Hello everyone, I really need some ideas from the Subaru experts just like you!! I own a 97 Legacy 2.5 gx A/T Sedan and a 86 Nissan Patrol 4x4 Diesel. Now; I am thinking of selling those two cars and buy a 97-99 Subaru Forester 2.0 Turbo A/T. In fact I like my cars but; Nissan is an old smokey!! - but like a monster on the terrain/mud/snow!! and Legacy is too low (esp.front) for the conditions of our roads and also for the terrain; it is a 4x4 but I just can't drive it on the terrain for it has a very low front bumper-realize it's a sport vehicle but I have to care about the highness-. So, what are your ideas about that Forester?Does it have the same fuel consumption values like Legacy 2.5?-not sure because that's a wagon and it has a turbo???-consumption is very important to me because fuel is very expensive here..(my Legacy consumes 11-12 liters per 100 km,and I'm happy with that.) And what do you think about the off-road performance of the 97-99 Forester-I mean is it can be used just like a 4x4 in heavy conditions and is it resistable to those conditions just like my Patrol ??? I go hunting and I'm planning to drive that vehicle in deep mud,snow and sand. This is an AWD but I don't think it can be as good as the 4x4 Patrol on the terrain.. What do you think?? And the last one; how about the performance of that 2.0 Turbo 190 hp engine?? But I have to underline that the off-road performance of that vehicle is much more important for me than the performance. P.s. I may also buy a 97 Outback 2.5 A/T, it's cheaper than Forester.What do you say- Forester or Outback for off-road?? My message is a bit long but I trust and care about your ideas. Thanks for your ideas in advance.
I've drive my L turbo wgn on some very rough roads with a full load. The only clearance problem is that the trailer hitch drags on the more drastic
dips. The hitch is for the bike rack so I wont take it off.
Depending upon tire size,the Forester has about the same clearance,but with a better departure angle it will drag less frequently.
Because of the latter, The F has a shorter cargo area. Because the body
is taller(to look like an SUV) the frontal area is larger with more drag and
a lower top speed.
Outbacks are too heavy for negliable improvement in clearance over the
Legacy.
Subtle (normally aspirated engines suck):
05 Legacy GT Wagon with Cobb chip.
62 Alfa Romeo Spider- had a 1.6 L with 80 hp, now 2 L with 160 torque. Curb weight 2050 lbs.
93 Leg Twgn fmic, vf34, etc. ((sold))
To my knowleedge, the Subaru Forester was first produced in 1998 with only 3 trim levels; base, l, and s. None of which come with a stock turbo charger. And they were 2.5L engines that had 165 hp and 166 ft/lbs.
I say go with the 97 2.5GT, you can get it for cheaper, and it's faster by about .3 in the quarter mile than the Forester.
[quote="Manarius "]Only flamers will get those. [/quote]
[quote="All_talk "]How many WHP will that give me? :)[/quote]
He's in Turkey so they may have gotten the Forester earlier then us and in different engine trims.
I had a Forester S and it did pretty dang well in most conditions but it is NOT a 4x4. If you are really going to be doing a lot of rough terrain then I would say that none of the above choices would be great. Deep mud is the only one I'd really worry about though. The Foresters ground cleareance isn't real high.
If you really are going to be hitting the rough terrain, I'd personally get an old Land Cruiser or other Toyota 4x4.
-Matt
'92 SS 5mt. All go and no show. Sold :(
'94 Audi UrS4 Modded (new project)
'96 Outback 5mt.
'07 Legacy 2.5i SE
[quote="Redlined"]
Oh... and I hope the fucker get bunked with Gunter, arrested for raping Gorillas.[/quote]
The Forester is not a serious off road vehicle, but it does a good job nonetheless. As for fuel economy, it looks like it has a down tuned WRX engine, so it may get slightly worse than your 2.5, but probably not significantly worse.
[url=http://www.sl-i.net/FORUM/viewtopic.php?t=486]1995 Legacy Outback 5MT[/url]
185,000 miles
www.sl-i.net (for all Legacys!)
The Forester EJ20T was designed to have more low-end torque over high-end power. I think the redline is 6k in it, instead of the 7k or 8k you'd see in other EJ20s.
But yeah, no stock Subaru is going to hold a candle to the off-road capabilities of your Nissan truck. They're 'all-weather' cars more than anything else.
"Der Wahnsinn ist nur eine schmale Brücke/die Ufer sind Vernunft und Trieb"
I own a 97 Legacy 2.5 gx A/T Sedan and a 86 Nissan Patrol 4x4 Diesel. Now; I am thinking of selling those two cars and buy a 97-99 Subaru Forester 2.0 Turbo A/T. In fact I like my cars but; Nissan is an old smokey!! - but like a monster on the terrain/mud/snow!! and Legacy is too low (esp.front) for the conditions of our roads and also for the terrain; it is a 4x4 but I just can't drive it on the terrain for it has a very low front bumper-realize it's a sport vehicle but I have to care about the highness-. So, what are your ideas about that Forester?Does it have the same fuel consumption values like Legacy 2.5?-not sure because that's a wagon and it has a turbo???-consumption is very important to me because fuel is very expensive here..(my Legacy consumes 11-12 liters per 100 km,and I'm happy with that.) And what do you think about the off-road performance of the 97-99 Forester-I mean is it can be used just like a 4x4 in heavy conditions and is it resistable to those conditions just like my Patrol 
??? I go hunting and I'm planning to drive that vehicle in deep mud,snow and sand. This is an AWD but I don't think it can be as good as the 4x4 Patrol on the terrain.. What do you think?? And the last one; how about the performance of that 2.0 Turbo 190 hp engine?? But I have to underline that the off-road performance of that vehicle is much more important for me than the performance. P.s. I may also buy a 97 Outback 2.5 A/T, it's cheaper than Forester.What do you say- Forester or Outback for off-road?? My message is a bit long but I trust and care about your ideas. Thanks for your ideas in advance.
