Last post on Nov 02, 2006 at 6:48 AM
You are in the Subaru Forester
What is this discussion about?
Subaru XT, Subaru Forester, SUV
Jul 16, 2004 (6:32 am)
John: only a few Forester owners tow, and XTs are only a small subset of Forester sales.
I have towed, but only with my 1998 L model. It handled about 1500 lbs well. Had to slip the clutch a little more, but my clutch is still the original at 65k miles, even my brake pads are still the originals.
I got the OE hitch, which I believe has changed now, they use a different supplier. Subaru also provide a harness that plugged right into the wiring in the spare tire well (yes, that's it).
But you're right, it's just the 4 connector type. I have not tried a 7 connector harness because the trailer I borrowed (Bob's) has 4 connectors.
Braking distances took a little longer, and it acclerates from a stop like the '96 Honda CR-V I test drove - i.e. slow.
#4682 of 6715 4-connector wires...
Jul 16, 2004 (8:33 am)
are for trailers without electric brakes. They will work if you have surge brakes. 7-connecor wire are for trailers with electric brakes.
Jul 16, 2004 (9:28 am)
I went from a '96 Legacy L which was comfortable and reliable, but couldn't get out of its own way, to a 2004 Forester XT which is less comfortable, and has some idiotic features (brainless climate control, choking seatbelts), but is FAST.
The Legacy averaged 25MPG on regular, the FXT gets about 21-22 on premium.
In hindsight, I should have waited another year or two, and got the new Outback or Legacy. But as far as overall utility, the Forester is hard to beat.
Jul 16, 2004 (9:32 am)
Remember the 2005 XT is rated for better mileage. Small improvement but still, let it be noted.
#4685 of 6715 Re: [samiam_68]
Jul 16, 2004 (10:02 am)
I had a '00 Outback wagon and loved it. Replaced it with a '04 F-XT MT and love it even more than our Outback. I actually think the F-XT rides better and quieter than my Outback did, but both are comfortable in my book.
#4686 of 6715 Pay for it at the pump.....
Jul 16, 2004 (2:27 pm)
.....is a pretty gutsy admission..and I respect that.
Looking hard at the '05 FX with the 30 EPA HWY rating.......and concurrently saving my Naval Reverse pay.......
any '05 FX fuel efficiency feedback avail? B, ez
#4687 of 6715 Re: [ateixeira]
Jul 16, 2004 (2:29 pm)
Juice - any idea how much better mileage for the FXT for 05? Anywhere in the 20s (city) would be good, JP
PS: I hardly ever see FXTs on the street....but my buddy has one (at my suggestion) and now turns out our CEO's wife also has an FXT. The envy is growing but at least ours is ordered.
Jul 16, 2004 (2:29 pm)
EPA ratings are up 1 mpg or so. Anyone have the details for 04 and 05?
Jul 17, 2004 (4:49 am)
I really couldn't agree that the '04 has "bugs", Steve. Some have found annoyance with the climate control, no lighted door switch, etc., but these are pretty minor niggles. I'd say the main "real" complaints are the mpg's and handling (not that the handling is "bad", but that FXT should have come with better tires and a better swaybar).
Handling can be much improved with better tires and a ~ $100 swaybar mod. The mpg's is just something to factor in and live with if you want FXT Zoom Zoom. This car is a rocket. I don't mind paying a few hundred more a year at the pump for this kind of fun! With the mods my FXT handles like a good sports car. I love it!
I wouldn't pay even $500 more for the MINOR '05 changes, let alone thousands. Go for the '04 !!!
#4690 of 6715 Re: 05 v 04 FXT [bobshere1]
Jul 17, 2004 (7:34 am)
Many thanks to all for your input!
Yesterday, I drove an Accord V-6 (my other choice), then drove the 2004 Forester XT. The XT seems as quick or quicker than the V-6 Accord, but is an absolute rocket compared to my wife's Legacy L. The Accord's interior was "classier" and it rode well. The rear seat was also larger. The Forester rode higher, the driver's seat was more comfortable, the cabin seemed more spacious, and rear/side visibility was better than the Accord. Also, the center console of the Accord restricted moving my right knee to the side - the Forester was more accommodating.
Bob - Your comment about the "bugs" in the 2004 being minor annoyances is reassuring. It seems that saving about $3000 over a 2005 will be well worth it. Your point about the tires is echoed by many. I asked the dealer if he could pull off the Geolanders, give me some sort of credit, then mount a set of Firestone Affinitys or ContiExtremeContacts for an additional, resonable cost. They are coming up with some numbers for me.
Miamixt - After looking at the cloth vs leather interior, I agree with you - I can live without the leather and sunroof, and save over $1500 in the process. As for power, I'm not into racing from green lights, etc., but being able to merge into an 80 mph stream of cars and big trucks on the highway, and for the hilly terrain of NH, I need more than the 165 hp provides.
Samiam 68 - The mpg is a concern - a 30 mile commute vs a 150 mile commute could be a big factor in the decision. As it is now, I never know where my new clients will be located. I would give up about 40% of that abundant turbo power for an extra 3 or 4 mpg, but it obviously doesn't work that way.
BTW, there is a wide fluctuation in prices around here. Some dealers are still trying to get several hundred $$ over invoice while the 2005 models are sitting next to the 2004. The best price the dealer I went to will do is $24,300 on the XT auto with premium package, and 22,800 for the XT with auto trans.
Thanks again to everyone.