Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why I ended up with one. My family never owned these cars but when I went shopping for something that could get out of my driveway and had a 5th door and cargo space the outback was it. Others cars did have a little nicer looking interior and some more options...all I wanted was a CD player with an AUX jack. And the Subaru had way more cargo area and came with roof rails standard. All the stuff I needed was already on the base model of the car. And while the interior wasn't the fanciest, it was pretty smartly laid out which I find most important. The only thing I didn't really like was that the rear window was hard to see out of...but the other mini SUVs I looked were even worse!
Some one mentioned ground clearance. This is huge. There's lots of AWD offerings out there now, and they all have been trending towards reducing the ground clearance for some reason. Many of the competitors that I looked at had lower ground clearance than my dodge neon. To me that tells me they didn't actually think about some one needing AWD they just put it on their car as a bullet point. I'm not buying an AWD because it snowed 3 inches that one time, a set of good snow tires is more than enough for that. I'm buying an AWD car so I can blast through the pile at the end of my driveway and then plow my way into the garage. Subarus have the ground clearance of a full size pickup. The general lowering trend annoys me greatly, not just for SUVs but for economy cars as well. They do a really bad job of plowing around here and low cars just bottom out and get stuck on everything.
If you're talking about the Forester or the Outback, yes. The Legacy or (non-sport version) Impreza OTOH has very low ground clearance.
If you're talking about the Forester or the Outback, yes. The Legacy or (non-sport version) Impreza OTOH has very low ground clearance.
The newest rendetion of the Forester is much larger and has a longer wheelbase compared to the older versions. My 04 has better handling and cornering abilities compared to the much larger version.
Absolutely. Unless you're an enthusiast, IMO you simply made a mistake if you bought a Subie and you don't live in difficult winter terrain.
You paid a lot of money for an AWD system that you will never, ever find meaningfully superior to a FWD with traction control and good tires.
In the mountains of Colorado, an AWD subie with a low center of gravity is simply unrivaled by anyone except Audi.
And if you want to spend 60 grand on an admittedly good-looking but poorly-built, unreliable German car well...go nuts. Most who live in tough driving conditions prefer to spend half that and get an AWD system that may even be slightly better than Quattro.
Lamplight, this is hilarious. In the college towns of the PNW, this is a given.
I used to count Subarus in the SEA area just because it was that absurd, especially in certain neighborhoods near UW. Can people be a little less "packaged?" Also, it was better than counting sheep.
When I first moved here, my brother was with me, and we immediately noticed the huge percentage of Subarus. During our first couple of days in town he took to saying "Subaru" every time he'd see one, and pretty soon I was telling him to shut up because he was saying it about every five seconds. I certainly don't mind seeing them, but having someone point them out EVERY SINGLE TIME became annoying very quickly.
For the people here who have to drive up and down some of the steep hills we have, I can certainly see why they might choose a Subaru. I mean, it doesn't snow very often but when it does I'm sure it would make things easier to have AWD, and it could hurt in the rain either, which of course is plenty frequent. For those of us who live in the flatter areas, though, it seems unnecessary. I don't have/need a car since moving here, but before I moved I had a front wheel drive Civic wagon and it was more than adequate for every weather condition I encountered, including snow (without snow tires). But I didn't live in super hilly terrain; it was more similar to the flat and mildly hilly areas of Bellingham.
Absolutely. Unless you're an enthusiast, IMO you simply made a mistake if you bought a Subie and you don't live in difficult winter terrain.
You paid a lot of money for an AWD system that you will never, ever find meaningfully superior to a FWD with traction control and good tires.
In the mountains of Colorado, an AWD subie with a low center of gravity is simply unrivaled by anyone except Audi.
And if you want to spend 60 grand on an admittedly good-looking but poorly-built, unreliable German car well...go nuts. Most who live in tough driving conditions prefer to spend half that and get an AWD system that may even be slightly better than Quattro.
I'd disagree. Their advantage in the rain is almost as significant as it is in the snow.
Absolutely. Unless you're an enthusiast, IMO you simply made a mistake if you bought a Subie and you don't live in difficult winter terrain.
You paid a lot of money for an AWD system that you will never, ever find meaningfully superior to a FWD with traction control and good tires.
In the mountains of Colorado, an AWD subie with a low center of gravity is simply unrivaled by anyone except Audi.
And if you want to spend 60 grand on an admittedly good-looking but poorly-built, unreliable German car well...go nuts. Most who live in tough driving conditions prefer to spend half that and get an AWD system that may even be slightly better than Quattro.
I had a 2009 Forester, and later traded it for a 2010 Rav 4 4WD. Driving the ice-covered and very slippery roads of the interior of Alaska, I could not tell a difference between both vehicles. Both are surefooted on ice, and when a skid is encountered by one or more of the wheels, the response from the stability control is instantaneous. Subaru does keep the price of its vehicles very competitively. The Rav 4 is more expensive.
I'd disagree. Their advantage in the rain is almost as significant as it is in the snow.
All depends on the condition of the tires. Any automobile riding on a good set of tires for conditions does well on the rain. Have a set of worn tires any any 4WD vehicle, and traction is lost on the rain. The Subaru stability control, and so any other AWD or 4WD automobile, is what has made a big difference on slippery roads. Driving on snow also requires the right type of tires.
I was commenting under the assumption of good/proper tires and being equal to those on any given 2wd.
All that being the same, my personal experience tells me awd is still worth it even in the rain.
I was commenting under the assumption of good/proper tires and being equal to those on any given 2wd.
All that being the same, my personal experience tells me awd is still worth it even in the rain.
Agree with you. AWD systems are quite good these days, even on late US trucks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the college towns of the PNW, this is a given.
