Forester 2.0 n/a

[chippy17]

Worth buying, reliability wise? Have seen a 2.0GLS with all the bits with 110k on the clock, not really interested in Turbos have Impreza for fun, but do need the 4x4 and the high but not SUV ground clearance appeals.
Thanks

[GravelBen]

I've had a couple of 2.0 na Legacy wagons over the last 3 years (a '90 with ~100k miles and now a '97 with ~35k miles), not quite the same as a Forester but similar, both have been pretty good for reliability really - only thing to really go wrong has been an AFM on the '97 which was fixed under warranty. (Would have cost sbout $300 NZ iirc = 115 GBP)

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 18th June 15:40

[chippy17]

GravelBen said:

I've had a couple of 2.0 na Legacy wagons over the last 3 years (a '90 with ~100k miles and now a '97 with ~35k miles), not quite the same as a Forester but similar, both have been pretty good for reliability really - only thing to really go wrong has been an AFM on the '97 which was fixed under warranty. (Would have cost sbout $300 NZ iirc = 115 GBP)

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 18th June 15:40

thanks Ben, you wouldn't know what power the na puts out? I think the AFM (or MAF as it is known here) is a weak point on most of this age, my MY99 Impreza suffers from it...would you say they are cheaper to run than the turbo, servicing and fuel?

[GravelBen]

Definitely cheaper to run than the turbo I think, fuel and insurance being the biggest differences, but they'll also chew tyres less due to having less power and often less weight (My Legacies have been in the 1300-1350kg range according to weights I found on the net). Theres also less stress on the motor, and less complicated bits to go wrong and cost money.


I don't know if the Forester has the same power as the Legacy (is it a 4cam motor?), my '97 TS-R has 155 bhp/186 Nm, the '90 VZ was 150 bhp / 171 Nm iirc, but all at higher revs (it really loved the revs, rev-limiter at 7750 is fairly high for 1990). I've also heard of NA Imprezas (single cam I think) only having 140 bhp though which I imagine would be a bit sluggish.

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 18th June 23:43

[RobDickinson]

I have a 98 2.0NA Forester.

Its OK. Not quick, I think the engine is 120bhp or so, manual, has 'low ratio' which works well enough for light offroading and getting to the ski fields & back.

Clearance is OK, aproach angle front/rear isnt all that great and no locking diffs limit real ofroad potential, as does its ability to go through deep water ( wheel hub level only), apart from that its capable and easy to get chains on, light as 4x4's go.

Reasonably confortable & roomy inside, plastic fantastic though, drives agriculturaly but as a car not a 4x4 so limited body roll and relativly firm suspension. I get a whole load of camping stuff in it, plus stacks on the roof, its OK towing stuff but I wouldnt want to tow anything heavy or for long, get the turbo for that.

Weakest point mechanicaly IMO is the clutch, easy to toast it for some reason and they have a habit of getting judder & needing sorting, engine seems bulit proof, had the cambelt done at 100,000kms now at about 116k. Seems to cruise at 120kms'hr ok, dunno what it'd be like in the UK. I get about 500-600km's out of a full tank depending on cycle.

I find it an ideal vehicle for what I bought it for tho I would like more power and auto IMO for towing, better offroad uphill , worse downhill...

A decent compromise between car and 4x4.

[GravelBen]

RobDickinson said:

Weakest point mechanicaly IMO is the clutch, easy to toast it for some reason and they have a habit of getting judder & needing sorting

Clutch is usually the weakest point of all Subarus, I had an exedy heavy-duty clutch fitted on my '90 which was lightyears better than the standard one. Actually one of the recommended ways to get rid of clutch judder (especially for Imprezas but AFAIK its supposed to work for Foresters and Legacies too) is to wind the revs up (5000ish) and side-step off the clutch. Launch like that too often and you'll wear out/break stuff fairly quick but it apparently sorts out clutch judder real well.

[chippy17]

RobDickinson said:

I have a 98 2.0NA Forester.

Its OK. Not quick, I think the engine is 120bhp or so, manual, has 'low ratio' which works well enough for light offroading and getting to the ski fields & back.

Clearance is OK, aproach angle front/rear isnt all that great and no locking diffs limit real ofroad potential, as does its ability to go through deep water ( wheel hub level only), apart from that its capable and easy to get chains on, light as 4x4's go.

Reasonably confortable & roomy inside, plastic fantastic though, drives agriculturaly but as a car not a 4x4 so limited body roll and relativly firm suspension. I get a whole load of camping stuff in it, plus stacks on the roof, its OK towing stuff but I wouldnt want to tow anything heavy or for long, get the turbo for that.

Weakest point mechanicaly IMO is the clutch, easy to toast it for some reason and they have a habit of getting judder & needing sorting, engine seems bulit proof, had the cambelt done at 100,000kms now at about 116k. Seems to cruise at 120kms'hr ok, dunno what it'd be like in the UK. I get about 500-600km's out of a full tank depending on cycle.

I find it an ideal vehicle for what I bought it for tho I would like more power and auto IMO for towing, better offroad uphill , worse downhill...

A decent compromise between car and 4x4.

thanks Rob, very useful insight, sounds good for what I want it for, not planning any serious off roading just need something that can go in the odd field and through the regular flooded/muddy/icy roads we get whilst having a slightly elevated view to see over the hedges. Do not need anything fast and as you say it sounds like it cruises fine, know all about the judder my Impreza does that but have got used to it and now drive around it.
Do you think it can handle big miles?

[chippy17]

GravelBen said:

Definitely cheaper to run than the turbo I think, fuel and insurance being the biggest differences, but they'll also chew tyres less due to having less power and often less weight (My Legacies have been in the 1300-1350kg range according to weights I found on the net). Theres also less stress on the motor, and less complicated bits to go wrong and cost money.


I don't know if the Forester has the same power as the Legacy (is it a 4cam motor?), my '97 TS-R has 155 bhp/186 Nm, the '90 VZ was 150 bhp / 171 Nm iirc, but all at higher revs (it really loved the revs, rev-limiter at 7750 is fairly high for 1990). I've also heard of NA Imprezas (single cam I think) only having 140 bhp though which I imagine would be a bit sluggish.

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 18th June 23:43

Doing a bit of research seems like the Foresters of this era had about 130bhp which is enough for what I want it for, thanks for your input

[RobDickinson]

Sure mines 2vavle per pot, 130bhp could be right.

Big miles? Dont see why not, engine is strong & isnt complicated, not stressed, cant say about rust, not an issue here, mine is near 10 years old looks ok tho body is a bit mistreated here & there (happens if you go offroad at all), ski fields will eventualy kill mine I think but I dont expect it to give up.

I expect the most likely expensive bit is the transmission, those diffs wearing out or something.