver, Automobile, etc. as a large part of my decision process. I have also always test driven the model that I want before ordering/buying. This time I finally gave up!"
Dittos to all of that. Unlike my usual cautious approach (read: tightwad who has to be convinced by overwhelming evidence before prying wallet open), I'm going on faith that the positive attributes of prior Foresters, coupled with the modest but worthwhile improvements introduced with the 2nd generation last year, augmented by the detuned STi engine's presumed brilliant performance, will make for a satisfying package.
And I've never even owned a Subaru before. Hard to believe I'm being so uncharacteristically impetuous.
"I went to my dealer last Tuesday and ordered a black (or silver) XT 5 speed. I got it for $24k which I felt was a very good price."
Well done! Same price ($23,923) for mine, including the tiny boost gauge. Black is probably the best-looking Forester color, but a bit too warm and too demanding for me. I'll take mine in silver, thank you very much.
"If the magazines happen to publish glowing reviews of this car, dealers may well start marking up over sticker."
And/or the car may become hard to obtain with the exact equipment one wants...dealers have a habit of loading a lot of unnecessary stuff onto in-demand models - "take it or leave it."
Do you have any word on an arrival date for yours? What's your city? I'm hoping for end of next week, but my dealer hasn't provided any date at all yet.
they didn't say what it was like to drive, or how the power compared to the non-turbo model. Even though it's a "first drive," I didn't learn anything new.
rsholland said "they didn't say what it was like to drive, or how the power compared to the non-turbo model. Even though it's a "first drive," I didn't learn anything new. "
Likewise. With all due respect to the hosts of this forum, there was not one word in that "first drive" review that I haven't seen elsewhere. Talk about dropping the ball.
I'll have to agree with the nay-sayers on the review. The whole first paragraph was fluff. Except for two precious paragraphs, which didn't say much, the rest was just a re-statement of specs and PR releases. I realize it's a first drive and all but it's the first published review of the XT anywhere and, as such, should have taken advantage of the "scoop" factor by going all out. Doing so would have made for more site traffic and boosted Edmunds' reviewing prestige.
Well, the article wasn't a total waste. We had reaffirmation of it's extra power:
"Climbing and passing on mountainous roads was effortless, and we felt a rush of satisfaction as we wound our way to higher elevations. "
And that the suspension is the same:
"The Forester turbo rides the same as the naturally aspirated version, with its soft suspension and predictable steering."
I was suprised that SOA gave them a 5-speed to test -- it's usually been automatics. We still don't know if the 5-speed is any different although Edmund's did like it.
Although the First Drive really didn't say much that was new, it also didn't say anything negative, (except maybe a little concern with the price). Reading the review carefully it sounds like I am getting what I hoped for, a car that drives much like my current 98 Forester only with A LOT MORE POWER. Ballistic, you say you have never owned a Subaru. The Forester was my first Subaru and I have been very impressed with it in every way. The build quality is excellent and it has been almost trouble free. After 5 years it still looks and drives the same as when it was new. I hope the new one is as good as the 98! By the way, I live in the Nashua NH area and my dealer would only commit to "sometime in the next 30 days". I can't wait!
I too was hoping for a miracle, but 19/23 is not bad at all. The 4Motion has 190hp and won't be nearly as fast. Only the Saturn Redline will compare, and I bet the XT will be 1-2 mpg better and still quicker.
It's kind of in a no-man's-land. Most SUVs get much worse, while normally aspirated sport/cutes it competes with do a little better (not much, compare the Outlander's HP and MPG figures).
Premium is a tough sell for my wife, too, since her previous car required it. Even with premium the whole time, she had clogged up injectors. The irony is that I drove an Escort twice as many miles on the cheapest gas I could find and it never had a problem with the fuel system. Oh well.
ibhaley wrote: "Although the First Drive really didn't say much that was new, it also didn't say anything negative..."
Now there's a kind-hearted, optimistic spin on the article! (-:
In retrospect, there was one significant bit of information that I hadn't seen before: The reference to the STi/XT engine gaining 150 pounds. It's not surprising that the increased valve-train complexity plus the stiffer closed-deck block and the turbo plumbing might add weight, but I guess I wasn't expecting quite that much more - all located out in the nose. Some people have commented that Foresters tend to understeer, and an extra 150# in the snout will only aggravate that. I wonder if the XT will already compensate for that with a stiffer rear sway bar, or whether we'll have to mount one ourselves.
"Ballistic, you say you have never owned a Subaru. The Forester was my first Subaru and I have been very impressed with it in every way. The build quality is excellent and it has been almost trouble free. After 5 years it still looks and drives the same as when it was new. I hope the new one is as good as the 98!"
There's a strong endorsement.
My wife had Subaru 4-dr sedan in the '70s when we met. It was fairly ho-hum, to be charitable. Nothing that would get anyone's adrenalin flowing.
I will break in my XT gently and sensibly, maintain it well, drive it with respect (which doesn't rule out spirited driving, only needless brutality and abuse), and plan on enjoying 150,000 miles from it over about 15 years. Assuming the car holds up, then I'll decide whether it has anything left for another five years or whether I need to replace it with one more car before I become too old to drive.
"By the way, I live in the Nashua NH area and my dealer would only commit to "sometime in the next 30 days". I can't wait!"
I know the feeling. The port of entry for all of Subaru of America is 15 miles from me. Imagine the hundreds of XTs that are sitting there, probably including dozens of silver 5-speeds, and I can't do a darn thing to move mine along any quicker. I wonder if the people at the POE take bribes?
Ken asked: "No kidding -- some people wanted the Forester to weigh even more!?"
Juice replied "Compared to other small SUVs, it is just about the lightest one. I've heard 2 or 3 people rule it out for that reason."
That whole heavier-is-always-better thing drives me crazy. (1) Assuming you're going to crash, would you rather be in a 3100# well-designed vehicle that passed all crash tests with flying colors - or a 5000# coffin that failed every test? (2)Assuming that many crashes might actually be avoidable, would you rather be in a nimble, responsive 3100# vehicle that might steer around and avoid the crash, or a lumbering 5000# truck-based slug that ploughs straight in?
I hate it when people allow themselves to embrace discredited claims (more weight always equals more safety) and then let those prejudices guide them into buying behemoths. This single factor probably accounts for a third or more of all large SUV sales.
Comments
Take a look at the H6 wagon, that still doesn't have its photos or 360 views finished and it's been up on SOA's website for two months! SOA does have comparative specs for the XT on the website but nothing else.
I have to say, if I were sitting in Subaru's corporate offices I'd be more than a little angry that SOA has done aboslutely nothing other than produce a 3 page fold-out (that the dealer couldn't part with because they only had one) on the XT.
Guess that means better prices for buyers but it's a hamfisted way to promote a product.
Nice water repellant red seats...very cool!
Will we get them here? I see California plates in the pic!!!!
Come on Suburu bring those over here! Why do we American always get stuck with all the boring crap?
Yes, the non-turbo models deliver pretty fun driving especially when mated to a 5-speed. I've upgraded the rear sway bar in my 98 Forester S from 13mm to 18mm and it makes a noticeable difference on dry pavement. You actually need to be a little careful driving in snow since it becomes a bit tail-happy.
The shift linkage in the Foresters do feel a little less direct as a result of the dampening material. The shift lever in the Forester is taller than the Impreza (everything else is the same, IIRC). That can easily be remedied by installing the STi short throw kit, a short shift lever or even by changing out the shift knob.
Jason: All I saw at my local dealer last month was the same 3-page fold out flyer. And it was the only copy too.
orangelebaron: Write to SOA and tell them that's what you want! If enough people ask, who knows?
Ken
This will no doubt mark me as a clod, but even though I prefer 5-speeds, I don't like to be FORCED to row a car along with the gearbox lever. I like a car to have sufficient power and flexibility down low (even down to idle) so that if I'm stopping at a light on level pavement and it goes green while I'm still barely rolling, I can pull away in second. I don't mind downshifting to get strong acceleration, but prefer not being forced to downshift just to pull smoothly away. The '03 X I tested was pleasantly capable of doing this. The XT will have a lower compression ratio (which works against low-RPM power) but will add variable intake valve timing (which ought to enhance bottom-end flexibility). I will be very interested to see whether the XT improves on the NA X in this regard.
"I've upgraded the rear sway bar in my 98 Forester S from 13mm to 18mm and it makes a noticeable difference on dry pavement. You actually need to be a little careful driving in snow since it becomes a bit tail-happy."
I prefer handling to be neutral to slight oversteer. Fortunately, stiffer rear bars are readily available and easy to install, so that shouldn't be difficult to accomplish.
"The shift linkage in the Foresters do feel a little less direct as a result of the dampening material."
Kartboy makes a harder bushing for the shift linkage that supposedly eliminates much of the flex. That will probably be one of my first modifications, along with clear Osram SilverStar +50 headlamp bulbs, headlight relays, and (if I can find anyplace to mount them!) a pair of long-range driving lights. Maybe a pair of small-diameter high-quality projector-beam units will fit someplace, but I haven't yet figured out how.
- jack
First Drive: 2004 Subaru Forester XT (June 2003)
Also, a follow-up test on a turbo Baja.
I saw that too, a few days ago. I hope the host of this conference will alert those of us who are dying for authoritative comments about how the new XT drives will let us all know as soon as the article appears. Please? I'm begging!
- jack
Can't wait.
Ken
So it'll depend on the seat, and how wide they are. I got 3 of them to fit, but it was a squeeze. I would pick a bigger vehicle if I had 3 kids to haul all the time.
-juice
Are you thinking about #3? ;-)
Ken
Ken - no, we have our hands full already.
-juice
Juice: "Ken - no, we have our hands full already."
Um, Juice, you're not doing it right.
Thanks for posting the official pricing info. Those prices do confirm what a few dealers started posting a few weeks back.
As for the premium requirement, my understanding is that the turbo boost in this regard acts like the equivalent of a very high compression engine. When not under boost, you have a low-compression engine (8.2:1) that actually runs better with regular fuel. Under boost, you have something like 80% more than normal pressure, so you have an air/fuel mixture density/pressure in there like in a very high compression engine. But your engine is not built like a diesel. To prevent damage from knocking, your engine will retard timing, but it can only do so much.
I have also heard stories of the pistons actually "melting". The high octane fuel will prevent premature ignition, and will make sure that your engine does not self-destruct in a few 10,000 miles.
- D.
To simply answer my question, what fuel should the Forester XT run on?
Ken
The simple answer is premium, as indicated in the owner's manual.
The XT engine was designed to run on premium. While it can run on lower octane fuel, you force the engine to operate at sub-optimum settings which can lead to poor fuel performance. You might end up paying more by skimping on fuel in the end.
While I can understand the motivation for saving some money, I think it would be better saved by buying a non-turbo Forester that was designed to run on regular gas.
Assuming you drive 15K miles a year and average 20mpg, that comes out to 750 gallons of gas a year. Assuming premium gas costs 20 cents more per gallon than regular, that's $150/year difference. Compare that to the $1300 or so you save by going to a non-turbo model plus the better fuel economy.
Performance always comes at a price.
Ken
P-whipped? Maybe.
Cheers
Pulling onto I-5 Wednesday evening after work, I found myself alongside a transporter loaded with 5 or 6 Forester XTs. One silver, one red, one black, one gold, and 2 white. Thinking the silver one might be mine, I immediately phoned my dealer to see whether they might be headed his way. He said no, but that they've already received one in black with automatic - and with fabric seats.
Because I haven't yet seen even a photo of the cloth interior, I immediately drove there. The car still had its white protective plastic sheeting on the hood, front fenders, and roof, and the seats were also plastic-wrapped. We were able to remove it from one seat.
If you're interested, here are my observations.
1. Fuel economy is worse than I expected. The EPA ratings on the sticker for the XT automatic are only 19 and 23. In my experience, that means most automatic owners won't average more than 20 except on trips. I don't know why it should be this low. The lower 8.5:1 compression ratio hurts economy, but the variable valve timing ought to help quite a bit. Evidently not! With its costly 91-octane requirement, this will not be a frugal car. I hope the 5-speed does at least a little better than this, but the salesman said he expected it to be the same. Grrrr.
2. Photos of the exterior are all over the place, and there weren't any surprises. I'm glad the roof rails are bright aluminum (instead of black), but (as can be seen in the Chicago show photos) the end caps are body color. On a silver XT, the bright aluminum flowing into silver end caps will look great. Darker colors (IMO) don't look quite as good because of the greater paint-to-aluminum contrast. But that's a minor quibble.
3. The 12-spoke alloy wheels (why does Subaru call them 6-spoke?) look even better than I expected. I like 'em! A lot!
4.The black-letter Yokos definitely look better (IMO) than the white letters on other Foresters.
5. The "off-black" cloth interior is a mixed bag. To break the monotony of solid, plain black cloth, the seat fabric has tiny pinpoints of another color woven in. This fabric looks almost exactly like the black-plus-pinpoint fabric that I liked in a Suzuki Swift GTI I used to have - except that the Suzuki's pinpoints were red; the Forester's are blue. The seats looked quite nice in this black car, and will also look fine with silver or white - but what if you order a Forester in a color that doesn't work with blue? Everything I've read indicates that there are only two interior choices: off-black fabric and off-black leather. My second-favorite exterior color choice was red, and I'm very glad now that I didn't order it. I don't think blue pinpoints would look even slightly OK in a red or gold XT. Maybe Subaru will actually put different black fabric with different pinpoint colors in those cars, but if they don't, who on earth would want blue-pinpoint-accented seats in a red or gold car? Not me.
The other odd thing is that only the center sections of the seat bases and backrests are covered in the fabric just described. The bolsters (as with '03 Foresters) are covered partly with fabric and partly with vinyl. The odd thing is that the fabric there is NOT the same as the pinpoint fabric on the center of the seat. Instead, it is plain black. Don't ask me why; I thought the difference was fairly conspicuous and not at all logical.
6. I was hoping Subaru would change the cloth covering the door armrests to a more durable vinyl, because it's going to be the very first thing to wear out - but it's still there, unfortunately, in plain black. Maybe this is the same plain fabric that's on the inner part of the seat bolsters; I couldn't tell for sure. The tops of the doors are (as now) covered in the same odd, dimpled, slightly-padded vinyl that runs across the middle of the dash. That vinyl is not quite the same "black" as the fabric on the armrests or the matte black on the dashtop. This didn't bother my wife, but I think the color matching should have been better.
The rest of the door panels, underside of the instrument panel, insides of the pillars, and so forth are grey. I forgot to pay attention to the carpet, but it almost surely is also grey.
Anyhow, I didn't see anything inside the car that I won't be able to live with in my silver XT. But those of you who want red would be advised to find out whether they come with a different fabric before you commit. As for gold, I think Subaru is going to have a tough time selling that color no matter what the interior looks like.
This XT wasn't road-ready yet, so I'm sorry that I can't report on how it drives. I also still don't know when my silver 5-speed will arrive. Maybe another week...
- jack
I guess it's time to visit the dealer for a test drive (for those of us who have not ordered, yet)!
The Canadien site has 19/25 for the AT (and 18/25 for the MT). Perhaps they could not meet that with the poor average US fuel?
At any rate, for practical purposes mileage in a MT is always much better than with the AT, no matter what the EPA says. In practical driving, (1) the torque converter kills your mileage, (2) you have one fewer gears in a Subaru, (3) you cannot drive WOT at low rpm in an automatic (which is when the engine is most efficient).
Well, looks like my 6cyl. 4Motion Passat wagon is going to be the gas miser in the family... and there I thought my new second car would save me some money on gas...
With trade-ins as low as they are, I may just keep my old Golf, after all (29mpg average, 35mpg on long trips). I don't really need three cars, though. Oh well.
- D.
19 and 23 are about what I expected given the turbo engine. Manual transmission Subarus usually don't have much better EPA milage estimates, but in real life, they seem to do better.
Ken
We have, however, decided to go with the XS, fully loaded, and are in the process of getting quotes.
We'll let you know what we paid once all is said and done.
Thanks to everyone for all of the information. This is a great forum and has allowed me to make some smart decisions.
Ken
Set me straight. (1) The EPA drive cycle would not be affected much by a large amount of surplus, unused potential power in a car like an XT. The drive cycle would operate an XT pretty much the same as an XS - not like a leadfoot enthusiast would. (2) I'm no thermodynamic expert, but (other things being equal) turbochargers INCREASE the thermal conversion efficiency of an engine. They convert what would be waste exhaust heat into additional overall end-to-end improvement in converting BTUs in the fuel into mechanical output energy. (3) The new variable (intake) valve timing, by reducing overlap at moderate throttle and RPMs (i.e. the EPA drive cycle), ought to noticably reduce the amount of unburned fuel escaping past the exhaust valves. (4) The requirement for premium fuel ought to permit greater spark advance, particularly at part-throttle and light engine loads, than would be possible in an XS. (4) Against all of that, the only material factor operating in the opposite direction is the compression ratio reduction, down to 8.5:1. So it is inexplicable to me that EPA (again, as opposed to leadfoot) city-highway ratings should fall so far. Something is not adding up. Anybody with a better grounding in thermodynamics is invited to shoot down the above points with solid rebuttals and set me straight.
"Manual transmission Subarus usually don't have much better EPA milage estimates, but in real life, they seem to do better."
Let's hope so!
- jb
John
John
In real-world driving, especially with a leadfoot enthusiast driver, no doubt that's true. But how would that have much effect at all on the EPA's drive-cycle test results?
Until then, I could care less about the XT fuel economy. Here's to low-end torque! A wide-ratio six speed might be nice though...
-B
Speaking of fuel economy, I found an interesting article by Chevron:
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/tech_fuel- s_bull.pdf
The article has some interesting information on how potential engergy in gas is lost in engines. Also they have an interesting chart on external effects that affect fuel milage. Road conditions had a huge impact.
Ken
Join the club. I haven't chosen a new car for myself since 1989, though I've helped my wife choose two since then. I hate what I'm driving now (a '91 Grand Caravan she bought new that is getting old in the teeth). I am overdue for something that fits my requirements. There are lots of exciting rides I'd love to have, but they're all too expensive and/or they lack AWD.
Then came the announcements of the Forester XT. My budget can stretch to cover it (just), should provide strong performance (not only at upper RPMs, like a WRX, but especially at the lower end, which I require), very nimble, reasonably versatile (though rather cramped in back), good reputation for durability and longevity, and acceptable to look at (albeit nowhere near drop-dead-gorgeous, as the next Legacy might be).
"Like others on this discussion board I have been very frustrated by the lack of road tests and reviews for this car. I have always used the road tests in Car and Driver, Automobile, etc. as a large part of my decision process. I have also always test driven the model that I want before ordering/buying. This time I finally gave up!"
Dittos to all of that. Unlike my usual cautious approach (read: tightwad who has to be convinced by overwhelming evidence before prying wallet open), I'm going on faith that the positive attributes of prior Foresters, coupled with the modest but worthwhile improvements introduced with the 2nd generation last year, augmented by the detuned STi engine's presumed brilliant performance, will make for a satisfying package.
And I've never even owned a Subaru before. Hard to believe I'm being so uncharacteristically impetuous.
"I went to my dealer last Tuesday and ordered a black (or silver) XT 5 speed. I got it for $24k which I felt was a very good price."
Well done! Same price ($23,923) for mine, including the tiny boost gauge. Black is probably the best-looking Forester color, but a bit too warm and too demanding for me. I'll take mine in silver, thank you very much.
"If the magazines happen to publish glowing reviews of this car, dealers may well start marking up over sticker."
And/or the car may become hard to obtain with the exact equipment one wants...dealers have a habit of loading a lot of unnecessary stuff onto in-demand models - "take it or leave it."
Do you have any word on an arrival date for yours? What's your city? I'm hoping for end of next week, but my dealer hasn't provided any date at all yet.
- jack
DaveM
Bob
Likewise. With all due respect to the hosts of this forum, there was not one word in that "first drive" review that I haven't seen elsewhere. Talk about dropping the ball.
"Climbing and passing on mountainous roads was effortless, and we felt a rush of satisfaction as we wound our way to higher elevations. "
And that the suspension is the same:
"The Forester turbo rides the same as the naturally aspirated version, with its soft suspension and predictable steering."
I was suprised that SOA gave them a 5-speed to test -- it's usually been automatics. We still don't know if the 5-speed is any different although Edmund's did like it.
Ken
XT canadian mgg is probably with imperial gallon
No, I converted those numbers from liter/100km.
Same reaction here concerning the first drive report.
If I were not so busy this month, that would be a good excuse to find out myself...
- D.
-B
It's kind of in a no-man's-land. Most SUVs get much worse, while normally aspirated sport/cutes it competes with do a little better (not much, compare the Outlander's HP and MPG figures).
Premium is a tough sell for my wife, too, since her previous car required it. Even with premium the whole time, she had clogged up injectors. The irony is that I drove an Escort twice as many miles on the cheapest gas I could find and it never had a problem with the fuel system. Oh well.
-juice
Now there's a kind-hearted, optimistic spin on the article! (-:
In retrospect, there was one significant bit of information that I hadn't seen before: The reference to the STi/XT engine gaining 150 pounds. It's not surprising that the increased valve-train complexity plus the stiffer closed-deck block and the turbo plumbing might add weight, but I guess I wasn't expecting quite that much more - all located out in the nose. Some people have commented that Foresters tend to understeer, and an extra 150# in the snout will only aggravate that. I wonder if the XT will already compensate for that with a stiffer rear sway bar, or whether we'll have to mount one ourselves.
"Ballistic, you say you have never owned a Subaru. The Forester was my first Subaru and I have been very impressed with it in every way. The build quality is excellent and it has been almost trouble free. After 5 years it still looks and drives the same as when it was new. I hope the new one is as good as the 98!"
There's a strong endorsement.
My wife had Subaru 4-dr sedan in the '70s when we met. It was fairly ho-hum, to be charitable. Nothing that would get anyone's adrenalin flowing.
I will break in my XT gently and sensibly, maintain it well, drive it with respect (which doesn't rule out spirited driving, only needless brutality and abuse), and plan on enjoying 150,000 miles from it over about 15 years. Assuming the car holds up, then I'll decide whether it has anything left for another five years or whether I need to replace it with one more car before I become too old to drive.
"By the way, I live in the Nashua NH area and my dealer would only commit to "sometime in the next 30 days". I can't wait!"
I know the feeling. The port of entry for all of Subaru of America is 15 miles from me. Imagine the hundreds of XTs that are sitting there, probably including dozens of silver 5-speeds, and I can't do a darn thing to move mine along any quicker. I wonder if the people at the POE take bribes?
-juice
Ken
-juice
Juice replied "Compared to other small SUVs, it is just about the lightest one. I've heard 2 or 3 people rule it out for that reason."
That whole heavier-is-always-better thing drives me crazy. (1) Assuming you're going to crash, would you rather be in a 3100# well-designed vehicle that passed all crash tests with flying colors - or a 5000# coffin that failed every test? (2)Assuming that many crashes might actually be avoidable, would you rather be in a nimble, responsive 3100# vehicle that might steer around and avoid the crash, or a lumbering 5000# truck-based slug that ploughs straight in?
I hate it when people allow themselves to embrace discredited claims (more weight always equals more safety) and then let those prejudices guide them into buying behemoths. This single factor probably accounts for a third or more of all large SUV sales.