Thanks for the replies. My problem with those figures is the fact the Nissan 350Z weighs a little less, has more HP (77 HP more than published XT HP and 27 to 37 than claimed here in the chat posts) and torque than the XT but has a 0 to 60 time of 5.4 seconds. I don't believe C&D said the 350Z was any faster than the advertised 5.4 seconds either. Someone mentioned earlier that C&D tests every car the same which would mean the XT is faster than the 350Z. Numbers just don't add up. I know the STI is faster, but there is no way the XT is, even if it had the STI engine in it due to weight. That 5.3 seconds seems to be the WRX STI time which seems to be consistent with every other published article I've seen. I don't have a 350Z nor do I like that vehicle. I'm just using it as a comparison here. Did Nissan overstate HP and torque? I know Subaru and Honda usually understate HP. Maybe that's why I like those car manufacturers the most.
As a point of habit, I usually take the middle ground of every published HP report. C&D rated the 0 to 60 time for the Mazda RX-8 as being 5.9 seconds on the article when dropping the clutch and smoking the tires. However, I had that car and was one of the people who returned it. I wasn't too worried about being rough with it the last couple of weeks so I drove the heck out of it. There is no way under any circumstances that I could get the car to go 5.9 secs as stated by C&D. I believe Motor Trend is too low, C&D is too high. I believe the mid six second range (6.4 - 6.7) is probably the most accurate timing for the XT without any engine modifications. Otherwise, I would think some WRX owners would be baffled. Don't get me wrong, the XT is a great vehicle. I just don't believe the numbers, especially for what the vehicle is marketed as (and its price).
jchagtdi - "I have owned a quick car, a 2002 Nissan Altima 3.5SE. It had a published 0-60 of 6.4 sec. After driving the XT, there is no doubt in my mind that the XT can do the 0-60 in the low 5s" The 2002 Altima had 245 HP with 246 lbs of torque and weighed 3240 lbs (http://www.fast-autos.net/nissan/nissanaltima.html) which would be very similar to what some people here claim the Subaru XT actually has. That's why I believe the numbers are around that 6.4 second figure. It would make a whole lot more sense.
There have been XT's that matched (or within a hundredth of a second) C&D's 1/4 mile numbers at the dragstrip. You'll just have to trust me since I can't post a link here. ;-) But keep it quiet. We want to keep it a secret. :-)
You're forgetting one important thing that the 350Z doesn't have, that the XT does - AWD. The biggest problem launching the XT isn't wheelspin, it's bogging it down. Combine gobs of traction & low gearing, that's what gives you the fantastic 0-60 times (note also that you're in 3rd gear before you hit 60, so there's even an extra shift on the XT). Then there's the verified actual HP being in the 250 range instead of 210...
My wife has the 350Z's upscale brother - an Infiniti G35 coupe, which test very slightly slower 0-60 than the 350Z. The XT eats it for lunch, no contest
Like them or not, their data point to greatness for the Forester. Once again, the #1 small SUV in their overall rating, and now you can add "most satisfying" to the list of accomplishments.
350Z weighing less than the XT. That depends on which group. I see that the 350Z comes in at least 5 weight group 3,188 3,197 3,217 3,247 3,225 lbs respectively, and that's for MT, not much lighter or heavier than the XT @ 3,210 lbs.
350Z 287 hp @ 6,200 rpm 274 lb-ft @ 4,800 rpm
XT on paper 210 hp @ 5,600 rpm [dyno'd ~240] 235 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm [dyno'd ~250]
Torque moves the vehicle. How the XT could be fasted off the line over the 350Z is torque. True the 350Z has better torque numbers, but where do they reside from 0 - 4,800 rpm? Was hoping to find some sort of graph between the two.
As well as the Maxima. Front wheel drive. I drove a six speed Altima and Maxima and they are quick, but the front wheel drive makes the driving experience awful. Talk about wheel hop and torque steer, these cars are ridiculous. That said, I agree that a 5.3 second 0 to 60 time would be abusive. Motorweek did a more moderate run and achieved a 60 time of 6 seconds flat. It would be nice if some of the other publications would do some instrumented testing. You'd think a category buster like the XT would draw more attention. I often wonder if some of these car magazines are so obsessed with high end super cars (YAWN), they may resent something like the Forester.
juice wrote: "So owners like us really like our reliable, top-rated Foresters."
You definitely got a good one, juice. I just got back from the dealer, who charged me $350 to replace one damaged wheel bearing. SOA wouldn't lend any assistance, since I have 84K miles. Makes me think I'll be going back to a Nissan or Honda next time. As much as I like my Forester and my wife's Outback, I've spent all together just too much time, money and aggravation in fixing up all the little annoyances. Clutches, headgaskets and coil packs are killing me. Sorry.
Then why do they not demand bumper to bumper warranties to 100K?
I expect my Trooper not to have major problems, and I know that I'll get it because it's got a factory Powertrain warranty to 120K. I felt that I wanted to have 100K of no worries so I bought a 3rd party warranty to cover Bumper to Bumper to 100K to pickup where the factory one left off.
I think 10/100 warranties are more in demand. The Korean manufacturers are making hay off that feature. One reason we got the Nissan van was its 5/60 powertrain warranty vs 3/36 for most of the competition at the time.
but with Honda, you'd be out of warranty at 3yr/36k miles without an extended warranty of some sort. Your on your own after that.
I'd be upset too if it were my Subie. But, that's what extended warranties are for. Either you get one and gamble that you'll have a repair or don't get one and gamble that you won't have a repair after the standard warranty.
My friend's 2000 Accord with 110,000 miles on it just had a transmission replaced by the dealer. Honda picked up the cost of the tranny, and my friend paid about $500 for labor. Not so terrible. He had to call Honda customer service a couple of times, but eventually they gave him a break.
Saw on the news this eve. Consumers Mag rated the Forrester the BEST of the small Suvs.Lexus was best Mid-size and (I think) Honda was best of the large Suvs. We shall see soon...
I really love my Subarus. It's just that I have come to expect much, much more trouble free service from my vehicles. I guess I got spoiled with my trouble-free 190K and 240K Nissans and the over-200K Hondas of several people I know. Exceptional? Maybe. Maybe the 2 troublesome Subarus I have owned (out of 3 total) were the exception also. Then I can see how the rest of you find my situation hard to fathom. Like I would with someone with multiple problems with their Nissans, I guess.
If I had known the kind of problems I'd have, I would have bought the extended warranty on my Subaru. I guess I just expected better. And no, Mike, I wouldn't expect H or N to stand behind their cars out of warranty. I didn't expect Subaru to, either, and they did on my head gasket problem. For that, I commend them. It one of the things that will probably swing me back to Subaru for my next vehicle (and I'll DEFINITELY buy the extended warranty next time). But I'm the guy shelling out the bucks for the other problems, and I don't think a wheel bearing should go bad at less than 80K miles. Especially when it is a problem on so many vehicles, and not just mine.
Every time you heard someone said something about his friend's honda, it is fishy at least. Failure at 110000 miles on transmission is normal,there is no way (or obligation) for Honda to stick its neck out.... I had a Nissan Max with transmission went twice, one at 90k, and then 110k, what did Nissan do? they did nothing, I wont get Nissan anymore, I dont like their styling anyway, too feminine.....
I grew up with Hondas and my parents always seemed to have bulletproof ones which lasted forever but after my Integra needed a new clutch at less than 20K (and no it wasn't my left foot!) and a new ECU shortly after and the engine went to hell at 60K after the water pump disintegrated and my wifes Civic came out of the factory with the wrong alignment and a bad tranny I view ownership of any vehicle as someting of a gamble. Our Chevy Venture (except for a leaking manifold gasket at 38K) has provided absolutely sterling service for almost 70K now. Too bad the interior trim falls apart the moment the kids even look at it! Even our Ford Windstar which has had all sorts of things replaced under warranty or ext warranty has never left us stuck on the road - usually after dark in a MN blizzard like my Acura, or my two Audis, or my one and only BMW!
My wife's previous wagon was a 96 Honda Accord 4 cyl wagon. She had it meticulously (and expensively) maintained at every recommended dealer service. Those as we all know are usually well over the factory or Edmunds recommended services.
By the time 60K (5 years) rolled around she needed an exhaust system from the cat back - $500, a new airbag control module $800, the catalytic converter shields were falling off ($200 estimated). I had also replaced the battery at 4yrs, and the power steering pump. The pump was a warranty item at 35K, but only after I explained to the dealer that if he told me that weeping around the pump seals was normal one more time I was going to call Honda.
All that and despite regular cleaning and waxing it needed a paint job - really faded.
I wasn't impressed. Also, Honda doesn't make a wagon anymore as they want to push people into minivans and SUV's. I was glad they didn't make a wagon as it gave me an excuse to shop a different manufacturer. So we bought the Outback.
Right off the bat, let's agree that 84k miles is pretty close to 100k miles. So you got nearly what you wanted even though that is very, very optimistic.
My Mazda's front wheel bearing failed at fewer miles than that, and I paid $880 even after crying for a discount from the dealer. $350 is cheap!
The simple explanation from your 200K+ cars is this: luck. Period.
Look at CR again - at 5 years Subaru actually has fewer problems than Honda. They have a large sample, we're talking about a couple of cars, not at all scientific.
Honda gives you 3/36 period. Subaru gives a couple of extra years on the powertrain, and remember, beyond that 5th year they are more reliable long-term. So Honda is a bigger risk.
The Accords (and Acura TL's) had numerous transmission problems for several model years, and Honda extended the warranty on the transmission to 100,000 miles. My friend's was 10,000 over the warranty limit, but they still gave him a nice break by having him pay for labor only.
The Climate Control improvement is working beautifully. I am researching where I can get a smaller fan which would fit inside the temp sensor tube, instead of outside on the dashboard. No luck so far.
So my friend who already has a Boxster is looking at the Porsche Cayenne S. I agreed to help them test drive because I'm a nice guy. :-)
We took out the 65k V8 Cayenne in Crimson Red. It was amazing. I've been in / driven nice cars but the Cayenne really felt different.
Even though you're sitting up high (higher than my XT by a few inches) there is absolutely NO bodyroll when aggressively cornering. I took a hairpin turn and accelerated all the way through and Cayenne just held a very solid line. It was amazing.
I didn't abuse the motor (kept it under 4k) but that V8 can definitely move that car. The brakes were so smooth it felt like we were defying Physics. The steering was just phenomenal. Like I was connected to the road.
You can definitely feel where that extra 40k has gone in comparison to the Forester. Initially I teased my friend saying she was just buying an expensive VW, but after driving it I know that's 100% Porsche.
I'm not comparing the Cayenne to the Forester because that's not fair. But when comparing the Forester to other $25k cars I find it falls short in some key ergonomics/functionality areas. It's really too bad because that's what keeps it from being the truly great car it has potential to be....
Hmm weird I felt that the well broken in one that I drove was fairly weak for the $$$$. No more power or acceleration than my 3.5L V6 Trooper. And I was pushing that V8 around. Handling was what I'd expect of a uni-body vehicle of that weight with a good suspension.
I didn't push the V8 around, but at only 4k rpm I felt that there were ample reserves of power.
The ride was amazing, even on a moderately rough frontage road (probably the roughest equivatlent road my friend would encounter here in sunny So. Cal.)
The Cayenne felt solid on a whole other level (maybe two or three levels) than the Forester. Again, I'm not comparing the two....but I'm surprised others on here would not be as impressed as I was with that car.
Back to my opinion of the Forester, I'm already looking forward to selling it in a couple of years. It's gonna serve it's purpose but it's annoying lack of a usable climate control and complete design snafu on the darkened, recessed and unlit odometer drive me nuts every time I drive the car.
It's funny how the little things make all the difference.
Plan Terms Classic Gold Plus $100 DEDUCTIBLE 3 years / 45,000 miles $240 $350 4 years / 60,000 miles $320 $530 5 years / 60,000 miles $430 $700 6 years / 60,000 miles $550 $850 6 years / 80,000 miles $820 $1200 5 years / 100,000 miles $1200 $1500 6 years / 100,000 miles $1250 $1700 7 years / 100,000 miles $1450 $1950 $50 DEDUCTIBLE 3 years / 45,000 miles $300 $450 4 years / 60,000 miles $400 $650 5 years / 60,000 miles $500 $800 6 years / 60,000 miles $700 $920 6 years / 80,000 miles $1000 $1370 5 years / 100,000 miles $1400 $1750 6 years / 100,000 miles $1500 $1900 7 years / 100,000 miles $1700 $2150 $0 DEDUCTIBLE 3 years / 45,000 miles $450 $600 4 years / 60,000 miles $550 $800 5 years / 60,000 miles $650 $900 6 years / 60,000 miles $800 $1100 6 years / 80,000 miles $1200 $1580 5 years / 100,000 miles $1600 $1990 6 years / 100,000 miles $1800 $2170 7 years / 100,000 miles $2000 $2460
Honda extended the warranty on Odysseys (and Accords and Preludes) for '99 - '01's to 7 years; 100,000 miles due to a high (2%?) failure rate. So replacing one at 110,000 seems very believable to me.
About the Forester and the WRX that I test drove. Yes, great performance, but there's just something lacking in refinement that keeps Soobies from dominating in their class. A class they could have all to themselves. Listen to this:
Keep the open, airy cabins. Keep fighting curb weight bloat that the Germans seem to be stricken with. Give it the reliability of Acura. Have the interior come close to Audi/VW in look and feel. Have the low-end grunt and power of the German uber sedans.
What do you get? A vehicle that somebody who wants a more direct driving experience than a TL. More reliable and more affordable than BMW 3-series, A4 and Volvo. A great niche to be in! Now, repeat with the Forester, Impreza and new 7-seater.
Hmm... the Forester already has the airy cabin, acceptable curb weight, reliability, an attractive interior, and more low-end grunt than just about anything on the road today. Really Subaru is doing pretty good when the biggest thing to complain about is the intuitiveness of the auto AC. Oh yeah, and the gauges on the dash are a little hard to see in certain light conditions :-) Speaking of which, I've noticed that the sun has an annoying tendency to reflect off the hood scoop into the driver's eyes.
Stuhall- Can the Forester be improved? Well of course it can and no doubt will be but do you honestly think you're going to find an absolutely perfect vehicle for $25k? Or at any price for that matter?
I think the 2005 Legacy and Outback will offer those.
You can still see that the Forester has cost controls - look at the peach-fuzz-on-cardboard headliner. But I still think it's better than average for its price class.
The 2005 Outback has nicer materials, including a padded headliner covered in a nice fabric. Even the A-pillar is. The whole interior design is nicer, actually.
While an F-XT manual goes for less than $24k, I don't think we can reasonably demand more than that. Jettas have nice interior, but price a loaded 1.8T wagon and you're talking $28 grand for a FWD sub compact, it's ridiculous.
So I'm going to disagree, keep the Forester at the current price level, send upscale buyers towards an Outback XT or H6, at higher prices. If you insist on an SUV, then the 7 seater is supposed to be the most off-road capable Subaru ever, so buy that.
I don't see Subaru selling a premium compact SUV for $30 grand, I'm not sure they would sell very many.
I just appreciate the philosophy that both of these car manufacturers have. They give you the reliability along with the performance at a reasonable cost. I don't believe I'd ever get another European vehicle. I used to have a BMW Z3. The arrogance that those companies have is mind boggling and it makes me smile when Subaru, Honda, or Toyota make a vehicle that is just as good as an overpriced German one. In the Consumer Reports 2004 issue, it made me wonder if Audi or Mercedes even cared about reliability. Every Mercedes vehicle if I'm not mistaken had a full black dot (poor reliability), but the depreciation rate is excellent. That shows how significant image is to people. I suppose that's why reliability doesn't even have to be important to Mercedes (or Audi). BMW may have the superior handling than a lot of vehicles in its class, but their options pricing is ridculous. The reliability of most of their vehicles were marked as average. As for Porsche, you have to get the S version of the Boxster or Cayenne before it is able to outperform competitors which are a lot less. At least Porsche has decent reliability ratings.
Several years ago Subaru and Honda weren't coming close to the German vehicles concerning performance, but now, they are competing quite well with an added bonus of reliability and a better bang for your buck.
I've been out for a while. Where did Jack go? Did he sell his XT?. I know he wasn't all that thrilled with the 5-speed.
By the way, Juice, I missed out on the chance to pick up a year-old Impreza (the buyer for my car back out at the last minute--must have seen the Consumer Reports, too).
Well, I'm going to hold off until the '05 Outbacks arrive. I like the Forester better than the current Outbacks (especially the driving position and visibility), but I could not get comfortable with either MT. I'm hoping the '05 OB somehow resolves this for me, although I'm not really sure how. But as they say in baseball: "You don't win pennants on paper; that's why they play the games."
I was totally turned off by a sophomoric defense of street racing here awhile ago. When you've directly experienced the devastation that immature street racers cause, you lose all tolerance for those who participate and those who defend it.
I'm sorry for whatever happened; it clearly meant a lot. I can't imagine anyone defending such actions.
Anyhow, thanks for helping me (especially in being prepared for the XT MT experience). I for one appreciate your wealth of information, your wit, and your unique persepective.
Porsche is the one with ridiculous options prices. My buddy bought a Boxster and the wood package was something like $5 grand. One Porsche option listed as "Footwell Lighting" goes for $750.
For a light bulb?! $7.50 sounds fair. It's 100 times overpriced.
since i cant get off the fence until I can test drive the new Legacy GT and OB XT, I might as well lurk back in the FXT board....get my turbo envy back up where it belongs.
Driving up at elevation today, wishing I had a turbo. Mmm, turbo envy...
Realized how much I hate traffic once I got off the mountain roads and started mumbling under my breath at other drivers on the highway.
Also found out a couple of states (including mine) have passed new regs in regards to road rage driving, including those folks planted in the left lane. Hoooray!
Having a turbo, I wish for a twin-turbo. Also a dual-range case is desirable. You will always have a reason to be unsatisfied a little with any car you have. It's human to perfect.
Comments
Vishnu and Cobb both say 250+ and dyno #'s were posted on nabisco. :-)
-Dennis
As a point of habit, I usually take the middle ground of every published HP report. C&D rated the 0 to 60 time for the Mazda RX-8 as being 5.9 seconds on the article when dropping the clutch and smoking the tires. However, I had that car and was one of the people who returned it. I wasn't too worried about being rough with it the last couple of weeks so I drove the heck out of it. There is no way under any circumstances that I could get the car to go 5.9 secs as stated by C&D. I believe Motor Trend is too low, C&D is too high. I believe the mid six second range (6.4 - 6.7) is probably the most accurate timing for the XT without any engine modifications. Otherwise, I would think some WRX owners would be baffled. Don't get me wrong, the XT is a great vehicle. I just don't believe the numbers, especially for what the vehicle is marketed as (and its price).
jchagtdi - "I have owned a quick car, a 2002 Nissan Altima 3.5SE. It had a published 0-60 of 6.4 sec. After driving the XT, there is no doubt in my mind that the XT can do the 0-60 in the low 5s" The 2002 Altima had 245 HP with 246 lbs of torque and weighed 3240 lbs (http://www.fast-autos.net/nissan/nissanaltima.html) which would be very similar to what some people here claim the Subaru XT actually has. That's why I believe the numbers are around that 6.4 second figure. It would make a whole lot more sense.
The STi does 0-60 in under 5 seconds.
-Dennis
My wife has the 350Z's upscale brother - an Infiniti G35 coupe, which test very slightly slower 0-60 than the 350Z. The XT eats it for lunch, no contest
Guess what? Their estimate was 0-60 in 5.25 seconds. So C&D are a bunch of slow pokes! LOL
All I can say is DRIVE one, boy does it feel every bit that quick.
BTW, one dyno run had torque at 265 lb-ft!
-juice
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040308/ap- _on_bi_ge/consumer_reports_glance_1
So owners like us really like our reliable, top-rated Foresters.
Oh, and if you read the magazine, guess who wins the #1 spot in their safety assessment?
Sorry, I know, sounds like a broken record, eh?
-juice
350Z
287 hp @ 6,200 rpm
274 lb-ft @ 4,800 rpm
XT on paper
210 hp @ 5,600 rpm [dyno'd ~240]
235 lb-ft @ 3,600 rpm [dyno'd ~250]
Torque moves the vehicle. How the XT could be fasted off the line over the 350Z is torque. True the 350Z has better torque numbers, but where do they reside from 0 - 4,800 rpm? Was hoping to find some sort of graph between the two.
By dividing the torque into 1k rpm*
350Z = 57 lb-ft/1000 rpm
XT = 69 lb-ft/1000 rpm [using dyno'd est. #s]
The XT should leave the line sooner than the 350Z, even with the torque numbers on paper.
-Dave
*not a proven science, I think.
Also, look at 5-60 acceleration runs, they're still amazing.
-juice
You definitely got a good one, juice. I just got back from the dealer, who charged me $350 to replace one damaged wheel bearing. SOA wouldn't lend any assistance, since I have 84K miles. Makes me think I'll be going back to a Nissan or Honda next time. As much as I like my Forester and my wife's Outback, I've spent all together just too much time, money and aggravation in fixing up all the little annoyances. Clutches, headgaskets and coil packs are killing me. Sorry.
Len
-Brian
-mike
Steve, Host
That's only 1 year for paisan!
DaveM
Hey, my '97 Outback rolled over 45,000 miles last week. All those dang trips to the ski hill are pouring the miles on!
Steve, Host
I expect my Trooper not to have major problems, and I know that I'll get it because it's got a factory Powertrain warranty to 120K. I felt that I wanted to have 100K of no worries so I bought a 3rd party warranty to cover Bumper to Bumper to 100K to pickup where the factory one left off.
-mike
Steve, Host
I'd be upset too if it were my Subie. But, that's what extended warranties are for. Either you get one and gamble that you'll have a repair or don't get one and gamble that you won't have a repair after the standard warranty.
-Brian
Proud XT Owner-Deadeye Sends
If I had known the kind of problems I'd have, I would have bought the extended warranty on my Subaru. I guess I just expected better. And no, Mike, I wouldn't expect H or N to stand behind their cars out of warranty. I didn't expect Subaru to, either, and they did on my head gasket problem. For that, I commend them. It one of the things that will probably swing me back to Subaru for my next vehicle (and I'll DEFINITELY buy the extended warranty next time). But I'm the guy shelling out the bucks for the other problems, and I don't think a wheel bearing should go bad at less than 80K miles. Especially when it is a problem on so many vehicles, and not just mine.
Len
I had a Nissan Max with transmission went twice, one at 90k, and then 110k, what did Nissan do? they did nothing, I wont get Nissan anymore, I dont like their styling anyway, too feminine.....
By the time 60K (5 years) rolled around she needed an exhaust system from the cat back - $500, a new airbag control module $800, the catalytic converter shields were falling off ($200 estimated). I had also replaced the battery at 4yrs, and the power steering pump. The pump was a warranty item at 35K, but only after I explained to the dealer that if he told me that weeping around the pump seals was normal one more time I was going to call Honda.
All that and despite regular cleaning and waxing it needed a paint job - really faded.
I wasn't impressed. Also, Honda doesn't make a wagon anymore as they want to push people into minivans and SUV's. I was glad they didn't make a wagon as it gave me an excuse to shop a different manufacturer. So we bought the Outback.
Larry
My Mazda's front wheel bearing failed at fewer miles than that, and I paid $880 even after crying for a discount from the dealer. $350 is cheap!
The simple explanation from your 200K+ cars is this: luck. Period.
Look at CR again - at 5 years Subaru actually has fewer problems than Honda. They have a large sample, we're talking about a couple of cars, not at all scientific.
Honda gives you 3/36 period. Subaru gives a couple of extra years on the powertrain, and remember, beyond that 5th year they are more reliable long-term. So Honda is a bigger risk.
-juice
The Climate Control improvement is working beautifully. I am researching where I can get a smaller fan which would fit inside the temp sensor tube, instead of outside on the dashboard. No luck so far.
We took out the 65k V8 Cayenne in Crimson Red. It was amazing. I've been in / driven nice cars but the Cayenne really felt different.
Even though you're sitting up high (higher than my XT by a few inches) there is absolutely NO bodyroll when aggressively cornering. I took a hairpin turn and accelerated all the way through and Cayenne just held a very solid line. It was amazing.
I didn't abuse the motor (kept it under 4k) but that V8 can definitely move that car. The brakes were so smooth it felt like we were defying Physics. The steering was just phenomenal. Like I was connected to the road.
You can definitely feel where that extra 40k has gone in comparison to the Forester. Initially I teased my friend saying she was just buying an expensive VW, but after driving it I know that's 100% Porsche.
I'm not comparing the Cayenne to the Forester because that's not fair. But when comparing the Forester to other $25k cars I find it falls short in some key ergonomics/functionality areas. It's really too bad because that's what keeps it from being the truly great car it has potential to be....
If you get a chance, drive the Cayenne. :-)
It's just too much mass, you can teach an Elephant to dance, but you're still dancing with an Elephant.
-juice
-mike
The ride was amazing, even on a moderately rough frontage road (probably the roughest equivatlent road my friend would encounter here in sunny So. Cal.)
The Cayenne felt solid on a whole other level (maybe two or three levels) than the Forester. Again, I'm not comparing the two....but I'm surprised others on here would not be as impressed as I was with that car.
Back to my opinion of the Forester, I'm already looking forward to selling it in a couple of years. It's gonna serve it's purpose but it's annoying lack of a usable climate control and complete design snafu on the darkened, recessed and unlit odometer drive me nuts every time I drive the car.
It's funny how the little things make all the difference.
Plan Terms Classic Gold Plus
$100 DEDUCTIBLE
3 years / 45,000 miles $240 $350
4 years / 60,000 miles $320 $530
5 years / 60,000 miles $430 $700
6 years / 60,000 miles $550 $850
6 years / 80,000 miles $820 $1200
5 years / 100,000 miles $1200 $1500
6 years / 100,000 miles $1250 $1700
7 years / 100,000 miles $1450 $1950
$50 DEDUCTIBLE
3 years / 45,000 miles $300 $450
4 years / 60,000 miles $400 $650
5 years / 60,000 miles $500 $800
6 years / 60,000 miles $700 $920
6 years / 80,000 miles $1000 $1370
5 years / 100,000 miles $1400 $1750
6 years / 100,000 miles $1500 $1900
7 years / 100,000 miles $1700 $2150
$0 DEDUCTIBLE
3 years / 45,000 miles $450 $600
4 years / 60,000 miles $550 $800
5 years / 60,000 miles $650 $900
6 years / 60,000 miles $800 $1100
6 years / 80,000 miles $1200 $1580
5 years / 100,000 miles $1600 $1990
6 years / 100,000 miles $1800 $2170
7 years / 100,000 miles $2000 $2460
link
Steve, Host
We lobbied hard and Patti said we got 8 things in the 2003 model that we had been asking for.
Funny thing is I counted 9.
-juice
Keep the open, airy cabins. Keep fighting curb weight bloat that the Germans seem to be stricken with. Give it the reliability of Acura. Have the interior come close to Audi/VW in look and feel. Have the low-end grunt and power of the German uber sedans.
What do you get? A vehicle that somebody who wants a more direct driving experience than a TL. More reliable and more affordable than BMW 3-series, A4 and Volvo. A great niche to be in! Now, repeat with the Forester, Impreza and new 7-seater.
-B
Stuhall- Can the Forester be improved? Well of course it can and no doubt will be but do you honestly think you're going to find an absolutely perfect vehicle for $25k? Or at any price for that matter?
-Frank P.
You can still see that the Forester has cost controls - look at the peach-fuzz-on-cardboard headliner. But I still think it's better than average for its price class.
The 2005 Outback has nicer materials, including a padded headliner covered in a nice fabric. Even the A-pillar is. The whole interior design is nicer, actually.
While an F-XT manual goes for less than $24k, I don't think we can reasonably demand more than that. Jettas have nice interior, but price a loaded 1.8T wagon and you're talking $28 grand for a FWD sub compact, it's ridiculous.
So I'm going to disagree, keep the Forester at the current price level, send upscale buyers towards an Outback XT or H6, at higher prices. If you insist on an SUV, then the 7 seater is supposed to be the most off-road capable Subaru ever, so buy that.
I don't see Subaru selling a premium compact SUV for $30 grand, I'm not sure they would sell very many.
-juice
Several years ago Subaru and Honda weren't coming close to the German vehicles concerning performance, but now, they are competing quite well with an added bonus of reliability and a better bang for your buck.
By the way, Juice, I missed out on the chance to pick up a year-old Impreza (the buyer for my car back out at the last minute--must have seen the Consumer Reports, too).
Well, I'm going to hold off until the '05 Outbacks arrive. I like the Forester better than the current Outbacks (especially the driving position and visibility), but I could not get comfortable with either MT. I'm hoping the '05 OB somehow resolves this for me, although I'm not really sure how. But as they say in baseball: "You don't win pennants on paper; that's why they play the games."
Zman
I'm sorry for whatever happened; it clearly meant a lot. I can't imagine anyone defending such actions.
Anyhow, thanks for helping me (especially in being prepared for the XT MT experience). I for one appreciate your wealth of information, your wit, and your unique persepective.
Walker
For a light bulb?! $7.50 sounds fair. It's 100 times overpriced.
-juice
John
Mark
Realized how much I hate traffic once I got off the mountain roads and started mumbling under my breath at other drivers on the highway.
Also found out a couple of states (including mine) have passed new regs in regards to road rage driving, including those folks planted in the left lane. Hoooray!
-B
Zman