http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/16/s...y-of-the-year/

Subaru Forester

At least this generation actually looks like an SUV and not a wagon.

 

wagon > SUV

 

 

On the visual excitment scale of 1-10, that ranks about a -5.

 

I've owned 4 Soobs now, every time I shop for one I take a look a the Forester and every time I come to the same conclusion: WHY? For just a bit more money I can get a Legacy/Outback that has the same basic specifications but with a LOT more room... or for LESS money I can get an Impreza Outback that has the same basic specifications and the same interior room. (this is all gut feel... the Forester feels very small, could be that with it's taller interior it actually IS a bit bigger than the Impreza... but it doesn't feel it)

I guess if you like the truck look and can stand the cramped interior.

I've gone with a Legacy every time (2 Outbacks, one sedan, one wagon)

 

Every sooby owner raves about them but I really don't have much experiance with them. Are they good quality cars?

 

So it seems to depend... my wife drove a 97 outback for 11 years, it was a great car (270k when we finally got rid of it). My first soob was 92 wagon that was also reliable, I heard it finally died a year or two ago with over 300k on it. My second was a 2000 Legacy sedan, it wasn't very reliable... lots of little problems and a few big ones, tranny at 60k, head gasket at 105k, and when I ditched it last month it needed both again, and about $4000 in various repairs (with only 170k on the odo), The new one (2007 Outback Wagon) is too new to tell - so to this point we're 66/33 on quality, not spectacular.

We get them primarily because there's not a lot of options in the AWD Wagon market, and they're all more expensive and no better on the reliability scale.

 

I always wondered how a boxer motor would fair in daily activities. Considering the pistons sit on the cylinder sleeve.

 

I would say gravity affects it more, however, I believe they compensate for it with thicker rings or something. It's a question of curiosity. Dave said he's owned a bunch of Subies, I figured I'd ask.

 

I have given up on the majority of reviews for SUV's.

Most SUV's are not used off road. Most are not used for towing.

1/4 mile and 0-60 times aren't that important. If the used the data more for getting up to highway speed and passing on the highway, it would be useful. I also find it funny when I hear reviews about handling on windy mountain roads.

It seems like reviews of SUV's are the same as sports cars, but add towing and off road use. This is why crossovers make more sense. I think that lumping SUV's into the mix with crossovers is kind of odd. Crossovers can go off road, but that isn't what they excel at. They are much more like minivans with 4 doors.

Getting off of the rant, damn that vehicle looks boring.

 

It's definitely not the basic Boxer design that's at fault when it comes to reliability issues with these cars. There are a number of 400k soobs out there, and we had 2 around 300k without ever needing maintenance other than timing belts... which is pretty darn good, especially for a 4-banger. However... there are 'bad' years for the subaru boxer... 2000 was one of them. They had some issues with the design that led to higher problem rates with those cars. There are a couple sites online where you can find out which years to avoid.

Overall though the Boxer is a great basic design, able to make a lot of power (Porsche) and very reliable. I think maybe part of it is BECAUSE of the flat design, gravity has a lot less impact on an engine than normal loading under operation, and the boxer has 180 degree offset loading (and there's something about their firing pattern in there too). You'd have to talk to an engine guy but I think you'll find that it's a very sound design overall. Until recently they did have a fair amount of piston slap when cold but it never seemed to affect durability.

 

We own a new Forester and it is an awesome vehicle. Plenty of power, we've got 30mpg on a longer trip, AWD, huge sunroof, and quality much higher than it's competition IMO. Plus I'm 6'4" and can sit in the back with the front seats all the way back.

 

The Forester is lack luster at best.

No surprise though.. SUVs were the last bastion for Detroit, so the media is busy trying to convince the public that everything not made by Detroit (Even Hyundai and Kia now) is superior to everything made by Detroit.

 

That is why they list 1/4 mi and 0-60 times. That's a VERY good indication of the vehicle's passing power.

 

I disagree. The times posted by the magazines involve driving the vehicle completely differently than a normal person would. How many people try to screech tires when accelerating on the road? Most people are not at WOT when they try to start passing. Most people are not going to continue to be at WOT when they hit 85mph or more to finish out the 1/4 mile. I have never heard of people comparing SUV's and referencing .1 difference in 1/4 mile time being an important factor. The test just doesn't fit.

A 55mph to 70mph time would be useful for passing. Also a 30mph to 60mph time would be useful for highway entrances. SUV's are more for function than performance.