The last few years have witnessed the emergence of a new class of vehicles: the car-based SUV. These are for people who desire the image and interior versatility of an SUV, and perhaps all-weather capability as well, but want ride and handling more like a car. These vehicles emerged first in Japan, but after a few successful years there the Japanese manufacturers decided to test the waters here. The Toyota RAV4 arrived in 1996, and the Honda CR-V in 1997. They sold better than expected.
This represented a serious threat to Subaru’s turf. As a long-time seller of all-wheel-drive cars, Subaru had long had much of the all-weather car market to itself. Audi, and more recently Volvo, also offered all-wheel-drive cars, but these were too much higher in price to be direct competitors with Subaru. Toyota dabbled with some all-wheel-drive Corollas, Camrys, Celicas, and even Previas for a number of years, but due to disappointing sales these went away as the cars they were based on were redesigned. The new car-based SUVs were clearly a more serious threat. Although for 1996 Subaru had raised the Legacy an inch higher off the ground to create the first true Outback, this clearly wasn’t the same as making the entire vehicle nearly a foot taller than the typical car. To defend its brand position, Subaru needed a taller all-wheel-drive vehicle, and in 1998 responded to Toyota’s and Honda’s car-based SUVs with the Forester. The Forester was based on Subaru’s small car, the Impreza, but was three inches longer, an inch wider, and, most importantly, nearly ten inches taller.
The Forester won many comparison tests against the others, and sold well. But Subaru, like other Japanese automakers, never rests on it laurels. The Forester was facelifted for an early 2001 model year introduction. For the 2002 model year the Impreza was redesigned. The new car is more refined and has a more substantial feel. For 2003 the Forester follows suit. Does the second-generation Forester have what it takes to maintain its comparison test victories?
Note: The 2004 Forester XT turbo is evaluated
here.
Subaru Forester Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Subaru Forester rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not.
Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now
or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
The new styling lends a much more upscale look to the car, especially from the front and rear. The side profile I am less sure about. As in the first generation car character lines in the sheetmetal swoop up ahead of each wheel and then back along the bodyside. Similar character lines grace Chevrolet’s large car, the Impala. I’m not sure about the look in the case of the Chevy, nor am I a big fan of it here. They seem forced and gimmicky. For 2003 these lines on the Subaru are now deeper and more prominent; they now dip into the sheetmetal much like the character lines on the Ford Focus and Lincoln LS. While this helps to lend the car a more substantial appearance, as in combination with fuller bodysides it makes the sheetmetal appear thicker, it doesn’t make me any crazier about such lines in general.
The styling isn’t so fancy that the base models steel wheels look out of place (as they do on some on Honda’s newer designs; Hondas in the past managed to look good with steel wheels somehow). If anything, they look more appropriate than the XS’s alloys, though the latter certainly look okay.
A larger problem has been with the Forester from the start. Despite its height, the Forester appears more tall wagon than SUV, largely because the body is not as high off the ground as that of a true SUV, or even that of the
CR-V and RAV4. (To read my reviews of related vehicles click on the hyperlinks.) I experienced this firsthand last year when I suggested my sister, then considering a CR-V, also look at the Forester. She took one look, said it looked like a station wagon, and didn’t even want to test drive it. The 2003 retains the same basic proportions and nearly car-like distance between the body and the road, and thus the same basic “tall station wagon” look. The Toyota Highlander has a similar look, is significantly longer, and is only an inch taller, such that its height to length ratio is actually more wagon-like, but for reasons that escape me personally does not elicit the same negative reactions. Frankly, I personally find the Toyota much less attractive. The proportions on neither vehicle are perfect, largely due to the limitations imposed by front-wheel-drive-based powertrains that force un-SUVish long front overhangs, but the Toyota’s proportions are considerably worse than the Subaru’s. Just the usual Toyota infallibility?
Most Foresters have a two-tone appearance. X models have dark gray bumpers and cladding along the lower part of their bodies, while the same areas are steel gray on the XS. The XS “premium package,” however, includes a monotone appearance along with an extremely large sunroof. Once upon a time two-tone was the extra-cost, premium option, but lately the reverse is increasingly true, at least among SUVs. The common use of cladding seems to have forced this, as monotone forces this cladding to be painted in many different colors rather than just one or two (or none, in those cases when the cladding is unpainted gray plastic).
I expect no such reservations about the Forester’s new interior. For this price class it is simply magnificent in design, materials, and workmanship. Things I especially like: the dimpled soft tough black vinyl (similar in appearance to perforated leather) across the tops of the door panels and the dash; the padded armrests on the doors (although the padding could be thicker); the metallic finish on the center stack and console; the perforated leather on the steering wheel and shift knob (XS trim only); and the very easy to use, very expensive looking and feeling dials for the automatic climate control (also XS trim only). The combined effect is at once distinctive and tasteful, not an easy combination to achieve. It is at once sporty, rugged, and upscale. I test drove a
Subaru Legacy the same day, which has the same interior as the Outback based upon it, and that interior was far inferior to this one, beginning with but not limited to the generous expanses of plastic wood. Hopefully the Legacy/Outback’s interior will be redesigned soon.
Seat fabrics deserve special attention. The base X model has a woven fabric that I especially like; it feels very in character for the car, rugged and attractive. The XS model, which I generally prefer, uses a velour that seems a bit out of place, or at least does not fit as well as the base model’s woven material. Leather is an option on the XS, but only with the automatic transmission. The dealer found this puzzling. Me, I’m not sure how well leather fits the character of the vehicle, at least not the car-looking stuff pictured in the brochure. A heavily grained leather, such as that in the Volvo XC70 (Volvo’s version of the Outback), would do well, though.
Accommodations
I have already gushed about the styling and general ambiance of the Forester’s new interior. Seat comfort in front is good, but not great. A fairly average seat. Even the base model’s driver’s seat has manually adjustable height and lumbar support. No tilt adjustment, though, and no power seat option. I personally don’t miss the latter, but would appreciate the former. The seat has a bit of side bolstering, but the bolsters are spaced too wide for anyone with a small or average frame. The Legacy seat did better for me here. In right turns this was mitigated by the fact that the B-pillar is less than an inch from my shoulder anyway, such that it seemed natural to rely on the pillar for lateral support.
The driving position in the Forester, though not as high as in a true, truck-based SUV, is much higher than that in a standard car such as the Legacy. Combined with the fairly low dash, generously-sized glass, and thin roof pillars, visibility is excellent all around. For 2003 the rear window dips lower for even better visibility to the rear.
The rear seat is adequate for two adults as long as their legs are not too long. The cushion is mounted well off the floor, and so provides fairly good thigh support, though somehow not as much as the rear seat in the Legacy. All Subarus are a bit narrow to carry three people comfortably in the rear seat. The
Ford Escape and Honda CR-V are a couple inches wider, and especially in the latter case have substantially more rear legroom, so if rear seat room for larger adults is a priority those—and especially the Honda—might be better choices.
The cargo area, seat up and folded, is average for this sort of vehicle, about equal to that in the Ford Escape and Toyota RAV4 but a bit less than that in a Honda CR-V. A Toyota Highlander owing to its greater length has more cargo volume, but it’s also substantially more expensive than the others. A window shade type cover is standard to conceal cargo. Various small storage compartments are also scattered throughout the interior.
On the Road
Bowing to my personal preferences, I test drove a manual transmission Forester XS. Since introduction the Forester has come with only one engine, a 2.5 liter SOHC 16-valve flat four. The “flat” is significant. It refers to the fact that the cylinders are situated horizontally rather than vertically, as in similar engines in old VWs and current Porches. The benefit of such an engine is that it is compact—not extending as far forward as an inline four would since the engine like a V engine splits its cylinders into two opposed banks—and lower to the ground, lowering the center of gravity. As anyone who recalls the sound of an old VW knows, flat engines also have a distinctive sound. Although VW moved on long ago, Subaru in recent years has not offered any other kind of engine in the United States.
Subarus in the U.S. have never been thought of as particularly fast cars. At least in recent years its engines have grown enough in size to keep its cars from being downright slow. (The
WRX with its turbocharged engine is fast, but that’s just one model.) The 165 horsepower of the 2.5-liter mill move the Forester’s 3100 lbs. well enough, at least with the manual. Still, going just by the power to weight ratio alone it should serve adequately with the automatic; the same engine is used in the significantly heavier Outback wagons, after all.
I’m actually surprised the Forester weighs as little as it does, both because it feels quite solid and because even Honda’s CR-V, similar in size and from a company known for efficient designs, weighs a couple hundred pounds more. Since the Subaru’s engine is a bit more powerful than the Honda’s, the Forester manages to be a bit quicker than the CR-V.
I’d actually characterize the amount of power in the Forester as perfect for being able to have fun driving it while staying clear of trouble. It requires and rewards working the transmission a little bit, especially since the power range is not especially broad. The engine feels a bit soft low down, and a bit strained high up, but in the mid-range hits its stride. With a moderately heavy foot from 3,000 to 4,500 RPM the Forester feels its best. The engine note in this range is not as loud and strained as it is nearer the redline and lends a sporty, honest, reliable character to the vehicle. Some of this might be because it vaguely recalls VWs of the past, before they became so fancy. Sure, this engine sounds and feels magnitudes smoother and more refined than those air-cooled VW boxers, but the basic character is the same.
The shifter is Subaru’s typically good design. Effort is slight and the feel is satisfyingly notchy going into gears. Throws are moderate in length, perhaps a bit long for a sports car but appropriate for a quasi-SUV. Best of all the lever feels solidly mounted and displays no slop between gears, unlike many manuals I’ve driven. All in all, Subaru clearly still cares about their manual transmissions.
The nicest surprise, exceeding that of even the new interior, is how the Forester handles. Lean in turns is much less than I expected, certainly less than that in the Escape, CR-V, or
Toyota Highlander. That flat engine might really help here. The dealer claimed that the Forester is the only SUV for which the government does not require a sticker to warn about rollovers (I do not know if this is true). Body control is excellent, with none of the confidence-reducing side-to-side or back-and-forth rocking that often plagues tall vehicles, especially those that have a short wheelbase like the Forester does. Also, the chassis feels very balanced, whether diving into a turn or powering out of one. Subaru’s all-wheel-drive system likely deserves much of the credit. Unlike that in the Escape and CR-V, this engine sends power to both ends of the vehicle all of the time; in the Ford and Honda power is only sent to the rear wheels when the front wheels slip, so these vehicles generally understeer like a typical front-wheel-drive vehicle. Automatic transmission Subarus use an electronically controlled clutch instead of the manual’s viscous coupling center differential to distribute power between the two ends, but I am not sure how much this affects performance. The brochure does not distinguish between the two systems when describing how Subaru’s all-wheel-drive works, so they must work in a similar fashion. The XS comes with a limited slip rear differential, and while this might have also helped I cannot confirm this as I did not also drive the X, which lacks this feature.
The Yokohama Geolnader tires end up being the limiting factor; they give up long before the suspension displays any signs of losing its composure. To their credit, they yield very progressively, with plenty of warning. Make that too much warning--these tires start moaning long before they reach even their own modest limits. Stickier, less vocal tires would be nice.
The steering is light in effort, but not too much so, and feels reassuringly precise and linear. Feedback through the wheel is good, if not great. Put all of these positive attributes together, and I found the Forester very easy and even entertaining to drive aggressively. Consequently, I pushed the Forester much harder than I do most of the SUVs I test drive. No sports car, or even sports sedan, but certainly the best handling SUV I’ve driven aside from the
BMW X5.
I found the ride to be about equal to that in other compact car-based SUVs, not luxury-car smooth but comfortable. Road imperfections were absorbed well in most cases. Similarly, noise levels are moderate. There is some wind and road noise, especially as speed climbs, but these never become uncomfortable. It helps that the engine is turning fewer than 2500 RPM at 60. I can see taking trips in this vehicle.
I didn’t take the Forester off the pavement, but like other car-based SUVs it’s not really meant for serious off-road driving. It’s meant for balanced handling in everyday driving, and good traction on snow-covered or gravel roads, and there it should do well.
Safety
I’ve already mentioned the Forester’s flat cornering. Side airbags large enough to protect the head and chest and ABS are both standard. Subarus have tended to do very well in recent crash tests. Overall the Forester seems about as safe as a 3,100-pound vehicle can be.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created:
www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the
TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in
one swift pass.
My original evaluation of the price concluded: All in all, the Forester’s price seems reasonable, no more, no less. You're not likely to buy one just because of the price, but the price isn't going to keep you from buying one either.
Last Words
I was much more impressed with the Forester than I expected to be. It’s practically package and stylish inside, handles very well for this class of vehicle, and is affordably priced. It seems a much better buy all-around than Subaru’s more expensive Legacy Outback, as it’s more stylish, nearly as roomy, more fun to drive, and less expensive. All in all, it reminded me of what VW used to be about before its cars became stylish: practical, fun-to-drive, solidly built, not so great to look at but affordably-priced cars.
To learn more about my
reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough up-to-date new car
price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to
my other vehicle reviews can be found on my
profile page.
CarsBelowInvoic e
