Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
BMW X3 vs Subaru Forester XT vs Infiniti FX 35 vs Toyota RAV4
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You'll be surprised to hear that I agree with you. While the 2nd-gen ('03-'04) Forester generally improves on its predecessor, it still won't win, place, or show in any styling competitions. At least its bland looks are innocuous and noncontroversial. Many of us actually like the fact that it's "stealthy", fading into the background instead of attracting attention (from the law, for example). And, unlike many not-well-thought-out competitors, Subaru sacrificed nothing at all in terms of function or practicality when styling its body. That fact ranks very high with me.
Fortunately, styling doesn't appear on my top-10 priority list, and so I bought the $24K XT because of its stunning performance, broad versatility, excellent safety rating, and unbeatable high value proposition.
If that extremely well-done body style was grafted onto a turbocharged Forester XT platform (with all of its many existing attributes), that would be one heckuva car.
The Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus. The Koreans have the copying thing down.
The more stylish SUV's with the sloped rear roof lines give up a lot of practicality for style. I'm guilty - I have an X5, about the least practical in terms of load space, it's a great vehicle though. My sleeper is a Jetta wagon, diesel - automatic - it's really sleepy.
All this 8th grader model car kit 'cool' leaves me cold.
I'd wager the dorky Forester's design will endure well beyond that of the latest what-is-hip me-toos.
-juice
<iI>Sorrento is a nice looking SUV - I almost always give it a second glance because it looks so much like a Lexus.
I actually think the Sorrento is better looking overall than the RX300, and much better looking than the new RX330, which I don't like at all.
Bob
But my, oh my, that body design would be very difficult to improve on - vastly better looking than an FX, X3, Toureg, Cayenne, and the rest. Only change I'd make would be to either leave off the cladding or match it to the body color.
WRX is chimpanzee cute. The kids buzzing around in them with their hats turned backwards has become Americana.
Would like to see more from Subaru though with regard to styling. I do however like the ergonomics of my Outback. Hope the Forester is comparable or better. BMW ergonomics suck.
Have you seen the next ('05) Legacy? IMO, it's another of those rare designs that I'd be hard-pressed to improve, bearing a striking resemblance to the Audi A4/A6 - if you're going to imitate, imitate something really good! My only quibbles are with the headlamps, radiator grille, and creases in the hood. So far, I've seen only photos; it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs. Not so, though, of the unfortunate FX or X3.
WRX, especially the sedan, is butt-ugly. The eyebrows over the wheelwells are dumb, the overall proportions are dumpy, the rear wing is juvenile, the gaping radiator inlets look old and dated, and the new headlights aren't much of an improvement over the originals. The wagon is a little cleaner (no wheelwell eyebrows, no wing). I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image. Fortunately, the XT came along (with unarguably more grown-up looks and <gasp> BETTER performance) in the nick of time.
Am lukewarm to it, but find it tolerable unlike most of the new BMWs.
"it's been my experience that most new designs wind up looking better in the flesh than in photographs."
To me, cars in photos look exactly like they do in person with the exception of when they use lenses to distort depth of field. The only exception was the Cayenne which came out looking a lot bigger and bulkier to me. But as I recall the Cayenne photos, they never showed reference points with regard to scale, such as people and buildings. But I usually like to see batches of photos in different lighting situations before I make a complete judgement.
"the rear wing is juvenile"
I'll say.
"I really tried to get past the WRX look enough to buy one several times, because they do offer quite a bit for the buck, but just couldn't stomach the adolescent boy-racer image."
I could live with it just fine by swapping trunk lid w/o wing. Fits my maverick style... old man in callow car. Will have to live with my more serious Boxster S though ;-)
Most "glamour" car shots seem to be taken from about 6" off the pavement. So how tall are you anyway, design-guy? (No evil intent, just giving you a friendly jibe)
james
I also agree about the Jetta Wagon: clean and lean--with deceptive performance.
Zman
The cladding is OK, I guess, when it matches the body color. I don't care for it in the contrasting colors.
The headlamps are, well, OK except for the weird little round light on each upper outer corner, which is totally out of place. The radiator inlet would be much improved by eliminating the thick, heavy-looking horizontal bars and filling the cleaned-up opening with a subtle, simple mesh, as many of the Japanese aftermarket replacement grilles do.
Not true. And in any event, after being a successful, award-winning designer/director for nearly 30 years, working with photographs an a daily basis, I know how to read them.
An affront! A challenge!!
Let's take a poll. Come on people. What do the experts that frequent this board think? In automotive glamour photography, which is more common: eye-level shots or ankle level shots?
james
Two complaints:
Complaint # 1: They added extra unnecessary badging on the rear, unlike their cousins sold in other markets. The result is more visual clutter from the rear. The backside of the USDM Legacy is not nearly as good looking as those sold in other markets.
Complaint # 2: What Jack and I were referring to earlier -- styling vs. function. The interior door grab bar -- looks rich and elegant -- functions worse than the outgoing model's door pull. How so you ask? When your left arm is resting on the door armrest, no longer is it easy to reach/access the power window switches, as this door pull is now in the way. You have to move your arm out of the way to reach those switches. Before it was an easy and natural body movement. Not so any more. Styling = 1; ergonomics = 0.
Bob
Also, as thoroughly hashed in other threads, the Forester's placement of switches for foglight, cruise, and rear defogger 'way down low on the left dash is dumb. I've always liked instrument binnacles whose projecting outer edges incorporate elongated pushbuttons for functions like these. Then the switches can be operated without looking, and in some cases without even moving your hand from the wheel. What a concept! How on earth did Subaru's designers think their placement of the aforementioned switches would be optimal under any scenario?
Also, a long-standing CC issue with me is that now, when you actually engage the CC, a green light on the dash now says set. Before it didn't work that way. In fact the green "cruise" light was MIA until the '03 Forester. This new "set" light is new to '04 Subies (FINALLY!) and is so for all '04 Subies, except the Forester, from what I understand. How/why they forgot the Forester is beyond me...
Bob
I've actually gotten used to the huge rear wing and hood scoop. I planned on removing the rear wing when I got the STi, but doubt I will now -
Most XT owners dislike its clumsy, unpredictable automatic climate control. I never use mine in automatic mode.
Having said that, I can see no earthly reason for any car to have automatic climate control in the first place. KISS, people, KISS.
I almost went to the trouble of special ordering an X5 with manual climate controls. The VW has climatronic included with a luxury package - the other features I wanted weren't available outside the luxury package.
FX:
There are lots of them in my neck of the woods. I was looking at one at a stoplight today and thought... this thing looks like an old bathtub on Conestoga wagon wheels. This "futuristic" thing is wa-a-a-a-y outta line. Yeah it's DIFFERENT! Different and ugly.
X3:
Looks like someone gave a 5-year old a hunk of clay and let him go crazy with a tongue depressor.
So here we have it... the dork, the bathtub, and the kindergarten sculpture.
Years from now the current Forester will look quite normal. X3 will look like a hunk of scrap metal and the FX will be laughed at.
Out of 10 on looks:
XT - 7
X3 - 5
FX - 3
Just my opinion. I still love you X3 and FX guys.
;-)
-juice
It's a done deal... Fall 2004.
The back looks heinous! Like a Daiwoo got together with a Citreon, and a birth defect was involved!
Some people think the bland styling of Subaru is not even in the same league with BMW and Infiniti.
Anyway most people here are aware of your personal opinions, will you guys just move on?
Can't say that any more. Andreas Zapatinas styled all the beautiful BMWs before heading over to Alfa Romeo. Now he's with Subaru.
BMW is stuck with Bangle. So while they may be better known for style, the two companies are heading in opposite directions.
-juice
All that proves is that P.T. Barnum was even more correct than he realized...
How anyone can look at any of the recently-redone or forthcoming offerings from BMW and think "wow - great looking cars!" is utterly beyond me. They are butt-ugly.
me for one...which is one reason why I traded WAY UP to a FX45 from an Outback VDC. But mariner, these guys are stuck in neutral where aesthetics are concerned - not to mention performance. Give it up. Ballistic et al has an axe to grind and you just pushed his 'self-justification' button again.
Bob
I thought Z4 and 6 are ugly, but some Brit mag I read yesterday thought they look great.
That's exactly what BMW, at least Bangle, and Infiniti want, polarizing designs. They don't want bland designs that most of the industry subscribe to.
For instance, I think the Maxima is ugly... too bulbous, bloated. The proportions just aren't right even though the current Nissan genes are there. Same with the G35 although not as exaggerated.
They seemed to nail it with the Altima... miles ahead of Camry and Accord with regard to looks. And for a van (I loathe vans) they did a pretty good job too with Quest.
Yes, sales are the ultimate barometer with regard to success of a company, but is not my buying barometer.
BTW my rating of the FX and XT was the first time I had mentioned it. I don't like redundancy either and can appreciate your desire to "move on." Will not mention it again that FX is ugly.
;-)
Infiniti has a clue how to do it, 350Z is living proof IMO. BMW is clueless with style and their sales in the next three years will prove it.
BTW there is already rumor that Bangle's time is over although we'll be hearing the spin... it behooves BMW to parachute him gently or else it would jeapardize sales.
-juice
An old bathtub on the curb waiting to be picked up as trash draws your attention also.
So, the question is - how gorgeous is the vehicle when EVERYONE has one :-)?
overtime
Lot's of ugly cars out there. Acceptable styling goes a long way these days.