subaru foresters? are they as good as they seem?

[JamesM]

As I said its just what I read on a forum (so it could be total BS ) about the 2.5's when I was looking at one. The waterway oil way thing was a guess based on the 2.5 having larger bores so it would seem my guess was incorrect on that. For what it's worth I had a 1998 2.5 quad cam for 7 years and it was great. I read the information about the head gaskets problems affecting cars from around 2002 to 2005 when I was looking to replace my '98 with a later model.

 

[sausagefingers]

What are they like on petrol,economy wise?
Really fancied a Forester instead of a van but the mpg really put me off so I stuck with the Connect.
They seem like cracking cars and this damn thread has got me hankering after one again :evil:

 

[The History Man]

Fine on a run but thirsty pootling about which is mainly what we use it for. Goes off-road on bridleways every day and in low ratio but not far so we don't really worry about economy. (2 litre sport)

 

[highlandsflyer]

I had a drive in an X Trail today, much roomier than a Forester and slightly higher. Didn't try the 4x4 system out, but seemed a sold wagon all round.

 

[The History Man]

Yes we've used the one being offered but not sure of longevity etc. much roomier and lighter with a cream leather interior. Not sure how practical though with the high loading and interior.

 

[suburbanreuben]

Not even run in yet!
Ye can't go wrong with a subie 2 litre, as long as the oil's been changed regularly. Not like the 2.5 which was a pile of arse initially.

So is a 2004 2.5 SE Legacy a bad idea then? One for sale locally for under £2k, auto, full leather, vgc 110k miles and service history

:?:

By 2004 I think they had realised they had a problem with 2.5litre head gaskets. The Phase 1 2.5 engines (97-2002?) would blow their gaskets without fail at 100k-120k. New re-designed gaskets should have sorted this problem.
I reckon you'll be OK.

 

[suburbanreuben]

I had a drive in an X Trail today, much roomier than a Forester and slightly higher. Didn't try the 4x4 system out, but seemed a sold wagon all round.

But after a 6 hour drive to Spain I doubt you'd get out feeling as fresh as a daisy...

 

[highlandsflyer]

I, nor the wife who is 5' 10"-ish, ever find the high loading a hassle with our Pajeros, even putting crap on the roof rails is easy thanks to the running boards and the side swingin' tailgate, there is loads of foot space on the rear bumper with treadplate to stand on. They are a bit higher than the X Trail. I much prefer leather to anything else with the dogs, kids and my usually manky clothing. Easy enough to clean, our cars are always leather and the Pajs are half leather with a shiny woven material otherwise that is easy to wipe. I had no idea the X Trail was so well rated until I got chatting to one of my neighbours about her's and she offered me a ride. I have been reading up on it since, and today took her up on it and went for a long drive in the hills with her. I would be cheeky to ask to trial it off road as she never takes it off road, but they have a very complex and clever system to ensure maximum traction. Like most people around here they have a Landy all kitted up for the real serious weather! Nothing beats ground clearance when the shit hits the fan. Even a two wheel drive with decent clearance beats a low slung 4wd.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I had a drive in an X Trail today, much roomier than a Forester and slightly higher. Didn't try the 4x4 system out, but seemed a sold wagon all round.

But after a 6 hour drive to Spain I doubt you'd get out feeling as fresh as a daisy...

6 hours? Crikey, that is like a trip to the shops for us! The Pajeros eat up miles in great comfort, all bar a little extra wind and tyre noise than normal. I found our Beemer and Merc estates previously owned rather too cosseting when the hours go long and tiredness crept in.

 

[The History Man]

The high loading was with the dogs in mind. They're getting older but we have a ramp.