Suzuki Grand Vitara vs Subaru Forester vs Hyundai Santa Fe vs Jeep Liberty vs Ford Escape vs Saturn

1…3637394142…96

Comments

  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    We went for the extra cargo room too. She wanted a truck, I wanted a wagon (pretty comparable cargo space if you look at the numbers), and my dad told me to get a minivan (lots of cargo space). To make a long story short, we agreed to get the most "carlike" SUV we could find. She ultimately decided which one we liked best. I almost fell over when it was the Ford because she is really into Hondas, Toyotas, and Mazdas. Oh, and it's silver because she didn't want to wait to order one. Back in January the dealer lots were totally devoid of Escapes and ours was the first XLT to come in after we (read she) decided. She won't even drive her Civic anymore. I do though, just to have some fun every now and then.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Women do tend to be more practical, while men care more about image and performance. Ford actually has manicure-friendly door pulls. Subaru's seats are low so women in skirts can get in easily. All manufacturers get more input from women nowadays, and they're smart to do so.

    Mine's green but I'd swap for Silver in a second because it's much easier to keep looking clean.

    -juice
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    here we go into the social realm again... with CARS, women are more practical and men more image conscious... I agree... move into the housing realm, and its the opposite...
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    And I thought it was just me. I always tell her that I'd rather drive a Ferrari and live in a small house. That just doesn't fly with the ladies.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I didn't specify because that's the context of this thread.

    My ideal house is a fully equipped 3-car garage with a small loft.

    -juice
  • mtngalmtngal Member Posts: 1,911
    I'm very much that way - my vehicles have always met some type of need. My house, on the other hand, is as far away from work as I thought I could get away with, and totally impractical - it snows there (where it hardly ever gets below 45 at work). But I no longer hear complaints from my husband about missing the changing of the seasons, the view is incredible, I don't feel claustrophobic living there, and we no longer listen to sirens all night!

    But it has affected my choice of cars, which is why I'm in the market for a 4x4!
  • mad0865mad0865 Member Posts: 176
    Mntgal: Don't dismiss the Liberty because someone said that it wasn't comfortable on long trips. We make several trips a year from NJ to Ohio (about 540 miles each way) and I think it's much more comfortable than our other vehicle (Taurus). See if a dealer will let you take it for an extended ride, like going from your house to work. Judge it then. You'll be suprised.

    Juice: Your dream house has a loft? hmm, thought just putting a bed in the 4th garage was sufficient. Might have to rethink my plans.
  • mtngalmtngal Member Posts: 1,911
    An ideal house would have the big screen TV in the tack room (otherwise known as the living room), the family room would be the indoor riding arena and the bedroom would have a closed circuit monitor to keep an eye on the foaling mares...

    Who cares about the garage? The cars don't mind being outside.

    mad0865 - thanks for your impression with living with a Liberty. One of the things that is a "must have" on my next vehicle is better gas mileage than a Wrangler, and the Liberty doesn't do that. I really would rather have second Wrangler, if I can't get something more fuel efficient.

    As far as styling, my husband's color choice is based on the fact he doesn't like red. I don't particularly care, as long as it isn't black. I love my black Wrangler, and it is one sharp vehicle. But it is going to be the LAST black vehicle I buy (try black in the middle of summer in Vegas. There is a reason why most of the Nevada cars in Vegas are white or silver)...
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    ... the "hanging barn" on the wall, with the tiny "housey items" like kleenex boxes, toilet paper, jars, etc... is it a "big girls doll house"... and.. can one make a mini Santa Fe for that barn (oh, no I becoming like them... AHHH!! ... it must be the Pine Green..).
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    was my choice. I did not want to drive a mini-van. I feel these vehicles give men another choice. After test driving them all I decided on the Ford Escape. I needed towing power to tow my two jet skiis. The V6 is wonderful in traffic when you need a quick burst of power to pass or merge into traffic. The Escape is sure and nimble and has great road manners. I chose Black because I feel it made the Escape look more like a guys vehicle. Plus the way I have mine fixed up, for sure makes it known a male drives this vehicle..
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    .... to do with how "masculine" or "feminine" a vehicle is perceived as being... so how much do you think it might cost to get my SF repainted to Obsidian Black or Merlot?...;-) I've got Pine Green right now, and while attractive, it was not my first choice - but these vehicles are hard to come by in getting all the features/color you want... now that's a good general question. In a hard-to-get vehicle like all the SantaFe or Escape/Tribute or CRV is it worth getting one with the features you want and then getting it re-painted? Or is it worth waiting 3 months for exactly what you want?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Got any pix?

    Black is hard to keep clean. White isn't much better. It's pollen season and my Miata has a layer of peach fuzz over it.

    -juice
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    ... I'll wait until pollen season is over! I can't really wash it because of our water restrictions and the last time it went to the car wash it may have been dinged (can't prove it). I guess green would be good for pollen season....I'm getting to work now on a holographic finish that will change colors at will.... I'll make millions..... I know... don't quit my day job...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm a little obsessive but I actually washed my car in the rain recently. MD has a major drought right now, but I just had to wash that pollen off, so I let the rain wet it, used just one bucket of warm, soapy water, and then let the rain rinse it off. Hardly perfect but at least i got the gunk off.

    Needs it again, now. Brother.

    -juice
  • suvshopper4suvshopper4 Member Posts: 1,110
    You had rain?!

    -ss4 in NJ
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Just started. You must be doin' the rain dance!

    -juice in DC under heavy rains
  • mtngalmtngal Member Posts: 1,911
    Who needs pictures and Kleenex? Saddles, bridles, riding crops and other necessary items, with maybe an old horse shoe or two for good luck is all the decor you need. I'd even go along with a peg board wall full of tools.

    About color - I did a trade in value for both my vehicles using Edmunds trade in value calculator. It was very interesting. My black vehicle lost $80 in value because it was black, while my white one gained about the same amount. Even more interesting was the fact that my 18 month old (white) Tacoma was worth only about $800 more than my 4 year old (black) Wrangler with 100,000 miles on it!

    And can you send some rain back my direction? It's been a very dry year.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yes - a whole wall made from peg board. Now you're talking.

    Epoxy-sealed concrete floors, with a walk-in pit of course, for easy access under the cars. Make the floor slightly graded so water runs out, and you can wash the cars indoors.



    Wow, that rain was unreal. Intense, with plenty of hail clanking on the window. All gone, it was that quick.

    -juice
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    Ah yes, a little jiffy lube sunken pit action. Now that would be nice.

    We were supposed to get that hail/rain here too, but it's been pretty sunny all day. Anyone want to buy a river? We really only use one of the three anyway. We'll even throw in a free set of bridges. Undercoating and extended service plans are extra of course.
  • mad0865mad0865 Member Posts: 176
    Yeah, here in NJ we had it bad. Work in Morristown, and at 5pm, it looked like midnight; heavy rains, hail, wonderful traffic :>

    Mntgal: What kind of mileage do you get with the Wrangler? My friend states he gets about 15 hwy with his '89. I've been averaging about 20 hwy (most of my driving). Just curious.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Black is a hard color to keep clean. But, when waxed and washed and detailed.... WHOA.. looks like a million bucks.. I try to wash my vehicles at least once a week and am particular about the way they look inside and out. Black makes just about any vehicle look rich and gives it that sporty edge. My first color choice was not black, actually wanted blue. But the dealer had about 6 or 7 of the Escapes all parked side by side and the Black one just stood out and to me, looked more masculine. Pollen, know all about it.. Get a California duster or car duster. These work great do you don't have to wash it everytime..
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    For those of use who have plastics on our SUVs..
    Turtle wax puts out some sealer/protectant that makes plastics look great, like new. Great for bumpers, trim, ect.. I hope I don't get spanked by Steve for mentioning a brand name...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    It's ok, as long as you aren't selling it yourself :-)

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • hayduke01hayduke01 Member Posts: 128
    My ideal house would have mountains out the back door, and major league baseball out the front door. I'm not a Cubs fan, (though I went to Wrigley on my last big road trip) but I'd want something like one of the buildings overlooking Wrigley Field. I think I'd also need a microbrewery next door.
  • mtngalmtngal Member Posts: 1,911
    I get around 20 on my commute (mostly highway, some slow and go) most of the time. However, the last 2 weeks have been really windy (wind advisories or wind warnings every day, just about) and that plays havoc with my gas mileage. I think I've been running about 16-18, which is abnormal.

    Made the mistake of looking at a Prius today when we took the Taco in for repairs. Hmmmm - it's gotten me totally confused. With mileage like that I could afford to drive the Wrangler in the winter. However, I really like the Forester, and the idea that I wouldn't have to keep such a constant look on the weather would be nice.

    Does anyone know if Ford will be really coming out with a hybrid Escape in 2004?
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    You can't go wrong with the Forester. It is a blast to drive. My wife, who has a Mustang, says the Forester handles like a sports car. We just came back from a trip to the Black Range in Gila National Forest (NM). The roads in, NM 152 & NM 35, do not have one level or straight section. It's like a snake, up and down and linked S-curves for miles and miles, and the Forester was fantastic. Good power for uphill curves, responsive throttle, and quick handling. 27.3 mpg for the overall trip, that's 312 miles round trip, about half of which was Interstate 25, the rest hill climbing and tight mountain curves; we climbed and descended the Black Range twice, once going west, once going east. Our best mpg has been 33 (spring winds behind us), our worst 23 (NM spring winds in our faces and my wife, the rally driver, putting the hammer down for 200 miles). Our overall mpg so far about 26 mpg, that's city and highway combined. Our ski trips, highway plus ugly mountain miles, were about 26 mpg. Pure city driving, 22.3 mpg, but that's me at the wheel, and I'm very conscious of fuel economy -- easy starts.

    2002 Forester -- good prices now.
    2003 Forester -- new stuff, lighter, tighter steering, stronger body, not much more $$ (or so it is now said) than the 2002 before it went on sale to clear the way for 2003.

    Anyway, I like the Forester -- I think you'd like it too.
  • arlene9arlene9 Member Posts: 1
    After dozens of test drives we've narrowed down our search to the Santa Fe or Forester - main criteria - safety and longevity *AND* back cargo room - this vehicle will be the main transport for several 150+ pound dogs and while the Tribute had the best cargo space it had the worst safety and reliability so it lost - the 2002 Forester logs in at 30" floor to folded seat back floor, the Santa Fe 31" - anyone have any idea if the 2003 Forester will gain any interior height {I'd heard rear legroom increased, was hoping that'd translate into some increased headroom too!} thoughts on any aspect of this decision making process? thanks!!
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    My wife and I test drove a Santa Fe twice. Our criteria did not include large dogs. We did not like the Santa Fe's handling or the automatic transmission. Long term reliability was another question -- just no telling. The warranty is long, but you can buy a long term warranty for most vehicles -- that's a matter of economics, pay enough and the car companies losses are covered -- like life insurance. Subaru has a proven record of reliability. Size wise, hard to get another small SUV with as much cargo room as the Santa Fe. The new (2003) Forester only gains about a cubic foot (63+ going to 64+). I know that Santa Fe had some engine problems a while back, but I assume those are taken care of. Like I say, Forester is a great drive -- fun. For us, that was a big thing, so Santa Fe lost out, vague steering, jumpy AT, slower (it has a V6, but a lot more weight to pull around). Safety-wise, I think that Santa Fe noses Forester out just a little, the pre-2003 model, but Forester is lighter and has side air bags now.

    If the dogs vote, they will like the Santa Fe's roomier cargo area, and they probably won't are that the Santa Fe is not as nimble as the Forester -- they might like it -- less getting tossed around, and their ears don't get hurt from all the delighted squeals from the humans in the front seats.
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    Consumer Reports does a measure of cargo area usefulness. They do this by taking a rather complicated box device -- adjustable on all three dimensions, then putting it in the area to be measured and creating the biggest box they can make. This gets at cubic feet of volume vs. useful space. (if you haul ping-pong balls you can use every bit of space, if you're hauling a washer home from the store, a vehicle with less cubic feet of space might actually hold a bigger box). Anyway, Forester actually had a bigger "box" volume than Santa Fe. Forester had a "box" volume of 36 cubic feet (59x36x29), whereas Santa Fe had a "box" volume of 33.5 cubic feet (53.5x35"x31). RAV4 (w/ removable back seat) was the winner:36.5 cubic feet of "box" volume (50x33x38.5). This comparison appears in CR March 2001, page 62. This same comparison states that the "cargo floor length behind the rear seat" on the Santa Fe is 37 inches; the Forester is 35 inches. Also, Forester actually has a greater load capacity: Forester 900 lbs. Santa Fe 880 lbs.

    You can verify this data at the local library.

    Hope this helps.
  • scnamescname Member Posts: 296
    You really need the 2002 Honda CRV. The forrester is way too small for your dogs and the Santa Fe is not reliable.

    The CRV got 5 stars in all NHTSA crash tests, better than Forrester. Its roomy , powerful, dependable.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    do not have "the worst safety" record of all the SUV's in this class... Try again and educate yourself please....
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    From what I remember, the Forester was the best of this class THOUGH I DON'T CONSIDER THE FORESTER TO BE IN THE SAME CLASS AS THE ESCAPE/TRIBUTE/SANTAFE/CRV....(sorry for shouting, but I don't know how Subaru gets away with defining the Forester or Outback as small SUVs, they don't have the ground clearance, weight or height of those other vehicles, the Forester is really a tall wagon). Actually it was the Acura MDX that had the IIHS "Best" rating, Forester was close... I think the bottom was Suzuk. The Tribute/Escape came in the "lower end", but not "worst" in safety. If its safety you are looking for in this class, you need the Acura MDX or the Santa Fe.... don't know about the 2002 CRV IIHS rating yet.... the earlier CRV also got Marginal, but Honda I think improved on that.
    On the Santa Fe reliability, I don't know where the author of that post got their info.... Consumer Reports rated it "just below" average, while rating the Trib/Scape with its dreaded "full black circle" ("much worse than average").
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    The Forester is included in mini-SUV comparisons because it is cross-shopped with others in this class. Sure it's a car-based tall wagon without a low-range but then so is much of the competition. However, the Forester is fully capable of handling the off-road needs of the vast majority of potential buyers. For those who truly need an off-road capable mini-SUV, the Liberty or Freelander (and maybe the Suzuki) are the only real choices. And while it's true that the Forester sits lower than most so it offers less of a view of the road, its lower center of gravity also makes it one of the sportiest handling of the group and least prone to roll-overs.

    Frank P.
  • goldencouple1goldencouple1 Member Posts: 209
    Dear Carseeker,

    I did not mean to say anything about the Santa Fe that is not true. At the time that we were interested in the Santa Fe, we could find no reliability data. If it is now rated and that rating is "just below" average in reliability - fine. No argument. By saying no telling, then mentioning the function of economics on the longer warranty, I was trying to convey an uncertain reliability (quite possibly poor reliability) was a factor in our passing Santa Fe by. At the time we were looking, there was not enough data to get a rating -- and CR may be guessing a little now, they do that, based on the past history of the manufacturer, how long the rated model has been in production, etc. I have no ax to grind. I agree with that practice. But, for example, CR will under-rate a new model because of anticipated first-year jitters, and it will be years before we know the long term reliabilty of Santa Fe. But we can take an educated guess, as CR has done.

    And yes, the Forester is different than the CRV, Santa Fe, Triscape, etc. No argument. They are all bought for about the same purpose, but each has their own attributes. We picked Forester for superior fuel economy while delivering a more responsive throttle and more agile ride. No one could touch it except RAV4, and we preferred Forester. As to Santa Fe, I did point out it is bigger than Forester. And I think that the Santa Fe was rated with the Forester by IIHS, and its score was comparable and maybe in some sense higher in one category or another, but we've agreed that Santa Fe is heavier and larger, so it has an advantage in that sense. Peculiarly, the heavier Triscape did not do as well as the Forester in the IIHS tests.

    The CRV is a fine vehicle. Arlene, you can't go wrong with CRV. But originally, Arlene was caught between Santa Fe and Forester, and that was what I was adressing.

    Reliability of the Triscape! We do not want to raise the terrible rath of Scape2...do we? Charming though he is. CR has its opinion. And anyone that's interested in what owners are complaining about with their vehicles can check out www.nhtsa.dot.gov. It is a very educational exercise.

    Finally, I said the dogs would probably like the Santa Fe's interior room -- then I remembered the "box" volume test and pointed out some of what it said and where it could be found for future reference. The data is there for what it is worth. Arlene should look at the vehicles in question and look at her dogs and decide. Of course. Me, I like the Forester, and for the reasons stated -- other's experience may differ -- but I'm having a blast in the Forester.
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    .... I wasn't directing my virtual "shouting" at you... sorry... it was directed at Subaru, which markets this vehicle directly against the Escape, and I don't think that is right (their commercial with the 2 dummies, one of which is voiced over by Paul Hogan). I don't think that's a fair comparison, since the Escape is a true mini-SUV while the Forester is a wagon. I think, on the whole, lower-profile vehicles will fare better in the IIHS kind of test. (don't ask me why! Its just a "gut" feeling). Also, in the 2000 mini-SUV test - the Forester was, I think, rated "bloody awful" (a quote from a test participant) off-road....(Steve/Tidester, can you help me out here?!), and it did not even appear in the most recent mini-SUV test as it rightfully should not have.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    carseeker4- Actually, IIRC, the reason it wasn't included in the most recent comparison is because the Forester was unchanged from the previous comparison test and they normally only compare new or significantly changed vehicles.

    I'm curious, what exactly is it about the Escape that qualifies it as a mini-SUV but excludes the Forester? Please note the following quote from Edmunds review: "Underneath, the Escape is more car than truck."

    -Frank P.
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    But even Subaru acknowledge that the Forester isn't an SUV.
  • mtngalmtngal Member Posts: 1,911
    I looked at the Escape when it first came out and read the brocure that the dealer gave me when I looked at a 5 speed, 4 banger. One of the things I specifically remember was the 4x4 system had a transfer case, but it would only lock the axles together up to 18 mph. Anything faster and the system went to its usual AWD system (engages other axle when it senses a wheel slipping). I mentioned that on another board and someone said that wasn't true. Can someone tell me if that limitation on the transfer case was only for the specific model I was looking at, or if they have changed that (and when).

    By the way, how does one define a "mini-SUV?" I don't think this particular board is comparing mini-SUVs - just 4 particular vehicles. Most reviewers of mini-SUVs never mention my mini-SUV - but then, maybe it really is a truck...
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    other SUVs (large or small), the Forester can meet all car safety requirements, since it's built off the Impreza platform. The EPA classifies the Forester as a car, not an SUV or as a multi-purpose vehicle.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Ding-ding, we have a winner. Thank you, Bob.

    The Forester meets tougher car standards, whether you're talking about CAFE (27.5mpg vs. 20.7mpg for the fleet) or EPA. They meet roof crush standards (150% of the weight of the vehicle supported on the roof) and 5mph bumper standards. Others here may or may not, but the bottom line is they don't have to.

    So you disqualify the Forester for having to meet tougher standards?

    C&D took a bunch of SUVs out in the wilderness and only one got stuck - an Escape. The test included one representative from each class, but it proves a point - the Escape is not a truck, even if the EPA says it is. Part-time only 4WD with no low range, too.

    Fact is, Ford used a car chassis, car engine (Duratec), and car tranny (CD4E from the 626/Contour), and only labeled it a truck so they could sell more gas guzzling trucks without having to pay CAFE fines.

    The Forester's cargo area as measured in the CR box test is bigger even than the new CR-V.

    Local no-haggle dealer sheehy.com has a CR-V EX auto for $22,800, but local no-haggle Forester S Premium automatics with leather sell for $22,400. So for $400 less you get more power, a longer powertrain warranty, leather, 16" rims, heated seats, heated mirrors, windshield wiper de-icer, rear LSD, weather band radio with in-dash 6CD changer, fog lights, and truly full-time AWD.

    I don't know about you, but that's a lot of extra equipment for less money. And the moonroof is more than twice as big.

    -juice
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    The Forester has 7.5 inches, the Escape has a 7.8 inches, the CRV has 8.1 inches. So between these vehicles you have just a bit more than 1/2 inch, hardly a big difference. These vehicles are all glorified AWD station wagons, as are most SUV's.
  • hayduke01hayduke01 Member Posts: 128
    When I finally got around to buying my Forester I noticed that the version with the sunroof had roughly 10 cubic feet less cargo volume. I don't usually pack any vehicle to the roof, so that suggests that the useful volume is usually much less than the measured volume. (Actual mileage may vary?)

    Mileage has actually been better than I expected in mixed (1/3 hwy; 2/3 around town) driving. 21.3 on the first tank; 27.9 on the second tank; 24.6 combined. I usually get worse than EPA rated mileage, so this is a pleasant surprise.
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    Ground clearance on the Tribscape is rated 8.4 (which I feel is accurate, unless you want to count the rear crossmembers...which I feel is not a big deal), the Santa Fe & CRV at 8.1 and the Forester at 7.5. I don't feel any of these are inaccurate, but there's a LOT higher ride in the Tribscape/CRV/SantaFe as opposed to the Forester. And while having less to do with ground clearance (1/2 to 3/4" can make a nice difference under certain situations I encounter) as frame height, its still nice. Interior and leg room are better in any of the above than in the Forester. Then there's that buzzy 4 cylinder in the Forester...the rough idle of the boxer really bothered me. I'm not jumping all over the Forester. Its a great car. I drove it lots, loved the handling and pep, but overall I still think the Escape-class vehicle is a more capable vehicle and really in a different class. JMHO.
  • mad0865mad0865 Member Posts: 176
    Truthfully, I couldn't get comfortable in the Forester (although I did like the Outback). Liked the CRV until I took it for a test drive. Almost went with the Escape, but all those recalls turned me off. The Xterra was
    just plain ugly inside and uncomfortable, plus got horrible gas mileage and average pickup. If you want a truck, get a truck (ie: Liberty, Trailblazer, etc). If you want a vehicle that will perform outstanding in all weather "on road", get a Subaru.

    It's funny, here in NJ. When we get bad snow, the only things you'll see on the roads are truck based suv's and Subaru's. Go figure.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    know where Edmunds gets its data?? All over the net it shows the Escape/Trib as having more ground clearance than 7.8 posted here. The Escape has more ground clearance than the Forester or the CRV..
    But the fact is we all won't be taking our mini-SuV's into the Rubicon anytime soon.. So, this offroad/groundclearance stuff is a mute point.
    The Escape handles great in any snow/ice situation.. I am living proof. Ski quite a bit..
    The Escape can tow, haul, pull much more than the CRV, Forester or even the Santa Fe with its V6..
    Went on a 200mile road trip.. average was 23MPG, with 2 adults, 2 kids and a load of stuff....
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Maybe we get our data from Mazda?

    The manufacturer's site says:

    "Minimum Ground Clearance (laden) 215 Tire: 7.87 in / 235 Tire: 8.43 in"

    I can't find similar info at the Escape site. Just "Cargo Floor Height To Ground (Empty) 25.4".

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    may have good ground clearance down the center line of the vehicle, but all have very spindly lower control arms that angle down towards the wheel decreasing ground clearance the closer to each wheel you get. The Forester's strut suspension has very stout control arms that do not hang as far down. Regardless, while these are all fine vehicles they are all based on cars and are basically tall AWD station wagons. This is not a knock on any of them, but they are comparable to the Forester. Also, while a boxer 4 may have a different sound, they are inherently smoother engines than an inline 4 cylinder. The boxer layout gives them perfect primary balance and precludes the need for balance shafts to accomplish this.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Chuck- Yeah, I'm always struck by the irony of the claims to off-road ability when I pull up behind one and see those fragile looking lower control arms going so far down.

    -Frank P.
  • carseeker4carseeker4 Member Posts: 228
    I thought my inline 4-cyl Pontiac is smoother than the boxer, at idle, anyway (which is when it matters the most). The boxer has more power per liter of displacement and has smoother acceleration, but not at idle (which unfortunately, is where I spent much of my time on the way to work!).
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Boxer engines are inherently smoother than inline engines. This fact, not fiction. Any "engine" engineer will confirm this. I know my Forester's engine is smooth as glass at idle.

    Bob
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

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.