Nice car. Clean design, inconspicuous cladding, no hood scoop (my preference.) Doesn't seem any larger or with a bigger engine, unfortunately. But a very, very nice car.
Can anyone tell, from the pic, if the rear suspension is changed? All I can see is a lower link, but I can't tell if it's different.
• So far so good, need to know what's under the skin. There, frankly, I don't think it will change a whole lot. It's still got the 2.5 engine.
• "XS" I'm sure replaces the "S Premium" model. The pixs show a moonroof, leather and monochromatic paint.
• Tires appear(?) to be the same size, but a different version of the current tire. I'm hoping they'll be the same size found on the Outback, but it looks doubtful.
• No hood scoop means no turbo, which we all knew. That's coming in '04.
• Mag X sketches really did capture the "essence" of the new model, even if the details were not quite right.
• I really like the rear styling. It looks like there is no keyhole for the rear hatch; at least I can't find one.
low-pressure turbo would make sense, but if the peak torque is below the 3.0 H6's output that's stupid in my book. even though the engine is about 100lb heavier, do you think that the downpipe, uppipe and turbo are weightless? a turbo EJ series is 50-75lb heavier than a normal aspirated one.
Looks like the front bumper on the bottom looks a lot like a legacy. could this be legacy based? Can anyone see how big the rear pillars are for the struts? Hmm deeper looking...
o Rear is much more tapered than the current one that is bad, means its more wagon like, less boxy, and less usable storage
o Rear doors appear to be smaller than the last ones as well as the rear windows on the sides.
o Definitely appears to have more ground clearance than previous model
Looks good. Overall I say they basically updated the old, conservative model, and spiced it up a bit, without overdoing it. I think the rear looks better than the front. The headlights do remind you of an Elantra, a little, at least until you get up close. The rear hatch reminds me of the Suzuki Aerio SX (and Subaru uses XS to remind you).
Details I noticed from the front:
* foglights are recessed, a bit overdone * grille looks more modern * headlights are flared, more aggressive * profile is almost unchanged * gas cover must be remote-operated - no notch for fingers * front flare looks more built in, nice * rear flare flows back like the Baja's, looks better without cladding * more space in the wheel wells * more integrated roof rack
And from the rear:
* nice how the front fender flare flows into the door, very nice * D-pillar has a kink in it, a la Lexus GX470, nice * roof line does taper down, like the Matrix * I don't care for the wheels much * hatch looks much better, gives the whole look its biggest "face lift" * nice blacked out trim * nice triangular tail lights * looks 2" higher off the ground (good catch, paisan)
Bottom line? Thumbs up. Looks familiar, but updated, taller and less "wagony". I does not look bigger, but we'll see how it is inside.
I'm much happier with the 2003 Forester than I am with the Baja, in a big way.
I'm not usually into SUV like vehicles, but I'm impressed with the new Forester...a nice update, clean and smooth, but also aggressive, which is what the market seems to go for these days. Re: the tail lamps: I find them somewhat Mercedes ML-ish
The MY01 Forester brochure shows black mud flaps. Were body-color mud flaps available on MY02, or is this something new for 03?
juice, I agree on the wheels -- I'll pass. But they look easy to clay.
paisan, I agree with you on the rear slope; it looks nice but IMO not worth the sacrifice in interior room. Same with the Legacy (GT in particular); the rear looks sporty but I wish it was squared-off for functionality.
The wheel opening are nice and big, for good brake cooling, but there are too many edges to clean easily. The area around the lug nuts would be a mess.
BTW, that looks like the US-spec model, because it has cross bars.
I think they're fine. In fact, as a rule, I think Subaru does very well designing wheels. Yes, there are a few dogs out there, but most of their wheels I find very attractive.
I glad to see Subaru is still offering them as standard—at least I hope they're still standard. I see more and more SUV brands just offering the roof rails, and making the cross bars optional. Jeep is the most recent to join this trend. I think this trend is a bad one...
I like the current spoked wheel desigsn for the Forester, both 15" and 16". Even the styled steel are about the best looking non-alloys on the road today.
The new wheels are more playful and stylish, so they do go with the overall look.
Gotta have cross bars - I use mine often. No cost cutting, please, Subaru. I will definitely notice if you remove things like the carpets, mud guards, fog lights, and cross bars. This level of content is really the last major advantage that the current Forester holds over the RAV4 and CR-V. It is crucial to keep prices reasonable and content high.
With tires that appear to be the same size, there is no reason not to.
Ken's translation earlier mentioned 2" more length. I don't see it - unless the whole thing is scaled bigger, it does not look longer. The rear overhang actually appears shorter.
I have mixed emotions about stock cross bars, at least on the Legacy. Not having sufficiently researched cross bars, I bought the Legacy aerodynamic (not round) cross bar/carpet mat package (saving a whopping $10), which have fewer options than the round cross bars. The aerodynamic bars are quieter so I leave them on for impulse buys (which means I never use them). I use the round cross bars (Yakima) to carry bicycles.
So I'd rather buy aftermarket round cross bars that are IMO more functional than be forced to buy the default Forester aerodynamic cross bars.
I do understand your point, it's one more thing for the consumer to research and buy, and reduces functionality off the lot.
Nah, you can get clamps that make any accessory carrier fit on the stock bars. No real need for round ones. New clamps are cheaper, I think Darlene said they were $7 a set.
about the length too. Unless the pictures are very deceiving, the rear overhang is less, the front no worst than present. To me this suggests that either the wheelbase has increased or the overall length decreased.
I like the way Subaru handles the cross bar situation. "Utility-oriented" models. Forester, Outback Sport and Outbacks, have them standard. On all other Subarus, such as your Legacy GT, they're optional. That, IMO, gives the buyers more choice, which is good.
I was making comparison between the photogs of both, and the 2003 does appear, or has the appearance of being longer. Does appear to look like it is wider too in and out. Noticed the front windshield angles (less upright) like the Legacy. Legacy base?
The Forester XS gets the revised engine, but other Foresters will probably make due with the existing engine. I bet whatever changes they make with the XS model, the Legacy GT will also get.
Interesting that SOA would offer a new 2.5 here when SOJ no longer plans on the 2.5 engine in Japan.
juice -- I just re-checked the article. It says that the overall body length increases only by 10mm but the interior cabin space increases 40mm in length and 20mm in width.
So it's more space efficient, and it sounds like the rear seat was moved back a bit. That sounds promising for fans of the rear multilink suspension (like me).
Comments
Jim
Can anyone tell, from the pic, if the rear suspension is changed? All I can see is a lower link, but I can't tell if it's different.
--Bart
The Headlights are very very similar to the Trailblazer's as far as looks. Not a good sign IMHO.
-mike
It could have been *much* worse though, like that alternative design presented in that German magazine. But it's not too bad. Nice, even.
--Bart
• So far so good, need to know what's under the skin. There, frankly, I don't think it will change a whole lot. It's still got the 2.5 engine.
• "XS" I'm sure replaces the "S Premium" model. The pixs show a moonroof, leather and monochromatic paint.
• Tires appear(?) to be the same size, but a different version of the current tire. I'm hoping they'll be the same size found on the Outback, but it looks doubtful.
• No hood scoop means no turbo, which we all knew. That's coming in '04.
• Mag X sketches really did capture the "essence" of the new model, even if the details were not quite right.
• I really like the rear styling. It looks like there is no keyhole for the rear hatch; at least I can't find one.
Bob
I don't think we'll see a turbo here, we'll likely get the H6 when the time comes for more power.
-mike
-Brian
Bob
-Frank P.
-mike
-Colin
o Rear is much more tapered than the current one
o Rear doors appear to be smaller than the last ones as well as the rear windows on the sides.
o Definitely appears to have more ground clearance than previous model
-mike
Details I noticed from the front:
* foglights are recessed, a bit overdone
* grille looks more modern
* headlights are flared, more aggressive
* profile is almost unchanged
* gas cover must be remote-operated - no notch for fingers
* front flare looks more built in, nice
* rear flare flows back like the Baja's, looks better without cladding
* more space in the wheel wells
* more integrated roof rack
And from the rear:
* nice how the front fender flare flows into the door, very nice
* D-pillar has a kink in it, a la Lexus GX470, nice
* roof line does taper down, like the Matrix
* I don't care for the wheels much
* hatch looks much better, gives the whole look its biggest "face lift"
* nice blacked out trim
* nice triangular tail lights
* looks 2" higher off the ground (good catch, paisan)
Bottom line? Thumbs up. Looks familiar, but updated, taller and less "wagony". I does not look bigger, but we'll see how it is inside.
I'm much happier with the 2003 Forester than I am with the Baja, in a big way.
-juice
Bob
So will the NY auto show get the Baja, redesigned Legacy and the new Forester?
-Dennis
Bob
-Dennis
All in all, the more I look at it, the more I like it. Clean modern look, yet I can see familiar "foresterish" lines. Good job, Subaru!
Good catch, Kate, noone had mentioned the tint.
I'll add the angle of departure, which now looks really good. The approach angle is about the same, maybe a little better.
-juice
Re: the tail lamps: I find them somewhat Mercedes ML-ish
juice, I agree on the wheels -- I'll pass. But they look easy to clay.
paisan, I agree with you on the rear slope; it looks nice but IMO not worth the sacrifice in interior room. Same with the Legacy (GT in particular); the rear looks sporty but I wish it was squared-off for functionality.
..Mike
..Mike
BTW, that looks like the US-spec model, because it has cross bars.
-juice
Bob
Bob
The new wheels are more playful and stylish, so they do go with the overall look.
Gotta have cross bars - I use mine often. No cost cutting, please, Subaru. I will definitely notice if you remove things like the carpets, mud guards, fog lights, and cross bars. This level of content is really the last major advantage that the current Forester holds over the RAV4 and CR-V. It is crucial to keep prices reasonable and content high.
-juice
Bob
Ken's translation earlier mentioned 2" more length. I don't see it - unless the whole thing is scaled bigger, it does not look longer. The rear overhang actually appears shorter.
-juice
I have mixed emotions about stock cross bars, at least on the Legacy. Not having sufficiently researched cross bars, I bought the Legacy aerodynamic (not round) cross bar/carpet mat package (saving a whopping $10), which have fewer options than the round cross bars. The aerodynamic bars are quieter so I leave them on for impulse buys (which means I never use them). I use the round cross bars (Yakima) to carry bicycles.
So I'd rather buy aftermarket round cross bars that are IMO more functional than be forced to buy the default Forester aerodynamic cross bars.
I do understand your point, it's one more thing for the consumer to research and buy, and reduces functionality off the lot.
..Mike
..Mike
-juice
Ross
Bob
Bob
The premiere was supposed to be at 10:45, right?
-juice
-Dave
Bob
I can't wait to hear more on this.
Jim
edit: here's the link http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=autoshows&content_code=00145362
-juice
..Mike
I wonder what that "uprated" engine is -- could it be AVCS?
Ken
-juice
Bob
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=autoshows&content_code=00145362
I think that's great. That means when the turbo arrives, the AVCS may trickle down the lineup!
-juice
Bob
I like Xtra Strength, though.
-juice
Interesting that SOA would offer a new 2.5 here when SOJ no longer plans on the 2.5 engine in Japan.
juice -- I just re-checked the article. It says that the overall body length increases only by 10mm but the interior cabin space increases 40mm in length and 20mm in width.
Ken
-juice
Sil