Looking at a Forester, but something doesn't add up...

[Fingie]

here in finland we have a lot of ice, and winter tires are mandatory. We drive studded tires about from November to mid-April.

My awd GT-FOUR celica has old studded Nokian tires (Hakkapeliitta 4, developed for finnish conditions).

It may go forward with any tires, but gosh try to turn in a downhill icy curve if you had all-seasoners on, in an awd with a light rear.

Even in the summer, my FWD War wagon has studless winters up front, but that's because i'm poor, and had to mix tire sets due to a popped tire.

But at least I have rain tires back...

[RedDevil]

I would choose anything Japanese with a top tier winter tires...

If 4WD is mandatory I'd take an Impreza over a Forester, unless the ground clearance becomes an issue. The non-WRC models get better economy that the Forester.
If you want comfort get a Legacy.

But no matter what get good quality winter tires. I was cynical about winter tires and regretted being forced to use them, but then I was astonished to find how much more grip they offer.

[Fingie]

used winter tires are good for loose gravel, too,

[cosmick]

First, all else being equal, a manual trans versus a decent automatic with a lockup torque converter, is about 1 mpg difference. But the manual needs at least 60% more mechanical gear reduction to make up for no torque converter.
Second, when i took my Cherokee off-road, the only time i used low range was on descents, otherwise i would have been on the brakes ALL the way down, i know, i tried it twice just to compare. With low range and second gear, it held itself to 15 mph without ever touching the brakes once. The 4.0L with a very good torque converter, a lame 2.80:1 first, and a reasonable 3.55:1 in the axles, was enough to climb over anything the 235/75R15 street radials could climb over, without low range. But with low range, i was able to pull a broken Toyota 4 Runner up 40% grade, on a trail rated a difficulty level of 5, which no stock Subie can even do when not towing anything.
GM ruined the 4.3 after 93, the extra power is nice, but not necessary. The S10 was offered with a manual in the 4.3L 4x4, but why? The S-10 also has a full frame, the Subie doesnt.
And the final nail in the coffin, there is a guy that has cared for his 4.3 in his Astro delivery van past a million miles without a rebuild, no Subie ever did half that.
Don't make me bring the icing on the cake, just man up and admit defeat. You can't beat the facts of a genius with the wrong opinions of a dork.

[redpoint5]

The manual tranny on the Subie is WAY better than the auto. Not only does it get about 4 MPG better fuel economy, but it accelerates much quicker. The auto tranny is both sluggish and inefficient. I briefly (1 month) owned a 2007 Subaru Outback and tried everything I knew to get good fuel economy, but averaged just 23 MPG. That was one of the reasons I went back to my 1996 Legacy, it got 28 MPG and was quicker and more agile.

Once in my years of owning the Legacy I could have used a low range. In first gear at full throttle, I was unable to climb a hill, even with a running start. Of course, it didn't help that I had 4 passengers and all of our camping and climbing gear.

BTW- The only things replaced on the Legacy in 240,000 miles was spark plugs, plug wires, tires, battery, oil/filter, wiper blades, and maybe a couple headlight bulbs. The cat had died, but I don't live in a DEQ area, so I didn't care.

What is the MPG of the Cherokee?

[Hersbird]

Nobody is looking for a rock crawler. From my experience the vast majority of roads and trails out there can be handled by a stock forester. Some trails have obstacles, but most are placed not as an obstacle to the route buto as a side thing people go over for fun not necessity. Lately the forest service has been closing all the bad roads anyway to all vehicles. The 4.0 jeep motor is great, I had a 95 grand before my Forester. It got 13mpg doing the same day to day routine the forster gets 25. The Jeep motor died at 165k where the Forester is still going strong. I think they both fit about the same amount of gear and people. I paid $3000 for the Jeep, drove it 3 years, the motor dropped 2 cylinders and I sold it for $700. The Forester cost $3000 I have had it 3 years, the clutch died so I spent $400 and did everything headgaskets, timing belt, water pump, and the clutch. It is worth more then $3000 now. I like them both a bunch, both went everywhere I wanted, but the Forester is less expensive to operate.

[gumby79]

On topic: was only one of the test subjects a Forester XT (turbo streched WRX including suspension )model? . Ground clearance higher than the NA + shorter over all hight. Put 24000mi on my 06 XT in one year avg 22 -24 mpg@ 62 =7over limit through 95mph commuting from Klamath Falls, OR to Sparks, Nv chasing seniority with Union Pacific Railroad.
***manual transmission with hillholder feature(maintains brake pressure when the clutch is pushed) ****
Grate till your moving to slow for abs hit the cluch and light brakes it engageds now gota let the cluch out to unhillhold/4 wheel sliding. Feature kinda sucks on slower than walking speed decents, It requires neutral trans to maintain control when 1 gear is to fast . loved the car vary comfortable for me 6'3".
How about a Jeep Library TDI diesel? Has low and 20+mpg. I've been looking at them as a winter hiway cruiser (mountainous )summer trail truck.

[NoD~]

Gumby,

I'm confused about the ride height and ground clearance. Aren't they the same chassis/body? Not sure how it could go up and be shorter. Don't know all that much about them, though.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by NoD~

Gumby,

I'm confused about the ride height and ground clearance. Aren't they the same chassis/body? Not sure how it could go up and be shorter. Don't know all that much about them, though.

The Forester is the highest, the base sedan the lowest, the Outback Sport somewhere in between. The seat in the Forester also sits higher and the cabin is taller.
So a 2002 Forester has 7.5" clearance
a 2002 Impreza outback sport has 6.3"
and a 2002 WRX has 6.1"
the 2002 RS sedan is only 5.9"

The XT came out in 2004 and is a bit higher at 7.7" but think it is automatic only (never mind, only the premium versions are automatic only)

There are aftermarket lift kits that involve strut spacers and a trailing arm spacer to recenter the rear axle. There are also body lifts available. You can also add the Australian 2 speed transfer case if you really wanted. I like mine stock, I still run all season tires although I have punctured 2 of them off road. That will be my first change but 3 years later they still have tons of tread left I don't think they are ever going to wear out! I do run studded snow in the winter, those were worn more to begin with and now are about worn down on studs but still have lots of tread left.

here is all things Subaru specs
Subaru Research Site- specs, prices, options, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013.... Outback, Legacy, Forester, XV Crosstrek, Hybrid, WRX, STI, Impreza, BRZ, Tribeca

[MobilOne]

Anybody seen a Brat running around in recent years?