Last post on Nov 05, 2008 at 2:00 PM
You are in the Subaru Forester
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Forester, Toyota RAV4, SUV
#287 of 617 Re: Outback... [andrelaplume]
May 12, 2006 (6:57 am)
Forester has side airbags for the front passengers, they even extend to protect the head. IIHS have them a Good score and NHTSA 5/5 stars.
Legacy/Outback has side curtains, though. Ironically the 2005 model did not do as well. They tweaked the 2006s and now they're an IIHS Gold award winner, basically top 10 safest cars they've tested.
OB has heated seats as standard, pretty cool. Heated mirrors, too. Even wiper de-icers.
Basically Subaru tends to offer comprehensive packages, while Toyots is more a-la-carte with their options.
#288 of 617 Re to my replies
May 15, 2006 (7:03 am)
Ok first of all I know the forester is a damn good car. I wouldn't have looked at it if I didn't think so. I was so close to buying the forseter over the RAV4. I just needed something to push me one way or another. Both cars have thier strong points and weak points. The RAV4 has more room, better gas mileage, more options for less money. The Forester has better handling, a powerful base engine, one of the best safety cages around. I was going toward the Forester but really wanted the options available with the RAV4. I did not put the post out there for to bash gay or lesbians. I just put it out there for information. I like that for $160.00 dollars I get a tow prep package with transmission cooling fan coupling, bigger radiator, bigger alternator, wiring prep. Those would all be things that I would have to do later to the forester. The car is for my wife and we have a kid on the way. We have a dog and we go camping and rock climbing. I fit the stereo type for a forester except for I do not dress with much style. If I offended anyone I did not mean to. I lived in hawaii for three years and was friends with gay and lesbians, even went dancing with them some times. When it all comes down to it choose the best car for you. My wife liked both cars and she knew I would make the final decision. The toyota shop is closer to our house to. I am not apologizing for anything I said just want to clear up things.
#289 of 617 Re: Re to my replies [monobo]
May 15, 2006 (8:27 am)
"The RAV4 has more room, better gas mileage, more options for less money."
The only thing I would add is after looking at the RAV4 I concluded it had more options for *more* money,for the options I wanted. The base 4 will get better mileage than the turbo, but in the real world the non-turbo is about the same as the RAV4.
#290 of 617 Re: Re to my replies [kdshapiro]
May 15, 2006 (1:34 pm)
"The base 4 will get better mileage than the turbo, but in the real world the non-turbo is about the same as the RAV4."
Right. Comparing 4-cylinders, the Forester is rated 1 MPG higher than the RAV4 in the city, equal MPG on the highway. Plus, the Forester produces more horsepower and torque in a lighter vehicle, which should give it the performance edge.
May 16, 2006 (10:09 am)
RAV4 has more room, better gas mileage, more options for less money
More room yes, definitely.
Better gas mileage, not really, that's only because the RAV4 comes in FWD. The AWD automatic models, the best sellers, have an identical 23/28 EPA mpg.
When you consider that the Forester's 4 cylinder has both more power and torque, it's unfair to call it less efficient, in fact I'd argue the opposite.
More options, yes, things like stability control and a 3rd row, plus a DVD player.
Less money, no, folks have been cross shopping and find prices a couple of grand higher for the RAV4. In the threads here on Edmunds you typically see RAV4 prices from $22-28k, while Forester prices are closer to $19-25k.
May 16, 2006 (10:33 am)
Just bought a base RAV 4X4 4cylinder. Very comparable to Forester X. RAV had optional side airbags...I do not recall if the Forester has them as standard or if that was the Outback. Anyway, the RAV was 23.5K out the door. The Forester (with 2K rebate) would have been 20.5K out the door. My wife opted the RAV which I must admit certainly feels far less claustrophobic; especially with kids. Styling was another sales point in her book. Now, personally for 3K less the Forester could be a better deal...to me anyway. Still to her it was worth the $3K for a car she will keefor 5 years or more. So, if Subaru raises the car 2 inches, makes it 2 inches wider and maybe a few inches longer...well, she might opt for one next time...think they can get those chages in by 2010!
Personally, if the 2K rebate on the Forester goes away then I feel the RAV has is beat all around.
#293 of 617 Re: prices [andrelaplume]
May 16, 2006 (12:34 pm)
The RAV4 doesn't handle as well as the Forester and while I think the RAV4 is slightly better looking than the Forester I have to drive the car, not admire the styling. The Forester has a deeper hatch, while the RAV4 has a higher hatch.
#294 of 617 Re: prices [kdshapiro]
May 17, 2006 (5:50 am)
The Forester rides more car like, no doubt. My wife paid more for the style...it mattered to her...and I bet for a lot of other folks. As far as the hatch being bigger I would not be so sure. We have the rear seats in the RAV back all the way and it still appears wider, taller and as deep as the Forester, plus it has two smaller compartments beneath the floor. If I slid the rear seats forward providing the amount of leg room the Forester offers, I would say it is then bigger for sure. If hatch space is an issue I'd reccommend potential buyers take a look at both.
#295 of 617 Re: prices [kdshapiro]
May 17, 2006 (6:23 am)
The latest RAV4 grew a lot, I'd say it's bigger in both cargo and passenger space.
Forester does have a wide, deep cargo floor, and a nice square shape so you can cram in a pretty big box. Consumer Reports has a biggest box test and the volume they crammed in to the Forester beat the old Pathfinder and the current Grand Cherokee.
So cargo space is very usable. Passenger space is a bit tight, RAV4 kills the Subaru there.
#296 of 617 Re: prices [ateixeira]
May 17, 2006 (7:53 am)
Having owned both, I don't think the new RAV compares well against the Forester in "fun to drive" catagory. That's not to say I don't enjoy driving the RAV but the Forester was very nimble ... you could toss it into curves. I don't get the feeling that the RAV would respond well to that type of driving, it just feels too big for agressive driving.