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
SUVs BMW X3 & X5 BMW X3 vs Subaru Forester XT vs Infiniti FX 35 vs Toyota RAV4
1193 messages, Last post on Apr 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM
You are in the BMW X3 & X5 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
My sister was in town visiting over the weekend and she let me take her Z4 for a spin. That car sure does corner like it's on rails! If the X3 got some of those handling genes then it should be fun to drive. I really do need to go test drive one... -Frank |
|
|
Yes the manual gets a low range. The auto, with a torque converter, does not need a low range to get up the hills, although adding additional cooling for the gearbox for low speed up hill crawling is done by Toyota. Subaru I don't think have extra cooling on their auto. The problem with an auto then is getting down them the hill. What happens with autos, even low range petrol ones like our LandCruiser, is that the brakes do all the work. A low range in a diesel will have the vehicle crawl down, but not many petrols will crawl down unless the gearbox is super low and the engine has strong engine braking characteristics. Typically in Aus going down a steep track, you follow the wheel tracks, and middle clearance is what stops you (the middle of the vehicle's ground clearance is critical because the tracks are much deeper in the wheel rut areas than the higher often grassy middle of the track). Incidentally while the Outback has good ground clearance, its not very effective over rocks because its wheelbase is long. Its overhangs are also poor as well, so the Outback is not regarded here as being as Outbackable as a Forester. Going down hill, rocks in the tracks require some skill. You go down heavily on the brakes all the time. If one leaves the tracks sideways a bit because of climbing a rock, you won't be able to get back onto the wheel track ruts, because the rear wheels will still be in the wheel ruts. This is serious, because one of the front wheels is now off the ruts, which means its likely the vehicle is somewhat sideways. When on is sideways on a steep track, that's when you roll - lengthwise its tough for them to tip over the front! Although in Aus, some short wheelbase vehicles have flipped over backwards going up steep tracks. Toyata have a light LandCruiser here, with a chassis, but they don't sell the short wheelbase version. No doubt they fear in Aus it might flip over lengthwise! But sideways its much more easy to roll over, especially with high roll centre vehicles (which the Subaru is very much not). Also a shorter wheelbase helps get over any bumps. For rough stuff, we would take the LandCruiser anyway. Its much more capable off road, and a chassis stops the body getting wrecked, as with a mono chassis like a Subaru etc. every bump into the floor pan affects the whole body in my opinion. As to the wheels, Subarus here get a fifth wheel that is exactly the same as the road wheels - an alloy one. But here, one can only get the side air bag if one gets leather and a sun roof. the Subaru passes our safety tests without a side air bag, so for some reason Subaru onlu put it into the luxury ones. For some reason, such a big hole in the roof concerns me - it must weaken the structure IMO; and if not, there must be quite a weight penalty, in a place that is bad news for handling, as its at the top of a high place. The Highlander - yes that's the name, Thanks. I like it too. My wife thinks the front is ugly, but otherwise its external styling is great. No four cyclinder here! And no one here knows about an electric hybrid either. The Toyota Prius hybrid doesn't yet sell well here, unlike the States, but who knows if a hybrid came to Aus. I'd imagine it would be great as it would save fuel and provide a different way of achieving all wheel drive. The media here have reported that Toyota subsidises the Prius $US7000 per vehicle here. We are driving the X3 this weekend it turns out. I think its not worth it here, its probably cheaper here over 4 years to buy a diesel X5, which cost not much more than a leathered X5 3 litre. We'll test the turbo Forester as well, and maybe the Ford and Toyota, if we have time. Just quick spins for a look and feel. No answers about the Toyota, I guess because its off topic. It seems to be in a different category. Cheers all.
|
|
|
Replying to: melbourne (Jun 23, 2004 6:28 pm) The 2005 Outback will go from 7.3 in. clearance to 8.5 I hear. With the bumpers raised about an inch. The Highlander is the same platform as the Altima and the RX300/330 and not designed for heavy off-roading. Interesting, if heavy off-roading is important to you, why aren't you looking at truck-based SUVs (body on frame)?
|
|
|
melbourne: actually yes, our automatic Forester do get a standard oil cooler. It fits on the MT5 models as well, but doesn't come standard. SoA found it wasn't needed because the towing capacity for the manual is actually greater even without the oil cooler. 2005 US Outbacks have 8.4-8.7" of clearance, very good actually. The 2004 Forester has 7.5" but better approach/departure angles, like you said. The 2005 model is supposed to get even more clearance but I haven't been able to confirm this yet. Bob - you said you got a brochure, right? Does it mention that? Back to the comparisons, BMW invited me to the X3 Ultimate Driving Event, I'm registered for August 6 here in DC. Bob Holland is going with me. I have a Forester, Bob has an Explorer but a few Subies in his family. We've both driven the Forester XT so perhaps we can do a little compare/contrast after the event. -juice
|
|
|
but towing is now 2400 for all Foresters. Last year n/a Forester automatics were rated at 2000. Bob |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Jun 24, 2004 8:40 am) Maybe we should drive the F-XT again just before (or after) the event again, so our comments would be more accurate. I haven't driven the F-XT in over a year, so my recollection isn't fresh. Also, there have been some minor updates on the F-XT since last year. Bob |
|
|
Replying to: petewat3 (Jun 24, 2004 4:12 am) Because we already have a truck based frame chassis Toyota vehicle. The attraction of a 4 wheel powered vehicle is for the snow, and the none chassis frame vehicles use much more fuel to get to our snow fields, about 5 hours one way  70 MPH. We have had the new 2005 Subaru Outbacks since last year. Because we are right hand drive, we get the Japanese vehicles earlier than you. Yes the Outback has been raised, despite a lower centre of gravity by lowering the engine. I did not know about the bumper angle change. Nonetheless it is the type of vehicle that would not climb a rock without hitting it. It would be fine for going along wide tracks in open country, because you can steer around rock outcrops on the big tracks (tracks that go to central Australia were aboriginal trading highways and followed water courses in what are deserts). They are quite wide and flat, and dressed with broken up rocks. The Outback would be fine out there. But steep tracks would catch it out, whereas a Forester is much better because of its shorter wheelbase, which is critical in avoiding the centre of the vehicle scraping on a rock which one was to climb over. For us, both vehicles would be city cars that do quite a few country trips to the snow. Somehow I think the Outback although more expensive would be a nicer place to be. I imagine it quieter, and its more roomy in the back seat for our 12 year old who will be six foot by the time we change vehicles. I figure the Forester is better in acceleration, which is a fantastic benefit, and also the Forester sits higher than the Outback, which is more pleasant for the driver in traffic, and safer too. But I worry about the Forester's room for out son, whether it could take three people in the back (my parents) and whether it is a noisy almost harsh environment. We trialed a WRX before buying the BMW 325, and the WRX was quite a harsh environment. However the only reason we did not by it was because the seats when raised in height did not support the lower back at all - they were extraordinarily uncomfortable. We asked Subaru, and they came back with nothing could be done. We could not even put in the standard car's cheaper seats. We then priced spare parts, as the STI had a bottom seat part that was raisable on the front and back of the seat, which provided support for the lower (small) of one's back. But the parts cost the same as new Recaros, about $US1,000 per seat. Not worth it - 10% of the value of the car in seats was silly. We later found out that dealers had solved the problem, by putting in an air bladder behind the lining of the seat, with a one way air valve that you hand squeezed until one got the back support. The device cost $US35 per seat! |
|
|
Bob - we should drive an FX, especially. Let's find out if there is an Infiniti dealer in that area. I can't drive another F-XT. Too tempting! -juice |
|
|
My wife drove several cars over the weekend. She said the X3 had the advantage of being very familiar in its controls (sas she has a current 3 series BMW). She liked the two tone colour scheme of the BMW, as it had dark colours below elbow height, which was pleasant and clever she thought. She said all the vehicles she drove were very good which surprised her. She felt the BMW was just not worth it (In Aus. they are quite expensive). We very much liked the Forester. It offers a great compromise between sitting high and good handling. It was not noisy. The seats were comfortable. The rear compartment good for our two Jack Russel dogs, although in reality its dark interior would show their cream doggy hair. A black rubber mat would be bought anyway. Its external appearance compared to most others really poor; it seems that Subaru have just decided to forego style. It gains no emotive points from its body shape. It may be logically justifiable, but it does not capture the heart, like a Rav4 does for instance. Interestingly, my wife has crossed the Subaru Outbacks off her list. Mostly because from the driver seat, it is low. Because of traffic driving, if she is to have a rear compartment for two dogs or sailing gear, she'd like the lest claustrophic benefits of sitting higher, which the Forester does much better than the Outback. Also, we found the back (middle compared to 7 seaters) seat in the Forester more comfortable than the Outbacks seats. Firstly the Forester's almost bench seats were higher off the floor, and the Outbacks seats' felt flat and shallow under the bumb. A disappointment for their upper model. Also with three in the back, the middle position was quite hard in the Outback compared to the even comfort bench bottom seat of the Forester. The Subaru guy said one should spend $US700 on a Japanese wider exhaust system for the Forester, as the Jap system bolts perfectly in. Its wider diameter lowers back pressure and results in much greater performance for the turbo. He also said that on has to idle the motor up for a few minutes before driving off in the mornings, and idle the motor down at the end of your journey, to keep the turbo bearings healthy, and also to change to double the factory recommended engine oil change interval, and to use a top synthetic oil. Such care would ensure much longer turbo bearing life.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs BMW X3 & X5 BMW X3 vs Subaru Forester XT vs Infiniti FX 35 vs Toyota RAV4
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 BMW X3
2010 Subaru Forester
2010 Infiniti FX35
2011 Toyota RAV4
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
