http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/112_0812_2009_subaru_forester_suv_of_the_year/index.html
Hells Yes!
:clap:
frickin station wagon...
Have you ever seen anyone thrash a Forester? It can take quite a beating.
The only real SUVs in the comparo is the Sequoia, Borrego, and the LX570, and I'd gladly like to see the LX570 win, but I'm glad that value won out in this one.
How many lesbians do they have working at MT?
Boo.
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 10:03:42 AM
How many lesbians do they have working at MT?
Your mom is one of them.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2008, 10:06:47 AM
Boo.
You'd rather have a 307 on stilts win, right?
Quote from: the Teuton on October 16, 2008, 10:10:35 AM
You'd rather have a 307 on stilts win, right?
FTW.
(http://img.worldcarfans.com/US/2008/9/16/9080916.001/9080916.001.1M.jpg)
That is one ghastly looking car.
I now see from where you draw inspiration.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 16, 2008, 10:20:21 AM
That is one ghastly looking car.
I now see from where you draw inspiration.
Your mom
Haha! NASIOC will be full of celebrating drunks tonight.
Whatever you want to call it: however good it may or may not be:
It's a god damned station wagon!
It's not a fucking SUV!!!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2008, 03:21:03 PM
Whatever you want to call it: however good it may or may not be:
It's a god damned station wagon!
It's not a fucking SUV!!!
SUVs are station wagons.
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
SUVs are station wagons.
You are so lucky you don't live within sniping distance.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2008, 03:33:09 PM
You are so lucky you don't live within sniping distance.
SUV is stupid made up name whose meaning is not derived from any real-world application, but from somebody's brilliant idea to market an image. Lifted 4x4 wagons are rarely sporty, and while they can be considred utilitarian, their actual abilities are raretly utilized, which actually makes them less utilitarian, and more extravagant and unnecessary. Car-based wagons are more often both sporty and realistically utilitarian, and are therefore more deserving of the SUV name, although I do wish it would just go away altogether.
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
SUVs are station wagons.
But station wagons aren't SUVs. ;)
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 03:42:01 PM
SUV is stupid made up name whose meaning is not derived from any real-world application, but from somebody's brilliant idea to market an image. Lifted 4x4 wagons are rarely sporty, and while they can be considred utilitarian, their actual abilities are raretly utilized, which actually makes them less utilitarian, and more extravagant and unnecessary. Car-based wagons are more often both sporty and realistically utilitarian, and are therefore more deserving of the SUV name, although I do wish it would just go away altogether.
I always think of the "sport" in SUV as what you use the vehicle for. That is, you put your mountain bike on the roof and your camping gear in the back and go take part in some sports. That was the marketing when SUVs were first marketed.
Quote from: Psilos on October 16, 2008, 04:44:53 PM
I always think of the "sport" in SUV as what you use the vehicle for. That is, you put your mountain bike on the roof and your camping gear in the back and go take part in some sports. That was the marketing when SUVs were first marketed.
I can do the same sports with a Ford Taurus wagon that I can do with an Explorer, while enjoying better ride, handling and fuel economy. And in fact, it is easier to put the bike on the roof of a Taurus than it is an Exploder.
I always thought the idea behing the segment was it's a utility vehicle like a truck that is designed more for sport and leisure than work.
One of the comments on the article...
"you have got to be kidding me. the traverse is a way better choice than a forester. just about in every way too."
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2008, 03:21:03 PM
Whatever you want to call it: however good it may or may not be:
It's a god damned station wagon!
It's not a fucking SUV!!!
It does all the same things as the other contenders, and it does them just as well or better. Plus it has more ground clearance than any of the rest of them, and I'm sure it does great offroad assuming you don't encounter a serious grade.
Why isn't it an SUV then?
Quote from: R-inge on October 16, 2008, 05:42:21 PM
It does all the same things as the other contenders, and it does them just as well or better. Plus it has more ground clearance than any of the rest of them, and I'm sure it does great offroad assuming you don't encounter a serious grade.
Why isn't it an SUV then?
Because its a station wagon!
And Pluto is a fucking planet too!
And then there were 8...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2008, 05:44:01 PM
Because its a station wagon!
And Pluto is a fucking planet too!
lol... nevermind.
Quote from: giant_mtb on October 16, 2008, 05:29:55 PM
One of the comments on the article...
"you have got to be kidding me. the traverse is a way better choice than a forester. just about in every way too."
:lol: :lol:
If you have four kids, I could see that making sense.......
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2008, 10:18:37 AM
FTW.
(http://img.worldcarfans.com/US/2008/9/16/9080916.001/9080916.001.1M.jpg)
Great. Now I'm going to have to clean the vomit off my keyboard.
Quote from: USA_Idol on October 16, 2008, 08:11:05 PM
Great. Now I'm going to have to clean the vomit off my keyboard.
Yay! Vomit!
Quote from: 2o6 on October 16, 2008, 08:23:44 PM
Yay! Vomit!
While you're at it, I need some of that Advil.
I think the Volkswagen Tiguan is far more deserving of this award than the Subaru Forester. Whilst I acknowlege the Forester is a good vehicle, the Tiguan is much nicer. Yes, the Forester costs less, but comapare the two side-by-side and you will see why.
Motor Trend drops the ball yet again.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Quote from: Madman on October 16, 2008, 09:10:03 PM
I think the Volkswagen Tiguan is far more deserving of this award than the Subaru Forester. Whilst I acknowlege the Forester is a good vehicle, the Tiguan is much nicer. Yes, the Forester costs less, but comapare the two side-by-side and you will see why.
Motor Trend drops the ball yet again.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
When does the Venza come out?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16138.msg902083#msg902083 date=1224213948
When does the Venza come out?
WTF is that, like a VW Sidekick?
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 09:33:17 PM
WTF is that, like a VW Sidekick?
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16138.msg902100#msg902100 date=1224215600
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/1173696669_88f0e8b586_o.jpg)
Quote from: Madman on October 16, 2008, 09:10:03 PM
I think the Volkswagen Tiguan is far more deserving of this award than the Subaru Forester. Whilst I acknowlege the Forester is a good vehicle, the Tiguan is much nicer. Yes, the Forester costs less, but comapare the two side-by-side and you will see why.
Motor Trend drops the ball yet again.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
If you fold the rear seats down in the Tiguan it doesnt even create a flat loading surface. Poor design for the lose, I don't care how much nicer it is.
Quote from: NACar on October 16, 2008, 04:46:53 PM
I can do the same sports with a Ford Taurus wagon that I can do with an Explorer, while enjoying better ride, handling and fuel economy. And in fact, it is easier to put the bike on the roof of a Taurus than it is an Exploder.
In reality, yes, but by the marketing, you need an SUV because of the OMG rough roadz and off roadz that happen when being hardcorez and outdoorz!
*cough*
Quote from: Tave on October 16, 2008, 04:49:32 PM
I always thought the idea behing the segment was it's a utility vehicle like a truck that is designed more for sport and leisure than work.
Yes.
Quote from: Psilos on October 17, 2008, 01:13:18 PM
In reality, yes, but by the marketing, you need an SUV because of the OMG rough roadz and off roadz that happen when being hardcorez and outdoorz!
*cough*
The Jetta farts in the general direction of SUV marketing.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=16138.msg902100#msg902100 date=1224215600
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
Not only is that ugly, they painted it ugly crap brown. Nice. :rolleyes:
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
Quote from: USA_Idol on October 17, 2008, 08:02:12 PM
Not only is that ugly, they painted it ugly crap brown. Nice. :rolleyes:
I agree. That is the most horrific monstrosity I have seen in a month of sundays! Did Toyota hire the guy who designed the Pontiac Aztek for GM?
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Quote from: NACar on October 17, 2008, 02:00:47 PM
The Jetta farts in the general direction of SUV marketing.
Well, so does the Ranger, but what can you do? :lol:
Quote from: Psilos on October 17, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
Well, so does the Ranger, but what can you do? :lol:
The Ranger is just an SUV with the back seats taken out and the rear half of the roof cut off :evildude:
Quote from: Raza on October 16, 2008, 09:53:20 PM
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
What's up with those stupid side mirrors? Are they trying to be retro or something? Because there's no other reason for them, it's not like you're getting a ton of use out of that tiny window.
Quote from: Raza on October 16, 2008, 09:53:20 PM
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/new-cars/2009-toyota-venza-its-a-buick/8144142+w700+cr1+re0+ar1/2009-toyota-venza-front-three-quarter.jpg)
People will still buy it because it's a Toyota and they do no wrong. WTF,who designed that grill?
Probably the same people who designed the Hyundai Portico's grille.
Quote from: NACar on October 17, 2008, 08:46:23 PM
The Ranger is just an SUV with the back seats taken out and the rear half of the roof cut off :evildude:
:evildude:
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 17, 2008, 09:13:50 PM
What's up with those stupid side mirrors? Are they trying to be retro or something? Because there's no other reason for them, it's not like you're getting a ton of use out of that tiny window.
You mean wing windows? I assume the side mirrors kind of have to be there ;) , and the tiny windows are probably there because nothing else would look good (I know, nothing looks good on this thing) there, and they're not part of the door, so they can't just roll down.
I will repeat: The Forester is more abusable than 80% of the SUVs ever made.
So is a 1985 Volvo 240. It's not an SUV, either. ;)
Quote from: the Teuton on October 18, 2008, 01:29:09 PM
I will repeat: The Forester is more abusable than 80% of the SUVs ever made.
No. Especially not this generation. Much too delicate.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 18, 2008, 01:29:09 PM
I will repeat: The Forester is more abusable than 80% of the SUVs ever made.
80% of SUVs are just minivans with different bodies on them.
80% of SUVs are mislabeled. Call them crossovers or something...
80% of SUVs are Huffy bicycles with four wheels.
I didn't even know they made a new one...
Quote from: Psilos on October 18, 2008, 02:14:06 PM
80% of SUVs are mislabeled. Call them crossovers or something...
The Forester is an SUV.
A
crossover...in my very humble opinion...is something more like the Ford Flex, which blends minivan + SUV + wagon + refrigerator. As a bonus, the Flex looks like a MINI Clubman with a case of gigantism. You can't beat that for visual appeal. :tounge:
The Forester has some chops, but it's based on a car.
The SUV class was effectively redefined in 1991 when Ford released the 5-door Explorer and people started realizing they had a new alternative to the traditional minivan and station wagon family vehicles. Since '91, if you haven't noticed, SUV's have become more family oriented and less off road-centric...with a few exceptions.
It only makes sense that the majority of them would (or will) switch to car-based platforms to further their appeal to family car buyers. It's just an evolution of the species, not a revolution, and they certainly don't need a new "crossover" designation (despite what marketers and media sources suggest). So Forester is an SUV. :lol:
Just my 2 cents. :huh:
The term "SUV" didn't even exist until the early '90s. All of the first generation of SUVs that were called SUVs (like the Explorer, but including the Cherokee, Suburban, etc.) were truck-like, in that they had a solid rear axle, were at least capable of off-road abuse, and most were actually based on a pickup truck. At one time there could be exceptions for rigs like the Forester (barely), but now there is this entire new segment that is somehow still called SUVs, where the Forester fits better. These are car-based, minivan-like, and, while they have AWD (not even 4WD, mostly), are not sturdy enough for significant off-road use (ironically, the newest Explorer fits best here-- low clearance, IRS). Call them crossovers, SUV-vans, cute-utes, etc., but they're not really SUVs.
This is starting to sound like the debate over what constitutes a Sports Car. In other works, fucking stupid.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 18, 2008, 01:29:09 PM
I will repeat: The Forester is more abusable than 80% of the SUVs ever made.
Bullshit. Ford sold millions of Explorers every year in the 90s.
Quote from: Tave on October 19, 2008, 09:39:08 AM
Bullshit. Ford sold millions of Explorers every year in the 90s.
Yah. Plus the bilions of Samurais, Jeeps, Unimogs, Hummers and CRVs.
Bullshit asshole, nobody likes the tune here
yeah, well i do
Quote from: R-inge on October 19, 2008, 09:07:13 AM
This is starting to sound like the debate over what constitutes a Sports Car. In other words, fucking stupid.
You know.......you're right. I'm shutting up now. ;)
Quote from: R-inge on October 19, 2008, 09:07:13 AM
This is starting to sound like the debate over what constitutes a Sports Car. In other works, fucking stupid.
A Volvo Wagon is a sports car
and and SUV.
Quote from: NACar on October 19, 2008, 10:58:15 AM
A Volvo Wagon is a sports car and and SUV.
And a refrigerator on wheels.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 19, 2008, 12:41:31 PM
And a refrigerator on wheels.
But the A/C doesn't work. :huh:
Make it work. My A/C works.
Quote from: NACar on October 19, 2008, 10:58:15 AM
A Volvo Wagon is a sports car and and SUV.
Its a station wagon.
Quote from: CJ on October 19, 2008, 02:51:33 PM
Make it work. My A/C works.
It's R-12, and it's cold outside!
Quote from: NACar on October 19, 2008, 03:14:10 PM
Why :confused:
Because the roofline extends back beyond the rear axle, that's why.
(http://www.carroantigo.com/imagens/fotos/decadas/1933%20bugatti%20royale.JPG)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 19, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
Because the roofline extends back beyond the rear axle, that's why.
(http://www.carroantigo.com/imagens/fotos/decadas/1933%20bugatti%20royale.JPG)
THAT is an SUV.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 19, 2008, 03:27:38 PM
That is a Berline D'Voyage.
What does that have to do with anything
Quote from: NACar on October 19, 2008, 03:30:23 PM
What does that have to do with anything
it is the archetype of that body style. Technically station wagons started out as being converted sedans used for picking people up at train stations- they also called them depot hacks.
However, a Berline d'Voyage, while it looked the same in overall profile was built from the start to look like that.
Therefore, your car may be more correctly referred to as a Berline d'Voyage.
Quote from: R-inge on October 19, 2008, 09:07:13 AM
This is starting to sound like the debate over what constitutes a Sports Car. In other works, fucking stupid.
:lol:
Quote from: NACar on October 19, 2008, 03:21:48 PM
THAT is an SUV.
It's awesome, whatever it is.
Also, did you get a Volvo?
Quote from: Psilos on October 19, 2008, 03:50:06 PM
It's awesome, whatever it is.
Also, did you get a Volvo?
yes
yes
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 19, 2008, 03:36:27 PM
it is the archetype of that body style. Technically station wagons started out as being converted sedans used for picking people up at train stations- they also called them depot hacks.
However, a Berline d'Voyage, while it looked the same in overall profile was built from the start to look like that.
Therefore, your car may be more correctly referred to as a Berline d'Voyage.
I used to like the idea of having a stationg wagon to pick up people at the train station, but now it's all ruined!!!!! :cry:
Quote from: Psilos on October 19, 2008, 04:12:36 PM
Where's the thread?!
In The Fast Lane, where else would you expect it to be? :evildude:
The Not-Fastlane. :lol:
I found it, and it's excellent.
The only reason I would buy an SUV over a wagon or crossover is because the only wagons on the market are too expensive, and crossovers can't really go offroad. Since we lived on the prairies we didn't do any offroading, so we bought a crossover. Now that we live in the mountains and we want to go offroading, we're going to buy a minivan. :lol:
what a shock! nice vehicle yes, but not award worthy. dodge should have won.
Quote from: Atomic on October 21, 2008, 12:35:04 PM
what a shock! nice vehicle yes, but not award worthy. dodge should have won.
Why?
The... Durango? That thing blows monkey chunks.
:rolleyes: Not the Durango, the Nitro.
(http://img.blogcu.com/uploads/sametpak_2007-Dodge-Nitro.jpg) :wub: such attitude!
It looks better, at least.
Is it a real SUV?
:lol:
It drives like crap, so it can't be car-based. (very scientific, I know :lol: It's based off the Liberty, which was always the most truckish of the cute utes.)
The Journey would qualify.
Quote from: Psilos on October 21, 2008, 03:34:12 PM
It looks better, at least.
Is it a real SUV?
:lol:
Truck-based but with no off-road utility. The worst of both worlds.
Quote from: Laconian on October 21, 2008, 04:05:38 PM
It drives like crap, so it can't be car-based. (very scientific, I know :lol: It's based off the Liberty, which was always the most truckish of the cute utes.)
Haha! I think that counts as an SUV, then. Just a shitty shitty SUV.
The Cherokee was unibody, the Montero/Pajero was unibody, the Land Cruiser has some unibody characteristics.
I don't see why the Forester is any less an SUV than any of them.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 21, 2008, 09:12:40 PM
The Cherokee was unibody, the Montero/Pajero was unibody, the Land Cruiser has some unibody characteristics.
I don't see why the Forester is any less an SUV than any of them.
It's car based. Underneath it's an Impreza, and is a jacked-up/modified car, whereas the others you said are purpose built SUV's. Also, the Forester is not as capable as the Pajero, Cherokee or Land Cruiser.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 21, 2008, 09:12:40 PM
The Cherokee was unibody, the Montero/Pajero was unibody, the Land Cruiser has some unibody characteristics.
I don't see why the Forester is any less an SUV than any of them.
Can the Forester do this?
(http://jeep.off-road.com/jeep/data/articlestandard/jeep/502005/257937/dj-photo1.jpg)
Even with mods (that don't involve replacing IRS with solid axles...)?
(http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9813/rimg03937he.jpg)
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4972/img0069hd0.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_108.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_128.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_195.jpg)
(http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u238/scoobyd922/bighole4.jpg)
Nice articulation.
(http://images.jpmagazine.com/eventcoverage/p180651_large+Jeep_Cherokee_XJ+Front_Passenger_Side_View_Car_On_Rocks.jpg)
I think what the Forester can do is fairly impressive, considering it's got independent suspension. It's a really good AWD system. But there are lots of places the stock Durango I drive for work has been that the Forester could not go because of the rear axle and still relatively low clearance. Like I said, the Forester is something that is just about an SUV.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 21, 2008, 10:00:54 PM
Hummer? Freelander?
Which Hummer? The Freelander isn't an SUV
Quote from: Psilos on October 21, 2008, 10:05:35 PM
Which Hummer? The Freelander isn't an SUV
H1 for the sake of independence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9mtU-1mm9E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9mtU-1mm9E)
Quote from: the Teuton on October 21, 2008, 09:44:11 PM
(http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9813/rimg03937he.jpg)
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4972/img0069hd0.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_108.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_128.jpg)
(http://www.forotodocamino.com/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_195.jpg)
(http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u238/scoobyd922/bighole4.jpg)
Yet and still:
(http://blog.vehiclevoice.com/Jeep_07_Patriot_trail_bl_a.jpg)
(http://www.expeditionswest.com/equipment/reviews/patriot/images/Jeep_Patriot_01.JPG)
(http://www.jeep.com/shared/2008/patriot/capability/images/low_b/cap_drivesystem_freedom_4wd.jpg)
Not that impressive.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 16, 2008, 03:33:09 PM
You are so lucky you don't live within sniping distance.
LMFAO!!!
I wonder how much off-road capability the AWD Grand Caravan has? And do we call it an SUV? (SUV = Sport Utility Van) :lol:
Sounds like someone forgot about the original sport utility van.
(http://images.securedwebform.com/reviews/images/98mazdampv.jpg)
And don't even make me find an AWD Astro.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 22, 2008, 04:28:41 PM
Sounds like someone forgot about the original sport utility van.
(http://images.securedwebform.com/reviews/images/98mazdampv.jpg)
And don't even make me find an AWD Astro.
Vanagon Synchro.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 22, 2008, 04:29:38 PM
Vanagon Synchro.
I believe you might be right. Damn.
(http://members.aol.com/syncrohead/ss5.jpg)
:rolleyes:
(http://www.webentory.com/billboards/1768/6846.jpg)
Quote from: the Teuton on October 22, 2008, 04:28:41 PM
Sounds like someone forgot about the original sport utility van.
(http://images.securedwebform.com/reviews/images/98mazdampv.jpg)
And don't even make me find an AWD Astro.
I want one of those! Somebody at work drives one, if I see a for sale sign on it, I'm going straight to the bank.
Quote from: The Pirate on October 22, 2008, 05:07:10 PM
I want one of those! Somebody at work drives one, if I see a for sale sign on it, I'm going straight to the bank.
no wai, it's a minivan :lol:
Quote from: The Pirate on October 22, 2008, 05:07:10 PM
I want one of those! Somebody at work drives one, if I see a for sale sign on it, I'm going straight to the bank.
Dude. This is what you really want:
(http://www.off-road.com/trucks4x4/data/articlestandard/ford/472005/198528/van_2.jpg)
Quote from: the Teuton on October 22, 2008, 04:28:41 PM
Sounds like someone forgot about the original sport utility van.
(http://images.securedwebform.com/reviews/images/98mazdampv.jpg)
And don't even make me find an AWD Astro.
Mitsubishi Delica, and The Toyota TownAce/LiteAce (And the Toyota Van) were first.
Delica
(http://www.maxoverdrive.ca/carimage/baby%20blue%20delica1.jpg)
Townace
(http://www.justbuses.com.au/imagestore/33168633-29dd-4363-a203-29b88a4b8178.jpg)
There are plenty of off-roaders that aren't SUVs or trucks. For that matter, there are plenty of SUVs and trucks that suck off road. I was going to say that an Impreza with a lift could do the same stuff that Forester could, and there's no way that would be an SUV.
Anyway, I love those old 4WD vans.
(http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg)
Actually,
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cardomain.com/ride/496850&h=188&w=250&sz=13&hl=en&start=40&um=1&usg=__L5evmhGKe_P00krvh-vaB-IWkNk=&tbnid=GVSrhVLZ9wEWCM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoyota%2Bvan%2B4wd%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cardomain.com/ride/496850&h=188&w=250&sz=13&hl=en&start=40&um=1&usg=__L5evmhGKe_P00krvh-vaB-IWkNk=&tbnid=GVSrhVLZ9wEWCM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoyota%2Bvan%2B4wd%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)
Damn long link...
Quote from: Psilos on October 22, 2008, 08:15:12 PM
(http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg)
Actually,
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cardomain.com/ride/496850&h=188&w=250&sz=13&hl=en&start=40&um=1&usg=__L5evmhGKe_P00krvh-vaB-IWkNk=&tbnid=GVSrhVLZ9wEWCM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoyota%2Bvan%2B4wd%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://memimage.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/496000-496999/496850_5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cardomain.com/ride/496850&h=188&w=250&sz=13&hl=en&start=40&um=1&usg=__L5evmhGKe_P00krvh-vaB-IWkNk=&tbnid=GVSrhVLZ9wEWCM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoyota%2Bvan%2B4wd%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)
Damn long link...
I've already posted it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on October 22, 2008, 05:22:51 PM
Dude. This is what you really want:
(http://www.off-road.com/trucks4x4/data/articlestandard/ford/472005/198528/van_2.jpg)
Absolutely. But I can't afford to buy one, and I can't afford to keep fuel in one, so...
Well, I suppose if I gave up my apartment and lived in the van, I could swing it. I think it'd be worth it. :lol:
(http://www.cullmanlive.com/mattfoley/mfvan.jpg)
Man, there are a lof of uses for Farley!
Down at the river in a van (or something to that extent, never saw the movie but my old boss used to say it all the time for no apparent reason).
I live in a Van! Down by the RIVER!
And I live on a steady supply of government cheese!
Back to your regularly scheduled topic now, folks. Perhaps this tangent is better served in the Hotel Honda thread.
Back on topic:
I haven't driven the Forester SUV. But now that it is a SUV of the Year......I'm kind-of interested to see what the hub-bub is about. :lol:
Quote from: USA_Idol on October 23, 2008, 12:00:40 AM
Back on topic:
I haven't driven the Forester SUV. But now that it is a SUV of the Year......I'm kind-of interested to see what the hub-bub is about. :lol:
:lockedup: :evildude:
Quote from: USA_Idol on October 23, 2008, 12:00:40 AM
Back on topic:
I haven't driven the Forester SUV. But now that it is a SUV of the Year......I'm kind-of interested to see what the hub-bub is about. :lol:
Oh wait, I bet you're waiting for the 2008 Motor Trend Foreign Car of the Year to come out, too.
Quote from: the Teuton on October 23, 2008, 09:15:12 AM
Oh wait, I bet you're waiting for the 2008 Motor Trend Foreign Car of the Year to come out, too.
No, but I
am waiting for the Sport Utility Sedan, Sport Utility Coupe and Sport Utility Convertibles of the year to be announced. :evildude:
Quote from: USA_Idol on October 23, 2008, 11:04:20 AM
No, but I am waiting for the Sport Utility Sedan, Sport Utility Coupe and Sport Utility Convertibles of the year to be announced. :evildude:
Sedan competitors:
(http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/Outback_Sedan-side.jpg)
(http://mefekaoto.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bmw-x6.jpg)
Coupe:
(http://mefekaoto.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bmw-x6.jpg)
Convertible...
I don't think they make the Outback sedan any more.
I believe the SUS is discontinued. But I'm not sure. :huh:
They dropped the Outback sedan and Legacy wagon, at least in the US, after 2007.
Damn it!
Chrysler needs to bring the original sport utility wagon back...the classic AMC Eagle. :lol:
Quote from: TBR on October 21, 2008, 01:08:15 PM
Why?
easy. i checked out the forrester and dodge ram closely while car shopping with relatives and friends. the subaru is nice, but average amongst so many other similar vehicles. you may think the same about the 2009 dodge pick-up, but WOW! the interior is so much better than it's predecessor and all other trucks on the market today (imo). it also has sweet new features inside and out. better mpg. an awesome ride. tight. best quality of any recent chrysler.
Quote from: Atomic on October 25, 2008, 07:28:35 PM
easy. i checked out the forrester and dodge ram closely while car shopping with relatives and friends. the subaru is nice, but average amongst so many other similar vehicles. you may think the same about the 2009 dodge pick-up, but WOW! the interior is so much better than it's predecessor and all other trucks on the market today (imo). it also has sweet new features inside and out. better mpg. an awesome ride. tight. best quality of any recent chrysler.
The Ram isn't a SUV :ohyeah:
Don't forget that the F-150 is all new too, either it or the Ram is a shoe in for truck of the year. From what I have seen so far I do prefer the Ram, in fact I entered to win one on NBC.com so I am crossing my fingers (of course if I do I'd drive it for a couple of weeks, sell it and my current car, buy something slightly nicer than what I have for far less than I get for the Ram, and then put the rest towards my tuition, not that I have thought about this...).
We've had our 2009 Forester for a couple months now. I consider it more of a station wagon than a SUV, but whatever...
Anyway, it's a pretty decent vehicle. The interior space is awesome - great leg and headroom front and rear. It handles pretty well, and is getting decent fuel economy - about 25mpg average so far.
I put a hitch on it a while ago, and was startled to find it tows better than our old Honda Pilot.
Haven't had an opportunity to test out the AWD yet, but snow is coming soon.
My only gripes are about the seat. The seat bottom is too short and does not offer adjustment to tilt up the seat front enough for my satisfaction. The seat heater controls are in a bad location too.
Other than that - I find it to be an outstanding value. We paid a little over 21 grand for a pretty well equipped model.
You switch cars really frequently.