Subaru Forester (up to 2005)

wmquan

I'd go with the 2003 as well. Besides the subjective assessment that it looks better, having head protection airbags for at least the front occupants is an improvement (especially since the compact Forester's occupants don't ride especially high, compared to most mid-sized SUV's). That's a nice safety feature you won't find in most/all of the Forester's competitors.

The head protection plus other safety features (front pretensioners, EBD, headrests) are features that make the Forester more comparable in safety to your average mid-sized sedan.

That said, I would have liked if Subaru had somehow managed to fit in side curtains and extend the head protection to rear passengers. Would have been more expensive, though.

ray70

We live in Montana and have about 30 years of experience driving on snow pack and ice. Our 01L Forester GOES better than any other vehicle we have ever owned, but we are having a tough time getting it to stop on ice and snow pack. Part of the problem may be our lack of experience with ABS (this is our first vehicle), but it takes twice as far to stop the Forester as it does my ½ ton pickup without ABS or our old Taurus. This year, we are continuously sliding through intersections and having near misses. It feels like the ABS kicks-in a long time before the tires actually skids - can this be adjusted? Also, the Foresters' pulls to the left and stops crooked - is ABS supposed to do this? We still have the original Bridgestone tires with about 20,000 miles. The tread looks good. Would it help to get new tires? Do we need studded tires? In the past we have been able control of our vehicles if they had good radial tires, but if we need studded tires I'll be happy to get some. I really hate to say this, but my wife is getting scared of the car.

Ray

jjman

looks like the forrester is moving forward so fast it's standing still

canadatwo

http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshows/articles/48983/page004.html

mrluther

Hello Ray!! Your post reminded me of my first time with the ABS on my 2002 L MT. When we had our only snow here in Ct about two weeks ago I decided to take the car out on the unplowed roads and put it to the test. It does great in the snow if you drive moderately, but once I got on it I noticed a few things. First, the rear end is so light that you can break it loose real quick (yeehaaa), the second thing was the dramatic effect of the ABS. It sounded like the calipers were grinding down the disk and the stopping distance doubled. This troubled me so I told my mechanic about it. He is a Subaru master tech with over 20 years on Sub's, he laughed as usual and tried to explain to me how the ABS works and that this was normal for the system. After our talk I could see the logic and just decided to be a little more cautious in my braking. I agree with your wife in so much that it did scare me also at first. With do care the car performs very well. Mike

canadatwo

20,000 mile all seasons are not a good choise for Montana winters.

I would look at Nokian Tires
The Hakka-1 with studs has to be driven to be believed.

If you don't like studs, try the Hakka-Q.

Be prepared to shell out a few coins though.

thecat

Ray - If your Forester is not stopping straight then something is not just right. I'd have the dealer take a look at that. Regarding tires, neither the Bridgestones or Geolanders (on the S model)are good "snow" tires. They are all season tires. Translation - they are a compromise. Rather than studded tires, I would consider good snow tires - check tirerack.com, there are a number of good choices. Perhaps, given your location, buying snow tires already mounted on wheels would be a wise move. That way you can reinstall the Bridgestones when Ol Man Winter is gone.

I don't think that the ABS can be adjusted and it is most likely just doing what it is designed to do - not shorten the stopping distance but let you keep control of the car. When ABS senses that the tires are skidding (or are about to) it does it steps in and will not let the wheels lock up. Good snow tires will improve that situation dramatically.

Keep us poste, we all like a good snow story.
- Hutch

canadiancl

The part that would concern me the most would be that the Forester is stopping crooked. That shouldn't happen whether the tires are summer, snow, all season or racing slicks.

I think people not familiar with ABS think they can perform magic. So if you're going too fast for the road condition, you won't stop, ABS or not. Perhaps that's what ray is encountering when he said he often goes shooting through intersections.

varmint

I had a chance to check out the '03 Forester. I figured I'd post my impressions over here rather than continue the cross-posting started over on the CR-V thread.

The exterior looks better in a few important areas, but the visual impression is the same (IMHO). The fender flares look much more natural than the ones on the current Forester. Subaru was trying too hard with the large, square design that it was introduced with. The lights up front and in back give it an updated look in a nice, subtle way. Continuing with the blacked out C pillar is a smart way to keep the overall look longer than it is tall. My only complaints would be the grill, which (although different) doesn't look any better than before, and the sports car character line trailing off the front fender flare. Who does Subaru think they are kidding? Still, those complaints are minor.

The upgraded suspension and potentially better handling are pure gravy. There is nothing wrong with the way it handles now. Though I have to wonder why Subaru thought it necessary to reduce dive and squat. Didn't they already try to fix those problems back in '00? Bigger brakes up front should make up for the fact that the rear wheels are stopped with drums (base model). The change in brakes and steering feel should keep the Subaru way ahead of the pack in performance feel.

Kudos to Subaru for not giving into market pressure and overpowering the car. The standard 2.5 four has enough power for this class. Making a 200hp version would be overkill. I'm a bit surprised that there are apparently no big improvements in mpg or emissions, but I'm sure Subaru hasn't spilled all the details.

The interior looks much better, IMHO. The three dial controls shown in the Edmunds pic, look like they have the AC, recirc, and defrost buttons integrated with the rotary dials. It's hard to tell from the picture, so I could be wrong. If so, then it's just like the '02 CR-V and a very smart design. It also looks like they corrected the cupholder ergonomic issues. Colors are bland, but the design is stylish. Increased seat travel is mentioned, but nothing about improvements in overall passenger room. I agree with a few other posts. That could be problem.

I see cost cutting. I know that's a dirty word, but, as long as it's done intelligently, I have no problem with it. I'm guessing that the Edmunds pics are an X, while the Car.com pics are an XS. If so, then it looks like the XS looses the body colored mirrors. The base model is also missing things like rear disk brakes, EBD, and I don't see any mention of a moonroof (?). Still there is plenty of additional equipment to make up for it. I'd call it a respectable compromise.

rsholland

are the "XS" model. The "X" model has steel wheels. The "XS Premium" is monochromatic with a moonroof.

Bob

kens

varmint,

I agree that the overall visual impression of the Forester remains relatively unchanged. From the side, I don't think anyone would mistaken it for a Forester. I believe the new styling shows a slight shift in Subaru's positioning from being a mini SUV towards a sports wagon (what I always identified it to be).

Although the MPG figures haven't been released, I'm going to be it's better than what we get today. The new Forester has a lower CD and is apparently 90lbs lighter due to the use of aluminum parts.

I'm not too sure about cost (feature) cutting. Based on what I've read so far, the trim levels are still consistent with what's offered today. Basically, L->X, S->XS and there still is a "Premium option". The base L and X models both have rear drums, grey lower cladding and unpainted mirrors. In fact, the base X trim now comes standard with 16" tires, 80W CD player and remote keyless entry.

Ken

p0926

Varmint- "The standard 2.5 four has enough power for this class. Making a 200hp version would be overkill."

Your CRV background is showing. ;-) You won't knock 165 HP since Honda just finally upped the CRV's to almost the same amount.

Re MPG & emissions, the Forester was already a ULEV vehicle so there's no real room for improvement. They did however improve the drag co-efficient from 39 to 35.

Surely you don't expect even Subaru to equip their base model with a moonroof, rear discs and EBD? What would be left for the upper trim lines?

-Frank P.

dhdunn

Folks, does the Forester gauge package include an altimeter? I seem to remember it being offered, but am not sure if the 2002 does indeed offer an altimeter - in Colorado, that would be cool to have.

What about a gauge package on the 2003? Does anyone know? Thanks!!

d

p0926

dhdunn- Few specifics of the 2003 have been released yet so there's no telling if Subaru will keep the guage pack option. However, since it appears that the 2003 keeps the center dash storage cubby, the pack is possible since that's where the current one goes.

-Frank P.

dhdunn

Frank P, thanks very much!!

Could you please tell me what the current gauge package consists of? Does it include an altimeter? Thanks!!

d

p0926

dhdunn- I'm not certain but I believe that it does include an altimeter. I want to say the other two guages are oil pressure and voltage but I'm really just guessing. I'm sure someone else will know for sure.

-Frank P.

storyteller

It seems most people like the revised Forester, with two possible reservations. Some wanted more power and some wanted more rear seat legroom. We don't know much about the latter, but it seems the best we can hope for is slightly better room. So what can we conclude about power?

I've just looked at the competition in terms of weight divided by power. Arbitrarily, I chose the heaviest models of all cars. I defined "power" as the mean of the torque and hp numbers (I know that isn't very elegant).

Here's what we get:
1 Escape/Tribute 17.4 lbs per unit of power
2 Vue 18.5
3 '03 Forester 19.2
4 RAV4 19.8
5 CR-V (new) 20.2
6 Santa Fe 20.8

The new Forester hits the market with good looks, terrific content, engineering refinement and average power for vehicles in its class. SOA can boost power next year or the year after, keeping the Forester competitive in the future.

One way of looking at this is Subaru doesn't seem panicked about the hp race. They will increase hp on their own schedule, trusting that the many merits of the car will keep it popular.

canadiancl

is Subaru abandoning its pretence that the Forester is an SUV and go the route of a hybrid wagon along the lines of a Volvo XC or Audi All-Road. This, I think, is a smart and logical move given the general perception of the Forester. But of course, this would make the Outback Wagon redundant. IMHO, this was inevitable anyway because the Forester and the OB wagon have been cross-shopped against each other way too much.

rsholland

It is roomier, so the links says...

Bob

http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0202/07/-409307.htm

armac13

"is Subaru abandoning its pretence that the Forester is an SUV and go the route of a hybrid wagon"

I don't understand this since the Forester has always been a wagon, officially designated as one in fact.

Ross

canadiancl

The Forester is technically classified as a wagon by the automotive classification bodies. But so is the CR-V. What I was referring to is the company's marketing of the vehicle. Subaru has always referred to the OB as a sport utility WAGON. But not so the Forester. I don't think I have seen the mention of "wagon" in any ad for the Forester, TV or print. In fact, they use the slogan "sport utility tough"

gvmelbrty

I've always thought that A-pillar-mounted gauge pods are an excellent location for extra gauges. Currently, Subaru installs them in place of that handy storage bin on the center dash. It would be great to keep the storage and get the extra gauges too. Here's an example of an a-pillar mount:

http://dieselsite.com/miscprod/pillar.htm

There is a company that will custom fabricate the a-pillar pod mold to fit your car for a professional and seamless installation. That's always an option if you want to add extra gauges yourself - and keep the storage bin.

By the way, I've collected some of the '03 Forester pics on my web page:

http://homepage.mac.com/gvmelbrty/PhotoAlbum1.html

I really like what I see so far. Now, just give me the H-6, H-6 turbo (!), or H-4 turbo, and I'll be happy (ok, and a low range option would be sweet... ok, and what about the rear seat leg room??).

Patti - can you get us some specs on the new Forester?!

I've been waiting a couple of years now to buy a Forester. The last time I test drove, I really felt the Forester needed more power (maybe I'm just too used to my '69 Camaro's 350 . I think I can hold out one more, before I must buy something.

-tom

tincup47

Manufacturers cannot use A-pillar mounted gauges, they are in an area that a head could come in contact with in an accident. Aftermarket suppliers are not under the same safety regs as manufacturers are.

scirocco22

David-- I have the current OEM gauge package on my '02 S+. It's a dealer installed option and not installed as a factory option, contrary to what the the SoA web site implies. It consists of manifold vacuum gauge, voltmeter and oil temperature gauge. The gauge pack that you're thinking of, with the altimeter, was the one featured and available on the pre-MY '01 models as well as the last generation Impreza models. The current one is actually called the "performance gauge pack." I don't see why you couldn't install the one with the altimeter on the 2002 model however. I too, will be curious if an OEM gauge package will be offered for the '03 model and if so, what kind.

--'rocco

varmint

Thanks Bob and Kens. I hadn't read that the monochromatic paint was part of the premium package. I thought it was part of the XS. Also, I was under the impression that both the L and S trim levels used a disk/disk set up. My bad.

Frank - I've been happy with the 146hp version. The best thing about Honda giving the CR-V more power is that it silenced (most of) the critics. I need 200 hp like I need to be getting 17 mpg.

Where have you read that the Forester is a ULEV? The current generation isn't bad (it was better than the last gen CR-V and RAV4), but I've never read that it was ranked as an LEV or lower. Check this link.

I would think that if Subaru had made significant advances in fuel efficiency and emissions, they'd be promoting the fact. I don't want to start a CR-V vs Forester thing, but the CR-V's changes in drag co and engine technology were much more significant. Yet the highway rating only improved 1 mpg. With the Soob, there may be a slight increase/decrease in those areas, but the lack of press material isn't a positive sign.

rsunico

Same engine.. Sigh... at least the base model has 16" rims standard. With the same engine its not worth me upgrading my 01 Forester. Though the hill holder clutch is a plus! I'd be looking elsewhere unless they add the turbo. Then I'd jump! I know some people don't like turbos but if you know how to take care of a turbo engine.. one will be okay. I got a lot of miles (250k) out of my 89 Peugeot turbo sedan.. what a beautiful car...but I digress.

goldencouple1

Storyteller,

When I was shopping these cars I used a simple ratio Hp/Lbs to examine capability and it seemed to track my test drive experiences and reviews of the vehicles where acceleration was a factor. So I think that your comparison is on point. Santa Fe for example had a V-6 and more horsepower, but the vehicle-weight made the car sluggish. At the time (pre-new CR-V) the RAV4 came closest to Forester in Hp/Lbs ratio and all the performance data seemed to track that (Consumer Reports and Car & Driver), as well as our test drive. It is interesting to note than in your scale of power, the NEW CR-V still has not caught up with the Forester. Meanwhile, the Forester had the best MPG or was part of a tie for best. Forester was and is the best compromise in power/MPG.

As to the Escape/Tribute: We never really considered them due to quality control problems that seem to still be popping up and Ford's overall problems with reliability.

p0926

Varmint- My bust, The 01 Forester is classified as a LEV. See this link

-Frank P.

dhdunn

Thanks very much for this info!! Given the amount of Kleenex my family goes through (why am I making this public??!!) on any given trip in any given car, I think I'll pass on the gauge package, and keep the storage.



Thanks again,
d

storyteller

Goldencouple: Since I'll probably buy a 2003 Forester, part of me wanted to see the HP kicked up into an area where it would be even more fun to drive. But my look at power versus weight convinced me that Forester didn't have any big deficit to make up in that department, and I respect Subaru for adding content while reducing weight. I think we all trust that HP will eventually go up, yet it is far from a "problem" with the car now and in 2003. The new Forester should have more zip than the new CRV, which I consider the most significant competition.

I'm old enough to have seen many cars get so big and fat that they lost their utility. The 1956 Tbird was a lean, exciting, edgy car, just like the 1956 Elvis. Several years later, both had bloated until they died embarrasing deaths.

oregonboy

Just for fun, I took the image that Tom posted of the 2003 Forester front view and "flipped" the grill. I don't know how to post the result, or if I should even try since it surely would infringe on someone's copywrite.

The change in the character of the "face" of the vehicle was very interesting. Subaru chose to use a "frown-shaped" grill which gives the car a bad-boy face the I (personally) think is inconsistent with the friendly nature of the car and it's intended market.

With the grill reversed, the car looks almost too friendly. Perhaps Subaru is hoping to lose some of its soccer-mom image and gain a little macho-market share.

-James

peterson10

I'm curious, with this highly touted increase in HP in the CRV, what are the revs like at, say, 70 MPH. My MT Forester would be breathing easy at about 2800 rpms at that speed. When I test drove a CRV in 2000 (I was heavily medicated at the time) the engine whined like my students before a pop-quiz. Is the new CRV engine actually bigger, or is Honda just squeezing it for everything it has?

YetAnotherDave

kens

varmint,

Not to nitpick, but the new CR-V's "significant" improvement in Cd and fuel efficiency isn't all that suprising. The older model had a very poor Cd (didn't Honda not even publish it?) and offered fuel efficiency not much better than the more powerful 2.5 H4 in the Forester. There was lots of room for improvement there.

Ken

p0926

Let me clarify my HP stance. The current 165hp Forester is by no means underpowered and the 2003 will only be better since it's shedding a few pounds. However, when the Forester's only competition was the RAV-4 and CRV, it out muscled both by a hefty margin. Now the CRV has pulled even and the competition has increased with the introduction of the various V6s. Therefore, while the Forester is still fast and nimble, it's no longer the undisputed HP king of its class.

I'm ecstatic that Subaru didn't follow the "up-sizing" trend and kept the Forester's exterior proportions intact and I have no doubt that Subaru will easily meet their sales objective. However, if they were to offer a 200-215hp engine option, I think they could sell a fair number more.

-Frank P.

armac13

I agree with you completely. Up-sizing is a terrible disease, especially considering that most vehicles have only one or two bodies in them most of the time. If you NEED more room, there are a lot of alternatives. The 2003 will have no sales problems, and as others have said, introduction of additional powerplants next year will cause a surge in sales when (hopefully) manufacturing capacity will be substantially increased. Not much sense in producing the car that "everyone" wants to buy if they can't build them fast enough to meet the demand!

Ross

storyteller

I grinned at the phrase used twice by a Honda fan on the Honda boards. Guy called the 2003 Forester "less dorky" than the old one! We should all cheer SOA for losing that pocket protector and propeller beanie. :-}

varmint

Storyteller - Love the Elvis comparison. LOL!

Frank - Thanks. I guess I've been out of the Forester comparison business too long. The info I remember is out of date.

Kens - As much as I hate to do this, why not take this discussion to the proper forum?

kens

varmint,

Agreed. I believe there is a "CR-V vs. Forester" topic thats been lying dormant for some time -- but weren't you the one who brought up the comparative MPG issue in the first place? ;-)

Ken

varmint

LOL. I just went looking for it and they've finally killed the old beast. It's been archived. I just didn't want to get too far into a comparison debate here in the Soob thread.

I mentioned the CR-V because (IMHO) it illustrates that a reduction in Cd does not guarantee a significant improvement in mpg. Estimates of the previous version ran in the mid 40's. The new model is 34. I might've used the Ford Expedition if I had the information for it. It's not a direct comparison of the two vehicles, only an observation about drag co.

kens

Got it. Wow, the old "CR-V vs. Forester" topic archived? That sure went on for a long time. Brings back memories.

Ken

stever

We could unfreeze it - it's only been dormant for 5 months....

Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

rsholland

just start a new one like:

CRV vs Forester: 2nd generation, MY2003 -

Oh, heck... I'll just start one...

Bob

felch1

I have a 2002 Forester and would like to have the windows tinted. Does anyone recommend any shop in particular. I am in Orange County NY near Central Valley,West Point, Monroe area.
There seems to be many types of tint out their. Any help would be appreciated.

mbforster

When will the 2003 Forster be available in the US?

rsholland

c_hunter

Folks, it's not entirely correct to use CD as the primary indication of drag. CD gives you a measure of the drag per unit area of a vehicle. The total drag depends on the CD and the frontal area of the vehicle. A softball and a baseball have the same CD, but the softball has higher drag because it's bigger. So keep that in mind. Without knowing the frontal areas of each vehicle (whether it's new CRV versus old CRV, or CRV versus Forester) it's hard to say which is draggier.

The new CRV is "adequately" powered in my opinion. The 125HP and 146HP models from 97-01 ranged from anemic to woeful. The new engine helps a lot, but the CRV is still not as sprightly as the Forester, new or old. I hoped the new CRV would handle better than the old model, and it does, but it's still somewhat awkward on its feet.

Craig

jimmyj1945

I'm sure the prices on the new Forester will be around MSRP for awhile. From your experience how long does this last? For example I know the new Nissan vehicles will go to invoice in about 4-6 months. Thanks for your input.

Jim J.

p0926

Jim J- It all depends on demand but even the hot WRX was selling for considerably less than MSRP 6 months after intro. Since the Forester's redesign wasn't that major, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't immediately start selling at $500 under MSRP and by late fall be down to around $300-500 over invoice. In any case, the largest volume dealers (Fitzgerald for instance) will be the first to drop their prices.

-Frank P.

jimmyj1945

Thanks Frank. You have been a great help to me today (Twice). All is well in Texas.

Jim J.

dhdunn

I'm communicating with the Boulder, CO Subaru dealership, and they said that they anticipate some "incentives" to get rid of 2002 Foresters. I, for one, will probably go that route even though the subtle changes to the 2003 Forester do seem nice, I'm not sure that the price difference would immediately be worth it, and my intention is to buy as soon as possible.

Just a thought...

d