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 Honda CR-V Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
782 messages, Last post on Feb 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM
You are in the Honda CR-V Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: stevecar (May 18, 2007 3:58 am) While resale value is something to consider, it is just one of many factors. Getting an extra grand at trade in doesn't mean much if you don't enjoy driving your vehicle for the next several years.
|
|
|
Replying to: drwoodr (May 19, 2007 7:47 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: drive62 (May 21, 2007 6:18 am) If you prefer the Hyundai when its new, and pay more for depreciation, so what? You got a vehicle you liked better, and it's worth it. Why would you buy a car you didn't like (unless affordability was an issue)? Residuals are often quoted at a % of MSRP. That's fine, but it's misleading. For example, let's say you paid $25k for a Mini Cooper when they first came out, to be the first on the block. Retail was $20k. Resale in 2 years might be $18k. Sounds great. The books will say it retained 90% of its value. Incredible. But it only retained 72% of the actual price you paid, and that is the *only* thing that matters. The converse is also true. If you get a $20k vehicle (list price) for $16k, and residual after 2 years is just 60%, or $12k. Thing is, it only cost you $4k in depreciation. About half what the Mini Cooper cost that first-on-the-block sucker who simply overpaid. Doing this sort of math required lots of assumptions, so that's why I say look at residuals, sure, but it's pretty secondary to liking the vehicle more. |
|
|
|
|
Just had to post that Consumer Reports looks at several 'smaller' SUVs including the Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue. The Forester, in both XT and X versions, came out on top and is a recommended pick. In fact, CR says it is now recommending the Forester over its previous top pick, which was the Toyota Rav 4. I am glad that perhaps CR finally realized the rear end on the Rav 4 is not practical for many people. The Forester may not be the coolest looking SUV out there, but it is pretty solid and has the kinds of things that CR says it's looking for. As for resale value, I would think that the CR article could only help the Forester and probably the Outlander.
|
|
|
Replying to: prndldriver (Jul 02, 2008 11:29 am) To me the rear visibility and wrong-way opening rear door were turn offs, but if you read the CR review they barely glance over that stuff. |
|
|
Here are CR online test videos of the small suvs from the aug 08 issue, including the new Forester. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road-test/small-suvs/videos-small-s- uvs/small-suvs-videos.htm
|
|
| http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=128409 | |
|
Replying to: richk6 (Jul 02, 2008 2:32 pm) Interesting to hear that the 5 speed manual model was both quicker and more fuel efficient (24mpg is their best in class for a non-hybrid). The better 4 bangers get 22mpg, and the automatic matched those, but the manual blew them away. |
|
|
Hey Gang, I've been reading that the double wishbone suspension in the new 09 Forester handles more 'sloppy' then the outgoing strut design. I took a 09 for a test drive and really couldn't tell a differance in the handling from my old 05. Does anybody notice sloppier handling? Does the newer Forester handle more poorly then a CR-V? I always associated Subaru's with handling - this would be a first for me if the Honda does it better. ???
|
|
|
Replying to: jopopsy (Nov 05, 2008 7:09 am) I completely disagree with that theory. The old one had struts all around, and the biggest difference is that it was softer. It took a while to settle down in a turn. Not bouncy in an SUV sort of way, just more softly sprung. The new rear suspension was derived from the Tribeca, and that plus all the other changes resulted in a Forester that rolls a lot less and feels firmer (the opposite of sloppy IMHO). You'll notice the reduced body roll on a test drive, and that's despite the fact that ground clearance is up more than an inch. The whole vehicle sits a bit higher. The trade-off is a little bit more impact harshness. If you hit a bump you feel it a bit more than in the '98. An enthusiast might see this as more feedback and even consider that a positive, but we use it as a family car so I wanted to note that you do feel the initial impact of the bumps more. Overall it has more suspension travel, though. I think it handles as well as any other compact crossover out there. MT just named it SUV of the year.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Honda CR-V Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda CR-V
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
