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.
lol, very true. But it does have more HP than the Subbuie by 36HP, so that's worth something....right!?!? haha. At least it does 0-60 in the mid 7's now with the new 3.6 V6. Before it was pushing almost 10 seconds!
It's odd that the tow rating is so modest, I think my 02 WRX wagon is rated to tow 2000 lbs, not that I have ever done it.
I think the BMW X1 is a sweet little crossover but I can't imagine it having a much greater tow capacity, and while the AWD will provide benefits in inclement weather and road conditions it does not have the capabilities along with the much greater ground clearance of the Forester to hit the trails. Also, regardless of the seemingly affordable starting price, BMWs, like Porsches charges an arm and a leg for absolutely everything extra. That car similarly configured to the Forester XT is going to be kissing $50k.
The Forester is one of the more backcountry-capable ALL-wheel-drive (AWD) vehicles, but it is not a "true" 4WD designed for arduous backcountry use. If the OP contemplates using a vehicle for that kind of duty, he/she needs to get a decent 4WD vehicle--undertanding that it will come at some penalty in initial cost and fuel economy. The situation in the AWD/4WD market has really reversed in the last 15 years or so. Back then, people were buying backcountry-capable 4WD's that they never once drove on anything more than a smooth gravel road. Now the "cool" thing is a "cute-ute" AWD. There are now so few truly backcountry-capable 4WD's being sold that finding a model to fit that utilitarian need is pretty difficult.
My biggest beef against the Forester turbo models are that they are not a full-blown 4WD, but only manage to get mediocre fuel economy, and that on premium fuel. For only a few miles per gallon less, there are backcountry-capable 4WD pickups out there that will get fuel economy not too far below the Forester turbo, and on regular fuel. And, for towing, I don't like anything but a body-on-frame vehicle, which the Forester ain't.
I wouldn't mind a non-turbo Forester for highway and mild backcountry use, but it's not the vehicle for hard-core 4-wheeling or towing.
Toyota RAV4 is out as I'd like to buy new and the 2013 4 cyl is ridiculously underpowered... to me the '13 RAV 4 is nothing more than a Toyota Corolla in the shape of an SUV
Toyota RAV4 is out as I'd like to buy new and the 2013 4 cyl is ridiculously underpowered... to me the '13 RAV 4 is nothing more than a Toyota Corolla in the shape of an SUV
Agree with you. Toyota made a huge mistake by dropping the 6 cylinder motor on the latest Rav 4. I traded my 2009 Forester for a 2010 Rav 4 V6 and gave it to my wife. It has a lot of power and towing capacity, lots of cargo room, and best of all is pretty good on fuel usage. During the winter it does around 24 MPG combined (city/highway). But during the summer it does around 29 MPG on the highway, and around 26 in the city. It has a 5-speed automatic transmission.
When they compared against the Mazda CX-5 in the review, they left out the more powerful 185HP motor that is new for 2014 on the mid and high end CX-5 trim(base CX-5 still has smaller motor).
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.
