Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Subaru Crew - Future Models II

1113114116118119446

Comments

  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I will hold judgement on styling until I see one in person. 2D pictures don't always work for cars. But from what I can see, Subaru did a good job of updating the classic Forester shape with more modern styling cues. Some of these cues are sure to be controversial, but that's always the case.

    No doubt it is still based on the Impreza. I truly hope they increased the rear legroom and got rid of the strut towers in back. In all other respects, I like the vehicle.

    Craig
  • odd1odd1 Member Posts: 227
    juice neither crv or rav appeal to me. So, I'm going by improvements made not present content. My mistake. I've also learned that the BMW is alot more expensive in every way and want something smaller than the Odyssey, but still have room for stuff, now that I will be driving in Houston traffic daily. I won't do BMW again the value isn't worth the money to me. I have the same problem with buying a WRX. It would be rare that I'd get a chance to drive it to its abilities even with the value the WRX is.

    I still don't like the new styling and want rear leg room. The Forester is a great value. I guess all this waiting and reading all these boards left me wanting more than what is realistic.

    If I could just talk my wife into a wagon there would be an Outback in the drive now.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    What is it? Link?
    edited:
    I found it. It's ok. But it will likely not see production, and if it does, will be over priced. As juice noted, it's not tough enough for my liking. A boxy Forester would however spark my interested for 2 reasons. The short wheelbase would make it great for off-roading, and if it was boxy it would be have UTILITY. Heck if they put on 245-70-16 tires, and Front and Rear LSD on the Forester it would be nearly un-stoppable off-road. Throw in the H6 and some better bumpers and it would totally rock.

    -mike
  • hypovhypov Member Posts: 3,068
    mike-
    remember when they first introduced the re-designed 2000 Legacy. New exterior but same 2.5l, then the following year came the H6. My hunch is we will only see the 2.5l for 2003, and the H6 would make its way under the hood for 2004, if not a "T-bo".

    -Dave
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    I'm just getting into this 2003 Forester thing -- just got back from skiing -- but from what I have seen: The front view of the red XS, the rear view of the red XS, and the Yahoo article link, I'd say this 2003 Forester is a winner-double-plus. Wow! I think it is beautiful! I like everything about the looks. I haven't seen it in person, of course. But I'd say it beats the New CR-V black and blue. And it has a lot more character than the RAV4. It kills the entire segment: Escape, Tribute, Santa Fe. And the Subaru standard equipment -- they keep coming with more good stuff! It is just great. And 90 pounds lighter!
  • artdechoartdecho Member Posts: 337
    The Detroit News article on the new Forester states 165 hp / 199 lb-ft of torque....is that a typo, or did the engine really jump from 166 to 199 lb-ft?

    http://www.cars.com/carsapp/detnews/?tf=/index.tmpl&act=display&srv=parser&sf=/default_frameset.tmpl
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    Speaking of skiing... This was my first chance to get up out of the desert and into the mountains with my now drab and ordinary 2002 Forester L five-speed manual. But what a trooper...er...good little soldier it was! Slushy hair-pin turns and no guard rails did not deter my little Forester. A white school bus stuck in the middle of the road (in a fog (or cloud), I might add) was not a problem, though we came upon it with rather short notice and, again, no guard rail. The parking lot full of ice and snow was no match for AWD. Just fantastic. We've done the same trip in a 4x4 pickup, and there is no comparison: the Forester is a delight in every way. And no worries about changing surface conditions on the road, as was a constant worry with the truck.

    And suddenly, my mind is pulled back to the 2003 Forester: To have all that my 2002 has, that comfort and handling, and assurance of safety, PLUS the new styling, and the new standard goodies and safety features...WOW!

    My wife asked if we were going to have to trade in the 2002 for the 2003 -- I had to say no, we've got to keep the 2002 for the usual long time we keep cars. But she has this Mustang and it's getting a little older (though it has ridiculously low miles), and if I can just frame it right, put the proposition in the right terms, just maybe...hmmmm. Two Foresters...and she gets the older one...yeah!
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    But the Tribute/Escape/CRV/Rav4/Sanata Fe all have more rear seat room than the 02 Forester, unless something changed in the 03, those others will still be superior in an important area.

    -mike
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    mike - if he already has a Forester, I'm sure he knows how much room is in the back seat. To some folks, it's not an issue and certainly not a reason to choose one of those other vehicles over the Forester.

    Peter - IMO, trade the Mustang in on a WRX! :-)

    -Dennis
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    We test drove the rest. We don't care all that much about rear seat leg room. The Santa Fe drives like an elephant and the automatic transmission was balky and inconsistent. The RAV4 handled great, and seemed perky enough, but it was too small over all -- though we liked the removable rear seat feature -- and the ground clearance was less than originally advertised. The CR-V didn't handle well at all, though I love Honda, I worship Honda, and I wish they had produced a better handling car for my purposes (with ABS standard), and if they had, I'd have bought it. Tribute/Escape: Ford; I had a Mazda pickup; 6 recalls; I hate the local dealership with the passion of 2000 white-hot suns, it is staffed by morons (sales force and mechanics both), I know what to expect from Ford: lingering disappointment and one nagging problem after another, and they don't handle all that great.

    So, in conclusion: I'll trade an inch or two of rear seat leg room for a better handling, more reliable car. I can work around that inch or two of leg room if there is someone I like in the rear seat. And if its someone I don't like, I'll like that rear seat even more.
  • prouloproulo Member Posts: 26
    It looks like we got more than eight items on the wish list. All those mentioned plus:
    Front seats more supportive bolstering
    Illuminated power window switches on all doors
    Illuminated ignition switch ring.
    Waing for pricing.
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    I'd never get my wife out of a WRX! Her first car was a Justy, and she drove it like a rally driver would. Imagine someone forcing people out of the way and weaving through traffic with a red-lined three cylinder engine screaming -- or if you drove on I-95 between Miami and West Palm Beach or any place between Gainesville and Naples, Florida between 1990 and 1993, you may not have to imagine it.

    Speaking of skiing - what did I do while I waited for my wife to finish up with her ski stuff (I'd finished first and I'm faster putting stuff up)? I watched some European winter rally races -- Jeez! I was all excited about it, babbling about how they drove and how I'd like to do it -- except, I'd be driving about 12 MPH. Which I said to my wife, and she said she hadn't wanted to say anything, but she concurred. My wild days are behind me: I went sliding sideways down a road in a hot, small V-8 Cutless (circa 1974) at about 90 MPH, after I decided not to hit the stake-truck that had pulled in front of me when I was going 20 MPH faster; I had a Tercel five-speed that I drove like hell; and I've rolled a pickup. Now, I'm a model citizen w/ post-traumatic stress syndrome when I'm in a car. If we had a WRX my wife would have to drive, and I'd grind my teeth to nothing and my hands would become permanent claws from clutching the door-handles.
  • jimmyp1jimmyp1 Member Posts: 640
    and I guess I've been taught a lesson (for about the 100th time) to not believe everything I read online. No power increase, I gather? Dang. How could AutoWeek have gotten that SO wrong? I mean I did read that correctly, did I not? "Uprated engine"? Maybe they meant it will have nicer belts. But, I do like what SoA has done with it design-wise and content-wise. Juice, 90 lbs is about 3 3 year olds, get cracking. Here is my new plan (read: threat) with SoA, though....I hereby resolve to keeping my 1994 Legacy Turbo as perfect as possible as a sort of protest to demand that the Legacy be turbocharged again!!! Scores are sure to join me. Ahem! Am I right, people?! By withholding $35-40k, I theorize I will drastically upset SoA's sales #'s, and they'll be forced to comply with my (our)demands. :) Wouldn't it be perfect for me to roll in to the lot in the 2004 MY (read: mid-2003, SoA) and say, "I'd like to trade (I know, not a good idea in general, but play along for the romance of it all, please) this 1994 Legacy Turbo on that there 2004 B4"? Oh, that "word"....B4, it just rolls off the tongue.

    Ok, so what model do we start guessing on now?

    Jim
  • subypowersubypower Member Posts: 50
    yet of this new Forester. I want to see more. The chicagoautoshow web site is horrible.
  • bblachabblacha Member Posts: 160
    Yeah, I feel the same way, I thought I'd hold off a new car purchase in protest of the Legacy's lack of affordable power. But alas, I just couldn't wait. So I abandoned Subaru temporarily in favor of a delightful, double-wishboned Accord V6. As soon as Subaru re-enters the sporty mid-size category, I'll be back... but the choice between a $27K Bean and a $21K Accord was clear, even though I do have to put up with the stupid trunk now.

    Winter-worthiness won't appeal to us down south, but affordable performance will -- come on Subaru, you can do it.

    That said, I do regret just a little that I didn't wait for the new Forester. Nice car.

    --Bart
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The only person you will be trading that Legacy 22b into is ME :)

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Didn't realize they were so cheap?

    -mike
  • jimmyp1jimmyp1 Member Posts: 640
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    Dave, thanks for the SOA press release link. It looks like the Forester retains the 7.5" of ground clearance and that there is no high performance 2.5L engine. I guess the Autoweek article was mistaken. :(

    Ken
  • bblachabblacha Member Posts: 160
    Yep, here's Edmunds' TMV for the LX-V6, with ABS, traction control, fun and coolness:


    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/honda/accord/lxv64drsedan30l6cyl4a/prices.html


    This price will certainly go up once the all-new 2003 comes out, which will be more powerful but lose the 4-corner double-wishbone. All in all I'm very happy. Still, the new Forester, such a nice car.
    --Bart

  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Bart- Comparing an Accord LX sedan with the Bean wagon is truly comparing apples and oranges. The Bean comes with much more standard equip plus AWD plus wagon utility.

    The $23.8k Accord EX V6 is more comparably equipped but still lacks AWD and utility.

    -Frank P.
  • bblachabblacha Member Posts: 160
    I absolutely agree. I really don't expect any Subie shoppers to jump across and check out the Accord. My situation is very specific, in that I just moved from the North to the South AND married a wagon-hater, so my needs have drastically changed, and I'm just looking for decent power, handling and value in a family sedan. That's in the mainstream market where Subaru expressly doesn't try to compete.

    The Accord is a delightful "driver's car", but there are many practical aspects of my 98 Forester that I dearly miss. (the cargo box, ground clearance, supportive seats, oversteering handling, for example.)

    And now this nifty 2003 Forester comes out just to make it worse.

    --Bart
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    I like the looks of the 2003 Forester and am pleased with all the improvements. I predict that the price won't go up by more than a couple of hundred (if at all). It also appears that there will be less of a price differential between the new base and XS models since the base model includes more of the XS's content. It appears Subaru made improvements in many areas and fixed a lot of complaints about the current model (with rear leg room apparently being a major exception). And hey, it looks like they even improved the cup holders (one of my complaints and add to Juice's list).

    Having said that, the new Forester looks more like a freshening than an "all new" design. I am majorly disappointed that they did nothing with the engine. IMHO, either the 3.0 H6 or a turbo option is necessary to successfully compete in today's competitive mini-SUV segment. But if nothing else, they could have easily bumped the HP up to 175 by using some type of valve timing (IIRC, the new Altima gets 175 out of its 2.5 4-cyl). Well, let's just hope Subaru really does include a turbo option with the MY-04s as rumored. Were I in the market today, I'd get the WRX wagon hands-down. If and when a turbo option appears for the Forester, the decision might get a little tougher.

    -Frank P.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Bart- My wife drives a 97 Accord EX. It's been ultra reliable and is relatively fun to drive. However, when we decide to buy a new vehicle, I seriously doubt that I'm even going to look at new Accords. As you implied, there's just something way too "mainstream" about driving an Accord or Camry.

    Juice has sucessfully coverted me into being a true Subaru groupie!!

    -Frank P.
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    You put out a new design, that increases sales because it is a new design (besides the content increases), then later on you increase the engine choices and this then gives you a boost later on. Alot of people here talk about bigger engines, but the Legacy flat 6 was not a hugh sales success (so far, I also think a GT-6 would do well).
    About rear leg room, I read in one of the press releases that there is more front seat travel than in the current Forester. If this is to increase possible front legroom and you define the rear legroom with the seat in its rearmost position... then you could increase the size of the cabin and still not get anymore "rear leg room", even though many people would not have the seat all the way back.

    Frank
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    I also agree that the bigger engines can come later. The 2.5L workhorse engine has served the Forester well and will continue to do so for some time. While it doesn't beat out all of the mini-SUVs in power, it's no laggard either. It makes sense for SOA to allow the 2003 Forester to stabilize before throwing in more variables to the mix. I'm sure we'll be seeing different engines in the future -- why else would they have put the "2.5" in the trim name?

    The H6 wasn't a huge success because it came with premiums, IMO. You couldn't just get the H6 option -- you had to purchase VDC or the LL Bean package to get it. And it made sense. It was a brand new high performance engine so you want to market it first to people who are willing to pay the premium to get it today -- extracting maximum consumer surplus; Econ 101. I'm sure we'll see it trickle down to other models shortly.

    Ken
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Of course as has already been pointed out, we are for the most part still blindly guessing at many of the specifics by reading between the lines of the press releases. Since no mention has been made of increased leg room, the assumption is that it hasn't changed but we may yet be proved wrong. (SOA, we want more details now!!!!)

    Re engine choices, I understand the marketing approach but the Forester could really benefit from a bigger engine now. Subaru is losing sales daily to the V6 equipped competition. By waiting another year, that's just that many more potential sales lost.

    -Frank P.
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    was saying that they can't get enough Impreza TS models because of factory constraints. They may be selling all the Foresters that they can build at the moment. Of course not having a 6 cyl will cost them some sales, but it might be part of their ramp up strategy. RAV4 and CRV are still only 4 cyl as well, which is their mainstream Japanese competition.

    Frank
  • bluesubiebluesubie Member Posts: 3,497
    Jim's new car protest.
    Sorry Jim. I would love to join you, but they have definitely bumped up the power for the Impreza folks. When I got my car it was the most powerful Impreza available in the U.S. at 137 h.p.! :-)

    Winter worthiness not needed?
    Yes, but AWD is great in the rain and on rural roads. If I were looking at a compact/mid-size sedan I would get a Legacy instead of a "Camcord". AWD is more important than 6 cyl, IMO.

    Autoweek.
    Before the WRX came out, Autoweek had an article saying that it would get 215 h.p. ;-)

    -Dennis
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    My guess is that rear leg room hasn't increased substantially. I would assume that any major increase in leg room or cargo area would be mentioned in the press release since it would be a key product feature.

    I'm still hoping, but I'm prepared not to be let down.

    Ken
  • jimmyp1jimmyp1 Member Posts: 640
    The two-tone isn't bad at all. The stance just seems sportier to me somehow.

    Jim
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    the more I like it.

    Bob
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Okay, so where'd they move the cup holders? I'm assuming that the compartment under the climate controls is the ashtray. Did they get moved to behind the emergency brake?

    I'm not wild about the nets in the front doors replacing the pockets. I suppose they offer more flexibility but anything stored there will look more cluttery.

    -Frank P.
  • bblachabblacha Member Posts: 160
    The nets on the doors seem cheap and Trabant-ish (am I the only one here with that kind of frame of reference?) That part of the door gets kicked a lot so that limits what can be stored there.

    OTOH the nets on the sides of the console are great, yet another Forester way to squeeze handy storage out of the interior.

    But in general the interior is very nice. I'm glad they kept the little console-top storage compartment. And the shifter makes the impression of being shorter. Just makes you want to grab it, throw it in First and go!

    --Bart
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Studebaker is rising from the ashes to become—an SUV!

    Hmmm... the name "Land Cruiser" is already taken; maybe a new "Champ?" Or, better yet—"Conestoga wagon."

    http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0202/07/autos-410391.htm

    Bob
  • jimmyj1945jimmyj1945 Member Posts: 141
    Taken from the article at cars.com "In keeping with the company’s plan to launch a barrage of new vehicles over the next 18 months, Subaru has introduced the second-generation, all-new Forester."

    Does anyone know what they are talking about? I have been following Subaru for only a short while. Are there things in the works that I'm not aware of?

    Thanks for your response,

    Jim
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Legacy 6

    WRX-STi

    Turbo Forester

    How's that for starters?

    Bob
  • jimmyj1945jimmyj1945 Member Posts: 141
    Are these for sure? I here about this and that but I thought they were wishes. Is the B4 a possible reality?

    Jim
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The STI isn't really a new model, just a different trim on the impreza. The Baja is really the only "new" car IMHO. The others are just updates/trim changes.

    -mike
  • allhorizonallhorizon Member Posts: 483
    Perhaps we'll know more in 3 weeks. From the AU Subaru web site:

    "Specifications on variants to be launched in Australia in the third quarter of 2002 have yet to be confirmed.
    The model shown in Chicago is a U.S. specification model and has a 2.5-litre four-cylinder horizontally opposed boxer engine.
    New Generation Forester will be previewed at Melbourne Motor Show from February 28, when more details of Australian release will be distributed. "
    The engine types released for Australia would give at least some indication of whether the Turbo or H6 may eventually become an option in the US. And re-open our favorite speculative discussion…

    By the way, in most cites I see that the outer dimensions are "similar" - we really don't know for sure whether they have changed or by how much (well, except for Ken's numbers, that is).

    Bart: ("The nets on the doors seem cheap and Trabant-ish")
    - Only if the doors are made of plastic.

    - D.
  • jeijei Member Posts: 143
    Edmunds' pics show the character of the car better than the first hi-res images put out by Subaru. I really think the 2003 Forester is sharp. Like the WRX blue. I'm hoping they've gained some room & comfort in the back seat & they do come out with a 3.0 XS version later. I'd still buy one if it drove well (no doubt it will) and I were in the market. I still think the 2.5 is perfectly good given the weight reduction. Subaru was VERY smart to keep the weight down. I'm sure they'll sell every one they make. My new Dream Car for Ordinary Mortals.

    John
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Bob: Holy cow! That's news to me - nobody at the Stude club meet this past Tuesday night knew of it. Anyway, I won't exactly hold my breath. A lot of enthusiasts are leery of Kelly's claims to revive the Avanti in Georgia. Some Avanti folks took a tour of the Villa Rica plant and were impressed, though. And agai, it can't be a true Studebaker without the Hill Holder in its manual models - there long before there even was a Subaru!

    Shifting gears, the Edmund's pix and writeup are softening the blow. The Forester looks better in that WR Blue/gray two-tone than in the PR pix' red monotone. While the drivetrain still disappoints, the added content impresses: new struts, improved suspension anti-dive and squat, and especially the quicker steering rack and bigger brakes.
    One thing that does bother me a bit is that the limited slip rear diff is now optional on the higher traim level. That and the four-wheel discs were big factors in steering me into an S. (I may have missed it but what is the standard brake setup, disc/drum or all-disc?)

    Ed
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    But Subaru says that the new Forester pricing will be "slightly" higher. This is encouraging. I like what I see so far very much.


    http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020206/n06128178_1.html


    Frank

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    If I read the PR from Subaru correctly, the LSD is still part of the AWP, which comes standard with the XS model.

    Bob
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
  • locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    Sorry, but offering an "all weather package" on a vehicle whose entire lineup is populated with all-wheel drive models is silly in my opinion.

    Couldn't the marketers think of anything better?

    -Colin
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    They could have used a better term I suppose; but I do like the heated mirrors and heated seats that come with that package.

    Bob
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Colin- A more appropriate term would be "Cold Weather Package" but then that would alienate southern buyers.

    -Frank P.
Sign In or Register to comment.