we bought a 1999 Subaru Forester

April 22, 2006 7:22 PM

Back in December I asked for vehicle recommendations, and I just wanted to follow up: we bought a 1999 Subaru Forester, based on the words here and of a friend of our who owns an Outback. What it all came down to was good value, great safety, and even though I paid more than I wanted to I'm happy with this step up instead of a step sideways into a RAV4 or a junkier, older vehicle. Thanks!
posted by Kickstart70 to MetaFilter-Related at 7:22 PM (12 comments total)

I'm very disappointed in the fuel economy with our 01 Forester. Other than that, though, it has been a good vehicle this past year or so. Certainly kicks ass under any winter conditions; it made it up our exceptionally steep and largely unshovelled driveway ever time!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:06 PM on April 22, 2006

I just got 26mpg in an '01 Forester S climbing 7000' and dropping 40F over 200 miles. Four people, three snowboards, 48k miles on it with no particular problems. Good choice.
posted by kcm at 8:29 PM on April 22, 2006

(Not to mention the complete-white-out conditions with visibility at 0' for most of it at night in a good layer of rapidly accumulating snow and California out-to-lunch drivers. Not requiring chains is priceless.)
posted by kcm at 8:31 PM on April 22, 2006

I love a happy ending! We based our car shopping a month ago based on an AskMe thread too.
posted by batgrlHG at 9:43 PM on April 22, 2006

Poop. The car salesman didn't give me a happy ending. I feel cheated.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:44 PM on April 23, 2006

You bought some enormous SUV type thing and expect good MPG?

Or are you getting like 10mpg? In which case I guess you are allowed to be a bit upset :)
posted by public at 6:30 AM on April 24, 2006

Um, public, the Forester is not an enormous anything. It's built on an Impreza chassis, and is usually classed as a "small SUV". It's really more of a small wagon with AWD (it's the AWD that hurts the mpg.)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:00 AM on April 24, 2006

As Kirth says, it's much more like a wagon than an SUV, and it's certainly not enormous. The U.S. fed gov't lists it as having 26mpg on highway and 23 conbined city & highway.

I'm moving from a small pickup (Mazda B3000) which is listed as 19mpg, but in my experience gets more like 14 or 15. So I'm improving my impact on the planet by getting this vehicle.

Had I been able to find a safe, all wheel drive (required for the location I am moving to in central-northern British Columbia), within my price range, I would have gladly done that.

I hate when people make assumptions about me and my motivations.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:01 AM on April 24, 2006

Um, public, the Forester is not an enormous anything. It's built on an Impreza chassis, and is usually classed as a "small SUV". It's really more of a small wagon with AWD (it's the AWD that hurts the mpg.)

I am a UK based semi-middleclass urbanite, to people like me if it gets less than 30mpg it's generally considered a beast :P
posted by public at 1:44 PM on April 24, 2006

Good choice. I have the same make and model and have been extremely happy. Low maintenance, and handles bad weather very well.
posted by Miko at 2:03 PM on April 24, 2006

The gas mileage is poorer than it could be not just from the weight of the AWD, but other elements such as the hood -- I lifted the hood of a 1st generation Forester at a dealership years ago, and I thought I was going to get a hernia. There was also a plaque underneath, announcing that the car was built at "Fuji Heavy Industries" -- all of which is a reflection of the Forester (at least the 1st gen) being focused on lasting forever rather than speed and economy.

None of this makes it a bad car; I know more than one person who is very happy with theirs.
posted by davejay at 2:43 PM on April 24, 2006

I wonder if installing a switch to go 2WD would improve the gas mileage much...
posted by five fresh fish at 6:40 PM on April 25, 2006