OT: Subaru Forester XT Discontinued

[Don49]

Sad to see the end of the turbo Forester, I think it was about a 14 year run. I had planned to order a 2019 but won't be happening.

Any other AWD turbo sportwagons out there?

[Mr. Pink]

Don't know if its turbo, but that little S4 Audi wagon makes me salivate.

[jghall]

Not sure if classified as a wagon, or a hatchback, but would think the A3 fits the mold.

[Ken Robb]

Mazda might have something for you?

[fmradio516]

my mom was just saying the dealer wanted to buy back her 2017 turbo forester. they seemed like they reaaaally wanted it.

[saab2000]

Not sure if classified as a wagon, or a hatchback, but would think the A3 fits the mold.

Way too small.

Not very sporty, but very roomy, I'm sort of in like with the new VW Tiguan. No manual but quite roomy and practical, especially if the buyer avoids the useless third row.

I like the SE with 4Motion - No sunroof (which I don't like in pretty much any vehicle - but it's a personal affectation) and all of the utility of the SEL Premium, which is nearly $10K more.

Gets decent, not fawning, reviews. My test drive was very skeptical but I went away liking it way more than I expected to like it.

[likebikes]

my mom was just saying the dealer wanted to buy back her 2017 turbo forester. they seemed like they reaaaally wanted it.

that's a common sales tactic (scam) to get you to buy a new car.

[Don49]

Sorry for starting a parallel thread to the "Sportwagen" one.

Mods feel free to merge.

[bigman]

Kia Sportage sx turbo
I have driven the non turbo model, very nice vehicle.

[CNY rider]

Did your Subaru dealer have any of the new Ascent models on the lot yet?
It's coming with a turbo.

[R3awak3n]

Sorry for starting a parallel thread to the "Sportwagen" one.

Mods feel free to merge.

I was gonna say, sportwagen. Very happy with mine and some really good deals to be had.


of course, the ultimate wagon is here

https://jaguar.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/636319979658959060KM.jpg?v=7#desktop_1366x650

[AngryScientist]

my initial thought was:

a) no way you would consider the current gen forester a "sportwagon" - they're pretty yuge and look to be awkwardly top heavy, though i've never actually driven one.

b) the obvious wagon choice if you're looking at a forester is the outback,

but then i looked at subaru's website. i havent poked around looking at cars in a long while, namely because i'm not in the market for a new car.

looks like Subaru has very much "americanized" it's car lineup.

manual trans is not an option anymore in the outback it seems? all CVT...

since i tow sometimes (nothing heavy, jet ski, micro-camper, small utility trailer...), i was also surprised to see that the 6-cyl outback has the same tow rating as the 4.

impreza hatch/wagon only comes with the 2.0 and the legacy is not offered as a wagon any longer.

interestingly, it looks like, while they both share the same 2.0 engine, you can get a 6M in the XV crosstrek and a 5M in the impreza.

i would want a 6-cyl, 6M outback, do some suspension work and call it a great workhorse, but those days are over i guess.

[Spdntrxi]

Sad as I own a 2014...

Crosstrek not even in the same league and way more top heavy then forester. Feels anyways ... as I own a 2018 if that model.

Look at the new ascent ... but it’s gonna be bigger

[BikeNY]

As mentioned, the Forester is no sportwagon!

If you want a turbo AWD Sportwagon, get a VW turbo AWD Sportwagon! Or an Alltrack if you need a more ground clearance.

Not a lot of wagon options out there these days. Maybe Volvo still makes the V60 wagon? Usually available in turbo, but no manual.

[Nooch]

Honestly I can't wait for the Ascent to come out -- not that I'll be able to afford one for some time. But with three daughters, as much as I enjoy my outback, the room would be nice so we weren't always abusing the Odyssey.

[Mr. Pink]

my initial thought was:

a) no way you would consider the current gen forester a "sportwagon" - they're pretty yuge and look to be awkwardly top heavy, though i've never actually driven one.



Yup. '10 Forester owner here, and an '01 before that. I've always wondered, what the hell, at the turbo version. I own mine because its cheap and dependable (well, not really, but, we won't go there now) and will go pretty much anywhere in the winter with the right tires (I'm a skier). Oh, and, a bike fits easily inside with luggage. Trust me, this is not a sports car in any way, and I've driven a fair amount of fun to drive cars. "Awkwardly top heavy" is a good way to start describing the thing, but, it gets me around. And they keep on making them taller and bloating them up. The present generation is about 4 inches taller than my '10, which is hard enough to get a bike up on the rack for this six footer. The last thing I need is a turbo to remind me of the awful handling. And, if one is familiar with the problems that engine has had with cooling and oil consumption over the last few decades, a turbo is not a smart thing to tack on to it, I'm pretty sure.

[jimoots]

Brother in law owns a 04 forester. Lowered, bigger turbo and exhaust.

Goes real quick and handles well.

In stock XT/GT form they aren’t that quick. Auto, non turbo subies are woefully slow, the turbo just gives it a little more oomph.

[oldpotatoe]

Sad to see the end of the turbo Forester, I think it was about a 14 year run. I had planned to order a 2019 but won't be happening.

Any other AWD turbo sportwagons out there?

VW Golf SW AWD..1.8T..I have an 'S' version but 'AllTrac' version as well.

[mktng]

kia needs to make a stinger awg wagon.

[Andy sti]

kia needs to make a stinger awg wagon.

That would be sweet but not at $50,000. I wonder how many Stingers they've sold?

[awdwon]

I'm smitten with my V60 and yes they still make it. I think the 2019 is a bit bigger than previous generations.

[benb]

I've never driven an XT but might have considered one just as a way to "fun up" owning a Subaru.

I have an Outback right now, I don't really find it annoyingly top heavy, but it's definitely the same shape as the Forester.

My wife has the hots for the Outback more so than me even though I'm the one who bought the Outback so we'd have a bigger family car but she's got "big car disease" almost as if she was a Baby Boomer, so I'd kind of expect she'll actually buy an Ascent when her Honda Accord has to be replaced. (It's 12 years old.)

No real harm, if she buys an Ascent or even an Outback she'll have the "big family car" covered and if my Outback goes and I wanted to stick with a Subaru I could go get a WRX and those are obviously going to be more fun than the Forester, still great in the snow, and still plenty of big to handle non-trip family duties like taking my kid to school.

Really my wife wanting a 2nd outback or an Ascent is just ridiculous. We only have 1 kid. We pack up bikes and all kinds of stuff pretty regularly so we fit right into the Outback/Forester demographic but she wants the Ascent for a couple times a year she thinks she might shuttle around our kid + a bunch of his friends. It's the same thing as the dude who is really just an office worker but wants to buy a giant pickup truck for the one time a year he goes to Home Depot or helps a friend move.

I actually don't really get the appeal of the $50k+ Subaru copies from the Euro manufacturers. Often they have flaws/compromises that the Subarus don't have, even if they do have more horsepower or something. More horsepower and such is never going to make a crossover/SUV actually that fun, and you've got stuff like the VW/Audi models that have a flawed platform/architecture compared to the Subarus since they were never really designed from the ground up to make a vehicle with extra ground clearance that is still not horrible to drive. Most of them look like they're built on common platforms that are mostly built to be front wheel drive cars with low ground clearance. So they have engine architectures that don't care about height and they often have the engine mounted far forward. Meanwhile they then sell on fancy interior materials, which are somewhat superfluous for cars like these that tend to be used for dirty activities. Maybe they're more intended for the luxury look of being rugged without getting used for rugged use cases.

[Mikej]

my mom was just saying the dealer wanted to buy back her 2017 turbo forester. they seemed like they reaaaally wanted it.

That’s any car. How’s about this?
https://mediaserver.mbusa.com/iris/iris?client=mb&brand=mbusa&resp=err_status%2Cpng&quality=90&vehicle=2018_e63s4s&pov=e01%2Crt&paint=2_040&sa=0_413%2C0_873%2C0_rtm%2Cnoglints%2Cshadow&width=1536&height=640&w=6407&h=4678&x=1929&y=2612&bkgnd=transparent

[defspace]

Does anyone know if the late model boxer engines still suffer from the head gasket issues?

[mhespenheide]

Does anyone know if the late model boxer engines still suffer from the head gasket issues?

Reputedly, the '09 and later models are far less prone to issues with the head gasket.

[2LeftCleats]

Just bought the 2018 outback 6 cyl. Considered the Forester turbo but liked the feel of the Outback a little more, but still liked the Forester--didn't seem top heavy. Outback has a bit more cargo space. Haven't put serious mileage on it yet but much more comfortable, solid, and powerful than the Matrix I traded in for it. Hardest thing has been understanding all the safety gizmos and figuring out all the possibilities of the computer in the dash.

[benb]

The top heavy thing is about a lot more than the height of the roof.

Make the exact same body but make the chassis accept an upright I-4/V-6 or a boxer-4/6.

The model with the V-6 will feel WAY more top heavy than the ones with a boxer when you're putting it through it's motions. It will lean more with the same suspension setup and it will transition side to side more slowly.

The drivetrain layout in the Subaru lowers the CG substantially and I find I can very very easily tell. I can get in another vehicle that is similar in design to my Outback it will often have a stiffer suspension setup than the Outback, so it loses out on ride quality over rough roads. But it will also lean more than the outback in cornering. And most of them will have less ground clearance too since the manufacturer is trying to claw back some of the handling.

It is not a coincidence that flatter engine designs mostly get used in Porsches and sports cars/Supercars/dedicated race cars that are even more expensive than Porsches since they do have a bunch of negatives on the cost, efficiency, reliability, and maintenance aspects. Subaru owners get penalized in all those ways but there are some nice aspects.

The low CG is way more apparent driving a Legacy, WRX, etc.. it's really nice. And really really noticeable comparing the legacy to a similar car like the Accord/Camry/Fusion/Maxima, etc.. those cars all sell a little bit more on performance and driving feel than crossovers/SUVs do.

[GonaSovereign]

my initial thought was:

looks like Subaru has very much "americanized" it's car lineup.


I'll extend that to North Americanized, but yes, Subaru has pretty much lost its spark. As a former owner of a couple (original Forrester, Legacy Wagon, both 5MT) I can safely say that Subaru is now off the list of potentials.

[Mikej]

I'll extend that to North Americanized, but yes, Subaru has pretty much lost its spark. As a former owner of a couple (original Forrester, Legacy Wagon, both 5MT) I can safely say that Subaru is now off the list of potentials.

Out of curiosity, what are the reasons it is Americanized causing it to lose its spark? Non leaking head gaskets?

[AngryScientist]

Out od curiosity, what are the reasons it is Americanized causing it to lose its spark? Non leaking head gaskets?

bloated sizing, lack of MT

[classtimesailer]

Reputedly, the '09 and later models are far less prone to issues with the head gasket.

My '09 Forester has the HG issue. Leaked some oil for a while but I haven't added any in some time. I think it healed itself.

[Mikej]

bloated sizing, lack of MT

Yeah, room and convenience is the worst. No wonder nobody buys them. Isn't the Impreza smaller?

[benb]

My Outback (CVT) is the only car I've ever owned that didn't have a MT.

The thing is everyone said the Subaru MTs sucked, especially the ones in the Outback and Forester. Every review/forum post, etc.. seemed to describe them as "agricultural". If they sucked then what kind of loss is it? Particularly when IMO the CVT is way nicer than most old fashioned automatic transmissions and way cheaper and more reliable apparently than the new ridiculous 9 speed autos and dual clutch complications.

I hear the other thing that makes the old school fans hate the new Subarus is on top of being bigger they get better gas mileage. The old bad gas mileage must have been endearing? But then again the mileage still isn't as great as part time AWD cars or front wheel drive cars, so you can still be smug about having the liberal postcard of a car while getting the same fuel economy as the guy in the F-150 with the gun stickers on the back.

[jtbadge]

My Outback (CVT) is the only car I've ever owned that didn't have a MT.

The thing is everyone said the Subaru MTs sucked, especially the ones in the Outback and Forester. Every review/forum post, etc.. seemed to describe them as "agricultural". If they sucked then what kind of loss is it? Particularly when IMO the CVT is way nicer than most old fashioned automatic transmissions and way cheaper and more reliable apparently than the new ridiculous 9 speed autos and dual clutch complications.

I hear the other thing that makes the old school fans hate the new Subarus is on top of being bigger they get better gas mileage. The old bad gas mileage must have been endearing? But then again the mileage still isn't as great as part time AWD cars or front wheel drive cars, so you can still be smug about having the liberal postcard of a car while getting the same fuel economy as the guy in the F-150 with the gun stickers on the back.

The fuel economy of the older cars is a huge turnoff, as well as their price on the used market. I really wanted to get into an older Forester a couple of years back, but ended up in a GTI which has about as much usable space, is way more fun to drive (power!) and gets better fuel mileage, even with a heavy foot.

[lucieli]

We finally returned our 2012 TDI Jetta Sportwagen and replaced it with a 2018 Alltrack SE with manual transmission. It's only been a month but so far, we are happy. We were especially happy with a buyback amount of almost $24k for a car that we purchased 6 years ago for $26.6k. When you add in the $350 from Bose and the $1k we got when the scandal first broke...not too bad!

[GregL]

If Mazda would drop the CX-9's turbo motor into the CX-5, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. The CX-5 is fun as is, but I'd love another 65 HP.

Greg

[spacemen3]

I can't wait to get rid of my 2003 Outback H6-3.0 VDC.

[BikeNY]

If Mazda would drop the CX-9's turbo motor into the CX-5, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. The CX-5 is fun as is, but I'd love another 65 HP.

Greg

Personally, I'd rather have the diesel engine in the CX5 that they keep saying is coming, but never comes...

[Mr. Pink]

Reputedly, the '09 and later models are far less prone to issues with the head gasket.

Yes, but they replaced that with pretty severe oil consumption problems. I learned that the hard way. A very hard way.

[p nut]

Yeah, room and convenience is the worst...

Ha ha. That would make for an interesting board meeting. "Let's distance ourselves from all techno advances, and try our best to hide all forms of competitiveness." When I was a kid, my friend's mom drove an 85 GL wagon, 5sp. 4wd. Cool car. But no way I'd drive something that small, slow (and this is talking non-turbo Subaru terms here), and unsafe.

I like the new Foresters. Built on a global platform, tall roof for bike hauling, proper roof rack, unlike my old Outback with those crappy folding units, and decent power. I didn't mind the CVT at all. I think Subaru did a good job.

By the way, they are marketed as an SUV(/CUV). Not a sportwagon. Says so right on their site!

https://www.subaru.com/2019-forester.html

[Blown Reek]

of course, the ultimate wagon is here


http://hips.hearstapps.com/amv-prod-cad-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/media/51/2017-volvo-v60-polestar-inline1-photo-677840-s-original.jpg

Fixed that for you.

[R3awak3n]

http://hips.hearstapps.com/amv-prod-cad-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/media/51/2017-volvo-v60-polestar-inline1-photo-677840-s-original.jpg

Fixed that for you.

yes, I like the volvo as well.

[JAGI410]

Just turned 141k miles on my 04 Forester XT 5spd. If I had to sell it, I’d struggle to find something better to replace it with. It’s been a fantastic car.

[toosahn]

Drove a current gen 2018 Forester XT. Lovely car. Fast, comfy, airy.

However, EPA tested mileage is horrible for modern times.

[p nut]

Drove a current gen 2018 Forester XT. Lovely car. Fast, comfy, airy.

However, EPA tested mileage is horrible for modern times.

It's got almost 9" of ground clearance, AWD, and 250hp. EPA estimates 27mpg. Is there another SUV/CUV with similar specs that does much better? I couldn't find anything...

[benb]

I'm almost always grumpy about my Outback's fuel economy.

Mine is a 2013, so it has the new engine + the CVT, although not the latest versions of each.

Mine is supposed to get 24mpg in city driving and it really doesn't. More like 19-20 in the winter and 21-22 in the summer.

But I drive so little (I've rode my bike more than I've driven this year I think, and I don't ride my bike to work) and it's so stop and go that my gas costs are nothing. ($30 a month?). So it's hard to be too grumpy. AFAICT with my driving pattern most other cars would not meet their EPA rating either, with the exception of hybrids & electric cars.

I think new outbacks are 26/30 or something. But the big issue is the ground clearance, IIRC the Legacies are considerably better on fuel economy due to not having so much air going under the chassis.

[jtbadge]

I wish they still sold a (non-Outback) Legacy wagon in the States.

[jgarrett]

For sale: 2017 Forester XT Touring Turbo. $30500https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180608/6e1e1653e223079a047fa58789fe1070.heic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gemship]

My Outback (CVT) is the only car I've ever owned that didn't have a MT.

The thing is everyone said the Subaru MTs sucked, especially the ones in the Outback and Forester. Every review/forum post, etc.. seemed to describe them as "agricultural". If they sucked then what kind of loss is it? Particularly when IMO the CVT is way nicer than most old fashioned automatic transmissions and way cheaper and more reliable apparently than the new ridiculous 9 speed autos and dual clutch complications.

I hear the other thing that makes the old school fans hate the new Subarus is on top of being bigger they get better gas mileage. The old bad gas mileage must have been endearing? But then again the mileage still isn't as great as part time AWD cars or front wheel drive cars, so you can still be smug about having the liberal postcard of a car while getting the same fuel economy as the guy in the F-150 with the gun stickers on the back.

With all the traffic in this life who in there right mind would really want to shift a car? I live 35 miles north of Boston and the roads are always in a state of flux with all kinds of traffic details, utilities fixes, etc. Shifting sucks unless you are driving in the middle of nowhere or on a track. Just quoting you not yelling at you but yeah I relate. Hey my GMC sierra with 4wd gets worse mpg than your Forester. Actually I'm thinking about buying one like yours and getting a utility trailer for those days I need a pick up.

[nmrt]

many like room and convenience.
many (some?) like handling dynamics. looks like subaru chose one for the other. that is when the forester became "americanized".

Yeah, room and convenience is the worst. No wonder nobody buys them. Isn't the Impreza smaller?

[p nut]

many like room and convenience.
many (some?) like handling dynamics. looks like subaru chose one for the other. that is when the forester became "americanized".

Was the Forester ever known for its handling? I don’t think so. They had the Sti version in the early 2000’s but those were still not that great handling. WRx/Sti is a different story but I thought the Forester was always marketed as an SUV. And handled as such.

[bismo37]

I think Subaru has plans for a 2020 4cyl turbo charged Outback.

I just traded in a new 2017 Outback Limited 3.6R with only 8800 miles for a '17 V60 T5 Cross Country.

The Outback was a nice car, nicely equipped, but I was in the service center way too often. The first one I bought had paint defects that took the new car away from me for a few weeks while I tootled around in a Crosstrek loaner. I was able to get them to give me a different Outback instead of a refurbished paint job on the first one. That second Outback suffered from recurrent windshield cracks/breaks (look it up, it a problem in '15 and newer models). Each windshield was $900+ to replace (Oregon car insurance does not give $0 deductible on glass). Then the moonroof starting making a ratchety grinding noise and was rough to open and close. Then, possibly a soft whirring from a rear wheel bearing. I wasn't interested in getting anything else looked at. Traded it in for the V60CC Platinum. Not looking back.

[nmrt]

i dont mean that the forester ever handled like the elise. i was comparing forester xt's handling dynamics from 2005 to the current xt. there is a huge difference in handling, imo. i found the new xt to handle like any cuv while the 2005 xt handled pretty sharp for a cuv.

Was the Forester ever known for its handling? I don’t think so. They had the Sti version in the early 2000’s but those were still not that great handling. WRx/Sti is a different story but I thought the Forester was always marketed as an SUV. And handled as such.

[Mikej]

I think Subaru has plans for a 2020 4cyl turbo charged Outback.

I just traded in a new 2017 Outback Limited 3.6R with only 8800 miles for a '17 V60 T5 Cross Country.

The Outback was a nice car, nicely equipped, but I was in the service center way too often. The first one I bought had paint defects that took the new car away from me for a few weeks while I tootled around in a Crosstrek loaner. I was able to get them to give me a different Outback instead of a refurbished paint job on the first one. That second Outback suffered from recurrent windshield cracks/breaks (look it up, it a problem in '15 and newer models). Each windshield was $900+ to replace (Oregon car insurance does not give $0 deductible on glass). Then the moonroof starting making a ratchety grinding noise and was rough to open and close. Then, possibly a soft whirring from a rear wheel bearing. I wasn't interested in getting anything else looked at. Traded it in for the V60CC Platinum. Not looking back.

An 18 v60 cc? That’s a nice looking car. I’ve always liked those Cc Volvo’s- but the price is a couple of notches up from my budget. Also only one dealer 35 miles away. Let us know how it works out!

[Mr. Pink]

I like the new Foresters. Built on a global platform, tall roof for bike hauling, proper roof rack, unlike my old Outback with those crappy folding units, and decent power.

I don't get your love of tall roofs for bike hauling. Like I said, its a stretch for me and I'm six foot. And, the ski box is worse. I need a small folding step box to get up in my box on my '10, not on my '01. Furgetabout parking garages.
Its all marketing. They want to convince you that an Forester with a big boxy body is an SUV, when its really just an Impreza with a big boxy body and clearance. Worked with my ex wife. We had an Outback leased in the mid 90s, but, when we went into the Subaru dealer for a new car, she said "she didn't want to drive a station wagon anymore", so she went for the Forester. I turned away and smiled. Hey, she was paying for it.

I've told more than on Subaru salesman that I refuse to consider an Outback because of that damn folding roof rack they started putting just on that model about ten years ago. They still refuse to go back to simple rails like the other cars they make, or even make it an option. It's ridiculous, because many many skiers, bikers, and kayakers were a large part of that car's market back in the day, and, like myself, own Thule or Yakima products that we like to just bolt on up there, like my 700 dollar ski box. Last I looked, Yakima and Thule don't even make feet and rails for that rack (well, I think Yakima does, but it's an ugly solution that adds another foot of height to the rack), and I'm sure not putting my box filled with skis plus a bike up on that factory thing, no way. Really dumb.

[p nut]

I don't get your love of tall roofs for bike hauling. Like I said, its a stretch for me and I'm six foot...

I'm talking hauling it inside. I don't use a roof rack any more--too many close calls. It's either inside or on the hitch rack.

[Kobe]

The Buick Regal TourX has is a turbo with 250hp. I don't thin a stick is offered though.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7LGaz1UO9zYuFpf4Gzi875XY73A=/0x0:2040x1360/1570x883/filters:focal(805x1034:1131x1360)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58978277/twarren_180301_2376_0013.0.jpg

I even found a picture with bikes to keep it near on topic.

[buddybikes]

I'm keeping my Saab 9-5 stick wagon going for long as I can. Racks that hold 200lbs, and turbo with a bit of kick

[echappist]

An 18 v60 cc? That’s a nice looking car. I’ve always liked those Cc Volvo’s- but the price is a couple of notches up from my budget. Also only one dealer 35 miles away. Let us know how it works out!

CPOs with very low miles (less than 20k) are selling for less than $25k range, with 7 years of warranty (from date of first purchase). That probably makes it competitive against quite a few comparable wagons


The Buick Regal TourX has is a turbo with 250hp. I don't thin a stick is offered though.

I even found a picture with bikes to keep it near on topic.

only thing I don't like is the low gas mileage; otherwise it ticks every box

http://hips.hearstapps.com/amv-prod-cad-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/images/media/51/2017-volvo-v60-polestar-inline1-photo-677840-s-original.jpg

Fixed that for you.

minor quibble; like the 2019 update better

https://postmediadriving.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/223585_new-volvo-v60-exterior.jpg?quality=99&strip=all&w=960&h=480&crop=1

[martl]

Was the Forester ever known for its handling? I don’t think so. They had the Sti version in the early 2000’s but those were still not that great handling. WRx/Sti is a different story but I thought the Forester was always marketed as an SUV. And handled as such.

i just replaced an 1999 Forester Turbo with a 2018 Forester. The '18 may look top-heavy, but it really isn't - boxer engine, low center of gravity..
Still no comparison handling-wide; The '99 felt like a large Rabbit GTI, the '18 is a comfortable box and doesn't really offer any "sporty" driving experience - more like a "being driven around" feel. I doubt the additionl horsepower of the XT (or even a hypothetical absence of the CVT) would change that very much (never driven one, though).

Still it has a true 4x4 drivetrain, a no-nonsense-vibe i really like - very few useless tech-toys and, with eyesight, the best driver assistant system available. In disciplines where that matters, no fashionable station wagon with a half-assed add-on awd system is any match. Totally different vehicle class.

[R3awak3n]

i just replaced an 1999 Forester Turbo with a 2018 Forester. The '18 may look top-heavy, but it really isn't - boxer engine, low center of gravity..
Still no comparison handling-wide; The '99 felt like a large Rabbit GTI, the '18 is a comfortable box and doesn't really offer any "sporty" driving experience - more like a "being driven around" feel. I doubt the additionl horsepower of the XT (or even absence of the CVT) would change that very much (never driven one, though).

Still it has a true 4x4 drivetrain, a no-nonsense-vibe i really like - very vew useless tech-toys and, with eyesight, the best driver assistant system available. In disciplines where that matters, no fashionable station wagon with a half-assed add-on awd system is any match. Totally different vehicle class.

Yes but I wonder how many times one reaally needs a true 4x4 system? I bet most ppl with foresters don’t. I have never driven one but just drove my wifes outback yesterday. Its a great car but as far as driving goes, it is not very fun

[mcteague]

I can't wait to get rid of my 2003 Outback H6-3.0 VDC.

I had a 2002 Outback H6 and had too many problems. It was supposed to be a reliable car and I was used to owning Hondas and Toyotas. The AC went up 3 times, front brake rotors warped very early and the main belt broke while on the highway which took out a number of other parts. It had an occasional surging issue they never got resolved. I'm sure there were other things that now escape me. After 8 years I traded it in for an Acura. Nice to be back to cars that never give me a lick of problems. I know this could be the exception to the Subaru reliability picture but it really stops me from ever considering the brand again. Plus, the seats were not very comfortable!

Tim

[Blown Reek]

minor quibble; like the 2019 update better

Yeah, but you're not getting a 2019 Polestar V60. Big difference between the two cars.

[Mr. Pink]

Yes but I wonder how many times one reaally needs a true 4x4 system? I bet most ppl with foresters don’t. I have never driven one but just drove my wifes outback yesterday. Its a great car but as far as driving goes, it is not very fun

The Subaru is the unofficial state car of Vermont for a reason. First time I drove an Outback into a blizzard, I said, wow. So, that's like, millions of people in the Northeast who need AWD.

[benb]

I had a 2002 Outback H6 and had too many problems. It was supposed to be a reliable car and I was used to owning Hondas and Toyotas. The AC went up 3 times, front brake rotors warped very early and the main belt broke while on the highway which took out a number of other parts. It had an occasional surging issue they never got resolved. I'm sure there were other things that now escape me. After 8 years I traded it in for an Acura. Nice to be back to cars that never give me a lick of problems. I know this could be the exception to the Subaru reliability picture but it really stops me from ever considering the brand again. Plus, the seats were not very comfortable!

Tim

I had an Acura prior to my Subaru. My Subaru has been as reliable as my Acura, I had the Acura for 7 years and my Subaru will be 6 years old this winter.

But what I notice is Subaru requires more maintenance. I follow the schedules, my impression with Hondas is:

- Honda is seemingly able to design things to be incredibly reliable
- They are at the very tip top end of being able to predict how often maintenance needs to happen to preserve reliability
- On top of the reliability + maintenance prediction they've also been able to get the longest time between maintenance without hurting reliability
- They also are one of the best if not the best in terms of extracting large amounts of performance out of an engine without sacrificing reliability or making the owner perform a higher frequency of maintenance.

Best example was stuff like the S2000.. running at engine RPMs like a Supercar but somehow was reliable on a maintenance schedule that was pretty much pedestrian.

So the Subaru is not breaking down but it's costing more for maintenance to get to the same mileage.

My problem is Honda often doesn't make the vehicles I actually want to buy anymore.

[p nut]

Yes but I wonder how many times one reaally needs a true 4x4 system? I bet most ppl with foresters don’t. I have never driven one but just drove my wifes outback yesterday. Its a great car but as far as driving goes, it is not very fun

Yep, not really "needed." I only need AWD/4WD a handful of times a year when the streets are piled up with snow. Or when I'm trying to reach that remote camping spot. But it is nice to have, though. The spectacular ground clearance and exceptional AWD (not 4x4) system help quite a bit here. I now drive a Tacoma, but I wouldn't mind going back to a Subaru (Forester). Of course, the VW Alltrack is enticing as well.

[R3awak3n]

The Subaru is the unofficial state car of Vermont for a reason. First time I drove an Outback into a blizzard, I said, wow. So, that's like, millions of people in the Northeast who need AWD.

Yep, not really "needed." I only need AWD/4WD a handful of times a year when the streets are piled up with snow. Or when I'm trying to reach that remote camping spot. But it is nice to have, though. The spectacular ground clearance and exceptional AWD (not 4x4) system help quite a bit here. I now drive a Tacoma, but I wouldn't mind going back to a Subaru (Forester). Of course, the VW Alltrack is enticing as well.


I did not say people don't need AWD, I am in upstate new york, AWD is awesome. I meant a true AWD system like the subaru vs the sportwagen which is not a 50/50 awd, only limited power sent to the rear which is more than enough for 99% of the people.

Also, I love people that buy a AWD and think they can be ok in snow... meanwhile they leave the stock garbage 4 season tires on their car. A car with winter tires fwd will be better in snow than a awd card with all seasons. Of course that changes when you put winters in a awd car

[BikeNY]

AWD and 4WD are not at all required for snow driving. FWD and snow tires are plenty for 99.9% of the population.

[martl]

Yes but I wonder how many times one reaally needs a true 4x4 system? I bet most ppl with foresters don’t. I have never driven one but just drove my wifes outback yesterday. Its a great car but as far as driving goes, it is not very fun

AWD performance is most obviously benefitting people living in areas with above average snow. Unless one lives in the absolute wilderness, 90% of those every-day situations would also be handled sufficiently by an addon clutch-operated system which works reactively (2nd axle drive only engaged when the main drive axle wheels start to spin).

Those cheaper-to make, working with traverse-mounted engines systems are ok for most. Being an engineer, i find a solution which switches itself off when used (see BMW, Volvo etc) slightly unelegant.

An active 4x4 with diffs is an absolute asset in any kind of iffy driving situation and adds to the driving experience, it is not at all limited in its effect to extreme offroading. On youtube, there is a video demonstrating its superior handling when avoiding an obstacle on a damp surface. There is a reason why people love to drive Ur-Quattros, Integrales, Imprezas and the like.

And of course, i love the way my Subi once climbed a very slightly sloped, very slightly damp, grassy parking lot absolutely effortlessly, why the FWD Audi with twice the hp parked next to it couldn't move an inch. :D

[Mr. Pink]

AWD and 4WD are not at all required for snow driving. FWD and snow tires are plenty for 99.9% of the population.

Yeah, but, it's soooooo much nicer.

First time I as in a near blizzard with an Outback, I got bored doing 40 with the rest of the Explorers and Pathfinders in the slow lane of 4 in Vermont, so I pulled out into the passing lane and passed everybody, with a, whoa, wow, coming out of my mouth. Stable.

[Mr. Pink]

I did not say people don't need AWD, I am in upstate new york, AWD is awesome. I meant a true AWD system like the subaru vs the sportwagen which is not a 50/50 awd, only limited power sent to the rear which is more than enough for 99% of the people.

Also, I love people that buy a AWD and think they can be ok in snow... meanwhile they leave the stock garbage 4 season tires on their car. A car with winter tires fwd will be better in snow than a awd card with all seasons. Of course that changes when you put winters in a awd car

I've been using all season on my Forester for the last five years. It's a new category of all season they label "aggressive". I forget the model, too lazy to go out and check them. Contis. Anyway, they're great. I've had snows on my old Forester, when I lived in upstate NY, and they were awesome. But these guys are about 90% there, and, obviously, I don't have to change them and store the off season tires on wheels (never, never, use one set of wheels for both seasons. I learned the hard way). I drive into Vermont if a storm is present, and spent a month or two the past few years in the Rockies skiing, so, I've seen a lot of snow. The thing here is to keep them fresh. You can't stretch oldish tires into a winter. They may be fine in the fall, but, first snow event after a few years on them reminds you that you need fresh tread.

[p nut]

I've been using all season on my Forester for the last five years. It's a new category of all season they label "aggressive". I forget the model, too lazy to go out and check them. Contis. Anyway, they're great. I've had snows on my old Forester, when I lived in upstate NY, and they were awesome. But these guys are about 90% there, and, obviously, I don't have to change them and store the off season tires on wheels (never, never, use one set of wheels for both seasons. I learned the hard way). I drive into Vermont if a storm is present, and spent a month or two the past few years in the Rockies skiing, so, I've seen a lot of snow. The thing here is to keep them fresh. You can't stretch oldish tires into a winter. They may be fine in the fall, but, first snow event after a few years on them reminds you that you need fresh tread.

Ditto for me. All-season tires on 4/AWD vehicles have been great for me. Obviously stopping distance is worse than with snow tires but they’re not bad at all. And I also hated storing snow tires as well. Stock Conti and then went to Yokohama AS.

AWD A/S > FWD Snow > FWD A/S

[likebikes]

eslow lane of 4 in Vermont

this is an absolute lie. there isn't a single 4 lane road in the entire state of vermont.

[Mr. Pink]

this is an absolute lie. there isn't a single 4 lane road in the entire state of vermont.

Who are you, Emily Litella?

[BikeNY]

Who are you, Emily Litella?

He is right! Maybe you are referring to 2 lanes in each direction, equals 4 lanes?

I've been traveling from Southern NY to mid VT literally every winter weekend for the past 8 years in FWD VWs with snow tires. Never had an issue getting anywhere, and more often than not, I'm being held up by 4WD or AWD SUVs when it's snowing. Obviously, driver skill plays a role in this, but FWD + snows is more than capable enough. Sure you may be able to accelerate faster with AWD, but you will take longer to slow down, which is much more important in slippery conditions. I'm also quite happy with the 50mpg I get in my TDI!

[Mr. Pink]

He is right! Maybe you are referring to 2 lanes in each direction, equals 4 lanes?

I've been traveling from Southern NY to mid VT literally every winter weekend for the past 8 years in FWD VWs with snow tires. Never had an issue getting anywhere, and more often than not, I'm being held up by 4WD or AWD SUVs when it's snowing. Obviously, driver skill plays a role in this, but FWD + snows is more than capable enough. Sure you may be able to accelerate faster with AWD, but you will take longer to slow down, which is much more important in slippery conditions. I'm also quite happy with the 50mpg I get in my TDI!

I see you haven't been on that 8 lane highway between Ludlow and Burlington.

Just kidding. Of course two lanes each way. Rt. 4 between NY state line and Rutland.

I used to do snows on a front drive. Yeah, sure, adaquate, but, try a Subaru some day, with fresh all weathers. Changing lanes on a snow covered highway is just one way they are far superior.

Yeah, I have to laugh when I see the stupid things some people do in large SUVs, and, of course, Jeep Wranglers, the Rugged Man's car. The large SUVs weigh, what, four tons or something? You can't rewrite the laws of physics. It's going to take a lot longer to stop that thing, and, talk about top heavy when the ***t hits the fan and it gets out of control. That's why I like cars with awd and clearance.

[BikeNY]

I see you haven't been on that 8 lane highway between Ludlow and Burlington.

Just kidding. Of course two lanes each way. Rt. 4 between NY state line and Rutland.

I used to do snows on a front drive. Yeah, sure, adequate, but, try a Subaru some day, with fresh all weathers. Changing lanes on a snow covered highway is just one way they are far superior.

Yeah, I have to laugh when I see the stupid things some people do in large SUVs, and, of course, Jeep Wranglers, the Rugged Man's car. The large SUVs weigh, what, four tons or something? You can't rewrite the laws of physics. It's going to take a lot longer to stop that thing, and, talk about top heavy when the ***t hits the fan and it gets out of control. That's why I like cars with awd and clearance.

I'm in Ludlow every weekend, haven't seen that highway yet...

Yup, the minute the snow flies there will be some big SUV off the road, guaranteed! And yeah, don't get me started on those Jeep Wranglers with huge 2 foot wide tires that float around on anything slippery. I've driven a Subaru in those conditions, and honestly, I wasn't blown away. We bought my son a used Crosstrek with a manual for his first car, and I've driven it plenty. Granted, the tires are whatever came stock, but I wasn't super impressed. One issue is that car is so underpowered it can barely get out of it's own way! Perfect for a teenager!

I'm still amazed Subaru hasn't come out with a better engine for the Crosstrek. Ours is a couple of years old, but I don't think the new ones are much better. You have to plan a pass very carefully! Throw the WRX engine in the Crosstrek and you'd have a much more confident car. I hope the interior on the new ones is up to current standards too, as our 5 year old car has the interior of a 10 year old car!

[benb]

Well the whole point of the Crosstrek is to sell an Impreza to the CUV buyers at a higher profit margin than an Impreza. That was pretty much the core recipe of all SUVs and kind of still is. (Take cheap pickup truck, add a permanent cap + fancier interior, add tens of thousands to MSRP, profit.). The Crosstrek recipe just starts with a car instead of a truck. The outback is pretty much the same thing too of course starting with the Legacy.

All the stuff they did to it (plastic, raised suspension) is dirt dirt dirt cheap for Subaru and yet they can raise the price more than expected I imagine.

Putting a different engine it and all that makes it way more expensive to develop.

The WRX is no longer an Impreza, it's a separate chassis, that probably greatly complicates dropping the WRX engine(s) into a different car now.

[p nut]

Which is why the Forester is ideal (for me). Not as big as the Outback, and better engine options than the Crosstrek. Even with the XT going away, 2.5L was just fine for me. Not a powerhouse, but gas efficient and powerful enough.

[staggerwing]

CPOs with very low miles (less than 20k) are selling for less than $25k range, with 7 years of warranty (from date of first purchase). That probably makes it competitive against quite a few comparable wagons.

This is the way we went a while back for our 2016 V60. Found the car in Sarasota, Florida, through Volvo's portal. Worked out the numbers with the dealer over the phone. Took a cheap, 1-way Allegiant hop from Cincinnati, had a couple days on the beach, and drove back. Car with 16k miles was over $14,000 under new sticker, with a higher level warranty.