Forester XT Research
 

I'm considering purchasing a 2004 Forester XT in the next month or two since I'm moving up to Lake Tahoe for the snow season. Do any current owners out there have any gripes about them? I know they've only been out for a month or so, but I thought I'd ask. :)

JD
[email]webmaster@wrxhackers.com[/email]
[url]www.wrxhackers.com[/url]

Subaru inexplicably installed shorter 4.44 final-drive gearing in the XT (compared to a normal Forester) despite the fact that 40% more torque would easily have accomodated the normal 4.11 or even 3.9. The result (in the 5-speed version) is a vehicle that spins at 3,500 rpm at 80mph and BEGS for a taller top gear. First gear is so low that I avoid it whenever possible. I dislike having to either shift to 2nd when I'm barely halfway across the intersection or else use higher RPMs than would otherwise be necessary. The unbelievably short axle ratio detracts from quietness at highway speed, worsens the mediocre fuel mileage (on expensive premium-required gas), and will likely reduce the engine's long-term lifespan.

There's a lot to like about any Forester, and about the XT - but I think Subaru blew it with the axle ratio. I have always preferred manual transmissions, but in this case the automatic is the better choice - it has a taller top gear which mitigates the final-drive issue to some extent.

I crossed the 2,000 mile mark yesterday with mine, and the absence of a taller top gear seriously detracts from my satisfaction with the vehicle.

Thanks. I see what you mean. I just put together a little excel spreadsheet comparing the STI RA 5spd, the WRX, and the XT transmissions. An XT with a 3.9 or 4.11 rear end looks like it'd be a lot better as far as cruising goes. My ERWR's were roughly calculated based on published numbers of gear ratio and MPH top speeds for all of the vehicles. The MPH numbers are probably off by a few MPH here and there. Here's my results:

[url]http://www.wrxhackers.com/members/wackie/gears.xls[/url]

JD

Nice spreadsheet (I saved it for myself!), but it needs a correction. Early indications were that the XT's gearbox had the same ratios as 'normal' Foresters, which is what was listed in Car & Driver's data tables. Those are the ratios you've used for the XT. However, in fact the XT 5-speed ratios are the same as in the WRX. In other words, 1st gear remains the same as in your table, but the other 4 gears are a bit taller. Still WAY too short, though. An XT with the 3.9 final drive would have been magical. Unfortunately, I've been quoted upwards of $3,000 to convert.

There are some good comments and discusson here too:

[url]http://www.subaruforester.com/forum/index.php[/url]

I'm fast approaching 4K miles. I've been very happy with mine so far.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ballistic [/i]
[B]. . . the XT 5-speed ratios are the same as in the WRX. . .[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, I'll update the spreadsheet.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ballistic [/i]
[B]the XT 5-speed ratios are the same as in the WRX. In other words, 1st gear remains the same as in your table, but the other 4 gears are a bit taller. Still WAY too short, though. An XT with the 3.9 final drive would have been magical. Unfortunately, I've been quoted upwards of $3,000 to convert. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's unfortunate. I like the ratios on the gears for the Forester much better than the WRX. :( Why in the world is it $3000 to convert the rear end? I imagine you'd need a new rear end, possibly new axles and maybe a new driveline. Was it mostly labor costs? Do you have a quote with details?

JD

>That's unfortunate. I like the ratios on the gears for the Forester much better than the WRX.

So do I, although you and I seem to be the only people on the planet who see it that way. The gap between 1st and 2nd on a regular Forester is about 68% (increase in speed at a given RPM). That's a larger gap than I like, but it's manageable. The WRX/XT has a huge 78% gap, and I find that awkward. Either you rev like hell in 1st to still be at a decent RPM after upshifting to 2nd, or else you shift out of 1st at a more moderate RPM and bog down in 2nd. I don't like the WRX ratios at all. In a perfect world, Subaru would have brought not only the STi's engine to the XT, but also the 6-speed box (with suitably revised ratios). That would have allowed for a low 1st (for those who want dragstrip launches, or to get boats moving out of the water and up a steep ramp, or for off-road crawling). And it would have allowed for a really TALL 6th, for relaxed, quiet, economical freeway cruising - while still having four well-spaced ratios in between.

>Why in the world is it $3000 to convert the rear end?

Because, unfortunately, it's not just the rear end. All-wheel-drive, remember? Both ends. And evidently it requires quite a bit of skilled labor to get the differentials shimmed just right. I wish the cost was lower, because I'd really rather convert my XT to 3.9.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ballistic [/i]
[B]Because, unfortunately, it's not just the rear end. All-wheel-drive, remember? Both ends. And evidently it requires quite a bit of skilled labor to get the differentials shimmed just right. I wish the cost was lower, because I'd really rather convert my XT to 3.9. [/B][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Ok, not enough coffee for me yet today. Sorry, brain fart. ;)

I wonder if the USDM STi 6spd will bolt in. . . :)

I suppose it might, but even if it did, the ratios (which are appropriate for the STi) are wrong for an XT. 6th gear in the STi box is actually not quite as low (numerically) as the WRX/XT 5th. So the 6-speed box would deliver nice, close ratios, but without the 3.9 final drive, it would worsen the freeway RPM problem.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ballistic [/i]
[B]I suppose it might, but even if it did, the ratios (which are appropriate for the STi) are wrong for an XT. 6th gear in the STi box is actually not quite as low (numerically) as the WRX/XT 5th. So the 6-speed box would deliver nice, close ratios, but without the 3.9 final drive, it would worsen the freeway RPM problem. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you replace the transmission you inevitebly (SP?) replace the front diff, and thus you must replace the rear diff. . .

True. I guess I'd better start packing my lunches and saving up...

Since you and I are at least somewhat on the same wavelength on the gearing issues, I'd be interested in your reaction when you get around to test-driving an XT (or, better yet, both a 5-speed and an automatic). I placed my order for a 5-speed XT in early May. The first car to arrive in Portland (several weeks before mine) was an automatic. I drove it (but only for 5-6 miles) and thought it was spectacular. Then I waited for my on-order 5-speed to arrive. It was the first 5MT XT in Oregon. I took a very short and extremely gentle pre-delivery drive (maybe 2 miles, not over 2,000 rpms) just to make sure everything worked, and bought it. I was completely unaware that Subaru decided to abandon the 4.11 Forester gearing and switch to 4.44. That's the OPPOSITE of what I'd do if I began with a perfectly-balanced car like a standard Forester and swapped in an engine with 42% more torque across a wider band. That sort of power calls for TALLER gearing - not shorter!

The result is a car that, under full throttle, hits the redline in first gear in barely 1.3 second,doing only 32mph!. I think that is preposterous. This car would be perfect with a first gear that reached 40, a 2nd that reached about 65, 3rd going to maybe 95, 4th to 125, and 5th to (theoretical) 170 or so. That would provide relaxed, quiet 80mph cruising at about 3,000 rpms instead of a buzzy 3,500 - a very big difference. For autobahn-type driving, it also would allow a drag-limited top speed of about 140 at an unstressed 5,400 rpms, instead of buzzing its heart out at 5,900 for barely 130.

Geared thus, the XT would still provide spectacular, class-leading acceleration - 0-60 in probably 5.7-5.8 (instead of C&D's 5.3), quartermile in maybe 14.2 @ 95 instead of 13.8 @ 97. No other mini-SUV-wagon under $30K or even $40K could have come even close. Oh - and the EPA ratings would have been more like 20-26 instead of 18-23.

In every single important way, that XT would (IMO) have been a far better all-around daily driver than what we got. Instead, Subaru opted for ball-flattening, headline-grabbing acceleration - and sacrificed a host of other equally-important qualities.

I like my XT for the most part - but not nearly as well as I hoped to.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ballistic [/i]
[B]I'd be interested in your reaction when you get around to test-driving an XT (or, better yet, both a 5-speed and an automatic).[/B][/QUOTE]

I test drove an auto yesterday. It was tough to modulate the throttle in a turn because it liked to upshift when you let off a tad and downshift again after getting back on it. All in all, not very fun for spirited driving. I imagine throttle steering would be pretty hard as well (never tried it in an auto). I liked the way it felt all together, but I really dislike automatics and have never owned a car with an automatic transmission. I was raised driving tractors and 3-wheelers, what can I say. :)

I think I'll be ok with the gearing in the manual. I wish the ratios were closer, but I always hated how high the WRX gears were in general. I'll have to investigate the STI 6 spd swap. Sounds like fun.

JD

>I always hated how high the WRX gears were in general.

How much of that was because the WRX doesn't make much torque below 3,000-3,500 RPM? A tall gear, coupled with not a lot of suds, wouldn't appeal to me, either.

The XT, on the other hand, has _bags_ of torque down low. 25% greater displacement, coupled with variable valve timing, coupled with the turbo's ability to register positive boost even at 1300-1500 RPMs, makes a huge difference. It transforms the experience.

What might reasonably be called too-tall gearing on a WRX could also be reasonably called too-short on an XT...