'99 Subaru Forester Build
- Thread starter casm
- Start date
Looks like the Forester will be on the road tomorrow - it would have been today, but with Monday having been a holiday, the shop doing the inspection on it ran out of time to put it through before then.
Thanks - it's definitely appreciated
I'm shooting for a mixed average in the 23-25mpg range. The stock tyre size is 215/60R16 (26.2" diameter), but due to clearance issues with the spring perches I can only bump up to a 215/65R16 (27" diameter). The overall difference between the two is only 3%, so it's not really expected to affect fuel economy much there. Aerodynamic changes may incur a hit as well, but as there's not much more than some extra A-arm length being exposed I suspect the overall difference will be minimal.
They don't - at least, not in the super-econobox sense. Bear in mind that in this year the final drive ratio was 4.444:1 with the automatic (by comparison, my Jeep was 3.55:1 stock), so that's where a good chunk of the potential fuel economy savings are going off the bat. If they'd offered a low range a) in the US market and b) on the automatic they could've gone with taller high-range gearing which would have helped, but it just didn't happen.
Thanks - it's definitely appreciated
I'm shooting for a mixed average in the 23-25mpg range. The stock tyre size is 215/60R16 (26.2" diameter), but due to clearance issues with the spring perches I can only bump up to a 215/65R16 (27" diameter). The overall difference between the two is only 3%, so it's not really expected to affect fuel economy much there. Aerodynamic changes may incur a hit as well, but as there's not much more than some extra A-arm length being exposed I suspect the overall difference will be minimal.
They don't - at least, not in the super-econobox sense. Bear in mind that in this year the final drive ratio was 4.444:1 with the automatic (by comparison, my Jeep was 3.55:1 stock), so that's where a good chunk of the potential fuel economy savings are going off the bat. If they'd offered a low range a) in the US market and b) on the automatic they could've gone with taller high-range gearing which would have helped, but it just didn't happen.
It's on the road! :victory:
Running great. Only thing it noticeably needs in terms of maintenance is an A/C recharge; it's cold, but weak. Picking it up on a 90degF day really showed up the state of that one.
Ran a little over budget, so I'll have to do some careful planning on how far I go with the upgrades at this point. However, I do have no regrets with the Ironman Offroad springs. Only had them on pavement so far, but they are a huge improvement over the too-soft OEM ones. Whether that was down to just the way they were designed, 125,000 miles of use on them, or a combination of the two is debatable, but either way the Ironman springs firm the ride up nicely without making it harsh. An extra 1.5" of clearance is a bonus
I'll get some more info up once I've had a chance to get some dirt miles on them, but I'm optimistic that as a DD/mild WW this may end up working out as well as I'd hoped.
Running great. Only thing it noticeably needs in terms of maintenance is an A/C recharge; it's cold, but weak. Picking it up on a 90degF day really showed up the state of that one.
Ran a little over budget, so I'll have to do some careful planning on how far I go with the upgrades at this point. However, I do have no regrets with the Ironman Offroad springs. Only had them on pavement so far, but they are a huge improvement over the too-soft OEM ones. Whether that was down to just the way they were designed, 125,000 miles of use on them, or a combination of the two is debatable, but either way the Ironman springs firm the ride up nicely without making it harsh. An extra 1.5" of clearance is a bonus
I'll get some more info up once I've had a chance to get some dirt miles on them, but I'm optimistic that as a DD/mild WW this may end up working out as well as I'd hoped.
According to the shop, they were able to get it aligned within specs. What I can say is that the alignment was off when I got it, but it now tracks straight. I did have to have all four wheels aligned, but did not require camber bolts.
In the meantime, I've managed to put about 50 trail miles on it. Nothing really wild - we're talking forest roads and two-tracks off of them. Think mostly graded, gravel, washboarding, small ledges, ruts, and deep-ish (8"-10") mud puddles. For that kind of stuff it's doing well, and I've been able to push it through a couple of places that a stock one would have bottomed out on.
For me, the big things that I'm having to get used to are going back to a different kind of axle articulation than I've become accustomed to in the XJ, and not having the body spaced as far away from the axles as in that Jeep. The former is just a case of getting used to it and working within those limitations, but even once there's another inch of lift on it the body placement isn't going to change much. This was apparent when I was coming down off of a ledge that was close to my total amount of wheel travel: the way the suspension reacted to the drop meant that I managed a light scrape on the underside of the driver's side sill. Nothing fatal, but definitely a reminder of what it is I'm working with.
First fuel economy report: 21.1mpg (295 miles of travel for exactly 14 gallons of 87-octane gas). This is mixed town and interstate driving, with about 50 miles of trail use. It should be pointed out that probably 50 miles of that mixed (e.g., non-trail) use involved travel to and from the trail on some very steep and twisty mountain roads, so it may be possible to improve slightly on that average; the computer was also relearning how to run on all four cylinders again for part of it. Still on stock (205/60R16) rubber.
I have to give this vehicle credit: on forest roads and two-tracks, it's really in its element and makes for a very competent, comfortable, and capable runner. However, it very quickly becomes apparent when it's starting to get out of its depth. I am being careful with how hard I'm pushing it right now (mainly due to the minimal lift and lack of skidplates at present), but even addressing those areas it's fairly clear that what is likely to result from all of this is a vehicle that is a really good AWD car with some extra ground clearance, but not a serious expedition vehicle.
Having said that, I'm setting an actual goal for this vehicle of being able to traverse the Mojave Road. I've done it in the Jeep, and think that there's potential in the Forester to be able to repeat that success. How much assistance it would need is something of an unknown (and travelling in a group would have to be a definite requirement, since I can think of at least two places it would likely need a strap), but it seems like that would be a good test of what it can be pushed out to do.
I have to give this vehicle credit: on forest roads and two-tracks, it's really in its element and makes for a very competent, comfortable, and capable runner. However, it very quickly becomes apparent when it's starting to get out of its depth. I am being careful with how hard I'm pushing it right now (mainly due to the minimal lift and lack of skidplates at present), but even addressing those areas it's fairly clear that what is likely to result from all of this is a vehicle that is a really good AWD car with some extra ground clearance, but not a serious expedition vehicle.
Having said that, I'm setting an actual goal for this vehicle of being able to traverse the Mojave Road. I've done it in the Jeep, and think that there's potential in the Forester to be able to repeat that success. How much assistance it would need is something of an unknown (and travelling in a group would have to be a definite requirement, since I can think of at least two places it would likely need a strap), but it seems like that would be a good test of what it can be pushed out to do.
Hmmm, I'm disappointed in the mpg, each time I have filled up (three times now) I have not computed the mpg, but have the data and have to say I was initially hoping for mid 20s and 30 on the highway.
Your goal was much like mine I guess, wasn't hoping for a full blown mountain goat but a more capable vehicle for some longer travels and getting off the beaten path by tourists.
Watching your build closely to learn. Thanks for posting the update! :coffeedrink:
Your goal was much like mine I guess, wasn't hoping for a full blown mountain goat but a more capable vehicle for some longer travels and getting off the beaten path by tourists.
Watching your build closely to learn. Thanks for posting the update! :coffeedrink:
Checking against http://www.fueleconomy.gov, the 1999 Forester is rated (under the revised numbers) at 19 city / 25 highway with the manual, and 18 city / 24 highway with the automatic. 21mpg puts me at 50% over what I'd average in my XJ, so it's a definite improvement but not a stratospheric one by any means.
My best guess is that this is down to the Forester's low-geared final drive (4.44:1 in the automatic) and worse aerodynamics in comparison to the Impreza it's based on. To be fair, though, my driving style hasn't completely adapted to it yet (I'm still using more skinny pedal to make up for the lack of torque relative to the Jeep), and I don't know the state of the oxygen sensors or coil pack.
Having said that, I'm trying not to second-guess what I think that I should be getting too much for right now. I'll stick the OBDII reader on it later in the week and see what it's saying, but I do need to give everything (myself included) a chance to get used to running properly.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm going for. It doesn't have to be able to go everywhere, but get me closer in to everywhere than a stock one would.
LMarshall73
Adventurer
I went from 11mpg highway in the H2 to mid 20's with my '04 Foz. On longer trips (SC to FL) and with a less 'spirited' driving style I can average in the high 20's. I'm also using an UltraGauge (cheaper version of the Scangauge) which helps me to monitor my real-time mpg.
These gauges, where do ya get em and what do they do and what do they cost and are they worth it and how do ya plug it in? LOL
I'll be happy with 20+ in town and mid upper 20s on the road, that will be better than my truck!
I usually drive aggresively, starting off the line (not like a 18 yr old) but I have traffic behind me. If I'm not on a mission, I can slow down and squeez a drop of gas too.
Again. if I can get my GF out of the car (she has it right now, said she had errands (again)), I'll top it off, get the pump receipts and odometer readings and figure it out!
I'll be happy with 20+ in town and mid upper 20s on the road, that will be better than my truck!
I usually drive aggresively, starting off the line (not like a 18 yr old) but I have traffic behind me. If I'm not on a mission, I can slow down and squeez a drop of gas too.
Again. if I can get my GF out of the car (she has it right now, said she had errands (again)), I'll top it off, get the pump receipts and odometer readings and figure it out!
LMarshall73
Adventurer
Ultra-Gauge.
Some people have complained about the rebate, but I didn't bother.
It plugs into the OBD II plug under the dash.
Some people have complained about the rebate, but I didn't bother.
It plugs into the OBD II plug under the dash.
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
Thats like 1/2 the price of the scan gauge.... yup..I'm gunna get one!!!
One recommendation: if you've got an Android phone, the Torque app and a $29 eBay ELM327 Bluetooth OBD-II adapter from China is a hell of a combination. I've been running it for a while, and for $35 (counting the cost of the paid version of Torque) you end up with a scantool that does what the $300 ones do and substantially more.
My favourite feature: the ability to log ODB-II data in realtime, set it against GPS data, and upload it to a webserver. That feature's still in beta, but works well nonetheless.
No real progress on the Forester lately - I've just been putting it through some shakedown miles. There's an intermittent transmission issue when warm that I'm trying to narrow down - it doesn't feel like impending failure, but I suspect that either the filter (which is thankfully the external spin-on type similar to an oil filter) is clogged, or something electronic is slightly out of whack. Hoping that replacing the filter with an OEM one will be the cure; it's apparently not unknown for the aftermarket ones to have odd effects on fluid pressure.
Last edited:
Okay, great, not to get off topic, but I have had several cars with real time MPG, kinda funny watching them jump to 84 miles to the gallon going down hill and 4 mpg going up the next one. At the end of the day finding that they were not accurate when you filled up.
So, the Ultra Guage, how accurate is it? Another feature was air manifold pressure, assuming if the car is not already equiped with a sensor, the Ultra Guage won't be able to tell you either....? Engine codes, better than an idiot light, for sure!
How accurate are they in the functions claimed?
So, the Ultra Guage, how accurate is it? Another feature was air manifold pressure, assuming if the car is not already equiped with a sensor, the Ultra Guage won't be able to tell you either....? Engine codes, better than an idiot light, for sure!
How accurate are they in the functions claimed?
The new (OEM) transmission filter is on. Only have about 10 miles on it so far, but the vehicle's running noticeably better with it in there - the torque converter doesn't seem to be as confused as to what it should be doing and shifts are considerably less abrupt. Performance also seems slightly improved.
FWIW, the filter that came off (some no-name one with a date of manufacture of 11/2008 on it) didn't have the same filter element construction. The best way I can describe it is that the centre section of the no-name filter was completely empty, but the OEM one appeared to have something else in that space. My guess is that there's possibly some sort of valving in the OEM unit that helps normalise the fluid pressure somewhat, but that's just a guess.
FWIW, the filter that came off (some no-name one with a date of manufacture of 11/2008 on it) didn't have the same filter element construction. The best way I can describe it is that the centre section of the no-name filter was completely empty, but the OEM one appeared to have something else in that space. My guess is that there's possibly some sort of valving in the OEM unit that helps normalise the fluid pressure somewhat, but that's just a guess.