CR-V– Why I decided on a Subaru Forester
Question:
Thanks Scooter for pointing this out to our gentlemen here. I have specifically used the "C$" sign in my original message. I guess the yanks still think they own the internet! Ah well, another fine example of an ignorant neighbour…..<zzzzzz>
: It makes sense to anyone in Canada… the terms he is describing are the : norm for our leases (24,000 km per year on Honda leases and many others).
: >The lease terms you specify here are way off the standard terms offered by : >leasing companies. While you can prepay for high milage, 12 to 15 : >thousand miles per year is the norm. The terms you describe don’t make : >any sense at all especially the walk away part. What brand of dope were : >you smoking when you wrote this ? You would be better off buying the car : >at 72 months payments. : >Sorry but your story is UNBELIEVABLE ! : > : > : > : >> Well, let me tell you about MY story why I didn’t buy a Forester! Went to : >> Subaru showroom, salesman wants C$5000 down on a 24 month lease and : >> offering only 20,000K per year. No negotiations, take it or leave it, : full : >> options on Foresters only, can’t even take a base model to keep premiums : >> down, take it or leave it attitude. : >> : >> Went to Honda dealer for CRV, C$2500 down, 24,000K per year, can : >> choose from 36-60 months! Zero penalty walk way lease, dealer offer lease : >> buy-back ANY TIME! Lots of options – 2 wheel, auto/manual, LX/EX….. : >> : >> Guess what, CRV parked in front of my garage now! : > : >– : > : > : >Powered by Macintosh
Response:
> David: > Thank you very much for your posting! My wife and I are going through the > same decision-making process at the moment, and your posting is EXTREMELY > useful! We love Hondas: our 2 Hondas have a total of over 330,000 miles on > them, but we may have to go elesewhere for our next vehicle. Sigh. > The other vehicle that we are considering is the Isuzu Amigo. Had you given > any thought to it? > Alan Cohen
You don’t have to quite owning Honda’s to buy and Izuzu, Just get a Passport 
— Powered by Macintosh
Response:
Well, let me tell you about MY story why I didn’t buy a Forester! Went to Subaru showroom, salesman wants C$5000 down on a 24 month lease and offering only 20,000K per year. No negotiations, take it or leave it, full options on Foresters only, can’t even take a base model to keep premiums down, take it or leave it attitude. Went to Honda dealer for CRV, C$2500 down, 24,000K per year, can choose from 36-60 months! Zero penalty walk way lease, dealer offer lease buy-back ANY TIME! Lots of options – 2 wheel, auto/manual, LX/EX….. Guess what, CRV parked in front of my garage now!
Response:
The lease terms you specify here are way off the standard terms offered by leasing companies. While you can prepay for high milage, 12 to 15 thousand miles per year is the norm. The terms you describe don’t make any sense at all especially the walk away part. What brand of dope were you smoking when you wrote this ? You would be better off buying the car at 72 months payments. Sorry but your story is UNBELIEVABLE ! > Well, let me tell you about MY story why I didn’t buy a Forester! Went to > Subaru showroom, salesman wants C$5000 down on a 24 month lease and > offering only 20,000K per year. No negotiations, take it or leave it, full > options on Foresters only, can’t even take a base model to keep premiums > down, take it or leave it attitude. > Went to Honda dealer for CRV, C$2500 down, 24,000K per year, can > choose from 36-60 months! Zero penalty walk way lease, dealer offer lease > buy-back ANY TIME! Lots of options – 2 wheel, auto/manual, LX/EX….. > Guess what, CRV parked in front of my garage now!
– Powered by Macintosh
Response:
It makes sense to anyone in Canada… the terms he is describing are the norm for our leases (24,000 km per year on Honda leases and many others). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >The lease terms you specify here are way off the standard terms offered by >leasing companies. While you can prepay for high milage, 12 to 15 >thousand miles per year is the norm. The terms you describe don’t make >any sense at all especially the walk away part. What brand of dope were >you smoking when you wrote this ? You would be better off buying the car >at 72 months payments. >Sorry but your story is UNBELIEVABLE ! > Well, let me tell you about MY story why I didn’t buy a Forester! Went to > Subaru showroom, salesman wants C$5000 down on a 24 month lease and > offering only 20,000K per year. No negotiations, take it or leave it, full > options on Foresters only, can’t even take a base model to keep premiums > down, take it or leave it attitude. > Went to Honda dealer for CRV, C$2500 down, 24,000K per year, can > choose from 36-60 months! Zero penalty walk way lease, dealer offer lease > buy-back ANY TIME! Lots of options – 2 wheel, auto/manual, LX/EX….. > Guess what, CRV parked in front of my garage now! >– >Powered by Macintosh
Response:
Sorry, I didn’t try the Amigo. Because of reliability concerns, my first preference was Toyota, then Honda, then Subaru. Don’t have any data or information about the Isuzu’s track record. Idaho is a big Subaru state and I was able to get lots of testimonials. I don’t know anyone who owns an Isuzu. They may be fine vehicles, but my reliability concerns kept my scope limited. Regards, David PS>> Did own a car with an Isuzu Diesel engine once. It was a Chevette. Every part of that car seemed to fall apart until all that was left was the engine, running strong and reliable as always. Guess that means Isuzu isn’t all bad! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> David: > Thank you very much for your posting! My wife and I are going through the > same decision-making process at the moment, and your posting is EXTREMELY > useful! We love Hondas: our 2 Hondas have a total of over 330,000 miles on > them, but we may have to go elesewhere for our next vehicle. Sigh. > The other vehicle that we are considering is the Isuzu Amigo. Had you given > any thought to it? > Alan Cohen
Response:
Mr. Goodwin: Thanks for telling me about the 1999 Forester for the seats. I have not tried it but I will again soon. I was impressed with the Forester performance exept the hard seat. Consumer Reports rated Forester the top small SUV over RaV4 and CRV. In the Midwest states, the seats become harder during the winter so I think soft seats are important. Regards. :> David, ;> Thanks for your comments. I agree, the Forester faces an uphill ;battle ;> against taller, more traditional looking SUV’s. The Honda’s design ;> elegance is unquestioned, and its more of a "real" SUV. I just ;thought I’d ;> mention the less obvious strengths of the Subaru. ;> ;> By my calculation, the honda has 4/10th of an Inch more clearance ;than the ;> Forester. I do think the CRV would be better in deep snow or mud, ;but I my ;> needs don’t include that type of driving. I should have mentioned I ;have a ;> ‘77 Landcruiser Wagon that I use for REAL off-road stuff. ;> ;> Have you been in a ‘99 Forester? I walked away from a 98 the first ;time I ;> sat in one because of the hard seat. The ’99’s have more padding, ;though ;> they are still stiff. The back seats, however, are still ;considerably less ;> comfortable in the Forester than the CR-V. ;> ;> Kind Regards, > David > Dave, I agree with you in you assessments of 1998 CR-V vs Forester. > However, …..
<snip>
Response:
David’s comments below suggest that the Subaru may be a superior performer on icy and snowy roads. Here in New England the capabilities of the Subaru all wheel drive system are legendary. The Honda and Real-Time 4 wheel drive are new and knowledge of its abilities is not widespread. Could any CRV owners share their snow and ice experiences with us? In particular, situations where you have had the power transferred to the rear wheels would be very interesting. Thanks – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > David, > Thanks for your comments. I agree, the Forester faces an uphill battle > against taller, more traditional looking SUV’s. The Honda’s design > elegance is unquestioned, and its more of a "real" SUV. I just thought I’d > mention the less obvious strengths of the Subaru. > By my calculation, the honda has 4/10th of an Inch more clearance than the > Forester. I do think the CRV would be better in deep snow or mud, but I my > needs don’t include that type of driving. I should have mentioned I have a > ‘77 Landcruiser Wagon that I use for REAL off-road stuff. > Have you been in a ‘99 Forester? I walked away from a 98 the first time I > sat in one because of the hard seat. The ’99’s have more padding, though > they are still stiff. The back seats, however, are still considerably less > comfortable in the Forester than the CR-V. > Kind Regards, > David > Dave, I agree with you in you assessments of 1998 CR-V vs Forester. > However, > most people who spent money to buy SUV want a car that looks like an > SUV. > Unfortunately, Forester still looks like a station wagon. Subaru can > call it > an SUV, but bystanders will call it a tall wagon. If SUV apearance > is not important, people should have bought Camry station wagon All-trac > (discontinued due to lack luster), or Subaru Ouback Wagon (not selling > well > to SUV buyers either). > While CRV does not completely look like a real SUV like Toy. 4Runner or > a > Jeep Grand Cherokee, its apearance is good. Because of the height, all > SUVs > and Vans are not good in sharp S turns. Even Izuzu Trooper and Suzuki > Samurai > tipped over in the Consumer Reports emergency manneuver tests. CR-V has > over 8 inches > of clearance and thus it may be easier for CRV to go thru unplowed snow > roads in a > snowstorm than Forester. May be we should test them on roads that are > covered > over 6, 7, or 8 inches of snow to find out. > ;> > ;> Just thought I’d post a note about my experience with extensive test > drives > ;> of the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Outback and Forester. I decided to > buy > ;> the Forester and here’s why. > ;> > ;> General Impression: The Honda clearly has the best interior and > exterior > ;> finish of *any* car manufacturer we looked at (Toyota RAV-4, > Subaru’s, > ;> Audi’s, and VW’s). While some cars had better materials inside (like > the > ;> Accord), Honda can’t be beat for interior and exterior finish. The > Honda > ;> was tight, but it didn’t drive as tightly as other cars. Because we > were > ;> seeking a reliable all wheel drive, we eliminated the Audi and VW > Passat > ;> before extensive test driving. > ;> > ;> Climbing Hills: We climbed our long test hill and the CR-V did > fine. It > ;> maintained 65 mph on a hill that will slow most 4 cylinders to 50 or > 55. > ;> It was, however, shifted into 3rd most of the time (it was an > automatic). > > The Subaru Forester climbed the hill at near 70 with a lot less effort. > ;> > ;> Mountain Curves: Curvy roads are a standard here in Idaho, and the > CR-V > ;> lost out on this one. It handles like a finely made mini-van. The > Subaru > ;> Forester handles like a European coup. Unbelievable difference on > this > ;;> one. The Forester handled a corner posted at 35 mph at 65 mph with > barely > ;> a squeal. The CR-V on the same corner scared me at about 50-55. It > sways > ;> and shows it’s higher center of gravity. Don’t get me wrong, the > CR-V is > ;> good at this test, just not great. > ;> Interior space: The CR-V wins, hands down. Never seen a better > designed; > ;> interior. > ;> > ;> City drivability and performance: The Subaru takes it here. Again, > like a > ;> European machine, the Subaru turns, stops, and accelerates like a > champ. > ;> And you don’t need to buy the "fancy" version to get antilock > brakes– a > ;> must in my book. The CR-V wasn’t bad, it was just more like a > mini-van. > > Since I’m a 5 speed addict, I would have to find an EX model of the > CR-V > ;> with a stick– rough when all CR-V’s are in short supply.; > ;> > ;> 4WD vs. AWD– THE REAL DIFFERENCE. As a native of Idaho, and a fan > of the > ;> backcountry in the dead of winter, this was our real decision maker. > I’ve; > ;> driven dozens of 4wd vehicles from Blazers, to Landcruisers, to Dodge > ;> trucks and am familiar with their handling in a variety of > conditions. We > > took the CR-V to a gravel road because that was the slickest surface > ;> available right now. We stopped, put the vehicle in D4 and pressed > the; > > accelerator 3/4 of the way to the floor. The front wheels immediately > ;> spun. In about 1 second (an eternity when your out of control on > ice) the > ;> rear wheels engaged. Because of the high torque, they began > spinning. The > ;> vehicle then fish tailed and became "interesting" to control. Not > bad, but > > "interesting". We immediately stopped and retried the experiment. The > 4wd > ;> had already disengaged by the second attempt. Under the same > conditions, > ;> with 45 more HP and a manual transmission, the Subaru Forester > wouldn’t > ;> even spin– not one tire slipped. From experience, the Honda’s 4wd > might > > get you out of a mud bog or deep snow, but it probably would be > difficult > ;> on patchy ice or partial snow floor– the conditions we most often > drive > ;> in. Remember, in most 4wd’s, you can manually engage the 4wd if the > road > ;> conditions are iffy. With the CR-V, my guess is you’ll hope the car > ;> figures out the road conditions before you’re in the ditch. > > To the CR-V’s credit would be its longer wheel base which should make > it > > less prone to spinning out of control, but the 4wd system convinced me > that > > it was not the best "snow country" vehicle. > > One last note– Subaru’s roof rack is built to hold stuff. The CR-V’s > > rated weight for its *optional* roof rack (a $400 option) is 75 lbs. > I’ve > > carried 75 lbs up 10 miles to mountain lakes on my back. The Subaru’s > rack > > is the most solid factory rack I’ve ever experienced– and it comes > > standard. > > RELIABILITY: Never bet against Honda on reliability. Subaru’s record > > isn’t bad, at least according to consumer reports and others I’ve > talked > > with. > > If you’re an urban SUV’er lookin’ for a higher road perspective and a > car > > heavy on the "utility" sans the 4wd, and light on the "sport", the CR-V > is > > for you– buy it. > > If you frequently drive in snow country and appreciate stable, agile > AWD > > vehicles, and don’t mind a car like vehicle, consider the Forester. > > Regards, > > David
Response:
David: Thank you very much for your posting! My wife and I are going through the same decision-making process at the moment, and your posting is EXTREMELY useful! We love Hondas: our 2 Hondas have a total of over 330,000 miles on them, but we may have to go elesewhere for our next vehicle. Sigh. The other vehicle that we are considering is the Isuzu Amigo. Had you given any thought to it? Alan Cohen
Response:
David, Thanks for your comments. I agree, the Forester faces an uphill battle against taller, more traditional looking SUV’s. The Honda’s design elegance is unquestioned, and its more of a "real" SUV. I just thought I’d mention the less obvious strengths of the Subaru. By my calculation, the honda has 4/10th of an Inch more clearance than the Forester. I do think the CRV would be better in deep snow or mud, but I my needs don’t include that type of driving. I should have mentioned I have a ‘77 Landcruiser Wagon that I use for REAL off-road stuff. Have you been in a ‘99 Forester? I walked away from a 98 the first time I sat in one because of the hard seat. The ’99’s have more padding, though they are still stiff. The back seats, however, are still considerably less comfortable in the Forester than the CR-V. Kind Regards, David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dave, I agree with you in you assessments of 1998 CR-V vs Forester. > However, > most people who spent money to buy SUV want a car that looks like an > SUV. > Unfortunately, Forester still looks like a station wagon. Subaru can > call it > an SUV, but bystanders will call it a tall wagon. If SUV apearance > is not important, people should have bought Camry station wagon All-trac > (discontinued due to lack luster), or Subaru Ouback Wagon (not selling > well > to SUV buyers either). > While CRV does not completely look like a real SUV like Toy. 4Runner or > a > Jeep Grand Cherokee, its apearance is good. Because of the height, all > SUVs > and Vans are not good in sharp S turns. Even Izuzu Trooper and Suzuki > Samurai > tipped over in the Consumer Reports emergency manneuver tests. CR-V has > over 8 inches > of clearance and thus it may be easier for CRV to go thru unplowed snow > roads in a > snowstorm than Forester. May be we should test them on roads that are > covered > over 6, 7, or 8 inches of snow to find out. > ;> > ;> Just thought I’d post a note about my experience with extensive test > drives > ;> of the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Outback and Forester. I decided to > buy > ;> the Forester and here’s why. > ;> > ;> General Impression: The Honda clearly has the best interior and > exterior > ;> finish of *any* car manufacturer we looked at (Toyota RAV-4, > Subaru’s, > ;> Audi’s, and VW’s). While some cars had better materials inside (like > the > ;> Accord), Honda can’t be beat for interior and exterior finish. The > Honda > ;> was tight, but it didn’t drive as tightly as other cars. Because we > were > ;> seeking a reliable all wheel drive, we eliminated the Audi and VW > Passat > ;> before extensive test driving. > ;> > ;> Climbing Hills: We climbed our long test hill and the CR-V did > fine. It > ;> maintained 65 mph on a hill that will slow most 4 cylinders to 50 or > 55. > ;> It was, however, shifted into 3rd most of the time (it was an > automatic). > The Subaru Forester climbed the hill at near 70 with a lot less effort. > ;> > ;> Mountain Curves: Curvy roads are a standard here in Idaho, and the > CR-V > ;> lost out on this one. It handles like a finely made mini-van. The > Subaru > ;> Forester handles like a European coup. Unbelievable difference on > this > ;;> one. The Forester handled a corner posted at 35 mph at 65 mph with > barely > ;> a squeal. The CR-V on the same corner scared me at about 50-55. It > sways > ;> and shows it’s higher center of gravity. Don’t get me wrong, the > CR-V is > ;> good at this test, just not great. > ;> Interior space: The CR-V wins, hands down. Never seen a better > designed; > ;> interior. > ;> > ;> City drivability and performance: The Subaru takes it here. Again, > like a > ;> European machine, the Subaru turns, stops, and accelerates like a > champ. > ;> And you don’t need to buy the "fancy" version to get antilock > brakes– a > ;> must in my book. The CR-V wasn’t bad, it was just more like a > mini-van. > Since I’m a 5 speed addict, I would have to find an EX model of the CR-V > ;> with a stick– rough when all CR-V’s are in short supply.; > ;> > ;> 4WD vs. AWD– THE REAL DIFFERENCE. As a native of Idaho, and a fan > of the > ;> backcountry in the dead of winter, this was our real decision maker. > I’ve; > ;> driven dozens of 4wd vehicles from Blazers, to Landcruisers, to Dodge > ;> trucks and am familiar with their handling in a variety of > conditions. We > took the CR-V to a gravel road because that was the slickest surface > ;> available right now. We stopped, put the vehicle in D4 and pressed > the; > accelerator 3/4 of the way to the floor. The front wheels immediately > ;> spun. In about 1 second (an eternity when your out of control on > ice) the > ;> rear wheels engaged. Because of the high torque, they began > spinning. The > ;> vehicle then fish tailed and became "interesting" to control. Not > bad, but > "interesting". We immediately stopped and retried the experiment. The 4wd > ;> had already disengaged by the second attempt. Under the same > conditions, > ;> with 45 more HP and a manual transmission, the Subaru Forester > wouldn’t > ;> even spin– not one tire slipped. From experience, the Honda’s 4wd > might > get you out of a mud bog or deep snow, but it probably would be difficult > ;> on patchy ice or partial snow floor– the conditions we most often > drive > ;> in. Remember, in most 4wd’s, you can manually engage the 4wd if the > road > ;> conditions are iffy. With the CR-V, my guess is you’ll hope the car > ;> figures out the road conditions before you’re in the ditch. > To the CR-V’s credit would be its longer wheel base which should make it > less prone to spinning out of control, but the 4wd system convinced me that > it was not the best "snow country" vehicle. > One last note– Subaru’s roof rack is built to hold stuff. The CR-V’s > rated weight for its *optional* roof rack (a $400 option) is 75 lbs. I’ve > carried 75 lbs up 10 miles to mountain lakes on my back. The Subaru’s rack > is the most solid factory rack I’ve ever experienced– and it comes > standard. > RELIABILITY: Never bet against Honda on reliability. Subaru’s record > isn’t bad, at least according to consumer reports and others I’ve talked > with. > If you’re an urban SUV’er lookin’ for a higher road perspective and a car > heavy on the "utility" sans the 4wd, and light on the "sport", the CR-V is > for you– buy it. > If you frequently drive in snow country and appreciate stable, agile AWD > vehicles, and don’t mind a car like vehicle, consider the Forester. > Regards, > David
Response:
Nice post… I opted for the CRV myself with 5 speed manual and love it… time will tell re: the 4WD aspect when snow hits (couple weeks I’m sure ( )… My cousin in Buffalo NY bought a Forester and is visiting my this weekend so we’ll be able to compare our SUVs!! In my area (SW Ontario, city), the 4WD won’t be AS necessary to me as for others so the CRV should be great… in her area, she commutes back and forth to Buffalo from a little village about 20 minutes away (on dry pavement *grin*)… and is in a snowbelt so the AWD would be a MAJOR requirement for her so I think we’re both happy! (and we can swap for an afternoon to compare too!). Jen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Just thought I’d post a note about my experience with extensive test drives >of the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Outback and Forester. I decided to buy >the Forester and here’s why. >If you’re an urban SUV’er lookin’ for a higher road perspective and a car >heavy on the "utility" sans the 4wd, and light on the "sport", the CR-V is >for you– buy it. >If you frequently drive in snow country and appreciate stable, agile AWD >vehicles, and don’t mind a car like vehicle, consider the Forester.
Response:
Dave, I agree with you in you assessments of 1998 CR-V vs Forester. However, most people who spent money to buy SUV want a car that looks like an SUV. Unfortunately, Forester still looks like a station wagon. Subaru can call it an SUV, but bystanders will call it a tall wagon. If SUV apearance is not important, people should have bought Camry station wagon All-trac (discontinued due to lack luster), or Subaru Ouback Wagon (not selling well to SUV buyers either). While CRV does not completely look like a real SUV like Toy. 4Runner or a Jeep Grand Cherokee, its apearance is good. Because of the height, all SUVs and Vans are not good in sharp S turns. Even Izuzu Trooper and Suzuki Samurai tipped over in the Consumer Reports emergency manneuver tests. CR-V has over 8 inches of clearance and thus it may be easier for CRV to go thru unplowed snow roads in a snowstorm than Forester. May be we should test them on roads that are covered over 6, 7, or 8 inches of snow to find out. Another draw back of the Forester is the hard seats. Sitting on a Forester hard seat made me feel like sitting in a Ford/Chevrolet truck. In conclusion, Subaru needs to fix the apearance of its Forester and the hard seats to apeal SUV to buyers. Honda needs to improve its CRV engine (1999 model will be 20 hp more) and make the oil filter easier to reach for do-it-youself people.
;> ;> Just thought I’d post a note about my experience with extensive test drives ;> of the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Outback and Forester. I decided to buy ;> the Forester and here’s why. ;> ;> General Impression: The Honda clearly has the best interior and exterior ;> finish of *any* car manufacturer we looked at (Toyota RAV-4, Subaru’s, ;> Audi’s, and VW’s). While some cars had better materials inside (like the ;> Accord), Honda can’t be beat for interior and exterior finish. The Honda ;> was tight, but it didn’t drive as tightly as other cars. Because we were ;> seeking a reliable all wheel drive, we eliminated the Audi and VW Passat ;> before extensive test driving. ;> ;> Climbing Hills: We climbed our long test hill and the CR-V did fine. It ;> maintained 65 mph on a hill that will slow most 4 cylinders to 50 or 55. ;> It was, however, shifted into 3rd most of the time (it was an automatic). > The Subaru Forester climbed the hill at near 70 with a lot less effort.
;> ;> Mountain Curves: Curvy roads are a standard here in Idaho, and the CR-V ;> lost out on this one. It handles like a finely made mini-van. The Subaru ;> Forester handles like a European coup. Unbelievable difference on this ;;> one. The Forester handled a corner posted at 35 mph at 65 mph with barely ;> a squeal. The CR-V on the same corner scared me at about 50-55. It sways ;> and shows it’s higher center of gravity. Don’t get me wrong, the CR-V is ;> good at this test, just not great. ;> Interior space: The CR-V wins, hands down. Never seen a better designed; ;> interior. ;> ;> City drivability and performance: The Subaru takes it here. Again, like a ;> European machine, the Subaru turns, stops, and accelerates like a champ. ;> And you don’t need to buy the "fancy" version to get antilock brakes– a ;> must in my book. The CR-V wasn’t bad, it was just more like a mini-van. > Since I’m a 5 speed addict, I would have to find an EX model of the CR-V
;> with a stick– rough when all CR-V’s are in short supply.; ;> ;> 4WD vs. AWD– THE REAL DIFFERENCE. As a native of Idaho, and a fan of the ;> backcountry in the dead of winter, this was our real decision maker. I’ve; ;> driven dozens of 4wd vehicles from Blazers, to Landcruisers, to Dodge ;> trucks and am familiar with their handling in a variety of conditions. We > took the CR-V to a gravel road because that was the slickest surface
;> available right now. We stopped, put the vehicle in D4 and pressed the; > accelerator 3/4 of the way to the floor. The front wheels immediately
;> spun. In about 1 second (an eternity when your out of control on ice) the ;> rear wheels engaged. Because of the high torque, they began spinning. The ;> vehicle then fish tailed and became "interesting" to control. Not bad, but > "interesting". We immediately stopped and retried the experiment. The 4wd
;> had already disengaged by the second attempt. Under the same conditions, ;> with 45 more HP and a manual transmission, the Subaru Forester wouldn’t ;> even spin– not one tire slipped. From experience, the Honda’s 4wd might > get you out of a mud bog or deep snow, but it probably would be difficult
;> on patchy ice or partial snow floor– the conditions we most often drive ;> in. Remember, in most 4wd’s, you can manually engage the 4wd if the road ;> conditions are iffy. With the CR-V, my guess is you’ll hope the car ;> figures out the road conditions before you’re in the ditch. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> To the CR-V’s credit would be its longer wheel base which should make it > less prone to spinning out of control, but the 4wd system convinced me that > it was not the best "snow country" vehicle. > One last note– Subaru’s roof rack is built to hold stuff. The CR-V’s > rated weight for its *optional* roof rack (a $400 option) is 75 lbs. I’ve > carried 75 lbs up 10 miles to mountain lakes on my back. The Subaru’s rack > is the most solid factory rack I’ve ever experienced– and it comes > standard. > RELIABILITY: Never bet against Honda on reliability. Subaru’s record > isn’t bad, at least according to consumer reports and others I’ve talked > with. > If you’re an urban SUV’er lookin’ for a higher road perspective and a car > heavy on the "utility" sans the 4wd, and light on the "sport", the CR-V is > for you– buy it. > If you frequently drive in snow country and appreciate stable, agile AWD > vehicles, and don’t mind a car like vehicle, consider the Forester. > Regards, > David
Response:
Just thought I’d post a note about my experience with extensive test drives of the Honda CR-V and the Subaru Outback and Forester. I decided to buy the Forester and here’s why. General Impression: The Honda clearly has the best interior and exterior finish of *any* car manufacturer we looked at (Toyota RAV-4, Subaru’s, Audi’s, and VW’s). While some cars had better materials inside (like the Accord), Honda can’t be beat for interior and exterior finish. The Honda was tight, but it didn’t drive as tightly as other cars. Because we were seeking a reliable all wheel drive, we eliminated the Audi and VW Passat before extensive test driving. Climbing Hills: We climbed our long test hill and the CR-V did fine. It maintained 65 mph on a hill that will slow most 4 cylinders to 50 or 55. It was, however, shifted into 3rd most of the time (it was an automatic). The Subaru Forester climbed the hill at near 70 with a lot less effort. Mountain Curves: Curvy roads are a standard here in Idaho, and the CR-V lost out on this one. It handles like a finely made mini-van. The Subaru Forester handles like a European coup. Unbelievable difference on this one. The Forester handled a corner posted at 35 mph at 65 mph with barely a squeal. The CR-V on the same corner scared me at about 50-55. It sways and shows it’s higher center of gravity. Don’t get me wrong, the CR-V is good at this test, just not great. Interior space: The CR-V wins, hands down. Never seen a better designed interior. City drivability and performance: The Subaru takes it here. Again, like a European machine, the Subaru turns, stops, and accelerates like a champ. And you don’t need to buy the "fancy" version to get antilock brakes– a must in my book. The CR-V wasn’t bad, it was just more like a mini-van. Since I’m a 5 speed addict, I would have to find an EX model of the CR-V with a stick– rough when all CR-V’s are in short supply. 4WD vs. AWD– THE REAL DIFFERENCE. As a native of Idaho, and a fan of the backcountry in the dead of winter, this was our real decision maker. I’ve driven dozens of 4wd vehicles from Blazers, to Landcruisers, to Dodge trucks and am familiar with their handling in a variety of conditions. We took the CR-V to a gravel road because that was the slickest surface available right now. We stopped, put the vehicle in D4 and pressed the accelerator 3/4 of the way to the floor. The front wheels immediately spun. In about 1 second (an eternity when your out of control on ice), the rear wheels engaged. Because of the high torque, they began spinning. The vehicle then fish tailed and became "interesting" to control. Not bad, but "interesting". We immediately stopped and retried the experiment. The 4wd had already disengaged by the second attempt. Under the same conditions, with 45 more HP and a manual transmission, the Subaru Forester wouldn’t even spin– not one tire slipped. From experience, the Honda’s 4wd might get you out of a mud bog or deep snow, but it probably would be difficult on patchy ice or partial snow floor– the conditions we most often drive in. Remember, in most 4wd’s, you can manually engage the 4wd if the road conditions are iffy. With the CR-V, my guess is you’ll hope the car figures out the road conditions before you’re in the ditch. To the CR-V’s credit would be its longer wheel base which should make it less prone to spinning out of control, but the 4wd system convinced me that it was not the best "snow country" vehicle. One last note– Subaru’s roof rack is built to hold stuff. The CR-V’s rated weight for its *optional* roof rack (a $400 option) is 75 lbs. I’ve carried 75 lbs up 10 miles to mountain lakes on my back. The Subaru’s rack is the most solid factory rack I’ve ever experienced– and it comes standard. RELIABILITY: Never bet against Honda on reliability. Subaru’s record isn’t bad, at least according to consumer reports and others I’ve talked with. If you’re an urban SUV’er lookin’ for a higher road perspective and a car heavy on the "utility" sans the 4wd, and light on the "sport", the CR-V is for you– buy it. If you frequently drive in snow country and appreciate stable, agile AWD vehicles, and don’t mind a car like vehicle, consider the Forester. Regards, David
Response:
Related Posts