Back in the day, Subaru couldn’t afford to build a new vehicle to compete in the smoking hot SUV sector. So they took an Impreza, jacked it up a couple of inches, raised the roof and reskinned the body. The result was a hit, and helped define the modern small CUV. Ten years later, the Subaru Forester battles on, facing its third gen competitors (Honda CRV and Toyota RAV4) with nothing more than a few questionable sheet metal creases, a spiffed up interior, and the addition of the turbocharged XT model. The CUV pool’s getting more crowded by the day, and, compared to the Subie’s well-worn REI fleece, the competition looks like its wearing designer duds. We checked out an XT to answer a simple question: is it a classic or a relic?
The basic package hasn’t changed, nor should it. The Popemobile proportions (tall windshield and high roof) are a motorized mitzvah for tall drivers. While the result flies in the face of history– when Chrysler President K. T. Keller insisted that tall men should be able to wear fedoras in his cars, he almost killed the company—the resulting visibility is virtually unparalleled. Swoopy cars, low angle windshields and obese pillars be damned; Forester owners want to see who they’re cutting off where they’re parking.
The Forester’s boxy exterior has suffered a reverse face lift (a face drop?): folds and lines have replaced youthful smoothness. Or is it just aging naturally? Something short, ugly and Russian comes to mind; either a Lada Niva or an old babushka. Who cares; the Forester was born ugly, but it remains true to its mother’s wise admonition: “It’s what’s inside that counts.”
And mother’s advice has been well heeded. Compared to lesser Foresters of yore, stepping into the ’07 XT is like visiting your favorite old diner after it’s been turned into the Trattoria de Toscano. Subaru’s replaced the old fabric booth with heated leather seats that wouldn’t be out of place in a German motor. The steering wheel is like putting on expensive leather gloves. The instruments are clean and classic; no trendy gimmicks. The aluminesque center panel is a la mode, but the controls are logical and obvious. Workmanship: a solid B+. A good thing too, because with that lovely big sky-light overhead, flaws have no place to hide.
Unfortunately, there’s one less-then-salubrious carryover: rear leg room. The Forester’s second row is as ergonomically challenged as the third row of a transplant CUV. My teenage son’s solution: stretch his feet out between the front seats. How safe (and smelly) is that?
The Forrester XT’s inner beauty really shines in the engine compartment. The 2.5 liter flat four cranks out 224 horsepower and 226 ft/lbs of torque, and with its inherent nigh-perfect balance, it always stays cool and smooth. It lets you know it’s there with that turbo-whistle, but it’s never objectionable, unless Lexus is your benchmark.
Like most turbos, it’s a little coy at low revs, but once past 3000rpm the sex bomb explodes all the way to its 6500rpm redline. With AWD keeping the XT’s footwear firmly in contact with the pavement, redlining first gear is like high school hot-rod antics for grown-ups: all the fun, but none of the attention-grabbing tell-tale of burning rubber. Second gear takes you to 60mph in just 5.3 seconds. Keep rowing and the quarter mile arrives in 13.8. There’s more bang on offer than you’ll find at a percussionist’s convention.
The XT’s traction, ride and handling are up to the accelerative challenge. The all-season 17” rubber sing their surrender to lateral g-forces too early, but that’s a fair trade-off for getting to the ski lodge. With its low center of gravity (a la boxer engine), SUV vertigo is noticeable by its absence. Whether throwing the machine sideways on blind-corner gravel logging roads, bumping down a rocky path to a hiking trail, making high speed runs on deserted desert roads or barreling through snow, ice, wind and rain; the XT is always supple, accomplished and confident.
When cruising the freeway, the XT’s low gearing is a lot less helpful. I kept reaching out to the shifter in hopes that it had miraculously grown a sixth gear. At 75mph or so, an extra cog would put the revs right at the intersection of turbo-plateau and turbo-boost, in that preferred state of restful alertness rather than futile restlessness. Sigh.
After the styling miscalculation with the B9 Tribeca, trepidation as to what Subaru will throw our way with the next gen Forester is warranted. They seem to be chasing an Audi/Volvoesque styling direction, with highly uneven results. The current Forester may well end up being the last in a long lineage of Subaru funky boxes. Buy or wait? My take: better the devil you know.
90 Comments on “Subaru Forester 2.5 XT Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Coming soon: The Forester STI.
And yes I agree about the gearing. It’s a jackrabbit, but if you’ve got a highway commute…
For all that room, you think they could have moved the second row back a few inches. It’s rare flaw on what is otherwise a good vehicle, but I know a friend of mine specifically did not buy a Forester for that reason. Any word on this being fixed in the future?
Cowbell: It shares Impreza platform/hard-body points; it would have been impossible to move the seat back without major surgery. I assume the next gen will presumably be a bit better in that regard??
5.3 secs to 60? really? The gearing is short and the power is a plenty, but this car is not that light. So this number is amazing. And the 1/4 miles too.
My onl gripe with Subaru is the price. It’s not inexpensive. I’m willing to bet that more than one will exclaim: “How much? for a subaru?”
Why the French pics? Just curious…from a Japanese company with huge US market.
I like these a lot, but the rear seat room was a shocker to me. The vehicle just seems large enough, but I was unaware that it was just an Impreza, not a Legacy base. That’s too bad, because we need to see more of these instead of SUVs. Great cars, and that thing is really quick!
subarus, for all their inherent goodness, have gotta be the homliest line of cars in existance. This from the company that produced the SVX, one of the most gorgeous cars ever!. I wonder if Guigaro pissed them off.
“How much? for a Subaru” My tester was about $29k. Not bad, if you can see it as a poor man’s Cayenne Turbo.
60 mph in 5.3s/13.8s quarter?? You mean from the point when you hit 2nd gear right? If not, I crown this the ultimate stock sleeper!
It’s been wearing the crown for several years now.
guyincognito, the XT beats the Legacy GT in 0-60 time. The GT will do the job in about 5.8. This is irritating to GT owners, but we get it back in increased composure through corners. A well-driven XT on aftermarket tires is able to surprise and annoy many Audi and BMW owners.
“…The Popemobile proportions (tall windshield and high roof) are a motorized mitzvah…” is colorful writing, but inaccurate. A “mitzvah” is Hebrew for “command.” Perhaps you meant blessing, boon, or benefit. By the way, one of my two 2006 Foresters has 60,000 trouble-free miles.
I absolutely love this car. There definitely is something charming about its practicality/performance combination. But I’m still not secure enough to buy one. Even in the [snowy] Northeast it has a 40-year old independent bookstore owner image.
are those performance numbers correct?
Cause a much lighter WRX with a slightly higer-tuned engine hits 60 in 5.6 or so and dusts the quarter in 14.3
SLLTTAC,
Not totally inaccurate — there are positive and negative mitzvahs — as in “Do do something” and “don’t do something.”
So, a “motorized mitzvah” means that the engineers did it right and brought great mazel to Mr. Niedermeyer, who then proceeded to kvel about it.
My dictionary defined mitzvah as “a blessing given by or to a Jewish person”. I’m one-eighth Jewish; I felt blessed.
Jonny: dig this: As per Subaru:
Weight: Forester XT Limited: (manual) 3320
Impreza WRX Limited: (manual) 3294
Impreza WRX (manual) 3252
Sometimes more is (almost) less.
If you check around, other reviews show numbers right about what I have here for the XT.
Paul, not trying to snipe at you here, I just don’t think those numbers are correct.
to wit: here’s C&D’s “Ten Fastest Cars under $25k” thingy.
The Forrester XT is tenth of ten, clocking in a 5.9 seconds to sixty, running the quarter in 14.3 and tipping the scales at 3324lbs.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12239/2007-subaru-forester-25xt.html
Jonny-
Maybe they’re not so good rowing the gears at C&D compared to Paul.
I checked several on-line dictionaries and all defined mitzvah as command, obligation, or precept. None defined the word as blessing. Nonetheless, I liked your report, though I may be biased because I have four Subarus, including my 2007 spec.B.
Dorktastic!!!
And I was raving about the F-XT on the Impreza hatch post. I had no idea you were about to double-Sube us today!
While the sticker is high for your loaded tester model, you can get a XT with less content. Our local Sube
beggarsdealers still had a 2004(!) Forester XT on the lot BRAND NEW six months ago. I wasn’t buying that day so I didn’t get serious with them but I suspect that $25K sticker car could be easily had for the mid-to-high teens.Jonny: Keep looking, there’s several others similar to mine. Here’s one:
http://dragtimes.com/Subaru-Forester-Timeslip-6090.html
Maybe Subaru’s fudging the power numbers, but I keep seeing faster times for the XT than the WRX. Sorry.
SLLTTAC,
Please take it from someone whose first language was Yiddish — he used Mitzvah absolutely correctly.
Not bad for an Austrian.
Encarta was my dictionary; blame Bill Gates
The Forester is a sweet car. My brother had one and after some suspension modifications to keep the body roll under control and some ECU tweaking it was a sleeper rocket. On the track it was faster than a stock WRX and not that much behind his STI.
I hope Subaru doesn’t mess it up with a B9esque redesign.
Yes, the 0-60 time is correct. And actually the Forester is lighter than a WRX. So it has some advantage, but two totally different cars.
The only thing I don’t like about the Forester is the exterior styling (too boxy and the headlights need to go) and the body lean. Other than that, it’s pretty amazing.
13.8 in the quarter? Sorry Paul, I’m not buying it.
Your link is to a modified Forester. Those who have modified a turbo car know how much faster they get when you dump the OEM exhaust, ECM calibrations and run a boost controller. The short shifter doesn’t hurt, either.
JL’s figures make more sense.
Ugh, I’m getting shpilkes in my geneckteckessoink!
how come last year the Forester XT and Legacy GT and outback XT had 250hp and now they have 224hp from the same displacement?
maybe the performance numbers are correct and they are underrating the power figures
NICKNICK:
My guess is that it’s because the SAE revised horsepower ratings standards, and most companies saw downward adjustment even though the engines are identical.
that identical engine makes 300hp in the STI — it is a matter of tuning and exhaust — all set to various price-points.
Turbo engines are the marketing department’s dream.
I think at that price point I would shell out the extra dinero for a outback xt or legacy gt wagon and shed the “female physical education teacher” image of the Forester.
Sajeev: Man, you guys are doubting Thomases. Are you too WRX invested? I kept looking, and found this; it is a little old, but then so is the Forester:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/6854/subaru-forester-25xt-page2.html
Can I go have my (WRX) lunch now?
Ringer.
Nice review. The Impreza WRX got the Forester XT’s 2.5L turbo for 2006. Previous WRX’s had the 2.0L with noticeably less torque. So I’m in the WRX camp on this one, especially if we’re talking about the stripped down “tuner ready” trim. But hey, nobody’s calling the XT slow.
Fun review. I laughed several times.
the Forrester is a high wagon. Dimension-wise, it’s like a slightly smaller scale version of an early ’50s wagon (if you don’t remember back that far, think HHR). It is definitely not an SUV, and the CUV concept is all marketing hype, and no substance, unless it refers to a wagon with an absurdly small way-back. I think the term CUV should be banned on TTAC, unless some marketeer is being quoted.
The Forrester has all the style of a plaid flannel shirt, but it makes up for that with the headroom, the steep windshield, which you could probably see out of even if the wipers failed, and the ample visibility. It deserves praise.
Justin Berkowitz:
I absolutely love this car. There definitely is something charming about its practicality/performance combination. But I’m still not secure enough to buy one. Even in the [snowy] Northeast it has a 40-year old independent bookstore owner image.
Thanks, Justin, for my best laugh of the week so far!!! It’s true! This is the perfect car to drive around western Mass–Lenox, Shelburne Falls, the Edith Wharton house, The Omega Institute (never been), Tanglewood, etc. Road trip!!!
David (a fellow inhabitant of the snowy northeast–lex, ma)
Jonny Lieberman:
So, a “motorized mitzvah” means that the engineers did it right and brought great mazel to Mr. Niedermeyer, who then proceeded to kvel about it.
All this humor is bringing me some great mazel. Keep it up!
I’ll vouch for the validity of Paul’s 0-60 stat. C&D pulled 5.3 seconds in a road test of the ‘03 Forester XT.
However, Subaru seems to slip the press ringers for testing whenever a new model drops. C&D’s earliest tests of the WRX had the cars running 5.4 seconds to 60–a stat that was soon reflected in Subaru’s print ads, replacing their original claim of 5.8 seconds.
Naturally, C&D hasn’t gotten a WRX (or related 9-2X Aero) to 60 in less than 6.0 seconds since 2003.
A greater issue, though, is the disparity between turbocharged AWD vehicles’ 0-60 times and how strong they actually feel. Sure, when you rev the engine up to max boost, dump the clutch, and leave the line with four-wheel traction, you’re guaranteed a stellar time. But a rolling start, where wheelspin *isn’t* an issue and throttle lag *is*, levels the playing field.
Thus, C&D’s 5-60 stat paints a more accurate picture of that 2003 XT’s subjective strength: 6.3 seconds. More recently, a 2006 XT did the same feat in 7.6.
The exterior design of Subarus is probably going in an “Audi or Volvo direction” because they have the same target demographic. There is a company in Portland, Oregon that made its reputation providing aftermarket parts to Volvo owners – iPd is the acronym it goes by – and they now offer parts for Subaru.
When they started to do that, they announced, in their newsletter, they’d found through a survey, that most of their customers also had a Subaru. Volvo used to be the unofficial “car of Seattle,” from what I used to see. Now, that car (or SUV) has been replaced, in that regard, by Subaru. Perhaps we could chalk it up to the benefits of all-wheel-drive.
The Forester, it is an outstanding, well-balanced machine which, to my mind, might really have pioneered the concept of “crossover” vehicles. Mechanically, I can’t imagine improving on it; but as far as the exterior, there’s a lot a designer could do. I saw my first Edge, last night; too bad the Forester doesn’t have its lines.
Just curious – why would anyone buy a Forester over a Outback wagon? The Outback wagon has more cargo capacity and ground clearance and handles better. I have no problems with CUVs/SUVs, but this one just strikes me as odd, and I have a hard time believing anyone would by the Forester because of its looks/image.
krick: it’s shorter, faster, better visibility, and if you’re tall, like me, the high roof is…a motorized mitzvah. There are few “cars” I feel comfortable in, because of the inevitable cranial encroachment. Plus, some (many?) prefer the timeless boxiness of the Forester. BTW, ground clearance is the same.
Subaru is the spiritual successor to the Volvos and Saabs of yore. Why? They’re practical, available in wagon form, fun to drive, safe, a little different from everything else (i.e. they’re not a Toyonda), and most of all, they’re in the sweet spot price range. More expensive than competitors but less than luxury marques.
My home for 4 years of Ithaca, NY was once a major Volvo town. Now, the (few) rich folks drive Volvo S60s and S80s, and everyone else has a Subaru.
Paul: I can’t disagree with the shorter/faster attributes, but in terms of the high roof, I believe the Outback actually has a smidgeon more R1 headroom than the Forester (40.4 to 39.8). Similarly, I think the ‘07 Outback has 8.7 inches of clearance v. 8.1 for the Forester.
As to the Forester being faster, I can certainly see pistonheads who need to have a utility car swayed by the extra speed, but for the great majority of buyers I just can’t see the Foresters advantage over the Outback’s 7 second 60 time (give or take a few tenths depending on who’s testing) being a determining factor.
ash78: “The vehicle just seems large enough, but I was unaware that it was just an Impreza, not a Legacy base.”
I was also under impression that the Forester was derived from the Legacy, and not the Impreza.
It’s a strange thing since the dimemsions of the Forester would seem to indicate that it’s nothing more than a slightly taller, shorter, wider Legacy with slightly increased ground clearance. But, apparently, such is not the case.
krick: front headroom, with the moonroof: Forester: 39.1″, Outback: 38.7″, whatever, but, the Forester feels more spacious around the head because the windshield is substantially more upright. If you’re tall like me, and hate looking at the sun shade, it helps.
You win on the clearance, by a fraction. I guess I wouldn’t take the Forester on the Rubicon.
Anyway, the Forester leaves less shade on the ground, and some folks like that. To each their own.
Paul: I get it now. I got a little too caught up in the specs and somehow forgot about the intangible and subjective elements.
is there much difference in the rear cargo area of the forester and the outback? the roofline of the outback looks tapered, but that might just be an illusion from the raised beltline–i’m not sure. the forester looks like it would have a taller rear cargo box, but does it have less square footage since the footprint of the vehicle is smaller?
anyone compare the two in real world use to see if there’s a significant usability difference?
and i think it’s JL that frets over the distance from the front fender to the door cut: does it not bother you on subies because you know they aren’t front wheel crippled?
Sajeev: Man, you guys are doubting Thomases. Are you too WRX invested?
LOL, I never thought I was, but how on earth can a 3300lb car with 224hp pull a trap speed of 97mph? (from the C/D article)
You need about 280hp to pull that number off…more like the WRX.
The WRX puts out… 224hp.
When I bought mine it was 230hp, but then the stupid SAE….