Author Topic: Long distance Forester  (Read 939 times)

August 02, 2016, 01:12:39 PM
Read 939 times

Uwe

  • Newbie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 1
    • View Profile
Hi Steve. Just registered. I was kindly introduced by Divan. Thanks for the forum. Looking forward to learning from all the "experts".
Immediate question:
I'm in the market for a 2003 up to 2008 Forester, for long range business purposes, rural & dirt roads.
Opinions as to whether I should look for normally aspirated or turbo? Preference is manual shift.
I have been driving a 2.5Xel for the last few years, best workhorse I've driven!
Kind regards
Uwe

August 02, 2016, 06:25:52 PM
Reply #1

josny1964

  • Full Member

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 141
  • Personal Text
    6 STAR AWD
    • View Profile
    • Email
Hi Uwe.
Welcome to the forum.
If you want to us it for business and you getting paid for traveling per km, I will go for 2.5 XT.
If fuel and maintenance is for your account Non turbo is the one.
N/A are in general more reliable(less issues) and can be more economic(lighter on fuel)
Once you have driven a turbo for the long run, it will be difficult the go back to N/A.
Have been using both for business for the last 13 years.
I prefer the Turbo.
I can give you turbo running cost over 100kkm if you are interested.
SUBARUKI in progress

August 04, 2016, 01:30:58 PM
Reply #2

JoeDijeaux

  • Guest
Although heavier on fuel, the XT makes it very easy to overtake slowpokes on the road. Although Steve will probably tell you to get an Outback. It's a very nice car for long trips. Though the Forester is pretty good too.

August 04, 2016, 04:21:36 PM
Reply #3

Stev0

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 10216
    • View Profile
    • Email
Although heavier on fuel, the XT makes it very easy to overtake slowpokes on the road. Although Steve will probably tell you to get an Outback. It's a very nice car for long trips. Though the Forester is pretty good too.

Probably.LOL


Jeep Commander CRD - GDE Hot Tune
ex Prodrive Xt, X, XT, WRX STI, Outback 3.0R

August 09, 2016, 04:55:52 PM
Reply #4

Klipdokter

  • Newbie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 34
    • View Profile
Steve is right. The first time I drove my 2005 Outback, I did a three-day road trip (6-10 hours every day). The fourth day I wondered if there's anywhere I can drive to. I've done numerous 11-12 hour trips with two kids <4y old and even they don't completely drive me mad.

August 09, 2016, 10:44:35 PM
Reply #5

Stev0

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 10216
    • View Profile
    • Email
Sien jy @JoeDijeaux
Jeep Commander CRD - GDE Hot Tune
ex Prodrive Xt, X, XT, WRX STI, Outback 3.0R

August 10, 2016, 09:42:21 AM
Reply #6

Kaysvay

  • Jr. Member

  • Offline
  • **

  • 57
    • View Profile
    • Email
Hi Uwe.
Welcome to the forum.
If you want to us it for business and you getting paid for traveling per km, I will go for 2.5 XT.
If fuel and maintenance is for your account Non turbo is the one.
N/A are in general more reliable(less issues) and can be more economic(lighter on fuel)
Once you have driven a turbo for the long run, it will be difficult the go back to N/A.
Have been using both for business for the last 13 years.
I prefer the Turbo.
I can give you turbo running cost over 100kkm if you are interested.

I agree

August 10, 2016, 10:28:24 AM
Reply #7

JoeDijeaux

  • Guest
Sien jy @JoeDijeaux

Ek het ook al begin dink daaraan. Die idee van XT krag en NA betroubaarheid is nogal aantreklik.

January 11, 2017, 10:29:33 AM
Reply #8

Ballysorbo

  • Newbie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 6
    • View Profile
    • Email

I can give you turbo running cost over 100kkm if you are interested.

Hi Josny1964, I'm interested in buying a 2010 XT with 95 000km on the odo. I'd like to see your running cost summary if possible? Thanks.