The turbo helps, yet left me less satisfied; now reviews both transmissions
Written: Sep 11 '03 (Updated Jun 22 '05)
Product Rating:
Pros: Power, handling (for an SUV), all-wheel-drive traction, interior style and materials
Cons: Tires, wheels, and seats unsuited to a quick vehicle; nasty shifter and clutch
The Bottom Line: The turbo helps, but the additional power leaves me wanting a firmer suspension, stickier tires, and more supportive seats. Still the best compact SUV--with the autobox.
The last few years have witnessed the emergence of a new class of vehicles: the car-based SUV. These are for people who desire the image and interior versatility of an SUV, and perhaps all-weather capability as well, but want ride and handling more like a car. These vehicles emerged first in Japan, but after a few successful years there the Japanese manufacturers decided to test the waters here. The Toyota RAV4 arrived in 1996, and the Honda CR-V in 1997. They sold better than expected.
This represented a serious threat to Subaru’s turf. As a long-time seller of all-wheel-drive cars, Subaru had long had much of the all-weather car market to itself. To defend its brand position, Subaru needed a taller all-wheel-drive vehicle, and in 1998 responded to Toyota’s and Honda’s car-based SUVs with the Forester. The Forester was based on Subaru’s small car, the Impreza, but was three inches longer, an inch wider, and, most importantly, nearly ten inches taller.
The Forester won many comparison tests against the others, and sold well. A second-generation Forester was introduced last year. With a manual transmission I found the 165-horsepower 2.5-liter boxer four reasonably peppy, but many people complained that with automatic it felt weak. For 2004 Subaru responds with a turbocharged Forester XT. In this form is the Forester faultless?
For my review of the 2003 Forester XS, click here.
Subaru Forester Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Subaru Forester rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
Last year’s new styling lends a much more upscale look to the car, especially from the front and rear. The side profile I am less sure about. As in the first generation car character lines in the sheetmetal swoop up ahead of each wheel and then back along the bodyside. Similar character lines grace Chevrolet’s large car, the Impala. I’m not sure about the look in the case of the Chevy, nor am I a big fan of it here. They seem forced and gimmicky. For 2003 these lines on the Subaru are now deeper and more prominent; they now dip into the sheetmetal much like the character lines on the Ford Focus and Lincoln LS. While this helps to lend the car a more substantial appearance, as in combination with fuller bodysides it makes the sheetmetal appear thicker, it doesn’t make me any crazier about such lines in general.
A larger problem has been with the Forester from the start. Despite its height, the Forester appears more tall wagon than SUV, largely because the body is not as high off the ground as that of a true SUV, or even that of the CR-V and RAV4. (To read my reviews of related vehicles click on the hyperlinks.) I experienced this firsthand last year when I suggested my sister, then considering a CR-V, also look at the Forester. She took one look, said it looked like a station wagon, and didn’t even want to test drive it. The 2003 retains the same basic proportions and nearly car-like distance between the body and the road, and thus the same basic “tall station wagon” look. The Toyota Highlander has a similar look, is significantly longer, and is only an inch taller, such that its height to length ratio is actually more wagon-like, but for reasons that escape me personally does not elicit the same negative reactions. Frankly, I personally find the Toyota much less attractive. The proportions on neither vehicle are perfect, largely due to the limitations imposed by front-wheel-drive-based powertrains that force un-SUVish long front overhangs, but the Toyota’s proportions are considerably worse than the Subaru’s. Just the usual Toyota infallibility?
The XT comes standard with monotone paint (no gray cladding) and unique alloy wheels. Both dilute the character of the vehicle. Especially the wheels, which look like they were stolen from a bland family sedan. An SUV, especially one with a turbocharged engine, deserves tougher looking wheels.
For this price class the interior is simply magnificent in design, materials, and workmanship. Things I especially like: the dimpled soft-touch vinyl across the tops of the door panels and the dash; the padded armrests on the doors (although the padding could be thicker); the metallic finish on the center stack and console; the perforated leather on the steering wheel and shift knob; and the easy to use, expensive-looking and -feeling automatic climate control dials. The combined effect is at once distinctive and tasteful, not an easy combination to achieve. It is at once sporty, rugged, and upscale. The interior of the more expensive Outback is not nearly as nice.
Seat fabrics deserve special attention. The base X model has a woven fabric that I especially like; it feels very in character for the car, rugged and attractive. The XS model uses a velour that seems a bit out of place, or at least does not fit as well as the base model’s woven material. The XT comes with a more rugged cloth I prefer to that in the XS, though the base cloth seems better still. The XT interior is available only in black. Leather is an option on the XT, but only with the automatic transmission. I’m not sure how well leather fits the character of the vehicle, at least not the car-looking stuff pictured in the brochure. A heavily grained leather, such as that in the Volvo XC70 (Volvo’s version of the Outback), would do well, though.
Accommodations
I have already gushed about the styling and general ambiance of the Forester’s new interior. Seat comfort in front is good, but not great. A fairly average seat. Even the base model’s driver’s seat has manually adjustable height and lumbar support. No tilt adjustment, though, and no power seat option. I personally don’t miss the latter, but would appreciate the former. The seat has a bit of side bolstering, but the bolsters are spaced too wide for anyone with a small or average frame. In right turns this was mitigated by the fact that the B-pillar was less than an inch from my shoulder. I used it for lateral support.
The driving position in the Forester, though not as high as in a true, truck-based SUV, is much higher than that in a standard car such as the Legacy. Combined with the fairly low dash, generously-sized glass, and thin roof pillars, visibility is excellent all around.
The rear seat is adequate for two adults as long as their legs are not too long. The cushion is mounted well off the floor, and so provides fairly good thigh support, though somehow not as much as the rear seat in the Legacy. All Subarus are a bit narrow to carry three people comfortably in the rear seat. The Ford Escape and Honda CR-V are a couple inches wider, and especially in the latter case have substantially more rear legroom, so if rear seat room for larger adults is a priority those—and especially the Honda—might be better choices.
The cargo area, seat up and folded, is on the low end for this sort of vehicle. Seats folded, cargo volume is 64 cubic feet, compared to the RAV4's 68, Escape's 69, CR-V's 72, and Sana Fe's 78. The advantage of the Toyota and Ford is largely attributable to their greater height, so in terms of load floor area they're at best equal to the Subaru. A window shade type cover is standard to conceal cargo. Various small storage compartments are also scattered throughout the interior. The WRX wagonon paper has nearly as much cargo space, but to my eye looks considerably less commodious.
On the Road
Last year I drove an XS with manual transmission. I would have preferred a manual with the XT as well, but none was in stock. So I drove the automatic.
Contrary to early reports, Subaru did not use the 2.0-liter WRX engine in the XT but turbocharged the Forester’s 2.5-liter. The result is less power than in the WRX, at least officially: 210 horsepower at 5600 RPM. The WRX engine puts out 227 at 6000. While this is still a significant improvement over the base engine’s 165 horsepower at 5600, the real gain is in torque. The turbo 2.5-liter produces 235 pounds-feet at 3600 RPM, vs. 217 at 4000 in the WRX and 166 at 4000 in the normally aspirated 2.5.
The XT weighs only 115 pounds more than the XS, so this additional thrust almost all goes towards quicker acceleration. Make that much quicker acceleration. Turbo lag is not bad, and boost comes on smoothly. Even from a dead stop the XT feels energetic, with no sagging feeling before the boost kicks in that you’ll find in some turbos. The automatic's torque converter might help here. Around town the turbo gives the Forester just the kind of boost its been needing. The highly refined engine is well-suited for normal driving. It's tuned for the vehicle's traditional base, not just driving enthusiasts. On the highway passing power is very good. At wide open throttle the transmission shifts at the redline. In typical driving shifts occur in the high 3000s.
One implication: unlike in the regular Forester, in the XT in normal driving you barely hear the motor. With the extra power, it has to work much less hard. Even at full throttle the engine is quieter than the normally aspirated 2.5. Maybe too quiet: the distinctive boxer “song” suits the character of the Forester. For a four it feels very smooth.
I drove a 2004 WRX immediately afterwards, and that engine feels and sounds much rawer. An entirely different animal. Any hopes and/or fears that the Forester XT would be essentially a Forester WRX will find no basis here.
Fuel economy compared to the non-turbo declines by roughly three miles-per-gallon. This is more than I expected, especially since the turbo engine will not have to work as hard. As it is, the numbers aren't bad for an SUV--18/23 with manual, 19/23 with automatic. But among cars high-performance sports cars and luxury sedans generally do at least as well.
Update on the manual: With a manual transmission, the XT is very quick. This sucker flat-out begs to go fast. it wants to run, run, run. But it is not pleasant to drive. The shift throws are very long, and the shifter feel is sloppy. The cluth is very high in effort. Overall I found it very hard to shift the XT smoothly. So much for the refinement I found in the automatic. Definitely try this one out thoroughly before you buy.
Last year I was surprised by how well the Forester handles. Lean in turns is much less than I expected, certainly less than that in the Escape, CR-V, or Toyota Highlander. That flat engine might really help here. The dealer claimed that the Forester is the only SUV for which the government does not require a sticker to warn about rollovers (I do not know if this is true). Body control is excellent, with none of the confidence-reducing side-to-side or back-and-forth rocking that often plagues tall vehicles, especially those that have a short wheelbase like the Forester does. Also, the chassis feels very balanced, whether diving into a turn or powering out of one. Subaru’s all-wheel-drive system likely deserves much of the credit.
The steering is light in effort, but not too much so, and feels reassuringly precise and linear. Feedback through the wheel is good, if not great. Put all of these positive attributes together, and I found the Forester very easy and even entertaining to drive aggressively. Consequently, I pushed the Forester much harder than I do most of the SUVs I test drive. No sports car, or even sports sedan, but certainly the best handling compact SUV I’ve driven.
The XT has the same suspension as other Foresters, so all of the above remains true. Yet the extra power (and likely also the substitution of an automatic for a manual) left me wanting still less lean and tauter responses this time around. The Forester XT feels composed in normal driving, but at least with automatic doesn’t beg to be taken hard through turns.
As with other Foresters, the Yokohama Geolander tires end up being the limiting factor. They give up long before the suspension displays any signs of losing its composure. To their credit, they yield very progressively, with plenty of warning. Make that too much warning--these tires start moaning long before they reach even their own modest limits. Stickier, less vocal tires would be nice even on the regular Forester, much less the XT.
I found the ride to be about equal to that in other compact car-based SUVs, not luxury-car smooth but comfortable. Road imperfections were absorbed well in most cases. Similarly, noise levels are moderate. There is some wind and road noise, especially as speed climbs, but these never become uncomfortable. It helps that the engine is turning fewer than 2500 RPM at 60. I can see taking trips in this vehicle.
I didn’t take the Forester off the pavement, but like other car-based SUVs it’s not really meant for serious off-road driving. It’s meant for balanced handling in everyday driving, and good traction on snow-covered or gravel roads, and there it should do well.
Safety
I’ve already mentioned the Forester’s relatively flat cornering. Side airbags large enough to protect the head and chest and ABS are both standard. Subarus have tended to do very well in recent crash tests. Overall the Forester seems about as safe as a 3,250-pound vehicle can be.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The rest of this section is from when the review was originally written.
For an extended comparative analysis of the non-turbo Forester’s pricing, see my review of the 2003 here. Until the Saturn VUE becomes available with a 3.5-liter Honda V6 later this year, the Forester XT has no obvious competition.
The XT costs $1,825 more than the XS, which seems reasonable. Automatic adds $800. The sunroof and leather add $1,750. With the XT, unlike the XS, they have to be bought together. The price of the non-premium pack automatic XT I drove was $26,320. I hope to drive the manual in the future; one was not in stock at the time. Why Subaru feels the sunroof and leather make no sense with the manual I do not know.
Last Words
I was much more impressed with the Forester than I expected to be. It’s practically package and stylish inside, handles very well for this class of vehicle, and is affordably priced. It seems a much better buy all-around than Subaru’s more expensive Outback, as it’s more stylish, nearly as roomy, more fun to drive, and less expensive. The turbo only tilts the balance more in the Forester’s favor.
Yet all is not perfect. A truly sporting Forester would be nice. Having black as the only interior color suggests a sporty intent, but the suspension, wheels, tires, and seats suggest that the XT is meant for mainstream drivers who simply want more power.
As a commenter on my 2003 review pointed out, the WRX is the Subaru for enthusiasts. But I find myself wanting a bit more refinement, room, and upscale interior ambiance than that vehicle offers. A truly sporting Forester makes since even with the WRX in the picture.
Given the additional potential suggested by the turbo, I was not quite as impressed by the Forester XT as I was by the less powerful XS last year. The engine is a definite improvement, but the package feels less complete. So my rating declines from five to four stars. Call it four-and-a-half if you will. But there’s room for improvement here. I imagine the aftermarket will do something if Subaru doesn’t.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com.
Alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.