Howdy, Stranger!

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





Subaru Crew - Future Models II

12862872892912921112

Comments

  • prouloproulo 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.
  • 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 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
  • yet of this new Forester. I want to see more. The chicagoautoshow web site is horrible.
  • bblachabblacha 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 Posts: 21,181
    The only person you will be trading that Legacy 22b into is ME :)

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

    -mike
  • kenskens 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Sign In or Register to comment.