Just ordered the Subaru Forester 2.5XT - Any other owners?
-
Hi all,
Just ordered the Subaru Forester 2.5XT, and my wife mentioned to me that never did she think that either her or me would ever own a Subaru, especially one with a scoop...
But of many cars we test drove, we found the Forester to be the car that best suited us. In the end, it was a surprisingly easy decision to make, especially since we knew that we would probably lose a lot of money when the time came to sell it (OMV seems to be really low!).
Anyway, it would be nice to know if there are any other Forester owners out there given that I don't see all that many Foresters on the road. Any tips or comments you may have regarding the car would be most appreciated! -
Did u consider the Air Trek Turbo?
i wonder which one better....
-
Yes, we looked at the AirTrek Turbo-R too but it did not really suit us. For a start, the Forester felt like it had more room internally (with a more family feel), which was important for us. Also, we preferred the Forester's interior to the AirTrek's (Unless I'm mistaken, leather seats were not standard in the AirTrek). The Forester also appears to have a better level of safety equipment than the AirTrek (also important to us). But I guess, the most important thing was that I liked how the Forester handled during the test drive (especially since my wife also gave it the thumbs up). In addition, the reviews I read on the Net regarding the Forester were all rather positive. Ultimately, it probably boils down to personal preference. For the wife and I, the car felt right, and the price was just withing the budget we had set, so we decided to go for it.
-
yea it does feel like a family car...AT-R seems more like a racing SUVOriginally posted by polityka:Yes, we looked at the AirTrek Turbo-R too but it did not really suit us. For a start, the Forester felt like it had more room internally (with a more family feel), which was important for us. Also, we preferred the Forester's interior to the AirTrek's (Unless I'm mistaken, leather seats were not standard in the AirTrek). The Forester also appears to have a better level of safety equipment than the AirTrek (also important to us). But I guess, the most important thing was that I liked how the Forester handled during the test drive (especially since my wife also gave it the thumbs up). In addition, the reviews I read on the Net regarding the Forester were all rather positive. Ultimately, it probably boils down to personal preference. For the wife and I, the car felt right, and the price was just withing the budget we had set, so we decided to go for it.
-
But if I'm not wrong, the Forester 2.5XT is apparently faster! Thing is, the UK car mags list the 2.5XT as doing 0-100km/h in 5.9/6 seconds (manual box I think), while the local mags list it as doing it (auto box in Singapore) in 7.6 seconds (still faster than the AirTrek's 8 seconds). Any idea why the difference is so great? Did they de-tune the Singapore version or something? Even if the UK specs are for the manual version, surely there should not be such a big difference for the auto box version in Singapore?
-
drooooool......
i'd love to drop the 2.5 boxer in a GD....... -
have to point out: Airtrek Turbo R 0-100 is 7.6s(as personally tested)Originally posted by polityka:But if I'm not wrong, the Forester 2.5XT is apparently faster! Thing is, the UK car mags list the 2.5XT as doing 0-100km/h in 5.9/6 seconds (manual box I think), while the local mags list it as doing it (auto box in Singapore) in 7.6 seconds (still faster than the AirTrek's 8 seconds). Any idea why the difference is so great? Did they de-tune the Singapore version or something? Even if the UK specs are for the manual version, surely there should not be such a big difference for the auto box version in Singapore?
and I don't think UK's 0-100 timing is correct. A car typically gains 1 second off its 0-100 timing by having a manual box instead of an auto box. I think it is more likely to have 7s on the manual box. Top Gear does list it as 5.7s, but I think thats not quite possible.
Anyways if we compare the stats, the Forester has 227bhp and 320Nm as opposed to Airtrek Turbo R's 240bhp and 343Nm. Taking into account ATR being about 50kg heavier, I'd expect the 0-100 timings to be similiar.
Besides, if we look at other cars like the 350Z, which has a 0-100 timing of 5.7s(CAR) or 5.9s(Top Gear) depending on which mag u believe. Weight is 35kg more than the Forester. Power is 276, which is almost 50bhp more. 363Nm, which is 43Nm more. And a much lower drag coefficient compared to the boxy Forester. It seems quite incredible that the Forester can do a 5.7s 0-100 with much less bhp, torque, and only a small weight advantage. I expect that a 0-100 of 7s sounds much more logical. I mean, afterall, u can't defy the laws of physics can u? -
of course, im wondering if Subaru perhaps didn't "accidently" underquote their bhp n torque figures. Turbocharged, higher displacement than the Mitsu, and if that 0-100 time of 5.7s is true, then I really don't believe it has less bhp and torque than the Mitsu. Nothing ups your torque like larger displacement does, and the forester has 2.5l as opposed to the mitsu's 2.0l
-
well as they asy there aint no replacement for Displacement....Which is y u see american cars having such big enginesOriginally posted by HENG@:of course, im wondering if Subaru perhaps didn't "accidently" underquote their bhp n torque figures. Turbocharged, higher displacement than the Mitsu, and if that 0-100 time of 5.7s is true, then I really don't believe it has less bhp and torque than the Mitsu. Nothing ups your torque like larger displacement does, and the forester has 2.5l as opposed to the mitsu's 2.0l -
-
with V8, V10 or V12 mated to themOriginally posted by AE86tofu:well as they asy there aint no replacement for Displacement....Which is y u see american cars having such big engines -
u damn right man..Originally posted by ceecookie:with V8, V10 or V12 mated to them -
thats why i think subaru are lying thru their teeth. either about the power n torque output, or about the 0-100 timing. Its the same la. all the jap car makers say gentlemen's agreement, their idea of 'gentlemen' is to all lie thru their teeth. U take a mitsu EVO or Skyline GT-R throw onto a dyno, u think they really do 276bhp at the engine? Closer to the higher side of 300bhp moe likely.Originally posted by AE86tofu:well as they asy there aint no replacement for Displacement....Which is y u see american cars having such big engines
Honda NSX also -
and then comes another problem....with engines higher than 2.0L in 4 bangers due to the heavier pistons it needs bigger balancing shafts and hence more moving parts which results in decreased reliability...for my engine its exactly the same caseOriginally posted by HENG@:thats why i think subaru are lying thru their teeth. either about the power n torque output, or about the 0-100 timing. Its the same la. all the jap car makers say gentlemen's agreement, their idea of 'gentlemen' is to all lie thru their teeth. U take a mitsu EVO or Skyline GT-R throw onto a dyno, u think they really do 276bhp at the engine? Closer to the higher side of 300bhp moe likely. Honda NSX also -
but then translates to RUBBISH handlingOriginally posted by ceecookie:with V8, V10 or V12 mated to them -
U SURE?Originally posted by AE86tofu:but then translates to RUBBISH handling
do u know how well the viper, esp the new one handles? or the Corvette? Do u know the viper won the nurburgring 24 hours in 02 or 03, while the corvette won this year's le mans 24 hours? -
I am talking in general u know....and yes american cars are famous for appalling fuel economy and interiorOriginally posted by HENG@:U SURE?
do u know how well the viper, esp the new one handles? or the Corvette? Do u know the viper won the nurburgring 24 hours in 02 or 03, while the corvette won this year's le mans 24 hours? -
In choosing your SUV, did you consider the Nissan Murano? It has the 350Z engine and looks pretty damn big and pretty too.
But yes, the Forester's a very good SUV in a lot of ways. Except it doesn't look good at all. -
Murano is expensive la...but what turns me on most abt tt car is not the engine....is the sound system....BOSE...it dosen't get any better than that manOriginally posted by Rexdriver:In choosing your SUV, did you consider the Nissan Murano? It has the 350Z engine and looks pretty damn big and pretty too.
But yes, the Forester's a very good SUV in a lot of ways. Except it doesn't look good at all. -
My wife and I did think about the Murano and had a look at it when we went to test drive the Cefiro. We had high hopes for the Murano but when we saw it, it was a BIG letdown. It's about $20k more than the Cefiro and I didn't think it looked like a car that was worth $20k more. Maybe $10k more... The only decent thing about it was the Bose system. The build quality was average at best and what were they thinking about that cheap looking plastic grille? I mean, really, surely if you're going to have that grille as one of the car's key distinguishing features, you would use better quality materials. For the price, I would have picked a Toyota Harrier anyday. But that's just my personal opinion... If Borneo had brought the Harrier in, I would probably have bought it without a second thought.
As for the Forester, I went to MotorImage thinking that it would look quite ugly but the 2.5XT model actually didn't look too bad, especially in black (think it looks a bit better than the older 2.0XT model). Ultimately, what convinced us to buy it was this: (1) the engine (though it would drink plenty of premium petrol really quick with my heavy right foot); (2) the steering (which was stiffer than most Japanese cars but slightly lighter than continental cars I have driven. Both my wife and I also drive continental cars so we're both more accustomed to stiffer steering), and (3) my wife was comfortable with the size of the car and it had enough room in the back to meet our needs. (4) The price was within our budget (obviously very important). -
too general. if u're still living in the 80s n 90s then this is true.Originally posted by AE86tofu:I am talking in general u know....and yes american cars are famous for appalling fuel economy and interior
its rubbish to say anything with a big V8 mated to them handles rubbish. -
i agree with the bit u said about Nissan and their interior's materials choice. Sometimes u have to wonder "WHAT were they thinking?"Originally posted by polityka:My wife and I did think about the Murano and had a look at it when we went to test drive the Cefiro. We had high hopes for the Murano but when we saw it, it was a BIG letdown. It's about $20k more than the Cefiro and I didn't think it looked like a car that was worth $20k more. Maybe $10k more... The only decent thing about it was the Bose system. The build quality was average at best and what were they thinking about that cheap looking plastic grille? I mean, really, surely if you're going to have that grille as one of the car's key distinguishing features, you would use better quality materials. For the price, I would have picked a Toyota Harrier anyday. But that's just my personal opinion... If Borneo had brought the Harrier in, I would probably have bought it without a second thought.
As for the Forester, I went to MotorImage thinking that it would look quite ugly but the 2.5XT model actually didn't look too bad, especially in black (think it looks a bit better than the older 2.0XT model). Ultimately, what convinced us to buy it was this: (1) the engine (though it would drink plenty of premium petrol really quick with my heavy right foot); (2) the steering (which was stiffer than most Japanese cars but slightly lighter than continental cars I have driven. Both my wife and I also drive continental cars so we're both more accustomed to stiffer steering), and (3) my wife was comfortable with the size of the car and it had enough room in the back to meet our needs. (4) The price was within our budget (obviously very important).
Apparently even the 350Z suffers from this affliction.