Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » New car CRV vs. Outback/Forrester etc and I mean etc

March 9, 2009 7:59 p.m. RussellH Reader
So the wife's '04 Accord and my '97 328i are getting a little long in the tooth. I'm putting about 110miles a day on the 328i and it's already got 134k on it. I take great care of it but hypothetically speaking I could drive the Accord (currently 60k miles on it) everyday and get her another new car. We've come to love the Accord in every way, it has everything you need nothing you don't. Great safety ratings, it's very roomy inside which is a plus when you have a 4yo that likes to kick the seat despite warnings lol, it's also, quiet and comfortable. So now when we look at another car we always compare it to the Accord.

What we want out of the new car is long road-trips so it has to be safe, roomy, good on gas and most importantly reliable. Again, the Accord fits the bill very well except we want something that'll take us off-the-beaten-path every now and then. Wife doesn't like the idea of an SUV/truck (Ridgeline would be great) so that really leaves Outback/Forester as a choice and I've managed to convince her of the CRV as a possible alternative but I'm not sure which would be better. The issue with the Outback is one the rear passenger area is not as roomy as our Accord and two I've heard mixed reviews about it's reliability. The Accord has needed NOTHING! in 5 years and 60k miles except basic maintenance (oil, brakes, battery). Can I expect the same from a Subaru, be it Outback or a Forester (though the new ones are big like SUVs).

I also have a couple of other things to consider. First here's what we have in the household:
1. 04 Accord - nice sensible daily driver
2. '97 328i (with a lot of money dumped into it, new bushings, shocks, springs, welded subframe, belts, hoses, clutch etc)
3. '92 Dakota V8 - hey every guy needs a truck...to sit in the driveway for weeks on end without moving
4. '92 Integra Honda Challenge hopeful race car with a custom cage - but I've lost interest and it's taking up space
5. 1982 Honda Nighthawk - when you don't have time to work on other projects you buy more! - my first bike ever and it's been really fun to ride but I don't need another sword hanging on my head.
So my thought was with a Ridgeline or Tacoma 4dr I could consolidate the BMW and the truck, then sell the Integra and the Nighthawk but in this economy no one's buying so I'm stuck with my impulse purchases. It'd be nice to have the garage back for wrenching on cars rather than storing them.
March 9, 2009 8:15 p.m. jrw1621 HalfDork

CRV. Everything your Accord is, just taller. You would then have 4 Hondas and a truck. Do you see a trend here.
The current body style Rav4 is a splendid vehicle as well.
Add to the list the new, and big, Scion Xb. Almost as roomy as the Rav4, maybe more. I also be that your 4yo can not reach the seat to kick. There is that much backroom space.
March 9, 2009 8:33 p.m. Feedyurhed Reader

I vote for the Subarus. Only possible drawback is fuel economy although it's likely comparable to the CRV. I think they have all the capability of the Honda but will likely be a bit more fun on the road. Those are both good choices though and you can't really go wrong with either.
March 9, 2009 8:41 p.m. mtn Dork

Feedyurhed wrote:

I vote for the Subarus. Only possible drawback is fuel economy although it's likely comparable to the CRV. I think they have all the capability of the Honda but will likely be a bit more fun on the road. Those are both good choices though and you can't really go wrong with either.

Subaru will be more fun, though
March 9, 2009 8:55 p.m. dj06482 New Reader

I'd also look at the '06-up RAV4. We have a 2006 AWD Base model with the 3.5L V6 and have been very happy with it (44K to date). It gets great mileage (I get about 23-24 MPG in mixed driving), has very decent room (the second seat slides back, as well), and isn' t awful to drive.
March 10, 2009 12:17 a.m. Strizzo Dork

most of the car rags have said that the rav4 will take you farther (off-road, and come to think of it, probably on-road as well) than most people would be willing to dare. if you haven't tried it before, you'd be suprised at how far your basic awd-with-allseasons will take you. that said, the new nissan murano is pretty darn capable in a "it will destroy itself to get you where you want to go, but it will get you there" kind of way. you might leave the exhaust behind, but the majority of the vehicle will make it.
March 10, 2009 5:06 a.m. ddavidv SuperDork

The only thing limiting any vehicle's off road use is ground clearance. I can't speak to any of the other "cute utes" as I think they're silly, but we have a Forester and like it because it's really just a car that's been altered to do SUV things. And that works for most of the tasks it will ever do. Provided you get one that's newer than the original "SF" (98-02) reliability shouldn't be an issue. There were some lingering head gasket issues after '02 but they are pretty few in number and it's mostly an external leak vs the earlier catastrophic internal one.

The Outback (Legacy) is a bit larger, mostly in the cargo bay. The newest Forester has a longer wheelbase and a bit more interior room than the preceding models but we hardly take anyone with us so it's never been an area of concern. Those that have sat back there have never complained. MPG's are mid 20s which is about all you can expect from any of these. Subys do have excellent crash test ratings. My wife wanted the Foz and loathes SUVs, so that should tell you something about how truly car-like it is. Even I don't hate driving it.
March 10, 2009 6:32 a.m. 93celicaGT2 HalfDork

dj06482 wrote:

I'd also look at the '06-up RAV4. We have a 2006 AWD Base model with the 3.5L V6 and have been very happy with it (44K to date). It gets great mileage (I get about 23-24 MPG in mixed driving), has very decent room (the second seat slides back, as well), and isn' t awful to drive.

Amusingly enough... the 3.5 V6 Rav4 was the fastest "car" under the Toyota brand for a couple years.

It's a VERY good car/truck/cute ute/whatever.
March 10, 2009 7:12 a.m. dj06482 New Reader

93celicaGT2 wrote: Amusingly enough... the 3.5 V6 Rav4 was the fastest "car" under the Toyota brand for a couple years.

It's a VERY good car/truck/cute ute/whatever.

I've seen 1/4 mile times as low as 14.8 on the RAV4 forums, which is pretty quick for what it is. It would be a driver's race with my 1992 Mustang 5.0/5spd.

Totally different feel, though, the midrange and top end on the RAV4 is incredible, but it doesn't match the torque down low that the 5.0 has.

DJ
March 10, 2009 7:39 a.m. 93celicaGT2 HalfDork

dj06482 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Amusingly enough... the 3.5 V6 Rav4 was the fastest "car" under the Toyota brand for a couple years.

It's a VERY good car/truck/cute ute/whatever.

I've seen 1/4 mile times as low as 14.8 on the RAV4 forums, which is pretty quick for what it is. It would be a driver's race with my 1992 Mustang 5.0/5spd.

Totally different feel, though, the midrange and top end on the RAV4 is incredible, but it doesn't match the torque down low that the 5.0 has.

DJ

It's a ridiculous motor.... There's a guy on MR2oc that swapped one into his SW20 MR2, and it's horrifying, to say the least.
March 10, 2009 7:47 a.m. triumph7 New Reader

Don't forget the Honda Element. Probably the most versatile vehicle I've ever owned. All wheel drive, 24 mpg and Honda reliability.
March 10, 2009 7:56 a.m. jrw1621 HalfDork

Just last nite I passed on the road a Element SC version in a wine-marron color that seemed like a nice vehicle. The mono-tone color scheme did away with the typical "patchwork of body panels" look that I usually do not like about the Element.

Mechanically, the Element and CRV are twins they are just drapped in diffent body styles.
March 10, 2009 7:57 a.m. ignorant SuperDork

dj06482 wrote:

I'd also look at the '06-up RAV4. We have a 2006 AWD Base model with the 3.5L V6 and have been very happy with it (44K to date). It gets great mileage (I get about 23-24 MPG in mixed driving), has very decent room (the second seat slides back, as well), and isn' t awful to drive.

I have one and I like it. The 4 banger gets us 28 around town and 32 on the highway. We have the 3rd row as well so we can haul 2 extra children if needed. It works out well for us.
March 10, 2009 8:08 a.m. dj06482 New Reader

And best of all, the RAV4 makes a good DD. I commute about 75 miles a day in it and it works well in that capacity. The mileage is as good as my previous DD ('00 Saab 9-3), but with AWD when you need it (with a locking feature that works up to 25 MPH), and a higher ride height which gives better visibility.

We had a clunk in the steering that was fixed under warranty, but other than that it's been oil changes, front brakes at 30K (we live in a very hilly neighborhood), and new tires at 40K. Judging by wear, the rear brakes should be good until at least 50K.

All in all, I'd say give it a test drive. At the time we were looking (late '05), we drove a previous-gen CRV and were unimpressed with how much noise there was at highway speeds and what felt like a high center of gravity/severe body roll. For comparison, my wife had a '99 CRV that we loved (except for the lack of power).

I'd say the RAV4 is at least worth a test drive. There's an updated 4cyl for '09 that has more power and is supposed to get even better fuel economy that the old one. We test drove the 4cyl model before we bought ours and I would say the power was more than adequate (it was basically the engine in the Scion Tc).

Hope that helps!
March 10, 2009 8:44 a.m. CrackMonkey Reader

I test drove a new Forrestor last weekend. I drove the mid-grade version (non-turbo, but most other options). It was nice enough, and priced well, but didn't do anything for me - heavy, slow, didn't handle all that well. I'd rather have a normal wagon, I think.
March 10, 2009 6:09 p.m. TR3only New Reader

I DIDN'T read each post thoroughly.....however, a CRV is NOT based on the Accord, but on the Civic. Or at least the previous generations were. The Subie can be had (tho it takes a bit of looking for one) with a manual, the CRV does not have a choice of tranny. Many "buff books" don't care for the newest Forester, but prefer the previous gen.(1st gen.?) Forester. The CRV, to me, looks like a "Mommy-mobile" THO, I might buy a black EX if I am suddenly given $20,000 as I am looking for a new/newer car, too.
March 10, 2009 7:42 p.m. RussellH Reader

Great suggestions so far. We've considered the Element and the wife actually liked it too but it's rollover rating was not good and we don't like how the rear seats work and forces the child seat to be on either side and not in the middle. I mean it's a great design for its intended purpose but I prefer the child seat to be in the middle for side impact safety reasons.

The new RAV4 just looks silly...the CRV does too but not as bad. If it was purely for the off-road capability I'd pick the RAV4 over the CRV but as David said anything with decent ground clearance and AWD will go farther than you'd be willing to take a new car. I still circle back to the Outback/Forester but you guys haven't made me feel warm and fuzzy about its reliability yet will it go 100k+ with basic maintenance? Will we be able to pass it down to our 4yo when she turns 16?

Lastly, why is the Outback more expensive than the Forester?
March 10, 2009 7:50 p.m. HiTempguy Reader

but it's rollover rating was not good

Ok, seriously. How many people on this board have rolled a car? How many people do you know that have rolled a car? I almost did while auto-'xing, but I took care of it.

No offense, but that would be the LAST thing I looked at when purchasing a car. All of the other points have merit though
March 10, 2009 8:02 p.m. ignorant SuperDork

I rolled a YJ.. in the rain a tire went pop..

Thats when I leardn $10 a piece friend specials on tires are not the greatest value.
March 11, 2009 11:25 a.m. TR3only New Reader

WOW, a rolling Element? My nephew has an Element and I suppose if you were to drive it insanely (he's a pretty level-headed guy) and or were to be hit JUST RIGHT by some vehicle, or you drove off a VERY steep bank....

An Element has a poor rollover rating JUST because it's so high versus it's length and width, the center of gravity should negate that somewhat.

I still say, 1st gen Forester.
March 11, 2009 11:35 a.m. Osterizer HalfDork

My parent's new CRV has a stupid amount of cargo room and gets over 30mpg on the highway.

It's stupid what a great car it is...

I wouldn't take it very far "off the beaten path" though. It's basically a lifted Accord wagon.

You'll need to log in to post.