C
Chris Phillipo
I'd take it over Subarus disposable wheels bearing and head gaskets.
I'd take it over Subarus disposable wheels bearing and head gaskets.
H
Hal Whelply
Chris Phillipo said:
You, sir, are behind the times. Those problems are history. Maybe true five
years ago, but (generally--because you can always find an exception) not
now.
H
Hal Whelply
Ah, but that's not a wagon, is it? Not a valid comparison.
Y
y_p_w
Hal said:
It isn't. You've made the assumption that nothing but an all-wheel
drive wagon would be acceptable to the original poster. As pointed
out, there are some fine FWD/RWD wagons on the market in the price
range (or less) of the Forester XT. Many have 3+ L V6s, which would
be well suited for the automatic tranny and the driving conditions
(long freeway climbs) that the OP said were his concern.
I have nothing against Subaru. I bought a 2004 WRX and love driving
it. However - I'm not particularly brand loyal, and realize that
there are fine vehicles representing good value from any number of
manufacturers. I think a Mazda6 wagon would make a fine choice for
the OP's demands, and might actually cost less than the base Forester.
If you can get over the funky looks, the Dodge Magnum is competetively
priced compared to the XT (even with AWD).
H
Hal Whelply
I'm going on memory only, but I thought the original post made some
assertion about there being better values, or values just as good, as the
Forester, for less money. I did assume that part of the value being compared
was AWD, true, which seems to me a very logical way to proceed. The poster
had not said that other configurations (e.g., FWD, RWD) would be acceptable.
I also assumed that he was asserting there were other options, similarly
equipped, that would perform as well as a Forester, especially the XT in
pure acceleration, as well as off-road (soft-road) capability. Given that,
some of the cars that have been mentioned (e.g., a 4-cyl Audi, with or
without AWD) seemed odd to mention.
However, if the question is simply "What other cars can be had for less than
$30K?" then, sure enough, there are a whole lot out there to name. It would
be a pointless exercise, with no other criteria, but it could be pursued.
As for the post below, it was specifically to the point as to whether a
higher vehicle, like the Forester, would handle as well as a sport sedan
like the Audi. Nothing to do with AWD (where did that come from?). Of course
it won't. Simple physics makes that self-evident. A vehicle with a higher
center of gravity (all other things being equal) won't handle as well.
What's to look up?
assertion about there being better values, or values just as good, as the
Forester, for less money. I did assume that part of the value being compared
was AWD, true, which seems to me a very logical way to proceed. The poster
had not said that other configurations (e.g., FWD, RWD) would be acceptable.
I also assumed that he was asserting there were other options, similarly
equipped, that would perform as well as a Forester, especially the XT in
pure acceleration, as well as off-road (soft-road) capability. Given that,
some of the cars that have been mentioned (e.g., a 4-cyl Audi, with or
without AWD) seemed odd to mention.
However, if the question is simply "What other cars can be had for less than
$30K?" then, sure enough, there are a whole lot out there to name. It would
be a pointless exercise, with no other criteria, but it could be pursued.
As for the post below, it was specifically to the point as to whether a
higher vehicle, like the Forester, would handle as well as a sport sedan
like the Audi. Nothing to do with AWD (where did that come from?). Of course
it won't. Simple physics makes that self-evident. A vehicle with a higher
center of gravity (all other things being equal) won't handle as well.
What's to look up?
Y
y_p_w
Hal said:
I don't think everyone necessarily needs or wants that kind of
acceleration in a family vehicle. What I could gather was that the
OP was concerned with bogging down driving in top gear at freeway
speeds on a moderate incline. A decent V6 should be able to handle
this. If you have Forester X and need to drop it into 3rd, then
what's the problem? There's nothing wrong with dropping a gear
on an incline.
About the only thing that seemed obvious to me was something of a
size and capacity. When I went around purchasing a new car, AWD
wasn't that much of an issue compared to performance, functionality,
and appearance. BTW - he mentioned the Forester X, which starts
at just over $22K.
OK. I was responding to your general tone in this thread. Besides,
not everything is equal.
W
WisedUp
I live in East-central Florida, so my experience might not be too helpful to
you, but here goes . . .
I bought a 2005 Forester XS (normally aspirated) with auto in July. The land
around me is pretty flat, but I have made one trip to Indiana and back through
the rolling country of Georgia and the hills from Atlanta to Nashville (and, on
the way back, through the Knoxville area.
I found the gearing on the automatic matched the torque curve so well that I was
almost always able to maintain 70-75 mph without the transmission downshifting,
unless I pushed too hard on the gas pedal.
The car is so smooth and quiet compared to my ex '99 Chrysler T&C Limited
minivan (with a 3.8 liter engine) that I found myself doing 80-85 mph without
even realizing it most of the time. Even so, I got a bit over 29 mpg on a couple
of tanks and even pulled better than 26 out of a tank of gasohol in Indiana.
That tank included mostly city/suburban driving around Indy. And I was running
the a/c much of the time.
I just can't really see the need for a turbo in a Forester, except for the boy
racers out there.
H
Hal Whelply
Why, thank you! I'll take that as a compliment!
For most practical reasons, I'd have to say you're right. But much depends
on where you're coming from. I got my XT coming from an Accord V6, with 200
HP. Our other car, my wife's, is a Volvo S60 2.4T that does 197 HP,
performance equal to the Honda (and also a premium fuel user). We simply
didn't want less get-up-and-go than we had become accustomed to. My pre-V6
car had been a base Honda Prelude, with 135 HP. A mere 168 HP on the
Forester X or XS was too close to those days of driving a slow, NA 4-banger.
I vowed, "No more slugs." (I'm not saying the X or XS is a "slug." We just
didn't want that any more than we wanted the base S60 we test-drove, also
having 168 HP, which was definitely a slug.)
My experience with the Honda had been very good (18 MPG around town, easily
mid-20s MPG on trips, very often high 20s, even low 30s if I was careful). I
thought the XT couldn't be much if any worse. What I didn't understand fully
at the time was the low (4.44) final drive ratio, which is the real
gas-sucker in the equation. (A turbo in itself doesn't necessarily mean bad
mileage; being careful on a trip, I've easily gotten mid- to high-20s in the
Volvo, even very low 30s a couple of times.)
Bottom line, the XT is not real economical. But I'm only 4 miles from work,
driving surface streets. That short commute, plus a couple of longer trips
weekly, still only requires one fill-up each week typically (a half
tankful). Summer trips have yielded mid-20s. So, overall, it's affordable.
And when I want that power, it's easily on tap. It has helped me move out of
a tight situation a couple of times, so I could argue "safety factor."
Finally, the effortless hill climbing is wonderful. I'm convinced having
reserve power, knowing you can handle easily most any situation that comes
along, somehow reduces the stress of driving a bit.
B
bbriedis
Hal said:
Hal: We wanted something fun to drive and a vehicle that would work
well for our trips where we carry golf clubs, camping stuff, etc. The
4Runner is a much better road car for comfort because it is larger than
the Forester and it has a lot more cargo room. No question that the
smaller vehicles like the Forester will do great for 90% of the driving
to work and around the neighborhood. My aim was to get a small SUV but
when the special deal for the 4Runner at $22,298 was available, it was
too good to pass up. Having AWD was not a necessity. Also having a
Toyota dealer walking distance to my house was a big plus.
Bob
B
bbriedis
I am the original poster. AWD was not important to me because 95% of
my driving is on dry payment in Los Angeles. I was interested in
Forester because I liked it looks. For a small SUV I didn't want to
run up a big tab so I only wanted to consider the basic X model which
came in around $20K with discounts and rebates. The XT price was
more than many mid sized SUV's after discounts and rebates like the
Highlander (2wd only). Just for the record, my wife and I did not want
a car with black interior and that is the only way the XT is sold. I
loved the beign interior in the X. We previously had a car with all
black interior and learned our lesson dealing with it in the summer.
Bob
my driving is on dry payment in Los Angeles. I was interested in
Forester because I liked it looks. For a small SUV I didn't want to
run up a big tab so I only wanted to consider the basic X model which
came in around $20K with discounts and rebates. The XT price was
more than many mid sized SUV's after discounts and rebates like the
Highlander (2wd only). Just for the record, my wife and I did not want
a car with black interior and that is the only way the XT is sold. I
loved the beign interior in the X. We previously had a car with all
black interior and learned our lesson dealing with it in the summer.
Bob
B
bbriedis
I am the original poster. AWD was not important to me because 95% of
my driving is on dry payment in Los Angeles. I was interested in
Forester because I liked it looks. For a small SUV I didn't want to
run up a big tab so I only wanted to consider the basic X model which
came in around $20K with discounts and rebates. The XT price was
more than many mid sized SUV's after discounts and rebates like the
Highlander (2wd only). Just for the record, my wife and I did not want
a car with black interior and that is the only way the XT is sold. I
loved the beign interior in the X. We previously had a car with all
black interior and learned our lesson dealing with it in the summer.
Bob
my driving is on dry payment in Los Angeles. I was interested in
Forester because I liked it looks. For a small SUV I didn't want to
run up a big tab so I only wanted to consider the basic X model which
came in around $20K with discounts and rebates. The XT price was
more than many mid sized SUV's after discounts and rebates like the
Highlander (2wd only). Just for the record, my wife and I did not want
a car with black interior and that is the only way the XT is sold. I
loved the beign interior in the X. We previously had a car with all
black interior and learned our lesson dealing with it in the summer.
Bob
W
WisedUp
The color of my Forester XS is the Champagne Gold Opal, which is a very nice
color indeed. I haven't seen the beige interior of the X model, but I must say
that the beige (more gold, actually) interior of my XS is one of the worst-liked
features of the package. It is simply TOO light in color for the kind of use we
give it, even with no children or pets. Especially in the cargo area and in the
carpeting. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Subaru all weather
mats are too small to effectively coverall the areas that one's feet come into
contact with and -- except for the driver's mat, which is anchored -- they just
won't stay in place. And there is no protection at all available for the hump
over the driveline in the rear.
We had really wanted a white car with the gray interior, which is much more
practical in my opinion, but the white one which was supposedly in transit just
wasn't showing up after a wait of some weeks. One of the problems of buying too
early in the model year, I suppose.
