The run out model of the Forester seem to be still around at attractive prices, which one would you go for:
option 1 Forester 2.0l XC auto - sunroof Heated seats 08 reg but 0 miles
option 2 Forester 2.5l turbo all electrics plus performance but higher running costs.
My mileage since retiring is around 8k pa regularly out and about to N Wales the Dales & SW Scotland so security of 4 wd helpful.
Anyone with the 2.5l turbo got real running costs?
Your comments invited
|
|
Your mileage is low so I wouldn't worry about fuel consumption too much. The 2.5 engine has more torque and with a turbo will be quick when you want it to be and will probably be no worse or even better on fuel than a 2 litre auto. I would imagine the 2 litre auto would feel very sluggish compared to the turbo. My experience with a turbo Impreza is that they only really drink fuel when you use your right foot, on long cruising journeys they are remarkably (relatively!) frugal.
|
We have the 2.0 Turbo auto in our family (a model no longer made). It is more than quick and the 2.5 should be even faster. Economy around suburban Manchester is at best 20 mpg, but this does improve to 30mpg on a run than is not slow. The 2.0 you are considering is almost as powerful as the 2.0 turbo, so I don't think you will miss out on the power even with the auto box and will be more economical. It also has higher profile tyres which make the car very smooth riding.
|
The 2.5 turbo can be surprisingly economical on a long run - high 20's, even over 30 mpg depending on the touch of your foot. At the other end, can go as low as high teens if you really try.
Real world economy will be slightly worse than the 2.0, but you'll have all that power on tap for when you need it. Have a look on the Forester forum -
www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f75/
|
I think it's still the case that the Turbo models need servicing every 6 months rather than 12, and the insurance group will be much higher.
I think the Turbo version is an amazing car, if you can afford the running costs
MVP
2003 Forester 2.0x owner
|
|
Nope - 12 months for turbos also
|
|
|
Howdo MVP
Please could you tell me what mpg you get from your 03 Forester
Dave
|
Gave
We get around the low thirties with a mix of A road/town driving, though the figure can go down to low twenties around town in the winter.
Apart from a wiper blade, it hasn't cost us a penny apart from normal servicing
MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info the price diff is around £2k so over 3/4 year nowt really.
I think its down to the deal + diff on maintenance/running costs.
I the past when I had company cars I ran a number of Legacy Turbo's , happy days .
Thanks for the comments/info so far
|
|
Should be few differences in maintenance costs.
|
|
If the 2.5 is a manual, probably little if any difference in fuel costs either. Insurance might be a tad dearer.
|
I bought a brand new 2.5XT for just over £14k in September.
3000miles later, averaging 25-26mpg in mixed driving.
Performance is eyebrow raising. 0-60 in 5.7s. Handling is very car-like, and grip is almost limitless.
The 2.0 non-turbo churns out a healthy 156hp, but it is like a Honda V-Tec, redlining about 7500rpm - I imagine in auto form it needs thrashing to make rapid progress.
Build quality is faultless, materials are ok, but it really is Focus sized inside rather than Mondeo sized (smaller than a CRV for instance).
Boot is ok, and has a full size spare under the boot floor.
Stereo is fairly rubbish, but sounds fine upfront with a 6CD changer in the stereo itself.
Heated seats, wipers, headlamp washers (Xenon lamps also), self-levelling rear suspension and rear LSD as well as 4wd.
Insurance about £250 for full NCD 36yo with an SP30, incl business use (postcode probably biggest factor).
Great service from the dealer in Carlisle (120 miles from where I live near Falkirk, whose dealer wouldn't match the price from Carlisle!) - Speak to the dealer principal, Ian at Stan Palmers, and see what he can do for you.
(/advert)
Great car. Does what it says on the tin. Try searching for unsatisfied customers of any Subaru product and you'll be struggling.
|
Great service from the dealer in Carlisle (120 miles from where I live near Falkirk whose dealer wouldn't match the price from Carlisle!)
Similar experience at Subaru dealer 15 mths ago - looking for 2nd hand his prices were V high and would not negotiate - that's the price. I went elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Interested to be able compare the new Road Tax for these cars:
2.0 l XC with 220g CO2 £215 shoots upto £345
Ins Grp 13
2.5l Turbo with 250 g CO2 £405, and £425 in 2010
Ins Grp 17
So minor tax changes between these 2 models next year, still nearly £10.00 a week to park on the road, no way of changing these costs.
|
I have a 2.0 XT (turbo) auto. I test drove a 2.0 normally aspirated version and found it very hard work. The turbo by contrast is effortless. The new 2.0 non-turbo is now 16 valve and similar to the Honda Vtec engine. Although it is more powerful than the earlier 8 valve engine it has to be worked very hard and is not very satisfactory as an auto. Also, fuel consumption sufffers as a result.
I was recently offered a new, unregistered 2.5 XTen auto with leather and sat nav for £17995 by a main dealer , which is nearly £10k off list! Predictably the trade- in I was offered was derisory so I didn't bother.
The VED issue is probably significant in terms of running costs as post March 2006 cars are £400 per annum and rising whereas pre March 2006 cars are just over £200 and only going up £5 per annum in the new year and a maximum of £30 more in 2010.
I am tempted to look for a low mileage 2006 2.5 XT car with the lower VED.
On the question of mpg the Forester Forum members experience is that the 2.5 XT is, if anything, more economical than the 2.0XT as more usable torque lower down.
I get 26 mpg overall with a lot of short journeys - 32 to 35 mpg on a run - and a worst ever tankful @ 20 mpg with incredibly short journeys in very cold weather with ac on.
Great cars!
HectorG
|
|
|
|
