to supplement my headlights. The headlights that the DOT requires suck, and the only effect way to get better night vision is to run the fogs in addition to the headlights. If the fogs are setup properly, they shouldn't effect other drivers cause they are low to the ground. I do have some heavy duty aux lights Hella 4000s ( http://isuzu-suvs.com/trooper/hella4000.html ) which are only linked to my high beams.
call those dinky pot lights FOGs? hahahaha.... Seriously don't run them. It's annoying in the day time and not very useful in the city streets. heck they are just for show actually. I hardly ever use mine. Only in dark empty streets or cruising down a mall strip. hahahahaha..... the latter is a joke.
I agree that those switches are obscured by the steering wheel. And as I only really use the cruise control switch I swapped positions with the fog light switch so that is easy to find with out looking... in the far left position.
Its not my car that I use the foglights with, its the Legacy. And those are SMALL foglights. And I rarely ever get to drive that car, let alone at night... So when I do, I like to use the foglights, the Legacy's foglights put more light to the sides for some reason as well as to the ground, very usefull.
Besides, I use them cause I WANT to be seen.
Pet peeves are pet peeves, and everyone I know who has foglights runs them at all times, and its not illegal, so there is no problem here other than personal opinions.
And in case you wanted to know, its foggy all the time where I live anyway :P
Mike, I agree with you on that. The DOT headlamps on my van suck and as such, I run the foglamps on all of the time at night (sorry Ross). I definitely do like the added light to the sides, as well as to front; besides, they're far less intense than the Audi/BMW HID Xenons. The Euro version of the Chrysler vans have H4 bulbs in the lamps vs. my much less sophisticated and less efficient 9004 bulbs/headlamps.
On my ML, which strangely has DOT/E-code approved lamps, I also turn the integrated foglamps on at night since they make a noticable difference, definitely more so than the van. The rear foglamp stays off though, unless I'm driving in fog or heavy rain/snow. Hey, there's a suggestion to Patti! How about adding a rear foglamp (one only please, and on the driver's side) to the tail lamps of all Subarus? Perhaps Euro/Australian Subarus already have them?
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
Daniel: I don't like the window switches in the center. My Miata has that, and sometimes the passenger will open your window when you don't want them to, by accident or otherwise.
I prefer that the driver has as much control as possible, including the lock feature that disables all other window switches.
..of the steering wheel couldn't be shared with the passenger. The driver and passenger might wish to use a specific cup holder (00 Legacy dash CH is not as wide as console's) depending on the form factor of the beverage container, be it insulated coffee cup, soda can ("pop" for the New Englahndahs), bottled water, or 384 oz Big Gulp *1. A&W root beer on the console, insulated coffee cup in the console. The last sentence was serious.
..Mike "Ergonomics" Smith again proves he knows most about what matters least
*1 a full 32oz cup o'soda from Taco #ell, when placed in the console's cassette (this was MY91) compartment of the Legacy L wagon will, upon slight acceleration in a right turn from the drive-through window, empty its contents onto the left rear passenger's feet, or merely the floor carpet if your son is in a car seat. Or so I've heard.
Post #1059 above, bat1161 Mar 5, 2001 9:11am, indicates the author is bat1161, yet actually I (miksmi) posted it. Hmm, what username shall this post have. Might be a bug or might be a browser cache prob on my end.
Fog Lights can be very bright and blinding to oncoming traffic. If you must run them at night PLEASE PLEASE treat them like high beams and turn them off when you have on coming traffic. It is nice to be seen and see but please do not blind others on the road. I guess you could say I have a problem with fog lights on with no fog around but, I am more concerned about the temp blinding they cause at night to on coming traffic. They are halogen lights after all! If your headlights are too dim try upgrading to a better bulb. http://www.autolamps-online.com/ has some great selections and from what I hear they work! I also find the HID lights blinding to on coming traffic as well.
Hmm, I haven't see that happen in a while. It's usually the result of pasting a URL to another message in TH without removing the string in between the @ signs. So, be careful about that.
Drew Host Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
We here in the US suffer what has to be the worst of all worlds when it comes to lighting. DOT demands that US-spec low beams splatter some light upwards, supposedly to illuminate road signs. (Z-beam solutions apparently aren't good enough.) This means that we wind up with low beams that intentionally throw light at a height oncoming drivers might find annoying. On the other hand there is very little to no knowledge at all among the vast majority of drivers on how to appropriately and effectively use auxiliary lighting. So we end up with Honda CRV's with "fog" lights mounted 3 feet off the ground (factory location), and slammed Celicas with phony HID's and pencil-point "fog" lights blaring away. And a lot of glare going into the faces of oncoming drivers.
All that having been said, I leave the fog lights on in my GT when I want to BE seen as well as see a bit better myself. They are mounted very low and their beam is low and flat. GT fog lights do not blind oncoming drivers, or if they do it is certainly far less than the fully legal and factory stock low beams above them do.
Would you rather that I put others safety before my own safety? Maybe I'm just a capitalist, self centered person, but I usually draw the line when it comes to my personal safety or others. I don't purposely go out and say "let me try to blind these other drivers" I say to myself "i could upgrade my headlights and possibly maybe, rarely bother other drivers, but be able to see better myself" I'm gonna protect myself before I put myself in danger to not blind others....
if you put in a too intense of a light bulb, it may result to blinding others thus causing the opposite car to have an accident. There's a difference b/t enuf luminesce and 1 giga million candle light. Moderation is key.
I do use my foglights only when the conditions call for it or as poor-man's driving lights on deserted roads. If others are on the road going my direction or opposite, I *don't* use my fogs as driving lights.
I do it out of courtesy for my fellow drivers, and I am plenty annoyed by others that leave their auxiliary lights on all the time.
but I think that it is still an important issue. I previously posted that the fog light issue was "a pet peeve". That was just my polite Canadian way of saying that people who run with them on in the city should be drawn and quartered. Yes your own ability to see is important, but driving safely in the real world is a cooperative effort. As has been pointed out, if I am blinded, I pose a danger to you! If I am angered I pose an additional danger to myself, you and anyone else in range of my rage. BTW I find the use of fogs (even of normal strength) to be particularly dangerous when the roads are wet as the reflection/glare is especially bad - worse even than driving lights because of the angle.
Hey Folks...this is supposed to be the "Subaru Crew - Future Models II" board isn't it? Shouldn't this Foglight discussion be in "Modifications" or "General Maintenance & Repair"?
Please let the Product Planners know that I'm waiting for a few revisions to the features list before I replace my '96 Legacy GT 2.5. The 2001 Legacy GT sedans are great. However, I'd like to see the following changes:
The return of 60/40 fold-down rear seats
Side air bags with cloth seats (I'll never buy leather again)
A few extra horses without premium fuel (the Turbo and H6 are nice, but are they really necessary with thoughtful B4 tweaking?)
Higher fuel economy
VDC
Simplify the lineup. There's not much else to differentiate the GT from the GT Limited except price.
More realistic pricing (we're still not talking Bimmer cachet here)
The easiest way I see that happening is increasing displacement. I would offer variable valve timing, but while that could broaden the torque curve and allow for more peak HP at the same time, premium fuel would still be required.
And since the EJ series four cylinder isn't likely to grow beyond 2.5L, then you better hope for a bigger flat six. 3.5L perhaps?
Deflector: One side snapped off in my uncle's hand, and afterward a tapping noise above 65mph went away (apparently the wrap around part was hitting the fender) so once when I was waxing I mistakenly snapped the other side. I need to tak it off, and get the dremel out to round it off so both sides are even.
Folding seats on Sedans: Don't expect them to be back or to stay in current sedans for long. IIRC 2004 MY requires more stringent rear impact requirements, resulting in them putting in more structural members across the rear seats.
I'd be surprised to see any significant changes for 2002, in light that there is supposed to be a major make over for 2003.
I'm guessing that the 2002 changes would be limited to: daytime running lights (like all other Subarus), and blackwall tires (like the new Outback Sport). There may be some content adjustments and color revisions. Don't expect anything major.
There are many rumors of a turbo surfacing here in the States, but I think that Subaru would rather make that "splash" with the new 2003 model.
On another note how does the 2.5L H4 preform in the Forester? Better performance than the Rav4? The wife and I are in dispute about which one to get. The wife likes the Rav4 whereas I like the Forester. The good thing is we're looking to buy in the Fall of 2002 so the 2003 models should be coming out. We have the nice luxury of being able to wait and save up. Besides I'm not going to get anything for my Toyota with its age and mileage so might as run it as long as possible.
Nothing firm so far. I think if you study what Subaru has done in the past, in terms of upgrading new models, you will gain some insight as to what might occur.
For example: When they introduced the new Legacy and Impreza, while mostly all-new models, they did not differ drastically from previous models. I think you can expect the same with 2003 Forester. I think it will be clearly recognized as a "Forester." I think it may be a tad larger and roomier than the current model. Also, Subaru has recently gone on record as to wanting to become known as a performance brand. So I expect to see some "performance-oriented" model, just as they have done with the Impreza WRX.
I'm also hoping they do more to increase the "utility" factor by: offering a better Class II tow package, and re-introduce the dual-range transmission to the North American market. In short, I hope they do more to distinguish itself from other Subarus, and more importantly, from the other mini-SUVs out there.
is significantly more powerful than the Rav4's engine. I haven't driven the new Rav 4 yet, but I own a Forester, and it's plenty peppy.
Remember, the Rav4 has a 2.0L engine, and the Forester has a 2.5L engine. They both weigh about the same. I would think the Forester has way more "useable" power—a wider power band, and better power when fully loaded—than the Rav4. It can certainly tow more than the Rav4.
I test-drove RAV4 both new and old, and there is no comparison with the Forester, especially once you take that baby over the Altamont pass ;-). Forester wins hands down. After driving exclusively 4-cyl cars for past 15 yrs, I can tell that Forester feels more like 6cyl.
They won't change the overall size much. Maybe the new Impreza rear suspension will allow them to move the rear seat further back in the vehicle, thereby increasing rear seat legroom, or maybe they will increase the wheelbase without increasing overall length, but I doubt that the new model will be substantially larger than the current one.
They'll offer a turbo. Maybe not right away, but I think that the WRX 2.0l motor will find its way into the Forester lineup someday.
I agree. The most common complaint I hear about the current Forester, which I also agree with—being an owner, is that rear passenger leg room needs to be improved. I would also like to see the rear seat get fore/aft tracks, like the new Rav4, and also a reclining back (again). If they adopt the multi-link rear suspension from the Outback, with its much less intrusive shock towers, I think that is all possible.
Speaking of the new Rav4, it has a shorter wheelbase than the Forester, yet the rear seats are much roomier and more comfortable. I think part of that extra room has to do with the fact that the Rav4 seats are "higher" off the floor, and more chair-like than those of the Forester.
the rear seats in the Rav4 appearing roomier. The Forester suppose to have more cargo capicity but it didn't seem that way because rear tire wells come obstusively into the cargo area. Perhaps the RAV4 appeared to have more useable cargo space. If they can improve upon these two things, that would make it an ideal car for me.
I'm not a car enthusist so turbo engine or no turb engine doesn't matter too much to me. But if doing what you said with the suspension and track thingy would improve upon what we want that would be great!
What I'd want to know is why is the carrying capacity on the Forester only 990lb? You put 5 people averaging 200lbs and you've exceed the veicles capacity. Would a better suspension improve the cargo carrying capacity. the Forester can tow 2,000 lb so it can't be the engine/transmision, can it?
that you now got me seriously interested in Subarus! This from a Toyota owner who was looking at getting another Toyota. You are all very knowledgeable and helpful, thank you for your help and input.
Leo: if payload is a big concern, then avoid the RAV4 at all costs. It's rated for just 760 lbs! Never mind 5 adults, you can't even carry 4 folks that size!
The Forester's payload is actually very good for the class, and beats several mid-sizers. SoA is conservative with its payload and tow ratings.
I'm really hoping for the multilink rear suspension, too. The Impreza actually did *not* get it, but the Outback and Legacy have one. The 2003 Forester will go on a modified Impreza chassis, but I hope they use the big brother's suspension.
That would free up a lot of room. Just look at how Ford found acres of interior room in the new Explorer. The Forester could have both more leg room and cargo room.
Still, the Forester's cargo area is more usable than the RAV4's, which is tall but not very deep at all.
with the Rav4 is that it has no rear bumper for protection. Any sort of rear end collision in a Rav4, no matter how minor, is going to be very expensive to fix, especially with that rear tire hanging on the rear door. That spare tire is actually your rear bumper. That's what is going to get hit first. A slight tap on that tire, and you've probably damaged the rear door, and smashed the rear glass window.
Also, that rear door opens to the curb, not away from the curb. It was was designed to work for the right-hand drive Japanese market, not left-hand drive markets. It's a small thing, but could in actual use, become very frustrating over time.
Also, everything I just mentioned is true with the CRV too, even though it does have a rear bumper..
Comments
-mike
Seriously don't run them. It's annoying in the day time and not very useful in the city streets. heck they are just for show actually. I hardly ever use mine. Only in dark empty streets or cruising down a mall strip. hahahahaha..... the latter is a joke.
and my headlights are 80/100w so I guess I'm just a complete nusciance on the road
-mike
bit
Besides, I use them cause I WANT to be seen.
Pet peeves are pet peeves, and everyone I know who has foglights runs them at all times, and its not illegal, so there is no problem here other than personal opinions.
And in case you wanted to know, its foggy all the time where I live anyway :P
On my ML, which strangely has DOT/E-code approved lamps, I also turn the integrated foglamps on at night since they make a noticable difference, definitely more so than the van. The rear foglamp stays off though, unless I'm driving in fog or heavy rain/snow. Hey, there's a suggestion to Patti! How about adding a rear foglamp (one only please, and on the driver's side) to the tail lamps of all Subarus? Perhaps Euro/Australian Subarus already have them?
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
I prefer that the driver has as much control as possible, including the lock feature that disables all other window switches.
-juice
PS I like the cup holder on the left idea though
..Mike "Ergonomics" Smith again proves he knows most about what matters least
*1 a full 32oz cup o'soda from Taco #ell, when placed in the console's cassette (this was MY91) compartment of the Legacy L wagon will, upon slight acceleration in a right turn from the drive-through window, empty its contents onto the left rear passenger's feet, or merely the floor carpet if your son is in a car seat. Or so I've heard.
..Mike
..Mike
..Mike
..Mike
I don't even have to read the author to know! ;-)
-juice
-mike
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
All that having been said, I leave the fog lights on in my GT when I want to BE seen as well as see a bit better myself. They are mounted very low and their beam is low and flat. GT fog lights do not blind oncoming drivers, or if they do it is certainly far less than the fully legal and factory stock low beams above them do.
Regards,
-wdb
..Mike
-mike
..Mike
-mike
I do it out of courtesy for my fellow drivers, and I am plenty annoyed by others that leave their auxiliary lights on all the time.
-Colin
KarenS
Host
Owner's Clubs
Not that any of it has anything to do with future subaru models...
-Colin
Ross
I actually looked into getting E-code headlights for the Trooper, but they were almost $300+ shipping from australia each.
I find my fogs to be no worse than the BMW/Lexus/etc. HIDs that are legal for use...
-mike
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket and Accessories message boards
Please let the Product Planners know that I'm waiting for a few revisions to the features list before I replace my '96 Legacy GT 2.5. The 2001 Legacy GT sedans are great. However, I'd like to see the following changes:
The return of 60/40 fold-down rear seats
Side air bags with cloth seats (I'll never buy leather again)
A few extra horses without premium fuel (the Turbo and H6 are nice, but are they really necessary with thoughtful B4 tweaking?)
Higher fuel economy
VDC
Simplify the lineup. There's not much else to differentiate the GT from the GT Limited except price.
More realistic pricing (we're still not talking Bimmer cachet here)
The easiest way I see that happening is increasing displacement. I would offer variable valve timing, but while that could broaden the torque curve and allow for more peak HP at the same time, premium fuel would still be required.
And since the EJ series four cylinder isn't likely to grow beyond 2.5L, then you better hope for a bigger flat six. 3.5L perhaps?
-Colin
Folding seats on Sedans: Don't expect them to be back or to stay in current sedans for long. IIRC 2004 MY requires more stringent rear impact requirements, resulting in them putting in more structural members across the rear seats.
-mike
I vote now to end it before we start killing each other and start a Holy War... Agreed?
-mike
Leo
Dennis
I'm guessing that the 2002 changes would be limited to: daytime running lights (like all other Subarus), and blackwall tires (like the new Outback Sport). There may be some content adjustments and color revisions. Don't expect anything major.
There are many rumors of a turbo surfacing here in the States, but I think that Subaru would rather make that "splash" with the new 2003 model.
Bob
On another note how does the 2.5L H4 preform in the Forester? Better performance than the Rav4? The wife and I are in dispute about which one to get. The wife likes the Rav4 whereas I like the Forester. The good thing is we're looking to buy in the Fall of 2002 so the 2003 models should be coming out. We have the nice luxury of being able to wait and save up. Besides I'm not going to get anything for my Toyota with its age and mileage so might as run it as long as possible.
Leo
For example: When they introduced the new Legacy and Impreza, while mostly all-new models, they did not differ drastically from previous models. I think you can expect the same with 2003 Forester. I think it will be clearly recognized as a "Forester." I think it may be a tad larger and roomier than the current model. Also, Subaru has recently gone on record as to wanting to become known as a performance brand. So I expect to see some "performance-oriented" model, just as they have done with the Impreza WRX.
I'm also hoping they do more to increase the "utility" factor by: offering a better Class II tow package, and re-introduce the dual-range transmission to the North American market. In short, I hope they do more to distinguish itself from other Subarus, and more importantly, from the other mini-SUVs out there.
Bob
Remember, the Rav4 has a 2.0L engine, and the Forester has a 2.5L engine. They both weigh about the same. I would think the Forester has way more "useable" power—a wider power band, and better power when fully loaded—than the Rav4. It can certainly tow more than the Rav4.
Bob
They'll offer a turbo. Maybe not right away, but I think that the WRX 2.0l motor will find its way into the Forester lineup someday.
My pair o' pence,
-wdb
Speaking of the new Rav4, it has a shorter wheelbase than the Forester, yet the rear seats are much roomier and more comfortable. I think part of that extra room has to do with the fact that the Rav4 seats are "higher" off the floor, and more chair-like than those of the Forester.
Bob
I'm not a car enthusist so turbo engine or no turb engine doesn't matter too much to me. But if doing what you said with the suspension and track thingy would improve upon what we want that would be great!
What I'd want to know is why is the carrying capacity on the Forester only 990lb? You put 5 people averaging 200lbs and you've exceed the veicles capacity. Would a better suspension improve the cargo carrying capacity. the Forester can tow 2,000 lb so it can't be the engine/transmision, can it?
Leo
Leo
Bob
-mike
The Forester's payload is actually very good for the class, and beats several mid-sizers. SoA is conservative with its payload and tow ratings.
I'm really hoping for the multilink rear suspension, too. The Impreza actually did *not* get it, but the Outback and Legacy have one. The 2003 Forester will go on a modified Impreza chassis, but I hope they use the big brother's suspension.
That would free up a lot of room. Just look at how Ford found acres of interior room in the new Explorer. The Forester could have both more leg room and cargo room.
Still, the Forester's cargo area is more usable than the RAV4's, which is tall but not very deep at all.
-juice
Also, that rear door opens to the curb, not away from the curb. It was was designed to work for the right-hand drive Japanese market, not left-hand drive markets. It's a small thing, but could in actual use, become very frustrating over time.
Also, everything I just mentioned is true with the CRV too, even though it does have a rear bumper..
Bob