Sign In Join 



2009 Subaru Forester

3661 messages,  Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

You are in the Subaru Forester Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Subaru Forester, Future Vehicle, Wagon


Messages Page 115 of 367
1
...
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
...
367
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1137 of 3661
Re: PZEZ and non-PZEV Differences [ateixeira] by volkov
May 04, 2008 (11:18 am)
Reply

Replying to: ateixeira (May 01, 2008 10:48 am)

We are still tire kicking Leg vs OB vs For. Just a couple of 08 Leg tourings on the lot and very few available province wide and no Limiteds in Leg or OB so no big discounts from dealers and given the lack of VDC they are a no brainer to pass up till next model year.
We can't get the PZEV here. They are introducing a Leg and an OB model coming in the next month but in mid level trim only. Subaru will probably wait to see how they sell and then expand to include Forester next year. A shame really, because if we buy a Forester we'd definately want that option. The Leg PZEV is still in the running for Sandra due to that option as she tries to be enviro conscious, but I honestly find it less car for more money next to the Forester from our needs/wants standpoint otherwise. I would be frustrated if we have to get a lesser car just for that one option but that's FHI for you.
"Frustrated Love.... it's what makes a Subaru a Subaru"
#1138 of 3661
Re: PZEZ and non-PZEV Differences [volkov] by leseuldaniel
May 04, 2008 (12:42 pm)
Reply

Replying to: volkov (May 04, 2008 11:18 am)

There is another option: Get both PZEV and save thousands by buying in the US....
#1139 of 3661
Re: Ipod interface not available in XT? [comet48] by redherring1
May 05, 2008 (6:48 am)
Reply

Replying to: comet48 (May 02, 2008 5:54 pm)

"Thank you for your reply. Yes, the iPod interface is available on the
2009 Forester LL Bean Edition, without NAV."

 
Thanks, Comet--exactly the opposite of my dealer eventually told me. He checked and was told that it's incompatible with the upgraded radio in the Beans and Limiteds. As you suggest, I guess the complete answer is that nobody's sure whether it works or not, so I'm also inclined to wait.
#1140 of 3661
Re: Forester vs. CR-V by cshopper
May 05, 2008 (8:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: mfletou1 (Mar 25, 2008 8:08 am)

I found the CR-V / RAV4 vs Forester comparisons interesting but in some ways I think the Tribeca is a closer competitor due to the interior size differences. Both the CR-V and RAV4 have much more cargo volume than the Forester and about the same volume as the Tribeca. Toyota and Honda have managed to keep the exterior dimensions small while maximizing interior volume. Of course they don't offer the amenities/appointments of the latter, but are also cheaper. I think size-wise, the bump-up for the Forester is great, but if the Tribeca has less legroom than the CR-V and RAV4, then what about the Forester? What makes the '09 Forester the winner would be if you like the smaller size and also appreciate the superior AWD performance to the CR-V and RAV.
#1141 of 3661
Re: Forester vs. CR-V [cshopper] by skeleton
May 05, 2008 (9:54 am)
Reply

Replying to: cshopper (May 05, 2008 8:44 am)

Subaru actually makes a point to show how the Forester's cargo volume is more functional than that of the CRV and RAV4. There's a Youtube video that shows how a container full of granola bars fits in the Forester but does not fit in the CRV and RAV4.
 
From a pure spec perspective, the CRV and RAV4 have max volume of 73 cub. ft. Forester has 68.
#1142 of 3661
Re: Forester vs. CR-V [cshopper] by volkov
May 05, 2008 (10:26 am)
Reply

Replying to: cshopper (May 05, 2008 8:44 am)

Have to disagree here. Not sure where you get your data, but the cargo and passenger volume of Cr-v and Forester X are almost identical. With slight edge to the CR-V, but passenger volume has slight edge to the Forester. So they didn't achieve "much more" interior volume. Now the Forester interior numbers drop for the upper trim levels due to the loss of height from that big sunroof. Unless you routinely stack your cargo to the roof or have headroom issues, that loss is irrelevant. I found that with the cover open, the upper glass gives a feeling of much more room than the CR-V. I'd gladly give up spec sheet volume bragging rights for that.
Toyota specs are more limited on their web-site. While it's true the Rav4 has great cargo room, the Forester has more headroom and more front legroom and rear shoulder room. Despite the slightly longer rear legroom in the Rav, the front seats sit low. As has been mentioned the new Forester gives a nice amount of foot room - something not reflected in interior measurements. That is very useful for kids with big snow boots.
In the end, Honda and Toyo haven't achieved something Subaru didn't, it's just different organizing that's all. The rear cargo capacity is not the single most important feature of these vehicles for most buyers, so a slight edge in that department does not put them in a different class.
#1143 of 3661
Forester vs. Tribeca by ateixeira
May 05, 2008 (10:41 am)
Reply
Simple - the Forester is almost as big as the Tribeca, too. In fact I wonder if the box from that video would fit in the Tribeca with the hatch closed - my honest guess is "no", due to the angle of the hatch.
 
The main reason the Tribeca does not compete with the CR-V and RAV4 (and Forester while we're at it) is because of the interior upgrades you don't find in this class. Check out the headliner - same material used in the $70,000 VW Phaeton. Identical. It also has softer plastics, thicker carpets, etc.
 
The Tribeca's achilles heel is that it really is not very space efficient. That plus visibility is only so-so.
 
The Forester is the opposite. Space efficiency is great, it's one of the smallest entries in the segment on the outside, yet inside it has a ton of useable space. Look at the floor width, for instance. And visibility is the best in class, perhaps the best crossover period.
 
The new Forester bodes well for the next-generation Tribeca. I'm sure they will make similar improvements.
#1144 of 3661
MPG by ateixeira
May 05, 2008 (10:45 am)
Reply
25.5 mpg around town and up to 30 on the highway sounds good, especially given it's probably not even broken in yet. You should see a 1-2 mpg improvement as it breaks in.
 
Still cannot find an LL Bean model, time to give up and order one?
 
Thing is, we really want the PZEV model.
 
Angel on my left shoulder: That is because we care about the environment and wish to minimize emissions as much as possible for our children.
 
Devil on my right shoulder: Nonsense. We want the extra 5hp that comes with no penalty in fuel economy.
 
So the odds of sitting back and finding a PZEV in Blue or Silver, LL Bean model, no Nav, are about .... zero.
#1145 of 3661
Dear Becky, I'm sorry... by ateixeira
May 05, 2008 (11:07 am)
Reply
OK, I apologize to the Tribeca.
 
I checked and cargo width is similar, per cars101 the Forester is 42.2" between the wheel wells and the Tribeca has 43".
 
Tribeca wins easily on length, 44" to 35.5". So even though the hatch has more rake to it, the box I was referring to should easily fit inside.
 
I should have known, given Subaru used the same compact rear suspension from the Tribeca for the Forester.
#1146 of 3661
Re: Forester vs. CR-V [volkov] by cshopper
May 05, 2008 (1:08 pm)
Reply

Replying to: volkov (May 05, 2008 10:26 am)

I agree that "rear cargo capacity is not the single most important feature", but I am just trying to say that people naturally compare RAV/CRV to Forester based on exterior dimensions and the real comparisons should be based on interior dimensions. But maybe its price class that draws the comparison (that's why Tribeca is a diff. class). Subaru is definitely not space efficient in their design- both the Tribeca (34.3")and Legacy (34"), they're largest sedan, have less rear legroom than the 2007 Corolla (35.4") and about the same as a Civic. The Legacy is way bigger on the outside than a Corolla, almost 10".
"the cargo and passenger volume of Cr-v and Forester X are almost identical"
These are the manufacturer, per SAE guidlines, figures I saw:
 
Tribeca: 2nd row seats folded=74 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 37.6 cu ft
Forester: 2nd row seats folded=63 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 31 cu ft
CRV: 2nd row seats folded = 72.9 cu feet, 2nd row seats up = 35.7 cu ft
RAV4: 2nd row seats folded = 73 cu feet
 
per these numbers, the CRV has almost 10 cu feet more cargo volume, that seems like a lot more. Honda spent a lot of time on rejiggering their interior panels to eke out more interior space on the CRV, I think that shows. Subaru also has a different drivetrain layout (boxer, AWD) than other manufacturers that may/may not impact how much wheelbase gets translated into legroom etc... I haven't seen all the numbers on the Subaru but perhaps they are getting much better than they were.

Messages Page 115 of 367
1
...
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
...
367
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement