Subaru Forester XT
I've never particularly liked the Subaru Forester. I can't really pinpoint why--after all, I'm an AMC Eagle acolyte, and the Forester is really nothing more than a latter-day Eagle. Like the Eagle, the Forester is a tall, gawky nerd of a car, with a tall forehead, a geeky chrome grin, and a complete lack of muscle. But also like the Eagle, the Forester is extraordinarily useful, with all-wheel-drive traction and the usefulness of a wagon. Both would make fantastic camping rides.
My general coolness towards the Forester might actually stem from Subaru's insistence on calling the Forester an SUV. It's clearly not an SUV, it's a station wagon. It's a car chassis and engine, with a wagon back. It might be taller and have all-wheel-drive, but it's a wagon. I also get annoyed when Subaru refers to its Legacy Outback as an SUV, but to the virtually identical Legacy as a car. I realize it's all marketing semantics, but I don't have much patience for automakers insulting our intelligence.
Whatever the reason, I've always respected the Forester but never really embraced it. Until, that is, the Forester XT debuted, at which point the addition of a turbocharger and some of Subaru's rally mojo created one of the most incredible sleepers the world has ever seen.
Remember, a sleeper is defined by two attributes--potent performance and an anonymous wrapper. The Forester XT has both in spades. In terms of performance, Car & Driver measured the 0-60 sprint in an unbelievable 5.3 seconds--a stunning testament to the combination of traction and turbocharged thrust. For reference, that's as quick as the Ferrari Testarossa, quicker than a 1980s Corvette, only a tick behind the Lamborghini Countach. It's as quick as a 1990s Porsche 911, a contemporary Nissan 350Z, or even the Forester's performance-oriented sibling, the WRX. At high speeds the Forester's high-drag body hurts acceleration, but at that point who cares? It's a go-anywhere haul-anything wagon that can run with the exotics--like an Eagle with a jet engine.
Just as important, in terms of its sleeper potential, the Forester lost virtually none of its anonymity. Compared to its toothless brethren, the XT gained only a hood scoop. Nobody takes the Forester seriously as a performance car, but in the case of the XT that would be a mistake. If you're a street racer and find yourself alongside a Forester, I'd recommend looking for the hood scoop--it's the only indicator of the XT's fire-breathing performance potential. The XT isn't particularly expensive, either--it starts in the mid-$20K range.
Given all this, and my well-chronicled weakness for wagons, it's no surprise that the Forester captured my imagination in a big way. I dreamed of driving into remote backpacking spots one day, then embarrassing preening Ferrari drivers the next. I'd forget myself and refer to the Forester as a "cool car" to my friends, only for them to guffaw at the latest blemish to my already dubious automotive taste. Not that this is a new thing.
Looking at these photos again--yikes, it's certainly not a looker, is it? But at least I console myself with the thought that maybe, somehow, the "XT" suffix for the performance Forester is some kind of tribute to the original Subaru sports car,the flying-doorstop Subaru XT. If so, that's cool enough to overlook the Forester's homely visage.
Thanks to Flickr user meody for the photos here.
--Chris H.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on July 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Yikes.
Ring that bell, Chris "Pavlov" Hafner: you've got me salivating over yet another car I'll probably never been in the right place/right time to buy. I actually have gone out and looked at local/national prices of these Lust-worthy cars.
For the record, those are:
1) 1990-1994 Nissan Maxima SE
2) Subaru SVX
3) Subaru Forester XT
Then again, I've still got my '98 Mazda 626, and I still love it. And haven't had to spend a dime on repairs yet (so the $1k wasn't a mirage).
Cookie the Dog's Owner on July 10, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Subies are better enthusiast cars than a lot of people give them credit for.
We had an AWD Legacy wagon in the 1990s. For a station wagon with a slushbox, it was a pretty decent sport sedan.
I test-drove a WRX when I went shopping last summer, and I say without shame that it was a *very* close call between the WRX and the GTI I ended up getting.
I have no doubt the Forester XT is every bit the sleeper you say it is.
Rob the SVX guy on July 10, 2008 at 01:15 PM
There's one problem Chris. It doesn't really drive that well. The suspension is just ... kinda.. tall and spongy. That can be fixed, but I haven't driven a modded version so I can't say how well it works...but... stock it's only fast in a straight line.
Also, Subaru used to call it a wagon, but then changed and declared it an SUV so they had an "suv to offer". Whatever. Change the name back, I hate SUVs, but I like the forester.
Mochi Mochi on July 10, 2008 at 03:26 PM
I loved the 1st gen Forester styling. It was a wagon and did not try to look like an SUV. 2nd Gen looked softer, bigger, bulbous, and dumb. The 3rd gen is even worse. You can see all the work going into bridging the wagon/SUV semantic gap. It's been a styling de-evolution into a grotesque-itude of SUV marketing and market positioning.
But back to the 1st gen. It was clean and unpretentious.
To Rob's point. Yeah - you have near super car performance in a car that is really not up to the challenge.
My solution. Buy a 1st gen Forester. Drop the suspension about 1.5-2 inches (remember there's A LOT of ground clearance). Put in stiffer springs and sway bars. Koni sport shocks. Now the good part... insert the wrx engine, transmission, and brakes. You do that and you will have the most rockin' fire-breathing station wagon going. That would be a serious ride.
I love the idea of the forester being able to blow the doors off many a macho performance car. Personally I even love the fact that it could blow my Si away too - at least until the first turn. A super-sleeper subaru is a great idea. And if some one has a fast car, I'm fine with them taking the lead, as long as they use that speed and stay out ahead of me. Otherwise get the hell out of my way - lead or follow, one or the other.
Shawn on July 10, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Wahoo - this post hits close to home because I own one! I've literally flown by unnoticed cops at high speed and they don't even bat an eye at my grey turbo mommy wagon. It eats RX-8's for breakfast, I've still been hunting a willing 350Z to race.
As far as sloppy handling, sure, it's not as buttoned down as it could be. However, changing out the horrible stock Yokohama Geolander tires made a dramatic difference in mine. My bigger complaint is the stock brakes aren't up to par, with long pedal travel and not the German-level grab I'm used to. That's next on my to-do list.
The practicality is icing on the cake. I've crammed twice as much stuff in the Forester than my old GTI could handle. The biggest shame is the new '09 Forester is just plain soft.
Shawn on July 10, 2008 at 03:58 PM
I should also add one of my personal car lust qualifications: Boxy = Sexy.
Mark on July 10, 2008 at 07:01 PM
I own one of those Subies caught in marketing never-never land: 2002 Impreza Outback Sport. It's not an Outback and it's not a WRX, but certain parts (pig-nose and vented front fascia but a big Outback before Impreza on the back signage) say it's one or the other.
The crazy thing is, it is still an amazing machine for what it was built to do. Any impediment that is under the approximate 6.5-inch ground clearance is no impediment at all - snow, water, mud. It's a hog and I've only really pushed it a few times in any of those inclement conditions (Nashville doesn't get much snow you know...).
I get those sideways looks from racers all the time - looking for the scoop, just like the XT and WRX. If it's there, be good or don't bother. That's on dry pavement, though. Even my OBS could run circles around the best street modded Civic Si or similar car once there's not dry ground.
It's not for everyone, the Subie thing, but for the money they are a heck of a lot of fun to drive and still useful as all get-out with all of the hatchback space.
Brian on July 11, 2008 at 01:36 AM
I work with someone who has a 2004 Forester, appropriately he's a surveyor. The car is very competent and highly useful at getting to virtually anywhere, but the thing I just couldn't quite live with is the shoe-box shape. Not that there's anything wrong with that (except getting ass for gas mileage). The Mitsu EVO, the main competitor for the WRX STi, has a lot of trouble beating it at anything. That's pretty cool. It's kind of like a poor-man's Audi that doesn't look like an Audi then? That's a niche.
Gareth on July 11, 2008 at 05:40 AM
I had a Scooby Forrester for a company car once. It was superbly fast, but about as inspiring as an omlette.
The latch fell of the petrol cap releaser, which meant I could never find how to open it to fill up with Gas. You would see me spending almost hours hunting around the front trying to find it!
Gentleman Agitator on July 11, 2008 at 08:56 AM
I write this as a big station wagon fan. It started with my parents Buick version of the famous Vista Cruiser in the 60's and I have owned two wagons myself, presently being the 2000 Subaru Legacy. I have always like the Forrester. However, anyone who really knows and loves station wagons, can say it is one. It is a mini-SUV. It is about the only SUV I can stand. It is just the size such a vehicle should always have been, a little bit larger than a wagon, but not a behemoth truck like thing, like so many of them.. The Outback is not an SUV, but just a wagon on steroids, and a really nice one at that. Though it is ridiculous that Subaru has now abandoned the Legacy wagon! Most car companies have been so terrified of the moniker "station wagon" or "wagon." It's just silly. The first hybird wagon will be a winner. Any takers, car companies?
Frank Black on July 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM
You can't swing a dead rocker arm out here in Seattle without hitting a Subaru wagon. Very popular with the Birkenstock-n-granola crowd. Practical as all get-out but, yeah, about as exciting as a, well, Birkenstock.
If I had to get a wagon, it would either be a Magnum, '57 Chevy Nomad, or some brutish thing from the '60s.
Rob the SVX guy on July 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
If I had to get a wagon, I'd pick up a Saab 92-x Aero, a WRX wagon, a Forester XT (with diff suspension), a volvo 850T, Volvo P1800 wagon, man... there are so many cool wagons... I could just keep going.
ShaneIam on July 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Forresters are SUV's due to the NTSB's standards for "light trucks/vans/SUVs" as opposed to passenger cars. IIRC, it was originally was going to be a bit lower, but the mileage was going to pull Subaru's fleet mileage below the CAFE mandated limits. So Subaru made a couple of design tweaks (raised the suspension an inch or so) and viola: an SUV which was exempt from their passenger car CAFE standards. I live in Seattle and IIRC, there was a minor outcry from the granola-and-birkenstock crowd because that was such an immoral and "corporate" move for Subaru.
ALEXISTAN on July 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
That, friends, is a "Q Ship." The unassuming freighter that draws the surfaced U-Boat in... then reveals the deck guns.
Shelby on July 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
I had a 2001 Forester until last year, and loved it. The only things it really needed changed were the suspension (which I never got around to modding) and the lack of rear-seat legroom. If it had a little more room there for the growing kid, I'd still have it.
hman on July 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I guess I don't get the point.
The Forester-XT is basically a WRX with bigger wheels and a larger (heavier) body. If you want performance, the WRX Wagon will get you almost as much room, and can go around twisty roads without the sense you are going to roll off. And the WRX has plenty of clearance if you want to go in rougher terrain. (But don't think you are going seriously off-road with either of these.) I know- I've driven both back to back.
And by the way, if you look at the Forester and you look at the WRX Wagon, you can see why they call the Forester an SUV.
Don't get me wrong. The forester is a fine competitor for the RAV4, or other compact SUVs. But if you want performance and safety, the WRX is definitely a better choice. If you want to sacrifice an awesome suspension for some more room inside, then the Forester might be worth it.
Fred on July 11, 2008 at 01:33 PM
I wanted the Legacy GT 5spd wagon so bad. They discon'ed it jsut as i had the money. Jerks.
Rob the SVX guy on July 11, 2008 at 01:33 PM
I think the main advantage of an XT over a WRX is the sleeper factor. If you have an WRX, you're going to get attention from other drivers, and police. With an XT, you're pretty much invisible.
Mike Kelley on July 11, 2008 at 02:03 PM
I used to have a Suburu FWD sedan that could kind of pass for sporty at the time. I got rid of it when I got sick of the oil leaks, though. I now have a 2007 Mazda3 that I just love. It doesn't draw many second looks, either, but I grin every time I drive it.
Jeff on July 11, 2008 at 02:20 PM
I have seen the Forester XT tested at aroud 6-6.5 seconds 0-60, but not 5.3. I searched Car and Driver's site and the only acceleration quote I could find was the 2007 Forester at 5.9 seconds 0-60.
Am I missing something? Can you post a link?
Jeff on July 11, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Oh, and the 5.9 second 0-60 time was for a modified Forester; the stock time was 6.1.
Chris Hafner on July 11, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Jeff: "Can you post a link?"
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/suvs_family_haulers/subaru_forester_2_5xt_road_test
It was this road test that first inspired the months of car lust that followed.
I agree, it does seem fast. I've driven a Forester XT (albeit an auto - they didn't have a 5-speed for me) and it didn't feel like a 5.3 car. Car & Driver probably had a good example. But 5.9 or even 6.1 from a Forester is still pretty nuts.
Chris Hafner on July 11, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Rob the SVX Guy: "I think the main advantage of an XT over a WRX is the sleeper factor."
Yes, exactly.
Don't get me wrong - I love the WRX wagon. All things being equal, I'd probably opt for a WRX wagon instead. But not only does the Forester XT get bonus points for being a sleeper, it's just enough larger to be a legit family car too. A WRX might be a four-door, but even so a car seat is a very tight fit.
On a related note, how is it possible that I haven't written a Car Lust for the WRX yet? I've wanted a WRX for a decade at least, way before we finally got them here.
oMan on July 11, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Tried the turbo Subarus but they bellowed and wallowed. So I went with the Mazda Speed 6. Which gives you: all creature comforts, uncanny traction in any weather, more interior space than an Audi A6, spanking moves (0-60 under 6.0, easy cruising at 100 if you dare, bags of torque from 1800 rpm up). Plus 30 mpg highway if you're careful, 25 if you're frisky. And the whole thing looking just slightly wilder than Grandma's Buick so considerable Q-ship capability. Finally: cost to operate. At 36K miles, no repeat no trouble, just routine service. Brake pads half worn. Original tires (Potenzas) were a bad idea but the Pirelli P Zero Neros that went on at 20K are still looking fresh. .Subaru, try harder.
Shawn on July 11, 2008 at 04:47 PM
To hman: I agree, the WRX wagon also factored into my shopping list before getting the Forester XT. It looks sharp, but any advantages it had were lost when I called my insurer. The XT is dirt cheap to insure, much less than my old VW GTI that it can run circles around. Any WRX, even the wagon, was more than DOUBLE the XT quote. The ricer crowd has ruined the model in the eyes of an insurance company.
I don't have the figures in front of me, but I believe the weight difference between the WRX wagon and XT to be negligable. ~50 pounds if I remember correctly.
to oMan: The Mazdaspeed 6 is nice and all, but if Mazda had some balls they would've made a Mazdaspeed 6 wagon (even the regular 6 wagon is now dearly departed) and I would've quickly lined up to drive one.