Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru Forester?

13334363839

Comments

  • rochcomrochcom Posts: 247
    With my 1998 Forester S at 134,000 miles, I have been looking for a replacement. I want to see the new Forester before making a decision though, so I am trying to hold out until then. I looked at both the Tucson and the Sante Fe. The big turnoff for me is the fuel economy. The Tucson, with a smaller engine than Forester, gets poorer mileage, even with front wheel drive. Add in 4WD and there is no comparison. The 6 cylinder is worse, and the Santa Fe, even worse. Also, try getting anything other than a base model of any Subaru competitor with a manual transmission. I do like the warranties though: 5yrs/60k overall, 10yrs/100K on the drivetrain.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The Sedona/Entourage van is on my list of minivans I'm considering (yeah, I know, I'm all over the place) and the only serious kink in their armor is the fuel mileage. They are thoroughly competent everywhere else.

    I guess resale, too, but it's hard to predict what residuals will be a decade from now, since I plan to keep it a long time.

    The SF tested well in CR (as did all 3 entries in the thread title).
  • stevecarstevecar Posts: 148
    Resale isn't really an issue if you're looking 10 years out.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not a big one, no, but even my 9 year old Forester is getting $5550. I've had 3 callers already and 2 test drivers. Might be sold by the weekend. :shades:

    I kinda doubt I could get that kind of money for, say, a 1998 Kia Sportage. Maybe a grand or two.

    So it matters much less, but it still matters some.
  • stevecarstevecar Posts: 148
    Good point. I got 8,000 for my 7year old forrester on a trade-in.
    If that's the case, all Hyundai/Kia products are only worth it if you drive them until the wheels fall off or if you get (as is usually the case)a terrific buy on a new one.
    I guess that's the reason they are worth so much less after a few years. Or at least one of the reasons.
    Then again, I'd hate to see the condition of a 10 year old Sportage.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Always consider resale. You never know when your situation may change. And if you crash the car, most insurance policies will reimburse based on the current value of the car.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yeah. :D

    To be fair the Santa Fe has made leaps and bounds from that Sportage (it was pre Hyundai ownership, too).
  • stevecarstevecar Posts: 148
    The point about the insurance company paying on current value of the car is not publicized enough. This can also cause cars to be "totalled" by the insurance company a lot faster. It still boils down to the fact that certain cars gain a reputation for low or high depreciation and maintain that reputation for years. I test drove the Sante Fe and it was terrific. I wanted better gas mileage so we bought the CRV. However, as Hyundai continues to sell its cars well below sticker, their resale will continue to lag.
    The general public does not take all of these factors into account and happily enjoy driving Hyundais and unless there is a depreciation(total accident, stolen car, having to trade in etc) issue they are perfectly fine.
  • marig0107marig0107 Posts: 92
    Always consider resale. You never know when your situation may change. And if you crash the car, most insurance policies will reimburse based on the current value of the car.

    that is a good point. We had not thought about that too hard when we got our CRV. At the time, I was driving a very unreliable caravan so my main concern was having a reliable brand and Honda was it.

    Now I am finding so many more reasons to love my CRV. Thanx one and all :)
  • rochcomrochcom Posts: 247
    "However, as Hyundai continues to sell its cars well below sticker, their resale will continue to lag."

    If the original price is low enough, it may make up for the poor resale value at the other end, esprcially if it is kept a long time. The extended warranty (5/60 total, 10/100 drivetrain) makes that more likely. But for me, the gas mileage is the sticking point. It can greatly impact the cost of ownership, particularly if prices keep rising above the inflation rate.
  • drwoodrdrwoodr Posts: 88
    My insurance pays for a new car for the first 2 years of ownership, so everyone should check their policy on this.

    While resale value is something to consider, it is just one of many factors. Getting an extra grand at trade in doesn't mean much if you don't enjoy driving your vehicle for the next several years.
  • drive62drive62 Posts: 637
    True. But I also look at it the opposite. If I pay a little more for a vehicle and keep it a long time the extra cost works out to less than a dollar a day (way less based on how long I keep a vehicle). For a reliable vehicle from a proven automaker that doesn't seem so bad.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I think we can all agree that the best strategy is simply "buy what you love".

    If you prefer the Hyundai when its new, and pay more for depreciation, so what? You got a vehicle you liked better, and it's worth it. Why would you buy a car you didn't like (unless affordability was an issue)?

    Residuals are often quoted at a % of MSRP. That's fine, but it's misleading.

    For example, let's say you paid $25k for a Mini Cooper when they first came out, to be the first on the block. Retail was $20k. Resale in 2 years might be $18k. Sounds great.

    The books will say it retained 90% of its value. Incredible. But it only retained 72% of the actual price you paid, and that is the *only* thing that matters.

    The converse is also true. If you get a $20k vehicle (list price) for $16k, and residual after 2 years is just 60%, or $12k. Thing is, it only cost you $4k in depreciation. About half what the Mini Cooper cost that first-on-the-block sucker who simply overpaid.

    Doing this sort of math required lots of assumptions, so that's why I say look at residuals, sure, but it's pretty secondary to liking the vehicle more.
  • Just had to post that Consumer Reports looks at several 'smaller' SUVs including the Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Nissan Rogue. The Forester, in both XT and X versions, came out on top and is a recommended pick. In fact, CR says it is now recommending the Forester over its previous top pick, which was the Toyota Rav 4.

    I am glad that perhaps CR finally realized the rear end on the Rav 4 is not practical for many people.

    The Forester may not be the coolest looking SUV out there, but it is pretty solid and has the kinds of things that CR says it's looking for.

    As for resale value, I would think that the CR article could only help the Forester and probably the Outlander.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    FWIW, I don't think they downgraded the RAV4, it's just that the Forester scored higher (turbo > V6, non-turbo > 4 banger).

    To me the rear visibility and wrong-way opening rear door were turn offs, but if you read the CR review they barely glance over that stuff.
  • richk6richk6 Posts: 87
    Here are CR online test videos of the small suvs from the aug 08 issue, including the new Forester.

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road-test/small-suvs/videos-small-s- uvs/small-suvs-videos.htm
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Holy cow, man, that's a rave review if I've ever seen one!

    Interesting to hear that the 5 speed manual model was both quicker and more fuel efficient (24mpg is their best in class for a non-hybrid).

    The better 4 bangers get 22mpg, and the automatic matched those, but the manual blew them away.
  • Hey Gang,

    I've been reading that the double wishbone suspension in the new 09 Forester handles more 'sloppy' then the outgoing strut design. I took a 09 for a test drive and really couldn't tell a differance in the handling from my old 05.

    Does anybody notice sloppier handling? Does the newer Forester handle more poorly then a CR-V? I always associated Subaru's with handling - this would be a first for me if the Honda does it better.

    ???
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Background - I owned a 1998 L model for 9 years, and we now own a 2009 X Limited.

    I completely disagree with that theory.

    The old one had struts all around, and the biggest difference is that it was softer. It took a while to settle down in a turn. Not bouncy in an SUV sort of way, just more softly sprung.

    The new rear suspension was derived from the Tribeca, and that plus all the other changes resulted in a Forester that rolls a lot less and feels firmer (the opposite of sloppy IMHO). You'll notice the reduced body roll on a test drive, and that's despite the fact that ground clearance is up more than an inch. The whole vehicle sits a bit higher.

    The trade-off is a little bit more impact harshness. If you hit a bump you feel it a bit more than in the '98. An enthusiast might see this as more feedback and even consider that a positive, but we use it as a family car so I wanted to note that you do feel the initial impact of the bumps more. Overall it has more suspension travel, though.

    I think it handles as well as any other compact crossover out there. MT just named it SUV of the year.
This discussion has been closed.