Last post on Sep 10, 2008 at 2:00 PM
You are in the Subaru Forester
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Forester, Future Vehicle, Wagon
#139 of 148 Re: My Two Wishes [bayarea_s40]
Apr 02, 2008 (7:54 am)
I can't disagree.
I replace the base speakers on my Forester with premium sound speakers, and they are only slightly less bad. To be fair that was a 1998 model.
The pin that holds my floor mat in place broke off the first year I owned the vehicle. I never bothered to replace it.
#140 of 148 Re: My Two Wishes [bayarea_s40]
Apr 04, 2008 (2:17 pm)
Subaru certainly isn't known for it's audio systems. The base speakers are pathetic paper cones and while the upgraded ones are somewhat better construction, they're hardly audiophile quality. However, I've got the upgraded audio system and I have to crank it up pretty high to get the speakers vibrating in the door panels
Does the hook go all the way into your floor mat? If so, you'd think that it would provide enough resistance to prevent the mat from sliding. I've never had a problem with the standard mats sliding.
#141 of 148 Re: My Two Wishes [p0926]
Apr 05, 2008 (1:25 pm)
When I swapped it in for a while, the standard mat did not slide at all. The heavy duty mat is much thicker, and the hook is too short to hold it securely. Just wish someone at Subaru had thought this through to where they either: a) re-worked the hole in the mat so the original hook could hold it, or b) offered a bigger hook.
Sep 06, 2008 (9:25 am)
Now that I have seen and crawled all over the 09 Forester I find that I like it very much, however I am very disappointed that they didn't include a 5 speed automatic in the changes. This would allow lower RPMs at highway speeds. I am not a CVT fan.
So my first wish would be the transmission. My second wish would be for them to make changes to the 3.0 H6 to allow it to run on regular fuel without compromise, and offer it on the Forester. Some of the changes made to the H6 for the Tribeca, like the cooling system, and valve actuation system, should be easily transferred to the 3.0, and leave it at 3.0 for a good balance of economy and performance.
I would most likely buy a new Forester if it had the transmission, but would definitely buy one if it had the trans and the H6.
If I got a 3rd wish, I would like to see the AWD bias for the automatic system changed to the 45/55 as is in the Tribeca.
The more I think about what I have said I guess what I am asking for is a slightly smaller, more economical Tribeca type Forester.
Sep 06, 2008 (3:22 pm)
A 5th gear does not mean a higher highway gear. More often than not, it means closer gear ratios with about the same final gear ratio.
At 110 km/h, (~70 mph), the 4EAT is still well below 3000 rpm, (I think it's around 2400 or 2600 ... can't remember for sure).
I can tell you that the 4th gear in the 4EAT is a lower ratio (0.694) compared to the 5MT (0.738), and compared to the 6MT (0.756). Lower ratio means lower RPM at highway speed.
More gears ≠ better highway mileage
Sep 07, 2008 (8:50 am)
More gears CAN mean better highway mileage. What you mention is one scenario but not common. The Tribeca and the Outback 5 spd autos have closer interim gear ratios AND lower top gear ratios. This is much more common than what you suggest. With 5 speeds you can have your cake and eat it too.
You also neglect final drive ratios and tire sizes too. In the case of the Forester the tire sizes are the same but the final drive ratios are different between the manual and the auto. The manual uses a 4.111 final drive while the auto uses a 4.44. The top gear in the auto has to be lower to compensate for this on the highway.
The highway RPMs end up being similar on both Foresters. At 75 MPH the manual has 3022 and the auto has 2904. However the Tribeca has 2593. At 70 the numbers are 2820/2710/and 2420.
Subaru does a great job with gear ratios and final drive ratios, including giving good launch characteristics in 1st gear, but using a 5 speed auto would give them better options for matching what is needed for launch and highway cruising. Somewhere around 350 to 400 RPMs lower at "real" highway speeds would provide for better fuel mileage.
400 RPMs is roughly the difference between driving at 65 instead of 75 in the Forester. Anyone who has done this knows the mileage at 65 is much better than at 75. This discounts increased drag but that delta is a small part of the equation at these 2 speeds.
#145 of 148 Re: My 2 cents [bigfrank3]
Sep 08, 2008 (7:34 am)
A 5th ratio would not hurt, but our auto does shift smoothly and doesn't hunt around. Overall I actually like Subaru's 4EAT as in our Forester better than the 5EAT in our Toyota Sienna.
So add it, sure, just make sure it performs exactly like the 4 speed currently does.
I'd like the see them raise the passenger seat an inch or so, and how about round cup holders instead of square ones?
Minor nit picks, to be fair.
If you keep the speeds down, you can get phenomenal gas mileage in the Forester - we can break 30mpg fairly easily. Drive fast and it's closer to 27mpg. Good numbers for the class.
#146 of 148 Re: My 2 cents [ateixeira]
Sep 08, 2008 (12:30 pm)
Very good numbers! I have a '98 MT Escort and on a long trip yesterday keeping it at 60 mph, it returned 38.5. 28% better than what you listed for the Forester, but I give up a lot to get there. If I were up to a car payment, I would dump that little econo-car in a heartbeat.
#147 of 148 Re: My 2 cents [xwesx]
Sep 09, 2008 (8:16 am)
I had a 91 Escort GT back in the day. That averaged about 28mpg or so, not a lot better than the Subaru, though I'm sure I used to drive more aggressively.
#148 of 148 Re: My 2 cents [ateixeira]
Sep 10, 2008 (2:00 pm)
Exactly. For what you get in return, Subaru's vehicles really do provide very good fuel economy.