That's what I thought. The wagon handles better, but no way does it accelerate better, not even close. The torque is muscle car-like, whereas the turbo lag in the WRX was so annoying it made me dislike the car.I drove it before the XT was even an option, I really wanted to buy one but after the test drive I was very disappointed with the wagon.
As Corkfish mentioned, no one will argue that the WRX "handles" better but by most definitions of "performance", the XT comes out on top. The choice between the two really comes down to which you value more, sporty handling or practicality and everyday acceleration.
Very nice indeed! However, for me it is sheer torture because I have to wait until mid November for the existing lease on my car to come up before I hopefully get an XT. Until then, I'm just another member with XT envy...and driving my wife crazy while I'm at it.
What I dread is the day when an XT pulls up next to me at a stoplight and once the light turns green, all I see is a pair of tail-lights rapidly disappearing into the distance ;-)
Swampy: what sort of mtns are they, what altitude, and how did you feel it performed at alt.? The reason I ask, is that I live at 5500' in the mtns of NC, and the turbo is the main reason I'm looking at the XT (apart from the fact that it's one of the few that fits - I'm 6'5") Cheers Pat
0-60 in 6.2 seconds with their 5 speed, must've been a conservative launch. Still, that's quicker than their FX45 by a tenth, and 7/10ths quicker than their Cayenne S.
i am about 900ft above sea level, rolling hills that i would never try to bike up, probably varying from 600 to 900 ft above sea level in my driving. did not drive as hard as the first tank, 14.9 mpg on first one and used less a/c also.
but the car rocks when a boast is needed coming out of a corner heading up a hill.
I don't know if it's typical for a car to give better mileage w/-or after- break in, but mine seems to be getting better (at about 880 miles so far.) One thing is for certain, it seems to be getting better all around. Every time I drive it I am reminded- "Yeah, that's why I bought it!" Pure joy.
MotorTrend TV is on channel 607 (Speed Channel) on DirecTV at 6am CDT tomorrow, 8/16. Brooke usually has me up that early, so I'll likely be able to catch it.
there has been much debate on the ratios and how it effects speed and mpg. i love the impressive acceleration that makes it like nothing else in its class. but this mpg i am getting makes it like nothing else in its class also.
the standard forester was too slow for me but had acceptable mpg numbers. so i was stuck with big gaps in acceleration and mpg.
i chose acceleration but would most definitely trade some of this acceleration for some better mpg numbers.
is that your final answer? well until i smoke that new fx45 around here at the light, then i will trade for mpg.
Those are my expectation on what I can expect on the relationship between accelleration and mileage. Basically, if you drive it like a leadfoot, you'll have fun with the speed and experience lower mileage, and vice versa if you drive it more conservatively. Plus, I don't think you can glean from either article how and if they followed a break-in on their vehicles. I assume that neither organization followed proper break-ins for their respective vehicles. If that is the case, I believe the XT could be capable of even better performance in both accelleration and mileage after proper break-in periods and after the ECU learns your driving style. Just my two cents.
Just left the show room and my first, and only needed, test drive of the Forester Turbo. Car has incredible performance! Probably not much of a news flash for people reading this page. Question: stick or automatic? I test drove the stick and loved it. What's the thinking out there? Also, is the milage posted on the sticker for real? I tought it would do much better than that.....
If you like driving stick at all, you will love it in the XT. And yes, as sjswamplands says "i love the impressive acceleration that makes it like nothing else in its class. but this mpg i am getting makes it like nothing else in its class also"
I do like driving a stick very much. Its been a while since my VeVo Tebo. Lot's has changed. But as for the milage question, which does better, stick or auto. And what kind of numbers are people getting on "normal driving"?
the forester drivers seat and stick location seem to see a perfect match for a MT. even my AT wife got in the first time, grabbed the AT and reached for the clutch. the driver location is perfect for a MT
Well I discovered that the 2nd PBS station also carries MotorWeek but at 1:00 AM Thursday morning! And me with no means to record at the moment. Argh!
Re survey: I'd take the fuel efficient one if I had a choice. However, I'm hoping to have the best of both. Jaw dropping 0-60 times when launched properly and decent (23 mpg) gas mileage when driven conservatively.
this xt will not let me drive normally like i do in the honda odyssey. the xt says 'pssst, ya know that foot that is on the gas, push it down harder and ahh forget about mpg, whats a few mpg when ur having such fun?'
I think, theoretically, stick is supposed to be ever so slightly better. However, for practical purposes, can launching this XT MT rocket at all the stop lights be getting better MPG? I doubt it.
I'll continue to observe strict break-in restraint (moderate throttle and revs) until 2,000 miles. My 5-speed XT has unquestionably been driven far more conservatively than any other; I purposely minimize fuel consumption. Moreover, my daily commute is at least 70-80% freeway, at or near sea level and rarely above 60-65mph, with little or no city driving.
Yet, through 1,500 miles and 5 tankfuls, this XT has averaged barely 21 MPG on costly premium fuel.
I'm figuring we'll average around 17-18 on the XT, mostly city driving (haven't filled it up yet so I don't know). That seems pretty reasonable to me. If you figure a ratio of HP vs MPG for any number of other cars in the class, I'm sure this would be quite competitive. Have you heard those Ford Explorers et al get like 10mpg.. Anyhow, I wonder if your number will even drop much when you stop being afraid of the throttle (c'mon, 1500 miles - break in is over! ;-).. the boost is already always on anyhow in this car, might as well take advantage of it :-D (I can get up to 24mpg in my WRX if I am really gentle, but mostly average around 20-21 when I am on boost a lot, which is pretty much all the time ;-)
PS: How do you figure 80% freeway but 'little or no city', what is the other 20%??
Where was that article I read recently that stated that "although it seems to defy logic, an engine is more efficient the harder it works" So does that include better gas mileage?
Judicious driving hardly equates to being afraid of the throttle.
I buy cars to keep for the long run...120,000 to 200,000 miles. My break-in periods are never over until at least twice the suggested mileage.
Other cars "in the class" having similar horsepower and worse gas mileage are nearly all substantially heavier, and most have automatics. Apples to oranges.
As for boost: "...always on anyhow in this car"? Nothing could be further from the truth. Mine has the boost gauge. Except when climbing hills, mine is rarely in positive boost territory - never while maintaining steady speed, even at 80mph (highest mine has reached, briefly). Because fuel economy matters to me, I make a point of keeping mine below "0" boost most of the time, even when accelerating.
Speaking of break-in periods. While on a test drive last weekend the salesman told me to go ahead and open it up (approx 120 on the odo). I told him that wouldn't be right as someone would eventually be buying this car and if it were me, I wouldn't want the break-in period to be abused. FWIW, the salesman said he had recently spoken to their head mechanic (Subaru Master Mechanic) on the subject and the mechanic told him that break-in periods were a thing of the past with today's engines (at least Subarus) being made much better with closer tolerances. I've read this theory in other places also. So, it seems to me that there are two positions on this. One that advocates the above philosophy and the other that advocates adhering to a strict break-in regimen.
I find this very similar to the oil change debate where one side advocates sticking to the manufacturer's recommended interval (usually 7500 miles) and the other adamant about the necessity of changing the oil every 3k.
In both cases, there is tons of anecdotal evidence and opinions but and severe paucity of empirical evidence.
My hunch is that most of the folks who stick to the break-in period also change their oil every 3k and are followers of the "better safe than sorry" school of thought, while the other group is more likely to be from the "live for the moment" school of thought.
I to have read, and been told by "factory certified" mechanics, that the "break in period" is in fact a thing of the past. That being said, perhaps a prudent approach would be to "take it slow and easy". Considering the investment, and a somewhat skeptical view of some "expert's advice", slow and easy sounds good to me. As for oil change intervals; I use a top quality natural oil, or synthetic, for up to 7,500 mi. It's worked well enough with my '94 Mitsubishi Galant for it to have reached 207,000 mi, and uses about 1 qt of oil between changes, the interval of which I have now shortened to about 4k. The engine has never been disassembled.
Based on a 320 mile avg. week, the XT will cost $6.50 a week more for fule than the XS. Or about $333 a year. Or on a life of 3 years, 50,000 mile ownership time period, about $1000 more. What price glory? Sounds like a deal to me!!!
I have a WRX wagon. I love the discussion going on as to whether to go with the XT or WRX. Other makes should have this problem when it comes to practical performance cars. One plus I will tell you for the WRX is the mileage it gets. Once it is broken in 20 mpg for the city is routine as is 25 to 27 for every tank on the road. I have also on rare occasion at low highway speed (60 mph) gotten 30 mpg.
Question: Has anyone checked yet to see if the '04 WRX hood scoops will fit the XT's slot? They look a little beefier to me, and it might make an interesting mod.
Frank, More thoughts on engine break in. Some people will go as far as to say that driving an engine gently for the first 1000 miles may actually result in a loss of horsepower as a result of improper ring seating. I suppose there is some logic to the notion that if you drive an engine gently for 1000 miles and then start running it hard, it has trouble coping after getting "used" to being driven easily. Of course, as you said, this all conjecture. You have to admit though that if it was so crucial, would leased cars or rental cars survive their first year? Would sales people be allowed to take a new car out and hammer it a little? Frankly, the engine doesn't concern me as much as the transmission. I'm a little concerned that this thing may have trouble eating clutches etc.
Hi, Don't own a Subaru as yet, but considering Forester against Jeep Liberty. (Don't gasp in horror!) Sub. offers better safety features, build quality, transparent all-wheel drive, the xt! and other virtues. We will be retiring and wife will drive new veh., but I want something that can be flat-towed. Auto versions of Subaru cannot, to my knowledge. Jeep can, with no restrictions. Also, no Subaru dealer for several towns around where we are moving, but Jeep dealer in town. Any factory approved modification offered? I know this forum addresses performance issues primarily, but many of you have considerable knowledge of the vehicle. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, JimT
Jack, nice to see you back. Not picking on you, but I would suggest that the turbo boost exists even when the gauge is not in the positive. This compared to the NA engine, of course. My '03 XS 5 speed gets 28-29 without AC, 25-26 with, 70-30 highway-city. The "turbo" penalty (yes, including final drives--ouch, can't believe I mentioned that ) in my reckoning is anywhere from 3-7 mpg, which is confirmed by the EPA numbers and real numbers from this forum and road tests.
I'm assuming you want to tow it behind a motorhome? My recommendation is to put it on a trailer, with all four wheels off the ground. That way you won't have to worry about having one of those heavy (ugly) tow-hitch attachments hanging off the front end of the vehicle, which could (?) scratch and/or damage the vehicle. I know there is some sort of fuse thingy gizmo, that allows a Subaru to work in FWD, but I believe this is for emergency situations; not for traveling on a vacation.
My guess is that the Jeep can flat-tow on all four wheels, is because it has a neutral position in the transfer case. a very nice feature, IMO.
One other thing to consider, when you're flat towing, you are putting wear & tear on the car, even though it's not being driven. However many miles you tow, you can subtract that mileage from the tire life. Not so if you put the vehicle on a trailer.
juice: My choice would have to be the more economical one. I have a long daily commute, so MPG is important to me. Much as I'd love the turbo power, I couldn't justify the XT's highway fuel economy rating. I have a 2001 Forester S 5 speed, and I get 26-27 MPG on the highway, if I keep it around 65MPH (I cracked the 30 MPG mark twice, but have been unable to duplicate it). I've already come to the conclusion that, if I were to replace my '01 today, I'd go with an XS 5 speed, and not look back.
Jack: Good to see you again. I definitely sympathize with you and the disadvantages of the XT. It's a shame that Subaru didn't make available more specs on the XT by the time you placed your order. Had they done so, I'm sure you would have leaned more toward the XS 5 speed, or even a completely different vehicle.
Add another to the MPG camp. As cool as those 0-60 times are, I would gladly trade them for 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and 26 MPG with regular fuel. The XS is a little underpowered, and the XT is a lot overpowered. Taking into account gas and insurance costs, speeding tickets, premium gas costs and tree hugging impulses, the XS Premium with yucky gray leather would get my $$ first.
Styling on the Forester? While I think the "gussied up pig" deserves to get out and dance sometimes, the look of the Murano/FX35 is quite intoxicating. I still really like the look of some of those Japanese Foresters, though. Give me the option to buy the Crosssports 2.0i model, and my negotiating powers... slowly... fading...
Well, got a $200 Under Invoice deal on my choice of Silver, Black or White XT (3 mi on Odo on White - still in plastic). Transferred cash to my checking acct. Would’ve picked up the car Tuesday. Wife suddenly hit with virulent Highlander bug. Hoping for a Miracle Cure.
Return to dealer for one final test drive. Get to nearest freeway. Complain about needing a "bit of fresh air". Lower windows on rear doors while leaving front windows up. Grimace. Wipe blood running from ears. Return Highlander. Pick up new white Forester XT later that day!
Comments
-Frank P.
I have dish, and I looked on my program guide, and Motorweek is not listed at 4pm on Saturday on PBS-U.
I ran a search, and the next time it is on on DISH is next Tuesday I believe.
--Ray
snarks: some of us have families, cargo, and fillings we don't want rattled. ;-)
The XT is a far, far more practical all-around vehicle. Less turbo lag, more tolerant suspension, quieter, airier interior, etc.
Also, it will "perform" better carrying a 900 lb payload, acclerating up hill, or towing.
-juice
-Frank P.
-juice
-juice
Cheers
Pat
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2250.shtml
0-60 in 6.2 seconds with their 5 speed, must've been a conservative launch. Still, that's quicker than their FX45 by a tenth, and 7/10ths quicker than their Cayenne S.
-juice
C&D's Forester XT hit 60 in 5.3 seconds and returned 20mpg for them. I'm sure it was driven aggressively, but still.
Motorweek's XT took 6.2 seconds but returned 22 mpg, pretty impressive for a green engine. Maybe less hardware abuse?
Any how, which would you prefer? The quicker one or the more fuel efficient one?
I say it's a tough call, both are still best-in-class acceleration, and 10% more range sounds pretty good. I might choose the latter.
What about the rest of you?
-juice
but the car rocks when a boast is needed coming out of a corner heading up a hill.
Pure joy.
-Brian
the standard forester was too slow for me but had acceptable mpg numbers. so i was stuck with big gaps in acceleration and mpg.
i chose acceleration but would most definitely trade some of this acceleration for some better mpg numbers.
is that your final answer? well until i smoke that new fx45 around here at the light, then i will trade for mpg.
And yes, as sjswamplands says "i love the impressive acceleration that makes it like nothing else in its class. but this mpg i am getting makes it like nothing else in its class also"
Re survey: I'd take the fuel efficient one if I had a choice. However, I'm hoping to have the best of both. Jaw dropping 0-60 times when launched properly and decent (23 mpg) gas mileage when driven conservatively.
-Frank P.
Yet, through 1,500 miles and 5 tankfuls, this XT has averaged barely 21 MPG on costly premium fuel.
PS: How do you figure 80% freeway but 'little or no city', what is the other 20%??
-Frank P.
I buy cars to keep for the long run...120,000 to 200,000 miles. My break-in periods are never over until at least twice the suggested mileage.
Other cars "in the class" having similar horsepower and worse gas mileage are nearly all substantially heavier, and most have automatics. Apples to oranges.
As for boost: "...always on anyhow in this car"? Nothing could be further from the truth. Mine has the boost gauge. Except when climbing hills, mine is rarely in positive boost territory - never while maintaining steady speed, even at 80mph (highest mine has reached, briefly). Because fuel economy matters to me, I make a point of keeping mine below "0" boost most of the time, even when accelerating.
Bob
I find this very similar to the oil change debate where one side advocates sticking to the manufacturer's recommended interval (usually 7500 miles) and the other adamant about the necessity of changing the oil every 3k.
In both cases, there is tons of anecdotal evidence and opinions but and severe paucity of empirical evidence.
My hunch is that most of the folks who stick to the break-in period also change their oil every 3k and are followers of the "better safe than sorry" school of thought, while the other group is more likely to be from the "live for the moment" school of thought.
Anybody care to comment?
-Frank P.
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2250.shtml
More thoughts on engine break in. Some people will go as far as to say that driving an engine gently for the first 1000 miles may actually result in a loss of horsepower as a result of improper ring seating. I suppose there is some logic to the notion that if you drive an engine gently for 1000 miles and then start running it hard, it has trouble coping after getting "used" to being driven easily. Of course, as you said, this all conjecture. You have to admit though that if it was so crucial, would leased cars or rental cars survive their first year? Would sales people be allowed to take a new car out and hammer it a little? Frankly, the engine doesn't concern me as much as the transmission. I'm a little concerned that this thing may have trouble eating clutches etc.
http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
John
My guess is that the Jeep can flat-tow on all four wheels, is because it has a neutral position in the transfer case. a very nice feature, IMO.
One other thing to consider, when you're flat towing, you are putting wear & tear on the car, even though it's not being driven. However many miles you tow, you can subtract that mileage from the tire life. Not so if you put the vehicle on a trailer.
Bob
Jack: Good to see you again. I definitely sympathize with you and the disadvantages of the XT. It's a shame that Subaru didn't make available more specs on the XT by the time you placed your order. Had they done so, I'm sure you would have leaned more toward the XS 5 speed, or even a completely different vehicle.
Len
Styling on the Forester? While I think the "gussied up pig" deserves to get out and dance sometimes, the look of the Murano/FX35 is quite intoxicating. I still really like the look of some of those Japanese Foresters, though. Give me the option to buy the Crosssports 2.0i model, and my negotiating powers... slowly... fading...
On the plus side - good to see Jack is Back!
srp