Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2010 Subaru Forester Changes

infoseeker5infoseeker5 Posts: 1
edited July 9 in Subaru
I love the 2009 Subaru Forester, but a few things missed the mark. Any word on whether these changes are likely/unlikely for 2010:

(1) iPod vs. SAT: If you get the NAV you have to choose either the Ipod Interface or the satellite radio. If you choose satellite radio you can't control the iPod though the steering wheel, the songs don't appear on the screen and so on. (I know you can PLAY the iPod through the AUX on the 2009, but I want BOTH iPod and satellite radio to be steering wheel controlled.)

(2) Back-Up Cam?

(3) Dual Climate Controls?

(4) Passenger 10-way seats?

THANKS FOR ANY ANSWERS!
«13

Comments

  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,676
    No word yet on any changes for the 2010 Forester.

    Bob
  • robm2robm2 Posts: 53
    Given how well the '09 Forester sold, I doubt you'll see many, if any, changes in '10.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    I'm sorry, but a back-up camera... on a Forester? Seriously, that is just pointless - just one more tool to subsidize poor driving.

    I agree with you on the radio controls. Any more, iPod interface and satellite radio are becoming standards. It is ridiculous to make folks choose between the two.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,676
    I'm sorry, but a back-up camera... on a Forester? Seriously, that is just pointless - just one more tool to subsidize poor driving.

    I disagree. As a Forester owner who tows, a backup camera would be greatly appreciated. This feature makes it much easier to line up the tow hitch with the trailer.

    Also, the new Forester's rear outward visibility is worse than that found on our '01 S Premium. Finally, as someone who is aging (about to turn 64), I've found it increasingly more difficult to back up any vehicle as time goes on. So I feel that anything that aids in this area is welcomed.

    Bob
  • I am holding off buying the 09. I hope Subaru looks into some issues I see posted. Seens to be problems wih paint chipping inside, rattles, seat comfort,etc. I see Consumer Reports dropped reliabilty to average from above average. Maybe these issues are related to first year redssign. Any comments?
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    I will agree with you on the point of age, Bob. In fact, that in itself may be argument enough to install the camera.

    But, aside from that, the tool is just a crutch for incompetence. Sure, a backup camera would make it easier to line up a hitch with a trailer, but that is a long shot. Anyone who pulled a trailer regularly would (or should) be quite adept at lining it up.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    Not sure about the paint chipping, as I have not had any problems with that on any of my Subaru vehicles. Perhaps there was a formulation change? Something gov't mandated recently?

    Rattles are a perennial issue. I have yet to ride in a newer Subaru (2005+) that does not have them, yet most of the owners are completely unconcerned about the rattles, even when I point them out. Their response? Something along the lines of, "all vehicles rattle." I truly hope Subaru does something to address the problem of rattles, as the issue certainly plays heavily into perceived quality.

    Seat comfort - as always, it is personal preference. I think Subaru seats are fantastic. Others find them too firm, insufficient lumbar support, etc. I find GM (SUV/truck anyway, I have not ridden in a modern GM car) seats uncomfortable, as they are too wide and have poor bolstering. They are cushy, no doubt, but the kind of cushy that makes me want to take a nap, not drive.... ;) *shrugs* Preference.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,676
    "Anyone who pulled a trailer regularly would (or should) be quite adept at lining it up."

    Oh, I don't know. I've been towing on and off for 12 years or so, and I still find it challenging lining up the trailer hitch with the trailer. Every write-up I've seen in which towing and a rear-view camera have been involved, the camera has drawn nothing but praise.

    Would you say power steering is just a crutch for those with weak arms? I call it progress.

    Bob
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    There is a fundamental difference here with items like power steering. Sure, it is a convenience feature, but people *can* drive vehicles without power steering. It makes no difference in a person's ability to drive, only with the effort involved in making tight maneuvers. I can remember only one time when I wished I had power steering on a vehicle, but that was "tight maneuvers" to the extreme. Power steering can be a handicap when it dulls the steering feedback, but that is yet another tangent.... :blush:

    Many people (I kid you not) cannot reliably or safely back a vehicle, especially in technical situations, without an aid of some kind - forget about adding a trailer to the mix!

    As for the trailer comment itself, I intended to mean "regularly" as including the word "frequently." I, too, tow "on and off," about that same length of time (~15 years), and yes, it is challenging to align the ball with the trailer. But, for something I do a couple times a year, the fact that I can line the thing up on or immediately after the first try should indicate that it is not overly difficult. The vast majority of owners will never tow. They, instead, would use a backup camera to see the proximity of their vehicle to objects directly behind them. If these same drivers had any clue as to the dimensions of their vehicle or the spatial relations involved therein, they would have no need for such a device (except, as you noted, in situations where being physically unable to adjust position in order to gauge such relations). My argument is that any driver *should* have mastery of such basic skills. Devices such as backup cameras (and proximity sensors) only serve to provide that driver with another excuse to not develop the skill.

    I see your point of view - I truly do. I simply do not agree that it would be a valuable feature, nor would I want the added cost of it were I to shop for a Forester. Maybe it would be a dealer-added feature.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    "Anyone who pulled a trailer regularly would (or should) be quite adept at lining it up."

    Oh, I don't know. I've been towing on and off for 12 years or so, and I still find it challenging lining up the trailer hitch with the trailer. Every write-up I've seen in which towing and a rear-view camera have been involved, the camera has drawn nothing but praise.

    Would you say power steering is just a crutch for those with weak arms? I call it progress.

    Bob


    I'm going to have to agree with Bob here. I used to be one of those people who thought that backup sensors were stupid. I've had em on my Armada for 5 years and they are a big help. I only wish it had a camera. With just the sensors, I can get the back of my truck wedged into those rough parking spots in Manhattan w/o issue and without hitting the other car. I can get within 6" of the other car every time. I also use them for lining up the trailers that I tow and I've been towing for 20 years, a camera would only enhance the back-up proceedure. Currently for lining up a trailer I will drop the back seat of the Armada and open the hatch. But a Camera would be better.

    -mike
    Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Oh and Wes although you live up in the north country, most Foresters are used to back out of driveways, where there are children playing often. Now, we can all say an I agree, the parents of said kids should be looking afer the kid to make sure they aren't running behind a neighbor's car, however in real life I'd rather have the camera/sensors there to prevent a young child's death. We have the technology, why not use it?

    -mike
    Subaru Guru and Track Instructor
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    :)

    Well, like I said, as long as it remains an optional feature. I suppose you are both right (although unsaid) - drivers now are terrible at backing without the camera, so it can't make them any worse with it there. It seems that most drivers are not disturbed by their lack of competence in this regard. God help us if they try to drive a car without one....
  • rengawrengaw Posts: 22
    It is my intention to buy a new Forester when the 2010's arrive, hoping for a 5 speed or CVT tranny. My only experience with the CVT was 1200 miles in a Ford SUV and by trip's end I didn't want one. Have to wait and see.

    Now to that low passenger's seat. I'm 6'3" and I find the seat a little low. For my wife, the seat can be a deal breaker. The salesman tells me the seat was purposefully set low for safety concerns. Has anyone attempted to raise the passenger seat. Wish Subaru would hike it up a bit.

    And lastly, the many reports from owners that the paint chips so easily. The RAV4 is also a consideration for my next purchase, and reading many of the RAV4 forum comments, it also is being complained about over the paint chipping. Is it the new painting regulations causing this or cutting corners by the manufacturer?

    An interesting note that we hear so many complaints about "only" a four speed in the 2009 Forester. But the 2009 RAV4, 2.5L, also has a reworked transmission that Toyota chose to leave a four speed. You don't hear much about that.
  • bpraxisbpraxis Posts: 292
    Hello Rengaw and thankyou for a great contribution.

    It is my understanding that the Feds changed the regulations for paint for environmental reasons.

    So many cars now have problems with thin paint and chipping.

    Washington is always helping us.

    Mercedes and Infiniti have developed a new paint that uses nano technology and self heals, avoids chips etc.

    Kind Regards
  • You state: "An interesting note that we hear so many complaints about "only" a four speed in the 2009 Forester. But the 2009 RAV4, 2.5L, also has a reworked transmission that Toyota chose to leave a four speed. You don't hear much about that. "

    This transmission issue is one thing that has bugged me for a couple of years now. I consider it to be sheer bloody-minded thinking on the part of some makers to only use 4 speed automatics on their 4 cylinder models, the ones that could really use more gears, but stick 5-or-6 speeds in their V6 engined versions, the ones that really could get by with only 3 speeds with their bags of HP and torque.

    I have finally driven the 40 miles to my nearest Subaru dealer to see the new Forester and it looks nice and drives nice on the limited test loop available (no highway near the dealer) but the jump in revs and noise when the tranny downshifts to 3rd is still too great for my liking. And I would like to see the engine revs down around 2500 or so when cruising at 70 on a flat highway.

    Still, the seats are much more comfortable than those in my 2005 Forester XS - no more of that sitting on a concrete camp stool feeling in my nether region..

    Another thing... has anyone else noticed a problem reading the instruments when wearing polarized sunglasses on a bright day? I had that problem with my 2005 Forester and this new layout, while more colorful, is no better. There's a lot not to like about my current 2005 Chrysler T&C, but good old black numbers on a white background still can't be beat for easy reading - and the electroluminescent panel lighting of the T&C is also the best for night driving, in my opinion.

    But at least the tinted rear glass in the new Forester doesn't create that irritating pattern when viewed through the aforementioned sunglasses that I got with my 2005. It was somewhat like the pattern one gets when scanning a halftone newspaper photo and not using the smoothing feature of Photoshop.

    One last little nit - I consider the 17 inch alloy wheels to be just shy of butt-ugly! Not as bad as those on the XT models or the 19 inchers on the new Toyota Venza, but still bad enough. Five spokes just aren't enough on a bigger wheel; the 10-spoke wheels of my 2005 Forester XS were - along with the 9 spoke satin finish alloy wheels on my 2005 T&C - to be the best looking alloy wheels I have yet seen on any car.
  • boba6boba6 Posts: 18
    I'm disappointed to hear that those in the know don't expect much in the way of updates for 2010. As I search for a replacement for my 2002 L, I am frustrated by the decision of Subaru (and seemingly every competitor) to package any upgrade above base with a moonroof. I want some nice features in a car that I can actually fit in, and a moonroof just takes too much headroom (unless you pop up to something like a BMW X3, that I guess is simply designed better). And comfort requires the good (and definitely heated) seats, so just building up the X doesn't seem like a viable option. Although the 2009 size expansion does help driver comfort, especially around the legs.

    Other things I'd like to see:
    Improved interior materials; the 2009 simply seems chintzy.
    A cup holder I'd feel comfortable putting hot coffee in.
    A cargo cover that actually covers the cargo area (it seems that the salesman was right on this - that can only happen if the rear seats are reclined, again, see the moonroof).
    Winter package w/o the moonroof.

    I guess some things, like a bumper cover, could be added, but all in all, I was sort of waiting to see what improvements 2010 brought. Not happy with the competition, either, so maybe I'll hold on the 2002 a while longer (although really wanted to get some head and side air bags).

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,676
    I'm sure there will be a few minor upgrades for 2010. They've always done a few upgrades every year in the past, but usually it's really small stuff; I expect that game plan to continue.

    I would expect more significant changes to occur in the 2012 model year, as that's when the mid-life refresh is expected to happen. That's when I expect to see the CVT, and perhaps a new H4 engine as well.

    Bob
  • robm2robm2 Posts: 53
    No worries about headroom in the '09 Forester with the moonroof. I'm 6'5", and even with the moonroof I have plenty of room up top. A little more length in the legroom would be nice, though.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    I second that, I'm 6'4" and I have more headroom with the moonroof than I did in my moonroof-less Xterra!
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I agree with Wes on the backup camera issue. I'll go along with the fact that it's a nice "convenience" feature but not necessary for most. Certainly on many other SUVs it's more of an issue due to their extremely poor rearward visibility (Murano for example). Still, I don't have a problem with making a backup camera a stand-alone option. Just don't force me to get one as part of a popular option bundle.

    -Frank
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    I don't have a problem with making a backup camera a stand-alone option. Just don't force me to get one as part of a popular option bundle.

    That is my stance as well, after reading the arguments presented by Bob and Mike. Along this line, I noticed just two days ago that my local Sam's Club is selling backup camera systems. I was in a hurry so I did not inspect them, but I wonder how well they would do in terms of integrating with the vehicle versus being a bulky, strap-on gadget.

    My father's past few motorhomes have had backup cameras, and they were barely noticeable - tucked away into the body. The cameras are really nice on those beasts (~40'), but I have parallel-parked the 36' motorhome he once had that did not have a backup camera. I had about 12" of clearance on each end. :shades:
  • boba6boba6 Posts: 18
    I must sit upright or have a long torso or something, or maybe just want more room, because I've heard the same sort of thing from other 6'4" types about other cars. But, at 6'2", seated to drive, wearing a baseball cap flush on my head, (head gets cold these days), it rubs, even without any real bump. Even without a cap, I can't pass my hand over my head.
    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,676
    http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/30/check-your-rear-nhtsa-compiles-backup-death-s- - tatistics/

    Like them or not, they save lives. I expect to see greater use of this technology in the future, maybe (oh horrors!) even government mandated.

    Bob (playing devil's advocate)
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Okay but just think how many lives could be saved by not driving at all! :P

    -Frank (also playing devil's advocate)
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,509
    Here, here!

    I suspect that very few lives, in fact, would be saved. Why? Because it is not enough for the technology to be there, it has to be used. The primary reason for these deaths cited is likely due to inattention of the driver, not the fact that the driver could not see the ground immediately behind the rear bumper.

    Again, though, if people feel it is helpful, by all means they should add it to their cars - at least it would mean that they would likely use the device. I am playing "better driving and more attention to it" advocate. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Very minor things, really:

    * raise the passenger seat an inch or two
    * ROUND cup holders, cups are not square!

    That's my list.

    For models with a GPS they should include a backup cam only because at retail they cost $99, so it can't possibly cost much to add that, and it would help justify the steep option price for the GPS better.
  • billwvbillwv Posts: 48
    The square cup holders can be used for things other than cups, and also do a good job with cups -- that is a plus as far as I am concerned -- I admit, however, I very rarely use them for cups.

    The passenger seat definitely needs a height adjustment.

    Bill
  • Bob go and sit in one with a moonroof. I feel you will be comfortable in the new Forester. If you don't fit you must be 7 feet tall. My 6'9" friend is very comfortable in my Forester. His head doesn't touch the roof. As far as your coffee concerns, my travel mug sits just fine with me in the morning. If you are still using a paper cup. My coffee house fills my travel cup for me and gives me a discount for not using their paper cup. My cargo cover covers the entire cargo area.
    I 'm not sure how high you would like to cover, but maybe darker window tint would be a solution?
    Buy the bumper cover online and install it yourself. It just has double stick adhesive on the back.
    Good Luck.
    All your accessories can be ordered online.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You nailed it - you end up using the cup holders for other things.

    My wife puts tissues on the back half and pens and other miscellaneous stuff in the front.

    How 'bout one that pops out of the dash, then?

    My 1998 Forester had more storage space than the 2009s. Just one cup holder, but the 2000 models got a dual and it was interchangeable, so I swapped it out for one of those.
  • boba6boba6 Posts: 18
    I have sat in the 2009 Forester with a moonroof; that was the basis for my earlier statement, and like I said, 6'2".

    As told by the salesman, the cargo cover gets installed in the brackets which sit 4-6 behind the rear seatbacks; I want those 4-6 inches covered. He said they would be if the seatbacks were reclined, but again, that's packaged with a moonroof.

    The coffee cup thing isn't a big deal. But it would be nice to know I can run into a convenience store, get a cup to stay awake on the road, and not have to worry that I didn't bring my commuter cup. The pops-out-of-the-dash one in my 2002 is great.

    Bob
«13
This discussion has been closed.