Talk:Subaru Forester

Issues
There are a lot of parts of this article that need touchup/NPOV. In specific:


 * Subaru's trademark All wheel drive (AWD) transmission -- trademark AWD? I realize that Subaru throws AWD at everything, but this statement implies that the system is somehow unique from the rest of the industry.
 * Touted as "SUV tough, Car Easy" it has a large, somewhat boxy cargo area -- sounds like an ad. A section on how the Forester is marketed could probably tolerate this statement, but only in the event that the facts are well-supported first.
 * in fact, the engine in the Forester XT is most similar to the engine used in the U.S.-market Subaru Impreza WRX STi -- reference? It's a 2.5 L like the STi motor...but that doesn't mean it's more similar than the stock WRX motor.
 * Subaru rates the XT as producing 209 hp (156 kW), although this number has been challenged as underreported, with some estimating the actual output at possibly higher than 240 horsepower. This makes this the second fastest production SUV—only the Porsche Cayenne is faster. -- really needs to be supported and clarified

--Milkmandan 07:05, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

I agree that the "advertisement-speak" should be removed.

However, regarding another point, I disagree: Milkmandan wrote:
 * "* in fact, the engine in the Forester XT is most similar to the engine used in the U.S.-market Subaru Impreza WRX STi -- reference? It's a 2.5 L like the STi motor...but that doesn't mean it's more similar than the stock WRX motor."

The following similarities exist between the Forester XT and WRX STi motors, respectively, are noted in an article by theautochannel.com:
 * "The Forester XT's engine is a derivative of that found in the rally-replica WRX STi. It uses the same aluminum alloy block as the STi, with a closed-deck design and reinforced crankshaft journals for strength under high levels of turbo boost. Like the STi, it is intercooled and uses variable valve timing for efficiency and a wider power band, but less boost and milder cams give it 210 horsepower at 5600 rpm and 235 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm, versus the STi's 300 hp and 300 lb-ft." (emphasis added)

Other sources which I have read, which I admit are mainly "web sources," confirm the fact that the two engine blocks have the same Subaru part number. So, at the very least, there is verifiable (or contradictable, if anyone cares to posit counter-evidence) evidence that the block is identical between the WRX STi and the Forester XT. This element should be removed from debate, absent contrary information.

--Ryanaxp 07:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fantastic&mdash;this was exactly the type of information I was looking for. Putting these facts into the article would button this up for sure.  --Milkmandan 16:04, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Intention to remove NPOV tag
I edited the article in line with some of the discussion above, and I believe most (if not all) points are addressed or remedied in my most recent edited version. Therefore, I will remove the "NPOV" tag soon, unless someone writes an objection. --Ryanaxp 08:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * No objections here. It looks like it's spot-on now.  --Milkmandan 16:06, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Article should include mention of Forester Sti (jdm)
It should be noted that Subaru created a limited edition Forester based on the Sti. This engine features the 2.5 Boxer 16 Valve AVCS Turbo producing 265 HP This Forrester also comes with a 6 speed manual transmission.

Other features include:

Larger intercooler Low-back-pressure exhaust The gearing ratios have also changed slightly to compensate for the increased torque. (Car and Driver Magazine, Aug 2004) Suspension has also been upgraded to Sti springs and struts.(decreased ride height by 1.2 inches) The anti-roll bars have also been improved for this model. Also features massive Brembo brakes and "18-inch, 10-spoke alloy wheels with wide 225/45R-18 Bridgestone Potenzas." (Car and Driver Magazine, Aug 2004)

This version also comes in the WR Blue Pearl reserved for the WRX and Sti lines and features teh pink STi badge.

Retails for $28,000 in Japan. No plans for US release.

"turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection Displacement: 150 cu in, 2457cc Power (SAE net): 265 bhp @ 5600 rpm Transmission: 6-speed manual Wheelbase: 99.4 in Length/width/height: 175.2/68.3/61.4 in Curb weight: 3300 lb" (Car and Driver Magazine, Aug 2004)

All statistics are taken from Car and Driver Magazine

Lyon, Peter. "Subaru Forester STi,". Car and Driver Magazine. Aug 2004. Accessed 23 Dec 2005. 

Reference articles:

(Accessed 23 Dec 2005) (Accessed 23 Dec 2005)

MrBilly 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

perhaps Jpn, JP, JDM or Japanese would be a nicer way to talk about something Japanese. Jap is not a suitable term.Sennen goroshi 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just created a section about it. Sagquattro2009 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I am unsure of how to reference the quote from above, as this is an exact quote and may not be public domain. I made the citation in MLA, but I do not know if this is the best way present this information. Please Advise. (My first article)

Reading around the 'net
I've seen a number of complaints about the pre-2000 Foresters having overheating problems, which ended up in the warping of the aluminum heads. Someone mentioned that this did result in some recalls, but I can't find a verifiable cite for any of this. Anyone have more information and a cite worth including? (Anyone else having this problem? I've just had my first overheating, and am concerned.) Thanks, -- Kickstart70 - T - C 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Forester X - Airbags
The artictle states "Both the XS and XT include curtain airbags, whereas the X does not". I just looked at my spec-sheet for the Forester X 2007 and it states that it has both, front and side air bags. Is that different to curtain airbags ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.91.114 (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Luxury Pack
The article states "Both the XS and the XT come with the option of having a "Luxury Pack" fitted", but there are X models with the Luxury Pack advertised.--121.45.69.161 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits haven't taken place
The discussions about the Forrester were done in 2005 and according to the discussions, the edits were more or less agreed upon.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddike (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Was the second generation just a restyle?
The article is structured around the notion that there have already been two generations of the Forester... but there's so little difference it seems more like a restyle. Comments? 842U (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was. I don't know where this idea with three generations came from Pamejudd (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Pamejudd
 * It's not a restyle. Aside from the obvious geometric differences, it's also based on a new platform.  Bookster451 (talk)

Photo
As in many articles, a user has determined that illustrating an article about the Subaru Forester with one Subaru Forester instead of another is not "timely." As always, this ignores the very basic premise that this is the Subaru Forester article, not the Third Generation Subaru Forester article. Any Subaru Forester is a Subaru Forester, the production range below the picture says 1998-present, not 2008. The clear precedent on Wikipedia for auto articles, as you are welcome to check other articles for, is that the best image is used at the top, regardless of generation. IFCAR (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, and no coincidence, that the photographer who took the so-called "better" picture is the one arguing for its placement in the most prominent position in the article &mdash; and that when "discussing" the matter he doesn't disclose this fact.


 * Wikipedia is a place for unbiased work -- not a place for a photographer to strong-arm his or her own photos into positions of primacy.


 * It makes little sense to put a picture of a vehicle that is out of production at the head of an article &mdash; when a serviceable if not award-winning photo exists to lead the article. This article is about a vehicle currently in production -- that fact doesn't belong buried in the article... especially at the behest of someone promoting their own work.  A current photograph conveys more: it conveys that the article itself is current and up-to-date.


 * With time, as the current gen Forester remains in production, better quality images will abound.  842U (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about a car that started production in 1997 and is still in production. It is not exclusively about the car that is currently in production. There is one infobox that absolutely must have a photo of the current car, and that is the infobox for that specific generation.
 * The first-generation infobox for the Forester covers cars made from 1997-2002. The second-generation covers cars made from 2003-2008. The third-generation infobox covers cars made from 2008 to the present. But the lead infobox covers every single Forester made, 1997 to present. As the information in it applies to the entire article, any Forester is appropriate.
 * As I explained in the edit summary, I also took the picture of the 2009 Forester that you put up. So I don't see how an argument of bias holds any water. IFCAR (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you took the current photo, too. You seem to be in control of most all the photographs applying to cars.  This give you the right to write the rules?  Show me some consensus that says this issue has been decided by someone other than just yourself and I'll reconsider your opinion on the issue.


 * Otherwise, the issue isn't yours alone to resolve, it comes up repeatedly.  See the Ford Taurus discussion &mdash; et al.  You clearly have a dominant bias towards resolving this issue in all articles the way you see fit... that's not what Wikipedia is about.  You apparently have no neutrality on the issue, and since you alone monopolize the photographs, you dominate the conversation.


 * It is utterly ridiculous to have an article with an outdated (albeit more clear) photo as the lead-in &mdash; the commodity is current, accurate information.  842U (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, the lead infobox covers the entire history of a car, and can therefore be illustrated with any car from that history. Consensus is clear that it should be the best image, not the newest, and that is a consensus that was in place before I joined Wikipedia. There is no reason for two infoboxes to be required to contain information about the same generation of car. IFCAR (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite your source: where is there a clear-cut, flat rule that you are "enforcing?"  It doesn't exist. 842U (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's all try to assume good faith and turn down the volume a few notches. Obviously we've got at least two editors here interested enough in the subject to hold a passionate debate on the topic, but back-and-forth did too/did not is too/is not squabbling won't achieve anything.

IFCAR, you supply a lot of good images, but be advised that 842U has a valid point, and s/he's not the only one who's raised it: You have a track record of advocating much too stridently and aggressively for your own photos per se, and this veers into problematic territory of WP:OWN and WP:MPOV. The identity of s/he who made the image must needs be very far down the list of selection and placement criteria. Contributions to Wikipedia stay or go on their own merits, not according to who made them. It is imperative that you work sincerely on keeping in mind that many other editors make good pictures; yours aren't the only ones.

And 842U, as I say, you've got a valid point about IFCAR's M.O., but I really think you ought to reconsider how you judge an image's merit for leading an auto article. It really isn't necessarily desirable to have the latest/last/newest version of the subject auto as the lead image. Much more in line with Wikipedia's general rubrics is to lead with an image of the most notable version of the subject auto. That might be the first version, or the last version, or something in between, but I do not believe there is much significant basis in Wikipedia protocol for necessarily preferring the latest version of the subject vehicle.

Both of you please quit quarrelling and instead come and contribute productively to the discussion of auto image policy here on WPA. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

People appreciate
"People appreciate the practicality, looks, strong motor, smooth ride and excellent handling." What is this? Not NPOV, that's what. 156.142.82.142 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A/C
PLEASE CAN YOU TELL ME WHY ON SOME FORESTERS, THE COMPRESSOR CYCLES EVERY SIX SECONDS I HAVE A FEELING THAT IT HAS GOT TO DO WITH THE TEMP CONTROLL UNIT. HOW CAN I FIX THIS PROBLEM AS I AM GETTING A FEW COMMING IN WITH THIS PROBLEM TECHNICAL INFO WELLCOME.
 * For advise on mechanical matters, try using Subaru Fan Club websites. There are multiple sites than can offer suggestions. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is just an encyclopedia that describes the vehicle, but doesn't offer suggestions for repair. WP:NOTHOWTO (Regushee (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Image
What we made clear in our lengthy discussion earlier is that vehicle age is not a factor in determining a lead infobox image. That goes both ways: it means that an image should not be chosen just because it is of a the newest generation, but it also certainly does not mean an image of the newest generation is somehow prohibited.

The image I put today as the lead image is not the same as the one we had discussed previously, and I think it has a less distracting background than the previous one. If you disagree based on the quality of the image, feel free to explain, but that's not what your edit summary said. IFCAR (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The image you put today has a more cluttered-up background than the previous one — iron railing, street markings, etc. My edit summary pointed you at the image convention set as a whole, not any particular convention. You make yourself seem more than a bit disingenuous when you say the image you just put in isn't the one that was debated before. That's true, but I'm very sure you know the conventions and consensus apply to all images within the project, and not just specific images that have been discussed in the past. Please try and edit in a more coöperative and grown-up manner. That means you discuss first, and if consensus goes your way, then you revert. Doing it the other way round is a form of article ownership and is not okay. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Discuss first, revert later? That's pretty funny coming from the user who just started this by reverting my edits without discussion.


 * I see nothing in the conventions that supports your claim. To me, the background of your preferred image is more distracting -- which is not something your vague edit summary said anything about -- because it changes halfway across the back of the car.


 * I reverted you back because I was under the impression you were talking about the ages of vehicles, where you clearly would have been in the wrong based on our prior consensus and policy, as that was a very memorable discussion about this page and your edit summary suggested that was what you were referring to. It certainly did not say "revert to image with less cluttered background." You also reverted the replacement of another image, in which I see no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia policy. IFCAR (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have no intention of returning to the discussion, I'll be reverting to my original edit. As you astutely noted, you should discuss before you revert, and there is no consensus about anything remotely pertinent to deciding which of those two images is better that is not very open to interpretation. IFCAR (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PZEV
does anyone have a source where it says the pzev version is 175hp? All info I can find just says the 2.5x is 170hp. --24.21.133.196 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The name "forester" is meant to imply the vehicle is "of the forest"
Really? Subaru actually said this? I doubt the name means anything other than that the car is rugged enough for difficult roads. Rsduhamel (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This was stupid indeed. I removed it. 13:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Pamejudd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamejudd (talk • contribs)

Wagon or crossover hatchback, which is it
The opening section says:


 * "Currently, the Forester is a station wagon version of Impreza, which the wagon version is dropped and replaced with the 5-door crossover hatchback."

What does this mean? Did the Forrester start out as a wagon then get changed to a crossover? Was it a crossover then a wagon then a crossover again? Was it available as both at one time? Rsduhamel (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. I changed it to compact crossover SUV.  It is actually a small station wagon with high ground clearance and SUV ruggedness, but not a Body On Frame construction, which makes it a crossover SUV, not a regular SUV.  Bookster451 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * it's a wagon. "crossover SUV's" is a made up term, they are wagons / estates. they are not SUV, they are not trucks, indeed.  67.189.106.110 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Decide on a class!
It falls in between being a crossover and a station wagon. But there is no such thing as a "crossover wagon" or a "crossover station wagon". Someone else, what should it be called, a crossover, or a station wagon? Bookster451 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "crossover wagon" covers it pretty well. But how completely uninteresting! See what they call the Volvo XC70 and the Audi Allroad, I find this to boring to bother with it. You could easily find valid sources for whatever your opinion is, so that shouldn't be a problem. I support any viewpoint that is sufficiently detached.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a source. Bookster451 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Subaru Forester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210212806/http://www.subaru-global.com/tec_awd.html to http://www.subaru-global.com/tec_awd.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621074649/http://www.subaru-global.com/10forester.html to http://www.subaru-global.com/10forester.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Subaru Forester STi
I just added the section "Forester STi" to replace the 1 sentence of info that was previously provided. By all means, edit, there's probably tons wrong. Thanks! Sagquattro2009 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)