Xs or xt

OutbackOiler

OutbackOiler

Forum Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
322
Location
Townsville, Australia
I am looking at buying a forester, I have narrowed it to the era between 2000 and 2004, really comfortable and last model to have the arm rest for my shoulder, what I would like to know is opinions on whether I should go xs or xt, pros and cons over turbo or non turbo. Any info would be great :ebiggrin:
 
OutbackOiler said:
I am looking at buying a forester, I have narrowed it to the era between 2000 and 2004, really comfortable and last model to have the arm rest for my shoulder, what I would like to know is opinions on whether I should go xs or xt, pros and cons over turbo or non turbo. Any info would be great :ebiggrin:
Click to expand...

The xs/ xt terminology only started with the second generation foresters (2003+). Im not sure if the second gen still has armrests.
EDIT: Ok second gen has armrests. Id deffinately go early second gen either xs or xt theres not a whole lot of difference besides the engine and a few other little things.

In the second gen it all depends how important power is to you and how important fuel economy is.
XS is much more economic but nowhere near as powerful, but the 2.5 in them still has some very livable grunt..
XT are a bit fuel guzzling but are much more powerful, and therefore far more fun. :twisted:

In the first gen id deffinately go GT over the 2.0L models, IMO the 2.0L is just too gutless. Chuck a family in the car with a bit of other stuff and it just struggles in a lot of situations.
 
Last edited:
I didn't realise they went to 05, then they put ugly headlights on and removed the armrest😊

So this really comes down to power, does having the extra power bring any weakness's to the surface or does the power become beneficial in offroad circumstances.

Also when doing trips and using cruise do you find the turbo engines economical or still thirsty
 
My best advice would be if your looking for a good all round car is to get a 2nd gen XS Forester. Manual and with the 2.5l non turbo motor. They have quite abit of poke for onroad use in daily driving and highway. The 2.0l in the 1st gen Foresters is alright but without weight in the car but once loaded up struggles to get to the speed limit and hold it....

A turbo would be awesome to have but bear in mind the economy could be 5-6l per 100km worse than that of an N/A.

The arm rests are really good for long trips too as I have them in my Foz...
 
Just so you know, I have had an accident and my left shoulder is fubar, so I need an auto, I can still drive a manual but after a bit of traffic or a bad day it is quite painful 😥 the arm rest is essential for any long distance driving.
I guess it basically comes down to how much fun I want to have 😃
 
i have a the 04 xs in auto not to shabby for power, no sports car but good enough. one benefit on the NA is that you dont have to use premium unlike in the turbo.
if you dont require a fast car then i cant recommend the xs enough i love it
 
I have the armrest in my 08. The only reason I went the XS is for the dual range and flatter torque curve lower in the rev range but that's a mute point if you want the auto.

My vote is with an XT.
 
Well one simple way I can put it. If I were to do the Forester thing again I sure as hell would buy a turbo over non turbo one. But if it has to be auto I'd say the turbo all the way :D
 
OutbackOiler said:
Are the turbos that bad on fuel?
Click to expand...

Well probably more than double what your Outback Diesel gets in city driving. 15L per 100km give or take a few litres. On a long trip probably around 10L. Mr Turbo could give you an idea :iconwink:
But remember they are about as quick is a V8 Commodore... ish.. :twisted:
 
Gidday OO

OutbackOiler said:
I am looking at buying a forester, I have narrowed it to the era between 2000 and 2004, really comfortable and last model to have the arm rest for my shoulder, what I would like to know is opinions on whether I should go xs or xt, pros and cons over turbo or non turbo. Any info would be great :ebiggrin:
Click to expand...

Both my MY06 and SWMBO's MY10 have a centre armrest.

I have a sheepskin top on mine, for much the same reason as you. Very comfortable.

The models with the individual front seat armrests are hard to buy air bag compliant sheepskin seat covers for IME ...

My personal preference is for the 2.5L N/A over Turbo, because I know I couldn't resist ... ;); and the N/A has plenty of grunt and a flat torque curve from 1800 to 6200 rpm. Lower running and service costs. Greater likelihood of keeping my licence ...

Depends if you are looking to replace one of your existing cars, or not?

Also depends on your use IMO.

Be aware that there were significant changes to the SG Foresters with the MY06 onwards - same body shell as the previous SG models, but still significant changes. The SF and SH both have different body shells from all the SG models.
 
taza said:
Well probably more than double what your Outback Diesel gets in city driving. 15L per 100km give or take a few litres. On a long trip probably around 10L. Mr Turbo could give you an idea :iconwink:
But remember they are about as quick is a V8 Commodore... ish.. :twisted:
Click to expand...


I've been running around 11.5L/100km in a more city oriented circuit... On the highway, it's about 10.5L/100km.

Pedro.
 
Davidov said:
In the second gen it all depends how important power is to you and how important fuel economy is.
XS is much more economic but nowhere near as powerful, but the 2.5 in them still has some very livable grunt..
XT are a bit fuel guzzling but are much more powerful, and therefore far more fun.
Click to expand...
Experience with my brother's 03X and my 07 XT (both manuals and stock) tells me there is buggar-all difference with their economy on the open road and only a small amount with short trip, cold start city running. The biggest difference is the XT needing premium fuel. My XT has averaged 9.5L/100km over its 212,000km life - vastly different to the official combined claim of 11.4L/100km. It drops as low as 7.8 (my brother's has never been that low) and has once seen 16.9 :biggrin:

I can't say that about the power though - the difference is huge. But then, most people most of the time would find the X (or XS) more than adequate and should try to not spoil their decision by trying an XT.
 
Last edited:
OutbackOiler said:
So this really comes down to power, does having the extra power bring any weakness's to the surface or does the power become beneficial in offroad circumstances.
Click to expand...
There are both advantages & dis-advantages to having a turbo when offroad.
Sure it's great having the extra torque, for some of those long, steep hill climbs. But you can have too much power some times.

If your rev's are too low (off boost) you can run out of puff before you get to the top. If you've rev's are too high (too much boost) you may just start spinning your wheels & loose traction, thus causing you to stop as you'll loose your momentum.

You just have to find the sweet spot.

If you go for a N/A instead of a turbo, then you always have the advantage of having low range, that the turbo's sadly don't have.

In short...
Turbo = point & shoot.
N/A switch to low range = better crawling ability.

As for economy, I would average anything from 10.5-11.0 lts/100km's around the city & about 8.0-8.5 lts/100km's on the highway.

What I will say though, is that if I drive it like I stole it there's not a great difference to driving it like grandma economy wise.

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
Interesting comments and assessment, Mr T.

Nothing I know about cars and engines disagrees with anything you have said.

I agree about the LR comment especially.
While I suspect that dropping the clutch at 4000 rpm in Roo2 in first/LR on bitumen might cause something important to break, being a little more gentle does get me underway very smartly indeed. Specially if things are a bit wet and greasy.

Over many, many years and kilometres I found that few other cars could touch my Impreza (the 1.8L version) under those conditions, and it was as gutless as they come.

I would never suggest that Roo2 is gutless, or underpowered and overweight ... :poke:; and the gearing is far better chosen than that in Roo1 :ebiggrin: :lildevil: :cool:
 
My XS (in low range) has shown its rear to my Pug 206 GTI and a friends Lexus, both manuals.

Nothing even comes close to it in the wet but that's not a fair comparison.
 
Well I have been lent an xs overnight to see how I go with all the family, was worried about the size with 3 kids and 1 being a teenager. It's ok on power when full of people, easy to overtake on highway. Being an auto it is a little sluggish and i am worried about it fully loaded on big trips with the added possibility of a trailer, I wish I had a turbo to drive up here just to compare but townsville is all about cruisers, hiluxs, commodores and falcons. Anything else and they think your odd and using indicators is downright offensive plus the right lane is reserved for toyotas, not that I am bitter or anything 😊. I think we can pull the forrie off with the family. Just not sure about the turbo or not.
Thanks everyone for your input, also how do you guys find them towing?
 
stilson said:
My XS (in low range) has shown its rear to my Pug 206 GTI and a friends Lexus, both manuals.

Nothing even comes close to it in the wet but that's not a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
I used to have a V8 auto discovery and shocked the hell out of a skyline driver one day, he was being slightly annoying so I dropped into low without locking the centre diff and anighalated him between lights, what he didn't know was I ran out of steam at around 70kph but damn it got there quick 😃
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top