# CRV Vs. Rav4 Vs. Forester- my test drives and the result!



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Well, I needed a new vehicle and I'm selling the Pathfinder and hope to find an older Landcruiser or 4Runner to be made into a decent offroad vehicle that can still tow a trailer with 2-3 motorcycles. I decided to stay away from the AWD wagons since the smaller ones are fine for $10K less and higher reliabilty to boot.

I could do with something a bit smaller but still need room for my dog and need some from of AWD. The vehicles in the running ended up being the Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, and Subaru Forester (non-Turbo, alas).
I researched them all extensively and test drove them a LOT. I drove them pretty hard to check out the handling though I didn't abuse any. Here's my take:

1st Test Drive- Honda CRV- Nice enough but I don't like the way the back seats fold or the arm room (sideways room). I like to have a perfectly flat raised floor for my dog as well. The crash test ratings were good as was the handling but the space was a bit tight in front and seats were short as well. Also, the AWD system is very unsophisticated- ending wheel power to the back when front wheel slippage is sense. All in all, a nice vehicle though it met very few of my criteria.

2nd test Drive- Toyota Rav4- This is a really nice small SUV that has more elbow room that the CRV. It rider smoother and handles well around shap curves. Its 4WD system is better as well with a lock in a Lo 4 though I didn't learn more than that. However, it's full-time 4WD is still not what I liked though I really like the way it drove and it was pretty quiet inside- typically refined and what stood out was the composed ride- very nice so it was way ahead of the CRV in my book. the downside is that it does not have comprehensive crash test ratings, especially side impact.

3rd Test Drive- Subaru Forester X- I alsmost skipped this one after I drove the Rav4 but since the Toyota dealership said they would not go below $500 over invoice, I decided to drive the Subaru while I digested their final offer. The Subaru was surprisingly impressive after driving two of the top smal SUVs. It drove more like a car though has 8 inches of true clearance. The seats wer more comfy and it had more driver's room that the CRV for sure and it seemed like it had more that the Rav4 as well. The seats folded flat at the back and it has enough room for my 80 lb Boxer.

I tool all three on a loose-dirt road and the Subaru's active AWD was far superior to the other two. It actually send power back and forth depending on acceleration or braking forces it senses. It slid very little and went right through the loose-dirt/gravel curves that had the CRV out of its element and the Rav4 humbled, though to a lesser degree than the CRV.
The Subaru also has the best crash test ratings, with articles on how firefighters know not to cut its B pillars with the Jaws of Life but peel back the roof instead It's ring structure reisists even the Jaws of Life's cutting force and getting hit from the side (which cause huge injuries) is best taken in the Subaru. I believe that Volvo has a similar ring-like concept in its pillars but I'm not sure exactly how they structure their pillars. The Subaru actually has what looks like a solid metal rod in the center, surrounded by odd shaped "rings" of metal and that is the primary structure of the door pillars.

Anyway, the Forester was hardly in the running when I started (being a Honda/Toyota/maybe Nissan) kind of guy. When I was done, the Subaru edged out even the amazing 2006 Rav4. It is not as super-refined as the Rav4 (nothing in that class and price range is) but has a host of safety features and handles more like a car so I really liked driving it. It also did better in loose conditions and that was important.

So I actually ended up buying the Forester. If any of you are in the market for a small SUV/wagon, definitely try out the Forester. it made a believer out of a really skeptical Honda/Toyota fanatic. I still love Hondas and Toyotas though.

For the record, I also drove the Hyundai Tucson and Kia Sportage and I was unimpressed by their ride, handling, and refinement and didn't give them serious consideration. I dodn't like their reliability ratings either so they were probably mentally kicked out before the test drives. 

I'm happy with my new purchase (though I have already upgraded the stereo to an Alpine 9856 with Sirius) and tinted the windows AND windshield (they let us do that now with 50% tint) and I love the tint. The only thing I need now is a bike rack (hitch/roof/something- fast). I was tempted to get an Amp to power upgraded door speakers but I think I'll hold off for now. I have better uses for my extra $$ and I can live with the sound for a while anyway.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2006)

Nice. Subaru's are the best, that car won't let you down.

If you need more info on subaru check out this page. www.nasioc.com or www.i-club.com Both are subaru only forums.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Thanks for the links. This is my first Subaru so I'll be checking stuff out on the Subaru forums. I love the turbo version and maybe that be be my next one in a few years. I bet the Turbo owners mod the heck out of them


----------



## Meat Foot (Jan 14, 2004)

Thanks for the comprehensive report. My wife are contemplating the CR-V or the Forester. I have been a fan of Subarus AWD system. Lots of them up here in the PNW, that speaks volumes.

Have fun with it!


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Meat Foot said:


> Thanks for the comprehensive report. My wife are contemplating the CR-V or the Forester. I have been a fan of Subarus AWD system. Lots of them up here in the PNW, that speaks volumes.
> 
> Have fun with it!


If the CRV fits your needs, you will like it a lot. It has a lot of cargo room because the back seat folds away from the floor and give you a floor to roof cavern unlike the other two- nice for rolling bikes in and out. It is also very reliable but the AWD system does not work as well as the Subaru in real-world conditions. It isn't "active" enough for me. However, it is super reliable, drives well, handles well, and has excellent crash test ratings. If you drive both, do it back to back and do it again. Push the vehicles harder then you normally would around corners- within reason. It will give you a good feel for the handling you can expect in an emergency.

Good luck and just don't drive the Forester XT- I made the mistake of doing so and I can't get it out of my head.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

The Outback Sport is the same car as the Forester except for the styling and a bit less cargo space. Also weighs less and has a $2600 lower list price.


----------



## Meat Foot (Jan 14, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Good luck and just don't drive the Forester XT- I made the mistake of doing so and I can't get it out of my head.


Ha ha ha ha! Yeah, I have a friend with an STi and every time I get back into my car I am like....ummm OK any day now, let's get on the friggin freeway. C'mon everyone help paddle!


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2004)

I was in the same position as you but I was coming from a 1999 Subaru Outback Sport. That car was a lemon with everything going wrong right after the warranty would expire. Things like a new rear differential at 63,000 miles. Not covered. Catalytic convertor at 81,000 miles. Not covered. My airbag failed. Never used the airbag, why should the damn thing fail? In the end, the nagging problems kept me away from the Subaru. The dealer charges for everything were also ridiculously high. Also, since the Forester is based on the Impreza platform, the size was the same (just a little too small). I was primarily looking at a Outback with the turbo 4. 

I tested the new Rav4 and loved it. In the V-6 it smokes. Lots of room and decent gas milage for the power. But, as you pointed out, they are hard to find and right now expensive. I ended up buying a certified CR-V to last met until the prices of the Rav4 start coming down. 

I have since heard that the 1997-1999 Subaru's had some real issues and they have since been corrected. I actually liked the car when it was running.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

yeah, I have heard of pre-2000 or pre-2001 Subarus having more problems than normal. In recent years, Subaru has come a long way. In fact, in either 2004, it surpassed Honda as being the most reliable overall brand:

From CS surveys:

"The most reliable brand overall is now Subaru, which averages eight problems per 100," Consumer Reports said. It noted that Honda Motor Co. Ltd., long a reliability leader, now averaged nine problems per 100.

Full article:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/08/autos-108097.htm

I'm confident it will hold up well though it is hard to go wrong with a Honda or Toyota. I've mostly owned Honda cars and motorcycles and have had no reliabilty issues.


----------



## maclgallant (Feb 11, 2006)

Grats on your Subaru man sweet purchase..... personaly i would of got the Rav 4 with the V6..... 269 hp in a suv that small is insane.... cant beat the power for the size and price...
you still made a sweet choise though... it's all about personal preference i guess


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Yeah, the Rav4 was nice though if I got the V6, the fuel economy stinks. Tests showed 16mph - 20mph so I had to get a 4 cylinder. My Pathfinder gets that kind of mileage and I wanted something more economical for everyday driving and long trips. The Subie is rated at 22/23 and 27/28 highway. I have been getting 19.5-21.5 in mostly city driving during this break-in period and I hope that gets a little better as the engine wears in.

TheV6 in that Rav4 would be a ton of fun. Can you imagine the face on that kid with an older Mustang or SHO when a Rav4 pulls away? I do hear that the Rav4 is tuned for speed; not torque (Avalon engine, I think) though the Forester X is very quick as well and its turbo can be tuned to produce 260-280 hp which would be incredible.

However, I decided to force myself to be sensible this time and get a 4 cylinder.


----------



## GuruAtma (May 17, 2004)

If you go to towns where people really need an AWD car, you'd be amazed how many Subarus you see. When a Subaru finally wears out, the owners usually get another Subaru. That says a lot.

And don't forget the Lesbaru. Forresters are the unoffical car of Lesbians (not that there's anything wrong with that)  



---A proud Outback owner.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

LOL- maybe I can befriend some cute Lesbians while driving around and hope they want to experiment 

Seriously though, there is one downside- nobody makes a 2" hitch receiver for the Forester- only a 1.25. That really sucks but it's a small price to pay for superior AWD, I suppose. Yeah, I have heard that Subaru owners are probably the most loyal to Subarus. The flat four cylinder does have a bit of character to it as well. I bet the H6 is really nice to drive.



GuruAtma said:


> If you go to towns where people really need an AWD car, you'd be amazed how many Subarus you see. When a Subaru finally wears out, the owners usually get another Subaru. That says a lot.
> 
> And don't forget the Lesbaru. Forresters are the unoffical car of Lesbians (not that there's anything wrong with that)
> 
> ---A proud Outback owner.


----------



## Trailhappy (Nov 21, 2005)

The Subaru is the best. You'll be happy. The Boxer four engine is tried and true. Very reliable. And Subaru's all wheel drive system is way more sophisticated than the Rav or CRV. They've been making AWD for a long time and it's an integral part of the car. AWD for the Toy and Honda is almost an afterthought since most people don't buy them that way.


----------



## Verewolf (Oct 13, 2005)

We've owned 5 Subarus, Outback Sport, (2) Impreza, Forester and Legacy.
Never had a single problem with any of them.
My wife will be getting a new car this month.
I told her to get any make or model car she wants and her pick is another Forester.

The Forester is a safe, go anywhere, reliable AWD vehicle.

You'll really enjoy yours.


----------



## neveride (Feb 7, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Seriously though, there is one downside- nobody makes a 2" hitch receiver for the Forester- only a 1.25.


Not the best option, but here's a fix to still let you use a 2" hitch:
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/t...pter&noImage=0&returnPage=search-results1.jsp

Its a simple steel adapter that goes from 1.25 to 2". The rack sticks out another 6 or so ", but saves you from buying a new rack if you already have one.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2004)

Flyer said:


> yeah, I have heard of pre-2000 or pre-2001 Subarus having more problems than normal. In recent years, Subaru has come a long way. In fact, in either 2004, it surpassed Honda as being the most reliable overall brand:
> 
> From CS surveys:
> 
> ...


Yeh, that is why I think I got a lemon. The thing about the Subaru that I loved is that with the manual transmission, it had an even 50/50 split all the time. That made a car with completly predicatable handleing, no matter what the conditions. In the CR-V and Toyota, it is really just a FWD car until the tires slip.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Well, I needed a new vehicle and I'm selling the Pathfinder and hope to find an older Landcruiser or 4Runner to be made into a decent offroad vehicle that can still tow a trailer with 2-3 motorcycles. I decided to stay away from the AWD wagons since the smaller ones are fine for $10K less and higher reliabilty to boot.
> 
> I could do with something a bit smaller but still need room for my dog and need some from of AWD. The vehicles in the running ended up being the Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, and Subaru Forester (non-Turbo, alas).
> I researched them all extensively and test drove them a LOT. I drove them pretty hard to check out the handling though I didn't abuse any. Here's my take:
> ...


I was facing a similar decision a few years ago between the forester and the CR-V, and I went with the CR-V. My best freind has a 2004 Forester and I spend a lot of time in it. I think the CR-V is much more roomy in the front and far more cargo room overall. It's interesting what you say about the back seats of the CR-V, because that was a huge selling point for me (I have a big Dog) , but I think I use them differently than you do. You get more flat space with the CR-V, but you have to fold the seats forward in order to achieve it, so you loose some room in the proccess Also, if you remove the back seats you are left with a very large flat area that is great for camping in, but you have to be willing to spend 10 minutes with a wrench. The swinging gate with a bike rack on the spare tire is the BOMB for bikes. They are never in the way. I also liked the overall feel of the clutch and shifter in the Honda.

A few big pluses for the Subaru is that it handles just like a car, wheras the CR-V is somewhere between a car and small SUV. Also, there is no comparison in the snow. The CR-V gets the job done, but the Subaru is so much more in control. The RT4WD on the Honda is really pretty stupid in my opinion, but I think I can understand why they use it for a car like this. I think it is partially responsible for the relatively good mileage of the 3,500 lb CR-V. However, for my purposes I would prefer either AWD or the ability to manually engage the 4WD. I live in a very snowy area, and Subarus are much better than the Hondas. To be fair though, We got over 50 FEET of snow last winter and I never got stuck, so it may be a moot point which is better.

I find offroad is about the same. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think the CR-V has just a hair more usable clearance. However, the Forester is lighter, and a little more nimble. To be honest though, neither of these are meant for any real offroading. They are cars, not trucks.

Reliability was a consideration for me as well. While both brands do very well, my family has a `95 Legacy and while it has done well, the Hondas we have owned have done better. However, I think Subaru has addressed the issues I had with the Legacy, and I believe the two companies are about the same now.


----------



## Catherine (Jan 28, 2006)

I tried out the same cars in '98 and also ended up with a Forester. I did have a lot of trouble with computer chips and relays, but luckily the dealer talked me into an extended warranty because I was likely to put on a lot of miles in remote places.. It paid for itself, but boy, was the car ever a pain, compared to the used Hondas I had always driven.. Now that it's over the 100,000 mile mark, it seems much less troublesome. I am very impressed with the AWD and fear I have been totally spoiled by the "Subie" version. The car drives like it did when I bought it--tight, stable, quiet and great in snow and heavy rain. It's not cheap to have it serviced. When I had the timing belt replaced, and had all the other 60,000 mile work done, the dealership price was $900. I had it done for $700 at a local shop. A few months ago I had the clutch and the flywheel replaced. Also had to have a bearing of some kind replaced, which was an improvement over the original clutch assembly. It shifts better now than it did when it was new. The dealership kept telling me there was nothing wrong with the clutch. BS! The new clutch job cost me $1200. Maybe these prices seem in line to other folks here, but I had always had older/simpler Hondas before this.

Catherine


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm not necessarily a big guy but I'm 180 lbs and 6ft tall and in the CRV, my elbows kept touching the left side and my shoulders were pretty close to the door. That's what I meant by front room. The CRV is indeed VERY roomy. What's funny is that I wanted a flat but raised surface so my Boxer could sit around and look out of the windows- she loves doing that. She did that in my Pathfinder and when I put her in a van, she kept expressing her displeasure and made loud Chewbacca-like noises for hours- so she won out and got her "perch". Otherwise, the CRV is great with room since it goes all the way from top to bottom and you can actually roll your bike in- gotta love that. If I didn't have a crazy dog who loves the view and HAS to look out, the CRV's setup would be awesome.

Really, any of these three are best in class- it really depends on a person's specific need or two that it comes down to. The CRV's swing-out gate is nice and the fact that it can prob take a 2" hitch is great. The only thing about a swing out is that is a little problematic is that you need a lot of room to swing it fully open when loading something big. These are details though and it's really hard to say anything negative about any of these three- as long as you don't have to tow anything. After driving them, I have a newfound liking for the three little stalwarts.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyer said:


> I'm not necessarily a big guy but I'm 180 lbs and 6ft tall and in the CRV, my elbows kept touching the left side and my shoulders were pretty close to the door. That's what I meant by front room. The CRV is indeed VERY roomy. What's funny is that I wanted a flat but raised surface so my Boxer could sit around and look out of the windows- she loves doing that. She did that in my Pathfinder and when I put her in a van, she kept expressing her displeasure and made loud Chewbacca-like noises for hours- so she won out and got her "perch". Otherwise, the CRV is great with room since it goes all the way from top to bottom and you can actually roll your bike in- gotta love that. If I didn't have a crazy dog who loves the view and HAS to look out, the CRV's setup would be awesome.
> 
> Really, any of these three are best in class- it really depends on a person's specific need or two that it comes down to. The CRV's swing-out gate is nice and the fact that it can prob take a 2" hitch is great. The only thing about a swing out is that is a little problematic is that you need a lot of room to swing it fully open when loading something big. These are details though and it's really hard to say anything negative about any of these three- as long as you don't have to tow anything. After driving them, I have a newfound liking for the three little stalwarts.


Yeah, a smaller dog would have problems seeing out of the CR-V's windows, and with the seat folded forward she can't come up and say hi. I remember my dog was fine riding in the back of my old pickup as long as I had the sliding window open so she could poke her head through and lick me on the ear.

After having the CR-V for about 3 years, I think it may actually be bigger than I needed. It is very tall inside, and at 5'-10" I have about 5 inches head clearance. I find that it is hard to fully utilize that much vertical space, and I would almost prefer to have the roof a few inches lower to make getting at the Thule box easier.

I assume you were comparing 2006 models. Did the Forester see any changes for 2006?


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Yes, all were 2006 models. The Forester saw some minor changes. HP has been increased to 173, the interior has been redone, and the exterior has also been re-styled. I'm not sure what else was done but it does look updated when compared to the 2005.

I hear that the 2007 or 2008 Forester will see a major change with more power and a major re-design.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Catherine said:


> The car drives like it did when I bought it--tight, stable


You don't notice the horrendous body-roll?


----------



## j-dawg (May 19, 2004)

*Happy (sort of) Outback owner*

We looked in '01 for a Forester or an Outback. We chose the Outback because it felt like the cargo area was a little more usable. Actual cu. ft. was about the same but the Forester is taller and not as deep. Our dog appreciates the deeper cargo area.

Anyways, I have a love/hate relationship with this car. It has 63K miles and is on its 3rd clutch. This model year (and I think from '99-2002) is notorious for having horrible clutches. Apparently it was a design flaw and rather than fix the design, Subaru decided it was cheaper to just keep replacing them. Fortunately, the first replacement was under warranty and the second I only had to pay part of the cost because I discovered there was a technical service bulletin from Subaru which the dealer ignored and used the wrong parts. The clutch still sucks but I've learned to deal with it. I've also found a dealer that is much more service friendly and charges me about 30% less, on average, for maintenance.

Beyond the clutch, the car is perfect for my family. I will definitely buy another when this one finally dies if I'm convinced the clutch problems are fixed. Or, I might buy an automatic (or CVT) if they come out with a hybrid. A hybrid Outback (or Forester) that got mileage in the low -mid 30s would be awesome.

jg


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

j-dawg said:


> We looked in '01 for a Forester or an Outback. We chose the Outback because it felt like the cargo area was a little more usable. Actual cu. ft. was about the same but the Forester is taller and not as deep. Our dog appreciates the deeper cargo area.
> 
> Anyways, I have a love/hate relationship with this car. It has 63K miles and is on its 3rd clutch. This model year (and I think from '99-2002) is notorious for having horrible clutches. Apparently it was a design flaw and rather than fix the design, Subaru decided it was cheaper to just keep replacing them. Fortunately, the first replacement was under warranty and the second I only had to pay part of the cost because I discovered there was a technical service bulletin from Subaru which the dealer ignored and used the wrong parts. The clutch still sucks but I've learned to deal with it. I've also found a dealer that is much more service friendly and charges me about 30% less, on average, for maintenance.
> 
> ...


We did the same thing, kind of. Traded the foresters (had two of em) and got a legacy outback with all the trimmings. Very nice car, handled MUCH better than the forester. The ride quality was still very good as well (without compramising handling). The forester sticks to the road due to the AWD, but that body roll is excessive and can get you into trouble (my brother rolled one).


----------



## ronny (Apr 2, 2004)

I prefer the Out Back to the Forester as well. A little more storage room in the back and the handling is a little sportier.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I don't think the new Forester has too much body roll but I'm thinking of installing a thicker sway bar to reduce it even more. It's a cheap option and Forester owners say it makes a big difference. I slide this Forester before anything else happens so the body roll isn't a problem. What I do like about a bigger sway bar is that on ANY vehicle that uses one, it keeps a lot more weight evenly spread when taking a corner.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Flyer said:


> I don't think the new Forester has too much body roll but I'm thinking of installing a thicker sway bar to reduce it even more. It's a cheap option and Forester owners say it makes a big difference. I slide this Forester before anything else happens so the body roll isn't a problem. What I do like about a bigger sway bar is that on ANY vehicle that uses one, it keeps a lot more weight evenly spread when taking a corner.


The other big problem is the height of the vehicle coupled with relatively soft springs, and it LEANS in turns to an excessive extent. Coupled with the body roll, the forester is just a family-driver. It's kind of like driving a 78 lincon with really good traction, if you're into that kind of thing.

A lot of other vehicles I've driven would break traction usually before starting to lean too much, not the forester.


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

*Hmm......You'll be 66 in 30 years....wonder who will be working to pay your Soc Sec*



Flyer said:


> Well, I needed a new vehicle and I'm selling the Pathfinder and hope to find an older Landcruiser or 4Runner to be made into a decent offroad vehicle that can still tow a trailer with 2-3 motorcycles. I decided to stay away from the AWD wagons since the smaller ones are fine for $10K less and higher reliabilty to boot.
> 
> I could do with something a bit smaller but still need room for my dog and need some from of AWD. The vehicles in the running ended up being the Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, and Subaru Forester (non-Turbo, alas).
> I researched them all extensively and test drove them a LOT. I drove them pretty hard to check out the handling though I didn't abuse any. Here's my take:
> ...


BTW, this is just a observation, rather than a complaint. 
Anyway, it appears you drove about 5 brands of vehicles to find the excellent one you bought.
However it would appear you never even took a look at any American brand.
Any particular reason why? I really don't know if an American company makes a similar small 4WD SUV, but I kind of imagine someone does.

If so, are they all that terrible in performance, and are they all of similar price?
I've heard that while the Suburu, Toyata, Honda SUV models are very reliable, that part of that is due to a very complete but expansive service program. Meaning $800+ regular 60,000 mile services and very expensive parts and service for even the lower mileage checks.
I've heard that yes, you may get some XYZ failure on the lower priced American model but even after paying a one time repair, you still come out ahead because the parts and service may only be half the price.
Look, I really have not checked into this, but I did find it curious that you didn't even bother to test drive a American model.

More importantly, if you and most others do the same, then come age 66, will there be any workers around to pay into social security.......so you can collect?
At some point, on a group basis (not individual) are we possibly paying a very high premium for our foreign cars and 90% of the stuff at WalMart because its all being made overseas?
I mean at some point it doesn't make sense that we can produce nothing and expect our economy to sustain its prosperity.
Technical jobs to India etc.........production jobs to China, Korea, and Japan.......and we here subsist on Burger King, banking, government, with only construction doing any real building (although usually with undocumented "illegal" labor).

Not blaming you, since I may well have purchased the same car you did.
Just for the record, I drive a Volvo, although I purchased it used for only 45% of its orginal price, just 4 years old with only 36,000 miles on it.......
Not sure what I would look at if buying new........and of course each of us as an individual can't save the country.....
Still I find this entire thread rather disconcerting with ZERO American vehicles mentioned.

There may be a huge hidden tax to our attitudes. A tax of having a country whose standard of living is on the decline when the situation catches up to us.
Now, I do realize that many of the Japanese, and other cars are made in plants here in our country.
Not sure that will remain the case when China comes to market with a $10,000 mini-SUV

The all new 4WD WongGear.........only $9,995.......
"Drive it til you're completely tired and just an hour later, you be wanting to drive some more"


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

You make some good points and I suppose the Ford Escape is a worthy contender. However, Honda, for example, has huge manufacturing operations in the US. I believe Toyota and Subaru do too so the line starts to blur for me. US manufacturers manufacture in Mexican plants and Japanese manufacturers manufacture in the US. Toyota is now building plants in California too.

I did not consider an American manufacturer this time primarily because I have had the best luck with Japansese manufacturers and because all the review and ratings score the ones I have mentioned as the top three. Every time I did searches on reviews for small SUVs/wagons, the CRV, Rav4, and Forester showed up. My research included Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other auto sites that are less well-known. 

Again, you make a good point and I think Ford, Chevy, and GM's reliability ratings are going up. Maybe next time, the results will be different but right now the Japanese manufacturers really dominate the sector. 

On a side note, I am quite ready for there to be no Social Security for me when I retire. It sucks since I pay so much into it but I'm starting to really focus on my 401k and other investments. I'm looking at things more from a global perspective. Heck, I just bought a little bit of a South Korean bank's stock and a French water company's stock though I primarily still own stocks of US companies.


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

*One problem with Consumer Reports is ..........*



Flyer said:


> You make some good points and I suppose the Ford Escape is a worthy contender. However, Honda, for example, has huge manufacturing operations in the US. I believe Toyota and Subaru do too so the line starts to blur for me. US manufacturers manufacture in Mexican plants and Japanese manufacturers manufacture in the US. Toyota is now building plants in California too.
> 
> I did not consider an American manufacturer this time primarily because I have had the best luck with Japansese manufacturers and because all the review and ratings score the ones I have mentioned as the top three. Every time I did searches on reviews for small SUVs/wagons, the CRV, Rav4, and Forester showed up. My research included Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other auto sites that are less well-known.
> 
> ...


I think one of the major problems with Consumer Reports is "perspective".....
In other words......if the Japanese models average 12 problems per 100 new cars and the American models average 18 problems per 100 new cars, then assuming a few cars have more than one problem..........your chances of having a Japanese model with a problem are about 10 in 100 and with American about 15 in 100. Or to put it another way, 90% of people who purchase a Japanese model have no problems with their new car, while 85% of people don't have problems with their new American car..
Not a huge difference, out of the showroom....

BTW, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagon.........some of which are very desireable and prestigious, are all ranked lower than the American models.........
The very expensive Porche Cayanne, and the Nissan/Infinnitie........are about the two worst.

But here is the missing question..........
How much more in initial price did you pay for the Forester than a comparable American model? 
In other words, no doubt your car is great and reliable. But if you paid $28,000 for a car that in the American model.....with all the rebates etc.......would only have cost you $24,000, then perhaps having a small problem or two is well worth saving $4,000

Added to that "possible" $4,000 savings might be lower auto insurance, far lower parts, and much lower service costs at the regular service times.
Meaning some of that extra reliablity may come from the service manual calling for precise "pre-emptive" replacement of any part that may fail........belts, gaskets, etc.......

I don't really know. Although I have heard more about $500 and $900 routine maintenance involved with some makes and models wherein the average ongoing costs of service are far higher in the Japanese model. Replacement parts being more expensive as well.

So do you have any idea about the "economic" comparison when you factor in all the costs.

An example of this is all the folks buying hybirds..........who when doing the math, with gas even at $3 per gallon come to realize their break even point is somewhere out about 8 years ahead.

Just wondering.

I drive very few miles so I don't mind keeping a older larger Volvo. After calculating in insurance, annual registration, etc........Its a no brainer to keep my car.
It still only has 74,000 miles on it and the mechanic says this particular engine is easily good for 200,000 miles.. Makes me afraid I'll never get to have another car unless it gets damaged in a crash. My actual mileage is not too high but still gets 22 real average around town and 28 on the freeway..... Not bad for a large Volvo tank.
Go ahead, hit me........I won't feel it.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Chester said:


> "


American cars have earned their reputation. Go out and look at 15 year old cars and see which ones have held their value. Japanese mostly. American cars are getting much better in terms of quality, but when I looked around a few years ago, There was nothing worth looking at in the crossover SUV market. The Saturn and the Buick were just silly. Lots of styling but little I was actually looking for. The Liberty and the Escape seemed like good vehicles, but were too truck-like for what I needed.

It should be no surprise that Honda, Toyota, and Subaru would be at the top of someone's list for a smaller crossover vehicle. Subaru put the whole market in motion from the "car" end of things with the Outback, and the Rav-4 and CR-V were the first real crossover vehicles well before any American companies jumped on board. These companies do well because they are inovators, not imitators.

I understand the reasons for going American, but If I'm spending $20,000, I'm getting the best value I can. Blindly buying American is why our cars were so terrible for so long. We are totally capable of producing the best products in the world, but sometimes the need for quick profits calls for mediocrity.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Jayem said:


> The other big problem is the height of the vehicle coupled with relatively soft springs, and it LEANS in turns to an excessive extent. Coupled with the body roll, the forester is just a family-driver. It's kind of like driving a 78 lincon with really good traction, if you're into that kind of thing.
> 
> A lot of other vehicles I've driven would break traction usually before starting to lean too much, not the forester.


I've spent a lot of time behind the wheel of a forester, and while it is not a sports car, I don't agree that it leans too much. If you are pushing it that hard then you are driving it way too hard. Get your speed thrills on a bike and keep the roads safe.

Body roll is all relative. The Outback handles like crap on the road compared to the Legacy wagon. There is a tradoff for having a taller car with more ground clearance.


----------



## Trailhappy (Nov 21, 2005)

Very well put Kapusta. I agree completely. Every time domestic manufacturers bring up their quality, somebody comes in, cuts cost and knocks the brand back down. Ford is a good example recently.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The numbers are not telling the whole story. Most of the cars surveyed are between 0-3 years old. I always keep my cars longer and the higher the mileage/years of use, the more things go wrong with American vehicles in general. My Accord with 160K had zero problems while my Ranger with 86K started to have all sorts of crap go wrong with it. My friend's Camry with 77K had zero problems while her BF's Malibu was in the shop with electrical isses at 40K. This is exactly why GM wanted to bring Toyota's Quality Control bigshot over. I'm not sure if that deal went through but their quality control and testing is incredible. It will be a little while before the Big Three catch up or come close enough.

So I paid around 21K for my new Forester. I think the Escape was around the same but what I really wanted was long-term reliability and PEACE OF MIND. I want to take a 2,000 mile trip and know that I will not be stranded like I was in my road-trip buddy's Sirrus (he never drives on trip anymore). I may save $2K buying a Ford Escape (which is selling very well, by the way) but after the warranty is up, I will start to worry. After 60K, I will be paranoid on long trips  

The Escape is around the same price ($20K-$25K) and I don't know if the Chevy Equinox is in the same class but either way, it starts at $22K. I would not be saving any money anyway and their AWD systems are terrible and make their vehicles even more unreliable.


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

kapusta said:


> American cars have earned their reputation. Go out and look at 15 year old cars and see which ones have held their value. Japanese mostly. American cars are getting much better in terms of quality, but when I looked around a few years ago,
> 
> I understand the reasons for going American, but If I'm spending $20,000, I'm getting the best value I can. Blindly buying American is why our cars were so terrible for so long. We are totally capable of producing the best products in the world, but sometimes the need for quick profits calls for mediocrity.


I do understand, but I think only looking back at 15 year old cars can lead to distortion.

You speak of value, and that is what I was asking about. 
For example if the Suburu is still better than the comparable American car, but the cost is perhaps (I don't know) $28,500 and the American similar car is about $23,500 and if the cost of future service and parts for the Suburu is more, then speaking to your issue of "value", which is a better "value".
I don't know the relative prices. Perhaps they're all the same. Its been a long time since I looked at a new car. I do know lots of folks buying the new Hybrids for "value" are fooling themselves if they do the math. Allowing for the true gas savings, at even $3.00 per gallon it may take some folks......7 or more years to break even.

If however, the costs are just about equal, both in orginal price and in future service costs, then, as a individual, I can't argue with you buying the better "value".

I must say though, at some point, the outcome of the entire process of the country is in question. If you always buy a car by Suburu, Toyota, or Honda, and everything you pick up is Made in China, then at some point you have possibly designed your future to be less than wonderful in terms of the national economy. 
Very difficult for a single individual to not do whats in their best interest, when they see everyone else doing the same. In fact you'd be somewhat foolish to do otherwise.

But it has to be troubling, to go into a store and see 90% of the items made elsewhere.
Common sense says that at some juncture there is a price to be paid that is not reflected in the price tag at the store.
I don't know what the individual can do when we have leader like George Bush who is so clueless about the impact of all these trends. 
Bush is open and friendly to all forms of outsourcing......from the disaster of NAFTA....to his currrent discussions in India. 
And I think he is also uncaring for so many in the lower skilled areas of our economy in that he is completely in support of more and more "insourcing" via the uncontrolled policy regarding "illegal" immigration.
Wasn't too many years ago, construction work wasn't referred to as "jobs Americans won't do"......... Of course back a decade or so, they weren't paying construction laborers $10 with no benefits.
Funny how when you eliminate benefits and cut wages in half, suddenly certain jobs become "jobs Americans won't do"...

But alas, I am going far afield from our orginal topic. 
Perhaps the only viable attitude to have these days is to just get all you can for yourself and don't worry about the future of the country.

Back to cars..... At some point, I am concerned that our (including mine) attitudes about American automobiles, will be running behind the current reality about quality.
For example in the Consumer Reports report, the American cars were running ahead of the German cars.......including Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagon, and Audi...
I'm thinking some Mercedes owners are a bit surprised by that..
Or perhaps its just that everyone has gotten so much better that were splitting hairs now when it comes to quality.
Certainly that was NOT the case when our attitudes about American car quality was being formed 10 and 20 years ago..........

Actually I think some of the best values in automobiles are in 3-5 year old Toyotas if you can get them in great condition with about 25,000 to 40,000 miles on them. You know, the elderly couple who drive little but want to get a new car. I keep any eye out for them in my neighborhood..... as I talk to neighbors when out riding my bike. Always garaged and serviced.
You can sometimes get a 3-4 year old car for well under half orginal cost and yet it has 80% of its life ahead. A 30,000 mile Toyota is just getting started on its life.
Buy it, drive it 100,000 miles and then "repeat" the process.


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

*Price sounds very good*



Flyer said:


> So I paid around 21K for my new Forester. I think the Escape was around the same but what I really wanted was long-term reliability and PEACE OF MIND. I want to take a 2,000 mile trip and know that I will not be stranded like I was in my road-trip buddy's Sirrus (he never drives on trip anymore). I may save $2K buying a Ford Escape (which is selling very well, by the way) but after the warranty is up, I will start to worry. After 60K, I will be paranoid on long trips
> 
> The Escape is around the same price ($20K-$25K) and I don't know if the Chevy Equinox is in the same class but either way, it starts at $22K. I would not be saving any money anyway and their AWD systems are terrible and make their vehicles even more unreliable.


Well, I didn't realize you could get a Forester for only 21K.
Sounds like a good deal.
Another alternative would have been to buy a $1,500 beater van or something.......
Then go on your trip, and if anything happens to it,,,,,,just walk away still having $20,000 in your pocket 

Buy another beater.......and repeat the process.
Oh yes......and if you date......you'll need a rental. But if you're like me and can only find a date every couple of years, then you're way ahead and can spend the extra cash on cool bike parts


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

A lot of people buy cars because of an emotional bond and intangible things like that. Those fanatical BMW owners buy BMWs only- or Range Rovers only. It's the handling and solidness of the BMW or Audi they love as well.

Anyway, I buy reliability and function and all the prices in my class were very comparable- maybe even a bit more but close enough.

Buying hybrids to "save" money is not a good assumtion but buying ahybrid to be environmentally responsible is. That's why I would buy a hybrid. Of course, if you are going to spend $40K on your car other choices anyway- in that case, you will save money buying your $40K hybrid.

A buddy of mine buys only BMWs and Audis- he loves the handling and the solid feel but he loves the act of driving too. His main gripes against comparable American cars are that the interiors are cheap -looking and he says they don't handle very well- not the sporty sedans that compete with the BMW 3 series and the Audi A4s anyway. I do like his 328 a lot and I see his point but he is emotionally tied to his German cars so he will sacrifice some reliability and $$ to drive them.

Since I can only have one primary vehicle, I'm a different buyer- one who has to have a do-it-all vehicle for around $20K and has good AWD, good reliability, adequate space, and excellent crash-test ratings- I come back to the three I ended up with  

If I could afford a sports sedan as well, I would go with an Audi S4. I do see your point though, I really do. In my mind, this was the best value not just for the money spent but for other factors that I mentioned.


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

*not exactly apples to apples*



Chester said:


> I do understand, but I think only looking back at 15 year old cars can lead to distortion.
> 
> You speak of value, and that is what I was asking about.
> For example if the Suburu is still better than the comparable American car, but the cost is perhaps (I don't know) $28,500 and the American similar car is about $23,500 and if the cost of future service and parts for the Suburu is more, then speaking to your issue of "value", which is a better "value".
> ...


There isn't an american car available that fits into Subaru's niche. What american manufactuer sells an AWD tall wagon built on an economy car chassis and 8" of ground clearance, with an optional 250 HP engine? The Pontiac Vibe is the only thing that hardly comes close, and it's a Toyota.

As much as I hate GW, you can't really blame him for the state of the american auto manufactuers. They've been screwing themselves for years, and haven't been able to come up with an alternative sales model that brings people in the doors of dealerships. General Motors is in the financing business, not auto production. Their profits (as if) come from GMAC and through the sales of fleet vehicles to the likes of Hertz or Avis. That's their plan, if it doesn't work for them, why should we have to bail them out by purchasing their substandard product in the name of "American pride"? My opinion is that they're trying to focus on the lowest end of the market. Build a disposible car, price it cheap (rebates anyone?), and finance the h$ll out of them. When they're dead at 80,000 miles, repeat process. They've also got two people out on pension for every one employed. These are guys that were banking $50 an hour back in the early 80's for swinging a wrench. No offense to wrench swingers, I'd love to be sitting on one of those bloated pensions. I just can't bear the thought of rewarding these companies for their failed business models.


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

*I agree, but we may well be hanging ourselves collectively*



k1creeker said:


> There isn't an american car available that fits into Subaru's niche. What american manufactuer sells an AWD tall wagon built on an economy car chassis and 8" of ground clearance, with an optional 250 HP engine? The Pontiac Vibe is the only thing that hardly comes close, and it's a Toyota.
> 
> As much as I hate GW, you can't really blame him for the state of the american auto manufactuers. They've been screwing themselves for years, and haven't been able to come up with an alternative sales model that brings people in the doors of dealerships. General Motors is in the financing business, not auto production. Their profits (as if) come from GMAC and through the sales of fleet vehicles to the likes of Hertz or Avis. That's their plan, if it doesn't work for them, why should we have to bail them out by purchasing their substandard product in the name of "American pride"? My opinion is that they're trying to focus on the lowest end of the market. Build a disposible car, price it cheap (rebates anyone?), and finance the h$ll out of them. When they're dead at 80,000 miles, repeat process. They've also got two people out on pension for every one employed. These are guys that were banking $50 an hour back in the early 80's for swinging a wrench. No offense to wrench swingers, I'd love to be sitting on one of those bloated pensions. I just can't bear the thought of rewarding these companies for their failed business models.


I agree with most of what you've said, but even if that is the case we may well be doing what is not in our best interests as a nation (group of people).
Individually I can't disagree with your actions. I mean, who would really want to go buy one of those "less well made---less innovative" cars.
I think however that for most needs, there is at least one American model that comes fairly close in innovation and quality, such that the differential is not so great that it would make sense, as a group, to buy it. Acting as a individual is not so easy to take such action.
In the class of cars like the Forrester, you may have a point. I've been seeing those Outbacks for several years and they not only run nice but look good. Especially like the color mix.

Still, if GM, Ford, Chrysler, come close we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by not trying to purchase a car made by our neighbors.
More of the dollars recirculate in our economy when we purchase cars made and designed by our neighbors.
As to Bush, he has provided almost ZERO leadership in so many areas that could help the nation.  What in the world was he thinking when he and the congress failed to increase the CAFE mileage standards. Now he comes back and tells us we're addicted to oil. Makes me want to bash the guy in the face for being such a peanut brain.
I mean, couldn't we easily have increased mileage standards by 1 mpg per 4 years.
Almost equally as foolish were the chumps in Detroit failing to be ready when gas prices jump up. Sitting there with their entire focus on larger "bling" SUV's and a dumb smile on their faces. How stupid is that? Just a repeat of what wacked them on the side of their head back in the 70's.

I vote Democrat sometimes and Republican sometimes, but I can tell you since I was born in 1949, this president is the worst we've ever had in my lifetime in terms of guiding the country into the future. Addicted to oil.......shheesh......Duh? Oh, geez when did that occur to you George?
Don't get me started...............


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

shiggy said:


> The Outback Sport is the same car as the Forester except for the styling and a bit less cargo space. Also weighs less and has a $2600 lower list price.


Actually, I believe the Outback Sport is essentially an Impreza; not a Forester. It shares the same frame as the Impreza though all three share the same base engine. It isn't near as roomy either- especially with the sharp roof angle at the back and a lower stance to begin with. Not that there is anything wrong with an Outback Sport but it definitely isn't as close to being a Forester as it is an Impreza.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*I came to the same conclusion*

Well, almost.

I had narrowed my choices to the CR-V, Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot and Passat Wagon.

Yes, the CR-V was well put together but it just did not excite me. The Highlander was even less exciting. Don't know what it is about Toyota's but while they may be the most dependable vehicles made, they plain bore me to death. I don't want to spend 30K to be bored. They haven't got a very good handle on styling either.

Pilot? Nice and big and all but too nice and big. Again, not very exciting and with 22 mph highway, below what I want in that area. Damn thing looks like an SUV. 

Passat Wagon. Actually, the newest version is quite nice but I've had VW's for so long I want something else and with AWD and a 6 cylinder, they are too much money for my pockets for what you get and VW's lack dependability. I know that from decades of experience (they're fun to drive so I kept coming back).

The Outback was not even in my sights originally but my son has an STi and it is standing up very well to his abuse so I took a couple Subarus for test drives. XT Limited (turbo) 5 speed and LL Bean (6 cylinder) with auto.

Very impressive. The tubo has the pickup I want and and comes with an auto. Never had an auto trans in my life so I figured it was time to try one. I like the idea of the shifter paddles on the stearing wheel. 

Overall, the car has the best AWD, all the room I need, excellent fit and finish, good looks a fair price with the IMBA discount (actually, I was quoted a price below dealer invoice) and is just plain fun. 

Good luck with your Forester. I'll be picking up my Outback in May.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The Outback is great, especially the Turbo version. I really like the fact that the AWDs can actually be taken offroad. The badge "AWD" doesn't mean much nowadays but it does to Subaru, which is nice. Capable AWD costs a bunch to develop and perfect and Subaru plays that game pretty well.

Before I take props away from Audi, let me say that they have an excellent AWD system. Like Subaru, they have proven their system in practically every Rallye/Rally known to man. In fact, I think they invented the AWD system and if their vehicle were not so expensive, I would have considered one. The primary disadvantage is their longtitude way of mounting the engines create a forward bias that some offroad racers feel affect handling and reliability in a negative way.


----------



## k1creeker (Jul 30, 2005)

Flyer said:


> Actually, I believe the Outback Sport is essentially an Impreza; not a Forester. It shares the same frame as the Impreza though all three share the same base engine. It isn't near as roomy either- especially with the sharp roof angle at the back and a lower stance to begin with. Not that there is anything wrong with an Outback Sport but it definitely isn't as close to being a Forester as it is an Impreza.


They're all Imprezas. The Forester is essentially an Impreza with taller springs, and different body welded on. The Outback Sport is an Impreza with minimally taller springs and two tone paint.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

very true....if the frame is the same, they share the same bones



k1creeker said:


> They're all Imprezas. The Forester is essentially an Impreza with taller springs, and different body welded on. The Outback Sport is an Impreza with minimally taller springs and two tone paint.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

k1creeker said:


> They're all Imprezas. The Forester is essentially an Impreza with taller springs, and different body welded on. The Outback Sport is an Impreza with minimally taller springs and two tone paint.


A Forester is not an Impreza. Sure thay may share a platform, but they are certainly not the same car. Functionally they are VERY different.


----------



## RichardinLA (Jul 29, 2005)

Yup, the Forester and Impreza (and Outback) are very different animals. The impreza has a lower center of gravity and handles differently (typically better). The forester, with it's better headroom and VERY useable rear hatch, just FEELS like a more utilitarian vehicle. I've got a 2001 Forester that has been a good vehicle so far. It is starting to show signs of needing a clutch refacing, but that's only due to towing way more than it was intended for. I'll probably get 5-10K miles more before finally shelling out the dough for the clutch.

Congrats on a good pick. With other top contenders like the CRV and RAV4 though, you wouldn't have made a bad choice with any of 'em. 

I am certainly lusting for the XT. Too bad those Subaru's last dang near forever. I have a long wait.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I think K1 just means that they share the same frame and motor but they are different and again, the Outback Sport is much more Impreza than it is Forester- no grey area there.



kapusta said:


> A Forester is not an Impreza. Sure thay may share a platform, but they are certainly not the same car. Functionally they are VERY different.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Got it. Sorry.


----------



## jimmy (Jan 19, 2004)

*I've had 3 subies & now a Highlander*

I'm in the boring stage of middle age with a kid, etc, I guess. I like the subies & would get an outback no problem as it is a bit bigger than the Forester. But we opted for some more size & got the Highlander, to go with our 1996 Subie Legacy AWD wagon. I cannot emphasize enough how nice the Highlander is. Lots of horsepower, I can go 80 up the hills of CO with 4 adults & lots of gear in the back. It is very stable in the snow, with AWD, traction control, stability control, & anti lock brakes.


----------



## G-reg (Jan 12, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Good luck and just don't drive the Forester XT- I made the mistake of doing so and I can't get it out of my head.


 I'm on my second Suby, the first a 92 Legacy wagon and more recently a 05 2.5RS wagon. I love the Impreza, but it's just a bit too small. Which has me looking at the new Forresters and Legacy wagons.....the turbo models of course. There is just something cool about dusting a 350Z or Porsche Boxer with a few bikes on top and the dog in the back. My biggest complaint with the Subaru's is the thin paint and sheet metal, be reeeeealy careful where you park.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Slightly unrelated but interesting news- Toyota will now start building the Camry in Subaru's Indiana plant. The B9 Tibeca production will move over to the line that makes the Outback/Legacy and the Camry will be produced on the B9's line. This is good news since it will mean a lot of local jobs, especially since the Camry is such a consistently high-volume seller.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the V6 Rav4 will be faster than the Forester XT, which still tested out faster, according to Car and Driver tests.


----------



## TrekFan (Apr 21, 2005)

of the three suvs, the newest consumer reports magazine lists the crv as easily being the best in the class...


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

TrekFan said:


> of the three suvs, the newest consumer reports magazine lists the crv as easily being the best in the class...


Well, I don't see it that way though it certainly is a great little vehicle. Many magazines have rated the Forester the best, as I am sure some have rated the Rav4 up there. The CRV has practically no offroad capabilty, slides around on gravel a lot due to a very rudimentaryAWD system, and even though it has more "cargo room", that is due to a floor to ceiling space in the back- it isn't as roomy as the other two. SO at that level of reliability, the best vehicle is what works for a person's needs. For all my criteria, the CRV came in a third.

You have to see what is important to you as a buyer. All three have superb reliability and very good safety so other features have to be taken into account. For me, only the 2006 Rav4 and the 2006 Forester would work the best. The CRV may work best for someone but not for me. I've owned Hondas ever since I can remember so I was definitely a little Honda-biased when I started test driving. A huge advantage the CRV does have is its cargo space that will allow bikes to simply be rolled in though it may not fit big frames. However, that was a negative for me- I need a raised floor.

The 2006 Rav4's refinement and quiet ride was not even touched by the CRV and not even the Forester which is pretty quiet in the city steets.

You have to drive them if you're considering buying one- one will be the best but it may not be the best for the next person who drives it.


----------



## TrekFan (Apr 21, 2005)

of course it all comes down to preference. its funny that you mention the quiet ride. that was the only knock against the crv in the report. anyway thanks to this tread i did a little research and uncovered this site:

http://www.hondasuv.com/

some pretty darn impressive stuff on there as far as the crv's offroad capabilities.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Nice to see all this information on three. I'll tell you what I did. There is a part-gravel/pert-dirt windy road that has some ups and downs as well. I took the vehicles there and spent 15 minutes or so with each. I accelerated hard, braked hard, took some turns and accelerated and braked while turning. I also did a bit of weaving like the car was a bit out of control. Anyway, what I found was that the CRV took enough time to react that quick maneuvers were unsettling. It basically behaved like a front-wheel drive vehicle. The Rav4 was a bit better in regular AWD (not the locked) but the Subie just kept its composure very consistently. The active AWD was very quick to react and seamless in its feel. It hardly fishtailed and there was very little understeer or oversteer when compared to the other two. 

I offroad in my Pathfinder but I didn't do anything hardcore- just simulated rough roads and trails and evaluated the fishtailing, traction, understeer, and oversteer in demanding conditions. That was initially what sold me on the Forester. Like I said, I was so sold on the Rav4 that I went to the Subaru dealership with the Rav4 on my mind and ready to just drive the Forester and get back to the Toyota dealership. The only thing I am planning on doing is putting a slightly beefier swaybar in the rear and possibly switching out the springs soon. I modify the suspension on almost every vehicle so that isn't here nor there. In fact, my Pathy has Old Man Emu Springs, KYB struts, and Old Man Emu shocks and I did that before I ever decided to offroad the thing at all- three weeks out of the dealership. 

Based on my observations, I made my purchase decision. There were very specific criteria I had though. I drove them pretty hard to find their limits on the gravel road. The CRV just showed its limits earlier but if that isn't a big deal, it is one solid little SUV. The road noise is pretty bad on coarse asphalt and it was obvious enough to stand out each time I drove it. All had pretty crappy passenger tires but at least they were all that way. 

It is a close call for most people. I test my own way though. I test to find limits and see how the vehicle reacts at those limits and beyond. I'll find wet roads and slide the vehicle and turn into slides to see how predictable the handling is. This seemingly crazy behavior comes from racing roadbikes and most people don't like test-driving with me but I like to test the limits of my personal vehicles. It helps when in an emergency and has saved my bacon a few times. It helps to not flip or slide out of control when you have to reach very quickly. My frineds think I'm nuts but on days it snows a lot, I go and find deserted road or huge parking lots to practice slides. It is so much fun and has the benefit or learning how to slide. I do this when it rains too- I'm always alone though

Keep in mind- I'm not saying one is worse than the other when it comes to these vehicles. I will say that about other vehicles but not these three. One was best for me and it may not be the one that is the best for someone else. You may drive them and find that the CRV suits you the best and you like it the best as well.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyer said:


> The CRV has practically no offroad capabilty, slides around on gravel a lot due to a very rudimentaryAWD system, and even though it has more "cargo room", that is due to a floor to ceiling space in the back- it isn't as roomy as the other two.


Having spent LOTS of time in both a Forester and aCR-V, I have to disagree with both of those statements. My best friend and neighbor has a Forester, and we spend a lot of time in each other's cars, and are often borrowing them from each other. I don't know anything about the Rav-4 other than what I have read so I'm not commenting on it.

As far as the Forester and the CR-V...................

NEITHER is a true off road vehicle, but the CR-V does slightly better clearance-wise on old rutted dirt roads than the Forester. I don't remember what the clearance numbers are, but but my real-world experience favors the CR-V. It's not much of a difference, and I would not base my decision on it, but I don't think one can say it suffers in the off-road area more than the other two. At higher speeds on gravel or slippery roads I would give the nod to the Forsester due to the superior AWD system, but only when I am driving a bit agressively (in other words, being stupid), which as I get older is less and less. However, when it comes down to "what can I get through without bottoming?" the CR-V does better. It is the vehicle I would prefer for going up a rutted old fireroad if I had to. But again, neither of these are meant for any real offroading. They are cars with extra clearance, not trucks. The same is true of the Rav-$

Space wise, the CR-V is taller, but it also has just as much floorspace as the Forester (maybe even more), and the CR-V certainly feels much roomier. My friend with the Forester has commented on this. I have loaded both cars plenty of times for trips, and the CR-V clearly has more room.

As I said before, I think it is a toss up between these two vehicles. Each had it's advantages, just depends what you want and need. The Forester has a better AWD system, gets better mileage on the highway (I've found the two to be very close around town) , and handles more car-like. The CR-V is a larger vehicle, and has more cargo capacity, and in my experience is just more utilitarian. I also find it more comfortable to be in, especially the back seats. It also has better useable clearance, but it's pretty close.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Nice to see all this information on three. I'll tell you what I did. There is a part-gravel/pert-dirt windy road that has some ups and downs as well. I took the vehicles there and spent 15 minutes or so with each. I accelerated hard, braked hard, took some turns and accelerated and braked while turning. I also did a bit of weaving like the car was a bit out of control. Anyway, what I found was that the CRV took enough time to react that quick maneuvers were unsettling. It basically behaved like a front-wheel drive vehicle. The Rav4 was a bit better in regular AWD (not the locked) but the Subie just kept its composure very consistently. The active AWD was very quick to react and seamless in its feel. It hardly fishtailed and there was very little understeer or oversteer when compared to the other two.
> 
> I offroad in my Pathfinder but I didn't do anything hardcore- just simulated rough roads and trails and evaluated the fishtailing, traction, understeer, and oversteer in demanding conditions. That was initially what sold me on the Forester. Like I said, I was so sold on the Rav4 that I went to the Subaru dealership with the Rav4 on my mind and ready to just drive the Forester and get back to the Toyota dealership. The only thing I am planning on doing is putting a slightly beefier swaybar in the rear and possibly switching out the springs soon. I modify the suspension on almost every vehicle so that isn't here nor there. In fact, my Pathy has Old Man Emu Springs, KYB struts, and Old Man Emu shocks and I did that before I ever decided to offroad the thing at all- three weeks out of the dealership.
> 
> ...


Ah, I can definitely see why you would prefer the Subaru. If you are pushing it at higher speeds in slippery or loose conditions, it does handle much better. Sportier feel overall. Certainly if I had to race the two I would pick my freinds Forester hands down, even though my CR-V is a hair faster acceleration-wise (his is 3 years old, I think the new ones are faster). We both have manual trannies.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*Outback, at least, is American*

If that is a concern, it is built in Indiana and has over 50% US content so it really is an American vehicle.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Good observations and it's good to hear from others who have compared these vehicles. The Forester's "room" I refer to is primarily elbow room. I was touching the side of the door with my elbow on the CRV (just felt uncomfortable) and the front legroom is over 2" more in the Forester though the CRV has way more rear legroom (passengers can suffer or I will find shorter friends). The ground clearance is identical at 8.1". The seat base is or feels a bit longer in the Forester so it feels more comfortable. I have a 33" inseam and both the CRV and Rav4 seat bases felt a bit short in support length.

I'm not sure which literally tested faster (C&D does these tests and results are online) but the Forester has 173 hp while the CRV has 156 hp. The Forester has a bit more torque as well. All three felt peppy enough for a 4 cyl SUV.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*Question and observation*

Question: Does anyone know why the XT (turbo) version of the Outback is has .3 more ground clearance than all other versions?

Observation: As far as interior room, there are many different requirements. I want a little over 9'6" from front window to the back so I can fit my surfboard inside when I leave the car and board alone. I don't trust leaving it on the roof where I normally transport it. I measured the CR-V and the board would fit. It also fits inside a Passat but not a Forrester. It should fit in the Outback.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm not sure except the Outback Turbo may have stiffer springs to deal with the additional hp and torque. The springs may actually be the same height as the regular ones or even shorter but they may sag less and provide more height when installed. My Emu springs wer two inches shorter than the OEM Pathfinder springs but the SUV sat 1" higher when installed. You may want to post or research this question on an Outback or Subaru forum for a quick and sure answer.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Good observations and it's good to hear from others who have compared these vehicles. The Forester's "room" I refer to is primarily elbow room. I was touching the side of the door with my elbow on the CRV (just felt uncomfortable) and the front legroom is over 2" more in the Forester though the CRV has way more rear legroom (passengers can suffer or I will find shorter friends). The ground clearance is identical at 8.1". The seat base is or feels a bit longer in the Forester so it feels more comfortable. I have a 33" inseam and both the CRV and Rav4 seat bases felt a bit short in support length.
> 
> I'm not sure which literally tested faster (C&D does these tests and results are online) but the Forester has 173 hp while the CRV has 156 hp. The Forester has a bit more torque as well. All three felt peppy enough for a 4 cyl SUV.


You know I paid more attention to the elbow room and you are correct. I guess for me it's in the perfect place for my arm to rest on, so I never noticed it. Same with leg room. With the seat all the way back I cannot reach the pedals, so extra room there is pointless for me. I guess it's sort of like all the extra headroom in the CR-V over the Forester. The Forester has enough, so the extra on the CR-V really does not mean much to me.

If those HP figures are correct, then the newer Foresters are definitly faster than the CR-V's, as the CR-V is considerably heavier. They must have up'ed the HP since my friend bought his (`03 or `04) I think 156 is more than my `03 has.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I cheated and got those hp numbers from the Honda and Subaru websites when I was researching all this. By the way, I got my Drawtite hitch and it fits perfectly- as I had hoped. I also got the T2 rack in as well as one Sportworks Factory Bob for a third bike if needed. Once I have those set up, I'll post another pic. Hopefully the Factory Bob will not be too loud.


----------



## bbarend (Feb 7, 2006)

Since you decision weighed heavily on the AWD aspect of the vehicles the Scooby was the only way to go. They have been refining and racing their AWD system for what a couple of decades. The only people who could come close would be Mitsubishi, but we only see their AWD system over here in the EVO which is nor real practical. I guess the Audi A3 or A4 Avant, but these are completely different price ranges. As far a buying an American car so I can have social security, that's why I have 401 K. Japanese car companies are bring jobs here and the big three take them away. Plus there is the whole union propaganda. Anything good the big three puts out there is just something they borrowed from a import anyway. "Eh boy look at my Mustang GT 0-60 in 6.0 sec, wow what is the MPG about 18. Look at my Subaru Impreza WRX WAGON 0-60 in 5.5 sec and about 25 MPG. Not to mention it will last forever. Assuming I resist the urge to smoke all Stangs at the red light".


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2004)

bbarend said:


> Since you decision weighed heavily on the AWD aspect of the vehicles the Scooby was the only way to go. They have been refining and racing their AWD system for what a couple of decades. The only people who could come close would be Mitsubishi, but we only see their AWD system over here in the EVO which is nor real practical. I guess the Audi A3 or A4 Avant, but these are completely different price ranges. As far a buying an American car so I can have social security, that's why I have 401 K. Japanese car companies are bring jobs here and the big three take them away. Plus there is the whole union propaganda. Anything good the big three puts out there is just something they borrowed from a import anyway. "Eh boy look at my Mustang GT 0-60 in 6.0 sec, wow what is the MPG about 18. Look at my Subaru Impreza WRX WAGON 0-60 in 5.5 sec and about 25 MPG. Not to mention it will last forever. Assuming I resist the urge to smoke all Stangs at the red light".


The CR-V uses a system that is FWD until the front wheels slip and then traction is shifted to the rear wheels. This is true in both the automatic and manual versions. Subaru uses a simple viscous coupling system in the manual with an electronic AWD system in the automatic. The Subaru automatic system is pretty much a 80/20 split until slippage, where it then transfers power to the rear wheels. Having owned a Subaru and a Honda, the Subaru drives better in almost all conditions. I could never tell if the roads were bad because the AWD system was so good. The CR-V is nice, but you can feel the front wheels slip and the rear wheels kick in. I drive a CR-V now because, as much as I loved the Subaru, it felt to pieces right after the warranty expired!


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Those WRX wagons are amazing- fast, great handling, and a decent amount of space. I wonder what the 2007 and 2008 lineup will look like.


----------



## islander (Jan 21, 2004)

*Old thread resurrected*

OK, I know this is old thread, but I'm doing some research into these vehicles and because they're all so popular, I've found some newer info, and thought I'd share some more info I've dug up:

2006 RAV4 - About 20% more interior volume (1000L) than past version, and about 10% more than Forester. Now it is of capable capacity to CRV. 7.5" is min ground clearance. It's standard hitch is a Class III (2" sq. receiver, 12" above the ground). The V6 and I4 have nearly IDENTICAL fuel economy ratings, but the V6 can tow much much more. The hatch swings fromt he side - a downside if you're in the rain.

2006 Forester (non turbo) - Has 8" clearance, ride more like a car than RAV4 and CRV (ie you sit lower). The entrance/exist angles are much better than Outback/Legecy platorm, hence better for offroad. You're stuck with a Class I hitch (1 1/2" receiver) so your hitch rack and towing options are very limited. For example, anything more than 2 bikes would be a real stretch on the back. Fuel economy is nearly same as RAV4. You have to pay extra for many things which are std on RAV4, such as rear disc brakes, skid plates, trunk cover, bumper mat, AUX input (coming for '07). Seem to be a little better offroad than RAV and CRV.

Both are tops for customer satification and Consumer Reports loves em both. Canadian Price is very close for both when you dress them up the same, however Americans get Subaru's for much less so many are saying the RAV4 is more expensive for them.

In the end, you have to prioritize your values and make a decision based on what is more important:

- do you hope to squeeze 4 bikers + gear? You'll probably want a 2" hitch and added space of RAV (not sure about CRV). Remember roof rack kill fuel economy (likely one of the reasons you're looking at these choices and not a full-size SUV)

- do you like to RALLY car drive on smoother gravel roads? Get Forester or Legacy Outback if you really want to have great handling here. With the viscous LSD (optional) and symmetrical AWD (full time), these suby's get the nod.

- do you drive lots of deactivated forest roads (ie slow speed)? A Forester with roof rack is best bet. Great exit/approach angles and clearance.

- do you mind sitting higher and place a lot of value a more nimble ride (Forester curb weight is 110Kg less than RAV4, plus it has lower centre of gravity). Pick Forester over RAV4/CRV.

- do you want to tow a tent trailer, a utility trailer, etc from time to time - don't get Forester. Get V6 RAV4 or CRV. RAV4 V6 gets amazing fuel economy for a vehicle which is rated for towing 3500kg

- do you want to max out the fit & finish and refinement of construction? Care about the dash and console feel and layout? Care about all the seams lining up nicely and tighter tolerances? You probably will get more enjoyment from RAV4.

The 2007 specs are out now for the Forester - it's very minor changes which is no surprise since 06 was major change year. Now you get AUX jack for iPod, but you have to order the premium trim pkg or turbo (read: many $1000's) to get this and the Sirius radio prewire. The price did not go up for '07, so there may be some deals start to take shape on the '06 vehicle in the next 4-12 weeks as the '07 stock invertory grow.

'06 RAV4 is in somewhat short supply, and there are no rumours of major changes for '07 (this makes sense since the '06 got major revisions). Until the 07 inventory is on the lot, the '06 prices and factory finance rates aren't likely to be great (think 4.0 - 5.9% ish).

Anyways, I hope this reflect owner's experience and helps other tire kickin bikers out there. Everyone has slightly different priorities so that will make one choice the "best" for some. All these choices are reliable, so you really can't make a bad decision.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Thanks for the info. I'm still loving the Subie. In fact, I took it up to Breckenridge a couple of weeks ago and took it offroad. I went off highway 9 and turned on Tiger road (or Tiger Run road) and drove up to the Colorado Trail trailhead. It's a pretty rough road and few cars venture up there (though there were too many ATVs). The Subie didn't even slip once and there were some steep and loose grades. The stock tire still suck but the AWD rocks and makes up for it. Avoid these tire- Yokhama Geolanders. They are okay but there are far better choices out there.

What I regret- not getting the sunroof and sometimes, not getting the Turbo. God, I hope I don't break down and do a trade. That would not be a good financial move. I'm holding strong for now. 

Mileage at 28 psi: A bit lower than my usual 33-34 but the 100+ degree temp prevented me from airing up during that heat-wave weekend.
City - 22.3 - 22.6 consistently
Highway with a bike on the rear rack (T2) @ 80-90 mph- 24.5
Highway with a bike on the rear rack (T2) @ 70-80 mph- 25.5
Highway with no bike- no idea

Others get 27-ish on the highway but my bike is prob sticking up pretty high on that T2 and creates some major drag. I also had only 28 psi before I left for my trip but 102 degree heat was too much to deal with so I left it at that. 

I have taken off the front wheel and the bike (a large Ventana X-5) fits in the back but I have not calculated the mileage like that.

I may just have become a Jap-toJap Subaru convert (having only owned the big Japanese manufacturer's cars prior to this). The off-road ability (tested well in Breckenridge) of the AWD combined with great wet handling (I progressively end up flooring it around corners on empty and rainy roads to test this) and a quiet ride has me impressed. I do wish they would give us a full size spare and some better speakers but I've made those upgrades already. Another nice feature would be the ability to fit slightly larger tires- for those wishing to do some more serious offroading with the smallest offerings of real A/T tires like the Bridgestone AT REVO or the BFG AT TA.


----------



## islander (Jan 21, 2004)

On these notes, keep in mind that the Turbo subie needs higher octane (read: pricey) fuel and gets lesser fuel economy. So your fuel bill would go up with the turbo (another part of it not being a "good financial move").

For those still deciding - the RAV4 does come with Full Size Space which is easily accessable (on tailgate). This is a big plus in the offroad context (think muddy road, coming back from ride and you get flat in subie - now you gotta take everything outta trunk put it on said road to change the flat, then hope that the mini-spare will suffice for the drive out (fine for asphault, so so for offroad). Just one more consideration........

M



Flyer said:


> What I regret- not getting the sunroof and sometimes, not getting the Turbo. God, I hope I don't break down and do a trade. That would not be a good financial move. I'm holding strong for now.
> 
> I have taken off the front wheel and the bike (a large Ventana X-5) fits in the back but I have not calculated the mileage like that.
> 
> I do wish they would give us a full size spare and some better speakers but I've made those upgrades already. .


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Agreed. Here's what I did to get my full-size spare. I got on the Subaru forum, had a guy sell me his FS wheel for $40 shipped. Then I ordered a spare tire from Tirerack.com for $60. I took both to my local Tire Plus and they mounted it for free. It was a bit of work but at least now I have some peace of mind.


----------



## islander (Jan 21, 2004)

Flyer said:


> Agreed. Here's what I did to get my full-size spare. I got on the Subaru forum, had a guy sell me his FS wheel for $40 shipped. Then I ordered a spare tire from Tirerack.com for $60. I took both to my local Tire Plus and they mounted it for free. It was a bit of work but at least now I have some peace of mind.


I'm surprised this fits in the sparetire well - I always thought that mfgr's did the small spare thing to save space - not to save a few bucks by giving you a mini spare! If the later is the case, Subie: give your head a shake if you're going to market this stuff for off-road use.


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

Rev Bubba said:


> Question: Does anyone know why the XT (turbo) version of the Outback is has .3 more ground clearance than all other versions?
> 
> Observation: As far as interior room, there are many different requirements. I want a little over 9'6" from front window to the back so I can fit my surfboard inside when I leave the car and board alone. I don't trust leaving it on the roof where I normally transport it. I measured the CR-V and the board would fit. It also fits inside a Passat but not a Forrester. It should fit in the Outback.


Could it have larger diameter wheels and tires?


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

There was a neat storage tray on top of the tiny spare wheel. When I took that tray out and removed the tiny spare, the full size spare fits in perfectly and has pleanty of storage room on the side and the middle, of course. Apparently they did this to save $$ in the Subie's case. I checked the fit issue out before buying the full-size spare. I hate donuts in AWD vehicles. In "proper" AWD vehicles, you have to put in a fuse (or take one out) to convert it electronically to a FWD vehicle if you use a donut spare. That sounds like a PITA and just plain sucks and defeats the purpose of having an AWD vehicle. They did this in 2006. Still, it was not an issue when I bought the Subie. The reasons I bought it far outweighed the couple of annoyances or idiosyncracies that I knew I would have to deal with eventually.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

1999 Suburu Outback

Great car (you are a dufus if you get stuck).

Down side long hard drives have caused problems (120 km/h, 4 hours plus with gravel)

Leaky head gasket, rear crancase seal.

Some tire problems due to wheel width not matching GM 1/2 ton (in gravel)


----------

