Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
For those who are concerned about crashworthiness, the Suzuki doesn't offer side airbags of any type. According to the results from IIHS tests, a driver of one of these vehicles can expect to receive a broad range of life-threatening injuries in a severe side-impact collision (pickup or SUV at 31-mph). They include serious skull fracture or brain injury, serious neck injury, rib fractures, pelvic fractures, and possibly shoulder fractures.
Just a little something to think about....
BTW, Vincent, are you referring to the Caliber sport wagon or the production version of the Nitro concept (MK74). I figured at first you were talking about the latter, but now I'm not so sure since they are both to be built on Jeep platforms (or for the former, a platform to be jointly shared with a Jeep [the "MK49," which will probably be called the Compass after a concept shown a couple of years back]).
Mike
Yes, in the annual questionnaire they basically ask that, if you had to do it all over again (i.e., assuming the original set of circumstances, but with the knowledge you have now), would you still purchase the vehicle -- sort of a "20/20 hind-sight" thing (not exactly put like that, but you get the point ). The results are then collected, statistically analyzed, and charted for easy comprehension.
Now, I have both a paper and an online subscription, so if you'd like me to look anything up for you or anyone else, it would be my pleasure (uh... if I can legally say that on this board.... :confuse: ).
"...or how well it has held up say after 5 years?"
Absolutely. Each year they publish data for up to 8 years back, allowing one to see the overall rating for each specific year and which vehicle components are problem hot-spots (of course, many vehicles are totally redesigned before then). After the first year (assuming the sample size of responses is large enough), they are usually able to predict reliability for the [model X's] current generation. The predicted reliability rating is an accumulation of data from all model years of a given generation of vehicle. The depreciation rating, however, is only published after three complete years of data are in.
Do note, though, that CR's reliability survey asks different types of questions and utilizes different methods than the other "quality studies," such as the ones conducted by J.D.Power & Associates (that's definitely not a "bashing" comment -- I feel that the more information, the better).
"How is that factored in?"
Well, this would only effect whether or not a vehicle is "Recommended" or not. To receive Tier-One Recommendation, the model must perform reasonably well in CR's tests, be predicted to have average or better reliability, and not have poor frontal crash test ratings. Tier-Two Recommendation is just a bit tougher to get: the vehicle must receive an impressive score from the IIHS' crash testing program -- including their severe side-impact assessment. Depreciation is independently considered, and not directly factored into any vehicle score.
Mike
Mike
-Frank
A static test is meaningless. Dynamic tests at least carries some meaning.
-juice
Hence I went and bought one.
Also remember that JDP's IQS and other studies use very different questions and methods than CR, with different objectives. After all is said and done, they end up measuring very different things. While the CR survey sticks to real problems that the owners are having, the IQS may ask about fuel economy or other relatively extraneous issues. Buyer emotion actually plays a key role in the IQS. (CR does measure owner satisfaction, but these inquiries are asked separate from the “trouble spots” section and are tabulated independently.)
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that JDP's IQS results are bogus or irrelevant (because, really, I think the study has its place), but from the information I've been exposed to, I honestly don't see it as a very realistic measure of expected reliability.
Just my two cents....
Mike
I WANT GOOD MILEAGE/RELIABILITY AND THE FORESTERS ARE LOOKING GOOD. WHAT ABOUT THOSE SEATS THOUGH? FEELS LIKE I'M SITTING ON A BENCH AND THAT AWFUL MUSTARD INTERIOR......WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK.
-Frank
Steve, Host
JDPower isn't measuring reliability, i.e. things gone wrong. For example, the Mini Cooper scored poorly because of a cup holder. The Hummer H2 scored poorly due to gas mileage. Those don't make a car unreliable.
If you like the Forester, buy it, odds are in terms of reliability, i.e. things gone wrong, you'll encounter few if any.
You might not like the cup holders. :P
-juice
The mechanical dependability score in the long term rating (4-5 years) is based on problems reported with the engine, transmission, steering, suspension, and braking systems. That sounds like reliability to me. I'm not sure if any of the cars in this comparision have been rated for the 4-5 year study and several haven't been around long enough to rate.
The IQC study for the newer cars (there isn't one for my Outback) has a section for creature comforts which is where people ding the cupholders. And if you read the consumer reviews here, people really ding cupholders!
Steve, Host
If you check it out the scores tend to be higher the older it gets, i.e. when the warranty runs out and it really matters.
-juice
But it's another data point to go along with CR, MSN and the rest.
And you gotta love everyone dinging the Hummer for the gas mileage.
Steve, Host
-juice
"Dont forget DAEWOO scored at the top in 2000 it is what it is a paid survey"
Hmm... makes me wonder how the Suzuki Forenza, Verona, and Chevy Aveo will do in the various studies this year.
Later,
Mike
At first, Daewoo included free service with every car purchase. They were the only ones to offer it at that price level. That made customers quite happy. Plus the cars were new so the big reliability problems had not crept up yet.
Look now, and customers are paying for their own service plus the cars have deteriorated. In the long run you get what you pay for.
-juice
Steve, Host
that may be but they look like crap.
Outback is based on the larger and more upscale Legacy.
The base 2.5l engine makes 173hp in the Forester and 175hp in the Outback now, due to minor differences in the intake and exhaust, but they are both EJ255 engines. Outback has a PZEV model available in CA which is the most powerful PZEV vehicle in the USA.
The Forester XT gets the EJ257 engine tuned to make a claimed 230hp now, though conventional wisdom says Subaru is sand bagging big-time because dyno runs for the old 210hp engine yielded about 240-250hp.
Outback XT gets 250hp from the same engine with higher boost.
Outback also has an H6 engine option.
I guess turtoni thinks one single opinion about looks (his own, naturally) is more important than all the testing conducted by IIHS, NHTSA, and CR combined. :P
Of course nothing else in the class even has a prayer trying to keep up with a Forester XT so don't be surprised when opponents quickly change the subject and try to focus on something subjective, becase they can't win an argument based on objective measures.
Pathetic, no?
-juice
Yeah it's fast all right, especially as the tach hits about 3500....:)
picture in there looks pretty nice if you like the racer look.
turtoni
i agree it's an awesome vehicle otherwise but it still looks like a soccer moms car.
in fact all of the "subies" in my opinion look dated, clunky and flimsy and always have.
kinda like how saturn cars look. cept maybe when they bolt on the racing stuff.
turtoni
i just wish they'd improve the looks because then i'd probably buy one sometime down the road if they did. it matters to me how the car looks probably above everything else. kinda like a woman. i can put up with some flaws in the personality but if i didnt find her physically attractive it would be a non starter.
turtoni
Crash tests also prove how tough it is:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summaries/smsuv_overall_c.htm
You'll find the Forester is the only small SUV to earn Good ratings in their front and side impact as well as Good ratings in the bumper basher.
You say one thing, but the opposite is true.
Every single competitor proves more flimsy in at least one of those 3 tests.
-juice
i wouldnt buy a brand new car if i really didnt like it's appearance.
HTH.
Also, remember that tough-looking aluminum tube-framed roof rack on the original XTerra? It could only hold 75 lbs. Just about any other rack had more capacity.
Beauty is more than skin deep.
-juice
-Frank
shortly after getting the repairs done, my wife' escape got hit from behind(in the bumper). $1200 repair, $2500 on the altima. since then, i put a big receiver hitch on the escape.
a forester is high performance salon car with extra boot space. most the subura drivers i've known have been boy racers. they bought the car because it's very fast and fun to drive.
the ride is lower and the car is smaller than all the other vehicles listed in the topic title. i'd imagine that space is quite high on the list of functionality in fact i'm sure most people dont even think of a forester as an SUV.
and the jeep is the only car that can really offroad in this topic. hows about that for functionality?
edmunds lists the chevrolet equinox as *their* most wanted SUV under $25,000 and the escape/tribute comes in secound. the consumers have voted their most wanted as the honda CRV.
turtoni-
ps i'll share my tech resume if you'll share yours...
That's a generalization.
Forester does not have less room then the Liberty. The Liberty is a true offroader. But I can't really say my daily commute takes me down the dirt side of the mountainside. It sucks gas like there is no tomorrow.
My experience and the IIHS bumper basher results show that you're likely to spend very little repairing a Forester in minor collisions.
Your Escape got lucky, that's all there is to it. One of the members of a Subaru Crew hit a full-size pickup with his Outback and the pickup suffered a whole bunch more damage, it's all about the angles and what hits what.
Ground clearance is up for 2006, 7.9" for the turbos and 8.1" for the others. That's about as good as anything else in the class, FWIW.
-juice
-juice
They ended up buying a 2000 Outback. It's the first Subaru they have ever owned and they absolutely love it. Their comment is that is easy to maneuver and handles corners/curvy mountain roads better than their Prius, and certainly better than the Suburban or a pickup.
It's nice to have been right on this one (I kept telling them the Subaru was the best choice).