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
I did quite a bit of research into vehicle safety before deciding on the Forester. It has scored very well in the IIHS crash tests and their European and Australian equivalents (the NHTSA tests are worthless), and its IIHS loss-data results are very good too. Even so ... the more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes that vehicle weight is an extremely important safety factor, possibly the single most important one. And at 3,200 pounds curb weight, the Forester is fairly light. In fact I believe it's lighter than any of the competitors (CR-V, Equinox, Tuscon etc.) Yeah, I know, I should've thought about this beforehand, and maybe paid a couple thousand extra for the heavier Outback, but I didn't, and now I'm trying to figure out what to do.
So here is my question: if I were to add a few hundred pounds of weight to the Forester, perhaps by putting a few (properly secured, of course) commercial bags of cement in the rear, would it have an appreciable effect on safety? Or is the weight that is so crucial to safety limited to the weight of the vehicle structure? I know this sounds like a silly question, but I'm not an engineer nor a physicist - but I *am* very safety-conscious.
Thanks for any help.
Should you sand bag?
In theory, that could help you in a vehicle-on-vehicle crash, i.e. you'd have more momentum on your side.
However, look at the trade offs - you'd have to overcome more inertia to steer clear of an accident, i.e. it would actually hurt your ability to avoid an accident in the first place.
Look at CR's car issue from April 2005. Look at their CR Safety Assessment. Right at the top, the first pick, is the Forester. Trading it for anything else, anything in this class, would be a downgrade in their eyes. They look at both passive safety and active safety.
You have no reason to feel remorseful at all. You bought the safest car in this class, at least in CR's eyes.
To me, active safety is more important than anything, so I would not load bags of cement in the back. I'd steer or brake to avoid the collision, and the Forester gives you the best chances of doing so.
Congrats, be happy you made the right choice.
-juice
No way would I put something heavy in the back for safety reasons. In an accident such as we had such objects, even if apparently well secured, can become missiles with dire consequences.
Safe driving.
Larry
In fact, in the middle of responding to this post, I went out and deliberately activated the cruise control with my knee while the car was in neutral IN MY DRIVEWAY-- so much for the "it won't activate under 25 mph." The owner's manual is wrong. I also just used my cruise control to drive a steady 15 mph down my residential street.
Worse, because of power steering, you don't have to turn the car that much to cause the stalk to hit your knee. So you could activate it accidentally at highway speeds as well.
My wife has a Toyota Prius, and it has a similar cruise control stalk tip. When she gets back from her trip next week, I'll compare the stalks and see what's different, since I've driven her car often and have never accidentally activated the cruise control with my knee.
Since I can now replicate the knee activation at will, perhaps I will shoot some digital video of it happening at different speeds and then upload it to the Internet so everyone can see what's happening.
There is a safety issue with your Subaru. Bring it in for service. Mine will not activate until about 30ish give or take a mile or two. I know of no car that will activate below 25 or 30. BMWs activate at 35.
While I don't doubt you are able to do this with your knee, I was not able to duplicate it.
"It usually happens when I turn the car to the right and take my foot off the gas."
I[m trying to visualize this. Turning the wheel to the right involves having the stalk move past your leg in a clockwise fashion. Presumably if the stalk brushes your leg the stalk will actually move toward the up direction. On my car up is resume/coast. So 1) unless the button on the stalk is pressed and 2) the stalk is moved toward the "down" or set position, the cruise control on my car will not activate. It will not activate by pressing the button and raising the stalk. Is the 2006 different than the 2005 with regard to the settings on the stalk?
BTW in general, another safety issue on a lot of vehicles is the transmission shift lever on the console. I've had passengers accidentally knock into it and change the gear or place it into neutral.
Scary story, glad it turned out well.
If you don't mind my asking, what was the other vehicle, and how did it and its occupant(s) fare?
Larry
I know a lot of new drivers and keep telling them it's a very serious thing and not to be taken lightly. Literally danger lurks around every corner.
-Frank
Also, i know that VWs won't let cruise set below 35 mph, but to me that's a big negative, because on my drive to the beach I go through a few small towns that have 25 speed limits and they are major fund raisers in terms of speeding tickets. I need to set cruise below 35 because they'd pull me over and happily right me tickets if I go above 28!
I set cruise at 25 and drive through slowly. They can raise their funds from someone else, thanks.
-juice
Thanks to another poster...here is some info:
Standard Features - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_f.pdf
Options - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_o.pdf
Specifications - http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2006toyotakit/2006Rav4_s.pdf
See the bottom of the page for pricing.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/Releases/View?id=TYT2005112114836
-juice
Since it now looks like the thing is going to wind up in our garage, I have a couple of questions:
1.The dealer is offering to sell the heap for $1000 under invoice. Can I assume that's a good deal?
2. Is this site still the best source for reasonably priced OEM parts and accessories?
At least I've still got my Club Sport and Speed Triple...
I have gotten a few first round quote from a few dealers
around here, the OTD price are all above $28k. Maybe
partly because I need financing from subaru, therefore no
$1000 customer cash-back. So I guess my question is
what's a reasonable price that I should look for?
I checked the edmunds TMV for Forester L.L.Bean without
extra options and the price is $25,587 + regional
adjustment $175 + destination charge $625 = $26387 for
my zip code. So, should I be looking to pay this
TMV($26387) + TTL? Or what should be a reasonable OTD
price.
Any suggestion would be highly appreciated.
-juice
What experience do any of you have with you Forrester XT off road? I don't plan on running the Rubicon or going out "mudding." I just want the ability to be comfortable (with power, too if I can get it :=D ) commuting, yet be able to get where I need to be in the back country.
When I heard about the Forrester XT, it sounded perfect...
Any experiences along these lines will be greatly appreciated.
You can easily find underbody protection (in the form of rally armor) on the web, but what concerned me as I traversed more sizeable ruts and rocks was the body paneling running along the underside of the doors. I'm not sure I could convince my insurance company that I'd found an 8 inch curb to "accidently" jump. On the plus side, the underbody of the Forester is quite level with nothing jutting down too far - so when Subaru lists its clearance as 7.9 inches, it's for real - you've got 7.9 inches all the way across (check out the underside of any number of 4x4s if you want to know how unique that is. The Ford Escape is horrible with its suspension barely clearing the bottom of the wheels - even the old Jeep Cherokee's diff hung way down making it a great target for rocks).
While the FXT doesn't offer a low range, you'll have plenty of access to low-end torque (235 lb-ft at 3600 rpm). The AWD works excellently on dirt and gravel, and the Forester can manage knee-high water crossings without much problem as long as you know what you're doing (and don't stop in the middle).
Like you said, it's no Wrangler. But as long as you understand its limitations and you'll be ok, given that the terrain your crossing isn't TOO uneven or ungodly steep. And you'll appreciate its more car-like handling once you hit the highway. For a car its shape, size, and height, it corners like it's on rails. Bad weather handling? It's not common for a new car owner to look forward to a heavy downpour, but I can't wait to see those black storm clouds overhead. Then again, I'm a little crazy.
If you want more first-hand accounts of their offroading abilities, I don't think I can post the link but just google offroadsubuars (all one word) and you should find a site out of Australia with a forum that gets a good amount of traffic from people who really do take their Foresters off the pavement.
Good luck, and GO DRIVE ONE.
Doug
Doug
It has fractionally more ground clearance (8.1" vs. 7.9"), but more importantly, it also adds self-leveling shocks in the rear suspension. So load it up and it'll maintain that clearance.
Give paisan a call at http://azpinstalls.com/ and get some skid plates for it, and you should be fine.
-juice
However, I have had my FXT's cargo area loaded down with a fair amount of weekend gear and not noticed much, if any, sag in the back (although 500 extra lbs of people/gear certainly has a noticable affect on the turbo's kick).
It really depends on how heavy you travel when you're hunting/exploring.
Anyway, I'll give all your comments a lot of thought - my purchase is still a few months away - maybe Subaru will change some options in the mean time! :=}
-juice
The self-leveling shocks probably only need to be considered if you plan on doing a good amount of towing with the Forester.
BTW, does anyone know how long the rear shocks last on a typical Forester, assuming mostly paved road usage?
You will find the turbo to be FAST! The non-turbo may also surprise you with its' power, which is why I say drive them both.
Yes the turbo REQUIRES premium, and will get a few miles per gallon less than the non-turbo. If you live at high elevations, a turbo is better, as it loses less power than a non-turbo. Also, insurance may be higher with the turbo.
I just purchased a '06 WRX Limited, which has the same engine as the Forester turbo. It's a blast to drive (and I'm a senior too!).
Bob
I own a 2006 Forester XT (Turbo). I upgraded from my 04 Turbo. I am younger (40), but do not consider myself a speed demon. In fact, my wife, family and friends, find that I drive too slow for their tastes. While I respect many different driving styles, frankly, I only drive on the weekends (I live in New York with a home in the country) and am in no hurry.
With that background, I love the Turbo. It makes me feel much safer. I've never burned rubber in my life but when people are driving irresponsibly, I need to pass (as you stated), and in general I just want to get away from an annoying driver (on the cell phone, driving a large SUV they can't control, etc.), the Turbo is worth every penny.
This is my second Turbo and not one maintenance problem at all. Yes, it requires premium fuel--Subaru's manual says keep it above 91, which is not really that much more expensive. I couldn't recommend this car enough. Truth is that if you drive like me (and plenty of people have suggested I drive like a senior), you will still find great value in the Turbo. I know I feel safer. The only disadvantage that I can think of is that a Turbo costs more than a non Turbo at the time of purchase. Frankly, it is money well spent.
I agree that you should drive both and see if you can get the dealer to let you drive on the highway (to test passing) as well as (and this is very important) try to find several steep hills to climb. You might find the lesser powered engine to be just fine for your needs. I know that one key advantage for me has been the ability to accelerate going uphill with the Turbo while some nut in an Escalade is riding too close to my back bumper.
Hope that helps and good luck with your decision. You really can't go wrong with a Forester.
I test drove both the Forester X and the XT and decided on the turbo. I'm a bit younger (26) but by no means a speed demon.
I actually drove the NA engine first, and was surprised by the amount of pep it offered. Most of the time it will probably be more than adequate for your needs, and it's a great value as well.
I chose the turbo for many of the reasons already mentioned here. I do a fair amount of driving on twisty highways in the hills where passing opportunities are sometimes few and far between. With the turbo I never have to worry about being able to pass another vehicle or even having the acceleration necessary to do so while going uphill.
Moreso, the car lets me do what exactly what I want, when I want, and I could argue that makes me a better and safer driver because the engine's limitations are one less variable I have to manage. That peace of mind is worth the extra cost.
Good luck in your shopping.
Doug
Another angle is that as a senior citizen, the turbo just might be "too much" of a sports car for you given your declining reflexes. The posters who stated that you "need" the extra power for safety reasons such as pulling away from a tailgating vehicle are just making an excuse why they wanted to buy the more expensive, sportier car. The standard motor has plenty of power to pull away from a tailgater and for passing or for doing anyhting else.
As far as the tailgaters are concerned, the worst thing you can do is attempt to out run them. I usually take my foot of the gas and slow down. They get the message in a hurry.
I would recommend the turbo if you live in the Rockies (above 4000 ft.) and are always driving in the mountains. There the turbo will give you the extra power you need. If you live at a lower level, the turbo is more of ego thing than anything else.
The regular engine responds just fine when I hit the gas pdeal. The only time I'll downshift is when I'm passing on 2-lane roads, in which case I have plenty of acceleration to pass safely.
Being cheap, I figured that the XT will cost about 26% more per mile to operate when you look at the gas expense. Go check the numbers - I get 28mpg now in the XS, at $2.20 /gal it's 7.8 cents / mile for regular. For an XT, if I got 24 mpg at $2.40/gal, that's 10 cents /mile for gas. That extra 2.1 cents per mile is a waste.
You didn't say if you were looking at an automatic tranny. That should have some input into your decision. I've always went with the stick shift over the automatic for the fun factor, for better control of the car in snow, and for better overall performance in getting power from the engine to the tires.
As others have said - try 'em both out! Unless you do a lot of uphill/downhill driving or live in an area where the entry ramps on the fast roads are very short, the plain X should be fine.
That statement may be true in your case but for many it rings truer if stated thusly:
I find the normally aspirated motor in my 2006 X to have all the power I could possibly need
-Frank ;-)