(Updated 8/1/2026) For me, getting back behind the wheel of the 1999 Subaru Forester S was like coming home again. It was one of the first vehicles I drove at a manufacturer press event, and revisiting my original review more than a quarter-century later only reinforced how ahead of its time Subaru’s practical, car-based crossover really was. I thought highly of the Forester then, and clearly still did a year-and-a-half later.
The one thing to which I can personally attest, though not mentioned in the article, is that the Forester had excellent brakes. While driving south on U.S. 1 in Arlington, my gaze drifted over to Porsche of Arlington on my right. Suddenly, my wife screamed “Look out!” The left turn lane just beyond the dealership had backed up into my lane and I came within inches of hitting the stopped car in front of me. Maybe automatic emergency braking isn’t so bad…
As for Subaru’s obsession with frameless door glass, which I mention below. I asked about it one time at an auto show, and the Subaru representative said that it was for safety. He then put his hand between the window and B-pillar and slammed the door shut. The window gave a little bit to accommodate his now-trapped hand, but no injury. Pretty cool.
I wrote the following review on January 18, 1999.
Subaru recently found itself in a bind – some customers found their successful Impreza and Legacy Outback wagons too much like Mom’s Vista Cruiser and were leaving the showrooms in search of more macho trucks. As the old saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em…
Introduced for 1998, the rugged-looking Forester joined the “hybrid” market – they look like trucks on the outside, but they’re cars underneath. Riding on a stretched version of the platform of the all-wheel drive Impreza, its squarish body and prominent grill, as well as other touches pulled from the Outback, gives the Forester a look that’s far less toy-like than its Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4 competition. Only the frameless door glass, which Subaru seems partial to, seems out of place.
Subaru thankfully decided to equip all Foresters with the powerful 165 horsepower, 2.5 liter four cylinder from the larger Legacy. This gives the Forester a distinct advantage over the CR-V and RAV4, which are both saddled with smaller, less powerful engines. While a five-speed manual is standard, our tester had the smooth-shifting four-speed automatic. The 975-pound payload and 2000-pound trailer towing capacity should meet most needs.
With its short 99.4-inch wheelbase and 175.2-inch length, you can maneuver the Forester into parking spaces and narrow alleys that a Ford Expedition could only dream of. Subaru’s all-wheel drive system is on-road only, but in inclement weather, you’re thankful for it.
The main advantages of the Forester are its larger height, width, and cargo volume than both the Impreza and Legacy wagons. Entry and exit, as well as the ride and handling, are nearly the same as a car’s. However, you sit higher, and headroom is superior. A removable washable cargo tray is a nice touch, and storage areas abound.
To make the Forester safer than most SUVs, it is classified as a car, meaning that it has to meet stricter crash-test requirements than the CR-V and RAV4, which are both classified as trucks.
Even the optioned out S model with leather seats and all the power toys comes in well under $30,000. Looked at the price of an Explorer lately?
For more information contact 1-800-SUBARU-3
SPECIFICATIONS
Type: Four-door Sport-Utility Vehicle
Engine: 165-horsepower, 2.5 liter inline-4
Transmission: Four-speed Automatic
EPA Mileage: 21 city/26 highway
Tested Price: $24,810
Note: Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
“Subaru thankfully decided to equip all Foresters with the powerful 165 horsepower, 2.5 liter four cylinder from the larger Legacy. This gives the Forester a distinct advantage over the CR-V and RAV4, which are both saddled with smaller, less powerful engines.”
Then along comes Ford, with the 200-hp V6 Escape.
But that was an option. The great majority of Escapes back then were fours.
Then Subaru countered with the 210hp XT turbo.
Which was an absolute rocket. It was actually quicker than the much lauded WRX because it had a lower (higher numerical) axle ratio. I tested and reviewed one over at ttac back in the day. That XT was an absolute ball to drive. It was probably the fastest accelerating car I’d driven up to that point. A real Q ship.
The first generation four-cylinder Escape was manual transmission only. The V6, with mandatory automatic transmission, was the most popular model.
Here’s a period spec sheet, courtesy of Motor Trend. https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/escape/2001/
Note that the automatic is only listed as part of a bundle with the V6 engine; it wasn’t available with the four, at least initially. A quick search on AutoTrader.com confirms that early four cylinder Escapes were manual transmission only.
FWIU, the 2.0L Zetec Escape/Tributes were manual-only, but the 2005+ models with the 2.3 Duratec offered a choice (and the automatic shifter moved to the console as well).
And there was the hybrid version, which was quite popular, especially out here in the West Coast. I’d say about half of them here were the hybrids.
I bought a 6cyl Escape in 2002, the second year. They did have a 4cyl, but it was the engine out of the tiny 2dr hatch Focus. It wasn’t even the larger 4 cyl that came in most Focus’s (Foci?). The acceleration in the 4cyl Escape was just dreadful. The majority of Escapes that I saw were 6cyl. FYI, it was the most problematic car that I ever owned. I got rid of it after two years after having built up $17K in warranty and non warranty repairs on a car that cost $25K. It was the worst vehicle I ever owned, and my first car was a Pinto.
Familiar territory here. We bought a new base 2000 Forester, for $19k, which felt like quite a good deal at the time. Kept it for 15 years and 170k miles. It served us very well, with a level of reliability that grossly exceed our long-term experiences with our ’92 Grand Caravan and ’85 Cherokee. And it had anything but a pampered life, with absolutely bare minimum maintenance.
The only repairs it ever needed were two rear wheel bearings, a well know weakness. The head gaskets were just starting to leak to the outside at the end. We did suffer through the indignity of increasing piston slap at start-up.
Regarding the frameless door glass: It was Stephanie’s daily driver, and she always closed the door by the window glass. I tried repeatedly to get her to stop doing that, as I assumed the window would get wobbly, but it never happened. It was as tight at the end as it was at the beginning.
It was sad to see it go, but it was finally starting to show some aging signs.
I had a 350,000km 93 Legacy the frameless windows still closed tightly underpowered and gas hungry it was reliable and well screwed together
A good buddy of mine had one of these, a 98 I believe, for a short period of time just a few years ago. It came down through the grandparents, no one else wanted it so he took it to keep it in the family. Mint interior, absolutely mint. Full-on 1990s festive seating fabrics. I rode in it once for a camping trip and it was hard not to like it. I think it had ~40K miles on it. The exterior had pinpricks of rust all over the body because it lived outside all those years despite the gentle use. A whole litany of issues popped up within a year of regular driving, including head gaskets. It all far exceeded the value, so it went bye-bye. What they say about buying well-maintained high mileage car instead of a never-driven apparent creampuff seemed to be true with his.
I didn’t know the frameless glass was also for pinch safety. I always thought it was just for a better 360 degree view. Overtime, closing the door with the glass causes the gasket behind the mirror to split. Results in some wind noise and leaking.
My 02 Forester I’ve had for 7yrs. It’s an S model in 5speed. I swapped the engine at 205k with a turbo motor. The rest of the drivetrain has 250k. Aftermarket support over seas is insane. My car has a whole list of JDM parts.
I loved my 02 so much I got another one 3yrs ago. A 99 S Limited this time. Also in 5speed. Currently has 206k. Still original drivetrain. Ive never seen one so loaded. Leather, compass pack, wood grain, front brush guard, diff skid plate, running boards, and rear dust deflector.
So yea I love old Foresters. 99-02 is my preference due to the new SOHC as well as a stiffer chassis. I’m a sucker for an S model in 5speed.
My sister had one and never had a qualm about it for a dozen years; it was the five-speed. If we were looking for a car when she sold it my wife + I would have snapped it up.
“Prominent grill” you said back then. If only we knew what was coming!
We had a ’98 Forester with the 2.5 and 5 speed. We bought it as a high-miles used vehicle, realizing we’d have some challenges. The immediate problem was the engine, which had been swapped into the car before we got it, and was fairly tired. I disliked the fragile nature of the 2.5’s, both the head gasket problems and the timing belt self-destruct situation. I found a 2.2 from an earlier Impreza which was a non-interference engine, and being SOHC was a much nicer fit in the engine compartment. The biggest challenge was fitting out the OBD1 engine to the OBD2 car. Fortunately, most of the sensors were swappable and putting the original intake manifold on the 2.2 did the trick. The 220K 2.2 was far peppier than the lower miles 2.5 and the car ran like a champ for quite a few years, and was going strong mechanically (with over 300K on the engine without a tear-down) but the body got became so rusty there was no more fix to it. We loved that car and we’d still be driving it, except for the structural rust. Once we got it settled in after the engine transplant, it did everything right. I will admit that it had little problems constantly, and the Pontiac Vibe (Toyota under the skin) that we replaced it with reminded me that some vehicles will go thousands of miles with only routine maintenance. Nevertheless, our Subaru was great, and I miss it every day.
I had an ‘04 XT, second generation Forester Turbo. As Paul noted above (six years ago) it was a genuinely fast car, with the 2.5 engine compared to the contemporary WRX with a 2.0. The notchy 5 speed wasn’t great, and the fuel economy (18-25 mpg in my experience) wasn’t good either, especially combined with requiring premium fuel. But handling was OK and off pavement and especially in snow, the Subaru AWD was quite good. It only cost about $25k which seemed very good for the performance and decent features like heated seats, rear limited slip, CD changer etc. and it was 100% reliable for the 75k miles I owned it.
Classic? Wow