Last post on Oct 15, 2012 at 3:22 PM
You are in the Subaru Forester
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Forester, Future Vehicle, Wagon
#1146 of 3747 Re: Forester vs. CR-V [volkov]
May 05, 2008 (2:08 pm)
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.
#1147 of 3747 Re: MPG [ateixeira]
May 05, 2008 (7:03 pm)
Juice, hate to bust your oranges, but I had to say something. If you're truly worried about emissions then you will not buy a new car and drive the one you have into the ground. The most PZEV you can buy is the one you already own because the environmental damage that was done to build that car has already been done. From extracting the raw elements from the ground, to the processing, to the construction and then delivery, the amount of emissions that were released in that process FAR outweighs any emissions savings from a brand new PZEV that you can buy. Yes that new car is built, but if it sits then another new car might not get built next year, and so forth. Not to mention, Subaru only builds a certain # of PZEV for sale in Cali and the Northeastern states, meaning that if you buy 1 they're not building another one for the state you buy it from, so it's really a no win solution.
Now, if you were to say that you want to buy 1 and bring it to Maryland to help spread the gospel to states that don't have PZEV, the world is yours !!!
#1148 of 3747 Re: MPG [tinycadon]
May 05, 2008 (7:06 pm)
Yup but then we'd all still be driving circa 1975 American gas hogs that get like 12mpg and have 3 speed transmissions with engines like the 455 Rocket and names like Oldsmobile 98 Regency!
May 05, 2008 (7:28 pm)
and I was a tad disappointed. I like the styling of the car and I really liked the interior. But there were some little things I want in my next car and if I'm going to pay that much for anything I want to get exactly what I want. First I was a little perturbed that Subaru only offers a "ivory" colored with the Newport Blue exterior. Most automakers today offer at least two choices of interior color with almost all exterior colors. I also want a vehicle with separate flip-up glass hatch window, as well as reclining rear seats. I also was shocked that Subaru hasn't begun offering a keyless entry/ignition system. i also can't but help but wonder why Subaru is still using a 4-speed automatic what with everyone wither switching to CVT's or 5,6, or 7 speed automatics...get in the game guys! Maybe I'm also a little biased because of the awesome torque from my Jeep Cherokee's 4.0 six, but the 4 cylinder didn't have enough oomph for me, especially at the low end. I engine when pushed seemed to take a few seconds to respond, "oh, you want to go now, ok just give me a moment" like it was distracted or something. Other than those things I thought the car was very nice, just not right for me.
#1150 of 3747 Re: Just test drove... [lucyinfiniti]
May 05, 2008 (7:46 pm)
Did you test drive the XT (turbo)? It'll dust the Jeep.
#1151 of 3747 Re: Just test drove... [lucyinfiniti]
May 05, 2008 (8:12 pm)
Yep, Subaru's color combos are limited compared to most... one of the penalties of being a smaller company.
Forester does have reclining rear seats in every model but the base.
The 4-spd tranny is in use because it's an economical and reliable choice while Subaru is preparing its CVT, due out soon. Lack of more gears doesn't really seem to hurt Forester, though... gas mileage is class-leading, equal with CR-V. 5 speeds would sure look better on paper and probably feel better when driving, though.
#1152 of 3747 Re: Forester vs. CR-V [cshopper]
May 05, 2008 (8:24 pm)
Forester X (without sunroof) seats folded 68.3 / seats up 33.5 which is close IMO. On the other hand, passenger volume in the Forester is 107.6/102.1 with/without sunroof versus 103.8/100.9 for the CR-V . So a Forester with no moonroof has 5 Cu ft less cargo room but 4 cu ft more passenger room than a roofless CR-V. 1 cu ft of total interior room difference is a fraction of 1%, I'll let you draw conclusions as to whether or not that is significant.
The other numbers you are giving apply with the sunroof, so as I said, the volume loss is purely a height issue. In the end though, the numbers are rarely the full story and preferences relate more to how people feel about the space. I will admit that the trunk of the CR-V seemed a little bigger subjectively, but the Forester didn't feel small so it wasn't a factor in preference. OTOH the Forester really felt bigger the moment I sat in it YMMV.
Juice and I have a similar argument before regarding cargo volume in the Yukon XL versus the Sienna. By the numbers they are the same, but our 2 dog crates can't fit in the Sienna trunk which they do in the XL, and we've previously loaded all our luggage in the back of the XL with ease, only to find it won't fit in the rental Sienna.
#1153 of 3747 Re: Just test drove... [lucyinfiniti]
May 05, 2008 (9:16 pm)
if I'm going to pay that much for anything I want to get exactly what I want
Good luck! In this price range there are always compromises.
Your right about the limited choices of interior colors. Small market share aside, I do wish Subaru would expand their offerings.
I also want a vehicle with separate flip-up glass hatch window
That's the drawback of having such a huge moonroof. Personally I think the trade-off is worth it
Maybe I'm also a little biased because of the awesome torque from my Jeep Cherokee's 4.0 six, but the 4 cylinder didn't have enough oomph for me
That's hardly comparing apples to apples though. FYI, I went from a 4.0L Cherokee to a 2.5L Forester and didn't notice a huge drop-off in performance. Certainly not as big as the increase in mpg
#1154 of 3747 Re: Forester vs. CR-V [cshopper]
May 06, 2008 (6:06 am)
Honda spent a lot of time on rejiggering their interior panels to eke out more interior space on the CRV
To the extent that implies that the new CRV is more space-efficient than the last generation, that's not the case. I owned an '02 CRV, and it felt significantly roomier than the current model, both in passenger and cargo space. The cargo space may measure out similarly, but the old car was more useful since the roof and hatch were more square. The stylish "rake" of the new rear hatch compromises usable space. As far as passenger room, I was very comfortable in the old car (I'm 6'4", 250 lbs) and do not fit nearly as well in the new--one of the reasons I bought a Forester.