I have a 1999 Subaru Forester with about 125,000 miles on it. I am shopping for a new car & am considering another Forester, but there are a few things I don't like about my 1999 model.
-The seatbelts - none of them retract smoothly; they often jam.
-The retractable cargo cover -- three or four years ago, the little plastic stoppers that hold the cover over began wearing out/coming off (I fix them sporadically with duct tape).
-Oil consumption -- this car has always consumed an unusually large amount of oil -- maybe a quart a month. No mechanic has ever figured out why that is.
-Backseat leg room -- very meager.
So, if you own a new or late model Forester, can you tell me if you have trouble with the seat belts, cargo cover, or oil consumption? I hope that in subsequent model years those flaws were corrected.
I have a (USA) 2005 Forester 2.5XT with 18,000 miles, no problems whatsover. And while I check the oil weekly, I see ZERO oil consumption betwen oil changes.
I went from a '98 to an '03 three years ago when my '98 was totaled. Did not have seat belt or oil problems with either but I don't put on high mileage. Think cargo cover is the same and I had same problem with old one. Cup holders changed to avoid spillage on radio, out door thermometer added and automatic shifter indexed. Roof rack eliminates screwed in ridges which could have been leak point. I've been happy with my Foresters and will get one for my wife if/when her Nissan dies. Frank
I have a 2001 Forester S automatic with premium package. Rear leg room is definitely tight. But other issues you mention don't seem to apply in my case. One complaint I have: the engine isn't powerful enough, especially at higher elevations...every day driving (I don't live in mountain area) is fine...but whenever I go to the mountains, the engine power (or is it transmission?) seem not very strong.
(USA 2005 XT) That's where the XT shines. No problems with a lack of power at higher elevations. Driving through Mountain Pass between Las Vegas and Baker (I-15), it cruises right along passing most other cars. I live in the Las Vegas metro area regularly drive it up into the local Spring Mountains for hiking trips. The Lee Canyon route is from
2500' (town) to 7800' (trailheads) carrying 4 adults with hiking gear. No shuttling back and forth between gears like other cars I have been in on that road.. While up in the Lake Tahoe area it cruised along on US-50 climbing up to the Tahoe basin from both the Placerville and the Carson City sides. On one side trip we drove up from Gardnerville into Stateline via the Kingsbury Grade and had fun driving on the twisty mountain road. On the way home we stopped into visit the Inyo National Forest, Bristlecone Pine (Patriarch Grove). This route starts climbing in Big Pine, CA, at just under 4000' and ends at about 11000'. Excellent performer. Complaints? (Sort of, but not really) The turbo requires the use of premium grade gas 91/93 octane. That puts the fuel cost at 20 cents per gallon more than regular. The other problem is with have a faster car, you tend to drive a little faster, and the gas mileage drops as you push the turbo. . But to me it's worth a few extra dollars a week in fuel costs.
These stats are from Car & Driver
2006 model:
formatting link
0 to 30 mph in 1.5 sec Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec Zero to 100 mph: .15.8 sec Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection Displacement: 150 cu in, 2457cc Power (SAE net): 230 bhp @ 5600 rpm Torque (SAE net): 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm C/D-observed fuel economy: 18 mpg
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.