Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Any Subie owners from Canada or other snow belts care to respond?
I believe(?) Subaru offers, as an option, an engine block heater for cold climates.
Bob
Re the pic: That CR-V belongs to a 17 yr old. Most mods are in the suspension and cosmetics. Its a 4WD, but he wants to disable it. Try this link. (I should add that this is not my idea of a smart mod job.)
Piedra - If you're not headed off-road or through unplowed deep snow, then the Forester should do fine. I assume that you're looking at the '02 CR-V, so you've really got as much space as a the Outback. If the Forester is enough, then the CR-V is probably overkill.
Honda enjoyed its best November ever — 90,153 — even though it did not offer 0% financing. That's an 11.5% gain from a year earlier, most of it from the redesigned 2002 CR-V sport-utility vehicle and continuing gains by Odyssey minivan.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001/12/03/auto-sales.htm
The Forrester is a drug on the market so there is no wait and huge discounts are available. But do you really want to drive KMART?
The 2003 Forester will be all new and will atrract more attention than the current one.
Subaru doesn't have that burden. They excite by staying in business.
I have a Honda and an Acura and will probably always buy Honda products, but I think Subaru makes great cars and has developed a great market for their vehicles. I see plenty of them here in the cold, snowy north and haven't heard of anyone having significant problems with one. I even secretly lust after the WRX (although I think it is somewhat ugly). I wish Honda would make a car like that.
Regarding people buying a CR-V just because it is a Honda. I think Honda has earned that type of loyalty. It seems Subaru has a similar type of loyalty, just a smaller number of owners and vehicles for sale in North America. I am sure some people will buy the new Forester just because it is a Subaru.
Bob
On my Honda the only repair (as opposed to routine maintenance) I've had done was to the latch on the hatchback. A screw broke, causing the portion of the latch that's mounted on the glass to come loose on one side. My mechanic tells me I'll need a new clutch eventually, but not to worry about it until it starts slipping. Currently at 95,000 miles. No matter what my next vehicle turns out to be, I'll keep the Civic.
The Subaru wasn't quite so reliable. The timing belt failed prior to its scheuled replacement. It was a long time ago, but I think it was scheduled for 60,000 miles and failed at around 40,000 miles. Adding to the frustration, it failed about three hours from home, and also three hours from the nearest dealer. Also had ongoing problems with cold starting, but that was probably because it was carbeurated. Required a long warm up inthe cold too, otherwise it would have no power, and would probably stall. I think fuel injection came in '88; in retrospect I should have waited. But for the positives, it had something that none of today's car-based SUVs offer: dual range 4WD. I didn't need the low range very often, but it was there for when I did need it.
The Subaru's long gone, but the Civic has inheritied its jumper cables. Now I only need the jumper cables about once a year, when someone forgets to turn off the lights. (Auto off lights, another Subaru standard feature which would be nice on my Civic).
Bottom line: I'd consider a Subaru, but Honda would have the edge based on my experience with those brands. In the end, it'll come down to value.
Bob
I just could not bring myself to pay MSRP, the Honda dealer had none to sell until January and even then they were silver, wife shot down markroberts.com, and the old car needed to be repaired.
I drive on the interstate to get to work, and I thought the Forester had a slight edge in acceleration at highway speeds, IMO. At lower speeds I could not tell the difference.
IMO, I would wait until the spring and hopefully the prices on CR-V's are down.
Since 1995 Subaru has not had a single car make Consumer Reports' "Reliability Risks" list (BTW Honda does, and not just Isuzu clones). Honda may score higher overall, but Subaru is actually more consistent.
Reliability is solid for both, but the Forester's powertrain warranty is a lot longer, 5/60 to Honda's 3/36. Subaru also offers roadside assistance for 3 years, Honda does not.
CR-V's biggest advantager is rear passenger space, but to piedra that does not matter. I do like the new seats that slide forward in the CR-V. In fact, I think the two vehicles have a lot more in common than most folks seem to think (rain rails, big 4 cylinder, similar power and torque, similar weight, etc).
The cold start issue may be that manual tranny Foresters get only a 260 CCA battery, and that is weak. $30 for 535 CCAs at WalMart, I replaced mine after 3 years. Not a significant issue, IMHO. Subarus are very, very popular in Colorado and I have not heard many complaints about that.
Resale is good. I paid $19,200 for mine and they blue book for $15k. For 3 years, that is top notch resale, more than 78% the original value.
Both are safe, too. Honda ought to improve on IIHS tests and already had good NHTSA scores. Both good choices here.
I'd wait for the prices on the CR-V to level off, but right now you have more bargaining power at the Subaru dealer. They've never offered rebates, contrary to what some have implied, but you can get them for invoice, just as you could the outgoing CR-V models.
Check out www.fitzmall.com if you live near DC, they start under $19k for a 5 speed L (not at all stripped, even has ABS) to about $24k for an S Premium auto with the world's largest moonroof, automatic, and leather.
In the sample of Forester vs. CR-V, the CR-V has been rated as the better of the two. At first, the gap wasn't a big deal. But last year's results show a gap that could now be called significant. The CR-V was rated as "most reliable" for the American market. We'll have to wait and see if the new model achieves the same lofty ranking.
Illinoiscentral - I think the poster who asked doesn't need the backseat. Cargo volume for the Forester is good enough for camping which was his/her intended use. So I think the Forester should do.
BTW, are we talking backpacking or "car-camping"? (I assumed backpacking.) Because the '01 CR-V has a bed feature that might come in handly for car-camping. The '02 model only has a lounge chair configuration. It isn't as flat.
So, either a Subie or a CRV will do fine. It just depends on what features you value more.
Bob
My own CR-V has 50K and zero problems. I did have to replace a set of wiper blades. I don't expect everyone to be so lucky, though.
To continue the unfair comparison, I've been stuck in snow twice in the Honda, and just once in the Subaru. In the Honda, both times were heavy spring snowstorms on unplowed roads within walking distance of home. Have never owned snowtires, as snow cover usually doesn't last long in Colorado Springs. One time snowtires probably would have made the difference; the other time even some big 4WD vehicles were getting stuck. The one time in the Subaru I pulled off a dirt road with hardpacked snow to park for some backcountry skiing. The snow I pulled into was softer and deeper than I expected, so had to have a little help to get out.
I'm confident that both manufacturers have improved considerably since '87 and '93.
The rear seat does matter on my choice for when my parents or my wife's parents come to visit. Cargo volume is also a slight consideration, and being able to put a bike upright in the back would be a big plus.
Bob
. I researched more than I care to think and test drove several SUV's. Hard to make a decision - my wife told me I was worse than a woman when it came time to decide. All I knew was I had to get away from the family sedan look:)
In the end, once I decided to go with a smaller SUV, Honda's reliability and efficiency got me. I couldn't take the gear shift in the Escape/Tribute and the Santa Fe was too new. I could have gotten a great deal on an Xterra (only $2500 more) but it just didn't seem too well put together. My 14 year old daughter loved the design/exterior of the Xterra but when we drove the Honda, she knew (despite her years) that it was the much better vehicle. I went with my head and not my heart (I liked the Xterra's looks too) but I have to tell you every time I see the new 2002 CR-V's, I find the look growing on me.
But think about it - if you have to go back two decades to a completely unrelated model (era, even) to find a significant flaw in a Subaru, that alone ought to sell you on a Forester.
Saw a CR-V in person for the first time, finally. I was in my Miata so it seemed even taller than it is. Taller and more substantial than the first generation, yet a lot more playful looking. I like the taillights now, more Volvo and less Lumina APV, because there is no sheet metal where the D-pillar should be. The headlights are HUGE. Big eyes on that thing, but they give it character. Wheels do look wimpy, it deserves an upgrade option. A lot more presence on the road. Thumbs up.
-juice
Bob
I think the mid-80s Hondas were 'better' or less clunky anyway.
Wanna talk about my the rust on my 1975 Datsun B210. Me either.
Now I have an '02 Moonroof, I mean ForesterSPremLeatheretc. Very nice. The AWD is a trip the way it let's me throw the car around and recover by using more gas pedal. I haven't figured out how it transfers power to the rear axle before the front wheels slip(weight sensors on the axles?), but I love the result. It is definitely NOT an '86 Subaru. It also weighs nearly 900 pounds more.
My cousin just bought her CRV when the lease ran out. This is longest she ever kept a car. Very good trouble free car.
Another person I know just bought an '02 CRV last week for MSRP and it too is very nice. I'd put larger wheels on it, but then again, I'm going back out on the beach.
In conclusion, thank goodness, I don't know that I'd say the CRV is better (because the Forester's sunroof is bigger) but it certainly isn't any worse.
John
Because this is a totally new CRV design, some have recommende to me to buy the 7/100K extended.
Comments???
Sure, you could argue the merits of full time AWD vs. automatic part time systems for days. But don't discount one vehicle because it doesn't have a particular feature of another. Can't live without LSD, buy a Forester S. Does that make the L a bad choice for someone else because it doesn't have one? The CR-V? No. It all depends on your needs.
If you don't like a particluar vehicle, don't buy it. There are plenty of choices available.
Biased or ignorant bashing doesn't make anyone look good.
After you bring your new pride and joy home, don't forget to stop in often and share your experiences with us!
tidester
Host
SUVs
is easier to find and they don't mix HONDA service
with other makes so the mechanics can be experts.
I work in a service industry (copiers)so I know the pitfalls of trying to service too many brands.
I had a 96 Outback that had a recall and I waited 5 hours before the service manager says they don't have the part.This dealer handled Chrysler.
Hyundai,and Subaru.
Patiently waiting...
Do you mind sharing what you paid for the vehicle, before delivery, taxes and accessories? I have been trying to figure out if Canadian dealers are going below MSRP or not, and if so, how much of a discount they are giving.
This was a Subaru showcase. In it a Subaru exec - I believe it was a Subaru exec - asserted that the Forester created its class and that the original CR-V was essentially a rip-off.
I don't know if that person was a liar or a fool but from what I researched on the internet, it confirmed my memory, i.e., that the original CR-V predated the Forester.
Furthermore, Honda marketed an AWD tall wagon from 1984 to the early 1990's.
btw, according to the C&D the CR-V does 0-60 in @8.4. I doubt the Forester can match that.
...The second-gen CR-V scoots to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds. That's a second quicker than its forebear and comfortably below the 9.9-second average we logged among those 11 automatic Lilliputian utes last March. It's also 1.8 seconds quicker than an automatic Toyota RAV4, the vehicle that 28.3 percent of CR-V buyers "cross-shop" first. Still, the major payoff is this Honda's newfound perkiness for the first couple of seconds in each of the lower gears, where it's now way happier to lunge and squirt its way into holes in traffic...
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/2001/november/
From anecdotal experience Hondas generally appear to get better than their EPA ratings while Subarus seem to do worse. I would therefore expect that the faster CR-V would actually get better real-world mileage, driver dependent.
Tom: while most dealers are multi-brand outlets, they do have Subaru-specific teams of mechanics at most dealerships. You just got awful service, plain and simple.
But if you think 5 hours wait for parts is bad, ask 2002 CR-V owners about how long it took to fix their seat belts.
Thorn: EPA ratings for my Forester are 21/27, but I'm averaging above 25mpg for the 2 years that I've been charting mileage. My worst ever was 20.7mpg driving on the beach every day for a week, and my best exceeded 30mpg, far better than the EPA figures. Typically they do not do worse than the EPA figures unless you're driving a WRX all-out on a track.
I'd like to see a CR-V auto compared to a group of autos, for apples-to-apples. Motorweek and the Washington Post both reached 60 in 9.1 seconds in a Forester. Perhaps the boxer engine is better suited to an auto, while the CR-V's iV-TEC is happier with a manual?
-juice
Bob
FWIW, with a 5 speed transmission, the 146 hp CR-V has been timed at 8.6 (MT), 8.9 (Edmunds), and 9.1 seconds (I forget the source).
Originally, one of the Forester's biggest selling points was that it offered more power than the CR-V or RAV4. I doubt that Subaru will allow the Forester to lose that advantage. The trouble is, there are plenty of more powerful vehicles on the market. Having power is no longer unique. Having gobs more power would be unique, but very few people need a rocket ship station wagon. Especially since Soob already offers one in the WRX. IMHO, they need to take a different direction with the new Forester.
The EPA numbers seem accurate for the AT CR-V. The only anecdotal evidence to the contrary has been for the 5 speed, which seems to average 22-26 rather than the 22-25. I myself average 25+ and have a range similar to what Juice is getting in his Forester.
Forester still has the most power and torque for a 4 banger (and for vehicles with 20+ mpg EPA city), but I agree the V6 competition has put on the pressure and more power would be welcome. The 2003 Forester will arrive next summer and the 2004 Forester is rumored to get turbo power.
We just found out the wife is pregnant again, so we'll be cross shopping the new CR-V with the 2003 Forester, the Highlander, along with a few minivans and sport sedans.
-juice
What do you all think?
Certainly. But the Subaru fool/prevaricator was just as wrong when it was made as he is now. The Forester created nothing - it lagged the market and none too successfully.
As Acura proved with the MDX and Honda with its Odyssey, if you're late to market it's better to be the best. The Forester was the former, not anywhere near the latter.
Honda will introduce another new SUV in January for sale later in 2002:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/mear.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2001/autos/0112/05/b01-359064.htm
Some other 'trucks' tested,
Liberty V6 (0-60: 10.0s)
Freelander V6 (0-60: 10.5s)
Xterrar Supercharged (0-60: 8.8s)
They also mention that none of the vehicles considered got stuck in any of their off-road excursions unlike yester-year experiences.
Bob
INKY
The Forester created new sales for Subaru, with growth every single year since its launch, while needing no rebates. Better yet, it didn't cannabalize sales from the Outback, whose sales also grew, instead most were conquest sales. Keeping in mind Subaru is a small, niche manufacturer, the Forester was a total home run any way you look at it.
Subaru was the first to put 4WD in a passenger car platform, way back in 1973, and the Outback started the crossover craze (followed by the RAV4). The CR-V and Forester were late comers, yes, but Subaru was still the pioneer here.
As to being the best, Forester sat at the top of the Consumer Reports ratings for years. It also won a C&D comparo, and knocked the CR-V out of the top spot in the JD Power APEAL category. Many in the media disagree with you.
beatfarmer was dead-on.
-juice
Sounds about right to me. FWIW, this is about the same (or not far from) the performance figures for the 200hp Tribape.
I have to side with Juice about the Forester's success. While it doesn't rival the top sellers for market share, the Forester is selling well for Subaru's size. They have a smaller distribution outlet and smaller production capacities.
I think Thorn was referencing a sigle comment regarding the mini-ute category, not the entire evolution of the car-based 4X4.
tidester
Host
SUVs