2008 Subaru Forester 2.5X

[Al]

15K miles on it. Bought it in Sept 07. Bottom of the line but it is well equipped. It has an auto dimming mirror with a LCD compass built in. It does have plastic wheel covers and rear drum. It is non-turbo.

There is nothing about the vehicle I don't like. The AWD is probably the best system out there. Unlike other AWD it will climb with zero traction to the front wheels.

I get 25 and 30 highway. But I am very careful. If you get the turbo and run it hard its 16 to 22 mpg. To me the turbo is totally un-necessary.

I know the quality of all vehicles is high. The Forester's quality is as good as it gets. The auto-transmission is only 4 speed but it is very positive and when you get on it you can feel the power going to the rear wheels.

The 2.5 has very very good low end torque. The reason I get so good a mileage is that I can drive around at about 1600 rpm near the lug point and my Used Oil analysis show no problem. The engine uses almost zero oil.

Can't say enough good about the vehicle.My son has a CRV it is a good vehicle with more interior room than the Subaru. The Subaru just feels better....not saying it is.

The Forester has grown in size a bit starting with 2009. For further information:
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/index.php?

 

[cos]

Glad to hear ya like it. As for lugging a 4 banger around 1600 rpm - be careful. I'd rather use a bit more gas then risk lugging my Fusion's Mazda 2.3 which gets 29 MPG in suburban driving.

 

[Eddie]

Sounds like my 2000 NA Forester which I sold running like new at 127,000 miles. The AT will NOT let you lug the engine. The Subaru is so much better overall quality than my Mazda CX7 which is a joy to drive.

 

[cos]

I didn't know it was auto. I have a stick.

 

[BrianWC]

When I got my CR-V in 2002, I was picking between the V, the Saturn Vue, and the Forester. I really wanted the Forester as they were just coming out with the restyle back then. But the nearest Scoobie dealer at the time was a couple hours away and the salesman I spoke with on the phone was a jerk. So I went w/ the Honda as I figured it would hold up better than the Vue.

I'm glad I settled on the CR-V verses the Forester since it became our station wagon, basically, hauling the three kids around all the time (and loads of junk). But I still wish I had at least taken a spin in the Forester before buying something else.

 

[MolaKule]

Glad you like it Al.

How does it perform in deep snow. I drove one the other day (Interior quality was as good as any) in a test drive but was concerned about clearance in high snow drifts.

Are all these Sube engines 4-cylinder opposing?

 

[Johnny]

MolaKule,

I had a 2002 Forester and had no problems at all getting around in the snows of Northern Wisconsin. I wish I still had that car, but the wife wanted more room. I am thinking about getting a new one this fall.

All are 4-cylinder opposing except for the van, and it is a 6-cylinder opposing. Great engines.

 

[saaber1]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
...All are 4-cylinder opposing except for the van, and it is a 6-cylinder opposing. Great engines.


The legacy outback also has a 3.0L 6 cylinder flat engine available (Tribeca is a 3.6l) and in europe they have a flat diesel engine (projected to be available in the us in 2010). People that have that 3.0 flat 6 rave about it.

 

[JHZR2]

glad to hear it... going to be helping my wife's best friend buy her first car up in the states (driving is a lot different compared to the USVI). Her mother is concerned about snow and whatnot, so a small, AWD vehicle is in the cards if for no other reason than peace of mind.

The forester, legacy sedan and imprezza 5dr are tops on the list right now...

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC

I'm glad I settled on the CR-V verses the Forester since it became our station wagon, basically, hauling the three kids around all the time (and loads of junk).


Sorry, I dont get your point... are you implying that the CR-V somehow serves better as a hauler/station wagon than a vue or forester would? Is it much larger inside?

THis will be important insight per my post just above, so I look forward to learning what you mean

Thanks,

JMH

 

[BrianWC]

Verses the Forester of that same vintage, yes. Don't know about the Vue. With all seats down, the 2002 (2nd gen) CR-V can handle 72 cubic feet of cargo verses 64 cubes for the 2003 Forester, which was the new offering that summer. Passenger-wise, it's 106 cubic feet for the CR-V verses 92 for the Forester. I've been able to cram an unreal amount of stuff in the back of the V.

But, if we are speaking of new models, I know the newest V lost some space in the redesign and that the new Forester has gained some. So they may be equal.