Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
1) How is the normally aspirated 2009 Forester's power at 80 MPH at high altitude? Is it able to quickly and comfortable pass a huge Semi??
2) How does the 2009 Forester handle super-strong cross winds of 50 mph PLUS????
Thank you very much!
I have only used MT vehicles, except rental cars. So I am on the other side of the fence. I always feel like I have more control of the vehicle if it is a MT. I did try the Sportshift on a test drive only...so there are others with more experience using it.
My thoughts: Yes, except for not having a clutch, it is like being able to drive your car as a MT, but 4 speed only. It was really easy to shift. You just bumped it up or down to change gears, rather than putting it into gear. I probably wouldn't use it for city driving, as, I'm guessing, the stop/go will be better handled by the computer in your car, especially if you haven't driven MT before. (I did try it in town, and it was fairly similar to MT.) Once you learn the SS then, if you are a good driver, you can beat the mpg that the automatic gets. If you aren't a good driver with it, you will lose on mpg. (Good driver includes being able to shift at the "right" RPM.) The computers keep getting better, so not sure how this generation is for the AT catching up to the MT on mpg. The hint is that on the 08 Foprester, the MT on hiway was rated 1mpg better than the AT. On the 09 they are rated the same.
There are still some maneuvers that you can do with the MT that you can't do with the SS, as you don't have the clutch to play with. I assume that the mpg on the 5 speed MT would be slightly better than the mpg on the 4 speed SS, all other things being comparable.
I felt it would definitely come in handy when you are in snow/mud or other conditions where you want to be in the lower gears on purpose. Also, I would want to use it for off roading. I do believe in those conditions you will be able to control the car better. Going down long steep hills that you want to use the gearing to slow your vehicle rather than using the brakes, it would be great.
My 2 cents...
Please let us know how you feel about the front passenger seat being lower than the driver's seat.
Thanks and good luck!
For its class, i.e. base 4 cylinders with a focus on fuel economy, it actually compares well:
PZEV Forester: 175hp
Rogue: 175hp
non-PZEV Forester: 170hp
Outlander: 168hp
RAV4: 166hp
CR-V: 166hp
Element: 166hp
Vue: 164hp
Patriot: 158hp (172hp with optional engine upgrade)
Escape/Tribute/Mariner: 153hp
Tucson/Sportage: 140hp
Even the V6 Tucson/Sportage has 173hp, so our PZEV Forester actually has more power than that V6.
The CX7, RD-X, and Tiguan are all turbos that would really compete with the XT. V6 competitors can't even come close in terms of fuel costs.
So basically the PZEV model ties the Rogue for the most powerful engine we considered.
Sportshift is cool, I sampled it a lot during my first test drive. I was impressed that it completes the shifts in a fraction of a second.
zznalg: at altitude, the turbo is going to be the one that thrives.
We took delivery last night, so it's finally in our driveway.
I should say SHE took delivery. She test drove it, she drove it home, and she didn't even let me get behind the wheel yet. It's my wife's car and she's possessive of her new baby!
We had to special order a Limited model, Newport Blue Pearl, PZEV engine option, which is a $300 or so upgrade but adds 5hp and cleaner emissions. Interior is platinum leather, and let me say, it seems a lot lighter in person that the photos in the brochure would imply. The cabin feels very airy and bright, especially with that gigantic psuedo-convertible roof.
We paid 2% under invoice, which was a tad under $25k, but when you add the PZEV option, cargo liner, cargo cover, bumper protector, and mud guards, it added up to $25,023, plus MD tax and tags.
Subtract $1600 in Subaru Bucks, which I found out they put under "Rebate", and our cost was $23,423, a bargain IMO.
Fitz Subaru was great, once again. My family has purchased 5 Subarus from them, and they had us in and out of there in one hour. Amazing. I can't share the name of the salesperson but e-mail me if you want that, they took good care of us.
Now if the wife would only let me drive it!
PS Fitz still does not have any LL Beans or Limiteds in stock, even now. So demand is still very strong for these models.
WRT mileage, the new AT programmes pretty much all outperform the MT in EPA testing for city mileage. They certainly do for the Forester. In light acceleration, the computer will max efficiency, and it is much more aware and knowledgable than you the driver so it wins. The MT almost universally wins the highway contest due to drivetrain power loss inherent in the slush box. I have only had one personal vehicle which was auto in 25 years of driving and I got rid of that in 2 years because I felt less connected to the car when driving. There is a good chance that my next one will be Auto.(GASP) There is no longer a mileage penalty and it will make it available for our nanny to drive. She just never got comfortable learning stick even in the Bug which has an incredibly forgiving MT.
Sportshift and all these other manual shift autos are silly for the average driver IMHO. They originated in sports cars and I'm sure they were there to reduce the poseur factor of driving a Porsche with the S4. More and more makers put them in, starting from the sporty models down. Now it's a question of a vehicle considered lacking if it does not offer it. For me it's an answer to a question no-one asked. I defy anyone to get better mileage than the computer can , and for those rare situations you want a lower gear, that's what the L was always there for : I've used it many times in the truck. I actually cost our dealer a sale when a customer came back having made my mistake of putting it into sport mode and them complained that the shifting was awful and the engine revved too high!! He went back out with her to demostrate the proper auto mode, but it was clear her first impression had been soured. DSG is a completely different animal of course, but those should stay in performance cars only.
My dealer friend told me people REALLY want the AWP, so now that the premium w/AWP are arriving that may help somewhat. Until now a lot of folks were stepping up to an LL Bean and just paying more to get the AWP.
Ours had 10 miles on the odometer when we first test drove it. The trip computer started at 5mpg (lots of idling I'm sure). It crept up to 16mpg on a short drive home, and should keep creeping up. We're taking it out tonight and she said I can drive if I'm a good boy.
Wifey wants to try out SportShift mode so we'll see how she likes it. I'd probably only use it when approaching a hill, or maybe in the snow, to start in 2nd. But you're right, you could do that before, with the gated shifter.
I'll have to check when I get home to see if it will let you do that--most other similar systems automatically downshift to 1st during a stop regardless of what gear you were in before...
Loving it so far and still contemplating the 1k oil change as i'm at 1.1k now. Any advice?
As for sport shift, I find it more of a gimic than of use and i'm pretty sure you can start in 2nd.
The wheel well covers will pay for themselves the first time they protect the doors from a scratch.
I didn't order wheel locks. I may add those myself. Good catch.
I didn't get cross bars, either, by our minivan has a roof rack if need be.
Fitz gives every other oil change for free, the first scheduled at 3750 miles. I think we'll just stick with that.
I usually do the maintenance myself, but if it's free, hey, why not. Plus oil costs a lot more than it used to.
We've got Sportshift on both of our Subies & I use it every once in a while when I feel like having a little fun. It's not like a manual, but it gives a bit more interaction, incorporates you into the driving experience just a little more. If I'm pushing the car a little, I feel the Sportshift can give me more control of the RPMs and allow for zippier performance. But that's about the extent of it... just a little bit of fun. If I use it on the highway, after cruising at the same speed for a while, I tend to forget I've slipped it into Sportshift, so I use it around town more. It does automatically downshift for you if you forget while decelerating but if you forget to shift while accelerating, your engine will just keep revving higher and higher, giving you an embarassing reminder to shift.
Like volkov said, almost no way you can get better MPG using Sportshift than by just letting the computer do its job, so don't expect to use it for that.
All in all, I like having Sportshift better than not, but it's by no means a necessary feature for me.
Their donuts are better, too.
How would the wheel well covers prevent the doors from getting scratched?
I noticed that the Forester only has a 4-speed automatic vs. the 5-speed in the CRV (which I haven't test driven either). What I was wondering from someone who has a new Forester is what RPMs it runs at when cruising at 60 MPH. Does anyone know of plans by Subaru to make a 5-speed automatic available in the future?
I also noted that there doesn't appear to be a heat gauge like I'm used to seeing on the instrument panel. Is there some other instrument or readout that tells me if the car is overheating, or just an "idiot light" that tells me to check the engine?
Any thoughts some of you owners could share would be greatly appreciated.
we liked the forester a lot more than the crv
The best thing is to go look at both cars and see how they feel to you. Send me a msg and I can elaborate on the issue.
My CR-V test drive suggested CR-V has somewhat nicer interior, but was not all that responsive despite the 5-speed (one pro review commented its trans doesn't use 4th gear all that much). CR-V ride was also much firmer than Foresters'.
CR-V AWD, from videos I've seen, is weaker coping with hills than the Forester system is.
However, CR-V is a tiny bit faster and gets a bit more fuel economy per Motor Trend's recent 2008 comparo.
On my test drive I took the F9 to a moderate uphill on loose gravel road. From a stop I floored it and it just pulled away at an initially moderate rate of acceleration with barely a sound. Beyond the lack of pebbles flying everywhere, I was most impressed by how smooth it was. Prior experience in the Highlander and CR-V and older Jetta gave the sense of the car fighting against you and against itself whilst the warning light and beeper screamed at you. Nothing like that with Forester. To be fair, the CR-V was the last gen. and I didn't take the new one to that spot but I don't think the AWD and TC have changed since 06.
The only time I have ever got stuck was in 14" of very dense snow when I got high-centered because of the shield. Removing a few shovels of snow from under the shield brought me back in contact with the road and off I went.
I have used "2" more when I want more control, no upshifts or downshifts while already moving. It also gives great control when approaching a corner and you want to slow a little but not use the brakes. Very much like a manual transmission.
Areas with no other traffic or obstacles can be a lot of fun in the snow with a Soob!
The roughly $29,500 Forester XT I bought here would have set me back $47,697.63 in Australia. :surprise:
Blame their import tariffs and additional distributor markup.
It's not the currency...aussie dollars are very close to USA dollars right now.
I have read of people getting more than the 20-26 mph listed on the sticker. I do not want to jeopardize the great mileage that the Forester is capable of giving us.
Does anyone have experience with the "bubble"air deflector and decreased mileage?
Would suggest you read the application carefully - there are some potential gotchas from Chase.
My 2009 Forrester Premium 2.5X w/all weather is due in at the end of June. I have been looking to see if there are any window side deflectors available for it yet for the front windows? I have had them on all vehicles I've ever owned and will miss them! Thanks.
http://www.japanparts.com/db/partslist.php?dealer=1&car=136&middlesmall=2%3A&mak- - er=&volkey=
Anybody know if the HID bulbs would work with the US headlight system?
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f80/side-window-rain-wind-deflectors-351- 66/
US vendors are trying to get supplied through SOJ.
If you have to order from the dealer, is there still a way to negotiate price? and if so, any advice?
Many thanks!
I don't really see any discussion of issues for the most recent models. My question for someone with knowledge and experience with these engines is, did Subaru do something specific to improve head gasket durability, or is the reason that late model years aren't having failures is just due to a lack of time/mileage?
I really like the design and styling of the new Forester better than any comparable smaller SUV, but wouldn't want to be in the position of having to make a major engine repair after 6 to 8 years of ownership.
Can you elaborate on what's better/different about Subaru's 4WD system compared to Honda's. I've never had a 4WD vehicle because it's not absolutely crucial to me living in Northern VA. However, I obviously can't buy a Subaru and not have it be 4WD.
Subaru's are still noted for their excellent reliability. Their engines are certainly at the top for reliability and length of service. I've owned two Dodge Omni's, one "K" car, and a Neon ,all 4 cylinder, and every one had head gasket failure. Chrysler wouldn't provide financial assistance on any of them. Many Subaru's are on the road with over 200,000 miles with no engine issues.
Jim
Plus is protects you from other cars opening their doors.
johnc19: our 2009 Forester actually shifts more smoothly than our minivan (2007 Sienna), even with fewer ratios.
birdboy: 29-31 mpg sounds great. Ours is already up to 22 mpg and we're still on our very first 1/4 tank.
redherring: thanks for checking the starting-in-2nd for the snow.
volkov: my Sienna nearly stalls up a snowy hill because the TRAC is so invasive. I think starting in 2nd will be more effective because there may be no slip to begin with. Either way, it's nice to have the choice and full control.