Topic: Comparison Test: 2017 Compact SUVs Part 1 – $35,000

[PJungnitsch]

We've been looking hard at this category and so far it's pretty much between the Forester and the new CRV. The single biggest complaint the wife has with the others is visibility, especially to the rear. Maybe rear view cameras make up for it a bit, but gun-slit type rear glass and thick pillars are hard to get used to.

[JacobBlack]

We've been looking hard at this category and so far it's pretty much between the Forester and the new CRV. The single biggest complaint the wife has with the others is visibility, especially to the rear. Maybe rear view cameras make up for it a bit, but gun-slit type rear glass and thick pillars are hard to get used to.

You'll probably want to take a good look at Monday's article then. I think you're going to get a lot out of it. 

[Noto]

We've been looking hard at this category and so far it's pretty much between the Forester and the new CRV. The single biggest complaint the wife has with the others is visibility, especially to the rear. Maybe rear view cameras make up for it a bit, but gun-slit type rear glass and thick pillars are hard to get used to.

You'll probably want to take a good look at Monday's article then. I think you're going to get a lot out of it. 

I sure hope so.  It's a beast.

FWIW, and not ruining any surprises, the outward visibility isn't HORRIBLE on anything other than the Forester (as much as I may suggest otherwise).  Some are clearly easier to drive/park than the others, but none were so bad that I wouldn't recommend buying them on that basis alone (unlike some other vehicles previously tested).

[sailor723]

Wow, you gave VW only 7 in seating but Subaru  7.7!
I found the seats so uncomfortable I would not even take a Forester out for a drive ( I thought the Outback seats were a lot better) , I found the Tiguan seat to be very good

I'd agree. The seats in the Forester were the deal breaker (along with overall interior quality and road noise) when my daughter was shopping.

[Noto]

Wow, you gave VW only 7 in seating but Subaru  7.7!
I found the seats so uncomfortable I would not even take a Forester out for a drive ( I thought the Outback seats were a lot better) , I found the Tiguan seat to be very good

I'd agree. The seats in the Forester were the deal breaker (along with overall interior quality and road noise) when my daughter was shopping.

For a 2017??  The difference from last year even is remarkable in both categories.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Wow, you gave VW only 7 in seating but Subaru  7.7!
I found the seats so uncomfortable I would not even take a Forester out for a drive ( I thought the Outback seats were a lot better) , I found the Tiguan seat to be very good

I'd agree. The seats in the Forester were the deal breaker (along with overall interior quality and road noise) when my daughter was shopping.

For a 2017??  The difference from last year even is remarkable in both categories.

I think I was at the dealership in the fall time.
So it was probably '16

[84im]

the headgasket issue was for early 2000s non-turbo models - since been fixed

Yes I dont like salad, and I am a vegan.

You can let that rest now.

It may no longer be blown head gaskets on the newer models (time will tell on this one).
Now it's high oil consumption:    http://www.carcomplaints.com/Subaru/Forester/

[JacobBlack]

Wow, you gave VW only 7 in seating but Subaru  7.7!
I found the seats so uncomfortable I would not even take a Forester out for a drive ( I thought the Outback seats were a lot better) , I found the Tiguan seat to be very good

"Seating" takes into account more than just the actual seat itself. But yes, the Fozzie seats were pretty good.

[Fobroader]

I will take this one


Or this one


Modern ones are nothing more than jacked up hatchbacks with cladding. Interesting about the Subaru, seems they at least still know how to build vehicles that can do more than go to Walmart...

You are assuming of course it makes it to Wal Mart...

I'm sorry, harsh. Trying to turn a new leaf. 

Are(n't) you going to eat that? 

Subaru is one of the most reliable brands out there.

And I don't like salad.

Apart from the significant ring land failures, head gasket failures, and propensity to eat oil, you are correct.

All that sounds to me is time to turn the wifes Outback into a fire breathing, forged piston, turbo machine....but your views may vary.

[johngenx]

the headgasket issue was for early 2000s non-turbo models - since been fixed

Nope.  2009's that are hitting 200K are now having HG failures.

[PJungnitsch]

We've been looking hard at this category and so far it's pretty much between the Forester and the new CRV. The single biggest complaint the wife has with the others is visibility, especially to the rear. Maybe rear view cameras make up for it a bit, but gun-slit type rear glass and thick pillars are hard to get used to.

You'll probably want to take a good look at Monday's article then. I think you're going to get a lot out of it. 

I sure hope so.  It's a beast.

FWIW, and not ruining any surprises, the outward visibility isn't HORRIBLE on anything other than the Forester (as much as I may suggest otherwise).  Some are clearly easier to drive/park than the others, but none were so bad that I wouldn't recommend buying them on that basis alone (unlike some other vehicles previously tested).

Certainly looking forward to reading it!

[Trainman]

the headgasket issue was for early 2000s non-turbo models - since been fixed

Nope.  2009's that are hitting 200K are now having HG failures.

The HG's on my '09 Forester went at about 190,000 and on my friends '10 Forester at 140,000 or so.

However, my '09 had only one other unexpected failure in the 200,000 kms I owned it: the head unit stopped playing CD's so had to change that out around 180,000 kms.  Spending $1,200 on unexpected repairs over 200,000 kms / 7 1/2 years of ownership is not bad, especially when you think of the abuse mine took.  When I traded it in the body was sound, no issues with ball joints, bushings, tie rods or other suspension/steering bits, trannie was good, rear diff was good, no issues anywhere.  I did have to replace the rad after I crunched the front end into an unmarked cross ditch at 30 kph on a logging road but that was driver error 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^

[Trainman]

Great article!  I am surprised at how well the Forester did as it too is an aged overall design although not as old the VW.  I agree completely on the function over form aspect of the Forester and can see why it appeals to a lot of people.  But my wife seems more interested in form, hence she has never really liked the Forester although she is pretty impressed with my '16 vs her RAV for comfort.  Hmm, I wonder if the XT version will be showing in the over 35 group?  I guess I will wait and see 

[Trainman]

^

   Mine was not quite like that, more like that sinking feeling when you miss a step in the dark   

[Mike]

Great article!  I am surprised at how well the Forester did as it too is an aged overall design although not as old the VW.  I agree completely on the function over form aspect of the Forester and can see why it appeals to a lot of people.  But my wife seems more interested in form, hence she has never really liked the Forester although she is pretty impressed with my '16 vs her RAV for comfort.  Hmm, I wonder if the XT version will be showing in the over 35 group?  I guess I will wait and see 

[Trainman]

Great article!  I am surprised at how well the Forester did as it too is an aged overall design although not as old the VW.  I agree completely on the function over form aspect of the Forester and can see why it appeals to a lot of people.  But my wife seems more interested in form, hence she has never really liked the Forester although she is pretty impressed with my '16 vs her RAV for comfort.  Hmm, I wonder if the XT version will be showing in the over 35 group?  I guess I will wait and see 

Double dipping!  I like 

[SaskSpecV]

Subaru with a manual transmission out of this group.

Check, and mate. 

The seats in the Forester were the deal breaker (along with overall interior quality and road noise) when my daughter was shopping.

Can't argue with any of that - at least on the pre-2017 Forester versions.  Seats are fine for me, but I can see how others would hate the short seat cushions.  Also agree that the interior quality is indeed mediocre (though highly functional).  The road noise is pronounced, on both stock and winter rubber (also good luck trying to drown out the road noise with the utterly craptacular stock stereo...)  But if you value space efficiency, visibility,  value, and overall functionality - and even a little bit of driving enjoyment, with the 6MT - the Forester is tough to beat.

[sacrat]

Sorry folks, the Tucson is not even close to what you described in this review...you were clearly trying to be nice!

I'd take the VW over it in a heartbeat - more power, more comfort and better interior materials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might, but in Canada the Tucson outsells the Tiguan 4-1 and the Forester 2-1. The market speaks...

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2017/04/march-2017-canada-small-suv-crossover-sales-by-model.html

[sacrat]

RE transmission:
Nope, you're totally wrong. The DCT is a much better box, and as mentioned, better for performance too.

The DCT in the 1.6T  Tucson we test drove last year was awful,  and the main reason we bought an Escape instead. I understand Hyundai has done some software updates which improves things somewhat...