[Dan]

I don't see that article is online as yet, but it seemed like a pretty fair evaluation given that they didn't take them off-road. Granted, what's the point of an SUV test if you don't hit the slop? But they explained that away as having caused too much damage last time around. Hey, at least they tried it once...

Anyway, the gist of it:

- loved the openness of the vehicle, and loved the outward visibility.
- best storage space, due to the suspension redesign which made it wider down low.
- creaks, groans, rattles.
- premium fuel required (they tested the XT) and it was a bit thirsty in testing, tying for next-to-last in economy.
- dinged for having just four gears, but they said it didn't hurt driving dynamics one bit.

So really, I think it summarized some of the major impressions around here, both good and bad. Now if they had taken them to the rough and tumble stuff, it probably would have gained a place or two. I think the fourth-of-eight placement came down to refinement, and I can live with that. The Forester sacrifices some niceties for all-weather, all-slop capability and I think most of us are okay with that trade-off.

Now C&D, take them back into the nasty stuff next time. Put the SPORT back into SUV testing!

 

[Jinxess]

Sounds like they completely ignored the fact that you get an SUV because you primarily want AWD/4WD. Otherwise what's the point in getting an SUV if there are vans that offer more comfort? Lol, seriously.

At least Motor Trend picked the Subaru Outback even though the Subaru Forester wasn't even in the competition.

 

[steamloco76]

I've driven a RAV-4 V6 and have to agree with C&D that it is quite the little rocket. Nice vehicle, but leans toward car and away from utility. The CR-V? well it is just too tight in many interior dimensions for me, plus it won't get you through much off pavement.

Overall a reasonable article outcome when comparing on road dynamics only.

 

[TAGXT04]

I thought the review was spot on. It slipped to 4th from 3rd for getting 19 mpg. Far less that even the RAV4's V6. A 5 sp auto or 6 sp manual might have made the difference as would a stiffer chassis.

 

[Aluma]

For onroad manners I have to agree as well. I could attack corners in my 08 forester and come out smiling. With the 10 forester, I'm scared to take any corner over 15mph, but it's MUCH nicer in the offroad bumps and mexico's roads and "speed" bumps/traffic stops.

 

[jms]

Was the winner of the comparo built by a manufacturer that has C&D in their back pocket? Or a clear sales-leader in the vehicle segment?

Its a 50-50 shot.

 

[affinity1]

The XT really gets 19mpg? Isn't that almost extremely low for a flat 4? Were they towing stuff the entire time?

 

[Dan]

Was the winner of the comparo built by a manufacturer that has C&D in their back pocket? Or a clear sales-leader in the vehicle segment?

Its a 50-50 shot.

The Forester took their Small SUV award three years straight. Subaru wasn't the leader in advertising dollars and the Forester wasn't the segment sales leader.

 

[funkymonkey1002]

The XT really gets 19mpg? Isn't that almost extremely low for a flat 4? Were they towing stuff the entire time?

A turbocharged 4 cylinder around town? That seems about right. I get probably 18 with shorter around town trips, up to 24 on the highway (not driving especially economically or anything).

 

[MoxoM]

Forester XT takes fourth place in C/D comparo

Check it out here:
"Turbo lag is minimal, but you soon learn not to light-off that secondary oomph in the middle of a 90-degree turn, where it can upset the chassis and passengers alike. Another turbo side effect: Premium fuel is mandatory. Idle quality could be better, and, after long interstate slogs, the boxer can begin to drone."
"The ride isn’t harsh, but those distant ticks, rattles, and groans do not a good first impression make. And on the subject of rigidity, our man Gall noted, “You can even feel quick steering corrections ripple back through the structure.”

Terrain vs. CR-V, RAV4, Tiguan, Mariner, Outlander, Forester, Grand Vitara - Comparison Tests

 

[Dan]

Check it here, too: http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/f155/new-c-d-comparo-puts-forester-fourth-place-66317/

:icon_wink:

 

[MoxoM]

Thanks, Dan. :icon_rolleyes:
Mods, feel free to lock up this post...

On second thought, Dan, your post doesn't include the link to the article. So see, i'm helping you out.

 

[Dan]

Haha - got me! I don't think the article was available online when I posted, and subsequently forgot to provide a link later on. D'oh! :icon_redface:

 

[vintage42]

I get the mag and was particularly struck by the comment:

... those distant ticks, rattles, and groans do not a good first impression make. And on the subject of rigidity... You can even feel quick steering corrections ripple back through the structure.

I don't notice any of this with my 2008. I can understand getting a car with some rattles, but that last sentence makes the body sound as limber as a wet noodle. Has anybody noticed it with the 2009-2010?

 

[Lone Ranger]

The GMC Terrain should have gotten last place just on ugliness of styling/appearance alone, along with the accelerated depreciation that comes as standard equipment on every GM vehicle.

Haven't read the article, but i'm guessing there was no off-roading done to test these AWD/4WD vehicles? If not, the entire 'test' lacks a measure of credibility. They are supposed to be rugged and off road capable. Include tests to evaluate such characteristics. If they did, forgive me.

 

[funkymonkey1002]

I get the mag and was particularly struck by the comment:

I don't notice any of this with my 2008. I can understand getting a car with some rattles, but that last sentence makes the body sound as limber as a wet noodle. Has anybody noticed it with the 2009-2010?

Me and my friend took a loaner 2010 base model forester out on loan, he has an 06 XS and I have an 04XT. It had none of that non-rigid body feel that they describe. We even beat it down some rough gravel tracks and it had a smoother ride than either of ours older models. I have no idea what C&D is talking about, it felt much better than any other CUV on the market. The rear suspension is a bit soft, this could give the feel of the body having too much flex. The only thing we could find wrong with it were the stock seats. Also I feel the interior is a bit too "flashy" but uses cheaper materials, and has too many useless cubby areas rather than useful storage pockets.

 

[MoxoM]

It's about time Subaru takes the 4EAT to pasture. Most modern transmissions are at least 5 speed for good reasons. The extra gear will help with highway mileage and engine noise.

 

[toysbyus]

After subscribing to Car & Driver steadily since 1988, I finally canceled my subscription with them.

This specific road test article is the least of my issues. I've learned to not trust C/D after they crowed about the Honda Insight while Honda was already revising the car due to complaints about its ride and noise levels.........

Not sure if anyone else noticed BUT they've "improved" their graphic design for the magazine recently, rendering the rag almost unreadable. Magazines are meant to be read NOT hung in a museum. Images thrown all over the page, the dreaded text printed over full color images, making the text unreadable, and on and on.

Also, I'm sick of seeing major road tests of BMW and Porsche cars on a monthly basis....over and over again, they seem to concentrate on these marques with an occasional Ferrari thrown in.......there's a world of automotive products out there and I'd like to read about them also.........

Not sure where I'll put my subscription fees from now on but my looking-forward-to- getting-my-new-mag days are done with as far as C/D goes..........

BTW, I had a 2009 Forrie loaner when I had my 120K major tuneup last May and, while I found it to be floaty and not as connected to the road as my '03, I also found it to be as rattle free as any other Forrie that I've driven although I expect that the new Legacy/Outback would be much better in the rigidity/rattle area.......

Goodbye, C/D................my advice is get your self a new road tester and a new Graphics Designer. Review everything that's out there and stop forcing German cars down my throat.

Just my 2 cents.......

Steve

 

[Dan]

Haven't read the article, but i'm guessing there was no off-roading done to test these AWD/4WD vehicles? If not, the entire 'test' lacks a measure of credibility. They are supposed to be rugged and off road capable. Include tests to evaluate such characteristics. If they did, forgive me.

They specifically left out off-roading due to some problems (read: damage to lesser, aka non-Subaru, vehicles) last time they actually went into the slop.

I'd like to see a test where off-road is evaluated and considered separate from on-road, given score and rank for both environments, and then given a composite rank using all tests. Let's face it, the majority of the SUVs don't see anything more off-road strenuous than driving onto the lawn to unload the mulch and bags of dirt for some landscape project. But to skip that aspect of the capabilities in a group of vehicles designed to handle at least light off-roading, it does leave a lot on the table.

 

[rearviewmirror]

Not to take away from the Subaru element of this thread, but I have to agree with those who said C&D is hopeless. They're biased, if a car is sh*t, they'll only complain that the trunk isn't as big as they'd like or something to that effect. Same thing with Motorweek on PBS, have you ever heard them say a single negative thing? It comes to advertising dollars and the manufacturers giving/loaning them products to test so they can turn out garbage. Some of the technical information about cars in C&D is useful, but the comparo's and tests, they're just not going to tell you what you really want to hear. TopGear and 5th Gear in the UK are the only operations that I've heard truly call cars garbage if they indeed were.