2006 forester vs. 1999 forester

Oil consumption is a major concern with current 2.5 Forester engine!

"Lila Hanft" wrote in message

>I have a 1999 Subaru Forester with about 125,000 miles on it. I am
> shopping for a new car & am considering another Forester, but there are a
> few things I don't like about my 1999 model.
> -The seatbelts - none of them retract smoothly; they often jam.
> -The retractable cargo cover -- three or four years ago, the little
> plastic
> stoppers that hold the cover over began wearing out/coming off (I fix them
> sporadically with duct tape).
> -Oil consumption -- this car has always consumed an unusually large amount
> of oil -- maybe a quart a month. No mechanic has ever figured out why that
> is.
> -Backseat leg room -- very meager.
>
>
> So, if you own a new or late model Forester, can you tell me if you have
> trouble with the seat belts, cargo cover, or oil consumption? I hope that
> in subsequent model years those flaws were corrected.
>
> Thanks,
> Lila
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

I have a (USA) 2005 Forester 2.5XT with 18,000 miles, no problems
whatsover. And while I check the oil weekly, I see ZERO oil
consumption betwen oil changes.


On Sat, 20 May 2006 10:46:07 GMT, "Holly Wood"
wrote:

>Oil consumption is a major concern with current 2.5 Forester engine!
>
>"Lila Hanft" wrote in message
>
>>I have a 1999 Subaru Forester with about 125,000 miles on it. I am
>> shopping for a new car & am considering another Forester, but there are a
>> few things I don't like about my 1999 model.
>> -The seatbelts - none of them retract smoothly; they often jam.
>> -The retractable cargo cover -- three or four years ago, the little
>> plastic
>> stoppers that hold the cover over began wearing out/coming off (I fix them
>> sporadically with duct tape).
>> -Oil consumption -- this car has always consumed an unusually large amount
>> of oil -- maybe a quart a month. No mechanic has ever figured out why that
>> is.
>> -Backseat leg room -- very meager.
>>
>>
>> So, if you own a new or late model Forester, can you tell me if you have
>> trouble with the seat belts, cargo cover, or oil consumption? I hope that
>> in subsequent model years those flaws were corrected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lila
>
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

I have an 06 2.5X with premium package. I do not have any of your
problems except for the meager leg room in the rear seat.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

"Holly Wood" wrote in message

> Oil consumption is a major concern with current 2.5 Forester engine!

Not mine.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

Not with mine!

Holly Wood wrote:
>
> Oil consumption is a major concern with current 2.5 Forester engine!
>
> "Lila Hanft" wrote in message
>
> >I have a 1999 Subaru Forester with about 125,000 miles on it. I am
> > shopping for a new car & am considering another Forester, but there are a
> > few things I don't like about my 1999 model.
> > -The seatbelts - none of them retract smoothly; they often jam.
> > -The retractable cargo cover -- three or four years ago, the little
> > plastic
> > stoppers that hold the cover over began wearing out/coming off (I fix them
> > sporadically with duct tape).
> > -Oil consumption -- this car has always consumed an unusually large amount
> > of oil -- maybe a quart a month. No mechanic has ever figured out why that
> > is.
> > -Backseat leg room -- very meager.
> >
> >
> > So, if you own a new or late model Forester, can you tell me if you have
> > trouble with the seat belts, cargo cover, or oil consumption? I hope that
> > in subsequent model years those flaws were corrected.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lila
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

"Lila Hanft" wrote in message

>I have a 1999 Subaru Forester with about 125,000 miles on it. I am
> shopping for a new car & am considering another Forester, but there are a
> few things I don't like about my 1999 model.
> -The seatbelts - none of them retract smoothly; they often jam.
> -The retractable cargo cover -- three or four years ago, the little
> plastic
> stoppers that hold the cover over began wearing out/coming off (I fix them
> sporadically with duct tape).
> -Oil consumption -- this car has always consumed an unusually large amount
> of oil -- maybe a quart a month. No mechanic has ever figured out why that
> is.
> -Backseat leg room -- very meager.
>
>
> So, if you own a new or late model Forester, can you tell me if you have
> trouble with the seat belts, cargo cover, or oil consumption? I hope that
> in subsequent model years those flaws were corrected.
I have a 2001 Forester S automatic with premium package. Rear leg room is
definitely tight. But other issues you mention don't seem to apply in my
case.
One complaint I have: the engine isn't powerful enough, especially at higher
elevations...every day driving (I don't live in mountain area) is fine...but
whenever I go to the mountains, the engine power (or is it transmission?)
seem not very strong.

Boris
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:18:28 -0700, "Boris" wrote:

>One complaint I have: the engine isn't powerful enough, especially at higher
>elevations...every day driving (I don't live in mountain area) is fine...but
>whenever I go to the mountains, the engine power (or is it transmission?)
>seem not very strong.
>
>Boris
>
(USA 2005 XT) That's where the XT shines. No problems with a lack of
power at higher elevations. Driving through Mountain Pass between Las
Vegas and Baker (I-15), it cruises right along passing most other
cars.
I live in the Las Vegas metro area regularly drive it up into the
local Spring Mountains for hiking trips. The Lee Canyon route is from
2500' (town) to 7800' (trailheads) carrying 4 adults with hiking
gear. No shuttling back and forth between gears like other cars I have
been in on that road..
While up in the Lake Tahoe area it cruised along on US-50 climbing up
to the Tahoe basin from both the Placerville and the Carson City
sides. On one side trip we drove up from Gardnerville into Stateline
via the Kingsbury Grade and had fun driving on the twisty mountain
road.
On the way home we stopped into visit the Inyo National Forest,
Bristlecone Pine (Patriarch Grove). This route starts climbing in Big
Pine, CA, at just under 4000' and ends at about 11000'. Excellent
performer.
Complaints? (Sort of, but not really) The turbo requires the use of
premium grade gas 91/93 octane. That puts the fuel cost at 20 cents
per gallon more than regular. The other problem is with have a faster
car, you tend to drive a little faster, and the gas mileage drops as
you push the turbo. . But to me it's worth a few extra dollars a week
in fuel costs.

These stats are from Car & Driver
2006 model:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/9837/subaru-forester-25xt-l...ted.htm

0 to 30 mph in 1.5 sec
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: .15.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 182 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.75 g
EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg
Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4,
aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 150 cu in, 2457cc
Power (SAE net): 230 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 235 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm
C/D-observed fuel economy: 18 mpg


2005 model:
http://www.caranddriver.com/besttrucks/9164/5best-trucks-page3.html
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester 

On Sun, 21 May 2006 07:14:09 -0700, QX wrote:

I should add that I have the automatic transmission.
>>
>(USA 2005 XT) That's where the XT shines.
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 forester vs. 1999 forester