Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

2009 Subaru Forester

1…2930323435…75

Comments

  • Options
    sgloonsgloon Member Posts: 323
    Thanks, Kurt!

    I found it at: http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0806_compact_crossover_comparison/in- dex.html
    in case anyone else is interested.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I live at altitude, and drive up in the mountains

    You sure you don't want a turbo? At altitude is where turbos excel :)

    -Frank
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Yup, that's the article...good find.
  • Options
    hmhchohmhcho Member Posts: 1
    I recently traded in my 98 Forester S 5-speed for an 09 Forester X Touring Package 5-speed. There was a big mechanics bill coming for the old one (head gasket, brakes, etc.), and I had to decide whether I was going to drive it into the ground or trade it in. Trade it was.

    I was nicely surprised that the sticker on the new car was $4k less than the old one, despite a decade having passed. This played a big part in my decision process. When I compare the pricing to what I could have spent, I find I got a great car at an unbelievable price.

    If I didn't have a trade, I could have gotten the vehicle for $1500 below MSRP. With the trade, I was in a far weaker bargaining position. Both dealers here readily knocked $1000 off MSRP. (But then they tack on a $495 doc fee, which I think is excessive.) That's not too bad for a brand new model that is selling well.

    I could have saved about $3500 by importing from the US. But I would have had to wait for AWP. Also, optioning is different than Canadian models. In the end, it was not worth the hassle to me. Others may think differently.

    Overall, I like the new Forester better than the old one. The new engine is a lot smoother, with much better low-end torque. I like the bigger, roomier interior -- wider trunk area, more rear passenger leg-room. The moon roof is great, but should have been tinted darker. I like the privacy glass. Interior is better insulated from road and wind noise. Fuel economy seems better than the old car (averaging 10.8L/100km). The new engine is slightly peppier than the old; but power has never been a problem for me, even on the old Forester. On the other hand, the 2.5X version is definitely no sports car.

    My only nit-picks are: I miss some of the storage areas from the old model; cross-bars, cargo cover, and bumper pad are now options; clearance for hatch is VERY tight with bumper pad; rear bumper cover is kind of flimsy.

    I had the OEM hitch and subwoofer installed as options. The hitch works well, but protrudes down below bumper more than I like. The subwoofer improves the sound system greatly. But, the recommended placement is really poorly thought out: the unit protrudes from under the driver's seat into the passenger area. The rear floor mat will no longer fit. And, the unit is exposed to possible water damage from wet shoes, etc. I ended up removing the mounting bracket, and repositioning the unit further under the seat; but it now partially blocks the rear air vents.

    I'm also sad to report that after only 5 weeks, my new car already has a ding in the front passenger door, and has been rear-ended. (Sigh.) I know it wasn't going to stay new forever; but making it past the first service shouldn't be too much to ask.

    The redesign for 09 has been somewhat controversial. Personally, I like the new design. Some of my friends like it so much, they are contemplating trading in their cars for new Foresters.

    I thought I had outgrown my car-stage. But, I am surprised to find I am having a lot of fun in the new vehicle. I don't even mind driving in the awful Vancouver traffic.
  • Options
    jbkennedyjbkennedy Member Posts: 70
    Yes, she has adjusted to the seat height and we would have still purchased the car. When I pick up my plates from the dealer, I will give them my feed back on this ans ask the ervice dept if anything can be done on this,
  • Options
    jeffmcjeffmc Member Posts: 1,742
    Thanks, Kurt! Lithia is convenient for them, so that's what we'll do... if all goes well I'll have another Subie in the family on Father's Day. (Not meant to be a Father's Day present, but I'll take it!) I love my current newer Subies, but it'll feel good to have an older one again. I had my first Subaru for 240k miles and 13 years before we sold it, and I've missed it ever since. There's something special about a car that's seen a lot of good miles and keeps on asking to be driven. I hope this one turns out that way too.

    Anyway, thanks again! :)
  • Options
    birdboybirdboy Member Posts: 158
    I left the VW Turbo family after 10 years for the Forester non turbo. Yes the power was nice, yes , most often I was speeding above and beyond and not even knowing it. yes I was paying for premium gas. I deliberately did not test drive the turbo forester because I believe that unless you know something, you do not miss it. I drive in the Catskill mountains and find the non turbo to be fine. On some inclines up the mountain , i need to switch to sport mode and she climbs well. At this point, i am happy with it, am using reg gas, and getting 27-30mpg on the open highway @60mph. I do find myself driving slower with this car and that to me is good thing. I am not driving slower because it lacks the power to drive @80 either. Good luck with whichever you decide to buy.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I deliberately did not test drive the turbo forester because I believe that unless you know something, you do not miss it.

    That is sound advice :shades:
  • Options
    orcorc Member Posts: 39
    Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I didn't have the notify me thing on.The interior materials are thin. Medium and large dogs will destroying if you don't cover everything up well. The plastic of the arm rests and center console are super cheap IMO. My wife's ford focus - a much less expensive vehicle - has superior materials in the interior. The forester interior doesn't even begin to compare with the F150 we finally got rid of. The seat material is plastic feeling and thin, Should this deter you from getting a forester? I don't know. Everything else is so nice about it you'll have to decide for yourself. Some like the interior.

    The Outback? It doesn't have enough interior room for me at 6'4". I like the 09 Forester much better than the Outback for ergonomics. With a sunroof in the Outback I have zero headroom. Anyway, I sat in a new Outback, a new left over 2007 Forester and a new Tribeca. The Tribeca was nice but I liked fuel econmy, MSRP and sportiness of the Forester better.

    My wife had an Impreza for 10 years before getting her Focus. The wife likes the Focus a lot better but that old Impreza was really durable. After 120,000 hard miles I had to either put a lot of "Fix it up" money into it or get a new car. It was a bit too small for me and I rarely drove it.
  • Options
    orcorc Member Posts: 39
    So far I'm averaging 23-24 mpg city traffic and 30-32 hwy. I backed up the mpg calculator reading on the dash with real numbers after fill-up's and they match. I haven't babied it too much so I'm pleasantly surprised it gets higher mpg than the EPA estimate. I read '09 Foresters sales are up 64% over '08 Forester sales. I believe it. I would not have bought an '08 because I don't fit in one well. The '09 looks much better IMO, has more interior room and still handles everything as good or better than older Foresters. The turbo would be nice but gas will soon be $5/gal USD I'm afraid. Uggghhhh...
  • Options
    pgb0517pgb0517 Member Posts: 84
    As both a Ford Focus owner (bought it new in '02) and first-time Subaru owner ('09 Forester w/leather), I have to say that I think the interior materials are comparable, with a slight edge to the Subaru. The double-stitching on the LL Bean leather looks durable. The dash materials are hard but look durable. Door panels on the Bean have some soft cloth padding that I like.

    My Focus interior is holding up pretty well, considering I don't vacuum it very often, but it's also my commuter car with less than 50K miles. The driver's seat cloth upholstery is wearing thin. The Focus has really cheap sun visors, btw, as does the Forester.

    I got the rubber floor mats for the Forester so I am not worried about the carpet. I stowed the original carpeted mats for future resale.

    Don't have any dogs but I'd think dogs would tear up any car's interior. I am also thinking that modern materials don't have to be thick and heavy to wear well. As other posters have pointed out, manufacturers are trying to shave weight. I also doubt that Subaru would risk messing with the Forester's customer loyalty by cheaping out too much on interior fabrics and plastics. Guess time will tell.
  • Options
    orcorc Member Posts: 39
    Yes.. time will tell. I have the standard interior and not the LL Bean package. I probably should have got it with one of the interior upgrades. You should check out a standard interior just to see what I'm talking about. It's my fault - I wasn't patient enough before buying. Oh well... The wife's Focus is a 2003 and the interior is very nice in comparison with the standard Sub interior. I got the heavy rubber floor mats too. They are a good investment. I can grab the thin plastic center console and wiggle it all over the place - feels cheap so what else can I say? LOL Regardless, I enjoy the '09 Forester for driving and it handles rough roads well. I love the stiffer suspension over the other small SUV's I've driven.I t has a more precise handling - better responsiveness than other similar sized pocket SUV's. I drove the models in the Motor Trend comparison except for the Nissan and the Forester was the most fun to drive.

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0806_compact_crossover_comparison/i- ndex.html
  • Options
    arnabcarnabc Member Posts: 27
    second 80 mile roundtrip today. this one was mostly on county roads, not the freeway, with more city thrown in than on the previous trip. the outbound drive was with the ac on. averaged a round 27 mpg for the trip.
  • Options
    pgb0517pgb0517 Member Posts: 84
    I guess I'd like to hear from previous Forester owners as to how cheap/wiggly the interior feels on the '09 compared to previous years.

    (There is a Cadillac museum near Austin with dozens of Caddies from the very earliest models through about the mid-80s. It's really interesting to note how the interiors went from quality fabrics to cheap vinyl and fake chrome/wood trim almost overnight in the late '60s-early '70s, and how poorly those materials have held up over time.)
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    No it isn't. It's the LLBean model. I think the turbo requires premium gas and no way was I going to pay for premium!!
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    I know that some reviewers think that the interior is a bit cheap looking with lots of plastics here and there, but I think it actually looks nice. Seems to be very sound and not squeaky or noisy. Perhaps it's because the Forester is made completely in Japan??
  • Options
    sgloonsgloon Member Posts: 323
    wow, ORC! that sounds great for gas mileage. If I get that I will be happy. :shades: May I ask what part of the country you live in...ie flat florida vs rocky mountains vs whatever.. Just trying to get an idea how comparable your numbers might be. I do tend to get the high end mgp wise on whatever car I'm driving.

    Has your vehicle passed the break-in point, or is it pretty new still?
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    As for dogs, my previous '06 Forester was the LLBean model with leather seats so I got a full seat cover for the back seat from Orvis. My two dogs ALWAYS travel wearing harnesses and seat belt buckle attachments, so they're not all over the car. Luckily the same seat cover fits my '09 Forester just fine, so my black leather seats will stay looking nice. The semi-custom seat cover goes for $169, a great investment if you have dogs and leather seats :) !
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    I live in California (San Jose) and I've been averaging about 24 combined city/highway and got an astonishing 27.5 mpg on an all-highway drive of about 50 miles at 65 mph with cruise control on and virtually no traffic. Plus the smooth ride, great sound. The more I drive my '09 the better I like it. :)
  • Options
    flapperflapper Member Posts: 16
    I had a 1998 Outback Limited made in the USA - every bit as good as my 2005 Outback Sport made in Japan. If, as you say, the 2009 Forester has a nice interior that is sound and is not squeaky or noisy, it's because of the way it's designed - NOT where it's made.
  • Options
    paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I agree, my 05 LGT is just as quiet and well made as my 92 SVX. The LGT is made in US, the SVX was made in Japan. On the flip side, my 05 LGT is significantly better than my 94 Legacy SS, which was made in Japan.

    -mike
  • Options
    tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    For everyone who thinks buying Premium Gas is a deal breaker (I used to be in this category until I did the math and bought the XT), here is the math:

    I filled up 14.5 gallons at $4.20 for a grand total of $60.90
    If I were to use regular at $4.00 a gallon it would be $58.00.

    So you would save a grand total of $2.90 each fill up. When you're already paying $4 a gallon for gas, is Premium really THAT much more???
  • Options
    paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You also have to consider that you get worse milage on a Turbo, so figure that 2.90 might actually be closer to $4/fillup.

    Not that this stopped me from getting a LGT :)

    -mike
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Also, as much Premium is 92 and the XT needs 91, you could alternate between plus 89 and premium 91 to end up with 90 - 91 in the tank.

    The turbo is nice for passing power and dealing with freeway traffic, but if my drives didn't need to deal with those things the smaller engine would have sufficed.
  • Options
    tinycadontinycadon Member Posts: 287
    Ok, even if it's $4 extra a tank I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not a significant amount. For that extra $ you lose 5% city mileage, 8% hwy mileage, but gain 32% more horsepower, and don't forget the 100% bigger grin when you need to punch it :shades:

    Has anyone tried running their turbo on 89 octane? I know it says 91 in the owners manual but the salesman at the Subaru dealership told me that if I ran 89 octane I'd be ok and wouldn't damage the engine. Is this true???

    Also, the idea of going half 89 and half 93 sounds like a good idea, but does the gas truly mix together and give you 91 octane or will it mess with your ignition timing?
  • Options
    orcorc Member Posts: 39
    I live on an island in Alaska with a mix of rural type roads and city driving and some sections of what you could consider highway driving but on the mainland in BC the roads are wide open highways. I have 2,500 mi on it right now. Still new. I don't drive slow but I drive easy - that is taking off without punching the accelerator (unless I have to) and slowing early when coming to a stop. If I feel the need to drive faster like on twisty roads I drive smooth and I'm steady with the accelerator. Smoothness is the key to better mileage I believe. I used to occasionally get 18 to 20mpg with our '97 4.6 Ford Expedition on the highway just by being really smooth. I notice the forester will show as low as 13mg when starting out cold but it quickly climbs into the 20's after a bit. If you have a yo yo foot (up and down all the time) on the accelerator pedal mileage will suffer. If I want to drive faster I slowly bring it up to speed and hold it steady and firm through the corners or whatever. The mileage stays good. If I'm working the pedal a lot trying to punch it out of curves like I do with my motorcycle the mileage drops fast.

    I have no idea if my driving is the main reason for the good gas mileage but I'm sure it helps. I'm always thrilled when I see the indicator reading over 30 mpg.

    I grew up driving fast in the Colorado Rockies but I'm older now and gas is so dang expensive I've slowed down a lot. Still, I like to get the adrenaline going now and then.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    the idea of going half 89 and half 93 sounds like a good idea, but does the gas truly mix together and give you 91 octane or will it mess with your ignition timing?

    Different octanes mix together fine. In fact, gas stations only have two types of underground tanks, one for reg and one for premium. Anyone pumping "plus" is getting a mixture from the two.

    Has anyone tried running their turbo on 89 octane?

    I tried running 89 octane for several tanks in my 04 FXT but while the engine seemed to run okay, it felt (real or imagined) like I had less acceleration. In the end, the argument regarding why pay extra for a turbo if you don't plan to take advantage of the extra power convinced me to go back to premium.

    I know that with the 09s, Subaru warns you that burning anything other than premium "may" result in a check engine light but I don't think the engine has changed that much (with the previous gen Forester, the manual stated that you could indeed use less than premium in a pinch).

    But again, the turbo's mpg penalty is more significant that the cost difference between plus and premium so why bother?

    -Frank
  • Options
    sgloonsgloon Member Posts: 323
    Thanks, Orc!

    Sounds like you drive like I do...so I'll plan on great gas mileage! ;)

    I just drove my cousin's Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V up to the top of Rocky Mtn Nat'l Park, 12,000 feet, curvy roads, etc. And she said I got better gas mileage than she does down here with highway driving... Fun car to drive BTW, 6 speed MT. And I was going good around some of those corners, just cuz it felt so good in that car.

    I'll have to tell her your comments, as she was asking me how I shifted (MT). Perhaps it is more the smoothness than the shifting.

    I wonder how much the altitude plays into your gas mileage. I'm assuming you are at almost sea level on your island? And around BC... unless you get up to the rockies.
  • Options
    sgloonsgloon Member Posts: 323
    Would love a turbo for the fun of driving it! ;)

    However, with gas prices rising daily...just heard they should be a $5/g by July, with no end in sight. And I like to be environmentally conscious...the forester will be the biggest car I have ever owned...I'm debating whether this is the right time to up size my vehicle....want good gas mileage, a little bit more room and something to easily carry my toys, such as canoes, bikes, etc.

    So far, the 09 Forester is my compromise. I wouldn't have bought the 08 Forester just based upon seat comfort with my trial drive. I was so surprised by that! Only other option I have found really is the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, in 1.8L engine, if ya get the 2.4 liter, the gas mileage is the same as the forester...then it becomes no contest....
  • Options
    redherring1redherring1 Member Posts: 66
    the turbo's mpg penalty is more significant that the cost difference between plus and premium so why bother?

    I did a lot of research before buying the XT, and found out that for the way I drive (about 8,000 mi/yr.), the annual cost difference betweeen the turbo and non-turbo (both in lower mpg and premium gas) is about $300. For the kick of driving the turbo, that's waaay ok by me.

    I find that having the mpg readout so prominent on the upper dash makes me more conscious of how I drive anyway. Speaking of that location, why does the passenger airbag indicator need to be so a) bright and b) prominently located?
  • Options
    volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    Re the Matrix/Vibe, if you want the 1.8, say goodbye to AWD. What's worse is that you also cannot get traction control or stability control with the smaller engine at least not in Canada. That immediatley eliminated the 1.8 for us.
  • Options
    volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    I did a lot of research before buying the XT, and found out that for the way I drive (about 8,000 mi/yr.), the annual cost difference betweeen the turbo and non-turbo (both in lower mpg and premium gas) is about $300. For the kick of driving the turbo, that's waaay ok by me.

    Statistically the difference is minimal compared the the ownership cost of a new vehicle. The problem is the natural tendency that the more power is available under the "happy-pedal", the more likely you are to get heavy with it to feel that rush. In other words, where I'd expect most people to exceed their EPA numbers in the X, I'll bet most don't do as well in the XT.
  • Options
    sgloonsgloon Member Posts: 323
    Good point! Thanks, volkov! :)
  • Options
    kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The XT is not trigger-happy like the Outback is in Sports-Sharp mode.
    But yes, you have to be careful using the throttle of the XT.
    Once the revs hit around 2500, XT will be happy to kick in the turbo and accelerate much more quickly than you might expect.
  • Options
    redherring1redherring1 Member Posts: 66
    The XT is not trigger-happy like the Outback is in Sports-Sharp mode.

    That was one of my considerations in buying it over the Acura RDX--it's virtually impossible to stay out of the turbo in the RDX, causing it to (as one commenter put it) "suck gas like a cabin cruiser". The XT, as you point out, is easier to drive more sedately (which I try to do for a while if I see the average mpg drop on the meter). 18.9 so far on this current tank, so I'm pretty happy with that.

    By the way, I've now had mine for a month and still have yet to see another '09 Forester on the road in the Chicago area. I've seen several people checking mine out in parking lots and 2 have stopped me at traffic lights to ask about it, but so far it's unique.
  • Options
    volkovvolkov Member Posts: 1,306
    I've only ever driven the old XT but agree that it is very able to be driven sedately. That is one of the upsides to the 2.0 WRX as I can drive to work and essentially stay off boost the whole time. My comment meant that there is more danger of the driver becoming trigger happy not the car.
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    The problem is the natural tendency that the more power is available under the "happy-pedal", the more likely you are to get heavy with it to feel that rush.

    I think that really depends on the driver. While most new owners will want to experience the acceleration rush when they first purchase a turbo, that thrill will eventually lessen and naturally conservative drivers will revert to that behavior. However, knowing that the turbo is sitting there just waiting to spool up is nice and of course the occasional full throttle take-off on a freeway entrance ramp can be forgiven :)

    -Frank
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I believe that the extra cost of speeding tickets will exceed the extra cost for fuel if you get a turbo. :D

    Seriously, DC/MD has so many speed cameras now, what's the point?

    Count me in with the "I don't know what I'm missing because I did not drive the XT" camp. Prior turbo models I found to be stupid-fast, but they would only be a ticket magnet with all the enforcement (and artificially low speed limits) around here. :sick:

    Good news - we pick up ours tonight, 7pm. The wait is finally over! :shades:
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Glad to hear the encouraging results so far. Especially orc's results.

    hmhcho: I had a 98 but traded it in for a minivan. We missed it, so we're back for a 2nd Forester, too. It will replace an 02 Legacy my wife drives.

    The Legacy had an impressive 45% residual value after 6 years and 62k miles. Gotta love Subaru resale. :)
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2740a.shtml

    I watched the video last night on TiVO.

    0-60 in 6.7 seconds while getting an impressive 22.4 mpg! Very quick and still efficient, nice.

    Perhaps I should have driven the turbo after all? ;)
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    When I first saw that I thought of the land speed record holder, but in this context it refers to a new coolant in all 2009 Subarus.

    Get this:

    Blue in color, SSC requires no maintenance until the first replacement interval of 11 years/137,500 miles :surprise:

    One less thing to worry about. Lower TCO as well.

    You can even mix it with Subaru Long Life Coolant but then the change intervals are also shorter (30 months/30k mile interval).
  • Options
    rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    My last tank on my WRX netted a bit over 24 mpg.

    Bob
  • Options
    pgb0517pgb0517 Member Posts: 84
    The Subaru newsletter states: "Blue in color, SSC requires no maintenance until the first replacement interval of 11 years/137,500 miles. The next replacement interval after that is 6 years/75,000 miles."

    Do you think they got that wrong? Should it be 6/75K and after that, 11/137.5K? How can the second replacement interval come before the first?
  • Options
    samiam_68samiam_68 Member Posts: 775
    The next replacement interval after that ...
  • Options
    ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Strange intervals. I guess they mean the first one's due after 11 years, the 2nd after 17 years.

    If you get to the 3rd, then congrats, your car is still running after 23 years! :D
  • Options
    p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Perhaps I should have driven the turbo after all?

    Yeah and I hope you didn't catch that bit about the 2.5L being "anemic" :P Although that does seem quite harsh. While my 2.5L manual tranny Forester wasn't exactly a rocket sled, I never would have used anemic to describe it :confuse:

    -Frank
  • Options
    pgb0517pgb0517 Member Posts: 84
    I'm a copy editor. I read things as they are written. I found a clearer explanation on the Subaru site: "Subaru Super Coolant 1st replacement interval is 11years/137,500
    miles (220,000 km). 2nd replacement interval is 6 years/ 75,000
    miles (120,000 km) after the 1st."
    http://content.subaru.com/sub/media/pdf/schedules/2009SchedFed.pdf
  • Options
    pgb0517pgb0517 Member Posts: 84
    OK, so I have never driven a standard. The Sportshift intrigues me. First off, would there be any benefit to using it -- is it better or worse on gas mileage? Second, where would one begin to learn the ins and outs of using it? Does it handle just like a standard? Yeah, weird questions, but I have always been an automatic kind of guy. (The one time I tried driving a standard I almost caused an international incident in a French village ...)
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    I got the side body moldings and also the wheel well moldings. The wheel well moldings really trim it out nicely and I am counting on the side body moldings to help with dings. I am also parking my car in the far corner of any shopping center parking lot!! A little longer walk to the store is a good wa to get a bit more exercise, too!

    Also got the bluetooth microphone kit installed which is a real ripoff at $200 plus $60 installation, but it works really great and a new law goes into effect here in California on 7/1 regarding driving while talking on a cell phone. So I am set. :)
  • Options
    gldllbngldllbn Member Posts: 8
    Are you referring to the "manual mode" available with the automatic transmission?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles