Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV
1426 messages, Last post on Feb 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM
You are in the Wagons Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
I have long been a proponent of just such a vehicle. What I would love to see Subaru do is: • Keep the existing X, XS & XT lineup, pretty much as is. • Add two models that are beefed up for off-road duty. Let's call them M & MT, for the sake of argument. (M = Mountain) • The M would be naturally aspirated and the MT would have the 210 HP turbo. • Both the M & MT would have a triple-range tranny: (1) High; (2) the current shift-on-the-fly 1.20:1 reduction found in other markets, for towing and light off road work; (3) and a true deep low, with a reduction of ~ 2.5:1 for serious off-road work. They would have skid plates and all-terrain tires, as well as front and rear tow hooks. • The Forester M would have steel wheels like the Forester X, and would be contented like the Forester X. • The Forester MT would be contented like the Forester XT. There would not be a mid-level Forester MS. Bob |
|
| Boaz47 – Yes around Lake Tahoe I can’t recall Subarus towing anything. Most utilize roof mounts for skis, bikes, canoes, kiyakes and the like. Bigger things like jet skies, snow mobiles, and ATV’s are relegated to the larger SUV’s and Picukup’s, 4X4 of course. Boats need to be big water capable and so tend to be of the bigger and faster variety that would exceed a Subaru’s capability. I believe until very recently, and certainly for many decades prior, Lake Tahoe had a Coast Guard station with cutter on patrol there. | |
| sounds consistent with what others are saying as well. I believe if Subaru did offer the vehicle rsholland has suggested they could capture a few more buyers. In fact I would have taken a harder look myself. But that begs the question. Would it be a SUV and would it receive all the grief SUV people receive from the, "you don't need more than a Wagon", people? I believe they could do so much more to make wagons worth while for more drivers but its just so much easier and profitable to offer SUVs. As we can see even wagon people seem to desire some of the attributes offered by real SUVs. | |
|
Would it be a SUV and would it receive all the grief SUV people receive from the, "you don't need more than a Wagon", people? Oh I'm sure there will those who will complain. But if you think about it, what I've suggested, would really have minimal impact on those politically-correct issues such as fuel economy, safety or huge size. I mean it would really be little different than current Foresters in those respects. Yeah, you could argue that someone living in suburban areas would be better served with X/XS/XT models, however those living in rural and wilderness areas would be better served with M/MT models. Bob |
|
|
You may be right. If the 4wd option became the most popular version of the Forester I still believe the Politically Correct would be all over it like a Cheap suit. While many of the anti SUV or Pro wagon people may have a legitimate complaint about full sized SUVs those with such complaints are saddled with a goodly portion of the "anti anything popular" contingent. Unlike yourself and some others in here that are concerned how a vehicle meets your needs they spend most of their time being concerned that someone else didn't make the same choice in vehicle as they did. The real issue is not that people that buy SUVs would be better served by a wagon but rather that what is offered in wagons or Sedans today does not meet the wants of what the drivers are looking for. There is a gap between cars and SUVs that most wagons just do not fill, and so, many may decide to go a bit over kill on their vehicle but that is the American way, "it is better to get something too large than too small" A vehicle like a true 4wd Forester could bridge that gap. |
|
|
boaz47 wrote, "You may be right. If the 4wd option became the most popular version of the Forester I still believe the Politically Correct would be all over it like a Cheap suit. " I think you are missing the point that drives most criticism of vehicles like Expeditions, Excursions, Suburbans, and other similar units. It is not merely that they have 4WD, and to imply such is to trivialize legitimate concerns. A 4WD Forester (as a new model distinguished in only minor ways from current AWD Foresters) is highly unlikely to draw criticism from the same people who target Excursions because (1) the Forester will still weigh around 3200 #, will still get better than 20mpg in normal driving, and will still not pose a lethal threat to other users of the roadways. The objection is not to the buyer who seriously assesses his/her actual requirements and then, to play it safe, buys slightly more vehicle than those needs might indicate. The objection is to those who choose vehicles that are substantially larger, heaver, more gas-guzzling, and more intimidating than anything remotely resembling their actual requirements - just because they can. We all share (many of us unwillingly) in the full range of consequences (i.e. negative externalities) associated with the widespread purchase of huge SUVs by some (not all) people who have no more actual need for 6 and 7,000 lb. behemoths than a fish needs a bicycle. Behind a great many of these purchases is conspicuous consumption driven by a jump-on-the-bandwagon effect, pure and simple. This is not an admirable trait. |
|
|
|
|
if you were going to hang a real, transfer-cased, low-range 4WD system off the Forester's underbelly, you might need to beef up the chassis a little bit too, and I would like to see it with another 2 inches of ground clearance as well. After you got done with those mods, I would think it would weigh more like 3500#, and would not get 20 in city driving, certainly not the turbo "MT". I like the model designations though! Me, I would probably just get the "M". I am one of the last remaining people in America that actually likes steel rims. I don't know if the Forester M would make the anti's radar though. It would still be a pretty small SUV. Antis in general don't have much of a problem with RAV4s for instance. They go chasing around after Suburbans. |
|
|
Jack wrote: "Listen, buster, I ordered mine at least two weeks ago. Yours darn well better not arrive before mine!" We'll see. I haven't heard anything new since last week when I had a message saying my car would be in this week or next. I don't think the east coast cars come from the west coast. When I ordered mine the dealer said that the XTs were "at the east coast dock". I assume that is either NY or NJ. Boy, I like the comments I am hearing from the people that are starting to test drive XTs. Sounds like the engine (and the car) is everything I hoped it would be when I took a chance and ordered it without reading any reviews. I can't wait!! |
|
|
I think you will note I mentioned there were some that had legitemet concerns about SUVs. Even those however back down when speaking to the vast number of people that do use their SUVs to tow, off road, or run in deep snow. Even if that number is 10 percent as assessed by Edmunds, Car&Driver and Autoweek. The people that condemn a large SUV that is doing nothing illegal but at the same time embrace the right of 911 owners to drive such vehicles because they handle well are the ones I have targeted. The "need" issue is as subjective as it gets. I have seen posts,even in these forums, saying that sports car drivers at least use the vehicles as intended. Not so I am positive. I used to wrench for a friend in a Porsche club in the 80s and I can say from experience that most sports car people do not race their cars. Far less than 10 percent ever drive their vehicles at 70 percent of what they can do let alone 100. There are fewer of them however so I am sure they don't represent the threat some perceive SUVs to be. It is that group that will justify their choices of vehicle while trying to join the bandwagon of objection to SUVs that I was referring to. When I had my SUV I believe I used it just as it was designed to be used. I believe than almost all of the people I knew personally used their SUVs the same way. When I bought the SUV I looked at how much it cost to buy, how much it cost to operate and if I could afford it. The answer to all of those questions was yes. To assume that close to 400,000 Explorer buyers are blinded by greed and are simply jumping on the bandwagon doesn't say much about our belief in the free market. It also doesn't say much about our understanding of the short comings of the vehicles that people passed up when deciding to buy that Explorer. There is a big difference between a enthusiast and a car fanatic. Fanatics don't have to be fans of any one car. They can be fanatics against some other type of vehicle. Vegetarians will tell us we don't need to eat meat, they will site waste and health reasons and tell us how our choices are effecting their lives. When I took anthropology they indicated that eating meat was one of the reasons we became civilized, because we had more time to think. Meat eaters don't often try to tell vegetarians how to live but vegetarians often tell others how to live. We all make choices, A Forester with a transfer case or just three ranges of gears would more than likely get slightly less fuel mileage than one without. At what point does "need" become a determining factor? At what point is a Forester a wagon and what point is it a SUV? |
|
|
If Subaru were to offer a M & MT, in addition to their current X, XS & XT—and if the the M & MT were positioned above the comparable X & XT—then I could see the anti-SUV crowd getting upset. Why? Because the M & MT would be considered "superior" in the eyes of many, and thus become must-haves. If, on the other hand, the M & MT models were positioned more as "parallel" models, meaning neither superior nor inferior, just different and appealing to the different needs of a different audience, then I don't see a whole lot resistance from the PC crowd. Bob |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
