Forester 2004ish 2.0X

[chippy17]

my trusty Impreza 99 turbo wagon is starting to cost a lot of money to keep going and the tipping point has been reached; so thinking of replacing it with the above, can anyone tell me if there are any weaknesses and what is the real world mpg etc?

it is a car for my wife and we live in a very rural location so 4wd is helpful but not essential

also on the shortlist is a Civic Type S of similar vintage, anyone know about these?

[Goldmember1]

Hi,
Have had a couple of these as courtesy cars , and my mum has had hers for about 5 years now. Not sure of real world mpg but probably same as a good day in your Impreza , 28-30mpg. Comfy, nice'n'easy fun to drive, even more fun in the snow! Great robust car. The only thing she's had is the usual general maintenance plus 2 lots of droplinks and common heat-shield rattle. Oh and the Geolander tyres are quite pricey but a good All-weather tyre that lasts a long time .
Hope that helps
Steve

Edited to add have been in and driven a Type S .. got offered 1 as a p/x for my Impreza I was getting rid off a long time ago. Perfectly nice hatch , liked the gearstick position , driving position and nice sporty seats, etc .. the engine didn't do anything for me and it just wasn't what I was after .. left me cold, and if I were u I just wouldn't if you stay out in the sticks as it's a firm ride compared to the Forester and u might need the ground-clearance.

Edited by Goldmember1 on Monday 24th September 11:55

[chippy17]

thanks Steve, good point re the tyres had not thought of that, thanks also for the Type S thoughts, as it is mainly for my wife not too bothered about the driving dynamics although want something that is a bit of fun, the Type S appeals as it has a bit of go and does 40mpg

[markCSC]

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom. Replacements are £300 each!!! You can get non-SLS shocks but you'll need new springs as well. Also check out http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/ for more info and help

[chippy17]

markCSC said:

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom. Replacements are £300 each!!! You can get non-SLS shocks but you'll need new springs as well. Also check out http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/ for more info and help

thanks for this, did not realise they had SLS, and that is a lot of £s. what is their life span? Ie if I see a car with say 80K on it should I look to see if they have been replaced?

Thanks for the link

[billzeebub]

markCSC said:

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom. Replacements are £300 each!!! You can get non-SLS shocks but you'll need new springs as well. Also check out http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/ for more info and help

100% agree. I have a 2004 XT, bought from a Subaru Dealer at 80k miles. The rear was slightly saggy when bought. After seeing it severely low (couldnt see tops of tyres) when loaded I took it back to the Dealer who swapped the shocks out for those from a much newer example. The rear is now 3" higher. It is not always hugely apparent when unloaded that the shocks need replacing, it will sit lower but may not really noticeably so-unless you look at 2 cars side by side!..when you see them on the road, there are quite a few that look too low at the rear..

..apart from the above I have been mega impressed with it. The Forester was merely bought as a summer camping car. My intention was to move it on for a slight profit come winter. However I have been so impressed with its offroad ability, build quality and equipment levels that I am going to keep it long term, and will probably end up replacing it with another Forester..

My only slight negative is the fuel consumption of the Turbo engine. It is a car that does not perform particularly well in the twisties and, although amusing, I really dont need the performance in a wagon ( I have other cars for that). I would buy the non-turbo next time I think..

great car all round

[chippy17]

billzeebub said:

markCSC said:

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom. Replacements are £300 each!!! You can get non-SLS shocks but you'll need new springs as well. Also check out http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/ for more info and help

100% agree. I have a 2004 XT, bought from a Subaru Dealer at 80k miles. The rear was slightly saggy when bought. After seeing it severely low (couldnt see tops of tyres) when loaded I took it back to the Dealer who swapped the shocks out for those from a much newer example. The rear is now 3" higher. It is not always hugely apparent when unloaded that the shocks need replacing, it will sit lower but may not really noticeably so-unless you look at 2 cars side by side!..when you see them on the road, there are quite a few that look too low at the rear..

..apart from the above I have been mega impressed with it. The Forester was merely bought as a summer camping car. My intention was to move it on for a slight profit come winter. However I have been so impressed with its offroad ability, build quality and equipment levels that I am going to keep it long term, and will probably end up replacing it with another Forester..

My only slight negative is the fuel consumption of the Turbo engine. It is a car that does not perform particularly well in the twisties and, although amusing, I really dont need the performance in a wagon ( I have other cars for that). I would buy the non-turbo next time I think..

great car all round

well living as I do in the wilds of North Norfolk one has to move quickly when a relatively rare car such as these comes up for sale:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2012...

so I took the plunge, pick it up on Saturday

amazed at how refined and quiet it was, ride is great, a bit slow being only a 2.0 but I did not buy it for pace, have a 3mth warranty so going to make sure the suspension is ok etc

Edited by chippy17 on Monday 1st October 09:49

[billzeebub]

The rear ride height looks fine in the photos, you just need to see how it levels when loaded. But like I said the shocks look in perfect order. Great car with nice miles and warranty. I will definitely be going for the non- Turbo next time

[chippy17]

billzeebub said:

The rear ride height looks fine in the photos, you just need to see how it levels when loaded. But like I said the shocks look in perfect order. Great car with nice miles and warranty. I will definitely be going for the non- Turbo next time

thanks, yes I will get the children to sit in the boot and see what happens! yes it was a bit slow but in a vehicle like this I am not sure it really matters

[Konan]

markCSC said:

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom.

They can also knock when they're on the way out.

[chippy17]

Konan said:

markCSC said:

One of the main things to watch on these is the self leveling suspension (SLS) on the rear.
When they go you'll have a saggy bottom.

They can also knock when they're on the way out.

a good top tip, thanks, did not hear any knocking (crosses fingers)

[anonymous-user]

billzeebub said:

My only slight negative is the fuel consumption of the Turbo engine. It is a car that does not perform particularly well in the twisties and, although amusing, I really dont need the performance in a wagon ( I have other cars for that). I would buy the non-turbo next time I think..

great car all round

I'm also interested in these amongst other things like the outback. I'm not interested in performance so would also have the non turbo Forrester. What is the MPG difference between turbo and N/A?

Is it true the mpg is better in the automatic cars?

[markCSC]

sebdangerfield said:

What is the MPG difference between turbo and N/A?

In everyday trundling there isn't much in it. 27mpg for the turbo 30mpg for the N/A. However in the turbo its is possible to get it waaaaaay lower

[anonymous-user]

markCSC said:

In everyday trundling there isn't much in it. 27mpg for the turbo 30mpg for the N/A. However in the turbo its is possible to get it waaaaaay lower

Thanks, I'm on the shop for a sturdy motor after coming off my bike. I'm after comfort but a bit of 4wd ability would be beneficial too as I'm out in the sticks. I'd prefer an auto so I may have to try a test drive over the next fe days for when the insurance pay out.

[chippy17]

well just picked it up, very nice motor indeed, smooth, slow, quiet and has got some decent kit on it, noticed it has a heated windscreen. of course within 2 miles of picking it up my wife has managed to attract a large stone onto said heated windscreen!!! grrrr

I will also let you guys know what mpg this thing is doing, the book says about 35 combined and 42 on a m'way run so we shall see

eta it is the 125bhp model not the 155bhp