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

I'm looking at an AWD vehicle for many things: Comfy road trips (with 3+ people), safe winter/snow driving, camping, gravel/dirt/offroad, and a reliable backup vehicle.

The Forester is what comes up again and again when I compare to all the options out there. Being I like a low price with more maintenance VS buying newer, I'm eyeballing the 1st and 2nd generations (97-01, 02-08).

Here's where I'm seeing an issue... The weight difference is very little, the engine/trans seem the same, the cD I could find is 0.40 for the 1st gen and 0.35 for the 2nd gen... but the EPA rating is the exact same for MPG.

Is the EPA wrong, the cD incorrect, or am I missing something else?

I think the awd automatic Subaru has so much mechanical drag it over weighs the aero. They are great cars, just not the best for fuel economy. There are better and worse series of engines, as far as head gaskets go, do some research.

I was comparing Manual to Manual. (I avoid auto's every chance I get!)

I've seen the headgasket issue come up a lot... depending on the deal I get, I might be rebuilding the entire engine anyways. :) Fairly cheap to rebuild VS the cost of very low mileage (though I'm aware it's not exactly the same).

When i was an automotive machinist, the flow of Subie heads needing to get milled flat was endless. They warp because the decks are already too thin, then milling them flat makes them even thinner, then they warp again and become junk.
Subies are not efficient, they aren't true 4wd, the sntire engine is ahead of the front axle centerline, they have no redeeming virtues.
Honestly, you want a late 80s, up to 93, S-Blazer. The 4.3L with auto can do 28 mpg highway with 3.42 gears in the axles, you can make them true 4wd, they can do everything you ask of your Subie, with more space, more reliability, a low range in the transfer case, no reliability concerns, they can fit bigger tires, they can approach 300,000 miles, there's nothing to dislike.
Plus you can do an LSx / T56 swap, for triple the HP with no loss of MPG. Turbo that, you can reach 1000 HP. Eff a Subie.

Cosmick goes too far in putting down Subaru. Sure, you won't be doing vertical rock climbing in one, but the offroad capabilities are substantial. Ground clearance is the only thing that stopped me in my 1996 Legacy. I've pulled many pickup trucks out of the ditch on snowy days. The neutral handling in slick conditions is excellent.

The head gasket issue is no joke. Just plan to loose one every 100k. To have this known problem over several decades of manufacturing seems outrageous to me. I will say that my 1996 Legacy never had a head gasket leak in over 240,000 miles. Perhaps the 2.2L engine doesn't have the problem?

The manual transmission is the way to go. The auto is just too sluggish and gets far worse fuel economy. I averaged 28 MPG in my old Legacy.

You might consider a RAV 4 or CRV, although I don't have any experience with them.

This is the video that convinced me that the subaru would be the way to go VS the other models mentioned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OzK-oRPCbs

I'm a ways away from an actual purchase. Wanna save up and buy outright, whatever I get.

I guess more than anything out of this thread: How can 2 cars with the same engine/trans and weight, but different cD get the same MPG ratings?

Headgaskets can and do go longer then 100,000. Mine went 160k on a 2002 and really wasn't a problem just a small oil leak. The clutch was done and the easiest way to do the clutch is to pull the motor, so I also did timing belt and pullies, water pump, headgaskets for a grand total of $400 in parts. About an 8 hour job for me a mailman with basic tools and a harbor freight cherry picker. What kills the gaskets is the basic design. The flat 4 keeps oil and coolant pooled next to the gasket when off, also poor grounding makes that aera part of the electrical circuit. Keep the grounds good and clean, maybe add one, keep the coolant fresh and I bet the gaskets go even longer then mine did. No need to rebuild it when doing the gaskets, mine still had beautiful cylinder walls at 165k. Big deal a blazer getting 28 on the highway, I get that doing short trip, stop and go city driving. I can drive forever up to and in the mountains on that little 13 gallon tank.
Also if you do get a Forester stuck, one guy and a hi-lift jack and a tow strap will make quick work of it. When we go my Hemi full size SUV stuck this spring it too 6 guys 8 hours to get it out and even the 4wd F450 tow truck got stuck trying.

Meh, I'd rather have front wheel drive with a good set of snow tires than a Subaru all wheel drive with four-season tires on it.

Four wheel drive does nothing for slippery handling (in spite of manufacturers suggestions that it's somehow safer). The most it can do is get you moving more easily on a slippery surface, but then not as well as a fwd car with snow tires on it. And every car made in the last 80 years has four wheel brakes.

Next time it snows, look at the proportion of cars in the ditch on the side of the road due to Awd/4wd induced over confidence. Then go buy your basic sedan/hatch a set of winter steelies and tires.

The Myth of All-Powerful All-Wheel Drive

Look at the difference in stopping distance with all season vs snow tires... really tells the story:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...snow/index.htm

Why am I comparing awd/4wd with all seasons to 2wd with snows? Because people plunk down their extra money for 4wd and think "good enough." And pay higher maintenance costs, and pay for all the extra gas they burn. And aren't any safer (or less safe considering 4wd is like the devil's right hand, it can get you into trouble but it can't get you out).

My alternative is much cheaper AND uses less gas. Especially if you're willing to swap the wheels yourself in the late fall/early spring.

Sam

I was recently reading a thread on Anandtech that ended up touching on the head gasket problem:

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads...#post-38507815

As redpoint5 speculated, apparently it's the 2.5L and not the 2.2 that has major problems.

Maybe the 2nd gen has a little more area that negates the better Cd? Have you considered an Outback?

NoD~ said they want AWD for winter and for some offroading. If winter was their only reason for AWD, I would also be suggesting FWD instead. Yes, it should get snow tires for the winter, but it'll probably do much better offroad than most FWD cars.

I'm not sure how much off roading you want to do.

I'm a huge fan of winter tires. I drove rear-drive Volvos in New England for 13 years. I NEVER had to play second fiddle to any 4WD on the road. I always had 4 winter tires on the car. I put some weight in the back over the drive wheels and passed most other vehicles on the snowed-over interstate.

Its NOT a matter of how many tires are grasping at the slippery snow. It's a matter of whether they can grab it. Modern winter tires do an amazing job. And a few of them are also excellent in icy conditions. I've had excellent ice traction from Michelin X-Ice 2's and 3's. I've just ordered Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2's for my Honda Insight, similar technology to the X-ice series. AND those are all LRR tires. Nice bonus.

Winter tyres are mandatory here. For good reason. They really work.

From what I've read (but have not yet experienced), the Insights are pretty terrible winter cars, due to the offset wheel. So there's a strike against the idea of simply throwing winter tires on it. Second, my Neon had me stuck in my driveway (somewhat long gravel road) to where I had to put my cables on to get out (and even then, it was quite a show!). Third, when the snow melts, there's some pretty nasty mud. So that's just my reasoning for an AWD on a winter-only basis on a daily drive alone.

On overconfidence, I'm not your average driver. (Hell, I'm here, aren't I?!) my work has an AWD Jeep Charoke that the AWD helps quite a bit, but only a fool would drive it like there's no snow/ice on the ground! And AWD doesn't do any good for stopping... ;) So yeah, well aware of what having 4 wheels spinning vs 2 can do for me. lol

I took the Insight into the hills to get to a trail head and got stuck in gravel. On top of that, the roads were pretty harsh on my little DD, so I want to make sure I get something that can take that abuse. Especially since I plan on hitting much harder to reach trails in the future!

And 1 other thing: I want a backup vehicle for in case my Insight has issues.

I've driven (and raced) FWD cars my whole life. I just want to experience AWD and have a ton of room for comfortable travels.

(all that said, I'm not sold on anything, just noticed the cD differences, yet the same MPG, was curious if anybody had more info on this)

It's all about tires. I picked up a set of Nokian Nordmans for my Insight, and I can't count how many times last winter I drove around my in-laws' 2014 Prius which couldn't get out of the driveway (Cooper winter tires), and I pulled my dad's F150 out of a snow-bank (Firestone winter tires). I also pulled my wife's HCH1 up the driveway with some rope one time. I can't remember what tires are on the HCH1, but they were there when I bought the car, maybe Douglas winter tires?

Anyway, with the Nokians, the Insight outperformed all of these vehicles which had "lesser" tires, in anything that wasn't so deep it bottomed out. Maybe if they all had the same tires it would be different, but YMMV.

Just because you had a good experience with one doesn't make it any better, it just means your standards are really low. If yours seemed that good tk you, then you can't imagine how much better the best is. It isn't flawless, but it is worlds better in every practical way.
But you have a right to your opinion, go ahead and waste the fruits of your money tree. Those of us who have to be wise with what we have to work hard for will be laughing at you.

Is that directed at me? I guess I waste my money by spending an extra $20 per tire rather than buying a new car, so I can go cut down that money tree down now. I probably ought to be wise and work with the new car I don't have yet.

I don't like Subaru engines so much as I used to do, but their AWD setup is good. As long as you get it with the manual transmission, and IIRC it also features a dual-range selector, it might serve you right.

The Forester uses small inexpensive tires compared to most 4wds, and they seem to last forever with even wear. I agree you will see 4wds in the ditch, but not may subies. I put on studded snow tires for winter and the awd does help handling in poor conditions over fwd if you are experienced in driving. You can induce under or oversteer with awd. It produces overconfidence because it is better. It is pretty much fun compared to the white knuckles everyone else are experiencing. So yeah, some people drive like an idiot, but it doesn't make you one, I bet you started out that way. I paid $3000 for my Forester 3 years ago did the $400 maintenance I talked about before plus an alternator and a strut for anther $175 or so. It's just a great car for all the things the OP discussed. As to the original question, the EPA doesn't get very fast, maybe it's just not enough difference to show up in the EPA cycle. The real world it should help to get the later.

Oh and one more thing, the Forester tows pretty well. The US says 2000 pounds but the identical car in South Africa is 4400 pounds. I tow a 5x8' trailer or a waverunner pretty often and it does great.

AWD in the wet isn't just for getting going. With a manual it's the best set of gentle brakes you can find, and your foot never even leaves the pedal.

It also really shines in lane changes during snow- when there's a ridge in the middle of the lane and another one between the lanes. When both wheels on one side are in that muck you've still got two drive wheels on pavement.

My 05 Legacy was limping badly by the time it went away, but the only parts on it at the time that hadn't been on it when it left the factory were the tires and spark plugs.

AH! That's the other requirement I forgot! I put a small tow hitch on my Neon and it did decent. Most I ever pulled was around 700lbs or so. I have my covered trailer and I really would like to be able to tow that again. Insight definitely isn't going to be able to do this task! (at least, with my confidence in that realm of her...)

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...

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.

used winter tires are good for loose gravel, too,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Anybody seen a Brat running around in recent years?

I hope the current owner of my Forester has a better experience than I had, but if you can wait to replace the head gasket until you change the timing belt, it works out much better.

Good luck!