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
Bob
FWIW, even CAR (UK) magazine declared it best road-going off roader for the money, citing its solif rear axle, minimal overhangs, undercarriage armor, grunt, etc.
So it does have off road cred as far as I am concerned. Of course, few buyers will care.
People who buy Hummers (for the right or wrong reasons) are no different from those who buy a 180 mph Ferrari. Unless you're an extreme hard-core off-roader (Hummer) or live in Germany (Ferrari) near the Autobann. there's no way you can rationally justify either of those purchases. Frankly, of the two, I'd prefer the H2.
Mike-
The aerodynamics of the H2 are no worse than that of your boxy Trooper.
Bob
-mike
Vibe, Beetle, Civic hybrid? Bang for the buck? Uh-huh.
-juice
Bit, check your emial...
Idahodoug, Mosquitos? actually they aren't too bad this year. However thats a relative term. Even on a good year they are still worse here than many parts of the country. A good can of spray with DEET certainly helps. Use it carefully as with any chemicals.
--jay
Bob
Since decals or stickers are available for inkjet printers maybe all we need is a image each could download and print themselves?
--jay
http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirf16_20020816.htm
I know everyone here hates the car. You're not alone here, as the the automotive press has been equally harsh. My attitude is more that of a "wait-and see." I do agree that it's not much to look at, however.
Bob
Bob: you didn't exceed the GVWR of your trailer, did you? ;-)
jay: I didn't know you could get stickers for inkjet printers.
We were trying to convince Edmunds.com to print T-shirts. I'd buy one. Maybe we could have it say "Edmunds.com Subaru Crew".
Along those lines, I got the HP 1315 Photo Printer at home, and it's awesome. You can plug in Memory Sticks, directly into the printer, without even using a PC, and print photos. Very cool. It takes 8.5"x11" paper, or you can cut those to make 4 photos of 4"x6" size. The quality is excellent.
My camera is a 3.3 megapixel, and I've done 8"x10"s that you'd swear were 35mm prints. I have not tried bigger, but with that many megapixels supposedly you can go to 11"x17".
-juice
With regular paper, the prints come out so-so, not photo quality. So I'm buying the glossy coated stuff. It seems that the thicker, the better. 8 mil or higher works for me. Costco had Epson paper, 100 sheets for $20. I can do 400 photo prints, though.
The printer also takes other media, I think Smart Media and PC Cards. You can also, or course, hook it up to the PC.
I have an old Mavica, the ones that work with floppies, and surprisingly it's fine for a small 4"x6" print, but not for enlargements. I still use it for e-mail, though, because the file size is much smaller.
-juice
Paisan: Silver Trooper, clad in all sorts of roo-bars and brush guards, always making at least 110 MPH (even in Manhatten traffic)
Juice: dark green Forester, cornering very flatly (even on the straight road)
Kate5000: silver Forester, parked, while she's taking yet another picture of it.
Rsholland: Explorer with a trailer loaded to the gills
Lucien2: just follow a Legacy GT with smell of a good wine. There's always a bottle of your favorite vintage in the trunk.
Lilbluewagon: there are only 2 Subarus in FL, and his is a blue one.
Kens: you cannot really see his car. It's so shiny from multilayers of Klasse that you'll go blind just from looking at it.
:-) feel free to add to the list
They are clear window decals. They work OK but tend to fade in the sun. I've had 3 in the back window for about a year. The yellow one faded the most but the dark blue one faded too. Just try not to use 'white', since that comes out as clear. End of the year I'll print new ones and replace.
Olympus 2040 2.2 megapixel for me. great camera. next one will have a higher pixel count for bigger enlagements. 8x10 is about the max for high quality for this camera.
--jay
Look for the "TIS HER SUBARU" on the back of Mike Smith's GT wagon. Er, his wife's, that is.
My wife's Legacy has a single moonroof, so it stands out. Plus you'll notice the Legacy Turbo rims (spotless inside and out).
-juice
Ed
-mike
juice -- I haven't tried 11x17 with a 3.3MP file, but I'm pretty sure you'll start to notice pixelation at that level. Theoretically, you need 8MP to rival the true potential of 35mm film. However, most consumer grade cameras don't have the lens and exposure meters (as well as processing) to fully extract the "8MP" potential in 35mm film.
Right now, I'm using a Canon S30 and love it. It's got all the manual control of the G2 but in a nice and compact form factor. Someday when the prices come down, I'm going to spring for a digital SLR.
Ken
That's sweet, those sold pretty fast. When you gonna do the drawing to see who wins? I hope a Crew member wins it.
Ken: yeah, I'd never do more than an 8"x10" at home. But I guess if you want to crop one area and enlarge that, you need pixels big time.
I like that I treat film as completely disposable. I take 3-4 pics and keep only the best one, so right there it saves me tons of wasted film and prints.
Bob: I'd be interested to hear your perspective on digital cameras and photos printing. Any ideas/suggestions?
-juice
-mike
I use an Epson 3000 inkjet for color printing. It can print 13" x 19" paper and larger, which is what I need. It's several years old, and probably already obsolete. I use it for print layouts of jobs. My son got a HP(?) photo printer, and it does a pretty good job of printing snapshots on glossy photo paper.
Bob
"You left out the most significant (and FUN, FUN, FUN!) car of 2002...the Subaru WRX sedan and wagon..what other car offers the power (227 HP), stability of AWD, fullly equipped with AC, front/side airbags, 6-disc cd changer w/AM/FM Cassette, LSD, Subaru reliability, and Fun factor for less than $25K? Get with the program, Jim...since when is a Camry is fun???"
Kate, we were in Orlando last weekend (Typhoon Lagoon) and saw within a span of a day, 4 WRX sedans, a 2.5 RS with a great sounding exhaust, and other assorted Foresters.
Still no job here...lots of resumes sent out, but nothing so far. So far, with Worldcom's chapter 11, I've gotten less than half of my severance, and the Cobra payments were moved up a month; what a lousy situation to be in at this stage.
Bob
Cheers!
Paul
I think the resolution on those is 640x480, so it's only 0.3 mega pixels.
Serge: it's like fishing with a net, you gotta spread it wide. Keep getting those resumes out, try all the dot com sites as well.
Also, one rule of thumb is that it takes 1 month for every 10k in salary you want to find the right job. So for example someone making 50k per year might take 5 months to find a job.
Hang in there, keep the spirits up.
-juice
-mike
Bob
My old Mavica camera is huge, but it fits floppies which is convenient. I can hand one over after taking pics of your car, for instance.
The new one, the DSC-75, is about medium sized, but powerful enough that it's worth it. It's a little smaller than my 35mm camera, actually, but not one of the tiny ones.
-juice
Bob
-mike
P.S...thanks for the encouragement...it's sometimes difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Juice, if your formula applies, it'll be a while before I find something!
It was $360, plus $100 for the memory stick. My printer was $400. But CR this month said that even some $99 printers produce darned good results.
-juice
- Small lag between shots / quick image processing
- Lens quality
- Form factor
- Full manual control capability
The first item is a big one. I had an Olympus before and the biggest annoyance was having to wait between shots while the camera compressed the file and wrote to the memory card.
In my case, I was comparing against the Nikon 885, but the 885 has some funky chromatic abberations going on with the lens.
In general, I find that the camera manufacters do a better job than electronics manufacturers (ie. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony VS. HP, Casio).
Here are two great link2 for doing digicam research:
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
Ken
I have the Olypus 2040 of course its not made anymore... I love it. If I had to do over I would have done the 3040 for more pixels. 2.2mega pixels is OK and I can get about 58 high quality 1600x1200 pics on a 64meg card.
The one feature I like the most is the NON-electronic view finder. In my opinion the simple straight through basic view finder is better for one reason. That is taking pictures in low light situations. All the electronic view finders I've seen are totally black if you do low light/night photos with a flash... you point and guess... you can't see what your pointing at. I tried using one at a wedding reception and also fishing at night and couldn't see what I was shooting.
Also many Olympus cameras have a 1.8 speed lense(lower number lets more light in). I can take most of my indoor pictures with out a flash which saves batteries.
--Jay
But the LCD has this low-light mode that automatically works in dark situations, it's kind of cool. Things look sort of like a dark room, with a red glow to them. It's useful to see outlines of people to make sure the photo is centered, at least.
The battery on mine is rechargeable and lasts forever, which I love. I have taken 140 photos or so and only had to recharge it once, and that includes the time to download 100 photos to my PC (not plugged in).
-juice
I can usually shoot about 200 high res pics or 500+ low res ones on one battery. Basically once I fill up my 64 and 32meg cards I'm done with the battery.
-mike
-juice
Using the viewfinder is a good alternative, but unfortunately, most point-and-shoot digital cameras display little or no exposure information. I guess I'll just need to wait until digital SLRs become more affordable!
One feature I love on my S30 is the ability of the CCD to emulate ISO 800 film. You do get more "grainy" images, but I can take photos without a flash in very low-light situations. I always get a chuckle when you see people taking photos in a stadium, for example, and you see their flash going off.
Ken
-juice
Alright -- another F3 owner! I have an F3HP from around that time as well. Awesome, bulletproof body!
I completely understand how one becomes loyal to a particular camera brand. I went through the same thing when I purchased my digital. My first choice was a Nikon, but after scouring over reviews, I swallowed my pride and purchased (gasp) a Canon.
My personal view is that for consumer level electronics, Canon is hard to beat. I would consider Nikon for their higher end products like the Coolpix 5700 and 4500 and D100.
One of the coolest features of www.dpreview.com is the ability to compare specs and actual images side-by-side. That's what convinced me of my choice.
Ken
I'm sure the pro photographer demands better, but for my purposes I've been quite happy with it.
-juice
Several years ago, I sold ALL of my silver based cameras. Vintage Canon F-1 & EF and associated glass, plus my beloved Hasselblad. No regrets. (All stuff before auto-focus came along.)
I've yet to find a digital that I'm willing to pay for. Especially because six months later the prices drop or the model is replaced.
Anyone want to buy darkroom equipment? 8~O
Jim
Would have loved your Hasselblad!
I'm thinking about upgrading my trusty old Palm V. Should I stay with Palm OS or go with Pocket PC 2002?
Any comments? Any links to reviews you thought were helpful?
Ken
Yes, Hasselblads are very compact for a 6x6 SLR and absolutely natural ergonomically. And so sharp, you can see individual strands of hair, pores on the skin, & weave on fabric. Just couldn't do that with 35mm.
Still no regrets though, used the money for a new computer which we used almost daily. In fact, just sent my daughter and the computer off to college.
Jim
Bob
rsholland "OnStar, is it worth it?" Aug 25, 2002 11:38am
Of the two (E-320 and E-500), the 500 was the most fun. It has 302 HP, and according to the teaser brochure, is capable of sub 6-second 0-60 times. I believe it, as it really scoots when you nail the gas pedal! It was great fun flooring it, and then at the end of the straightaway, testing the ABS! It also had an adjustable suspension, which I liked. The E-320 didn't have that feature.
Other tidbits:
• In general, both cars were fantastic, as you would expect being MBs.
• The styling of the new E-Class is also superb. In fact, I think the complete MB lineup (except the G-Class), are superb-looking vehicles. What a difference from just a few years ago, when most MB (sedans) were dowdy-looking at best.
• Speaking of styling: I've said before that the new E-Class and the current Impreza have very similar headlights. The big difference being that the E-Class's front fender is more tapered, and more steeply raked rearward. I'm sure if the Impreza's designers had done the same with the Impreza's front fenders, nobody would be complaining of the bug-eye look. From everything I read to date of the '04 Impreza, that won't happen, as they are apparently going to trash the oval headlight theme altogether; which is a shame IMO.
• Also on hand were examples of all the MB lineup, including the all-new SL500 and CLK coupe. These we could only sit in, and not drive.
• Small MB detail I hope Subaru will add to their cars: auto up/down switches for ALL the windows!
• Loved the optional all-roof-moonroof, that several models had.
• I had plenty of drive time, although I now wished I had explored some of the other features of the vehicles, other than just trying for best lap times...
• On the other side of FedEx field, while the MB E-Motion event was occurring, was a "dealer introduction drive" of the all-new Honda Accord, which we viewed from a distance.
Bob
-mike
The E320 course was more autox-like than the E500 course, not that auto-x driving was the focus of the event or of the cars. I liked the power of that 500 but the fly-by-wire brakes were not for me at all. Of course, most E500 buyers won't be driving like I do. I found them to be too artificial for my tastes when pushed hard.
The E320 was less powerful, but had regular brakes and suspension. It would hustle around the course o.k. IF in Sportshift mode. Otherwise the tranny programming couldn't really deal with sport driving throttle input demands. The steering also had issues keeping up with me, but Bob learned from one of the stewards that it was probably switching from low-speed ultra boost to highway sport mode. Which, at low speed, quick transitions was a lil' wierd. Plus, all our compatriots were driving like grannies, so I am sure the cars felt great to them. (Seriously, this one woman never broke 15 mph I swear). Actually, for what they are supposed to be I came away pretty impressed. The cars are obviously nice highway cruisers, and the 500 has got loads of grunt. And it was fun applying autox techniques to a car that wasn't really supposed to be that way.