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 Subaru Crew Subaru Forester 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
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 05, 2008 10:45 am) 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  !!!
|
|
|
Replying to: tinycadon (May 05, 2008 6:03 pm)  -mike |
|
|
|
| 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. | |
|
Replying to: lucyinfiniti (May 05, 2008 6:28 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: lucyinfiniti (May 05, 2008 6:28 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: cshopper (May 05, 2008 1:08 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: lucyinfiniti (May 05, 2008 6:28 pm) 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  -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cshopper (May 05, 2008 1:08 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 05, 2008 10:45 am) I found you a blue Bean at Lester Glenn Subaru, in Tom's River, NJ. http://www.lester.subaru.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&make=Subaru&model=F- orester We bought two Hyundai's there in the last few years, and were very satisfied. Internet sales; no nonsense, no games. Give them a call. Len
|
|
|
Replying to: redherring1 (May 06, 2008 5:06 am) totally agree, one of the reasons why the new Rogue is nice to look at, more aerodynamic (squarer drop off in back is less aerodynamic), but not terribly space efficient. I'm guessing the new CR-V gave up some legroom. also by putting the spare inside they gave up some space- I actually didn't mind the external spare on the old CR-V and RAV- heckuva lot easier to change the tire on a fully loaded vehicle, plus the busted tire wouldn't fit in the internal compartment but easy to mount on the back. much better utility IMHO.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Subaru Crew Subaru Forester 2009 Subaru Forester
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
