...we do have one of them thar Maaco-type places. Done thought 'bout gettin' my ol' pickup truck slicked up and done right thar. Crabgrass! I might even think 'bout gettin' this here Forester uv mine re-painted too. I'd not done thought of that. Ain't that a hoot? ;-p
Seriously, though -- thanks for the Maaco reminder. I'd forgot about them. On the other hand, if the po-dunk fellow on the outskirts of Atlanta has been recommended to me and does some seriously good paint work, I'm willing to consider him. It's just his experience that worries me. Or the lack thereof with respect to Subarus. I guess if he pull out the dent and get it back to the original shape, I'm willing to fork over the extra cash to get it fixed.
Damn, I hate having to fiddle with this sort of thing on a brand new car. Of course, I saw about 4 WRX sedans in the Subaru body shop when I got my $750 quote, so I'm not the only one running my new car into things. ;-P
I believe SolarGuard is a brand. The differences between dyed and metallic films are fade resistance and heat rejectance rate IIRC, can't remember which is better at what though. Sometimes tinting does interfere with built-in antennas, I don't know if it the film or damage to the antenna done by the installers. Call your local luxury brands and find out who does their tinting for them to find a quality tint shop.
I don't have the in-glass antennae. Rear defrost works as before, except it actually tend to fog up less for whatever reason. SolarGard is a brand, another is 3M. Supposedly metallic film does not fade, but that hasn't happened to my dyed film in almost 4 years of use.
Ask to see some samples of a paint shop's work. Usually there are painted cars right there you can see. Check for overspray on trim, look for orange peel texture, runs, loose trim, stuff like that.
Has anyone heard of this one? I have a 2002 Forester with 4700 miles on it. I've been having the problem of the car making the clacking/chattering noise (almost sounds like a diesel engine) when it's cold first thing in the morning. Started a couple of weeks ago. Just got it back from the autobody shop (won't even talk about that one!) and called to make an appointment at the dealer and described the problem. The service guy's comment? Well, we have a service bulletin on that and I can give you a copy but basically you'll just have to live with it. Hmm, maybe I'm being a little ah..sensitive, but considering it's a new noise, no one in the service department has even heard it, it worries me that they're assuming this is the problem. And to be honest, if I have to "live with this" noise, I'm going to be pretty darn unhappy.
So, I'm leaving the car overnight (on Monday) and getting a rental. I am going to request that they look at the timing belt tensioner but any other suggestions?
Tinting doesn't affect the reception of your in-glass antenna since the film goes on the inside of the glass.
The difference between dyed and metallic films is how they acheive their color. Pretty straightforward, but dyed uses dyes, metallic uses very small metallic particles in the film to block light. Metallic films are generally better because they do not fade and they also do a better job at reducing glare at night. Metallic films are more expensive, however. I've heard that dyed films have improved in quality over the years so they are far less prone to fading than before.
Two things you should look for when tinting -- the quality of the film and the skill of the installer. 3M, Madico and SolarGaurd are some very popular and good quality films. Installers should go past the gaskets on the windows to ensure that the film doesn't catch. Prices vary quite a bit based on your film type, but expect to pay at least $150 for all five rear windows. Also, a good installer takes his/her time. Stay away from any place that claims they'll have it done in an hour.
<<Has anyone heard of this one? I have a 2002 Forester with 4700 miles on it. I've been having the problem of the car making the clacking/chattering noise (almost sounds like a diesel engine) when it's cold first thing in the morning. Started a couple of weeks ago. Just got it back from the autobody shop (won't even talk about that one!) and called to make an appointment at the dealer and described the problem. The service guy's comment? Well, we have a service bulletin on that and I can give you a copy but basically you'll just have to live with it.>>
i'd put money down it's the timing belt tensioner. when they call you and let you know that it, ask them if they're going to replace the timing belt as well, since the tensioner hasn't been doing its job and who knows what undue wear has occurred with the belt. make sure they start your car up in the morning when it's cold.
i also read on a tinting faq somewhere that, with the frameless windows on the doors, make sure to ask whoever you want to do it that they have experience in tinting frameless windows.
I'm currently shopping for a small suv type and I'm really close to getting a 2002 Honda CR-V but I really want to know if the Forester will be out of my price range. I test drove a an Outback Sport and loved the handling of it but find it a little too small. I expect the new Forester to drive about the same but just a little higher?
My range is around 22k and I would like a sunroof so the XS is probably what i would be interested in. I would think the XS will be around 24 or so.
Also, do any of you know when in May they'll be available to test drive?
My 2002 has 5000 miles on it and I'm getting a humming noise that seems to be coming from under the car, usually when it's been running for a while. It's not real bad but it hadn't been there until recently. Any suggestions?
Forester is a bit taller with more ground clearance, but weight is close so acceleration isn't any slower.
A S premium now costs $22,400 with a manual trans, freight included. The new one may go up a couple of hundred, but it's close to your price range, at least.
You could do what I did - get an L and put in an aftermarket moonroof. A pop up costs $300, a power model $900. I love mine. An L model starts at $19k, so you could have a couple of grand left over, even.
Quick responses: * X looks better than expected, more unified than it used to, cladding more integral, good wheels. That's great news for me. The hot buy might be the MT X with a few options. * I was surprised to hear cargo room compares with wider, much taller Escape (way to go, Subaru!). * The slight criticism of suspension because of body roll suggests serious drivers might want to upgrade sway bar. * High marks for the brakes. * I wish the reviewer had paid more attention to all the safety features, but that's not sexy. * Reviewers like power; with turbo, this review would have been a rave.
Common theme these days. It's interesting how reviewers concentrate on the new and powerful. The Small SUV / Crossover standard has gone up in the last 5 years, in no small part because of the first generation Forester. In 1998, the mags raved about its nimble handling, interior appointments and plentiful torque. It won comparison tests & awards. The Forester goes up against larger more expensive SUVs & cars regularly, even if only getting an honorable mention.
I'm still happy with my current Forester, even if it is not the flashiest player around. It's still quick, nimble, comfortable, fun and reliable. Feels like it's going to last and last, leaving me time & money for other pursuits and pleasures. When I replace shocks & struts at 120K or so, I'll probably upgrade the rear sway bar & bushings to stay even. Maybe I'll end up with a 3rd generation model in 2007.
I have to keep reminding myself of the reasons I bought mine, even though the new has pretty much worn off. Sure the paint makes me crazy, the sun visors are cheap, the body leans a bit too much in turns, and it could use a little more oomph in onramp-offramp/passing situations, but it does everything I need and then some. I've done pretty well to avoid WRX fever so far - have never driven one but have been a passenger. The WRX's thirst for premium, comments on its behavior with an automatic, and the constant accidents that irrationally exuberant drivers are getting into are making it easier to stick with the tall black wagon that my WRX-driving acquaintances call "the hearse."
Liked the new pics. The X looks okay. There's nothing truly newsworthy in the article, but it confrms what most people have already said.
What bugged me about the review wasn't the content, it was the intro. Made it sound like the Forester was the first crossover built. I suspect that many Outback owners would disagree. So would the folks who own an early RAV4 or CR-V (like me).
Just saw the Edmunds pics of the new Forrestor. I must say that I like it. I think it looks much more wagon like now than SUV like - to me this is a good thing. Much more comprehensive and integrated in design - not just an amalgamation of parts. I like that rear hatch too.
A few detailed observations from the Edmunds photos that I now recall from NY:
* the silver trim is recessed, so it's not likely to scratch * padded arm rests, a much needed improvement * clock is at bottom of dash-top bin, adjustment buttons hidden beneath lid, clever * cup holders fit mugs * seat heater buttons more easily accessible * seats seem like a luxury car's * nice dead pedal (which a certain Honda lacks) * X model very, very well sorted * 16" steelies more attractive than alloys! * cladding color matches C-pillar and tail gate strip * I want one!
And quibbles:
* not sure I like the map nets * arm rest should angle up towards front * X should have rear disc brakes to go with standard ABS
Ed: have you done the sway bar upgrade? 18mm was $82, 20mm was $78 (oddly the bigger one is cheaper).
Subaru had the first "crossover" actually back in 1973, with the first 4WD wagon. It even had a raised suspension and a low range, so arguably it's more truck-like than today's crossovers. Then came the AMC Eagle, then Audi, then a whole wave of newcomers.
The URL for Subaru's history (from FHI's site) expired, else I'd share the link. I have a photo of the car, though. Maybe it is time to get an Image Station account?
The 2003 is looking better the more I see it. Nice to see an "X"......I agree, juice, the steels wheels definitely look better than the alloys......as the "X" is the only one really affordable in Canada, makes it much more attractive for me......looks to be a duel between the CR-V-EX and the Forester X (though I know the somewhat tight confines of the Forester are going to be a hard sell for my wife vs. the spaciousnes of the CR-V
That should count. Didn't they label it the "wagovan"? It was a predecessor to the CR-V, with a strong following.
Also, you could count the Colt Vista, the Tercel wagon, the Corolla wagon, the Stanza wagon. I believe all those had 4WD.
But have no doubt - Subaru was first. Their GL wagon was a 1973, more than a decade before Honda. It had 4WD, low range, heavy duty lifted springs, and even skid plates.
More observations from that article: they say clearance is still 7.5". Some japanese specs say 7.9", though.
The hill holder uses the parking brake. Did the old ones work that way? I though they used tranny internals to do it.
Cargo space is the same as my Forester. In CR's box test, that still beats most cute utes and even some mid-sizers.
Subaru may "technically" have been first with a 4WD wagon back in the 70s, I still think the AMC Eagle was the true "spiritual forefather" of the Outback, and all other future crossovers.
The Eagle is very close in size and image to the Outback. It was just way ahead of its time (timing is everything)—and it was (unfortunately) built by AMC...
I finally looked up in my manual about the Hill Holder.
On the older cars the hill holder would engage 1 single brake. It had basically a tap into one of the brake lines and would basically hold that wheel locked with the brake pressure until you moved forward then it released the pressure. I'll try to remember to get the whole technical explaination this weekend.
Well, the Subie was a pretty compact wagon. I guess AMC had two-tone and an overall size that would seem to appeal more to mainstream buyers. But IIRC reliability was horrid and it didn't sell well even with very low prices. I remember Consumer's Digest (not the same at CR) had them listed as a Best Buy way back when.
Depends on how you define crossover, I guess. Edmunds may include the Forester because it's registered as a car, while RAV4 and CR-V are trucks. But varmint still makes a good point about the Outback. It's not just a tall wagon - it had a raised roof, too.
paisan: we can also ask our two technician guests during next week's live chat.
The Eagle was horrible. It was 100% AMC all the way...
Still, I think it, much more so than early Subie 4WDs, planted the seed in people's minds that such a vehicle (AWD wagon) was possible. Most people were aware of the Eagle, whereas precious few where aware of the 1970s Subie 4WDs. Besides, the Eagle is close to the size and proportion of the Outback. Conceptually it's a very short leap...
Right Side Valve Cover Gasket: Parts were $77. Labor not specified (warranty).
Unable to locate other repair records right now, but the other two would have been more expensive for labor becaue of poor accessibility and long disassembly/reassembly time.
Lots of Eagles were cruising Anchorage when I lived there. Often rusty, but they seemed to run. Rumor has it that one of the esteemed hosts around here had one too. I connect the dots from them to the Aztek moreso than the Forester, myself.
I had friends in Colorado back in the mid-70's with one of the "original" Subaru wagons, and I saw one cruising in Boise the other day. They were amazingly narrow :-) Steve Host SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
In the last month or so, I have seen two Eagles that are still on the road. The odd thing is that while their raised suspensions make them look a bit odd, the body design doesn't look particularly dated. I have also recently seen some GM cars from the same time period, and their designs look VERY out of date.
The Toyota Tercel 4WD tall wagon introduced in the fall of 1982 was one of the first to combine 4WD, raised suspension (7" ground clearance) and tall body. The SR5 manual trans model even had a 6th low range gear you could select only in 4WD mode. It handled well, had great seats w/ room for 4, and was woefully underpowered. I had a 1985 bought new which held up well for 280,000 miles. Great car. This Tercel, along with the Civic wagon & Dodge Colt "stretch" wagon, pioneered the small crossover class in the early 80's (albeit after the larger AMC Eagle came along) when such cars were considered odd "tall wagons".
Designs before their time? Even the Subie was sort of before the Japanese invasion, or towards the beginning of it.
I guess the AMC was more tall wagon, while some of the others we're mentioning were almost mini-minivans, in a way. Their interiors were more versatile than the Eagle's rather generic layout.
Well, I guess I was thinking of what I would call the "modern cross-over", but even that has a fuzzy definition. I am/was aware of the AMC Eagle.
Carguy62 - You're right about the tail lights. I like it, too.
Hill holder - I seem to recall someone posting a link to a pretty good description of the hill holder. I think the new version uses one front and one rear brake (opposite sides of the car).
I bit the bullet and finally got an Image Station account. I think Sony runs it so hopefully the "juice jinx" won't take them out of business (which happened to homepage.com and photopoint).
take everything out of the picture link after the first .jpg. (blahblahblah.fdcfb3b4.jpg.orig.jpg to blahblahblah.fdcfb3b4.jpg)
then the picture will show up fine.
My grandparents had an '85 Eagle wagon. I do remember the small import 4wd's, but have to agree that the Eagle was probably bucking the trend with it's raised suspension and selectable 4wd.
-Brian (who lives 5 minutes away from an AMC plant {which is now only a Jeep/ChryCo engine plant})
I remember the early Subaru 4wd with some fondness. Australians were mildy surprsed by them but a lot of farmers could not believe their luck. They were civilised but robust and had selectable 4WD when the low range option appearsed it upped the ante as did the ability to raise the suspension. I seem to remember that you did this by screwing down a bolt on the top of each suspension tower but cannot remember the details now.
They were also popular amongst skiers of the "serious but not trendy" variety, particularly cross country types.
Mind you, the interiors were a bit on the rugged side with plastic type floor mats which washed down easily but were lethally slippery if you had muddy feet.
Arguably the concept of the cross over vehicle should be traced to the Series I Range Rover which came out in about 1968. This was a Rover car fitted with the most impressive 4WD system made at the time. Alternatively it was a serious 4WD fitted with car like body and interior. It would go places even a Land Rover could not because of its massive suspension articulation and the transplanted 3.5l Buick V8 engine which had been fitted to the Rover 3500. Mind you it also gave new meaing to "breaking down in far away places" as reliability was no too flash. However at any sort of accessible price, I think the Subaru was probably the first.
Look again at Mike's pictures of the 2003 Forester's interior on post #5259. See the nice cupholders in the center console...YAY! Finally a logical solution. But wait, could it be? Looks like they sacrificed the center armrest for the new cupholders!!!!! Doh!!!!!
I sat in the new Forester at the NY auto show. The armrest is still there, and I believe they will be offering an armrest extension too, as they did with the out-going model.
Comments
Seriously, though -- thanks for the Maaco reminder. I'd forgot about them. On the other hand, if the po-dunk fellow on the outskirts of Atlanta has been recommended to me and does some seriously good paint work, I'm willing to consider him. It's just his experience that worries me. Or the lack thereof with respect to Subarus. I guess if he pull out the dent and get it back to the original shape, I'm willing to fork over the extra cash to get it fixed.
Damn, I hate having to fiddle with this sort of thing on a brand new car. Of course, I saw about 4 WRX sedans in the Subaru body shop when I got my $750 quote, so I'm not the only one running my new car into things. ;-P
Later,
burnsmr4
Ask to see some samples of a paint shop's work. Usually there are painted cars right there you can see. Check for overspray on trim, look for orange peel texture, runs, loose trim, stuff like that.
-juice
So, I'm leaving the car overnight (on Monday) and getting a rental. I am going to request that they look at the timing belt tensioner but any other suggestions?
thanx for the help.
either but have noticed some light smoke
occasionally.
How expensive were these various oil leak
repairs?
The difference between dyed and metallic films is how they acheive their color. Pretty straightforward, but dyed uses dyes, metallic uses very small metallic particles in the film to block light. Metallic films are generally better because they do not fade and they also do a better job at reducing glare at night. Metallic films are more expensive, however. I've heard that dyed films have improved in quality over the years so they are far less prone to fading than before.
Two things you should look for when tinting -- the quality of the film and the skill of the installer. 3M, Madico and SolarGaurd are some very popular and good quality films. Installers should go past the gaskets on the windows to ensure that the film doesn't catch. Prices vary quite a bit based on your film type, but expect to pay at least $150 for all five rear windows. Also, a good installer takes his/her time. Stay away from any place that claims they'll have it done in an hour.
Ken
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Bob
<<Has anyone heard of this one? I have a 2002 Forester with 4700 miles on it. I've been having the problem of the car making the clacking/chattering noise (almost sounds like a diesel engine) when it's cold first thing in the morning. Started a couple of weeks ago. Just got it back from the autobody shop (won't even talk about that one!) and called to make an appointment at the dealer and described the problem. The service guy's comment? Well, we have a service bulletin on that and I can give you a copy but basically you'll just have to live with it.>>
i'd put money down it's the timing belt tensioner. when they call you and let you know that it, ask them if they're going to replace the timing belt as well, since the tensioner hasn't been doing its job and who knows what undue wear has occurred with the belt. make sure they start your car up in the morning when it's cold.
dean
cincinnati, ohio
'02s+
dean
cincinnati, ohio
'02s+
I'm currently shopping for a small suv type and I'm really close to getting a 2002 Honda CR-V but I really want to know if the Forester will be out of my price range. I test drove a an Outback Sport and loved the handling of it but find it a little too small. I expect the new Forester to drive about the same but just a little higher?
My range is around 22k and I would like a sunroof so the XS is probably what i would be interested in. I would think the XS will be around 24 or so.
Also, do any of you know when in May they'll be available to test drive?
thx
Nello
Forester is a bit taller with more ground clearance, but weight is close so acceleration isn't any slower.
A S premium now costs $22,400 with a manual trans, freight included. The new one may go up a couple of hundred, but it's close to your price range, at least.
You could do what I did - get an L and put in an aftermarket moonroof. A pop up costs $300, a power model $900. I love mine. An L model starts at $19k, so you could have a couple of grand left over, even.
Gotta check out that review now...
-juice
* X looks better than expected, more unified than it used to, cladding more integral, good wheels. That's great news for me. The hot buy might be the MT X with a few options.
* I was surprised to hear cargo room compares with wider, much taller Escape (way to go, Subaru!).
* The slight criticism of suspension because of body roll suggests serious drivers might want to upgrade sway bar.
* High marks for the brakes.
* I wish the reviewer had paid more attention to all the safety features, but that's not sexy.
* Reviewers like power; with turbo, this review would have been a rave.
I'm still happy with my current Forester, even if it is not the flashiest player around. It's still quick, nimble, comfortable, fun and reliable. Feels like it's going to last and last, leaving me time & money for other pursuits and pleasures. When I replace shocks & struts at 120K or so, I'll probably upgrade the rear sway bar & bushings to stay even. Maybe I'll end up with a 3rd generation model in 2007.
John
Ed
What bugged me about the review wasn't the content, it was the intro. Made it sound like the Forester was the first crossover built. I suspect that many Outback owners would disagree. So would the folks who own an early RAV4 or CR-V (like me).
Bob
* the silver trim is recessed, so it's not likely to scratch
* padded arm rests, a much needed improvement
* clock is at bottom of dash-top bin, adjustment buttons hidden beneath lid, clever
* cup holders fit mugs
* seat heater buttons more easily accessible
* seats seem like a luxury car's
* nice dead pedal (which a certain Honda lacks)
* X model very, very well sorted
* 16" steelies more attractive than alloys!
* cladding color matches C-pillar and tail gate strip
* I want one!
And quibbles:
* not sure I like the map nets
* arm rest should angle up towards front
* X should have rear disc brakes to go with standard ABS
Ed: have you done the sway bar upgrade? 18mm was $82, 20mm was $78 (oddly the bigger one is cheaper).
Subaru had the first "crossover" actually back in 1973, with the first 4WD wagon. It even had a raised suspension and a low range, so arguably it's more truck-like than today's crossovers. Then came the AMC Eagle, then Audi, then a whole wave of newcomers.
Outback started the revival, though.
-juice
-juice
-juice
Also, you could count the Colt Vista, the Tercel wagon, the Corolla wagon, the Stanza wagon. I believe all those had 4WD.
But have no doubt - Subaru was first. Their GL wagon was a 1973, more than a decade before Honda. It had 4WD, low range, heavy duty lifted springs, and even skid plates.
More observations from that article: they say clearance is still 7.5". Some japanese specs say 7.9", though.
The hill holder uses the parking brake. Did the old ones work that way? I though they used tranny internals to do it.
Cargo space is the same as my Forester. In CR's box test, that still beats most cute utes and even some mid-sizers.
-juice
The Eagle is very close in size and image to the Outback. It was just way ahead of its time (timing is everything)—and it was (unfortunately) built by AMC...
Bob
On the older cars the hill holder would engage 1 single brake. It had basically a tap into one of the brake lines and would basically hold that wheel locked with the brake pressure until you moved forward then it released the pressure. I'll try to remember to get the whole technical explaination this weekend.
-mike
Depends on how you define crossover, I guess. Edmunds may include the Forester because it's registered as a car, while RAV4 and CR-V are trucks. But varmint still makes a good point about the Outback. It's not just a tall wagon - it had a raised roof, too.
paisan: we can also ask our two technician guests during next week's live chat.
-juice
Bob
Still, I think it, much more so than early Subie 4WDs, planted the seed in people's minds that such a vehicle (AWD wagon) was possible. Most people were aware of the Eagle, whereas precious few where aware of the 1970s Subie 4WDs. Besides, the Eagle is close to the size and proportion of the Outback. Conceptually it's a very short leap...
Bob
Unable to locate other repair records right now, but the other two would have been more expensive for labor becaue of poor accessibility and long disassembly/reassembly time.
I had friends in Colorado back in the mid-70's with one of the "original" Subaru wagons, and I saw one cruising in Boise the other day. They were amazingly narrow :-)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
John
I guess the AMC was more tall wagon, while some of the others we're mentioning were almost mini-minivans, in a way. Their interiors were more versatile than the Eagle's rather generic layout.
-juice
Carguy62 - You're right about the tail lights. I like it, too.
Hill holder - I seem to recall someone posting a link to a pretty good description of the hill holder. I think the new version uses one front and one rear brake (opposite sides of the car).
I bit the bullet and finally got an Image Station account. I think Sony runs it so hopefully the "juice jinx" won't take them out of business (which happened to homepage.com and photopoint).
-juice
-juice
bob
Ken
then the picture will show up fine.
My grandparents had an '85 Eagle wagon. I do remember the small import 4wd's, but have to agree that the Eagle was probably bucking the trend with it's raised suspension and selectable 4wd.
-Brian (who lives 5 minutes away from an AMC plant {which is now only a Jeep/ChryCo engine plant})
I remember the early Subaru 4wd with some fondness. Australians were mildy surprsed by them but a lot of farmers could not believe their luck. They were civilised but robust and had selectable 4WD when the low range option appearsed it upped the ante as did the ability to raise the suspension. I seem to remember that you did this by screwing down a bolt on the top of each suspension tower but cannot remember the details now.
They were also popular amongst skiers of the "serious but not trendy" variety, particularly cross country types.
Mind you, the interiors were a bit on the rugged side with plastic type floor mats which washed down easily but were lethally slippery if you had muddy feet.
Arguably the concept of the cross over vehicle should be traced to the Series I Range Rover which came out in about 1968. This was a Rover car fitted with the most impressive 4WD system made at the time. Alternatively it was a serious 4WD fitted with car like body and interior. It would go places even a Land Rover could not because of its massive suspension articulation and the transplanted 3.5l Buick V8 engine which had been fitted to the Rover 3500. Mind you it also gave new meaing to "breaking down in far away places" as reliability was no too flash.
However at any sort of accessible price, I think the Subaru was probably the first.
Cheers
Graham
I may not be able to hold out for the 2003's. Sounds like dealers here in Florida want to move the 2002's.
Does Invoice less $250.00 to $500.00 sound good for the 2002's. How much over Invoice am I going to have to pay for a 2003?
Ack!! What should I do?
Thanks, Dave ;^)
Ed
Look again at Mike's pictures of the 2003 Forester's interior on post #5259. See the nice cupholders in the center console...YAY! Finally a logical solution. But wait, could it be? Looks like they sacrificed the center armrest for the new cupholders!!!!! Doh!!!!!
Dave ;^)
Bob
http://isuzu-suvs.com/events/nyias02/index_3.htm
and the first 4 on:
http://isuzu-suvs.com/events/nyias02/index_4.htm
I went to my local dealer(25 miles away) and he said he thinks he's getting a few XS's by the end of the month. Definitly a silver XS by mid May.
No word on the X's