We have temporarily turned off the ability to post while we deal with a massive spam attack. Thank you for your patience.
Options
Subaru Forester (up to 2005)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Seriously, though -- thanks for the Maaco reminder. I'd forgot about them. On the other hand, if the po-dunk fellow on the outskirts of Atlanta has been recommended to me and does some seriously good paint work, I'm willing to consider him. It's just his experience that worries me. Or the lack thereof with respect to Subarus. I guess if he pull out the dent and get it back to the original shape, I'm willing to fork over the extra cash to get it fixed.
Damn, I hate having to fiddle with this sort of thing on a brand new car. Of course, I saw about 4 WRX sedans in the Subaru body shop when I got my $750 quote, so I'm not the only one running my new car into things. ;-P
Later,
burnsmr4
Ask to see some samples of a paint shop's work. Usually there are painted cars right there you can see. Check for overspray on trim, look for orange peel texture, runs, loose trim, stuff like that.
-juice
So, I'm leaving the car overnight (on Monday) and getting a rental. I am going to request that they look at the timing belt tensioner but any other suggestions?
thanx for the help.
either but have noticed some light smoke
occasionally.
How expensive were these various oil leak
repairs?
The difference between dyed and metallic films is how they acheive their color. Pretty straightforward, but dyed uses dyes, metallic uses very small metallic particles in the film to block light. Metallic films are generally better because they do not fade and they also do a better job at reducing glare at night. Metallic films are more expensive, however. I've heard that dyed films have improved in quality over the years so they are far less prone to fading than before.
Two things you should look for when tinting -- the quality of the film and the skill of the installer. 3M, Madico and SolarGaurd are some very popular and good quality films. Installers should go past the gaskets on the windows to ensure that the film doesn't catch. Prices vary quite a bit based on your film type, but expect to pay at least $150 for all five rear windows. Also, a good installer takes his/her time. Stay away from any place that claims they'll have it done in an hour.
Ken
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Bob
<<Has anyone heard of this one? I have a 2002 Forester with 4700 miles on it. I've been having the problem of the car making the clacking/chattering noise (almost sounds like a diesel engine) when it's cold first thing in the morning. Started a couple of weeks ago. Just got it back from the autobody shop (won't even talk about that one!) and called to make an appointment at the dealer and described the problem. The service guy's comment? Well, we have a service bulletin on that and I can give you a copy but basically you'll just have to live with it.>>
i'd put money down it's the timing belt tensioner. when they call you and let you know that it, ask them if they're going to replace the timing belt as well, since the tensioner hasn't been doing its job and who knows what undue wear has occurred with the belt. make sure they start your car up in the morning when it's cold.
dean
cincinnati, ohio
'02s+
dean
cincinnati, ohio
'02s+
I'm currently shopping for a small suv type and I'm really close to getting a 2002 Honda CR-V but I really want to know if the Forester will be out of my price range. I test drove a an Outback Sport and loved the handling of it but find it a little too small. I expect the new Forester to drive about the same but just a little higher?
My range is around 22k and I would like a sunroof so the XS is probably what i would be interested in. I would think the XS will be around 24 or so.
Also, do any of you know when in May they'll be available to test drive?
thx
Nello
Forester is a bit taller with more ground clearance, but weight is close so acceleration isn't any slower.
A S premium now costs $22,400 with a manual trans, freight included. The new one may go up a couple of hundred, but it's close to your price range, at least.
You could do what I did - get an L and put in an aftermarket moonroof. A pop up costs $300, a power model $900. I love mine. An L model starts at $19k, so you could have a couple of grand left over, even.
Gotta check out that review now...
-juice
* X looks better than expected, more unified than it used to, cladding more integral, good wheels. That's great news for me. The hot buy might be the MT X with a few options.
* I was surprised to hear cargo room compares with wider, much taller Escape (way to go, Subaru!).
* The slight criticism of suspension because of body roll suggests serious drivers might want to upgrade sway bar.
* High marks for the brakes.
* I wish the reviewer had paid more attention to all the safety features, but that's not sexy.
* Reviewers like power; with turbo, this review would have been a rave.
I'm still happy with my current Forester, even if it is not the flashiest player around. It's still quick, nimble, comfortable, fun and reliable. Feels like it's going to last and last, leaving me time & money for other pursuits and pleasures. When I replace shocks & struts at 120K or so, I'll probably upgrade the rear sway bar & bushings to stay even. Maybe I'll end up with a 3rd generation model in 2007.
John
Ed
What bugged me about the review wasn't the content, it was the intro. Made it sound like the Forester was the first crossover built. I suspect that many Outback owners would disagree. So would the folks who own an early RAV4 or CR-V (like me).
Bob
* the silver trim is recessed, so it's not likely to scratch
* padded arm rests, a much needed improvement
* clock is at bottom of dash-top bin, adjustment buttons hidden beneath lid, clever
* cup holders fit mugs
* seat heater buttons more easily accessible
* seats seem like a luxury car's
* nice dead pedal (which a certain Honda lacks)
* X model very, very well sorted
* 16" steelies more attractive than alloys!
* cladding color matches C-pillar and tail gate strip
* I want one!
And quibbles:
* not sure I like the map nets
* arm rest should angle up towards front
* X should have rear disc brakes to go with standard ABS
Ed: have you done the sway bar upgrade? 18mm was $82, 20mm was $78 (oddly the bigger one is cheaper).
Subaru had the first "crossover" actually back in 1973, with the first 4WD wagon. It even had a raised suspension and a low range, so arguably it's more truck-like than today's crossovers. Then came the AMC Eagle, then Audi, then a whole wave of newcomers.
Outback started the revival, though.
-juice
-juice
-juice
Also, you could count the Colt Vista, the Tercel wagon, the Corolla wagon, the Stanza wagon. I believe all those had 4WD.
But have no doubt - Subaru was first. Their GL wagon was a 1973, more than a decade before Honda. It had 4WD, low range, heavy duty lifted springs, and even skid plates.
More observations from that article: they say clearance is still 7.5". Some japanese specs say 7.9", though.
The hill holder uses the parking brake. Did the old ones work that way? I though they used tranny internals to do it.
Cargo space is the same as my Forester. In CR's box test, that still beats most cute utes and even some mid-sizers.
-juice
The Eagle is very close in size and image to the Outback. It was just way ahead of its time (timing is everything)—and it was (unfortunately) built by AMC...
Bob
On the older cars the hill holder would engage 1 single brake. It had basically a tap into one of the brake lines and would basically hold that wheel locked with the brake pressure until you moved forward then it released the pressure. I'll try to remember to get the whole technical explaination this weekend.
-mike
Depends on how you define crossover, I guess. Edmunds may include the Forester because it's registered as a car, while RAV4 and CR-V are trucks. But varmint still makes a good point about the Outback. It's not just a tall wagon - it had a raised roof, too.
paisan: we can also ask our two technician guests during next week's live chat.
-juice
Bob
Still, I think it, much more so than early Subie 4WDs, planted the seed in people's minds that such a vehicle (AWD wagon) was possible. Most people were aware of the Eagle, whereas precious few where aware of the 1970s Subie 4WDs. Besides, the Eagle is close to the size and proportion of the Outback. Conceptually it's a very short leap...
Bob
Unable to locate other repair records right now, but the other two would have been more expensive for labor becaue of poor accessibility and long disassembly/reassembly time.
I had friends in Colorado back in the mid-70's with one of the "original" Subaru wagons, and I saw one cruising in Boise the other day. They were amazingly narrow :-)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
John
I guess the AMC was more tall wagon, while some of the others we're mentioning were almost mini-minivans, in a way. Their interiors were more versatile than the Eagle's rather generic layout.
-juice
Carguy62 - You're right about the tail lights. I like it, too.
Hill holder - I seem to recall someone posting a link to a pretty good description of the hill holder. I think the new version uses one front and one rear brake (opposite sides of the car).
I bit the bullet and finally got an Image Station account. I think Sony runs it so hopefully the "juice jinx" won't take them out of business (which happened to homepage.com and photopoint).
-juice
-juice
bob
Ken
then the picture will show up fine.
My grandparents had an '85 Eagle wagon. I do remember the small import 4wd's, but have to agree that the Eagle was probably bucking the trend with it's raised suspension and selectable 4wd.
-Brian (who lives 5 minutes away from an AMC plant {which is now only a Jeep/ChryCo engine plant})
I remember the early Subaru 4wd with some fondness. Australians were mildy surprsed by them but a lot of farmers could not believe their luck. They were civilised but robust and had selectable 4WD when the low range option appearsed it upped the ante as did the ability to raise the suspension. I seem to remember that you did this by screwing down a bolt on the top of each suspension tower but cannot remember the details now.
They were also popular amongst skiers of the "serious but not trendy" variety, particularly cross country types.
Mind you, the interiors were a bit on the rugged side with plastic type floor mats which washed down easily but were lethally slippery if you had muddy feet.
Arguably the concept of the cross over vehicle should be traced to the Series I Range Rover which came out in about 1968. This was a Rover car fitted with the most impressive 4WD system made at the time. Alternatively it was a serious 4WD fitted with car like body and interior. It would go places even a Land Rover could not because of its massive suspension articulation and the transplanted 3.5l Buick V8 engine which had been fitted to the Rover 3500. Mind you it also gave new meaing to "breaking down in far away places" as reliability was no too flash.
However at any sort of accessible price, I think the Subaru was probably the first.
Cheers
Graham
I may not be able to hold out for the 2003's. Sounds like dealers here in Florida want to move the 2002's.
Does Invoice less $250.00 to $500.00 sound good for the 2002's. How much over Invoice am I going to have to pay for a 2003?
Ack!! What should I do?
Thanks, Dave ;^)
Ed
Look again at Mike's pictures of the 2003 Forester's interior on post #5259. See the nice cupholders in the center console...YAY! Finally a logical solution. But wait, could it be? Looks like they sacrificed the center armrest for the new cupholders!!!!! Doh!!!!!
Dave ;^)
Bob
http://isuzu-suvs.com/events/nyias02/index_3.htm
and the first 4 on:
http://isuzu-suvs.com/events/nyias02/index_4.htm
I went to my local dealer(25 miles away) and he said he thinks he's getting a few XS's by the end of the month. Definitly a silver XS by mid May.
No word on the X's