Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
- using small screwdriver, pry up the small plastic screw-head covers and then remove 2 screws (1 by the door-latch & 1 in the armrest).
- gently pry up the armrest plastic piece (with the door/window control buttons) and seperate from the door panel. I think there is an electrical cable to disconnect from this piece (note this connector has a tab-lock). Remove the 2 (or was it 3?) screws you will then see that fasten the door panel to the door.
- starting at the bottom of the door panel, using 1 or 2 thin flat pry-bar tools, "pop" the door panel away from the door. Try to apply pressure as close to the plastic
"snap-fasteners" as possible.
- after all door panel snap-fasteners have been "popped", swing bottom of panel out and push panel up to disengage the top ridge from along the window line.
- the door panel will still have the door latch cable attached, but even with this connected, you will adequate access to fix the white plastic "rattling baffle".
Reverse this process for re-installation.
One important thing when snapping/unsnapping pieces etc is try not to scratch or dig up the plastic pieces with your tools.
Hopefully, this helps (and I haven't forgotten any steps above!)...
No, it won't be junk at all. But it probably will be considerably more expensive, necessitating a longer ownership period for new cars. Increased mpg in the same size vehicle means more costly materials like high strength steel, aluminum and magnesium, composites and new designs for heavy components like seats. brake master cylinders and discs, wheels, tires, and glass. The old way is to get strength from material thickness; the new way is to improve the design.
Some of these new designs pose problems for reconstruction after a crash: That may raise insurance cost. In short.....expect to spend more and keep your car longer.
Worse includes not having standard protective cladding and door bump strips on the Forester as compared to the Outback; there is a reason for the lower price besides reduced overall length. At least you can order many of these at extra cost.
is that actual page at subaruforester.org. Apparently the fix was called a "Tech tip" and not a TSB.
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/attachments/f106/15990d1233599257-tech-t- ip-2009-forester-buzzing-rattle-noise-front-doors-09doorrattlett.jpg
is a concise summary the site posted as a .jpg.
The waffle baffle they describe is on the lower left of the driver door (lower right of passenger door), behind the interior trim and a thin plastic air barrier held in place by butyl rubber strips.
If you look very closely at the pics you can see the holes where the inner trim snaps into the door.
I also saw internal wiring that might be the cause of a buzz just above the door handle release.
When I get brave I may try removing the door trim to secure everything.
As to my one general annoyance--I wouldn't do this, it would be wrong, but theoretically if I were to want to disconnect the seat belt chime, does anybody know how to do this? I don't mind it really except it immediately starts bitching at you the minute the car starts to move--the one in my Acura at least has the patience to wait about 30 seconds before doing so. I always wear the belt, but don't always want to have to do it by the time I reach the end of the driveway.
Really? That sucks. In previous generation Foresters, it would ding at you for a few seconds after you started the car but remained blissfully silent from then on. Unlike most American makes that periodically continue to annoy you until you either go crazy or fasten your seatbelt
-Frank
So in that manner we are paying a below average (cheap?) price for it.
I agree, though, that as fuel economy is emphasized more and more there is a risk of less insulation or simply cheaper materials to accomplish cost and weight targets.
Look at the headliner, then compare to a 2006 Forester. It's gone way downhill.
Having said that, I'm one of the lucky ones with a rattle-free 2009.
Sam - thanks for the correction on the EPA fuel economy estimates.
I upgraded the speakers on my 98 Forester and also noticed a significant improvement.
just over 3,000 miles in 22 days - thruought Oregon, Utah, Nevada, & Arizona.
Observations:
1. Achieved GREAT gas mileage - 31.2 mpg overall for trip (which was almost all hwy driving). I tend to drive conservatively (65-70 mph, coast on long downhills, etc).
2. Forester handles really well on open road, and I found I could drive for hours without being fatigued. The drivers seat has inadequate lumbar support (for me), but
an aux pillow placed behind lower back kept me comfortable. Car had plenty of
power to handle big mountain grades.
3. Had an "incident" - a rock (kicked up from truck) chipped the windshield, which necesitated a $40 "chip repair" in Utah. Based on my experience (2nd chip)
and other posts here, I think the Forester uses very thin glass which chips easily.
4. Despite driving thru the desert in 115+ deg F temps, had no overheating issues
(not having a temp guage kept me nervous, however!). And A/C proved more than
adequate keeping interior cool and comfortable.
5. The black plastic rear wheel well molding came loose again (already fixed by
dealer 3 times previously). Apparently the adhesive strips used by Subaru to attach
these moldings are having problems in extreme heat...
6. Here's an interesting lesson I learned: I wanted to charge my cell phone while car was parked at hotel. But power outlets are active only with ignition turned on.
So, I decided I would leave key in ignition, and take door FOB with me
to unlock doors later after phone was charged up. BUT - Forester won't let you lock doors with key in ignition. Then I noticed if you hold down door lock key for 3 seconds, it overrides and lets you lock doors with key in ignition. Unfortunately, this also "deadlocks" the car and you can no longer unlock doors using key FOB - which I learned upon returning to my car and finding myself locked out!!! The good news is that I called the Subaru Assistance phone#, and within 40 minutes they
had a local road service provider on-site to unlock my car (and for no $ charge).
It's nice to know the Subaru Assistance service really does a good job helping you
out if/when you need it.
Overall, I really enjoyed how the Forester performed. It had lots of room for camping
gear, bicycle, etc. The huge sunroof was great to have in the mountains. I got as much as 450 miles cruising range on tank of gas. Chalk me up as a VERY
satisfied Subaru owner...
Nothing has gone wrong with the car-- I'm very pleased about that! At this point, it is working as well as my Toyota Sienna did. No mechanical problems, nothing has broken. I love the way it handles and rides, the exterior visibility, the power, the tight turning circle, the easy rear-seat access, the big cargo space.
If I could redesign it for next year, I would improve the interior (especially the carpeting) and make the seats more cushy -- I added a memory-foam pad and custom sheepskin seat covers on both front seats. (The excellent performance of the car is not matched by the chintzy interior.) I would make the gas tank a little higher-capacity. And I would lower the volume of the annoying seatbelt chime.
Other than that, I can say I am quite pleased with my purchase. The car has been really fun to drive, and grips my steep driveway nicely in bad weather. I was at first reluctant to leave my favorite carmakers (Toyota and Honda), but the Forester lured me away because of its superior ride and handling. (The Rav-4 rode like a go-cart and the interior cargo area of the CRV was too small because the rear seats tumble into the footwell.) The Forester has been a very good choice so far.
I rarely drive over 70 mpg, and certainly notice the dip in mpg for anything over 60 - 65. The absolute most I have been able to squeeze iw 449 miles, with approx 1/2 gallon left to spare. That's actual mpg, not based on what the computer says. For highway driving, I would not thing the standard you have would easily give 3 more mpg. But, if you figures are accurate that the 31.2 you indicate is based on the entire trip per actual fuel consumption, that'g great.
The car is getting more "noisy" as time goes on Just a lot of noises of various types, nothing I can pinpoint. The carpeting (if you really want to call it that) is lousy. I purchased a wind deflector for the moonroof which has made things much quieter as I like to travel this time of year with roof open, and I talk on the phone constantly and that does cut down on the wind noise considerably. Only problem the wind deflector Subaru provides is rather large, much taller than really is necessary. But, it does the job. The radio is "so so" You cannot get a great deal of volume out the rear speakers, though. Lastly, my left thigh keeps hitting the part of the door on the inside that sticks into the car a bit. Kind of annoying, I never had that problem with another car.
I have a Forester and Sienna also - great partners in crime.
on both the trip computer and confirmation of actual fuel purchases. Normally
when driving locally, I achieve about 27 mpg.
Probable Contributing Factors:
1. I usually use premium unleaded fuel
2. Just before leaving on trip, I changed the oil, using (for 2nd time) Mobil 1
synthetic oil.
3. At about 13K miles, the Forester did seem to start getting better MPG...???
4. While not a "hyper-miler", I do lot's of minor things to maximize MPG - like
keeping speed under 70 (wish there was a 6th gear!); coasting in neutral down
hills; avoiding aggressive starts; skipping gears when accelerating (3rd or 4th);
avoiding prolonged idling; keeping car clean/waxed; closing sunroof at high speeds
(too noisy anyway); keeping extra weight in car to minimum.
I should also note that I don't have XT turbo, have M/T, and the PZEV engine
(mandatory in OR)...">
CR found that even though the EPA lab test numbers are similar, the manual Forester got +3mpg compared to the Forester in the real world, which is significant.
Anybody else had something similar?
So, I decided I would leave key in ignition, and take door FOB with me
to unlock doors later after phone was charged up. BUT - Forester won't let you lock doors with key in ignition. Then I noticed if you hold down door lock key for 3 seconds, it overrides and lets you lock doors with key in ignition. Unfortunately, this also "deadlocks" the car and you can no longer unlock doors using key FOB - which I learned upon returning to my car and finding myself locked out!!!
I figured out a way around this on my '07 Outback, as a matter of necessity. It does require an extra "door key" though, which is a duplicate key cut at your local hardware store for $2-3, but sans chip. Since the FOB is disabled when the key is in the ignition, and the car will unlock the doors if you lock them with the switch, do this:
1. Lock the doors with the electronic door switch while the doors are closed and the engine is running.
2. Unlock the driver's door only, with the manual switch, then open the door and exit the vehicle.
3. Lock the driver's door only, again with the manual switch, then close the door.
But, if you found that holding the FOB down for three seconds will force the car to lock, that would save these steps. The only common factor is that in order to re-access the car, you need a second key. The door key is convenient because it is small compared to the factory key. It is doubly convenient if your car has a second driver who needs a chipped key.
Do that each time you rotate the tires.
hills..."
That uses more gas than coasting in Drive. When coasting in neutral, the injectors provide enough fuel for idling rpms. When coasting in Drive, fuel is cut off until idling rpm is reached, which would only occur if you were to stop at the bottom of the hills.
That's interesting... My question, then is:
What about using engine braking going down hills (i.e. in 2nd gear--4AT), which I do often. Is it more or less fuel effecient than if in Drive?
Thanks,
Bill
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/automotive/view/20090811subaru_sales_on_fir- e_in_july/srvc=home&position=also
Bob
Yep, and Boch hit the nail right on the head with this comment.
I was looking at the Forester X a little more yesterday and for about $20K, that thing really is an amazing value.
With our second dog arriving next week I'm looking to replace my Accord sedan. I have had great luck with Hondas for years and years but am balking at the CRV because of the trims and price.
A base model Forester offers more equipment PLUS the manual trans. I prefer.
But the Honda is a known entity, and has no real faults either.
This is a very competitive class of vehicles to be sure. :shades:
I am comparing to a Honda CRV EX AWD. Cloth interior, moonroof, auto only.
Prices are probably within a grand of each other.
RAV is an outside contender. I drove one when they first came out and still remember how uncomfortable it was for me. I may have to give it another look though.
We've tested the CRV extensively when we bought our Accord instead. Good car overall, no big faults. Smooth, decent power and space. Known entity as we have owned a number of Hondas.
I have driven Subarus a number of times and never really liked them... the didn't fit my big body well and they were totally ubiquitous up here. But I was told by a number of people I trust to give the new Forester a chance.
The cabin is now much more airy and open, hip, shoulder and elbow room for my size was great. It has the biggest moonroof I've ever seen. The drive was just "ok" no better or worse then the CRV. Soaks up bumps nicely, not too much wallowing around, decent power and noise levels.
I'm not a dash-stroker by any means but the interior materials are clearly a cut below the CRV. The carpets were chintzy, and the dash stuff looked like it would scratch easily but I liked the seat material. Black with a bit of a shimmery blue pattern in it, very nice.
The engine is noticeably course compared to the Honda. The 5 speed is a real advantage over CRV but it's not a great one. Better then paying for an auto I don't want though.
The rear cargo area was a bit of a let down. The floor is quite high and sloped upwards towards the rear seatbacks. The CRV's is noticeably larger, lower, and flatter but not as square up top.
Back seat room was good. I could sit behind myself and I think the boy will have about the same amount of leg room he has now. It's narrower then the Accord we have now but on par with CRV overall. The way the Forester's flip out cupholder piece works leaves a nice well for his toys.
Front seat was quite comfortable. Layout of everything was logical and a little boring, but no real faults. Again, on par with the CRV.
We'll load up the family next week and go drive both together and play the numbers game and see where we land. I don't think either has a big edge with me, my wife may disagree... I know she really wants seat heaters. I think I like each one about the same, each has advantages and disadvantages over the other but not enough either way to make the choice easy. My local honda dealer is great and I have a relationship with them. The Subaru place doesn't have a great rep overall but with any luck I won't see them much anyway.
Buying next week, so this should be, I hope, a short story.
I voted for the Subaru for the awd, which should be a help up here come winter.
Over-all with 3500 kilo, it is working out OK
CR-V: better seats (firmer); Honda reliability.
Forester: better ride: better visibility, better AWD system.
Subaru AWD is the clincher for me.
Bill
While the radio knobs were very small, the car also had wheel-mounted volume, mute, and station buttons which mitigated the need to use the dials with any frequency. I very much liked the softness of the mute and power features of the radio. Essentially, the music fades in and out rather than simply an abrupt on or off when one of these buttons is pressed. One would think that is a minor thing, but it was very pleasing to me. The seats were comfortable even if a bit flat; they lacked much of the bolstering I have come to expect from Subaru seats. As expected, the power driver seat has a very intuitive adjustment mechanism that even a power-noob like me can use with ease. The interior, dash, and console was pleasing to the eye. I often hear complaints about the dash being "hard," but I am not one to stroke the dash so I find that to be of no importance. I do like the matte appearance. Additionally, the tinted rear windows combined with the moonroof made the interior feel bright without being blindingly so.
The interior room was quite amazing. Ample cargo area with a full complement of passengers, a ridiculous amount of leg room in the rear (I moved the front seat all the way back and still had 2" from my knees to the back of the seat cushion - at 6'0", that is ample space!). Driving, though, I probably only had the seat 50% toward the rear of the tracks, so any passenger behind me would have limo-like leg room!
Overall impressions - it is a solid, attractive vehicle. I actually had no interest whatsoever in driving the '10 Outback after returning from the test drive even though there was one of the ugly monsters glaring at me the moment I pulled into the lot. I am absolutely not surprised at the Forester's popularity.
MSRP on the vehicle I tested - $24,430.
Of note on the X (non-premium) model: It does not come with roof rails! When inquiring about adding such rails, I was told this could not be done due to the side curtain airbag system having to be removed to do so. If removed, the warranty on that system is void. If so, why in God's name would they opt not to include such a practical feature? Do those who but base models not need to haul cargo? That is just foolishness, there.
First, the CR-V has the same cardboard sprayed with peach fuzz headliner, very few padded plastics, thin carpets, ... I honestly didn't see much difference.
Perhaps you didn't like the new berber carpeted mats Subaru is using?
Look closely and the elbow rests on the Forester are actually softer. The leather on the seats and steering wheel are of high quality, so all the stuff you touch on the Forester is just fine, even better than the CR-V IMHO.
2nd, Bob and I went to Fitz Subaru over the weekend for an event, and he noted that you mentioned "The floor is quite high and sloped upwards towards the rear seatbacks".
We looked, and it's very nearly flat. I think maybe if you try moving the headrests out of the way you'll find it's flatter, not to mention seamless, because the carpets connect the back of the seats to the rear cargo area. That way little stuff doesn't get lost in the seams.
The rear cargo floor of the Forester is most definitely slopped upwards back to front. It looks like they did it this way so that the front edge would match the height of the rear seatbacks (connected by carpet) and create a more seamless load floor with the seats down.
:shades:
Bob
Do you like the design better? The textures, perhaps?
It's just I've heard that said a few times and each time I look at the CR-V again it's not nearly as nice as some people would have you think.
I try to be as objective as possible and this is why I'm very specific about what feels cheap and why.
Having said that, Subaru has definitely done some cost cutting, thing is I feel everyone else in its class has done the same. Forester material quality peaked in 2006, IMHO. Back then they used seat fabrics from the Tribeca and the headliner was not only padded but also fabric covered.
Seriously... I wanted to like the Forester more, it's cheaper and I'm a cheapskate, but I just liked the CRV a lot better, enough so that even at a lower price point, the Forester didn't appeal to me.
All subjective.
I guess I was a fan of the Tribeca interior, so when I saw the swoopy new dash in the Forester, I liked it right away. To me everything is where it should be, and it's very no-nonsense:
I'd prefer unpainted plastic trim over the fake metal stuff, and maybe more covered storage, plus ROUND cupholders. That's about it.
Subjectively, to me the CR-V is trying too hard. I really dislike those door pulls, my wedding ring would scratch that fake metal trim every time I grabbed it (a gut feeling, BTW). I don't like how the center console is not connected to the dash, lots of wasted space, and the "cockpit" feel is missing entirely. The shifter looks like a tree growing out of the dash, which is (subjectively) too minivan-like for me. The praking brake looks like Luke Skywalker's throttle on his hover craft, again trying too hard.
I like the gathered leather but I still would want it perforated. The controls and IP are excellent, just where things should be. Nice big side mirror, too. I do also like the color scheme:
Overall I definitely prefer the Forester's WRX-influenced cockpit over the CR-V's Odyssey-like cabin. Perhaps this comes from my preference for smaller cars.
That said, thanks for posting the photos. I can see how one would come away from each with a distinct preference. The CR-V contours, etc., remind me of the '85 Camry my family once owned: Boxy, but laid out well. I could live with the odd shifter location (I am noticing that location on a lot of vehicles these days, which makes sense for an auto that you touch infrequently, but that is the first time I saw a manual located there!) because I like pass-through foot wells and the (potentially) extra storage that can go along with that.
For me, the Subaru definitely wins the "pleasing to the eye" contest, but, not having been in a CR-V yet, I will reserve further judgment.
Not sure what CRV that interior shot is from, in the US it's quite different then that. Th
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2008/Hon- da/2008.honda.cr-v.20150412-E.jpgis is what the one we looked at was set up like, only in black cloth.
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2008/Hon- da/2008.honda.cr-v.20150394-E.jpg