2015 Forester 2.0

[Lao_Ah_Di]

 

Well said, I seconded that.

 

Equipment and features certainly are much better compare to other made at this price point.

 

Also FC is really not that bad, for my travelling pattern of 90% highway 10% urban, with a few red line acceleration in S# or S mode on every single drive (usually in manual paddle shifter mode), I've been able tto get avg of 12.8km/l tank after tank.

 

Overall, really like this car and no horse run!

 

Agree, given the horse power, AWD, the drive, the equipment (sound system, HUGe sunroof)

Passenger space, boot size. This is a very good package.

 

To me the interior design and the form is actually good. Only the materials doesn't feel luxury, which I feel you can improve with a few hundred bucks with workshops that does interior.

 

This is more like a car with substance then look. A bit of the "clothing" it will help.

[7hm]

Forester is overall outdated to me, imo, but it definitely has things where they count with a decent sound system and powerful engine.

 

Interior design is a bit too 'workmanlike' for my taste, but it's mostly well screwed together, except for the flimsy door bin plastic.

 

However Subaru's latest technologies have been casually stripped off by MotorImage which kind of puts me off.

And Subie is pretty slow to embrace some of the trends that would add a higher tech feel, like for example the Forester still uses reflector HIDs rather than bi-xenon projectors and their tail lights are still bulbs.

[Tohto]

 

Car interior looking abit dated and spartan doesn't mean it's equipment is outdated. Please get this straight. It's equipment level does not lose to it's competitors and it's the reason why many choose this car (including me), even if it looks Spartan and has not much curves. You use SGcarmart do a comparision on the equipment level of the Forester with it's peers of the same price and class, you'll be surprised.

 

FC is relative to power. It may have the worst FC but it's also WAY more powerful than the rest in it's class. It's up to you if you are willing to sacrifice power for FC. Also, this ride can be driven decently too and ave FC can hit 9.5 to 10km/l realistically in local roads which is almost the same as it's peers. For 2.0 Turbo with 350nm of torque, not bad liao.

 

Well said.

For SUV to have similar performance, it will cost at least $100k more.

For car like BMW X3, Volvo XC60, Audi Q5 or Range Rover. And all this car FC also very similar to the FXT.

[Tohto]

10 to 20k cheaper because its OMV is ~10k cheaper than its competitor

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

It depends how you take care of your car. FC may not always get worst when it is well maintain.

My current 2.0L NA conti when I bought it was 4.5yrs old. The 1st half year when driving it, the FC was about 8-8.5km/L.

Currently, car is 9yr3mth. My average FC is 9.5-10.5km/L. I travel about 3000km per month and no change in my driving pattern.

Currently I am also eyeing the FXT as replacement car.

[Chucky2007]

Random question on stock tyres:

 

How is the stock Bridgestone Dueler doing?

 

If you are given a choice what would you rather get?

I would get Pirelli Scorpion Verde All Season Plus if it can be found in Singapore... I'm on Pirelli Pzero Nero on current car.. live it deeply

[Pioneer]

Sometimes heavy foot comes from the fact that the car you have been driving cars that are not fast enough for you.

 

Maybe you bought cars looking at their FC more than the torque and bhp and then realised you have to step more to reach the speed you want.

 

 

10 to 20k cheaper because its OMV is ~10k cheaper than its competitor

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

[7hm]

Well said.

For SUV to have similar performance, it will cost at least $100k more.

For car like BMW X3, Volvo XC60, Audi Q5 or Range Rover. And all this car FC also very similar to the FXT.

 

I think the current Q5 or X3 or T5 DrivE XC60 all can do more than 12.5km/l leh.

Sometimes heavy foot comes from the fact that the car you have been driving cars that are not fast enough for you.

 

Maybe you bought cars looking at their FC more than the torque and bhp and then realised you have to step more to reach the speed you want.

 

my old car 100hp... need to floor the pedal to pick up sometimes and that affects the overall fc.

new ride can get up to speed with 10% of pedal... ends up same fc result liao... but burn more when idling

[Tohto]

 

I think the current Q5 or X3 or T5 DrivE XC60 all can do more than 12.5km/l leh.

 

My colleague driving new X3 for more than half year. Always hear him complain FC less than 10km/L.

12.5km/L is ideal case lah, I think not easy to get here.

 

And these car cost at least $100k more.

 

Toyota Harrier look good. But performance no way close to FXT and it is $20k more.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Tohto

[Pocus]

 

I think the current Q5 or X3 or T5 DrivE XC60 all can do more than 12.5km/l leh.

 

 

XC60 12.5km/l? From feedback don't think so. Local traffic FC is closer to 11km/l, slightly better than FXT due to FWD. And why are we even comparing those? They are all 200k and above! LOL

[Chucky2007]

10 to 20k cheaper because its OMV is ~10k cheaper than its competitor

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

u should consider a XC90 with a 70-80litre tank..

[SimonChua_160516]

My colleague driving new X3 for more than half year. Always hear him complain FC less than 10km/L.

12.5km/L is ideal case lah, I think not easy to get here.

 

And these car cost at least $100k more.

 

Toyota Harrier look good. But performance no way close to FXT and it is $20k more.

 

 

If can afford a car that costs S$200k or more... why complain about the FC? Unless he/she wants to be environmentally cautious? Then should buy a hybrid car

[SimonChua_160516]

10 to 20k cheaper because its OMV is ~10k cheaper than its competitor

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

I am heavy footed. I read for review tht it is 7km/L. My currently drive use give 10km/L but after 7 yrs it give me 7km/l. I cant imagine if i get 4 to 5km/l per with forester, i got to visit and pump pertol every 2 days. Too troublesome for me

 

If FC is your one of your concern, suggest Vezel Hybrid and it's a Cat B car with 150bhp :)

 

Too bad they don't have Tesla Model S or X here in SG :(

Edited September 18, 2015 by SimonChua_160516

[ahdes]

Thank you Whitemondeo and 7hm for your helpful replies.

 

I recall I signed the agreement during the time when the promotion for the free 5 year/100k km servicing was on. I confirmed this today with the sales person and also found the price list for that period which states the same.

[Tohto]

 

 

If can afford a car that costs S$200k or more... why complain about the FC? Unless he/she wants to be environmentally cautious? Then should buy a hybrid car

I fully agreed on that. .

[Pioneer]

But with the same FC, you have 90% power left untapped.

 

I was also very into FC, still I guess, so like many, I never thought of getting a Subaru.

 

Sure, Subaru cars can be considered as ugly, cheap or cheap to some and TBH, I have never considered a FXT. I tested Veloster Turbo, CX-5 and QQ and was on the verge on signing for the 1.2T QQ but at las, the delivery was going to be in Oct/Nov and the 2.0L version was available but cost 12-14k more.

 

It was a random thought that prompted me to look at the FXT in the showroom. I realised the car looks so much better in real life. Someone should sack the Subaru photographer.

 

In the end, I realised that this is the cheapest car for its BHP and Torque and that kinda convinced me.

 

As I go online to learn more about Subaru, I realised I am bought over by their philosophy in car design.

 

My previous car, Astra GTC, 1.4cc turbo charged engine with about 200Nm torque also 10km/l. Subaru Forester with 240BHP and 350Nm Torque also 10km/l.

 

I have owned a mx-5, the supposedly best handling budget car. I wasn't impressed. For me, it has been always about torque, torque and more torque. I don't need speed, I need acceleration.

 

 

 

I think the current Q5 or X3 or T5 DrivE XC60 all can do more than 12.5km/l leh.

 

my old car 100hp... need to floor the pedal to pick up sometimes and that affects the overall fc.

new ride can get up to speed with 10% of pedal... ends up same fc result liao... but burn more when idling

 

[Quantum]

 

XC60 12.5km/l? From feedback don't think so. Local traffic FC is closer to 11km/l, slightly better than FXT due to FWD. And why are we even comparing those? They are all 200k and above! LOL

recently I have project at Tuas, daily driving about 100km, in car computer display FC 7.6L/100km, best once 6.8L/100km in evening time, convert to 14.7km/L,

very good FC for 2.0T, AWD SUV,

[Chucky2007]

recently I have project at Tuas, daily driving about 100km, in car computer display FC 7.6L/100km, best once 6.8L/100km in evening time, convert to 14.7km/L,

very good FC for 2.0T, AWD SUV,

maybe next time you drive to KL at 90km/hr all the way can reach 1L=18km?

[Axela72]

Don't get the XT lor, get the normal 2.0. I saw some said here that the FC is not that bad and it is not over-powered nor under-powered. But of course, one has to test drive to judge for themselves.

 

If only The normal 2.0 come with the same sound systems. I was considering the XT not because of the power (redundant to me) but because of the better sound systems.