Do you REALLY need an AWD vehicle or do you just THINK you need it. 90% of the time, the roads, even Colorado mountain roads, are clear and dry…A set of mounted snow tires solves most winter driving issues and greatly expands your vehicle choices…
Before this car I had Toyota Camry with front wheel drive. During the winter I always used snows. (I still do on my Forester). There is NO COMPARISON. The Camry would get stuck just going up my driveway.
Snow in Colorado melts fast, but here in new England it stays on the road a long time and usually turns to ice. Then there’s mud - we get 42 inches of rain a year here - AWD and high ground clearance helps a lot there. Many of the roads leading to trailheads are muddy or full of scree - after owning a AWD car I’ll never go back to 2WD. A couple of weekends ago I got a good lesson in why I like AWD backing a boat down a ramp into a river with a low water level and lots of mud. AWD helps year-round, not just in winter.
Honestly, if AWD is truly a must (and for the vast majority of people who think it is, it isn’t) , I would only consider a Subaru - pretty much every other brand out there takes too much of a hit with regards to reliability. It isn’t just a Ford thing.
Who cares what Consumer Reports says about a car?
Either test drive all the cars that have been recommended by us yourself, and make a decision on YOUR opinion of the vehicles, or just buy whatever it is that Consumer Reports lists as the “Best Buy”, if you only trust their information as a credible source.
Consumer reports has information you can’t get from a test drive. Every year they send a detailed poll to all their subscribers asking what car they have, how many miles, and detailed questions on what service it needed. Every April Car Issue they publish the last 6 years of data on this. There simply is no other source of information as detailed, and over as many years as this for reliability and maintenance issues, and owner satisfaction.
I don’t rely on Consumer Reports for test drives - I do my own. It’s an all-day affair. I start by mapping out the area around the dealership looking for construction zones, empty parking lots, hills, dirt roads, etc. I used to do SCCA solo racing in an earlier life, so I put the test car through slalom maneuvers; I do sudden stops on hard surfaces and gravelly ones, I do snap lane changes at highway speeds, in an empty road or parking lot I’ll toss a teddy bear out the window, bang a u-ey speed up and pretend it’s a bit or road-debris that I have to either brake or dodge. I also do a lot of backing up to test rear visibility. I bring an MP3 player to see how well I can listen to my favorite music.
I also test out the inside dimensions I have a full-88-key electronic piano I need to transport. One reason the Forester won out over the CRV in 2003 was that I could fit it in the Subaru but not the Honda. .
I also bring bags or boxes with heavy weights and load up the trunk to see if I’m happy with its handling under those conditions. Often I take two test drives - one in the day and one at night.
And the fun doesn’t end there - I like to work on my own cars so I bring a creeper and go under the car; I pop the hood to make sure I have good access. I bring an oil filter wrench to make sure there’s enough clearance for it. Some dealers hate this and I’ve been asked to leave more than once, but If I’m going to be living with a car for years I’m not going to just go by other people’s tests.
Funny you mention the keyboard - that was our criteria the resulted in our 2007 Forester! Definitely give the new one a try, it’s been improved. If not that, the 6 cylinder Outlook would be much more powerful.
Eraser1998…Rav certainly doesn’t take a hit in awd. They are more reliable then most cars made in two wheel drive. Same with Honda and many others especially in the $40 k range. Cars tend to be worse in snow then they used to years ago because of low clearance and tire/chassis combination built around handling. The legit alternative is a reliable awd…and there are plenty of them. The security is unmatched in winter diving when combined with winter tires and it would be pretty presumptuous of me to try to talk some one with $40k to spend for driving in snow country. They are common, reliable and more economical then in the past.
Ravs and CrVs (and my two Subbies) are alsolutely bullet proof compared to just about any other two wheel drive counterpart from other makes. And not needing awd because you only need it 10 percent of the time is like saying you don’t need a roof because it only rains ten percent of the time. Same with snow tires…that’s a pretty demanding ten percent and well worth awd, traction control, winter tires and winter driving experience and good judgement.
Btw, carrying lots of weight in the back is an excellent reason to have awd…even on dry pavement to help maintain better handling when fwd is the alternative. OP, you sound like you have your act together…probably more so then most when it comes to determining what you need in a car. Best of luck in your search.
I would consider the Chevy Suburban or Tahoe. The Suburban is above your price range and probably bigger than you are looking for, but if you were willing to go with one a couple years old you could get one fully loaded (4WD, Leather, Rear Heat/AC, etc. I have a 99 Suburban and it never fails to surprise me at how fast it fills up with all my stuff :/. It has the same engine that GM has been using for years…I can swap parts from an 89 S10 to a 99 Suburban to a 2010 Tahoe (not everything, but many parts are the same).
I recently upgraded from my 2007 2.5 H4 Impreza to a 2012 3.6 H6 Legacy. The 6 cyl power is (to me in comparison to the 4 cyl in the Impreza) significantly improved. That said, the Legacy isn’t as sporty (too lurchy with quick turns vs the Impreza) so practically in anything but a straight line, the old Impreza would keep up with the Legacy. I feel the new “fuel efficient” Impreza is much slower however, and would prefer the 07 engine…
That all said, you’re talking about comparing to a Forester which was never even pretending to be a performance car…
The 6cyl Legacy does get within 1 MPG of my old 4 cyl, so Subaru has really improved MPG however.
For me, the Legacy does fufill “Fun to drive” so I would expect the Outback with the same engine would be similar. I get a giddy grin when I pass someone with the quick pickup… Often hitting “way to damn fast” just getting by someone …
@dagosa - well, the stats you’re looking at certainly don’t match those I see, which show a significant drop in reliability for AWD Rav4s and CRVs from their 2WD versions (and below 2WD versions from other makes).
FWIW, if you truly need AWD 10% of the time, then I’d say you need AWD. However, I’d argue that very few people need it 10% of the time. Many of my coworkers feel they “need” AWD because it snows here and we have hills. However, those hills are generally only slippery 1 or 2 days per year at most, and even then only for a few hours each time. Do you need AWD for that, or simply better planning? I’ve never lost traction in my FWD vehicles on those hills, and simply avoid going out when I would need them. Your analogy is a little over-the-top…
It might rain 10% of the time, and I may not have the ability to work my schedule around that much to avoid it. The cost-benefit value of a roof is obvious. However, the need for AWD here is much, much lower of a percentage of the time, and there are alternative behaviors and strategies to allow you to deal with it… hence, the cost of AWD greatly outweighs the few times that it is really needed. What is needed more is simply driving skill and logic - instead we get fools like the one I saw once trying to climb a snowy hill in a RWD F-150 with an empty rear bed and a shredded front right tire. Fool wasn’t going anywhere, while I was able to climb no problems. By comparison, my gramps drove an old RWD F-series until he was near 90 - lived on top of a hill with the steep downhill exit from the subdivision emptying onto the busiest street in town (6 lanes, right by an 8 lane freeway). He threw weights in the bed during the winter and took the hill at appropriate speeds and never slid into the intersection.
Eraser1998…guess I must be looking at the wrong CR issues. I never compared CRV 2wd to CRV 4wd ( or RAV for that matter). But their reliability over the years rank amoung the best even when comparing their awd models to anything else made, 2wd or not.
On a sheer cost per miles of use, awd will never pay for itself, I agree. No one needs awd or 4 wd where it snows, if they are willing to accept worse load handling, the loss of slippery weather control and the insecurity in those times it is needed. Awd compared to fwd is superior even on dry pavement in handling, load carrying security and towing safety. If OP has $40k to spend, or if I did for that matter, it would never be on a fwd car. There are two many advantages in all other drive systems, winter or not. I take OP at his word…he’s after the perfect car. I will go out on a limb and say for his stated use including winter travel, heavy load and monetary commitment, it won’t be a fwd plow horse.
Your arguements make perfect sense if this were a budget, low stress use automobile or truck. OP has indicated his needs are much more…then fwd or even rwd, can provide for.
Most awd vehicles use part-time systems that are designed to act just like any 2wd until there is significant loss of traction. The kind of traction loss that almost never happens on dry roads.
Most modern systems with awd are always engaged and respond to sensors, diverting torque to rear wheels as needed. They DONOT wait for significant traction loss like the previous gen. CRV and are not like fwd cars before slippage.
Torsen or torque sensitive has been used for years and modern electronic systems respond even more quickly. These systems work to prevent slippage…they work on dry roads to aid handling and even sense load distribution.
They are not all the same. Some like Subaru may have as much as a 50/50 torque distribution before slippage and can vary 90/10 in either direction when slippage occurs while some like my 4 runner may be bias to the rear. Most, if not all now have some power always going to the opposite axle…which definitely aids handling on dry roads. Even the newer CRV has changed in this regard. Wikipedia is not always on the mark.
In the decades I have owned awd, 4wd, rwd and fwd cars and trucks, my experience is there is a significant difference for the better in handling on awd cars over fwd on all road conditions.
Remember that CR should never be your only source of data, particularly when it comes to the lower-volume models (and AWD versions of the CR-V and Rav4 are pretty low volume). Low sample sizes screw with statistics and start giving spurious results like the 2.5L I4 in the Mazda6 being less reliable than the same 2.5L I4 in the Ford Fusion.
Actually, CR didn’t even rate the Rav4 and CR-V AWD versions in their 2010 buyers guide. For 2012, for good bets in used cars, they again didn’t specify the AWD versions of the Rav4 or the CR-V, though they did for the Escape, Mariner, and Tribute (but not the FWD versions of those). Furthermore, to show that it isn’t a Ford thing, the Toyota Sienna (FWD) is rated very highly, but the AWD version is listed among used cars to avoid.
I have the new version of the Forester (non-turbo) and am pleased with it so far. The cargo space is great: I can carry two sousaphones in cases with just the 40 split folded down. It handles unplowed residential and rural roads with no problems. It has the best driver visibility of any car I’ve ever driven. For me, the deciding factor over the competition was the head and leg room. Both the CR-V and the RAV4 were much too cramped in the driver’s seat. The new Forester is definitely worth looking at.
Eraser1998…you are right. CR should not be your only source of information. But, I would argue being non profit and having the highest and most reliable sample ( the consumer and not paid lackeys ) it’s results are more dependable then any other. BTW, over time, the Sienna awd is still more reliable then Chrysler 2wd vans and are not recomended for reasons other then reliability. Awd is expensive to buy and maintain. But so aren’t automatic transmissions, air conditioning and a plethora of other options. The buying public has spoken and they are becoming more common. They perform better then fwd and buyers are willing to pay…$40k puts OP in the sweet spot for one. For the third time…lif you are willing to part with$40k, Hylander Hybrid.
The data collected is lumped together; mixing large problems with small ones.
Someone sending in a bad mark for engine failures at 5k miles is mixed with someone sending in a bad mark for the way the sun visor doesn’t cover enough of the side window when it’s moved there.
An avid Mercedes driver may give a bad mark for a squeak or rattle while a rabid Honda fanboy might let tons of road noise pass just because it’s a Honda.
I certainly wouldnt want to buy a car someone abuses test driving.Do you Guys that throw a car all around the countryside,do so with a salesman on board?-Kevin
Bscar2… I don’t think so. Categories of trouble, both major and minor are clearly indicated in CR. I don’t think the sun visor is a major engine mechanical. If a Honda motor was as unreliable as a Mercedes sun visor, everyone would know it. It certainly was specific enough to pick up Honda Passport problems when made by Isuzu for Honda years ago, as well as the Honda del Sol later. They were given no fanboy preferences by owners nor is the substandard reviews of the Honda hybrids in the last few years. Mercedes models likewise “earned” their reputation both good and bad.
I have some problems with the CR system, but there is nothing better to rely on. I wish they didn’t always trust in their readers’ responses implicitly. They give us the raw numbers without any statistical analysis. To CR, no result is ever mere chance, despite many instances where identical models have been rated very differently. Small sample sizes seem not to bother them. They must practice believing impossible things before breakfast. The car reliability numbers are some of their most useful, but only when comparing cars within a class, and only models sold in large numbers.
Bscar2… I don’t think so. Categories of trouble, both major and minor are clearly indicated in CR. I don’t think the sun visor is a major engine mechanical"
Correct, @dagosa, when you look at the system ratings (they do assign an overall aggregate rating which is difficult to determine how they’re rating issues, so in that respect, bscar2 is correct). Of course, to understand what you’re looking at for the systems, you also need to know that each category is rated on a different sliding scale. You get solid red if your problem rate is below 1%. Half red if below 2%. You have to exceed 3% OR the average rate for the system to get into the half-black or black range, So, for example, 2002 models are showing an average of a 3% major engine problem rate, but a 13% body hardware problem rate. So you could get half-black for major engine problems at a 3.1% problem rate, even though the difference between that model and one which got half red or possibly even full red would likely not be statistically significant given their respective sample sizes. At the same time, you could get a 12% body hardware problem rate and be marked average… as would a vehicle that had a 2.1% body hardware problem rate… making that rating just about useless in determining whether the vehicle was actually significantly less reliable in that area than one marked above average.
As a result of the exceedingly small difference between half red and red ratings, as well as the exceedingly small differences possible between average and excellent along with the impossibility of determining whether an average rating means average (ie the 12% case above) or pretty darned good (2.1% case above), I’ve found the ratings are useful ONLY in finding the half blacks and blacks in those areas where the average problem rate is significant… then I find I have to go elsewhere to try to find evidence of what that problem might be, and whether its a $30 repair and I won’t care, or a $3000 engine, and I darned well would…
…