By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Jon
Oh Mike....
Grand High Poobah
The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
I wasn't just indicating that I didn't see AWD wagons in the events I went to. I have seen lifted Zukes there doing quite well. I have seen old Brats that might climb over a Probe, one of our Jeeps can climb the hood of a F-250. That isn't the point either. The point is there are lots of fire roads, dirt roads through the desert, and dry lake beds. Now from the many posts we have seen in here you would expect that while out on one of these roads I would hardly ever see a SUV. As you said, only about 3 percent of the time? But I do see them. I see lots of lifted Jeeps, true, and that is to be expected. I travel back in the mountains exploring old silver mines and abandoned mills as well. So yes I know I must already be in the minority of SUV and Truck owners. But granting that I do off road you have to admit I would be in a position to see WRXs, Rally cars, Lancers, rally cars, and any number of AWD wagons or vans, driving to or from these events or explorations.
I know we are expressing opinions in these forums but it does seem strange to complain about the low number of SUV drivers that off road when the number of Rally car drivers may represent an even lower number of drivers using their cars they way they were designed. If you get my point? Who then is the more guilty of being a pretender? Who then is the more worthy of throwing rocks at their reasons for buying their vehicle? The sports car driver that never drives his car at a sporting event, or even to a sporting event. The Rally car driver that never drives his car at or to a rally? Or is the real issue that one vehicle is more popular than the other and somehow that isn't fair?
See how easy the issue of need and or useage can turn against you? It all just depends on where you are standing.
the funny thing about the wrx wagon, and so many of the new small wagons, is that its shape severlely limits the usability of its rear cargo area unless you fold the rear seats down, thus making the Forester or other small SUV eminently more practical. i think that must be why the ford escape is so popular...smaller SUV but retains the higher driving position and the cuboid storage area.
As for the offroaders in this part of North carolina, almost all the climbers, runners , paddlers and bikers drive subarus, especially outback wagons, or small to mid size japanese SUV's..nobody in the tahoe/expedition class, and even my exploer is the big car in the bunch. we drive to the trail head and hike, ride or paddle from there. subaru's very public sponsorship of so many outdoor sport events around here probably helps their popularity with that crowd. there really isnt anyplace in the mountains to do high speed offroading in your vehicle...its just too steep and tight.
Did you go to the Rim of the World Rally this year? NASIOC had one of its biggest meets ever. It was huge. I bet the parking lot was 30% Subies.
OK, you see SUVs, and hardly see Subies. Let's keep something in mind, though. Subaru has a 1% overall market share, and that's only recently. It was more like 0.5% back in 1995.
You're more likely to see older vehicles on those trails, so if 1 out of every 200 vehicles you see are Subarus, then that means the same percentage of Subaru owners go off road. In other words, they are statistically well represented.
What % of owners Rally their Subies? I'm sure it's about the same as the % of SUVs off road. Good point.
But at least the AWD is in use full-time. Look how often it rains or snows. Here in DC, we've had something like 7 dry weekend so far this YEAR! The extra ground clearance gets you over speed bumps without scraping the bumpers.
So sure, they're lighter duty than SUVs, but you're more likely to use them as intended even in daily driving.
Most 4x4s have part-time systems, those will get used much less often, is my point.
-juice
Suburban
Expendition
Excursion
F250
Dodge 2500
Chevy 2500HD
Rarely seen:
Blazer S10
Blazer K5
Explorer
Trailblazer
Yukon
Tahoe
F150
1500 series Dodge/Chevy
Pathfinder
Most often seen:
4-runner
Discoveries
Jeep Wranger
Jeep Cherokee
Isuzus
Suzuki
Most of the serious off-roaders build up their vehicles from stock and therefore can't be counted into "offroad vehicles" I'm not talking skid plates and minor 1-2" lift or rockerbars or bumpers, I'm talking about 4" body lifts 2" suspension lifts, sawzalled fenders, lockers, etc. etc.
Check out my webpage, especially the events section. http://isuzu-suvs.com for pics of subies offroad as well as all kinds of offroaders.
-mike
What I would have expected however is that these cars would be all over our many desert roads and dry lake beds simply because they see quite a few now that the WRX has been imported. But no, they try to turn them into street racers and that quite frankly is not their strongest suite. Remember that except for the mountains where I live most people will get maybe 14 days of wet streets all year. Half of those wet streets are at night when people are at home. A stock WRX is no real match for a RSX on a winding twisty mountain road without some serious straight a ways.
Different areas so different cars interest enthusiasts.
-mike
Like I said, in DC we've had only a few weekends so far this year that were dry. We had 6 significant accumulations of snow, including that blizzard with a couple of feet.
And we're south of the Mason-Dixon line! :-)
mike does have a point, I test drove several FWD-based AWD vehicles, the ones that are in FWD until you slip. They feel a lot different in day-to-day driving, for instance they have torque steer. They also push more (understeer more). I just didn't like the way they felt.
With Subies, torque steer is non-existent, and they handle more neutral. In the dry. In the wet there is no comparison, AWD rules.
-juice
subewannabe: I ran with that NC crowd in the late '80s - early '90s; that was my intro to Subies. Lots of work and play in north GA/TN/NC/SC. Memories of that time and friends' long-term successes with the cars stuck in my mind when I went car shopping in fall 1999. And here I am.
Ed
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291908527
You have to register with imagestation but it's worth it. It's free and they send very little junk mail.
Notable pics include:
1. Karl Shieble's signed poster to our club
3. My Forester at the beach
4. Forester in Australia catching major air
5. Forester at Rally Cross
6. Forester at Auto Cross
7. OB towing a 4Runner out of a mud pit
15. Pine Barrens water crossing
17. Me driving through the woods
OK, I'm the odd ball that actually does some of this stuff, but it's never suffered any damage whatsoever.
-juice
Are you perpetuating the (photochopped) airborn Forester myth? Bad boy!
-james
mark
Do I believe a FWD RSX is faster on the dry pavement? Sure, almost 1000 pounds lighter. 200 HP sits lower stock and lower still after market. About as close to a type R as I will ever drive. In the Touring car events the Type R and BMWs are about the top of the class. Mazda is making a strong run and I think they even got Foo to drive for them. AWD adds weight and weight doesn't care how many wheels are driving it around a corner. Speed Challenge champs 2000 was a Type R I believe. 2001 may have been a type R as well. 2002 was a BMW I believe. I could go back and check if you would like?
Let me give you an example for my statement. Speed World Challenge Touring cars at Road Atlanta. 42 cars were entered. Fastest qualifying AWD car was a Audi A4 at number 35. Fastest Subaru was number 36. Number one qualifying was a BMW RWD and number two and three were Mazda ProtegeES and then another BMW. AWD doesn't help all that much in the dry I am afraid. At least not enough to cover the weight penalty it would seem.
-mike
Edit...
RSX= 2721lbs, 161hp/141lbs torque, 6" of ground clearance, and 101.2" wheelbase
WRX= 3126lbs, 227hp/217lbs torqu, 6.1" of clearance and 99.4" wheelbase
RSX type S= 2778lbs, 200hp/142lbs torque, 5.9" of clearance and 101.2" wheelbase
WRX STi = 3263lbs, 300hp/300lbs torque, 5.7" of clearance and a 100" wheelbase
I bet the F/R balance is closer to 50/50 on the subies also.
This also has very little to do with SUVs and wagons.
If it is an advantage maybe you can tell us why Subaru isn't tearing up the track at the Speed Challenge tracks? Looking at MotorTrends Slalom results it doesn't seem to give an advantage there either. So, it isn't an advantage in a drag race, it isn't an advantage in a SCCA touring Car event, and it isn't an advantage in a car magazines slalom results. Just where is it or what gives it an advantage in the dry stuff? By the way, MororTrend even spent the big bucks for the special wheels and tires on their WRX and still they were disappointed in the Slalom times that extra, close to 4k, got them. Being a Subaru fan I am sure you have read it?
If you've ever driven an AWD car on a regular basis you'll realize there is a distinct advantage, not just some # crunching theortical stuff. Heck if you read magazines like that you'd think every SUV will rollover, especially an Isuzu Trooper that I drive as well, and never rolled it yet, even when driving it pretty much on the edge. So "theoretical" test are just that.
So in your little niche of racing AWD isn't warranted, big deal, good for you. You say you live in the mts, surely the WRX turbo would be at an advantage over a NA RSX just on that fact alone. How many AWD miles do YOU have under your belt? I have about 200K of RWD, 120K of FWD and about 300K+ of AWD. That's a pretty big sampling, and I'll take AWD then RWD then FWD anyday.
-mike
Steve, Host
In all there is a series of 5 photos that show the entire jump.
boaz47: don't forget that Audi was eating up the BTTC until they banned AWD.
Also, it's interesting that you bring up the Prelude, which is not at all a typical FWD car. In fact, it's reveled for not being like most front drivers. Let's call it a rare exception.
-juice
I too have a Prelude and two Subies. The Subies are so much better than the Prelude in adverse conditions, I can't believe you're making that statement.
Bob
If you've ever driven an AWD car on a regular basis you'll realize there is a distinct advantage, not just some # crunching theortical stuff. Heck if you read magazines like that you'd think every SUV will rollover, especially an Isuzu Trooper that I drive as well, and never rolled it yet, even when driving it pretty much on the edge. So "theoretical" test are just that.
It's a mistake to write off magazine road tests. There's a lot of valuable info to be found in controlled magazine road tests. You don't have to agree with everything, but they'll find stuff you or I will never find. The bigger mistake, IMO, is not to read them.
Bob
I bet Bob can't make it up his driveway in the Prelude if the ground is frozen (and not yet sanded).
I saw a Prelude pull two jet skis out of the water on a wet boat ramp. It managed, but it was pretty funny. Lots of tire spin.
Any how, AWD strikes a nice balance between cost, efficiency, and what people actually need, vs. what brochures have them dreaming about doing.
-juice
The subject is still wagons and SUVs isn't it? *S*
-juice
Now if someone would put gas at the rear and electrics at the front....
I do agree about the gas powering the rear axle, though.
-juice
As I recall (and this was some time ago), there are inconsistencies in the background: the people on the hill, in particular. And the Forester isn't even the same vehicle in all 5 shots. That seems like a gross mistake on the part of the "photo-chopper", but that is the way that I remember it.
You may want to try to find the sequence again to confirm if it's a fake or if I'm delusional.
-james
In other words, you'd have a regular FWD vehicle, with no driveshaft going to the rear axle. The rear axle (or even each individual rear wheel) would have its own electric motor, independent from the gas powertrain.
It's sort of the opposite of Honda's IMA, Integrated Motor Assist, which lets the engine and the electric motor operate in conjunction with each other on the same axle (front only).
-juice
It's a blue Forester S, pre-2001. You can see the color and the rims in every photo so it is the same vehicle. There are two people in the background that are in each photo except the middle one, when they are entirely blocked by the vehicle.
The guy who owned it was an active member of the Yahoo Forester club, probably back in 1999 or so, when it was discussed. There's no reason not to believe it.
If you want a copy of all 5, lemme know.
-juice
If you'd like, I could send you some nice Subie 360 pics and a happy-face Forester.
-james
I realize lots of stuff is photochopped nowadays, and some are really good, but to be honest I don't think these are. Perhaps there was so much talk about it being Urban Legend that it became so!
-juice
Of course, I forgot all about the relatively active one: AWD, FWD, RWD Wagons - Which is the Best?
Steve, Host
As summer vacationing in these mountains hits its peak, I continue to search for the FIRST oversize luxury SUV towing anything. Still lots of pickups towing campers and RV's towing everything imaginable, including SUV's!
-juice
I wonder if the greater torque and hp on the 2005 outback or Legacy Gt will increase the towing capacity...or is that braking/ frame/ suspension limitation on those wagons?
Subaru of America is *very* conservative. Most manufacturers are, for instance they require trailer brakes if you tow over 1000 lbs. Thing is, most trailers under 3000 lbs don't have brakes. So what do you do if you have a 1000-3000 lb load?
Even full-size SUVs and trucks have that restriction.
-juice
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
I don't need off-road capability, just the space. I have a family with two teenagers, a pre-teen, and a child. I have driven a full-size van for the last 12 years and now want a smaller vehicle that has fun new features, a sun roof, a comfortable ride, is quiet inside, gets good gas mileage, has rear air conditioning control (I would also prefer dual front air control), and really fits the 6 of us. I do not want a mini-van (just tired of vans). I have been searching and comparing vehicles on this site for quite a while, but I have to go a long way before I find out if it only seats 5. For example, I just decided to consider wagons since many of the new ones are quite sporty looking. But they don't tell me right off how many they seat. Or if I ask for comparison vehicles to something like the Honda Pilot which seats 8, it puts up others that only seat 5.
I have driven and considered the Chrysler Pacifica, Volvo S80 (actually can get 4 in the back seat), and the Acura MDX. I would like to see a Honda Pilot but can't locate one in my area, and received a message from Edmunds that local dealers would contact me, but that was a week ago and I haven't heard anything.
I have not driven them yet, but I understand that I can get a bench front seat for the Toyota Avalon and the Dodge Intrepid. But Edmunds comments that the Avalon is pricey and I suspect that the Intrepid is not close enough to the luxury ride that I would like to come close to for an in-between price. My husband wants to consider a Ford Expedition because they are on sale in our area for about $6,000 off right now, but I haven't driven one and your site says that it drives as big as it looks. I don't want another BIG car! We've looked at vehicles priced up to $40,000, most being in the $35,000 range. However, my husband would like to stay in the $25-30,000 price range, and I suspect I may need to go with a used vehicle to hit that.
Any comments from anyone else about the vehicles that I have mentioned, or about any wagons or other vehicles, new or used, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
good luck. 05 crossovers from subaru and audi will fill your bill, but probably not for under $30K (definitely not the audi A7)
Mark
Used is OK. For example, you mentioned Audi. Do they have anything now that works? If so, but it is too expensive, I can look for one that is, let's say, 2 years old.
I do plan to look at the Intrepid, but my local dealer does not have a bench seat for me to try.
Haven't made it to the Toyota dealer yet, but I want to see the Avalon with a front bench and see if they have an SUV that seats 6.
Is a "crown vic," a "grandmother" looking car?
-Frank P.
The RDV has the same but 5" longer platform of the Aztek, the rear suspension is different, can have 3 rows of seats, etc etc.
Do yourself a favor, go to a Buick Dealer and try one. I am sure you will talk different, it happened to me too.
Oh, please! There's always an Aztek basher in the crowd. Sorry, but that's not a correct statement, Frank. While, the Aztek and the Rendezvous share the same 3.6L V6 engine, they're very different vehicles. It might be said that they're cousins, but certainly not twins! The wheelbase of the Rendezvous is 112", the Aztel is 108". This helps give the RDV a better ride than the Aztek. The Rendezvous is 187" long and the Aztek is 182". The Rendezvous is 69" tall and the Aztek is 67". Of course, the interiors are completely different, with the Aztek appealing more to the Gen-X'ers with orange and black instrumentation. The RDV has emerald green analog gauges -- very elegant. And, the rest of the interiors are very different -- from materials, to colors, to design -- with the RDV being much more luxurious, refined and comfortable.
If you're looking for a sub-25k 6 or 7 passenger vehicle, you at least ought to give the RDV a test-drive. Oh yeah, the Aztek doesn't come with third row seating, while the RDV does (no doubt because the RDV is longer!)
Lots of options if you are patient and a smart shopper for used cars.
Good luck!
P.S. The Rendezvous has no restrictions for 5 footers in the third row! I'm 6'3" and I fit comfortably in the back row!
-mike