Forrester with Tweed Seats ?

[Victor Roberts]

I have a 1997 Outback. The seats have a nice durable tweed
fabric.

I'm in the market for a Forester but don't really like the
seat fabric. Yea - I know that shouldn't be important, but
it is. I would get leather if it didn't require that I get
the Turbo with its lower mileage.

I saw an older Forester in a parking lot today that had
tweed seat fabric almost like that in my Outback. Does
anyone know which year Forester used that seat fabric?

 

[Edward Hayes]

My 2000 Forester S has a tweed looking fabric.

 

[Tom Reingold]

I have a 1997 Outback. The seats have a nice durable tweed
fabric.

I'm in the market for a Forester but don't really like the
seat fabric. Yea - I know that shouldn't be important, but
it is. I would get leather if it didn't require that I get
the Turbo with its lower mileage.

I saw an older Forester in a parking lot today that had
tweed seat fabric almost like that in my Outback. Does
anyone know which year Forester used that seat fabric?

If the mileage is your biggest concern, you might find that the mileage
isn't so bad, depending on how you drive. I really don't know, but I had
a Saab 900 turbo, and mileage varied very widely depending how
heavy-footed I drove. I could get the mileage way up by driving gently.
The nice thing about a turbo is that it consumes extra gas only when you
need it.

I hope people with real world experiene with the Forester can report
their findings here.

Tom

 

[Victor Roberts]

If the mileage is your biggest concern, you might find that the mileage
isn't so bad, depending on how you drive. I really don't know, but I had
a Saab 900 turbo, and mileage varied very widely depending how
heavy-footed I drove. I could get the mileage way up by driving gently.
The nice thing about a turbo is that it consumes extra gas only when you
need it.

I hope people with real world experiene with the Forester can report
their findings here.

Tom

I agree that Turbo doesn't have to mean poor mileage. Our
other car is a 2002 Passat with the small turbo and manual
transmission. This 2-wheel drive car is rated for 31 MPG
highway and I get 35 miles to 38 MPG on the highway.

On the other hand, the Forester turbo is rated for 25 MPG vs
29 MPG for the non-turbo.

 

[Coggo]

My Forester 2 litre turbo (Australia) gets about 28 mpg on average use.
That's imperial gallons - converted to US gallons it would be about 32 mpg.
I would be surprised if the non-turbo would be much better. Of course if you
want to a boy racer, you can use as much as you like.

I was surprised to find that 1 imperial gallon = approx 1.2 US gallons - I
knew there was a difference, but not that much.

Dave

 

[Victor Roberts]

My Forester 2 litre turbo (Australia) gets about 28 mpg on average use.
That's imperial gallons - converted to US gallons it would be about 32 mpg.
I would be surprised if the non-turbo would be much better. Of course if you
want to a boy racer, you can use as much as you like.

I was surprised to find that 1 imperial gallon = approx 1.2 US gallons - I
knew there was a difference, but not that much.

Thanks for the data. That is good mileage.

The current US Forester XT uses a 2.5 Liter turbo. Do they
use different engines in different countries, or is your
Forester an older model?

 

[Victor Roberts]

My Forester 2 litre turbo (Australia) gets about 28 mpg on average use.
That's imperial gallons - converted to US gallons it would be about 32 mpg.
I would be surprised if the non-turbo would be much better. Of course if you
want to a boy racer, you can use as much as you like.

I was surprised to find that 1 imperial gallon = approx 1.2 US gallons - I
knew there was a difference, but not that much.

Didn't you do the math backwards? Since the Imperial gallon
is larger than the US Gallon, you would go a shorter
distance per US gallon than Imperial gallon, not a longer
distance.

Or, to do the math,

Mileage = 28 miles/Imp Gal * 1 Imp Gal/1.2 US Gal
= 23.3 miles/US Gal.

 

[Coggo]

Vic,

Yes, mine is an older model - the newer Foresters here, including the XT,
have finally gone to the 2.5 litre engine - I think we were one of the last
countries to get the 2.5.

So I guess that the mileage would be a bit lower for the 2.5 overall, but as
a previous poster said, the turbo need not be thirstier than the non-turbo -
it all depends on the weight of your foot!! The turbo doesn't do a real lot
at low revs and small throttle openings, but it's real nice to have it when
you want it.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Tom Reingold]

My Forester 2 litre turbo (Australia) gets about 28 mpg on average use.
That's imperial gallons - converted to US gallons it would be about 32 mpg.
I would be surprised if the non-turbo would be much better. Of course if you
want to a boy racer, you can use as much as you like.

I was surprised to find that 1 imperial gallon = approx 1.2 US gallons - I
knew there was a difference, but not that much.

Dave

It's 1.25, and you multiplied where you should have divided. Your 28 mpg
there is 22.4 mpg here in the good ol' You Ess Ay.

Tom

 

[Victor Roberts]

It's 1.25, and you multiplied where you should have divided. Your 28 mpg
there is 22.4 mpg here in the good ol' You Ess Ay.

Tom

It is 1.200949925504855 to be exact. But you are right that
he should have divided instead of multiplied.

 

[Coggo]

Hmmm ... yeah ... sorry 'bout that ... obviously maths isn't my strong
point!!

Dave

 

[Mark Carroll]

I was surprised to find that 1 imperial gallon = approx 1.2 US gallons - I
knew there was a difference, but not that much.

(snip)

It's because of the pints. In both cases there are eight pints in a
gallon, but the US only has 16oz in a pint instead of 20oz. (American
fluid ounces are slightly bigger, but only by a little, which is why
an Imperial gallon is just over 1.2 US gallons instead of being 1.25
of them.)

-- Mark

 

[marcus153]

When in doubt, I go back to the only algebra I remember: the simple,
one-variable equation.

In this case:
28 is to 1.2 as x is to 1.0:
28/1.2=x/1.0
23.3=x (divide both sides of equation by 1.2)


Marc Sindell
Twin City Subaru Sales
Montpelier, Vermont

 

[Grolsch]

Huh!, I know the Americans are screwed up in their measurements but at least
their ounces are the same.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Not according to my unit conversion calculator and
http://www.projects.ex.ac.uk/trol/dictunit/dictfaq.htm#floz.
They both give 1 US Fluid Ounce is equal to 1.0408 UK Fluid
Ounces. (You need to divide 1.043 176 by 1.002 241 since
the Web site does not give a direct fluid ounce to fluid
ounce conversion.

 

[Coggo]

I shouldn't butt in again, seeing I started all this, but my metric
conversion site
http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/ounces-to-uk-ounces.htm says that
1 US fl oz = 1.048424471440 UK fl oz.

It's all too confusing for my tiny brain - roll on the day when there is a
world-wide standard.
Probably the same day when the pigs are seen flying and there's no more
wars.

Dave

 

[Victor Roberts]

using the site you specify I get

1 US Fluid Ounce is equal to 1.0408424714400801 UK Fluid
Ounces. This is the same value as I gave in my note, but to
higher precision. You seem to have left out a zero after the
first 4.

 

[Tom Reingold]

It is 1.200949925504855 to be exact. But you are right that
he should have divided instead of multiplied.

Oh, how is that? I was under the impression that our ounces are the same
size and the difference is that we have 16 oz to a pint and you have 20
oz to a pint and that all other ratios are the same, i.e. 2 pints to a
quart, 4 quarts to a gallon.

Tom

 

[Tom Reingold]

using the site you specify I get

1 US Fluid Ounce is equal to 1.0408424714400801 UK Fluid
Ounces. This is the same value as I gave in my note, but to
higher precision. You seem to have left out a zero after the
first 4.

Aha. Never mind my previous post.