Subaru Forester Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
2010 Forester 2.5X
Joined
·
51 Posts
I really found this comparison ridiculous - primarily in the comments about the "Buick-like" ride and handling that needed constant re-correction in turns. I have a 2010 and the ride does not bounce up and down, and I find the handling to be pretty sharp for what the car is. I couldn't help but wonder if there's something funny going on there...If you know what I mean.

***You'll have to forgive me, I was thinking of the Car & Driver comparison. Still though, I refuse to accept that the GMC Terrain is better.
 

·
Registered
2010 2.5X Premium
Joined
·
14 Posts
It's odd how they state that the Forester has the same AWD system as though it's almost a criticism.

Also, they completely neglected the AWD performance. Not one of those vehicles has the same AWD capabilities of the Forester and it would leave them all behind when it really counted.

And regardless of all the shortcomings of the others tested they still came out ahead of the Forester? Huh?

Look at the test data on page 6 of the article and look at the numerous areas where the Forester beats the competition yet it still comes in last.

Something's just not adding up.
 

·
Registered
2010 forester 2.5x prem.
Joined
·
114 Posts
Not to mention the 5000$ price jump to buy one of the other cuv's. This comparison is so lop sided you have to wonder. How can the 2009 suv of the year go from the top to dead last??!!! And its still 5G less!! CRAZY!!
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester
Joined
·
34 Posts
Dear Motor Trend, one aspect my wife and I love about the 2010 Forester is that is does NOT look like a spaceship wannabe. The 2010 Hyundai Tucson, while having very good quality, looks like it is trying a little to hard. I view the styling of our new Forester as I do a Maine lobster boat inspired cruiser. Years down the road, it will not look dated.

From the MT review: "It's likely that for 2011 the Forester will undergo a significant freshening, adopting Subaru's new CVT in favor of the four-speed and a styling update inside and out. To be competitive again, it needs all of the above."

With all due respect to MT, no it does not. A CVT would be nice for 2011, but it does not need a styling update.
 

·
Registered
2010 Forester 2.5X
Joined
·
51 Posts
I completely agree. I like the Tucson, but I definitely don't think it's a vehicle I'd like to look at in my driveway every day for 10 years...it would date itself, no doubt. The Forester is clean and elegant - timeless in design.
 

·
Registered
2014 Forester Ltd. CVT
Joined
·
1,778 Posts
It's not an apples to apples comparison. I think they're dead wrong about the AWD and they don't really describe what tests, if any the AWD systems were put through. Honda's is notoriously bad and I don't think they updated it for this year.

I do agree that the 4EAT needs a 5th! I also agree about the steering. I find it twitchy on the highways. I think the short wheel base is partly to blame. But of course that makes it maneuverable off the beaten path. Compromises, compromises. I may not like it on the highway, but I'll thank my lucky stars (pleides) for it next time I'm up Forest Road-5 outside of Rainier.
 

·
Registered
2007 Forester 2.5x SE
Joined
·
879 Posts
Subaru didn't slide enough ca$h Motor Trend's way.
Reviews from car magazines like Motor Trend are a conflict of interest. They get most of their money from ads by the Car Manufacturers. Also they don't buy they cars they test. The Manufacturers also give them their cars to drive and test. The manufacturers who generally have more models to give (or pay for more ads), get more pleasing ratings. The trick they use to "score" one car higher then another is to overlook some of the features that it does poorly in. If they give a car a terrible review, then they risk the chance of not getting a car from that manufacturer next year, which means that they can't review that model, since the magazine can't afford to buy a test car.

In a way the reviews are the car manufacturer buying advertising.
 

·
Registered
2009 2.5X EJ253 Manual
Joined
·
2,802 Posts
All I know regarding the suspension is this: I can throw my 5MT '09 into a curve pretty damn aggressively and while there is some initial lean it is damped well, it doesn't wallow or plow, and it exits the curve nicely under throttle. And this is a base 2.5X. I do however, select the appropriate gear to keep rpm's up enough so the driveline is controlled... off the gas on entry, power through the apex and exit. Works like a charm. Would work better with a performance tire but on the other hand I actually find the OE Dueler's to be fairly predictable as far as dry traction for this sort of manuevering... not stellar tires by a long shot, but adequate.
 

·
Registered
2010 XT 4eat
Joined
·
604 Posts
i really disagree with that article. They should of just had the xt. All the other cuv's had a much higher price tag.
 

·
Registered
2014 2.0XT CVT
Joined
·
3,069 Posts
No matter if you agree with the article or not it seems to be based on nothing. The article contradicts itself so many times I got confused as to what they were trying to say.

That said, had we gotten a more appropriate Forester, a comparably equipped $26,690 2.5X Limited optioned with nav, premium audio, and satellite radio, the price would have been just under $30,000.
Try to find another under-$30,000 CUV with Bluetooth phone and streaming audio, nav, panoramic sunroof, heated leather seats, satellite radio, and brake hill-hold and hill-descent control. Let us help -- it doesn't exist
The Subaru has the sunroof, and with the NAV you get the BT phone, sat radio, the limited has the heater leather seats right, and the brake hill-hold is standard is it not?

Seems like a contradiction to me, although I believe the Forester does not have hill-descent control.

Aside from the reading the Honda review was confusing. They say it was a pleasure to drive but later they mention it shifted with a slight harshness. They also mentioned how it 'felt' the quickest but it wasn't. They say the looks were so-so but then go on to say "looks and feels like a premium piece".

4TH PLACE: SUBARU FORESTER 2.5X PREMIUM PZEV
With archaic four-speed and basement power, the former champ shows its age.

But the Forester had the lowest price, best braking, best figure 8 times, tied for first in the passing 45-65 test, and only lost in the 1/4 mile and 0-50 and up.

Then the Forester is either best or second best in almost every category under dimensions that count. Leg room - best (we've read how important that can be), headroom - second, towing - best, turning - best, ground clearance - best. I'm not sure what they measured their placements on.

I'm utterly confused by that entire article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
These threads are so funny. :crazy:

Boo hoo. Someone doesn't like the vehicle I chose. Because I bought it, it has to be the best. Obviously they're wrong. They're nuts. They don't know what they're doing. They're crooked. I'm gonna tell my Mommy. Boo hoo.

There's another thread somewhere by someone who thinks the new Foresters are ugly. Several pages of replies by people who feel attacked and their feeling are hurt.

Grow up people. What a boring world it would be if everyone liked the same things.
 

·
Registered
2016 Outback and WRX CVT
Joined
·
2,551 Posts
^ I, too, find it rather funny that people here cheered MT and their findings for the '09 SUV of the Year - but are now flipped, given the latest ranking of the Forester.

All the subjectives aside, I think it behooves all of us to realize that it's been a year since the SH's introduction, and like it or not, the competition that once targeted us have surpassed us.

It's the way of the world.

Let's just take the criticism to-heart - no, I don't agree with all of it, but yes, even for someone who loves Subarus as much as I truly do, I do see the validity in much of it - and fight it the next time around.

Rise to the challenges, Subaru. :smile:
 

·
Registered
2014 2.0XT CVT
Joined
·
3,069 Posts
well as stated above I don't care if they like it or not but my issue is with the article itself. Way too many contradictions and you have no feel for what they base their ratings on. If I read that article and tried to use it to buy a vehicle I'd be at a loss. If you look to the rankings you clearly see who won first but if you read the article you'd be hard pressed to tell who won and why.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top