[TCARZ]

I have always dissed suvs as gas guzzeling behemouths. Swore I'd never own one. I have, however, always loved wagons. Hard to find em nowadays. I have a 55 Chevy 2 dr 210 wagon, that I'm restoring. My last wagon was 91 Accord EX. Sigh.... It has over 250K miles on it and has been passed from my daughter to my son, who drives it daily.

I asked the car dealerships, "Why no wagons?". They say, there is no demand. :crazy: What are suvs, but
jacked up, awd wagons? I could have settled for a Chevy HHR but felt claustrophobic and dealer said clutch was no good. Elantra Touring 5MT was hard to find.

Well, anyway, I bought the Forester, cause it's a wagon with some room to spare, good mpgs, 5MT and awd as a bonus. It just might be one of my greatest wagons. :biggrin:

 

[vicali]

lol, you wanted a wagon but bought a SH? :N_poke:
sad days..

 

[Duderotomy]

:lol: yeah, I thought the Forester went from wagon to SUV in MY09... now it's a "cute-ute"

 

[TCARZ]

LOL! Thanks for making my day, Mike!

Just so happens, I'm Swedish American, too. Maybe that explains it. I heard that Volvo has been sold to the Chinese. Should be interesting.

Tack sa mycket for the great info! : )

 

[TSi+WRX]

Yep, believe me, many of us are missing the Subaru wagons.

But sadly, like your dealership says, TCARZ, there just doesn't seem to be demand - particularly for performance variants which carry with them a manual transmission.

The BP-Legacy 2.5GT wagon, here in the US, paired with the 5-speed manual transmission, became defunct as of 2006. A 5MT BP 2.5GT wagon is now highly sought after in that community.

The new BR-Legacy isn't even available, here in the US. :frown: Yes, I know that there's the Outback, but I'm not an off-roader, and would prefer a more performance-oriented kind of "sporting," rather than the ability to go off-road, so, yes, that distinction is a big one, to me.

My wife and I went with the SH-Forester XT because it met our needs, but to tell you the truth, we both would have liked it better, in the SG format.

Like Duderotomy mentioned, the Forester platform change from SG to SH occurred in (North American) MY09, and that's when the transition from the more wagon-like body shell to the more obviously SUV-like took place (despite the SG also having been billed as a "mini SUV"). The Forester is now fully and completely entrenched in the hotly contested "cute-ute" or "Soft-Roader" segment of the market.

 

[Trainman]

Hmm, in my mind it always was a SUV/CUV and I never thought of any generation of Forester as a wagon in the sense of say a Volvo or Escort or Honda Civic or Accord etc. Having owned a Mercury Tracer (ie Mazda 323 Mk II) wagon, that is what I think of.

 

[Treehugger]

Luckily for me, mine IS a wagon.

I wouldn't buy a 2009+, personally. I don't like the new Foresters. If I need another car, it'll be a wagon or hatchback, AWD preferred.

 

[sea-scooby]

Just look at the sales and you will see why they made the change.

 

[snajper69]

Just look at the sales and you will see why they made the change.

Agree. Forester wasn't even consider by most till they redesigned it, and made more SUV type. There are few picture of someone that has 08 and 09 and if you look close there is not that much difference, if you drop the car and do few mods. I like both the 08 version and the 10 I think they both have something to offer. But if I would have to choose I would rather go with the 10 for the extra interior space.

 

[ArcadeTom]

FWIW, when I registered my (then) new 2009 Forester XT in May, 2008, the state of Georgia (and my insurance company - Met life) both listed it as a wagon. Does that count? :biggrin:

 

[Real Lyte]

FWIW, when I registered my (then) new 2009 Forester XT in May, 2008, the state of Georgia (and my insurance company - Met life) both listed it as a wagon. Does that count? :biggrin:

My foz is listed as a "Suburban", go figure.

 

[ArcadeTom]

My foz is listed as a "Suburban", go figure.

New York vs Georgia maybe? :N_poke:

 

[TCARZ]

My foz is listed as a "Suburban", go figure.

Whoa! Now, that's a low blow! Blasphamey or something like that! Shame on them Evil ones! :evilatyou:

 

[Real Lyte]

New York vs Georgia maybe? :N_poke:

I think it's what they list things as when they are confused as what the vehicle is to begin with lol.

Whoa! Now, that's a low blow! Blasphamey or something like that! Shame on them Evil ones! :evilatyou:

Yeah, I want it to be a wagon by name lol.

 

[VAXT]

Previous generation Foresters are actually classified as trucks - per CAFE and EPA regulations.

Remember when Subaru reclassified the Outback as a truck in 2005? That caused a minor stir in the auto industry.

Not sure about the SH but I assume it's still technically (CAFE/EPA/NHTSA) classified as a truck?

 

[Peaty]

In North America the SF and SG were technically "Passenger Cars" in the form of a station wagon (see attached) I will grant you that Subaru marketing started calling the Forester and SUV to jump on the bandwagon but it was not an SUV. I believe with the changes made to the SH it was then no longer considered a passenger car. This made it so you can sell them with factory supplied tint in the glass behind the front seats. I'll have to look at my friends SH and see what the door plaque says now.

 

[Peaty]

Okay so I had to go out and look, the 2009 (SH) says the vehicle type is MPV/VTUM now.

So from this site:

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, Compliance Label - Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1038) - List of Regulations - Acts and Regulations - Transport Canada

MY 2009+ “MPV/VTUM” to refer to a multi-purpose passenger vehicle

MY 2004 “PC/VT” to refer to a passenger car

 

[snajper69]

My foz is listed as a "Suburban", go figure.

lol at least not chevy hahahahahahaa GM owns everything and got their hands in anything in this country lol hahahahaha

 

[ForesterDave]

This is precisely why we bought a 2009 Impreza Outback Sport instead of a 2009 Forester 2.5X. I don't want an SUV, and the Forester is an SUV as of 2009. If they had a brand new 2008 Forester I would have bought it, or if the 2009 body was the same as the 2008 that's what I would have bought. It was a wagon. Also if the Legacy wagon was on offer in 2009, would have bought that one. Never liked the Outback, hate the 2010 Outback, it's ugly as hell.

 

[themathguy]

I bought the car BECAUSE it was an SUV, and the most "utility" capable MT one I could find with fuel efficiency above 20 mpg. If it were a wagon, I might have shied away. (I considered the Outback, but couldn't see myself in a wagon.)

I understand it's a personal preference thing, and to each their own. :shrug: