Opinions on Subaru Forester auto please
Discussion
After Christmas we'll be in the market for another car. I'll need reliability, comfort (for the commute), enough space to carry two downhill mountain bikes inside or on the roof (because they're too heavy for racks) and a little off road ability for getting to the trails. I've been looking for a few months now but seem to have settled on a Forester.
One other little benefit would be an auto as I commute 11 miles through entirely stop start traffic from one side of Birmingham to the other. From my research it appears that the Forester only has a 4 speed auto and my very limited experience of autos has been with 6 speeds. Although people seem to rate the auto forester as reliable, nobody actually says if it is better or worse than the manual.
Does anyone have any experience please? Is it worth getting the auto over the manual and is it still reliable?
Thanks in advance.
One other little benefit would be an auto as I commute 11 miles through entirely stop start traffic from one side of Birmingham to the other. From my research it appears that the Forester only has a 4 speed auto and my very limited experience of autos has been with 6 speeds. Although people seem to rate the auto forester as reliable, nobody actually says if it is better or worse than the manual.
Does anyone have any experience please? Is it worth getting the auto over the manual and is it still reliable?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks captainslow. What sort of mpg are you getting from your turbo? I'm not too concerned about fuel economy as I don't go that far and I can't think of another car which will do the things the Forester will but with less fuel, if I could it'd be on my list!
I was considering a turbo but noticed they don't have the low range gearbox, do you use yours off road? If it was good, I'd definitely be up for a turbo as long as it didn't need the low range box!
I was considering a turbo but noticed they don't have the low range gearbox, do you use yours off road? If it was good, I'd definitely be up for a turbo as long as it didn't need the low range box!
Having driven both manual- 5 spd -( my mum has a n/a 2.0ltr that I occasionally drive ) and auto- 4spd - ( used a same spec 1 for 2 weeks as a courtesy car while travelling the M8 from West Lothian to Glasgow every day), I'd choose the manual for the driving-fun-factor, and the auto for ease of driving .. tho it does depend what engine choice and age of Forrester.
The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06>
) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .
At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06>
) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
Goldmember1 said:
Having driven both manual- 5 spd -( my mum has a n/a 2.0ltr that I occasionally drive ) and auto- 4spd - ( used a same spec 1 for 2 weeks as a courtesy car while travelling the M8 from West Lothian to Glasgow every day), I'd choose the manual for the driving-fun-factor, and the auto for ease of driving .. tho it does depend what engine choice and age of Forrester.
The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06> ) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .
At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
On this, you may wish to avoid the 2.5l due to potential engine issues (a remapped 2.0 is close on power/performance anyway).The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06>
) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
The belts dont have to be too expensive, you can get the full kit for under £200.
Thanks for the great advice. At the moment my priorities are a reliable workhorse to use for mountain biking and to commute in daily through heavy traffic. I have a quicker car for weekends so I'd guess an auto 2.0 n/a would be my choice at the moment. Fuel doesn't sound too bad and compared to other high mileage diesels I've looked at, it's probably a better option than better mpg but knackerd injectors or clogged egr because I'm not giving it a run.
I genuinely can't think of another car which suits my needs as well. Thanks again.
Is there anything I should be looking for?
I genuinely can't think of another car which suits my needs as well. Thanks again.
Is there anything I should be looking for?
sebdangerfield said:
Is there anything I should be looking for?
Again ,depending on age , but the only thing that I kno that seems to be quite common is the electric window mechanism .. Google it .. think it's water getting in making the motor seize up , meaning you cant open it , the whole mechanism has to be replaced , which Subaru charge a ridiculous £400 just for the mechanism and then there's fitting.It's happened twice in my mum's '04 Forrester .. 1st on Passenger side about a year ago ,and now on the Driver's side
, with the passenger one going VERY slow again..Only other minor stuff is the usual Droplinks and Heatsheild rattle.. that's it in 5 years ownership .. She loves it .. oh and it's great in the snow!
I love the Forester. While my Legeacy was in for servicing once, I had one of their loaners which had been boosted to ~280bhp. It was quite incredible but I would only consider it as a fun/weekend car. For everyday I'd want something that is 100% trouble free and with that in mind I would point you at the 3-litre Legacy Outback. You don't get quite the same ground clearance as the Forester but the difference is minimal. In all the years I've had "normal" Legacys, I've only twice bottomed out. The Outback is substantially higher off the ground.
Then you have the 3-litre engine which has a cam chain - so nothing to worry about there. It's a thirsty bugger (between 18 and 26mpg - other people report better figures than me so I might have a heavy right foot) but no more than a turbo'd 4-cylinder Scooby engine.
Low range gearbox isn't going to be needed with an auto - the torque converter can give you a substantial increase in torque at low speeds anyway. The Outback has an LSD at the rear - I would say anywhere that can't go requires a Land Rover.
Then, on the road you will have a fast/powerful car that's full of leather and loads of electric toys. It's bigger inside than the Forester (not as tall, granted, but the boot floor area is bigger - I think it's a more useable space) and the auto is a 5-speed version.
Then you have the 3-litre engine which has a cam chain - so nothing to worry about there. It's a thirsty bugger (between 18 and 26mpg - other people report better figures than me so I might have a heavy right foot) but no more than a turbo'd 4-cylinder Scooby engine.
Low range gearbox isn't going to be needed with an auto - the torque converter can give you a substantial increase in torque at low speeds anyway. The Outback has an LSD at the rear - I would say anywhere that can't go requires a Land Rover.
Then, on the road you will have a fast/powerful car that's full of leather and loads of electric toys. It's bigger inside than the Forester (not as tall, granted, but the boot floor area is bigger - I think it's a more useable space) and the auto is a 5-speed version.
Mars said:
I love the Forester. While my Legeacy was in for servicing once, I had one of their loaners which had been boosted to ~280bhp. It was quite incredible but I would only consider it as a fun/weekend car. For everyday I'd want something that is 100% trouble free and with that in mind I would point you at the 3-litre Legacy Outback. You don't get quite the same ground clearance as the Forester but the difference is minimal. In all the years I've had "normal" Legacys, I've only twice bottomed out. The Outback is substantially higher off the ground.
Then you have the 3-litre engine which has a cam chain - so nothing to worry about there. It's a thirsty bugger (between 18 and 26mpg - other people report better figures than me so I might have a heavy right foot) but no more than a turbo'd 4-cylinder Scooby engine.
Low range gearbox isn't going to be needed with an auto - the torque converter can give you a substantial increase in torque at low speeds anyway. The Outback has an LSD at the rear - I would say anywhere that can't go requires a Land Rover.
Then, on the road you will have a fast/powerful car that's full of leather and loads of electric toys. It's bigger inside than the Forester (not as tall, granted, but the boot floor area is bigger - I think it's a more useable space) and the auto is a 5-speed version.
That is food for thought! Off to have a look at the trader!Then you have the 3-litre engine which has a cam chain - so nothing to worry about there. It's a thirsty bugger (between 18 and 26mpg - other people report better figures than me so I might have a heavy right foot) but no more than a turbo'd 4-cylinder Scooby engine.
Low range gearbox isn't going to be needed with an auto - the torque converter can give you a substantial increase in torque at low speeds anyway. The Outback has an LSD at the rear - I would say anywhere that can't go requires a Land Rover.
Then, on the road you will have a fast/powerful car that's full of leather and loads of electric toys. It's bigger inside than the Forester (not as tall, granted, but the boot floor area is bigger - I think it's a more useable space) and the auto is a 5-speed version.
Goldmember1 said:
Having driven both manual- 5 spd -( my mum has a n/a 2.0ltr that I occasionally drive ) and auto- 4spd - ( used a same spec 1 for 2 weeks as a courtesy car while travelling the M8 from West Lothian to Glasgow every day), I'd choose the manual for the driving-fun-factor, and the auto for ease of driving .. tho it does depend what engine choice and age of Forrester.
The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06> ) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .
At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
Goldmember, The Auto is perfectly ok tho and as you said great in traffic , but it sacrifices some of the "fun factor" you'd get if buying a turbo. The 2.0 n/a is actually quite good to drive too on both gearboxes and doesn't sacrafice as much.
There's the 2.0 n/a , 2.0 Turbo and the 2.5XT .
Of all of them ,as said above ,go for a Turbo if you want a bit of oomph ,preferably the 2.5 XT ( small tip - tho there isn't many ,get 1 on an '05 or '55 plate and it'll be £260 a yr RFL rather than £435 for an 06>
) tho they are thirsty , average 24/25mpg .At the beginning of the year I almost bought a 2.5XT , but, after a testdrive it just didn't excite as much as I expected or feel that quick or special .. and went for a 3.0ltr Outback Auto instead .. I've had many Subaru WRX Wagons and wanted the same but with a bit of luxury and a nice 6 cylinder for a change.
Also with a used watch out for the Timing Belt service , 50k miles I think, it's a very expensive 1 so make sure it's done! These (the turbo'd ones anyway ) are de-tuned Impreza engines and it's essential they are done on time .
As for reliability I've not heard any horror stories of failures on either boxes and think they're both pretty bulletproof .
Hope this helps.
what sort of mpg are yo getting from your Outback?
Just had a look at the Outback, never really considered them before but they look like a nicer place to be than the Forester and as ground clearance isn't the issue with me they are probably better suited. The 2.5 appears to be much cheaper than the 3.0 but it has a timing belt instead of the chain in the 3.0 would economy be much different?. Ideally the 3.0 would be my choice but i'd like an opinion of both engines.
Police State - Average 21.7 mpg 
Tho to be fair that's around town/city driving .. on the motorway max I manage to get is 27mpg
The 2.5 is underpowered ( 4 cylinder with circa 175 bhp I think ) and has a 4 speed Auto .. It's ok to live with , it just yearned for more power ..I averaged about 27/28 mpg with it , but it had LPG fitted by Subaru from new.
The 3.0 is a great engine .. It's 228 bhp , 6 cylinder smoothness , and 5 speed Auto is much better matched, and "feels" just right and much more upmarket . Ok you get 21-26 mpg ,but I can live with that and all the time I had the 2.5 I wished I had the 3.0! Oh and same applies re the VED .. >05/55 is £260 , 06> £435 .. 07's have the newer interior ( black centre console and gearshift ).. tho I have driven an 08 with paddle-shifts and it's great!
Tho to be fair that's around town/city driving .. on the motorway max I manage to get is 27mpgsebdangerfield said:
The 2.5 appears to be much cheaper than the 3.0 but it has a timing belt instead of the chain in the 3.0 would economy be much different?. Ideally the 3.0 would be my choice but i'd like an opinion of both engines.
4 years ago I had the 2.5 .. like chalk and cheese!The 2.5 is underpowered ( 4 cylinder with circa 175 bhp I think ) and has a 4 speed Auto .. It's ok to live with , it just yearned for more power ..I averaged about 27/28 mpg with it , but it had LPG fitted by Subaru from new.
The 3.0 is a great engine .. It's 228 bhp , 6 cylinder smoothness , and 5 speed Auto is much better matched, and "feels" just right and much more upmarket . Ok you get 21-26 mpg ,but I can live with that and all the time I had the 2.5 I wished I had the 3.0! Oh and same applies re the VED .. >05/55 is £260 , 06> £435 .. 07's have the newer interior ( black centre console and gearshift ).. tho I have driven an 08 with paddle-shifts and it's great!
treetops said:
Buy a Volvo V70 phase 2 - 2000 onwards.
Go for a D5 or a T5 - best engines in the range.Its a way better car and it'll get most places.
Sit in one and you'll see how much a nicer place it is to be in comparison to the plastic fest that is the Forrester!
I do like these but they seem to be far more expensive than the Forester and Outback and they only have Haldex 4wd and I'd prefer permanent 4wd.Go for a D5 or a T5 - best engines in the range.Its a way better car and it'll get most places.
Sit in one and you'll see how much a nicer place it is to be in comparison to the plastic fest that is the Forrester!
sebdangerfield said:
CaptainSlow said:
You also need to consider the SLS struts issue on the 2002+ models
Just googled that and found pages on the models before 2002. Is it common on the post 2002 cars too? I'd probably be looking at around 2003-2004.CaptainSlow said:
Yes is an issue on both. Mine need replacing so I'm research it at the moment too. There is a cheaper fix using non-sls struts, this is the route I'm trying to go down.
Oof, looks like £800 to replace! That and the timing belt means I'm swaying toward the outback at the moment. Thanks again for all your advice.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff