Subaru Forester

[sfhogman]

Seeing as how I'm leaving San Francisco for the Sierra Foothills (probably) as soon as wifey retires, I'm thinking of getting a Forester for its interior space, AWD, and flexibility. This would be a Premium, normally aspirated 2.5 litre, with auto. No options.

Anyone have any input? Owners? That sort of thing?

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Sagebrush Burns]

I've driven Outbacks since 1997 - Subarus are fine vehicles.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Seeing as how I'm leaving San Francisco for the Sierra Foothills (probably) as soon as wifey retires, I'm thinking of getting a Forester for its interior space, AWD, and flexibility. This would be a Premium, normally aspirated 2.5 litre, with auto. No options.

Anyone have any input? Owners? That sort of thing?

Hi, Jeff

Buddy just got rid of his F-250 which was gonna be "the very last vehicle he ever bought cuz it was absolutely perfect and would climb trees with the right tires and all that" (V-10 gas engine, 5 spd manual, manual xfer box, manual hubs, custom gear ratios, and every kind of heavy duty/towing/etc. option available.) After a dozen years and barely 60k miles, he realized he put a lot more miles on his motorcycles than the truck, and replaced it with a 2014 Forester.

It's pretty much the basic model, and he took it to the desert for a "maiden voyage" on a few dirt roads end of April as soon as I could wrap up the major part of tax season. Now, everybody I know gives me grief about taking my MGT (the Toy truck you've seen) places I shouldn't without four wheel drive, but he followed me out one of the roads where we go shooting that's a good test run. There are a couple of places that are dicey with 2wd--takes a bit of wheelspin on a couple of rocks and such--but the Forester did just fine on all of them. Slow and easy was the key.

So far he's averaging about 32 mpg sticking to the freeways. A trip to Sacramento when the car was about a month old showed 34 mpg one way (tail winds) and about 30 against head winds the other way. The CVT takes some getting used to, but seems to work fine. And he says all the "traction control/ABS/you don't even have to drive" systems make it extremely stable. He said it rides far better, even on sorta bumpy dirt roads, than that F-250 did even on smooth freeway.

Dunno if it will last as long as my first Subie or not. Mechanically, it's probably better built, but all that electronic stuff is worrisome to dinosaurs like me! (That Subie blew an engine. At 360k miles... )

Rick C

 

[SamV]

Consumer Reports always rates them very high. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. Safe and reliable.

 

[Pat-inCO]

Anyone have any input? Owners? That sort of thing?

OH, THEY ARE TERRIBLE!

Terrible because I didn't get one fifteen years ago. :roll:

I got one in March and have been VERY happy with mine. I got a 6 speed manual and
the only thing wrong is that I can not afford a second one (one in auto and one in manual).

The '15 year models are about 10% better on gas mileage than the '14 (that I have)
but I have been getting an overall of 30 mpg for the first 5,000 miles (EPA says 29
on the highway for mine).

Handles well, ride is a tad rough, if you are going cross country. Drives of less than
250 (or so) miles are no problem. It's when you do eight or nine hundred in one day
that it gets to you. . . . . . I've been told that the Outback has a better ride and the low
end Outback is about $3K more.

I got a spare set of rims with studded tires for mine. It makes the Forester drive like
the slick roads were almost dry.

As I said, my only regret is having not gotten one years ago.

 

[#1rugerman]

My wife is on her second Subaru, the first was a forester, we decided that 210000 miles was long enough so we got a new Outback, She would have got another forester but she wanted heated seats without a hole in the roof and the premium forester didn't come that way so she now has a outback. Comfortable vehicle, I'm used to a F250 diesel so it feels like I'm sitting on the ground when I drive it but once I get into it I get used to it pretty fast. The only problem that I have found is that the rear of the vehicle slopes down and it is sort of hard for me 6ft. 3 inches to see out the back due to interference with the high seat back and low window, that was not a problem with the forester.

 

[Kevin]

What kind of warranty do the new ones have? Do they come with the 2 or 3 years complimentary maintenance?

A good friend of mine in Iowa bought one in February. It's his wife's but they love it. When we were talking about it the conversation changed and I forgot to ask about the warranty.

 

[vito]

In 2011 I bought a new Outback, followed the next year by an Impreza. You could say I have become a real Subaru fan. I originally was interested in the Forester, but two primary issues made me decide on the Outback. First, the relatively high dashboard on the Forester made it uncomfortable for my wife when in the front passenger seat. She is not terribly short, about 5'5", but the high dash made her feel like she was straining to see over it to the road ahead (the passenger seat is not height adjustable). The second reason was the engine. I did not like the sluggishness of the 4-cylinder, and much, much preferred the power and quietness of the 6-cylinder. It was $3K more, but totally worth the difference. When I needed a new car to replace my Honda CRV that my son totaled, I immediately considered Subaru based upon my great feelings about the Outback. But to save money I bought an Impreza instead. The Impreza is a good car, but its no Outback. If I had to do it over I would buy a second Outback, also with the 6-cylinder engine.

My 6-cylinder Outback gets only slightly less average MPG than my Impreza, about 2 to 3 mpg less. The advantage in power and smoothness of the 6 more than makes up for the lower mpg. The Outback is now almost 4 years old and has just short of 100,000 miles. This car has been 100% trouble free. Other than a small problem with the rear view mirror when the car was brand new (the compass feature did not work and the mechanism had to be replaced under warranty) I have not had a single issue with this car.

The only advantage I see that the Forester has over the Outback is the total storage capacity. I don't know how critical that is for you.

I absolutely plan on buying another Subaru when it comes time to replace either of my two current Subaru's, but I don't expect that to happen for several more years. I fully expect to get at least 250,000 miles out of these cars. I have no doubt that the Forester would be as reliable as the other Subaru's.

But before you buy, I suggest you at least compare the Forester to an Outback, with the larger 6-cylinder engine. Both of mine are with the Premium trim line so if you compare I suggest you look at comparably equipped models to get a valid comparison. The Outback is a bit more expensive, but over the long life of a Subaru it is not a significant difference.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I bought a 2001 S Forester new.

Still driving it.

I'd buy a new one in a heartbeat if necessary, but this one seems to be holding up quite nicely.

I've always considered the Forester to be "the thinking man's SUV" . . . it just does the job with no fanfare.

 

[wwb]

"The Boss" has an '07 Outback, 4 cylinder (non-turbo) with a 5-speed manual. Unless you're into street racing, I see no need for the turbo 4 or the 6 cylinder, although with an automatic, the car would be a bit more sluggish.

140,000 miles so far, and the only problem was one of the catalytic converters went south... a pretty pricey repair (about $900). The mechanic said it's got to be a freak occurrence, since it's the only Subaru cat failure he's ever encountered.

 

[Pat-inCO]

Had another thought . . . friend down in Denver just traded in his "old"
Outback, with 300K on it (he does 70-80K/year). He said this is his
sixth one. . . . Somehow that says a lot to me.

The Outback has the same ground clearance as the Forester. At least
for 2014/15. That eight inch clearance is VERY nice in the snow. 8)

Have you signed the deal yet?

 

[Don Lovel]

We have had a few of them over the years. Gotta say, all in all, great vehicles but like all good things, maintenance is what makes one great to own. You can stay on top of stuff pretty good but because they run so good, you tend to not do anything to it for a long time, then one day, you spend a pile of money on it.
Daughter just bought a new Outback, they have a 2005 Legacy Turbo Wagon they are trying to sell. My late wife's 2008 Legacy 4 door is also for sale to settle her estate.
My girlfriend has a 2005 LL Bean 6 cylinder Outback that is a nice car. But we now have a mysterious throttle lag problem that came close to getting us T Boned in an intersection the other day. That 6 Cyl runs pretty good, makes a bunch of power and with the all wheel drive that thing will haul ass on gravel roads
Best one I ever owned was a 1981 5 speed 4x4 wagon. I took it places I would not take my F250.
We also had an 85 wagon that finally blew a rear seal at 242000 miles, we had bought it used with 120000 and drove the crap out of it for a winter commuter car in KC.
Subaru dealerships. We have one here in KC that the service writer is a clueless woman who likes to make up BS to pad your bill with. Supposedly the dealerships in Olathe & Lees Summit & Lawrence are better.

 

[graygun]

I rode in one last Nov in PA,about 300 mile round trip...no offroad so it was just like riding in a large car. It had the CVT and IIRC 4 cyl . The CVT is something you may or may not like. I have one in my new Civic and it's ok but just "feels" sort of alien. In some ways it seems better than a geared automatic,mainly at lighter throttle inputs.

 

[smoke-eater]

I've owned two Subarus, a 1978 and an '83. Both were basic, rugged and dependable cars, very economical to run.
Regretfully, I don't plan on owning another, because of Subaru's support of the HSUS.

Jeff

 

[blume357]

2.5 liters seems a little small to me.... but then I down sized to a Ford Econoline van with only a 4.7L and it seems to be doing fine carrying a ton or more of equipment.

 

[sfhogman]

Thanks!

This is all good stuff to know. I drove one today; the 2.5 is no ball of fire, but not anemic either. The CVT felt a little less like a CVT than I thought it would. Visibility is terrific, fit and finish very nice, and accessibility for routine maintenance seemed very well thought out. Interior did feel a little cheap compared to my Corolla(!) but once again, well thought out. The lower seat bolster seemed a little short, but as I didn't adjust the seat I'm not sure whether that would make a difference. Neat little vehicle.

Next step is to have She Who Must Be Obeyed check it out...being vertically challenged I think it might be in her tiny ballpark...

Jeff

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Yes, the 2.5 is not a powerhouse in normally-aspirated configuration. That said, it's totally adequate for my use. For merging onto the freeway you have to be willing to stomp on it, and if you do it'll get with the program nicely.

Note that I said "normally-aspirated". I live in Kentucky at an elevation of something like 900 feet or so. No problem. But when I visit relatives in the Denver area, the little engine is trying awfully hard. Perhaps the 'puter could be re-mapped to help out with this, but I see a LOT of turbo-Foresters out there, and they do get with the program quite smartly indeed. Quite smartly. If you really care to go to the trouble, you can retrofit most of the WRX/STI goodies to create a pure hot-rod that will definitely get your attention.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Our recent car buying expedition came down to a short list of a RAV4 or Forester. TOWMBO is the primary driver so her opinion ruled. A test drive ruled out the CVT. The test drive is kinda hilly and it kept the RPMs up and it felt buzzy. We both found the seats in the RAV to be better than either the Forester or Outback. Most of our use is around town and short trips then we'll jump in and hammer 450 miles to LA to visit daughter so the seats have to be comfortable. You can't tell on a short test drive how seats will be for 7 hours but you can sure tell if they feel good relative to something else. I was slightly leaning toward the Forester because of the more robust AWD abilities but the RAV was a better fit for us. Some research on the Subaru forums found some concerns about new Outbacks having wandering problems and the problems some owners were having with the 4 wheel alignment. Not trying to steer you away, just adding what we found. Can't hardly go wrong if it's the right fit for you and your boss.

 

[Pat-inCO]

I drove one today; the 2.5 is no ball of fire, but not anemic either.
The CVT felt a little less like a CVT than I thought it would.

Well . . . . it's your decision on if you want a stop-light dragster or if
you want fuel economy. The non turbo model does well on economy.
(BUT . . . it's a screamer on snow and ice! )

Also keep in mind that they do not come into their own on performance
until some time after four or five thousand miles. I'm at just a bit over
5K miles and it just keeps getting better. 8)

 

[Ale-8(1)]

My 2001 has the old 4-speed electronic automatic. I bought that version because at the time that was how you got the limited-slip rear differential. It all works well enough, but the mileage is nothing to brag about. I understand the new CVT does better on mileage.

 

[haymaker]

A friend of mine has an Outback. I can't remember what year-2010 or '11 I think. At 140,000 miles he had to do the head gaskets but I don't know what motor he has in it. Other than that it's been a great vehicle. I've gone on a couple of day long drives with him and it's quite comfortable. My wife likes Ford Escapes so that is what we drive.

What is HSUS?

 

[TCGuy]

I recently picked up a '99 Outback (I got it cheap because it needed a new engine, which I put in). It has the normally aspirated 2.5L 4-cylinder, and it runs well. It's not a drag racer, but it moves out smartly if you're willing to rev up the engine. It will pull from low rpms, but once you get on the cam it really comes alive (about 3500 rpm). This isn't how you get the best fuel economy, but the power is there if you need it.

The car handles well, and the AWD gives a lot of confidence (I'm looking forward to snow season).

Some of the 2.5L (EJ25) engines have an issue with the head gaskets going out after a few years, which is probably what led to the engine in my car getting trashed - it was overheated by the previous operator because it had been leaking oil and coolant and the knucklehead never checked his fluid levels. The replacement gaskets solve the issue, and the newer cars don't have this problem. The engine does have to be removed to perform the repair, though. Fortunately this is not that difficult, but it is expensive if you pay someone to do it. If you do have the engine out, it's a good time to replace the timing belt and water pump (which is behind the timing assembly).

 

[Phoenix too]

SWIMPAL has a 2003 Forester with something like 140K on the clock.

Base engine, auto, LSD for transfercase and rear. It is anemic. There's no other way to say it. Empty, with a light load, cruise on, it will kick out the locked torque converter on hills of substance. Towing the boat, probably 500 ibs, it will kick out at the mere sight of an anthill. Gas mileage runs mid 20's in normal driving.

The OE tires were dreadful in the snow (Geolanders, IIRC). We dumped them in a hurry, and now it is boringly competent in the snow.

The seat bottoms are short for me, I don't find the seats comfortable for a longish drive, and always take my wallet out of my hip pocket. For SWIMPAL, who is altitudinally (sp?) challenged, they seem fine.

The cylinder-head gaskets are leaking, but we're told they will leak oil for a long time before real trouble comes calling.

There's been minor rust issues around the gas filler door, other than that all seems OK but for paint on plastic bits, which is pealing.

The sun roof failed some years ago, the cost to repair seemed unreasonable, so we didn't.

The front calipers/rotors have been replaced twice.

That's all off the top of my head. If you want more repair-type particulars, we've got all the records.