Forester: Why get a turbo? What about the back seat?

[Andrew Webber]

I just took an 05 Forester for a test drive. Actually we took an X
and an XT. The X isn't really on my list, I went out to look at the
XS and XT, but the X was ready to go so we drove that and just sat in
the XS in the showroom.

I really like it, I liked it when I sat in it a couple of weeks ago,
but the back seat is so small when I'm driving that I considered it a
3-seater at best. Now I'm thinking that might be okay. We had a
short adult sit in the back and he was squished. Do most people
consider this a 2-3 seater?

And I rather like the turbo, as I knew I would. But its gas
consumption is higher than the XS, and its gas cost is higher still
(due to 91 octane). The XS had pretty peppy acceleration, though the
XT was even better (took it on city streets and also got on the
highway).

What justification is there for getting the turbo? IOW, in what
circumstances am I likely to benefit from the extra power and torque?
(Yes I'm looking for reasons to buy it .

Thanks in advance!

=aw




andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Marky]

What justification is there for getting the turbo? IOW, in what
circumstances am I likely to benefit from the extra power and torque?
(Yes I'm looking for reasons to buy it .

Thanks in advance!

It'll put a bigger smile on your face when the turbo kicks in?
Emergency manoeuvring.....more power can get you out of (and into) trouble
quicker.

 

[Ross]

What justification is there for getting the turbo? IOW, in what
circumstances am I likely to benefit from the extra power and torque?
(Yes I'm looking for reasons to buy it .

Sounds better! ??

R

 

[ZZ]

What justification is there for getting the turbo? IOW, in what
circumstances am I likely to benefit from the extra power and torque?
(Yes I'm looking for reasons to buy it .

Thanks in advance!

Also depends on your planned uses. I have heard that the normally
aspirated models have power problems at higher altitudes. Whether or
not that's true, I don't know. I take my XT to hiking trailheads
between 7500 ft and 8000 ft every weekend (home is at about 2100 ft)
during the summer, and once and a yea to 10000 ft.
It performs incredibly.

 

[Andrew Webber]

Sounds better! ??

Okay, good with that. I think the rear spoiler is ugly though.

What about alloy wheels? I've always understood they were better than
steel because they're lighter for the same strength, which is probably
not a huge saving. But one salesman told me they also cool the brakes
better because they allow more air in. Certainly my current steel
wheels have a larger surface area than the alloys did, and I can see a
difference between models in the showroom.

Is this a significant benefit? Or merely a good justification to
cover up for "looks better"?


andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Andrew Webber]

Also depends on your planned uses. I have heard that the normally
aspirated models have power problems at higher altitudes. Whether or
not that's true, I don't know. I take my XT to hiking trailheads
between 7500 ft and 8000 ft every weekend (home is at about 2100 ft)
during the summer, and once and a yea to 10000 ft.
It performs incredibly.

That's a good point, and a quick bit of research backs it up. I don't
do that though. Nor do I plan to take 5 people on long highway trips
(will be lucky to get 3 in when I've got the driver's seat back).
Maybe I'm stuck with looks and fun only. And the rear spoiler puts me
off a bit.

Thanks for your reply!

=andrew

andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Edward Hayes]

The standard XS Forester has Aluminum wheels as does the XT. The base model
X has steel wheels. Unless the offered steel wheels are unattractive I
prefer steel because: If you do get them slightly bent you often straighten
a steely. I you really smack them on a curb the replacement cost is about
1/3d. The spare tire on a 2000 Forester matches the steel wheels on the
ground, whereas if you get Aluminum you still get a steel spare. I drive an
S which has Aluminum with a steel spare which I don't care for. ed

 

[Mr. A]

I really like it, I liked it when I sat in it a couple of weeks ago,

but the back seat is so small when I'm driving that I considered it a
3-seater at best. Now I'm thinking that might be okay. We had a
short adult sit in the back and he was squished. Do most people
consider this a 2-3 seater?

I'm 6'2" and with the driver's seat back all of the way I don't fit in the
back seat comfortably myself. I normally don't carry back seat passengers,
though, so this isn't an issue for me, and I find the front seat driving
position very comfortable. If it is for you, you might want to look at the
new Legacy/Outbacks as they're built on a longer platform.

And I rather like the turbo, as I knew I would. But its gas
consumption is higher than the XS, and its gas cost is higher still
(due to 91 octane). The XS had pretty peppy acceleration, though the
XT was even better (took it on city streets and also got on the
highway).

What justification is there for getting the turbo? IOW, in what
circumstances am I likely to benefit from the extra power and torque?
(Yes I'm looking for reasons to buy it .

I purchased an '04 XS after test-driving both the XS and the XT. Although I
appreciate a bit more power in my cars, IMO the difference between the two
is not enough to justify the upcost of premium fuel and poor gas mileage.
I've read reports of an average of 18 mpg on the XT and to date I've been
getting a consistant 25 mpg on my XS with a lead foot.

Another thing that steered me away from the XT was the aluminum hood. I
understand it dents terribly easily.

 

[David]

Also depends on your planned uses. I have heard that the normally
aspirated models have power problems at higher altitudes.

Turbos *are* stronger at altitude, but my XS goes to 9000 feet every now and then,
and does fine. It's able to pass at 9000 feet. Dunno how it does at higher elevation,
since we haven't been there.

 

[Xtranet]

Another thing that steered me away from the XT was the aluminum hood. I
understand it dents terribly easily.

All the Forester model levels have the aluminum (aluminium) hood.

 

[Andrew Webber]

The standard XS Forester has Aluminum wheels as does the XT. The base model
X has steel wheels. Unless the offered steel wheels are unattractive I
prefer steel because: If you do get them slightly bent you often straighten
a steely. I you really smack them on a curb the replacement cost is about
1/3d. The spare tire on a 2000 Forester matches the steel wheels on the
ground, whereas if you get Aluminum you still get a steel spare. I drive an
S which has Aluminum with a steel spare which I don't care for. ed

THat was my idea too, but I asked a salesman and we checked a 2005
Forester X. The spare's steel wheel seems to be different from the
other four. I was thinking if I went with snow tires, I could take
the opportunity each spring to put a different tire on the spare
wheel. And that I'd have to do that whether I had steel wheels or
alloy, if the spare is indeed different.

=aw


andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Andrew Webber]

I'm 6'2" and with the driver's seat back all of the way I don't fit in the
back seat comfortably myself. I normally don't carry back seat passengers,
though, so this isn't an issue for me, and I find the front seat driving
position very comfortable. If it is for you, you might want to look at the
new Legacy/Outbacks as they're built on a longer platform.

Well most of the time I drive alone, sometimes with a passenger. But
I'd hate to be unable to give three people a ride. I'm also 6'2" and
like the driving position. I'm thinking if I had to have a tallish
person behind me, I could move the driver's seat forward for a short
drive.

The Outback was nice, but I didn't find it nearly as comfortable as
the Forester.

I purchased an '04 XS after test-driving both the XS and the XT. Although I
appreciate a bit more power in my cars, IMO the difference between the two
is not enough to justify the upcost of premium fuel and poor gas mileage.
I've read reports of an average of 18 mpg on the XT and to date I've been
getting a consistant 25 mpg on my XS with a lead foot.

I'm thinking I'll stick with the regular engine. It's hard to judge
compared to my old Explorer, even the Matrix I rented seemed more
powerful (it's 130hp vs. 155hp in my Explorer).

Thanks for your comments.

=aw
andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Ken Gilbert]

big reason:

with a 1-2 thousand in upgrades, you can have a 350hp grocery
getter... ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.



ken

 

[Andrew Webber]

big reason:

with a 1-2 thousand in upgrades, you can have a 350hp grocery
getter... ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.



ken

Well that's a good reason (although it's only 210hp). And the couple
of extra thousand (actually C$3800 at list prices) isn't that big a
deal. But my concern is about the extra for 91 octane and the extra
for increased fuel consumption.

Using Canadian figures (including the bigger galling), the NA engine
is rated for city/highway at 10.4/7.6 L/100km (27.2/37.2 mpg) and the
turbo at 11.7/9.3 L/100km (24.2/30.4 mpg).

I'm not a high-mileage driver, my 91 Explorer (took delivery of it new
on Christmas Eve 1990 has only 174K km. But one of my benchmarks
in comparing replacement vehicles is driving to Montreal and back.
Door-to-door, Mapquest says it's 187km each way, so I've figured 400km
at highway consumption to allow for a little city driving and to make
the calculation easier. At that rate (and at 80c/L for 87 and 90c/L
for 91 octane), the consumption and cost are:

XS: 30.4L (C$24.32)
XT: 37.2L (C$33.48)

If I do the Ottawa-Montreal trip 25 times in a year (probably about
right), that's maybe C$250 difference. But all my other driving will
be 33% more expensive too.

Hmm, let me think about that. The Natural Resources Canada site
includes results based on an arbitrary 20K km/yr (much more than I've
put on the Explorer in 14 years, but it doesn't do the highway run to
Montreal any more), split 55% city/45% highway, and using my cost of
80c/L (90c/L for XT). The results are:

XS: C$1528 (1910L, 4508kg of CO2)
XT: C$1991 (2212L, 5220kg of CO2)

Hmm, C$500 extra a year for the XT, plus (say) C$3000 on the purchase
price.



andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[David]

Well that's a good reason (although it's only 210hp)

..
From their 1/4 mile timeslips (and I think G-Tek too) people are estimating
actual power is higher. I've seen estimates of 240hp at the flywheel. Don't
recall what the dyno-measured WHP is.

Anyway with a 5-speed these appear to be 13 second cars (high 13s),
bone stock. Much slower drag times with an auto, I guess because
the turbo doesn't spool up before the launch. Probably actual driving
performance (except from a dead stop), isn't much worse for auto.

 

[Rat]

.
From their 1/4 mile timeslips (and I think G-Tek too) people are estimating
actual power is higher. I've seen estimates of 240hp at the flywheel. Don't
recall what the dyno-measured WHP is.

Anyway with a 5-speed these appear to be 13 second cars (high 13s),
bone stock. Much slower drag times with an auto, I guess because
the turbo doesn't spool up before the launch. Probably actual driving
performance (except from a dead stop), isn't much worse for auto.

Dyno measures by companies making upgrades to the ECU have put a stock
XT at 235 - 240hp.

Get the turbo - you won't be dissapointed. It is more fun than you can
imagine when you dust a pony car in a grocery getter and it should have
better resale value. The auto drag times really are't that much slower
than the 5 speed and the 4eat will handle more hp than the 5spd when the
time comes for power upgrades.
The 'ugly' spoiler is an option - I assume you are talking about the
rear spoiler and not the hoodscoop- if having it is holding you back
then don't get it.

Our xt easily beats both svx's (230hp). It is amazing how fast the ugly
little suv is. Highway driving is outstanding. It doesn't need to even
downshift to accelerate up steep grades.

 

[Andrew Webber]

Anyway with a 5-speed these appear to be 13 second cars (high 13s),
bone stock. Much slower drag times with an auto, I guess because
the turbo doesn't spool up before the launch. Probably actual driving
performance (except from a dead stop), isn't much worse for auto.

andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Andrew Webber]

Get the turbo - you won't be dissapointed. It is more fun than you can
imagine when you dust a pony car in a grocery getter and it should have
better resale value. The auto drag times really are't that much slower
than the 5 speed and the 4eat will handle more hp than the 5spd when the
time comes for power upgrades.
The 'ugly' spoiler is an option - I assume you are talking about the
rear spoiler and not the hoodscoop- if having it is holding you back
then don't get it.

Yes, I meant the rear spoiler, thanks for clarifying. In fact I like
the little hoodscoop, even if it does look strange on a station wagon.
The rear spoiler isn't an option in 05, at least not according to
www.subaru.ca. That is, it's optional on the X and XS, standard on
the XT. I said to the salesman, "guess I can't take the spoiler off?"
and he said no. Maybe if I bought it to order they could make one
without, but if it's already on then they've drilled holes etc. Guess
I could live with it, at least I wouldn't see it while driving.

Our xt easily beats both svx's (230hp). It is amazing how fast the ugly
little suv is. Highway driving is outstanding. It doesn't need to even
downshift to accelerate up steep grades.

You guys are going to convince me to get the turbo yet!

"It is amazing how fast the ugly little suv is." I love this line!

=aw


andrew [(e-mail address removed)]

 

[Cam Penner]

Yes, I meant the rear spoiler, thanks for clarifying. In fact I like
the little hoodscoop, even if it does look strange on a station wagon.
The rear spoiler isn't an option in 05, at least not according to
www.subaru.ca. That is, it's optional on the X and XS, standard on
the XT. I said to the salesman, "guess I can't take the spoiler off?"
and he said no. Maybe if I bought it to order they could make one
without, but if it's already on then they've drilled holes etc. Guess
I could live with it, at least I wouldn't see it while driving.

Something to think about. Some vehicles use that rear
spoiler to smooth out the airflow behind the car. This
often results in less dirt "clinging" to the rear window
and hatch. I know of several wagons/SUVs that were much
dirtier without a spoiler than ones driven in the same
areas with one. Whether or not it applies to the Forester,
I don't know. But it is something you can use to justify
it in your head at least.

 

[Henry Paul]

I had an '85 Jeep Grand Wagoneer that had a spoiler just for that reason. I
didn't realize what it was for until I took it off to do some painting work
and the rear window got really dirty.