Subaru XT Turbo Forester

tinytoo · August 2003

ballistic:

I'm sorry if my comments sounded like an "extreme characterization." I do appreciate the vast knowledge and experience that has been shared in these discussions. It was just distressing for me to continually read about the XT's gearing gap from 1st to 2nd rather than how much fun the MT is to drive! I was feeling as though I had purchased the wrong car, and that is a terrible way to feel! I guess all I have to remember is which car, the MT or AT, made me grin wider. For me, it was the MT.

ibhaley:

Thanks for the congratulations and for your advice on "driving before signing." Again, it's nice to know that someone hasn't had a real noticeable experience of the gap between 1st & 2nd, though it obviously does exist. Hopefully, my XT will be a smooth shifter too. I'll keep you posted.

When are all these new XT owners going to post some photos??

kens · August 2003

Jack:

Do you think the 5-speed XT gearing was to maximize acceleration or to minimize turbo lag? I'd say it was the latter and the benefit being the former.

As for the dipstick, the most repeatable way to measure it is to pull it out after you park and leave it out until you're ready to measure.

Ken

ballistic · August 2003

Ken,

I don't think turbo lag minimization had much if anything to do with the 4.44 axle or with putting the wider-spaced (1st-to-5th) WRX ratios into the XT. XT turbo lag was already guaranteed to be substantially reduced (compared to the WRX) simply by putting the relatively small WRX turbo onto the 25%-larger-displacement STi-derived engine. An undersized turbo on a 'large' engine, other things being equal, will always have much less lag than the reverse. In addition, the STi's/XT's variable intake cam timing (absent from the WRX) also contributes to excellent and quick response to the throttle, across the rev range.

Another way to put this is that the XT can show positive boost 'right now', with hardly any lag, even at only 1,400-1,500 rpms! This contributes to quick power regardless of whether you're in 1st or 3rd or 5th (so long as you're at or above that modest engine speed). So, regardless of gearing, the lag has been carefully (and very effectively) designed out. 10% taller gearing wouldn't change that at all, any more than you experience significantly more turbo lag in an XT in 3rd gear than you do in 2nd. All you experience is a proportionately lower rate of acceleration, overall, reflecting the differing mechanical advantage inherent in the taller gears.

jack

ballistic · August 2003

Obviously some folks are tired of my harping on the huge 77% step between the XT's 1st and 2nd gears. At risk of inflaming, I'd like to provide some context.

With the advent of the XT, the Forester became (by just about any yardstick) a legitimate high-performance vehicle. Speaking generally, widely-spaced transmission ratios are not associated with high performance machines. I recognize that the WRX has the exact same gaps, but it's a special case to which I'll return.

In '56-57, GM introduced an all-synchro 4-speed. In the Corvette, it's 2nd gear was just 33% taller than 1st. Even in GM sedans, the gap was only about 40%. Same goes for the 4-speeds that Ford and Chrysler designed for their '50s and '60s musclecars. High-performance cars having a lot of power and torque per pound of car have (with a few exceptions) usually provided closer-ratio gearsets than their more-pedestrian brethren. It was a rare high-performance machine whose 2nd gear was more than 55-60% taller than 1st.

With its light weight, the XT has the power (and, equally important, the broad, flat powerband) to accelerate with nearly any of those cars. Yet the gap between 1st and 2nd in the XT is 77%. The rev drop going from 1st to 2nd is, comparatively speaking, huge. I've never said it's fatal, but it is at best awkward, and it's certainly unnecessary and sub-optimal. An owner of a turbocharged Forester in another forum described his experience after installing the transmission gearset from a (foreign-spec?) 5-speed STi, where the gap between 1st and 2nd is just under 50%. He raved about the improvement, both in daily street driving and on the strip.

You expect widely-spaced transmissions on underpowered econoboxes. You don't typically expect them on any car that has the power-to-weight to approach 100mph in the quarter. Even the plain-vanilla regular Forester's 67% 1st-to-2nd gap, together with 4.11 or 3.9 axles, would be a big improvement.

Back to the WRX: With it's comparatively small-displacement, highly-tuned engine and a turbo sized such that it doesn't start to kick in until you build some serious revs, the WRX is unarguably 'soft' on low-end torque. Add the fact that it has tenacious all-wheel-drive (hard to break loose to keep the revs up on launch to prevent bogging down), and you have a car that would be a slug off-the-line UNLESS it had a stump-pulling first gear. Ergo, even though I don't personally care for the WRX's wide ratios and low 1st gear, a case can be made that on that car, with that engine, it was necessary.

The XT is completely different! Thanks to more displacement, a relatively-smaller turbo, different tuning and ECU management priorities, variable valve timing, and so forth, the XT probably makes 50% to 70% more torque than the WRX at 1500-2500 rpms. That's a huge difference. With only a slight increase in weight, the XT flatly does not need such a low starting gear in order to deliver stunning first-gear launches off the line. Hitting the redline at barely over 30mph - in slightly over 1 second - is incompatible with top-caliber driveability in a car with this level of performance. Indeed, it might even be counterproductive. A properly-geared XT might actually beat ours to any speed above 30 or 40 mph. It also would be a lot more pleasant overall.

Everyone but me apparently loves the super-low first gear and doesn't seem to mind the giant step to 2nd at all. Or the 3100rpm at 70 cruise. I'm genuinely glad you're happy. As for me, I've driven a slew of fast cars with much better-chosen gearing, and I'm not thrilled. I think it was a major blunder that significantly impairs the experience of living with this car long term.

jb

akasrp · August 2003

jb most cogently states: With the advent of the XT, the Forester became (by just about any yardstick) a legitimate high-performance vehicle .

I can only add, and most certainly deserves a coat of San Remo Red!

my 2¢: a Hot car deserves HOT paint!

srp

subewannabe · August 2003

notwithstanding the big step from 1st to 2nd, the 4.44 final drive ratio is just a massive gas-eater. the impact at low speeds is more readily apparent , in terms of acceleration potential, than at 4th and 5th gear, but cruising at over 3000 rpms is just unnecessary, esp on US roads. i am disappointed that subaru has put this differential in the XT and has apparently put it in the next generation Legacy turbo, as well. i am glad they put conscious attention into pairing the new engines with drive trains that can stand up under the increased torque loads, but this is overkill.

ballistic · August 2003

It's hard to be sure what final drive will wind up in next-gen Legacies bound for the U.S. market - but this much I know: I am very seriously considering one for my wife' next car. If Subaru is dumb enough to repeat the XT error by giving Legacy buyers no choice other than the 4.44, our dollars will go elsewhere. They might make the same blunder twice, but I won't.

jack

subewannabe · August 2003

according to the specs, is 4.44. no info posted on the japanese or new zealand sites , yet, on the NA 2.5 or 3.0 H6 versions which havent been released yet.

rsholland · August 2003

those are all 2.0 engines. The 2.5 models could be geared differently. Also, remember the automatics will be 5-speeds with the SportShift feature.

Bob

sunturtle · August 2003

Hello everyone!

Proud new owner here of a red 5spd XT. I have been lurking here for a few weeks and would like to thank everyone for their comments. This vehicle is the best kept secret on the market today. Is Subaru even promoting it? Ive seen Lance Armstrong promoting the WRX but nothing on the XT.

My criteria for choosing a new mini-SUV was:
1) Safety
2) Good acceleration
3) Able to go moderately off-road to get to fishing areas and trailheads for hiking
4) 20+ mpg
5) Quiet highway ride
6) Manual transmission

The XT was everything I was looking for. Actually, it wound up being a tough choice between the WRX wagon and the XT, but in the end I opted for a little extra ground clearance. Plus I thought the XT was better in delivering its power than the WRX. If you like that kicked in the pants feeling of the WRX each time you rev above 3K and enjoy excellent handling, thats probably the car for you. Very little turbo lag that I could notice in the XT. I liked the tach in the center of the console on the WRX. Subaru needs to do that with the XT. This is the first vehicle Ive had that has the 'drive by wire' throttle, and it can be a little on the sensitive side. It takes a little effort to learn to accelerate smoothly from a stop.
I drove the auto XT for comparison, and have to say that if I had been looking for an automatic mini-SUV, it would have been a tough choice between the XT and the Tribute. Luckily for me Im not married yet, so the choice was easy to get the 5-speed.

In summary
XT weaknesses:
* Appearance  a tall looking station wagon (although an advantage in that you wont draw much notice from the local police)
* You dont sit up high as in a true SUV
* Rear hatch takes some effort to close securely since its made of lightweight aluminum
* Tach tends to get lost in the shadows in bright sunlight
* Drive-by-wire throttle takes some effort to learn to accelerate smoothly
* Optional armrest may get in the way when shifting for some people with a manual transmission (try before you buy)

XT advantages:
* Great safety ratings
* Comfortable seats and nice interior
* Sports-car like acceleration
* All-wheel drive system inspires confidence off-road
* Full-size spare
* Hill Holder
* Puts a smile on my face each time I get in it

I achieved 21.4 mpg on my first tank of gas, about a 50/50 mix of city and highway miles at 5000 to 6000 feet elevation.

I'm looking forward to many happy miles in my new Subie!

corkfish · August 2003

I guess that's why everbodys different. I would not have bought the XT if it didn't have the 4:44 to 1 gear ratio

lbhaley · August 2003

I think that Jack and corkfish have summed it up very well. What bothers one person to the point of distraction is but a minor annoyance to another. The XT 1st to 2nd gap is a case in point. To Jack it is a major fault in what is otherwise a great car. To me it is at most a minor annoyance that I only notice when I am accelerating very hard in 1st. The same is true with the 3000+ cruise rpms. Although the tach reads over 3000 at 78 mph to me the engine feels relaxed and happy at those revs. Others will undoubtedly find it annoying. Different strokes for different folks.

-les

ballistic · August 2003

While our various individual priorities are all over the map, I find statements like "I would not have bought the XT if it didn't have the 4:44" astonishing.

Play along with me on a scenario.

Fact: The very first, very tantalizing more-or-less official indication any of us had as to the XT's performance was Subaru of Canada's claimed 0-100 kph in 6.1 seconds. That translates to 0-60 mph in about 5.8 seconds - and in large measure, that's what sparked the intense early interest in the XT, long before there were any actual first-drive or test-drive reports by automotive writers or by prospective buyers. That SOC performance claim is, in large measure, what set the expectation and feverish early interest in motion.

Now suppose the XT arrived with 3.9 gears instead of 4.44. Even with the taller gears, the torquey, high-output, lightweight XT still would easily have equalled or bettered 0-60 in 5.8. That would be a sensational number by any definition for a moderately-priced all-wheel-drive crossover SUV.

Then the EPA ratings would have come out, probably around 20 city / 25 highway. Dare I say that these numbers would have been much more in line with the expectations of at least some of us?

Then, those of us who took XTs out on early test drives would have written pretty much the same glowing reports, validating the growing realization that NO other small crossover AWD SUV could come close to matching its performance or bang-for-the-buck quotient.

In due course, Car & Driver would have put one through a road test. Even with 3.9 gears, they would have achieved and reported 0-60 in (oh, let's say) 5.7, with the standing quarter in maybe 14.2 seconds at 94-95 mph. These numbers would have been FULLY CONSISTENT with the initial claim made by Subaru of Canada.

I find it incredulous, almost to the point of disbelief, that more than a microscopically tiny number of potential XT buyers would actually have refused to buy one SOLELY on the basis that its acceleration (0-60 in 5.7-5.8 and QM in 14.2 at maybe 94 was somehow insufficient!

With the possible exception of the XT's stablemate (the WRX), what other AWD crossover station wagon/SUV costing under $25-30,000 could you have purchased instead that delivers faster acceleration?

But assume, for sake of discussion, that some miniscule number of bona fide buyers actually would have snubbed a 3.9 XT because those performance numbers are somehow too slow. I submit that for every single sale lost for that reason, at least one or two more would have been sold thanks to the better overall balance delivered by still-class-leading performance PLUS 20-25 mpg EPA ratings and longer-legged highway cruising capabilities.

So: Would Subaru have experienced a net loss in XT sales because Corkfish and a few others say they would not have bought an XT with 3.9 or 4.11 gearing?

I think not. I think the reverse would have been far more likely.

jb

oregonboy · August 2003

I've lost count of the number of posts you've made complaining about the gearing in your XT manual. Why don't you bite the bullet and pay the bucks necessary to fix what you perceive to be the problem?

-james

once_for_all · August 2003

I find myself agreeing with you on this one. Years ago, I was keenly interested in the VW Rabbit GTI--until my first drive, it spun at 3000 rpm at 55 in 5th gear. NOT for me anymore.

John

corkfish · August 2003

Sorry. I grew up with muscle cars. I remember the old Dana 411's and the way you could launch them. That's what I like about it. I'm not criticizing anyone else about what they want out of a car, all I'm saying is the fact that this thing does the quarter mile in the 13's and is still very innocuous looking is the reason I bought it. If I wanted something with lesser performance I would have bought a Murano or a regular Forester. I just drove it 360 miles on my vacation at 80 miles an hour pretty much the whole way. It was smooth as can be and the engine was very much at home at 3200 rpms. I have no complaints.

oregonboy · August 2003

My first car was a 1967 BMW 1600: 4.11 gears, 4-spd trans, and tiny 165/75-13 tires. Top speed was redline in 4th gear: 99.5 MPH. Maximum recommended cruising speed (per owners manual) was 95. That translates into 6200 RPM.

I took it easy though... I usually cruised at 85. My grandad, who loved American V-8s advised me to go easy on the freeway, "cause them little furrin' motors will blow up if you drive 'em fast." My reply was, "it's ok... they're made for high RPMs"

I think Subies are too.

-james

ballistic · August 2003

The invoice price of the rock-bottom cheapest AWD Murano is a whopping 20% higher than the XT's...and (according to Car & Driver) the Murano reaches 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the quarter in 15.9 at only 88mph. Those numbers are FAR slower than an XT with 3.9 gearing would achieve - for a LOT more money! If a just-slightly-slower XT with 3.9 gearing would actually have been unacceptable to you, as you say, then how exactly would a 20% more expensive car that takes nearly two seconds longer (than a 3.9 XT) to run the quarter be more appealing to you?

As for 80mph at 3200 rpm, my 5-speed XT spins at nearly 3,500 at that speed.

jb

ballistic · August 2003

James,

Having already spent 24 large on my XT, I'm not exactly anxious to spend a couple thousand more to correct what I regard to be a significant design flaw. If Subaru will share the cost to correct the problem, that would be acceptable.

As for your BMW, most if not all German cars are engineered to maintain near-maximum sustained speeds on the Autobahn. Nothing like that exists in North America or Japan or any of Subaru's other major markets.

It may well be that Subaru's engines can withstand high sustained revs - for awhile. The question is, how long? Anybody want to make a case that an XT engine spinning 3,500 rpms at 80mph will last as long as the same engine turning 3 thou at the same roadspeed would?

jb

ateixeira · August 2003

Go with bigger tires, Jack. Put the spare outside on a hitch mounted kit, I've seen Jeeps that way.

I didn't mind the gearing at all. Rev it in first, and in 2nd the engine is not bogging because low-end torque is good. The XT felt fast at any rpm, in any gear.

Since I didn't sense any "valley" in the power delivery, I think gearing is OK.

The GT has much small diameter tires, so I doubt it'll get the shorter final drive.

-juice

corkfish · August 2003

Jeez. Buy something else will you? I wanted a Neon SRT in the worst way, but the styling was ridiculous. Therefore, I buy something else.

ateixeira · August 2003

If I don't like the big 7 passenger SUW I may take it off your hands in a year or two, Jack, especially given how you've taken care of it.

-juice

ace1000 · August 2003

Has anyone seen 0-30,-40,-50,-60 test results for the AT? I'm guessing that the AT is at most 1 second slower to 60 and maybe not very much slower to 40 than the XT.

kens · August 2003

I disagree that the 4.44 final drive as well as the gear spacing was chosen purely for acceleration. Using your same argument, Jack, the XT would still have shown strong 0-60 numbers with different gearing. If it's not turbo lag, then it's something else that prompted Subaru. I just can't imagine Subaru putting so much emphasis on pure acceleration especially with the Forester.

And I echo juice's comments about the 1-2 shift not really being an issue (to me). I think it probably has to do with the fact that our 98 Forester 1-2 does have quite a big gap to begin with so perhaps we were already used to it.

What I did find was that it was easy to lurch the XT from a dead stop because of the massive torque and short gearing. There was one stoplight where I jerked across like some manual tranny newbie!

Ken

ballistic · August 2003

"Jeez. Buy something else will you? I wanted a Neon SRT in the worst way, but the styling was ridiculous. Therefore, I buy something else"

What's ridiculous is your absurd solution. The buy has obviously already occurred. The 4.44 gearing blindsided all of us who already owned XTs before that became known. Perhaps you're in the fortunate position to blithely walk away from a $24K investment. I'm not.

Adios, folks. Until recently, it's been mostly fun.

lark6 · August 2003

Wow, things are getting a little touchy in here.

Could it be for once that I'd do better by going with the automatic? The tradeoff would be between the MT's better torque distribution and the AT's better gearing. Hmm...why not put the 4.11 in the MT and VTD in the AT and make everyone happy?

Ed

fryingbologna · August 2003

OK, so he REALLY doesn't like the way the MT is geared, but I can live with those rants to hear the rest of the story as well. It is vital for us potential XT buyers to hear this, as well as any Subaru eyes and ears who might also tune in. There have been some really mystifying decisions on the Forester for 2004, and some really great improvements. I guess it would be nice if Subaru themselves could shed some light on some of this for some incredibly loyal owners (hey, I'm a Macintosh user, so I know em when I read em!). Thanks to all of you, including Ballistic, for all the info you have given us on the XT, both good and bad.

njswamplands · August 2003

my wife was more than upset about the low mileage in this light of a car. it is just that we felt there was no other competition in this price range ( feature set that it has and performance ) and she is more of a torque goddess than a mpg princess.

she insisted on the AT and to me it is a bit laggy out of first gear, so i want to rant about a 5 speed auto please. when the AT gets to the middle of 1st gear it is torque heaven from then on. but then again, since i am in the break-in period, maybe it will be different in the the AT 1st gear low end?? after having my odyssey barely moving the rpm guage at highway speed, it is difficult adjusting to the higher revs.

ok now back to my life in rain flooded nj... this car is incredible. i just cant believe what i have missed by not having a subie before.

when i bought the xt i thought the xt 2nd row was adequate. now having those beasts in the 2nd row kicking my back cuz they can reach the rear of my seat is wearing thin. anyone know of a mod so that i can put them where the dog would go? hehehe. but seriously this car is too small for a people hauler and we use the odyssey for what it does best, haul stuff to the dump and shuttle people around and not have kids kicking me in the back all the way there.

corkfish · August 2003

Anyone check the drive ratios on the competition? Don't most SUV's have similar final drives? The Honda Pilot? The Nissan Murano? What is everyone else running? I know Jeep charges extra for the higher ratio option. Also, anyone experiencing any detonation under aggressive acceleration? Apparently the STI is having a problem that warrants attention. I've noticed that mine does ping, but not consistently. Oh, and absurd? I guess if I bought a car without researching it.

subearu · August 2003

Certainly you took an XT MT out for a spin before signing the final papers? You would/could/should have seen the rpm's at 55, 65, felt the 1st-2nd jump in gears, etc. You certainly saw the monroney sticker with the gas mileage, right?

If you're unhappy with something, isn't CONTACTING the best way to notify the manufacturer? Call Subaru and let them know! We (as townhall members) know how you feel here but obviously can't do anything to help your situation.

-Brian

once_for_all · August 2003

by themselves are meaningless without the corresponding transmission ratios. Can't compare the other vehicles directly, it is the combination of the two, plus the tire sizes that count. RPM vs mph is a valid comparison.

My opinion: Subie did the final drive to help avoid transaxle dump problems from the tuner crowd dropping their clutches. Probably lots of other reasons, but a few broken drivetrains would do a lot to dissuade potential buyers.

John

lark6 · August 2003

Brian: That's why I like the fact that we have the "Future Models" and "Suggestions for Subaru" forums here, as well as someone like Patti (again!) who reads and responds there. I could be very negative and say we're providing free market research for a small automaker like Subaru, or I could be very positive and say we're providing free market research for a small automaker like Subaru.

The evidence is there that suggestions and wants posted in these forums have found their way into new Subaru models. Not everything, mind you, and there's no way of knowing for sure if this was the only source of input, but they have nonetheless. It makes me happy to know that the company listens. It also reinforces the notion (at least for me) that I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness when it comes to some of the things I'd like to see in a future Subaru.

Ed

mikef11 · August 2003

3500 rpm at 80 mph doesn't sound too bad. Then again, a higher gear with better mileage would make it easier for me to go and buy this beast. Hopefully next year Subaru will add a sixth gear, or a high/low transfer case that would give both great acceleration and good mileage.

MikeF

once_for_all · August 2003

I remember posting that it was barbaric for Mazda not to offer rear ac/heating in their MPV without buying all the other bells and whistles. It wasn't 6 months later that the option came unencumbered from the other goodies.

The manufacturers do listen, which is what this is all about. And for Jack, we want you back and appreciate your input, don't take it personal please.

John

subearu · August 2003

but I have yet to see Jack post in the Suggestions topic. Hence my pointing out that if anything he could call/email Subaru and express his concerns.

Patti can only read so many boards, I doubt she's following this board that closely. Meet the Members, Suggestions, Crew Cafe, those are discussions we know she reads.

-Brian

ace1000 · August 2003

Since some here are interested in the XS as well as the XT, here's the announcement for the MotorWeek road test of the Forester:

MotorWeek show #2250
With Host John Davis
PBS Broadcast Window Begins August 15, 2003
Road test of the new, sensible 2004 Subaru Forester

There's no information on which models are included in the test, but it might include an XT. If you miss it, you can read the test at the MotorWeek web site at:

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/

samlater · August 2003

Took delivery of my silver 2.5XT 5-speed yesterday. Had 28 miles on the odo. Sweet car. Just drove it through horrendous downpours here in NJ, car handled well. I also noticed that it's not easy to get used to the combination of low gearing, touchy clutch, and ultra-light throttle. This is my 4th stick-shift car, and by far the trickiest in 1st and 2nd. Plus, the hill-holder seems to be more of a pain in the [non-permissible content removed] than it is helpful. It worked much better in my '96 Legacy.
But man does it FLY! :-)) This has got to be faster than my old Supra Turbo and my GS-400! And I haven't gone over 4,000 RPM yet...:-))
The dealer had tire pressures at 34 front / 32 rear - the car is riding a bit rough. What pressure would any of you recommend for a slightly softer ride but without compromising handling?
Thanx--

chassol · August 2003

If you like the XT, either MT or AT - Buy it. You know from reading this forum that the mileage is on the low side and it uses premium gas.

My simple thought is - I use to complain about the so-so power of the Subaru and didn't want the WRX - the XT fills the bill and then some.

BTW with 5,500 miles on mine (AT) I'm averaging 20 - 21 MPG. For the joy of having a vehicle that wakes up some super cars the low MPG and the cost of gas is worth every penny per SMILE.

My only problem is IF the B4 ( http://www.subaru.co.jp/legacy/bt/index_f.html - Legacy - Also NOTE the Forester too - Sorry its in Japanese, but this is the Fuji Heavy Industries / Subaru website) arrives in 2005 or 2006 and has the 3.0 H6 with twin turbo and tiptronic AT I may have to trade the 2002 VDC in :-)

Remember you don't have to buy the XT - But you will miss what IMHO is the best Subaru yet..........

searcherboy · August 2003

I'm in the market for a new car for the first time in 10 years. I've mostly been monitoring (and occasionally posting on) the WRX Wagon board, but checked in here out of a persistent intererest in the XT.

Fascinating discussion regarding final drive ratios. I have learned a few things about auto performance I didn't know before.

I have yet to drive an XT, so I can't contribute anything to this debate. When I tested the WRX sedan, I was taken aback at the amount of turbo lag. The 2 ltr turbo didn't even generate as much low-rev torque as my old underpowered Civic Si (1.6 ltr semi-VTEC). I quickly adjusted my shift points to compensate, which worked fine. Subie turbos are definitely cars which require high revs.

Having read what Jack (and those who disagree with him) have to say about drive ratios, I look forward to testing an XT.

My 2 cents - It sounds very much like Subaru may have opted for a higher final ratio for marketing reasons. The XT's acceleration numbers have attracted a huge amount of attention in the auto media. The only other SUVs (mini or otherwise) I have ever read of which make 0-60 in less time than the XT do so courtesy of aftermarket mods.

Is there a stock vehicle comparable to the XT which is anywhere near as quick? I haven't heard of one. The XT is in a niche of its own. Smart marketing.

Jack, keep posting. I value your opinions and your clear writing style.

subewannabe · August 2003

who is taking his kids through the puddles in his new XT so they can all scream and describes his Honda Odessey, what many consider to be the ultimate mini van, as best suited for hauling things to the dump!

Dont you love living in a country where we all get to act crazy in our own way and then talk about it?

ateixeira · August 2003

4.44:1 is very high, but keep in mind the CR-V (MT) is even higher, 4.7:1, something like that. I don't have specific gear ratios but in the end it's still geared shorter. The biggest complaints with those is the revs at highway speeds, and the noise. The auto is more relaxed and gets better mileage. Sound familiar?

I felt the XT was quieter, and I don't think it revs as high as the CR-V.

Still, Honda and Subaru figure an MT buyer wants performance first, and is more likely to put up with the trade-offs. They can always get an auto if they want a more relaxed ride.

Jack: stick around buddy, people are going to disagree once in a while, but that's life. We wouldn't even have anything to discuss if we all agree on everything. Imagine:

Love the XT. Me too. Yeah. Great ride. Yeah. OK, see you later. The End. Archive the topic, hosts. ;-)

Sam: experiment with tire pressure, try 29/29 maybe. Don't go lower than that, though.

-juice

njswamplands · August 2003

i could not believe i was running out of gas, yes engine was gasping for more fuel, after only 232 miles since my last fill up. car only sucked down 15.5 gallons not 15.9 from the pump

232 / 15.5 = 14.96 mph, did someone put an ford expedition engine in their by accident?????

driving was 35% highway, 65% suburban ( lol not city ). usually had 3 or more bodies inside.

as far as driving style, i did not rev above 4k, i did accelerate firmly out of the many corners in the suburban driving. highway driving was fairly low speeds ( too many speed traps in these tiny nj towns around here ) so highway speeds in the 50-60mph range.

so the next time i see that gas light come on, i might be cutting you off to get to the gas station....

btw. i think the odyssey is the best driving van out there, but it is a van ( 23 mpg on avg ), so it is not fun to drive and does what a van should do very well, haul bodies, move things, dump runs, etc....

akasrp · August 2003

I have not been able to see either Java Black or Aspen White XT in the flesh. These are the only two color choices that are going to pass the wife happy with color / husband happy with turbo domestic bliss test. Wonder if you Java and Aspen owners could post and link to some good pics...

jb,
c'mon, man, dont let a couple of nasty jabs take you out of the ring. your cogent style and pragmatic observations make this board.

-srp

njswamplands · August 2003

yes being crazy in any country and having the fun of telling it in edmunds.com is one of the greatest things. i love my visits to edmunds....

corkfish · August 2003

I think for my next car I'm going to buy a Hummer. Then, I'm going to write the manufacturer and complain that they didn't make it more fuel efficient.

lbhaley · August 2003

I found out something that may be of value to other XT owners. The speedometer in my XT is dead accurate. The police in our town set up radar signs that show your actual speed. My 98 Forested speedometer always showed about 3 mph higher than the sign in the 35 to 45 speed range. Last night I passed the sign at 40 and the sign said 40 mph. That means that I no longer have that 3 mph cushion that I always factored into my speed calculations. The difference between 37 and 40 in a 30 mph zone might very well mean getting stopped or not. I'm not sure if this applies to all 2004 Foresters or just the XT. The XT does have a it's own 140 mph speedometer so I have a hunch that it may be more accurate than the others.

Jack, please don't leave this discussion group. Even though I don't always agree with everything you say, I have really enjoyed reading your well thought out arguments. You add real value to this group.

-les

ace1000 · August 2003

The C/D test in its August issue shows the test inflation pressures as 29 psi front and 28 psi rear. How do these pressures compare to what the owners manual recommends?

ateixeira · August 2003

NJ: A/C running, also?

Keep in mind it's pretty green, it'll improve as it breaks in. Mine did about +2mpg after 15k miles or so.

Folks, let's try to keep this board constructive and informative, with a positive tone. The regular Forester thread has been kept that way for 5 years or so.

Is the XT too fast? Yes, it's ridiculously quick, to the point of absurdity.

I want one. ;-)

-juice

leo2633 · August 2003

Stick around, man. I enjoy your analytical thinking, astute observations, well researched facts and meticulous writing style. You definitely add quite a bit to this discussion. On another note, I think you would have been pleased with the Forester XS 5 speed. I love my 2001 S. I'd love the power available in the XT, but it wouldn't work for me. Too long of a mostly highway daily commute (too much gas), where the NA engine is perfectly adequate for my needs. (But hey, if you REALLY want to, I'll swap you, straight up!!!).

Len

ateixeira · August 2003

Sorry, I have first dibs on the swap. ;-)

-juice

Subaru XT Turbo Forester

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles