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
- Front into flat barrier
- Rear into flat barrier
- Front into angle barrier
- Rear into pole
The pole is NOT a telephone pole but rather a very standard, found-in-lots-of-places, 3-foot-high concrete-filled steel post. It is an object which could easily be hidden from view while backing up in an SUV. Especially an SUV with a tire blocking view to the rear. The flat barriers are also low objects that also could be hidden from view during parking maneuvers. IMHO not only does the Forester score well because of its damage amounts, it also scores well because it has excellent outward visibility, hence there is a much higher likelihood of seeing the barrier and stopping before it is ever hit at all.
Regards,
-wdb
-Colin
Also even if I have to replace my rear doors at some point, my $/cargo area is well above that of the Forester.... and I can fit an adult in the back seat.
-mike
Oh well, no matter. I do enjoy the low rear window (which looks odd, but is very functional) on my Forester.
I rode in Bob's back seat all the way to Philly for the show, and I'm an adult (well, not if you ask my wife, but that's another story). However, I'll admit I prefer the heated front seats, which I enjoyed on the way back.
Also, the new Rodeo showed a pretty big improvement compared to the old one, so perhaps the next Trooper will also. I imagine the way yours is rigged you'd suffer no more than a surface scratch on the nudge bars.
-juice
-mike
The X5's rear bumper test results are actually invalid if you have the BMW trailer hitch installed. This is because it requires removal of the mini hydraulic shock absorbers, which are what helped to lessen rear bumper damage costs. Without those, the test results will undoubtedly be much worse for that test. I wonder if the IIHS knows about this? Probably not...
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_smsuv.htm
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_midsuv.htm
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
As Bob said with his Explorer, I keep my tounge in the receiver for the same reason.
-mike
-mike
-mike
-mike
Real-world or not, the sight of the RAV4's rear windshield bursting into pieces was not very confidence inspiring.
Did anyone notice the white Forester S they showed during the program? It showed up just as the narrator was explaining that the reason why these vehicles do so poorly is because they're EPA classified as trucks and don't need the high saftey standards of cars. I found that misleading since the Forester is classified as a car and it does well in crash tests!
Speaking of crashes, I kept thinking about when I spun out into a snowbank this past winter. That was essentialy a frontal offset crash at about 25 mph. Although I went into a hard ice/snow pack and not concrete, I'm pretty sure the damage would have been a lot worse had my Forester not been designed with saftey in mind.
Ken
I think the rear glass breaking on a Trooper is less of a safety issue, since passengers are about 2 zip codes away from that glass. In the RAV4, their heads are just a couple of feet away.
-juice
-mike
I test drove one back in 1996, when they first came out, and it sold me on the concept of a car-based SUV (or wagon, or whatever you want to call it), but it was just a tad small and the lack of a bumper probably sealed the no-deal for me.
-juice
-mike
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010410/ts/ford_recall_dc_1.html
The rear glass breaks w/o any help from poles or accidents! I'm sure kate will love that link.
-mike
-Dan
Fact is, these loopholes should not exist. They were created in the 70's because back then trucks were for work, not personal use.
Ford is going to throw major money and time behind that fix - the Explorer is a real cash cow for them.
It's interesting because one suggestions for the next Forester was that rear window that opened, but some were against it because of possible rattles, and I guess things like this.
-juice
-mike
Bob
Who knows what voodoo the EPA and DOT use to classify cars and trucks. The silly thing is it's all based on an outdated assumption that trucks were intended for work use. Of course now they are too profitable to have rules changes, so more and more folks are trying to classify cars as trucks (PT, RAV4, CR-V, Highlander, etc).
Gotta give Subaru credit here. They could have easily cut major corners and made the Forester a truck (with lower safety standards and 20.7 mpg CAFE standards).
-juice
I remember that the Trooper 2 door was really expensive, because it was imported and paid a heavy tariff. They stopped bringing them here.
I wonder if the 2 door RAV4 is subject to those. Then again, that's been cancelled too.
-juice
Cheers,
-wdb
-juice
If I misstated the facts here a bit, my apologies, but that's the gist of the story.
Bob
Which means, if you're buying a TS wagon in the states, you're probably helping pay off Subaru's upcoming CAFE fine...
just kidding...
I'd bet that the 2door import tax is still in-force, because outside the US, there are tons of SWB(Short Wheel Base) Troopers with 2doors.
Hmm how can I tie my XT6 insto this? It was imported from Japan and it's not a truck? and the back seats are for import sake only, anyone who's been in the back seat of an XT6 knows that!
-mike
Ross
Also - the BRAT. Actually, the rear seats were not put in to eliminate tariffs. While that did happen as a result, the owner of SOA at the time had young boys who thought it would be great for riding on the beach. With the addition of the seats (with restraints), it made for a great "dune car". A lot of folks thought it would help with the tariffs at the time but it wasn't the reason behind the idea. Can you tell I've been around for awhile?
Patti
Patti
Well, nice to know Mike has his tongue in the reciever at all times. Enjoyed that bit, I'll assume his Trooper isn't the type that requires outriggers to corner ;')) Sorry. Couldn't resist. Mia Culpa!
Trooper II, Original 4Runner, and 2 Door Pathfinder all went away because of the import issue. Wonder how Amigo is doing?
A moment of silence for the VW Rabbitt Diesel pickup.... o.k.
The BRAT was a great dune car. Scott (PiperCub on i Club, same guy with the 2.5l turbo) had a BRAT heavily modified, and had plenty of great dune stories. It was a vehicle way before it's time - the long-travel, fully independent suspension is only now being copied by some capable SUVs (Montero, for example).
Amigo is still around. It's just called the Rodeo Sport now.
-juice
The one really curious thing he mentioned was about octane. He said to use the lowest octane where the engine doesn't ping. This includes the WRX! "If your engine doesn't ping with 85 octane, then use it," were his words. Then he went on to say that 85 was probably not sufficient if the WRX owner was into "rallying". Does that sound like good advice to you? I just wasn't sure...
-Dan
If I could flip my Trooper, it would have been done long ago... Ask Juice and Dennis and Bob!
They are solid!
-mike
Frank
-mike
Frank
BTW, that new owner orientation sounds like a great idea. I dunno if I'd use anything less than 91 octane on a turbo, but at least they're trying.
paisan more or less drives like you would in a slalom all the time, so yes, his would have rolled by now if it ever would!
-juice
As for the rear visibility, I think there is a law in Japan mandating that a person X feet tall sitting in the driver's seat must be able to look back and see an object Y feet tall through the rear window, yes? That's the reason for that odd little dip in the bottom of the '00 Legacy wagon's rear window, as I understand it. Japan is way ahead of the US on that score.
Cheers,
-wdb
-mike
Let me be brief and say that I disagree with your dealer completely. A smarter move might be to use the recommended 91 octane for a while, then experiment with one grade lower and see if you note any performance, economy or driveability issues. Or god forbid hear detonation.
I think it's patently stupid to go straight to 85 octane when 91 is specified. FHI engineers didn't come up with 91 just out of thin air-- who do you trust more, a powertrain engineer or a car salesman?
-Colin
I'm with Colin on the octane-on-the-WRX issue. And I'm a total gas cheapskate - all our cars take regular.
But a WRX? At full boost? Given the way it will be driven, and the buyer? C'mon...it's like buying a champion pure-breed Afgan Hound and feeding her generic dry dog food.
-juice
Mike - Lots of trucks, buses and vans in Japan have the rear mounted camera. Some of those parking spaces can be extremely tight!
Ken
-mike
-juice