Subaru Crew - Meet The Members II

1…4243454748…692

Comments

  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    Range Rovers have an inside mounted spare, the Discovery has a rear door mounted spare that extends past the rear bumper by about 3".
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    IIHS does a full series, not just the pole test.
    - 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
  • locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    There you go with logic and facts again... can we please return to the unconditional, unqualified praise for the Trooper? ;-)

    -Colin
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I'm not saying it's a forester as far as outward visibility, but, I'm frankly sick of these theoretical tests that are constantly being conducted ripping on vehicles w/o actual real world data to back it up.

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    But neither of those guys own Foresters...?

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Yeah the new trooper will be more Toyota Land Cruiserish. It will retain the boxy shape, but be extended about 10-12", widened, have a 3rd row of seats, and an Isuzu V8 DOHC engine. Hopefully they won't price it crazy.

    -mike
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    While the IIHS focuses on the damage/insurance costs of these low speed accidents, it is a safety issue if the vehicle has 3rd row seats, I think, since the spare tire will intrude to a certain amount into the cargo area. Also consider that the glass from the rear window breaking will shower, to a certain amount, into the 3rd row seating area. This may be part of the reason why Isuzu doesn't offer this feature in North America. The Trooper's rear bumper/spare tire issues aside, it doesn't excuse its (nor the Rodeo's) extremely poor front bumper performances though...;-)

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I may be wrong on the rangerover/discovery, but I definitely have seen an SUV that had an outside spare tire that was protected by the bumper (the bumper extended at least to the edge of the tire) and thought it was a good idea.

    As Bob said with his Explorer, I keep my tounge in the receiver for the same reason.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Not to mention the labor to get the X5 trailer hitch is in the neighborhood of $1200 (rear bumper and exhaust system needs to be removed)

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The 3rd row according to Isuzu is not there due to the expense of testing/proving for the US market, similar to the EPA problems of bringing over the 2.0L Turbo for the WRX.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I know a guy who T-boned a caddy in his Trooper @ 50mph. Walked away w/o an injury. The front of the Trooper and Rodeo are safe (due to the full frame rails) on frontal crashes. Unfortunately the plastic/sheet metal bumpers don't fair well as far as repair costs.

    -mike
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    Catching up to the discussion here, but I also watched Dateline NBC last night.

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You can install the hitch on the Forester with no such troubles. The diffy protector requires moving the exhaust, but just from the hangers. Piece of cake.

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You are correct sir. Also the RAV4 doesn't have any bumper whatsoever. Mine is just about 3" closer to the car than the tire. In fact on the Rav4 I think the tire *is* the bumper.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It has little bumperettes on each side, but they are just plastic, basically. I doubt they would pass car safety standards - Toyota is lucky they register it as a truck.

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    How do they classify them? Is there any standards by which they are based? I mean what would prevent a manufacturer from classifying it's hatch backs as trucks? Or a Focus wagon? I was under the impression that truck based frame construction vehicles were classified as that, but that would throw out the uni-body jeeps, so that can't be it... Go figure.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    It's a good thing the new Explorers don't have rear mounted spare tires...


    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

  • dannykadannyka Member Posts: 115
    Isn't the RAV4 based on a Corolla platform, using the Celica's old All-Trac AWD system? Or maybe it was more Camry in there. Whatever, I don't know any of those were "trucks"!

    -Dan
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think the RAV4 gets into the loophole because the rear seat is removable. That still doesn't explain all the exceptions, of course.

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    My rear seat isn't removable on the Trooper (nor my Rodeo) so that can't be the loophole. Also rear lift glass was/is fine on all the rodeo models. I think the next gen forester should have that. I wish my Trooper had the rear window go into the door. :(

    -mike
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    and somehow the Neon based PT Cruiser is a truck because the rear area is flat? I would think that the safety issues should not be different from trucks and cars, due to the sales numbers. I am not as excited about the fuel efficency numbers... If the PT Crusier is a truck it has to get 20 mpg... If it is a car it has to get 27 mpg.. If it has a flat rear area it is a truck? It doesn't make sense!
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'm sure the insurance companies have that information. Afterall, they're the ones paying the tab.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually, IIRC the RAV4 used the JDM Camry platform, which is more narrow than the US Camry. Then it took the All Trac's AWD system and an engine from the Celica family.

    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
  • tincup47tincup47 Member Posts: 1,508
    throwing additional confusion into the standards is that even the Govt. agencys don't agree. Some vehicles are rated cars by the EPA and trucks by the DOT and vice-versa. Also there have been higher tariffs in place for Imported Trucks than cars, which is one reason the Forester is marketed and built to passenger car standards. This is the same reason Toyota, Nissan, and Isuzu build their trucks in the U.S.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually, I think 4 door trucks paid a far lower tariff than 2 doors.

    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
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    Tariffs are also the reason the Subaru Brat had back seats! It made it a "passenger vehicle" instead of a truck, thereby avoiding the tariff. At that time the Japanese were importing their trucks as "partial vehicles" by leaving the pickup bed off, which also allowed them to avoid the tariffs; the bed was added stateside prior to shipment to the dealer. (The Brat didn't have a removeable bed, it was a unitized body adapted from the station wagon.) I don't know how many of them do that today and how many build them in US plants.

    Cheers,
    -wdb
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    These loopholes are totally ridiculous. Unbelievable!

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    the old "chicken tax." Years ago, I don't remember when exactly (late '50s I think?), but our government got into a big brouhaha with some European(?) government regarding chickens (or something like that)—the result being imported small trucks would receive a huge tariff, therefore making them uncompetitive in the American marketplace. That's the reason you don't see small European trucks over here.

    If I misstated the facts here a bit, my apologies, but that's the gist of the story.

    Bob
  • amishraamishra Member Posts: 367
    Well I have a potential reason why the US pays $3000 US more for the base Impreza TS than Canadians do. Probably has alot to do with the fact that we don't have CAFE fines up here yet.

    Which means, if you're buying a TS wagon in the states, you're probably helping pay off Subaru's upcoming CAFE fine...
  • amishraamishra Member Posts: 367
    is the Trooper a new Subaru I dont know about :)

    just kidding...
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Isuzu also got wise back in the 80's and started to import the Trooper as the Trooper II. The only difference was that the Trooper II had a dealer installed rear seat, rather than a factory installed one. This somehow made it cheaper to import.

    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
  • armac13armac13 Member Posts: 1,129
    LOL

    Ross
  • pattim3pattim3 Member Posts: 533
    Actually, WDB, once again, hit on one of my favorite reasons for the Forester not having a rear mounted tire. When the Forester first came out, one of our test runs included having to back into a space. We were told that "somewhere" behind us, a child sized dummy would be placed. We could not see the "child" in the other vehicles. Knowing how kids rocket around cars, it leaves a bit of a sick feeling knowing how easy it would be to hit one.

    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
  • pattim3pattim3 Member Posts: 533
    Hey, I noticed in a commercial for Crocodile Dundee in LA a shot of Paul driving an Outback on the freeway in a chase. FYI - He does actually own a couple of them. He even bought some for family members.

    Patti
  • amishraamishra Member Posts: 367
    Yeah, I saw that ad too ... he does a nice spin in the OB. I'm probably going to see that movie just for the Outback scenes :)
  • lucien2lucien2 Member Posts: 2,984
    40 posts in 4 hours. Where to start....

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Ash: Subaru has thus far been able to avoid CAFE fines. But they are right at the limit - 27.5mpg.

    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
  • dannykadannyka Member Posts: 115
    I went to my dealer's New Owner Orientation last night. It was probably worth it just for the free food and touch-up paint they gave out. Anyway, the service manager gave most of the presentation, and he confirmed most of what's been talked about here, so that's good to know. (I even got a free Forester cap for answering a question. I learned the answer here. :-)

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    No troopers turn over. Period. Not 1 real world rollover in the manner that consumer reports reported it would.

    If I could flip my Trooper, it would have been done long ago... Ask Juice and Dennis and Bob!

    They are solid!

    -mike
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    to different fuels. If you put in lower octane fuel, the power will be lower and the fuel economy will also be lower. I would think you should use the fuel recommended for your car, I don't think that this economy is worth it. If someone objects to the price of premium fuel, he should buy a car that recommends regular!

    Frank
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Frank, I don't believe that is correct. We had a discussion on octane a few weeks ago which would dispute what you are saying about fuel economy on lower grade fuels...

    -mike
  • FrankMcFrankMc Member Posts: 228
    I remembered an article that claimed that if you needed premium and used regular you had a small mileage hit, but I don't remember where I saw it now. (I still think it is crazy to buy a WRX and then buy fuel that will hurt it's performance)

    Frank
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Forester cap? I have a Subaru one, but now they have Forester ones? Sweet! I want that little Forester kangaroo too. It was back ordered last time I checked. The Outback koala is one of our daughter's favorite toys.

    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
  • francophilefrancophile Member Posts: 667
    That BRAT story is a classic! He wanted something for his "brats" to use at the beach! (I say that with all respect of course; simply couldn't resist the pun!) Please let me say that there is at least one of us who greatly appreciates a voice tinged with experience, such as your own.

    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
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Also in Japan the Isuzu Vehicross has a rear mounted camera with a screen on the dash. If anyone has been in a VX they'll realize the rear view visibility is almost 0 ;) But who looks back when driving it anyway?

    -mike
  • locke2clocke2c Member Posts: 5,038
    Dan,

    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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Those cameras are common in the JDM. I think some Scoobys have them.

    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
  • kenskens Member Posts: 5,869
    WDB - The Forester in Japan highlights the fact that you can see objects of 1m in height out your rear window.

    Mike - Lots of trucks, buses and vans in Japan have the rear mounted camera. Some of those parking spaces can be extremely tight!

    Ken
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I think that is why the Troopers have the power folding mirrors :) Love that feature! Probably my favorite gizmo on my truck.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Forester's fold manually, but of course it's narrow enough that you never need to in the first place! ;-)

    -juice
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.