The Car-Based SUV

There are some things I'd like to briefly mention before I go into depth on my experience with the Subaru Forester.

First, I'd like to pay my respects to the car that I traded in. My old car was a 1988 Mercedes Benz 260E. She was my first car. She bore me on her back for most of my high school driving career and my first year of college. She was good to me...most of the time. It was very sad and distressing to see her parked forlornly on the dealer lot as I drove away. I hope she finds a family that treats her well.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that while choosing my new car, it came down to two choices in the end. The Toyota Rav4 and the Subaru Forester. Throughout this review I will bring into account all the issues that I faced while choosing my new car.

Without further adieu, here is my review. First lets start off with the specifications of the car that I bought.

2003 Subaru Forester X

PRICE (before taxes, etc)

Base Invoice: $19,974
Base MSRP: $21,870

Invoice w/options: $20,924
MSRP w/options: $23,257

Final price paid w/options: $20,700 (before tax, title, fees)

Options:

Automatic Transmission, 6-Disc In-Dash CD Changer, Armrest Extension, Cargo Tray, Mat Black Brush Guard, Rear Cargo Net, Rubber Floor Mats, Security System Upgrade, Side Cargo Net

Standard Features:

Air Conditioning, Driver Air Bag, Passenger Air Bag, Anti-Lock Brakes, Cruise Control, Rear Defogger, Keyless Entry/Unlock, Fog Lamps, Power Locks, Power Mirrors, Power Steering, Power Windows, AM/FM Radio, CD Player, Second Row Folding Seat, Tachometer, Tilt Steering

Specifications (Engine and transmission):

Type: 2.5L H4
Displacement (cc/ci): 2457/150
Valves: 16
Horsepower: 165@5600
Torque: 166@4000
Fuel System: SEFI
Transmission: Manual OD
Fuel Economy
(City/Hwy): 21/27 mpg

Steering, Suspension, Brakes:

Steer Diameter (Curb): 34.8/34.8
Engine Locat./Drive: FR/AWD
Brakes (Fr/Rr): Disc/Drum
Steering: R&P
Suspension (Fr/Rr): Ind/Ind
Tires: 215/60R16

Interior Dimensions:

Head Room (Fr/Rr): 39.8/39.8
Leg Room (Fr/Rr): 43.6/33.7
Shoulder Room (Ft/Rr): 53.5/53.6
Hip Room (Ft/Rr): 51.6/51.6

Exterior Dimensions & Weight:

Curb Weight (MT/AT): 3090/3135
Wt. Dist. (Man-Auto): NL/NL-NL/NL
Wheelbase (Ft/Rr): 99.4
Track (Ft/Rr): 58.9/58.5
Length: 175.2
Width: 68.1
Height: 65

Capacity & Volume:

Cargo Volume (EPA/Mfr): 31/32.0
Fuel Capacity: 15.9
Tow Capacity (Std/Max): 2400/2400
Seating (Std.): 5
Seating (Opt.): NA
EPA Class: SPURP4WD
Pass. Vol. (EPA/Mfr): 95/93.5

STYLING AND IMPRESSION:

The one thing that bothered me the most about the Forester is its very wagon-like shape. Well, to be fair, the Forester in many respects is an SUV, but its style is very reminiscent of a station wagon. The redesign gave the 2003 model a more "higher-end" appearance to the front and back. Triangular tail lights are reminiscent of Mercedes-Benz S-Class rear lights. The rear also sports a hexagonal rear gate, which gives the Forester an impressive styling. The rear gate is also easily opened and closed with very little effort. The side molding and contours give it a more rugged civility, which adds more to the mixed world of the Forester. The bumpers are thick, which gives the Forester the best performance in the 5mph Bumper tests. Subaru also gets the honor of being one the safest cars in the 40mph crash tests.

(Refer to: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0214.htm).

*While comparing the Forester to the Toyota Rav4, the Rav4 performed very poorly in the 5mph bumper tests. In Consumer Guide, there was actually a warning for the Rav4 bumper. If you take careful notice, the rear door of the Rav4 extends all the way down, which thins the rear bumper to an almost nonexistent protection. Both the Honda CRV and Toyota Rav4 performed very poorly in these tests. Being a person that constantly parks in a city in New Jersey, where the world's worst drivers live, bumper strength was an important priority. Seeing that I have to parallel park constantly in this city, the more protection the better.

(Refer to: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_smsuv.htm).

**In the end, comparing overall exterior styling, the Toyota Rav4 had a more distinct, young, SUV-like design, which made the Subaru Forester a choice of practicality than of fashion.

(For more safety ratings visit: http://www.hwysafety.org/)

Inside the Forester, front seats are very comfortable, with lumbar support for the driver. Seating comes naturally, for the Forester is not too high, but not too low. The shifter is also reminiscent of a Mercedes shifter. Buttons and gauges are all intuitive and easy to work. The few things to quibble about are its placement of the armrest and door lock button. The armrest is placed somewhat behind where the driver’s elbow would naturally rest while driving. Therefore, the armrest extension is only good when the driver is completely laid back. The door lock button is mixed in with the side mirror adjust buttons and power window buttons, making locking and unlocking the car somewhat of a chore. The lock button is also unlighted which makes it somewhat hard to find in the dark. The trunk space also left something to be desired. Although the capacity with the seats up was adequate, it becomes easily cramped when too many things are added. The nets also become a hindrance to placing things in the trunk. Rear seating is cramped and somewhat uncomfortable for adults.

*The interior of the Toyota Rav4 pretty much matched the Forester in most respects. However, the Rav4 armrest was further in front to rest the elbow during driving, and rear seats were somewhat softer making it somewhat more comfortable, but still cramped for adults. However, the one thing that bothered me about the Rav4 was its toy-like aura. The gauges were somewhat "plastic-like" and more playful than engaging. Overall interior design was also more playful matching its youthful design.

On the bright side, in the Forester there are many power outlets scattered about the car (one beneath the stereo, one in the armrest, and one in the rear). There are many nooks and crannies to hide and place things. Overall visibility is outstanding, with a very good performing defrost system. Wipers are large which enhances visibility in bad weather. The rear windshield wiper also clears the third brake light area, which adds to the car's safety. Though, in freezing temperatures, one must be careful to flex the wipers so they perform efficiently. Ice can easily freeze the wipers.

*Visibility in the Rav4 is poor, the rear gate is high and the tire partially hides some visibility. Parallel parking with the Rav4 would be somewhat a chore.

PERFORMANCE:

Forester driving is smooth, and unlike an SUV, the Forester performed very much like a sedan. There is very little body lean during turns, and shock absorbers did their job magnificently. With a ~21/26 mpg, four cylinder, 165 horsepower engine, acceleration is excellent and responsive. Bad weather handling is superb with the all-wheel drive, adding significant traction. ABS is also great supplemental safety feature. Steering is natural, braking is responsive, and body lean during turning is minimal. Front, side and rear visibility is outstanding.

*In comparison, the Toyota had a more significantly noticeable body lean during turning. The Rav4 engine noise was hushed, but it becomes louder as you revved the car above 40mph. Visibility is more obstructed in the Rav4. However, driving in the Rav4 was, in my opinion, acceptable.

The Subaru Forester sports a nice 7.5” ground clearance, performs well in light off-road conditions, and drives smoothly on pavement.

IN THE END:

In the end, in comparing the Subaru Forester to the Toyota Rav4, the Forester took the advantage in price, safety and practicality. The Toyota Rav4 was more stylish, reliable and had a slower depreciation rate. Though the Rav4’s advantage was slight, in that the Forester Reliability in the past few years was also very good. However, Toyota’s reliability is legendary, therefore reviews gave the Rav4 a slightly better reliability rating. As for depreciation, the same condition holds true, Forester Depreciation is not bad, but Toyota was just slightly better. Price was also a factor. If you matched the Toyota and Subaru feature for feature, the Toyota would come out slightly more expensive by a few hundred to a few thousand, depending on the features you want. Overall, the differences were minimal, but taking into consideration price, engine power, safety, practicality, and low profile (Toyota’s are one of the most stolen vehicles in the country), Subaru was the best of all words. One website put it best, “the Forester matches Subaru engineering with the best features of the economy car, wagon, and SUV to make a vehicle that has the best of all worlds, but belongs to none” . The Forester won my heart as a choice of practicality and utility, whereas the Rav4 caught my eye in fashion and style. Being the sensible person that I am, I saw the Forester as my best choice.

(Refer to: http://www.newcartestdrive.com/review-final.cfm?ReviewID=1204).

For more reviews and information, check out these websites:

http://www.newcartestdrive.com/review-intro.cfm?ReviewID=1204
http://www.newcartestdrive.com/
http://www.caranddriver.com (http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/home.xml)
http://autos.yahoo.com/
http://autos.msn.com/
http://www.autoweek.com/

http://www.autobytel.com/
http://www.edmunds.com/
http://www.kbb.com/

http://www.hwysafety.org/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Also please take note of a very minor recall that only affects a few people:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/recall1102.html

www.Subaru.com
www.Toyota.com