Ask the Car People.SM


Subaru Forester (up to 2005) - READ ONLY

18028 messages,  Last post on Nov 02, 2006 at 7:19 AM

You are in the Subaru Forester Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Forester, Wagon



Messages Page 757 of 1804

#7555 of 18028 by lark6

Aug 09, 2002 (9:34 am)

In a civil manner, I will point out that the reviewer at times appears to question the existence of the Forester in Subaru's lineup. I will again add that, beyond the marginally more useful cargo space, there's not a lot to differentiate it from the current OBS beyond physical appearance. That was not the case from 1998-2001.
 
The '98-01 Forester had a better power-to-weight ratio than the Legacy Outback, and had more useful space and more power than the then-currrent OBS. Had there been a more powerful Legacy wagon or an Impreza 2.5RS wagon at the time, I may have considered them - but there were not.
 
Ed

#7556 of 18028 by kens

Aug 09, 2002 (9:55 am)

I just read the Edmund's review of the 2003 Forester. In general, I think the article made valid points but it is clear that the writer is biased against the Forester. IMO, the reviewer captures the essence of the Forester in his comment "this is certainly one of the most fun-to-drive mini-utes on the market", but fails to highlight it as one of the key reasons why this vehicle sells. Mini-utes have grown over the last 5 years, but in doing so, they've also lost the nimble handling that made them popular to begin with.
 
I agree with Ed's puzzlement on the 98 Forester comments. The reason why I purchased the Forester back then was that it was a lot more fun to drive than the OB (for me) and it offered more cargo space than the OB Sport.
 
Ken

#7557 of 18028 by ateixeira

Aug 09, 2002 (10:21 am)

The review seems to imply there is lots of overlap and that the Forester isn't the best at any one thing, but the other side of the coin is that it's well balanced and does many things well.
 
Also, look at sales - Forester sales were incremental, i.e. they did not cannibalize sales of the Outback or Impreza. In fact, Outback sales even went UP after the Forester intro.
 
So that's where I disagree. It caters to a different audience. I test drove an Outback, but would not have bought one at the time instead of my Forester. As Ed mentioned, I felt it was too heavy (about 200 lbs more than the Forester).
 
But the review wasn't negative, really, he was just pointing out his personal preference for other Subies in the lineup.
 
-juice

#7558 of 18028 how about another review to critique? by steve_ HOST

Aug 09, 2002 (10:30 am)

The main competitor to the Forester?
First Drive: 2003 Mitsubishi Outlander

Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

#7559 of 18028 Can't speak with authority by lark6

Aug 09, 2002 (10:44 am)

I honestly can't comment in great detail as I have not driven an Outlander. I have, however, driven both the new Forester and the new Lancer, the latter over the course of several days as a rental.
 
The new Forester - and the old for that matter - has the Outlander trumped on power. The Mitsu does have the Sportronic option that I wish the Forester would incorporate from the FHI parts bin. The Forester also appears to better utilize interior space.
 
I am on record as preferring the old Forester's styling to the new, but both look better than the Mitsu. The Outlander bears that awkward wide grille divider which was recently added to the Galant, Diamante and Lancer and appears meant to be a corporate styling cue a la Pontiac and BMW. The taillamps are similar in shape to those of the Impreza wagons, while the clear lenses (nicknamed "Altezzas" after the JDM version of our Lexus IS300, but which have more derogatory nicknames on the street) are clearly designed to attract the youth market.
 
I have to admit I get stuck on the name. Mitsu no doubt must expect the car to be described as "Outland-ish." The names Outlander, Freelander and Highlander all remind me of that goofy Ben Stiller comedy, "Zoolander," from last year.
 
Ed

#7560 of 18028 Outlander Vs. Forester by forester13

Aug 09, 2002 (11:59 am)

James Healey reviews the new Outlander in today's (friday) USA Today:
  Basic complaint: It's woefully underpowered and sluggish.
  He finds Forester better in almost every area:
  Power, cargo space, fuel mileage and towing.

#7561 of 18028 gopirates by fgaydos

Aug 09, 2002 (1:37 pm)

I test drove a Forester today and was very impressed. It was very quick even with the auto.
The salesman and myself hit it off pretty well as we have a lot in common, Viet Vets, same high school, same area living etc.
So, I thought that was why he offered me the basic car for $100.00 over invoice.
If I get a reasonable offer on my trade in I will get this nice car.
 
Also test drove a CR-V and did not like the seating and space. Also it felt tippish but it does have the best resale value of mini-utes.
Also, sat in the PT Cruizer and thought it looked somewhat cheap. Kept thinking of the poor frontal crash tests, which equals broken legs. The new 'Dream' Cruiser has this gold paint and I kept thinking of the word 'pimpmobile' for some reason.:>)

#7562 of 18028 Here's the link to the article... by barresa62

Aug 09, 2002 (1:47 pm)

in USAtoday. It's funny how USAtoday(James Healey) doesn't recommend it because of the low power but Edmunds only mentions the low-power.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2002-08-08-outlander_x.htm

Stephen

#7563 of 18028 Outlander by kens

Aug 09, 2002 (1:47 pm)

What can we say. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

I'd have to see one first, but it looks like a good first attempt at the US market. Mitsubishi is probably following a similar strategy as with the Lancer -- intro a base model and then later go with higher performance.

In the JDM, the Outlander is marketed as the "Airtrek" and guess what -- there's even a 2.0 Turbo version that has similar output to the turbo Forester.

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/AIRTREK/lineup.html

The JDM model gets a more conservative grille.

Ken

#7564 of 18028 Ouch! by kens

Aug 09, 2002 (1:52 pm)

That USA Today article wasn't very positive. Other than the rear passenger legroom, spec-for-spec, the Outlander seems to fall short. I wonder if Mitsubishi considered this obvious comparison before bringing it stateside?
 
It's kind of like free advertising for the Forester!
 
Ken

Messages Page 757 of 1804

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement