CR says newer Forester models are worse than older ones

Discussion in 'Subaru Forester' started by Boris, Jul 11, 2006.

  1. Boris

    Boris Guest

    Consumer Reports article on Forester (Drive Test section) says that older
    models of Forester were better (in terms of drivability) than the most
    recent one. Does anybody know why such change: usually newer models tend to
    be better than older ones? Will Subaru fix these problems?

    Boris
     
    Boris, Jul 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I never drove an 'older' Forester, but the loaner I had frm the dealer
    seemed OK - maybe a little too much body roll, but OK.
    The other time I had a loaner, it was an '06 outback which I feel had
    poorer internal ergonomica that my wife's '03 OBW

    Carl
     
    Carl 1 Lucky Texan, Jul 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Boris

    Edward Hayes Guest

    I think it has to do with the new "'drive by wire" system.
    Manufactures have been tweaking the DBW system for several years now
    in an attempt to make it feel as a mechanical linkage. I drive a 2000
    Forester (old) and just drove a 2006. I perceive the newer system as
    feeling different but, not better or worse. The new system does pay
    off in a more efficient system with respect to vehicle efficiency. JM
    observations.
     
    Edward Hayes, Jul 11, 2006
    #3
  4. I assume you're referring to page 57 of the July 2006 issue, which
    says:

    "The Forester is fairly nimble, though less so than before the 2006
    freshening. The steering is light and and lacks the earlier model's
    feedback and precision."

    In other words, I wouldn't say "CR says newer Forester models are worse
    than older ones." The only difference is that CR doesn't like the newer
    steering feel. I agree with the other poster in this thread that the
    change in the steering feel is probably due to newer
    electrical/electronic steering controls. CR has criticized the steering
    feel in several cars from different brands that have the newer
    electrical/electronic steering controls. But it's not a big deal and
    obviously hasn't stopped CR from recommending those cars.

    I haven't driven an older Forester recently, so I can't make a
    comparison, but recently drove a 2006 Forester briefly, and it seemed
    fine to me.

    BTW, the Forester is still among CR's recommended small SUVs, as you
    can see on page 55 of the same issue. The top-rated small SUVs in CR
    are the:

    1) Toyota RAV4 Limited V6
    2) Toyota RAV4 base 4-cyl.
    3) Honda CR-V EX
    4) Subaru Forester X

    I assume you could find all this info on CR's web site, although you
    may need to subscribe to get all the content:

    www.ConsumerReports.org

    If anyone wants to read the July issue, I think it's on newsstands now.
    You could probably also find it at any U.S. college or public library.

    By the way, I'm going to test drive some new cars today. Have already
    tried the CR-V, and even though it's based on the Civic, it has that
    high, pickup/SUV feel I don't like. I prefer the more car-like feel of
    the Subarus, which I think I'll like better for long road trips. I'll
    probably drive some Subarus (Forester, Legacy wagon, Legacy Outback
    wagain) again today and also the Toyota Matrix and RAV4.

    But I could probably be happy with any of the above cars from Honda,
    Subaru, or Toyota. The Matrix offers the best EPA MPG.
     
    neilnewsgroups, Jul 11, 2006
    #4
  5. Boris

    Body Roll Guest

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Better???? Better how?
    Rant mode on.
    There is more and more electronic crap in the drivetrain.
    The latest Lexuses ISx50 got to the point where the steering input can
    be overridden.
    Customers are made to believe that new cars are somehow "better"
    by the brilliant minds in the marketing departments of the car makers.

    Look at long test report for Acura RL long test drive on Car and
    Driver, look for the list of
    recalls for Prius. These two models in particular are much, much
    worse than American cars. And yet there is no shortage of idiots
    bringing their money
    to Toyota. Because the marketroids have successfully built brand
    loyalty
    and now it matters less and less how crappy a car you'd come up with,
    because due to the inertia (call is mass psychosis) people would buy
    that gabage anyway.
    Why not? It comes from a company known for its commitment to "quality".

    Of course not all American consumers are gullible idiots. Some people
    would buy a Catarham kit for $70k US even though it's 50+ year old
    technology.
    Because it works. And because brilliant engineering works sometimes
    survive for a long, long
    time despite the bastardization efforts by the very smart people who
    are trying to move
    the money out of your pockets into the coffers of their corporations.
    Rant mode off.
     
    Body Roll, Jul 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Boris

    Boris Guest

    Look at long test report for Acura RL long test drive on Car and
    I looked at american models on CR...couldn't find anything that suits my
    needs. In particular, I read about Cadillac SRX...but it's huge, thirsty on
    gas (15 mpg in city), and has dismal reliability record (according to CR).
    I once worked for a guy (it was ~1990) who was part of a team (American)
    that invented VCR...needless to say that most VCRs were sold by japanese
    companies subsequently.
    Boris
     
    Boris, Jul 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Boris

    Boris Guest

    Forester has mediocre factory-installed tyres (this was discussed on this NG
    many times).
    At 20K dealer told me to install new tyres...so I got Firestone Affinity LH
    30...after that the car became more agile on the road...but when driving on
    snow and ice in ski areas they were pretty good too.

    Boris
     
    Boris, Jul 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Boris

    Boris Guest

    Here in SF Bay Area there was a bad accident last winter when it was snowing
    on Hwy 101 just north of the city. Cars were getting from a tunnel (having
    good speed) right into mini-show storm,...road was covered with melting
    snow..there were injuries and fatalities. I consider AWD as an extra safety
    measure...but not sure if sophisticated AWD systems geared toward saving
    every 1/10-th of gallon of gas are as safe as simpler systems: when both
    frotnt and rear weels are engaged ~50/50 all the time.

    Boris
     
    Boris, Jul 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Boris

    Boris Guest

    I'm a bit suspicious about RAV4 V6. Top of the line trim costs <$30K...by
    comparison, top Subaru OBW H6 is ~$35K. This (RAV4 V6) seems too good of a
    deal to me.

    Boris
     
    Boris, Jul 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Boris

    yngver Guest

    We bought a 2006 Forester a few months ago after considering
    competitive cars. I agree with CR about the steering in the Forester;
    it makes me a little nervous because it seems, as they say, too light.
    But that's my only real complaint about the car. In test drives and
    reading various reviews, we still liked the Forester better than the
    RAV-4 and the Honda CRX. I was initially leaning towards the Matrix but
    just sitting inside it, the interior seemed so cheap and chintzy I
    changed my mind. My sister has one and she likes it except for the low
    clearance--and that's in California where they don't get much snow.

    In particular I don't like the back-door mounted spare tires on the
    Toyota and the Honda. These are all good cars and I think choosing
    among them is more a matter of personal preference. And timing. If we'd
    waited a few more months for the 2007 Foresters, I could have gotten a
    much prettier shade of blue.
     
    yngver, Jul 12, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.