Forester Power/XS vs. XT/Question

In choosing between the XS (Premium w/ 5 speed) and the XT (with 5 speed) does the XS have sufficient power (165 HP) for day to day needs? Will it handle

80MPH for sustained lengths of time without huffing and puffing? Or is the turbo at 210 HP really needed?

Thanks.

Reply to
TimePixDC
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Edward Hayes

I would avoid a turboed engine. The only case I would consider a turbo is in a sports car where I was willing to sacrifice engine life for raw speed, the WRX for example, or an Audi TT :::evil grin:::. I don't own a subaru yet, but am going to buy a used Forester soon, and I hear nothing but good things about the base 165hp engine. Seeing that you're getting a 5 speed, and a 5 speed makes the 165hp feel a bit more peppy, as it does for any engine, you should be fine.

-T

Reply to
T

The XT is almost sports car fast. I don't think anyone needs that kind of speed but if you are an enthusiast who has practicality requirements, the XT (or even WRX Wagon) may be just the ticket.

I would urge you to test drive both though. In particular, take an on-ramp with the power-zapping A/C on.

CW

Reply to
CW

My 2003 XS Premium with 5 speed runs great at 80MPH. I pull a fairly long steep hill on the interstate (speed limit 75) without shifting down to 4th. This hill really separates the cars. You can tell which small cars have automatics because they fall behind. I haven't driven the XT, and I bet it's fun as hell, but the XS with 5 speed has plenty of power.

-DanD

Reply to
Dan Duncan

I just bought a 2001 Forester S 5sp. Living in Colorado, I get plenty of opportunity to drive in the mountains with lots of inclines, and winding roads. This being my first Subaru, I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the power this car has while driving in the mountains. I agree a turbo would be fun as hell, but since I use my car to drive around all day (service tech) I dont need the extra hp of a turbo.

Reply to
Paul

I picked up a 2003 XS prem. 5-speed last May. My answers are yes to the first two questions and no the last, IMO. The Forester XS will handle day to day tasks with great ease and efficiency and with power to spare. It will handle 80 mph driving for long stretches no problem.

I also concur with a previous response to this query. A turbo requires more dedicated maintenance on the owners part every single day, a higher octane requirement which translates to higher fuel costs, and is overall costlier to own in the long run. Is something like that really necessary? To me it's not. A lot of people I talk to are having a lot of fun with the added hp of the FXT and to them the turbo makes all the difference in the world. Your mileage my vary.

My question for you is this: What car are you currently driving? If you own a 400 hp Dodge Viper, you may find the power of the non-turbo Forester to be a bit disappointing. I owned a 1998 Audi A4 2.8L V6 Quattro for five years before getting my Forester. That car listed at

190 hp. I haven't been disappointed at all going from the A4 to the Forester. In fact the Forester really really surprised me in comparison. The combination of all-wheel drive and the way the boxer engine transfers power directly to the drive train is quite a package. To sum it up quickly, I was driving a more powerful car before this, and I'm finding the 165 hp Forester to be more powerful than I ever imagined overall. I thought stepping down in power would be my one regret in going from the A4 to the Forester, but I'm finding that isn't the case at all.
Reply to
Archie

Just to make it unanimous, my AT 04 Forester XS handles 500-800 mile day trips running 75-80 mph with no problem. Unlike some of the others, if I drive at 80 all day, the mileage does not stay at 27 - 31 mpg, it seems to drop to 25.... Other than for competition, I'd say go with the XS! I'm plenty happy with mine. I must add that I value reliability and economy and adequate performance over high performance any time! That may not be you!

Reply to
GTT

There is a LOOOOONG upgrade on 395 in nevada a bit north of where route i120 thru yosemite exits. That's were you'd clutch for power and wish you'd had a turbo. If you drive on flats you can probably live without turbo. It's a question of whether your ego needs a boost and, if so, a low or high boost :^)

Reply to
John Opezdol

I forgot to add in my original message that I also live in Colorado. I live at 6000 feet, work at 5280 feet, and drive over a 7000 foot continental divide betwixt the two. My non-turbo Forester has less horsepower at this altitude and I still find it has plenty. If the original poster lives closer to sea level, he will have even more performance than we do!

-DanD

Reply to
Dan Duncan

the higher mechanical compression ratio of the NA engine will translate to better low rpm torque. most people generally relate this to "driveability" since motoring around town will be in an rpm range from idle to 4k rpms.

on the other hand, if you like tinkering around with your cars, and would love a sleeper, then get the xt... much more stuff to play with, especially when the aftermarket ECU market gets rolling.

btw, the 210hp of the xt is underrated, by all accounts.

jm2c ken

Reply to
Ken Gilbert

Most certainly underrated.

M>

Reply to
Lord Drool Rockworm

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.