CR says newer Forester models are worse than older ones

[Boris]

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

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

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

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

 

[Edward Hayes]

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.

 

[neilnewsgroups]

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

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.

 

[Body Roll]

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?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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.

 

[Boris]

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".

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).

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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'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

 

[yngver]

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.

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.