Sure enough, nothing you could have done. If you were hit on the left side, that pushes the rear of the car to the right, into wild oversteer. The corrective measure is to steer to the right, into the slide, but to catch a spin like that is nearly impossible.
Have you test driven the OBS? How big was the smile on your face? That's how I like to decide.
I actually test drove one a while ago. Nice alloys, seats, and the structure seemed real solid. It wasn't really any quicker than the Forester, and the carpets and sun visors are still a little cheap. But for the price, were else can you get 165hp, AWD, ABS, wagon, etc?
If I had to replace my Forester today? It would be really tough, but now I'd be leaning towards a WRX wagon. At least until I see the 2004 Forester.
I can see where you're coming from. If I had to replace my Forester today, I would consider looking at other models too. Since you're plunking down more money, why not go for something different?
The OBS may be a good choice. It certainly has more zip than the previous model and has similar functionality to the Forester.
Like juice, I'd lean towards a WRX wagon given the current line-up.
My condolences on the accident. Glad to hear you walked away safely. There's isn't much that I can add to the discussion except to say that the current Forester might be worth reconsidering if it wasn't at the end of its model run. Each year from 98-02 has added more content, with the 00-01 redesign being the biggest change. There are a few things on my '00 that were either not available or extra cost options on the 98-99s, and the 01-02s got even "more better."
Without knowing what the '03-04 Foresters will bring and given that you need to get into another vehicle soon, one of the Impreza wagons may be your better bet.
Good luck, Ed (occasional $0.02 added to Subaru Crew)
I'm coming up on my second oil change mileage, and am thinking of trying to do it myself instead of trusting a garage. I'm sure this question has been posted before, but anyone out there have good directions and /or tips for changing the oil & filter. Thanks for your help.
Good choice in doing it yourself. It's cheaper and you'll know it's been done right. Oil changes on the Forester are super easy. I think juice had some excellent documentation on it.
Sure do, start here. There are 6 photos along with text to help you out.
The only change I've made is that I no longer use FRAM filters. Stick with OE Subaru, Purolator, Champion Labs, or Car & Driver (found at Target). An oil filter study circulated recently and FRAM and Pennzoil filters were poor quality.
Well we are having some heavy downpours here in Buffalo today. After going through some major puddles which I can't avoid, there is a high pitched squeeling coming from the engine compartment, but it goes away after 15-30 seconds or so. My sube hasn't had a plastic sump guard since it got torn off on an off road trip earlier this year, never had a problem like this since. I am just wondering are the belts getting wet??, is that what's making the noise? if so, is it okay for the car?? I mean I know it can't be good in the long run. I do need to buy a replacement sump guard??
wet belts? That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I started reading your post. Sounds good (oops, sorry) to me. Other ideas? I wouldn't think it would cause much trouble unless the belts are a bit loose and the water is causing added slippage. But then, what do I know?
I had a high pitch squeel on my trooper when it was @ idle, or idle-rolling speeds. Turned out that I had let the truck sit for a few weeks after 4-wheelin, and the mud/dirt had put some surface corrosion on the A/C compressor pulley. They re-lubed it and it was fine.
Anyone can tell me if his/her Forester's seatbeat light will light up if not fasten it after starting the engine? Mine is not light up and I think it suppose to light up.
I was wondering if the Forester is suited for long hauls? I frequently take road trips and was wondering how comfortable the Forester was? Is the back seat too small for adult passengers for a long trip? Is the Legacy better for this type of driving. I do like having the storage space.
I don't want the L (seat material is like burlap!), I'd probably spring for the S w/ premium package.
Also is the Forester redeisgn for next year(2003) OR the year after that? If they're changing chassis to increase the wheelbase, I might wait.
Will be 100x more comfy for long-travel adults in the back seat. A few of my relatives were ready to buy foresters til they couldn't fit their full-sized kids in the back seat for extended trips.
a cramped back seat is just about my only beef with the current forester....hopefully the new one will remedy this....hope they do a fairly extensive re-design as opposed to a warm-over..as mag-x site mentions, it's been five years since the original came out. would like to see a flat floor in the rear passenger space in addition to more room, as in cr-v, santa fe & triscape (even the civic sedan, for goodness-sake). i hope they price it more agressively too....still seems over-priced wrt the competition here in canada (27k to 36k, as opposed to 22k to 32k for most of it's competition). in fact, all subaru's seem somewhat overpriced here......maybe subaru canada doesn't want to absorb as much of the currency differential as other manufacturers do. as an example, in the recent sport& compact car comparison between the wrx(wagon) and acura rsx type s, it mentions a $325 US price difference between them (wrx is higher). in canada, the rsx type s (premium) goes for $31k and the wrx (sedan & wagon) go for $35k, a $4000.00 DIFFERENCE!!!
Sundhario- The Legacy's additional inch of rear seat leg room will make a significant difference if you're transporting adults over long distances. Other than that, the Forester is an excellent long-haul vehicle.
The latest info on the next Forester has it debuting in August 2002 but no solid details yet on what it will look like or how big it will be.
As the lucky owner of both the current Forester and Legacy (OB) models, here is my 2 cents worth: the Forester is a great runabout vehicle, but is less well tuned to long highway trips. The Legacy provides better legroom, more cargo space, better sound insulation, flatter handling, etc. However, gas mileage is a bit better in the Forester (which IS a long trip consideration), and (oddly?) although they share the same engine and drivetrain, my Forester turns around 2800 rpm at 70 mph while my Outback requires 3200 rpm for that speed. I keep wondering how that might effect longevity if I keep both until the bitter end. Now go be good to yourself and buy a Subaru! Dave
Mike: try spraying on some belt dressing to clean them. Then consider adjusting the tension on the belts.
Sunny: if you can, wait for the new one. Should be improved, with more room. Currently, I'd go with the Forester if you have 0-1 kids, Legacy with 2 or more.
I like that sketch of the 2003 Forester. Looks faithful to the original concept (small and fun), yet more aggressive. I hope we get the scoop, because that would mean a turbo! 2004, supposedly.
that's too long to wait for me......mag-x says it will be out in april 2002 in japan, so i was kinda hoping maybe july/aug 2002 here. do like the look though....stays true to the original but more modern or up-dated. pointy parts on rear lights look a little weird (could just be the illustration) but then it wouldn't be a sube without a little weirdness, eh?!
No, you're right Ross, it does look out of proportion. Kinda like the front bumper on the Frontier. However, that's just a preliminary artist's sketch so the final product could look significantly different.
The Turbo will supposedly come for 2004 (per Automotive News). The new model does arrive next fall.
I agree it's just a sketch to give you an idea of the direction of the redesign. Looking at it again, the profile is far too similar to the current Forester. It almost looks like a face-lift of the old one. Or like an artist sketched the old model with a few changes he knew about (headlights, taillights) thrown in.
Ed: ouch. Guess you're hoping it's not accurate, eh?
I like it, but it could be more cutting edge. The sketch of the 2001 Forester, which turned out to be completely wrong, was better looking. More RX300-ish, minus the alien-like styling cues.
juice: Maybe I was too harsh but it looks like the artist took the existing car and:
1) grafted on taillights from either the Highlander, Escape, or Nissan Quest 2) drew on parts-bin Legacy GT wheels 3) drew on parts-bin WRX or Outback foglamps
The front bumper is too tall and devoid of contour.
I guess my expectations would include more emphasis on fender bulges a la WRX, a bolder grille/front end treatment, and shorter front/rear overhangs. The more I think of it, the more the current Forester actually reminds me of a scaled down Land Cruiser (FJ80) and I would continue along the "little FJ80" theme. Beyond the badge, lower body cladding and nostril-like hood scoop, there is really no Subaru corporate identity to maintain.
There's not enough deviation from the existing model in the drawing for me to get worked up about it. Some quality sleep may be in order for me.
I'd like to see bigger fenders too, so more tire would fit in there. How about 16"s standard, 17"s optional?
I think the actual production version will have more changes than appear in the sketch. I agree that the artist used the current model as a basis and tossed in rumored changes.
Has anyone had problems with their clutch? My 2001 has had 2 clutches with only 37k miles. Most of the driving has been highway, and with drivers that know how to drive manual trannies. Also, has anyone smelled their clutch burning when the tires were spinning? This would happen to me on snow---my foot wasn't touching the clutch, yet a burning smell...
Has anyone seen the latest C.R.? They did a tire review and rated the Gdyr A.T.3's as poor in the snow. Oh Poop! This is in direct conflict with the data from The Tire Rack. Man, I'm bummed. Snow performance is the sole reason I moved from the Geolanders. Who is right? Only Jack Frost knows for sure. Stay tuned.......... - hutch
Keep in mind that those Tirerack user surveys are really subjective since there is no scientific or objective basis of comparison, like what CR does in their measurable tests. That's why it's not a good idea place too much emphasis on them. If, for example, a person has really crappy tires prior to the Aquatread 3s, they would rate the AQ's as high and would skew the scores upwards towards "good"
I went with the BFGoodrich Control T/A M65 tires since even though they weren't the top rated tires, they were rated good for wet/snow/ice traction based on C.R's tests, and had good overall performance. Winter performance (from last season) seemed to reflect CR's high score, and I was very impressed. The only down side to this was that there was so much grip that I couldn't do any proper donuts! ;-)
Good point about the Tire Rack surveys. One should look at the rightmost column and check the "miles reported". The higher the cumulative miles, the more data on a given tire. While the results are still subjective, it does help to know that the numbers reflect the opinion of many.
I guess that the M65's don't come in that size but the Control T/A M80's do. CR didn't rate the M80 but according to the BFGoodrich web-site information, it doesn't sound like the M80 will be as good in snow as the M65. Anybody have any experience with the M80?
Currently in the process of purchasing tires for my Sienna. It comes down to the M65s, Michelin Symmetry, Aqua 3s and Yoko Aegis. Since the M65s are not available in my size, and I am getting conflicting reports on snow and vibration from the Aquas, I am down to the Michelins and Yokos with the Yokos costing half the price and rated very high on CR. I am going to call tirerack directly and ask their opinions. Any opinions on these tires would be appreciated. Oh, and yes I checked the tires, tires, tires forum.
Hutch - I assume you mean Consumer Reports. The new October issue rates car batteries, but I find no tires report. Could you or anyone else please be specific about the exact issue and page number you are referring to? Joe
joseph50: You can find articles in CR pretty quickly from the magazine (hard copy). They have an index in the back that shows what was reviewed and when (within about the previous 12 months). I go to the library (bricks and mortar) for this - they have all the back issues, and it is free (unlike CR's website research).
Joe-- It's the November 2001 issue, pages 61-65. But none of the highest rated (especially for snow) come in the 215/60R16 *whimpers* I'll do some more checking.
The only other tire that scored well, overall as well as snow, in the November CR test that comes in the 215/60R16 size is the Kelly Navigator Gold (identical category ratings as the M65 but it's overall rating is just a shade less and it's price is just a bit more). It has a 70,000 mile limited warranty and is "S" speed-rated. http://www.kelly-springfield.com/products/auto/ngold.html
with a Tirerack "consultant" I decided to go with the Yokohama Aegis LS4s. The person I spoke with had them on his Caravan and liked them and they were rated highly by CR. In addition, they were cheap - $49 with a grand total of $222 with shipping. $12/Tire for installation at Costco and I will be ready to go. I will keep you updated on their performance, especially after I drive to Disney in a few months!
Comments
Have you test driven the OBS? How big was the smile on your face? That's how I like to decide.
I actually test drove one a while ago. Nice alloys, seats, and the structure seemed real solid. It wasn't really any quicker than the Forester, and the carpets and sun visors are still a little cheap. But for the price, were else can you get 165hp, AWD, ABS, wagon, etc?
If I had to replace my Forester today? It would be really tough, but now I'd be leaning towards a WRX wagon. At least until I see the 2004 Forester.
-juice
I can see where you're coming from. If I had to replace my Forester today, I would consider looking at other models too. Since you're plunking down more money, why not go for something different?
The OBS may be a good choice. It certainly has more zip than the previous model and has similar functionality to the Forester.
Like juice, I'd lean towards a WRX wagon given the current line-up.
Good luck shopping!
Ken
My condolences on the accident. Glad to hear you walked away safely. There's isn't much that I can add to the discussion except to say that the current Forester might be worth reconsidering if it wasn't at the end of its model run. Each year from 98-02 has added more content, with the 00-01 redesign being the biggest change. There are a few things on my '00 that were either not available or extra cost options on the 98-99s, and the 01-02s got even "more better."
Without knowing what the '03-04 Foresters will bring and given that you need to get into another vehicle soon, one of the Impreza wagons may be your better bet.
Good luck,
Ed (occasional $0.02 added to Subaru Crew)
Ken
The only change I've made is that I no longer use FRAM filters. Stick with OE Subaru, Purolator, Champion Labs, or Car & Driver (found at Target). An oil filter study circulated recently and FRAM and Pennzoil filters were poor quality.
-juice
Mike
Ross
-mike
Rgds,
Jack
http://mag-x.com/scoop/forester0109/index.html
an evolution but looks pretty good to me.....hope there's a wheelbase stretch to gove some more back seat room!
I don't want the L (seat material is like burlap!), I'd probably spring for the S w/ premium package.
Also is the Forester redeisgn for next year(2003) OR the year after that? If they're changing chassis to increase the wheelbase, I might wait.
Thanks!
-mike
The latest info on the next Forester has it debuting in August 2002 but no solid details yet on what it will look like or how big it will be.
-Frank P.
Now go be good to yourself and buy a Subaru!
Dave
Sunny: if you can, wait for the new one. Should be improved, with more room. Currently, I'd go with the Forester if you have 0-1 kids, Legacy with 2 or more.
I like that sketch of the 2003 Forester. Looks faithful to the original concept (small and fun), yet more aggressive. I hope we get the scoop, because that would mean a turbo! 2004, supposedly.
-juice
Now it does. :-)
Ken
That is a publication from Japan, so the hood scoop reflects what they offer overseas.
-juice
...at 6-7pm Pacific/9-10 pm Eastern. Hope to see you there!
http://www.edmunds.com/chat/subaruchat.html
Thanks,
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Ross
-Frank P.
I agree it's just a sketch to give you an idea of the direction of the redesign. Looking at it again, the profile is far too similar to the current Forester. It almost looks like a face-lift of the old one. Or like an artist sketched the old model with a few changes he knew about (headlights, taillights) thrown in.
-juice
Ed
You'd asked during the chat 'bout replacement battery. I couldn't get the name out at the back of my head. Bad of me not to know what's in my OB.
Anyway, I'm using the OPTIMA battery with good results over the OEM (and it's about 2" shorter too).
http://www.optimabatteries.com/products/starter/index.asp
Check it out.
-Dave
I like it, but it could be more cutting edge. The sketch of the 2001 Forester, which turned out to be completely wrong, was better looking. More RX300-ish, minus the alien-like styling cues.
-juice
1) grafted on taillights from either the Highlander, Escape, or Nissan Quest
2) drew on parts-bin Legacy GT wheels
3) drew on parts-bin WRX or Outback foglamps
The front bumper is too tall and devoid of contour.
I guess my expectations would include more emphasis on fender bulges a la WRX, a bolder grille/front end treatment, and shorter front/rear overhangs. The more I think of it, the more the current Forester actually reminds me of a scaled down Land Cruiser (FJ80) and I would continue along the "little FJ80" theme. Beyond the badge, lower body cladding and nostril-like hood scoop, there is really no Subaru corporate identity to maintain.
There's not enough deviation from the existing model in the drawing for me to get worked up about it. Some quality sleep may be in order for me.
Ed
I think the actual production version will have more changes than appear in the sketch. I agree that the artist used the current model as a basis and tossed in rumored changes.
-juice
Ken
- hutch
I went with the BFGoodrich Control T/A M65 tires since even though they weren't the top rated tires, they were rated good for wet/snow/ice traction based on C.R's tests, and had good overall performance. Winter performance (from last season) seemed to reflect CR's high score, and I was very impressed. The only down side to this was that there was so much grip that I couldn't do any proper donuts! ;-)
For more information about tires, check out the Tires, tires, tires discussion topic in the Aftemarket & Accessories message board.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Good point about the Tire Rack surveys. One should look at the rightmost column and check the "miles reported". The higher the cumulative miles, the more data on a given tire. While the results are still subjective, it does help to know that the numbers reflect the opinion of many.
Ken
--'rocco
--'rocco
Thanks,
Greg
Greg
Joe
Greg
My wife has BFG Comp T/A VR4s on her 626, and they're OK. Far better in snow than her OE Potenza RE92s, that's for sure, but still not great.
I'm happy with my Nitto NT460s but would not recommend them for snow. The tread really lasts and they are quiet, plus handling in wet and dry is good.
-juice
--'rocco
--'rocco
Greg
--'rocco
Joe