When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
IN A NUTSHELL: An excellent common-sense vehicle for many everyday needs.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, GMC Terrain, Nissan Rogue, Mazda CX-5, VW Tiguan, Dodge Journey, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Mitsubishi Outlander Sport.
OVERVIEW:
The original 1997 Subaru Forester, which was based on the Subaru Streega concept-vehicle first shown at the Tokyo Auto Show, was introduced to the American market around the same time as its two major competitors...the Toyota RAV-4 and Honda CR-V. All three quickly became huge successes, and sold in very strong numbers, with demand sometimes exceeding supply. Together, along with the original 1995 Subaru Outback, they set the stage in this country for the explosive growth of the compact, car-based crossover-SUV market, which, 20 years later, is still expanding rapidly. Buick, for example, recently cancelled the small sedan I myself am driving (the Verano) in the American market so they could convert the Verano's factory to production of the small, hot-selling Buick Encore SUV.
The original Forester quickly became a favorite of Consumer Reports (and still is today), winning a number of awards from both that magazine and a number of other auto-related organizations and publications. Some of my ex-co-workers (I am now retired) have purchased them or similar vehicles from Subaru, and several persons in my church congregation either own a Forester or are interested in one.
American-market Foresters, over the years, have generally been sold in two basic versions....the common bread-and-butter versions with the ubiquitous non-turbo 2.5L horizontal (Boxer) 4-cylinder engine, and the mildly-high-performance XT versions with a single-turbocharged version of the same engine. Subaru marketing, to date, has not offered the STi Rally-Grade high-performance version of the Forester here in the U.S., assuming (correctly) that there would probably be little demand for it, as most of that demand goes to the STI version of the smaller Impreza sedan and hatchback. The Forester, though, shares a basic platform with the smaller Impreza and XV Crosstrek models, and, like all U.S.-market Subaru vehicles, comes with the well-known (and highly-respected) Subaru Symmetrical All-Wheel-Drive system, which, for efficiency, reliability, and effective winter traction, is considered one of the best on the market. Foresters, in general, have been quite reliable over the years, although two significant flaws have been rear wheel bearings and the head-gaskets in some of the older non-turbo 2.5 engines (Subaru had extended warranties on both). Some 2014 and 2015 models have a minor issue with oil-consumption (1 to 2 quarts between typical oil-changes)....many of them, of course, are still under the original 5-year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty.
I myself liked the first-generation Forester, and strongly considered a two-tone green/silver L.L.Bean model when I chose my blue 2006 Outback instead. The body on the first-generation Forester was like built like a tank (the B-pillars, for example, were so strong that some rescue personnel had problems getting to people inside of them after accidents...the strong, professional-grade JAWS frame-cutters they use actually could not cut through the pillars to rip them off. But that strong body structure, of course, actually helped prevent many injuries and deaths, particularly in rollovers. The second-generation model continued most of the nice features of the first.
The Third-generation Forester, in my opinion, was a big let-down from the second, and a strong concession to cost-cutting....the bean-counters apparently took over that year. I complained about that at Subaru's display at the D.C. Auto Show that year (2008, I think it was)...and most of the Subaru reps there were at least somewhat sympathetic to my position, although one was quite smug (almost arrogant) in his manner, actually pointing out to ME what some of the cost-cutting and equipment-deletion features were, and saying that's just the name of the game in the auto business. Well, Sir, that's not a very good way to market your product. Still, I have to admit that the second-generation Forester, despite its El Cheapo, all-hard-plastic interior, lighter and more flimsy body panels, and more basic equipment level, continued to sell very well, so perhaps Subaru was on to something. And the third-generation model DID get one thing nice that the first and second didn't......hold-up struts for the hood instead of the cheap manual prop-rod.
Subaru corrected at least some of those problems for the Fourth-generation (current) model...adding much nicer interior surfaces, better fit/finish, and a number of new safety features. The fourth-generation model, like its sister Outback, is noted for its tall, airy greenhouse windows and high roofline giving good outward vision and space-efficiency...at a time when many other small SUVs are steadily trading visibility and space-efficiency for lower, sportier-looking, swoopy rooflines and wide C and D-pillars. Of course, back-up cameras, by law, are now standard in every new American-market vehicle, so that helps somewhat with the rear-visibility problem....but, IMO, it's nice to have a design like the Forester's which doesn't compromise the visibility to start with. The fourth-generation model has continued to slowly improve, year by year, without a major redesign.
For 2017, the Forester once again comes in two basic versions (non-turbo and turbo) and a total of six different trim lines. Non-turbo versions come in 2.5i Base ($22,595), 2.5i Premium ($25,495), 2.5i Limited ($29,195), and 2.5i Touring ($31,295). Turbo (XT) models come in 2.0XT Premium ($29,295) and 2.0XT Touring ($34,295)...so, as you can see, there is quite a price-spread between the various models. All versions, of course, come with Subaru's Symmetrical all-wheel-drive. Non-turbo models come with the 2.5L flat-boxer four of 170 HP and 174 ft-lbs. of torque. Non-Turbo Base and Premium versions come with a choice of a 6-speed traditional 3-pedal manual transmission or a CVT (Continuously-Variable) automatic.....Limited and Touring versions get the CVT as standard. Turbo XT models come with a 2.0L turbocharged flat (boxer) four of 250 HP and 258 ft-lbs. of torque, and the CVT. Subaru does not offer the turbo engine with the manual transmission for enthusiasts, but, of course, that would be a somewhat limited niche-market and probably not cost-effective for the company....probably the same reason why we don't get the Rally-Grade STi Forester in the American market.
The current 2017 model will probably be the last of the current-generation Foresters. A significant design change is due next year, for 2018, that will make the vehicle slightly longer, lower, and wider, and update the grille/front-end design some. Curb weight will drop slightly, and frame-stiffness increase (which, of course, is common with most redesigned vehicles these days). But the 2017 model is still an excellent product, and is well-worth considering if one wants to (maybe) get a better deal on a leftover sample than try and bargain on an all-new design which will probably have fewer sales-incentives. But, as the Forester is traditionally a good-seller for Subaru (along with the Outback), leftover samples may not last for long.
For the static-review, of course, as usual, I looked at and examined several different interiors, and, for the test-drive, chose a base 2.5i in white, with a light gray cloth interior, the CVT transmission, and minimal options. I thought the base model had an attractive price (mine listed for under 26K), and, if one could do without NAV, leather seats, or some other goodies, offered a good value for the money. Loaded Touring models, for example (and the dealership had several of them there), can run as high as 38K or more with options and accessories....that's entry-level luxury vehicle-pricing.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2017 Subaru Forester 2.5i
BASE PRICE: $22,595
OPTIONS:
CVT Transmission: $1000
Alloy Wheel Package: $600 ($1100 minus a $500 factory rebate).
Rugged Package #1: $618
(This is basically just some splash-guards for the wheel-wells, an addition to the roof rack for carrying things, and a couple of cosmetic body-trim fairings)
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $875 (reasonable for this size vehicle)
Good interior hardware (apart from the trim materials).
Nice semi-vertical door-pulls help wth door-closings.
Good safety record in operation typical of Subarus.
MINUSES:
CVT transmission exhibits some motorboating characteristics.
Somewhat porpoising ride-quality on various road surfaces.
Flat-four engine not particularly smooth at low RPMs.
Unimpressive interior trim materials in some versions.
Red and blue warning-lights instead of a coolant-temperature gauge.
Seats comfortably-shaped but (for my tastes) slightly too-firm padding.
Some versions may still have minor issues with oil consumption.
EXTERIOR:
In automotive design-speak, the Forester is what is called a classic "Two-Box" design...a smaller, square/cubical-shaped engine compartment and a larger square/cubical-shaped compartment for the cabin, passengers, and cargo. Until recently, except for some occasional odd-quirk designs here and there, most SUVs, both auto and truck-based, were generally shaped like that. And there was a reason for that.....not only did it simply production somewhat, but, according to the laws of math and physics, a cube produces some of the best interior space-efficiency available. And, the large, square windows that generally went with that type of design offered good outward visibility from inside...without a bunch of electronic safety-nannies like back-up cameras, blind-spot alerts, cross-traffic alerts, etc..... with that type of design, you actually had few natural blind spots. Lately, though, not only because of increasingly-thick roof-pillars for roll-over protection, but also because of market-pressure to conform to Chic-styling trends, a number of SUVs have bowed to the craze for lower Hump-back roof-lines, sharply-raked windshields/rear-windows, small peep-hole windows in back, "floating" rooflines partially disguised for visual effect, and other anti-free-vision styling touches. The result is a somewhat cocoon-like interior where you need cameras and electronic devices to do much of your your looking for you.
However, not with the the Forester. Although many of the largest SUVs, like the big, truck-based ones from Ford and GM, have remained two-box designs, only a handful of smaller, car-based SUVs have done do....the Forester probably more so than any of them, except maybe for its own brother Subaru Outback. Sit inside a Forester, and you can actually SEE where you are going......and looking back, where you've been. The big, tall windows and roofline really pay off a dividend in visibility and space efficiency (more on this below in the INTERIOR section).
The Forester's sheet metal, like virtually all new vehicles here days, has a somewhat thin feel to it that could be easily buckled if, say, a kid brushes into it with a bike-wheel (such are the hazards of parking in some neighborhoods). I'd say, thickness-wise, it's about the same as most of its contemporaries. The doors, however, have a reasonably solid feel to them, and close with a fairy solid thunk. I found the available range of body-paint colors, IMO, to be decent by today's standards....I liked the greenish-Jade, burgundy-red, and medium blue-steel colors. Side roof-rails are standard, and an accessory bike-rack can be fitted if desired, though the high roofline does make for a stretch up for shorter people. The cargo area is so roomy, though (more on that below), that, if I weren't carrying passengers or other cargo in the back seat, I'd just carry the bike inside, in back, out of the rain and weather, with the rear seats folded down. There are no standard body-side moldings for parking-lot protection from careless people (and I didn't see them specifically listed as an accessory). But some other Subaru models DO offer them as an accessory, so it is likely that the Forester does, too, upon request. Or, you can go to the auto-parts store and purchase an inexpensive set of stick-on ones yourself (I've done that at least several times in my car-owning lifetime, and, sometimes, for other owners).
So, in short, the Forester's exterior is not designed for Chic-looks, but for practicality, utility, space-efficiency, and outward vision......which it delivers in spades.
UNDERHOOD:
Unlatch and lift up the very light (feels like aluminum, with plastic front-trim) hood, and a pair of nice gas struts holds it up for you instead of an El Cheap manual prop-rod. An underhood insulation-pad helps to quell some of the boxer (flat-four) engine's inherent noise. The Forester's relatively large and deep underhood compartment, combined with the low-stance (non-turbo) 2.5L flat-four engine, means that many engine and other components are quite easily reached and serviced. The oil filter, for example, though mounted upside-down, is right in front of you on the front-upper-right side of the engine for easy oil-changes. The battery, to the right and up front, is uncovered, with both terminals easily accessed. The engine, unlike all but a small minority of vehicles nowadays, does not have any kind of plastic cover over it to block access to upper-engine components. And all of the dipsticks, filler-caps, and fluid-reservoirs are about as easy to reach is as practicable. This engine compartment and engine layout could serve as an auto-industry-model for easy-accessibility. That, of course, also helps make it simple for mechanics/technicians and helps to keep service and labor costs down.
INTERIOR:
Inside, of course, the tall roofline, large windows, and generally good visibility give it an open, airy feel....you generally won't suffer from claustrophobia. It is also an ideal interior to get scenic-shots with your cameras on such beautiful roads as Virginia/North Carolina's Skyline Drive/Blue-Ridge-Parkway, Montana's Going to the Sun Highway, or California's Pacific Coast Highway. The interior trim quality, however, even in the upper-level versions, is not anything to write home about....the bean-counters did cut some costs in the materials that they used. It's not insultingly cheap like in some econoboxes, and the upper-dash does have a relatively nice soft-padded feel. But most of the interior trim, apart from the upper-dash and a couple of padded spots on the arm-rests for your elbows, is hard or brittle plastic....you will know that you aren't in a luxury-grade vehicle. In general, as one would expect, the upper-trim versions, overall, are somewhat nicer-looking inside than the lower ones. The front seats were comfortably-shaped for my rather large and portly legs and torso (and generally fit them quite well)....but the seat-padding, typical of many Subarus and other mainstream Japanese and Korean-designed vehicles, was a little firm for my tastes (I tend to like the softer, cushier seats in Buicks and Lincolns). Both the cloth and leather front seats (depending on trim-version) seemed to have reasonably durable-feeling upholstery. The cloth seats, overall, feel just a little softer (but still on the firm side) than the leather ones. Whether the seats are manual or power-adjusted, of course, depends on the trim-version. The rear seats, of course, did not have the same comfort level as the front (they rarely do on this type of vehicle)...but were not as uncomfortable or slab-feeling as, say, those in the competing Ford Escape. Both front and rear-seat height off the ground make it relatively easy to step in and out of the seats (roughly at butt-height for many average-sized people) without having to either step up on running boards like with large full-sized SUVs, or having to stoop down or bend like a pretzel on low-slung vehicles....one reason why this type of vehicle is so popular nowadays. Headroom, needless to say, was excellent both front and rear, even for tall persons and a sunroof housing. Legroom in the rear was OK for tall persons as long as the front seat was not moved back too far, but don't try and put NBA-sized guys in the front and rear seats at the same time.....It isn't going to work. The two primary gauges have the usual simple, easy-to-read design to them typical of Subarus....but, as with a number of recent American-market non-turbo Subarus, red and blue warning lights are used for a cold or overheating engine, not an (IMO) more proper temperature gauge. (Interesting, since, from what i understand, Japanese-home-market Subarus DO have a coolant-temperature gauge in all models). The ***** for the climate control had a nice chrome-polished edge to them and a nice feel.....one of the interior's better features. The power-window switches had a nice look and feel to them. A pair of nice, solid, semi-vertical door-pulls help with door-closings. I liked the fact that, after years of (IMO) awkward zig-zag shift-levers for the transmission, recent Subarus (the Forester included) have finally given up on that design in favor of a much better and simpler fore/aft motion. The glove box compartment seemed a little small.....you probably won't carry much more than the Owners' Manual and a few warranty-related booklets. The two overhead sun-visors and ceiling-headliner had a thin and cheap-feeling fabric/cloth covering, with the visors having hard plastic underneath. The stereo sound quality, even on the base models, was quite good for its class.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
Lift up the hatch lid in back (some versions have a power lift-gate), and it flips up to reveal a very roomy and space-efficient cargo area.....once again, the tall roofline and conservative styling pays off dividends. Like the interior in general, the cargo-area trim is not very plush and uses a lot of hard plastic, but a nice layer of black carpet does line the floor. There is plenty of room to carry tall and/or bulky items of at least reasonable size, and of course, the rear seats fold down to expand the available cargo area. Grocery-bag hooks and tie-down hooks are standard in all Forester versions. Under the floor, some versions have a removable cargo-tray, and, under that, all versions have a full-size temporary spare tire. A cargo-net, cargo-floor cover, and pull-shade security-cover to hide cargo from prying eyes are, depending on version, either standard or available as a dealer-installed accessory.
ON THE ROAD:
On the base model, the 2.5L flat-four engine is started up with a conventional key and side-column ignition switch...no buttons....you have to move up to the Touring models to get the push-button starting. The flat-four starts up and idles fairy smoothly and quietly when on a cold fast-idle, but, when warmed up and idling at lower RPMs, one can see the hood slightly flutter, though you don't actually feel it inside the cabin. Subaru Boxer engines, in general, are much quieter than they used to be decades ago, but, despite Subaru's advertising, silky-smooth, seamless operation is generally not their main forte. Still, the engine is reasonably refined for its class....we're not talking tractor-grade here. The 2.5L's 170 HP and 174 ft-lbs. of torque is reasonable for most normal driving functions, except perhaps under heavy load and/or on steep grades. If more power is needed, of course, the XT Turbo models are available, but I'd rather see the 3.6L non-turbo flat-six engine from the Outback and Legacy offered as an option...it is smoother and more refined. Some recent non-turbo fours have had some minor oil-consumption issues...that was (supposedly) corrected by 2015.
The CVT (continuously variable) transmission is one of the better ones in that it does not exhibit rubber-banding/surging characteristics, but there is a distinct motorboating tendency (common with many CVTs) when accelerating from rest and low speeds. The RPMs will quickly rise to 3000 or more, while the car itself takes several seconds to respond. The base version I test-drove did not have any shift-paddles, manual-shift function, or built in "step" ranges in the CVT that simulate gear-ranges in a conventional automatic (only the turbo models get the CVT manual-shift function with the shift-paddles on the steering column). The operation of the transmission itself, though, at least in full-auto mode, is seamless and smooth as silk. While CVTs have come a long way in their reliability (Ford, for example, dropped the ones they initially used on their AWD large sedans, and Nissan had so many problems with their early across-the-board ones that they had to do an extended factory-warranty), I'm still not completely sold on their long-term durability compared to conventional automatics, primarily because of the stresses that the drive-belts have to take. Subaru's standard factory drivetrain warranty is 5 years/60,000 miles...which is the same as most mainstream Japanese brands, though a longer warranty can also be purchased if desired. Subaru is also generally pretty good about standing behind its products....they have done extended factory warranties on some items before at no charge.
The chassis itself is pretty well-engineered by small car-based SUV standards.....I did not note any significant problems in normal everyday suburban driving, with a few abrupt maneuvers to test emergency handling. Steering response was a little slow (about normal for a car-based crossover SUV). Ride comfort over bumps was not bad at all with the base-level wheels/tires and my test-car's alloy-wheel-option package, but there was a small amount of the typical-small-SUV fore/aft porpoising on some surfaces.....very minor, but noticeable. Wind and road noise were not luxury-car quiet, but reasonably well-controlled for the class and price. And I was quite impressed with the brakes. Response was quick, there was almost no play or sponginess the pedal, and the pedal itself was located in a fairly good location, relative to the gas pedal, for my big size-15 clown-shoe to move from gas to brake without getting hung up on the edge or underside of the gas pedal.
THE VERDICT:
Well, there's no denying the Forester's good reputation, or the fact that Consumer Reports has a high opinion of it and ranks it quite highly. Overall, I share that view, although I think that the bean-counters could have done a little better job on some of the interior trim-materials, seat-padding, and secondary gauges. And, despite the known advantages of the CVT in gas-mileage and efficiency (one reason why some automakers are turning to them), I'm still not a big fan of the way they operate in stop-and-go driving, or convinced of their long-term durability. Shift-paddles and manual-control for the CVT helps some, but is not available in non-turbo Foresters.
But, nevertheless, there are many good, sound, credible reasons for spending money on a Forester. The classic, conservative body design and tall square windows give superb outward visibility....matched only by its own brother Outback. Subarus, despite the loss of the excellent limited-slip differentials and their replacement with electronic torque re-routing, still have some of the best and most effective all-wheel-drive systems on the market for winter traction.....one reason they are so popular in the Northeast, New England, the Northern Rockies, and other areas with severe winters and deep snowfall. And, of course, why Subaru is the official brand of the U.S. Olympic Ski Team. The chassis and insulation is well-designed for all-around driving and reasonable comfort. The brakes are quite impressive. The body, though with rather thin and light sheet metal, has a fairly solid feel. Interior space efficiency, except for slightly limited rear legroom, is excellent for both passengers and cargo. And, despite some (possible) long-term issues with oil consumption and/or CVT durability, most Subarus, in general, are well above average in reliability. If I were in the market for a small car-based SUV in this class, the Forester would definitely be on my shopping list.....though, of course, there is currently a lot of competition in this class, and all of the manufacturers are vying for your hard-earned automotive dollars today.
And, as always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
Last edited by Hoovey689; 05-12-17 at 05:59 PM.
Reason: Fixed picture links
Hi Marshall, the pictures you were trying to link from your LexusEnthusiast post were not working so I scoured google to find the images you were using. All pictures should be showing this CL post.
Hi Marshall, the pictures you were trying to link from your LexusEnthusiast post were not working so I scoured google to find the images you were using. All pictures should be showing this CL post.
I will give Subaru some serious props for making cars with excellent all around visibility(and great cargo room, no swooping rear roof lines like some SUV's). That's something you don't see much in new cars today. I know that the excellent visibility makes their cars rather boxy and boring, but honestly I find most of these newer CUV's/SUV's they compete with to be equally boring(if not ugly) to look at.
I will give Subaru some serious props for making cars with excellent all around visibility(and great cargo room, no swooping rear roof lines like some SUV's). That's something you don't see much in new cars today. I know that the excellent visibility makes their cars rather boxy and boring, but honestly I find most of these newer CUV's/SUV's they compete with to be equally boring(if not ugly) to look at.
Yeah, I never liked the looks of the latest-generation Escape or RAV-4. Some people may find boxy, squared-off vehicles like the Forester boring....that, of course, is subjective. I myself like good visibility, and the Forester was not intended to be a vehicle with sports-car looks. In fact, it's the classic anti-sports car LOL.
^ Anybody else think Subaru is the modern equivalent of the old square Volvo wagons of the 70's/80's/90's??? Volvo quit making ugly wagons, seems like all the people who bought the 240 and 740 now buy Subarus.
^ Anybody else think Subaru is the modern equivalent of the old square Volvo wagons of the 70's/80's/90's??? Volvo quit making ugly wagons, seems like all the people who bought the 240 and 740 now buy Subarus.
Not in my opinion. Those stodgy old Volvo boxes, in most cases, did not have the kind of winter traction that Subarus do with their excellent standard AWD. Without getting too deeply into stereotypes (which, I admit, is hard to do with those old Volvos LOL), they were bought and driven mostly by such staid types as college professors, schoolteachers, librarians, economists, and Safety-Philes. For example, Ralph Nader's old protege, Joan Claybrook (some say his girlfriend LOL), who was NHTSA Administrator during Jimmy Carter's Presidency, drove Volvos for years. In contrast, today's Subarus are bought and driven by a generally wide cross-section of the public...young, old, male, female, conservative, liberal, and especially by many who are into the outdoor life. Indeed, almost anyone who wants a reasonably-priced, well-designed, all-weather, space-efficient vehicle for everyday use could take a good look at a Forester or Outback....one reason why I took the time to do this review in the first place.
I think you misread me, as I agree that Subaru is a lot more mainstream than Volvo ever was(or will be), I'm just saying I think Subaru stole that loyal customer base away from Volvo, those eccentrics that bought the square 240 and 760 wagons back in the day now drive Outbacks and Foresters. I kind of see the 2000's/10's Subie wagons as the spiritual successors to the old square Volvo wagons, although like you said they are a lot more mainstream than the old Volvos.
I think you misread me, as I agree that Subaru is a lot more mainstream than Volvo ever was(or will be), I'm just saying I think Subaru stole that loyal customer base away from Volvo, those eccentrics that bought the square 240 and 760 wagons back in the day now drive Outbacks and Foresters. I kind of see the 2000's/10's Subie wagons as the spiritual successors to the old square Volvo wagons, although like you said they are a lot more mainstream than the old Volvos.
What sells Subies over Volvos, today, is the excellent Symmetrical AWD, which, unlike AWD Volvos, can be had at an affordable price (note the 25K of my test-car). Yes, the square body styling, large windows, and good visibility help, but Subaru's main selling point is the simple, effective AWD system. That is what has endeared it to its American-market customers.
They may be inexpensive and 'sensible' but soooo ugly.
Once again, though, Vanilla sells. Here in the D.C. area (and this area, unlike New England or the Northern Rockies, is not even an area with consistently severe winters), Foresters and Outbacks sell like beer during Happy Hour. People just love them. (I had an Outback myself for almost years....best winter car I ever owned, by a huge margin).
I have been looking at Impreza's and Forester's for the past few months ranging from 2003 to 2017. Honestly every year I have tried, I disliked how the brakes felt. It wasn't as good as my FRS. Which is sad, seeing I really like Subaru for their safety but if I dislike the brakes, there is no way I am getting one. I do hope in the future they do fix that or by the time I get one, it will be fully-autonomous.
I have been looking at Impreza's and Forester's for the past few months ranging from 2003 to 2017. Honestly every year I have tried, I disliked how the brakes felt. It wasn't as good as my FRS. Which is sad, seeing I really like Subaru for their safety but if I dislike the brakes, there is no way I am getting one. I do hope in the future they do fix that or by the time I get one, it will be fully-autonomous.
What's wrong with the brakes? On the latest 2017 Forester, I found the brakes effective, the response quick (no free-play/mushiness), and the pedal ideally located for large feet.
subaru doesn't sell vanilla with their funky dated styling, boxer engines, and strong awd. not knocking them, they've found a strong niche liked mostly by tree huggers.
Here in the D.C. area (and this area, unlike New England or the Northern Rockies, is not even an area with consistently severe winters), Foresters and Outbacks sell like beer during Happy Hour. People just love them. (I had an Outback myself for almost years....best winter car I ever owned, by a huge margin).
while subaru's sales have been growing strongly, the numbers are still minuscule compared to mainstream brands. forrester sales in april were 14,761. compare that to a rav4 (31,757), crv (32,671), rogue (27,386), then there's escape, terrain, jeep cherokee, and on and on.
subaru doesn't sell vanilla with their funky dated styling, boxer engines, and strong awd. not knocking them, they've found a strong niche liked mostly by tree huggers.
While I respect your opinion, I don't quite buy that argument. Tree-huggers, in general, don't like cars at all. When they are forced into cars by circumstances beyond their control (for example, destination too far or weather too bad to practically ride a bicycle), more often than not, it's a car like a Prius or other small hybrid.
while subaru's sales have been growing strongly, the numbers are still minuscule compared to mainstream brands. forrester sales in april were 14,761. compare that to a rav4 (31,757), crv (32,671), rogue (27,386), then there's escape, terrain, jeep cherokee, and on and on.
Here, you make a somewhat stronger case than you did just above. But, still, 14-15K sales a month are no fluke......that's a between 150K-160K sales a year. Many auto executives would consider that more than healthy.
05-12-17, 05:27 PM
MM Full-Review: 2017 Subaru Forester
On the latest 2017 Forester, I found the brakes effective, the response quick (no free-play/mushiness), and the pedal ideally located for large feet.