Subaru Forrester?

Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a Freelander
in terms of off-road capability, build quality, and reliability?

"Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
> Freelander in terms of off-road capability, build quality, and
> reliability?
My job involves driving to all parts of Scotland 365 days a year in all
weather - not serious off roading, but some very 'dodgy' farm tracks/lanes.
Last Monday I took delivery of my new Subaru Forester (purchased outright
company car) to replace my discovery.

I and my boss were both fed up with breakdowns (4 times in 2 years) and
other faults with the Disco that required it to be 'in a garage' (6 times in
2 years). Btw - I own a Defender 90 hardtop and have never had any problems
with it (4yr old bought second-hand) which is used 'off' road.

The decision to buy the Subaru was based on surveys for reliability/build
quality. I don't the Subaru competes in pure off roading (but it is very
good). If your looking for reliability, huge interior space, good road
handling and performance then the Forester will meet your needs.

My only minor complaint so far - fuel tank range. My Disco was diesel and
the range of to Subaru is about 120 miles less per tank. But we are looking
at getting a LPG kit fitted.

Clive

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:18:39 +0100, "Gordon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a Freelander
>in terms of off-road capability,

Not as good. It's not really an offroader.

> build quality,

Much better.

>and reliability?
>
Much better!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
>>Freelander in terms of off-road capability,

> Not as good. It's not really an offroader.

And a Freelunch is?

"Paul Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:18:39 +0100, "Gordon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
>> Freelander in terms of off-road capability,
>
> Not as good. It's not really an offroader.

Just to put this in perspective, how good off-road is the Freelander
compared to a SWB SIII Landy? (On a scale of 1-10, the SIII being 10?)
(I had one of those a year or so ago so can relate the performance to it!)

On 31 Aug 2005 09:38:33 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>>>Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
>>>Freelander in terms of off-road capability,
>
>> Not as good. It's not really an offroader.
>
>And a Freelunch is?

Well, it's got slightly more ground clearance, but that's not much use
when you've broken down. I'd go for the Subaru any day in preference
to the Freeloader.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:44:27 +0100, "Gordon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Paul Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:18:39 +0100, "Gordon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
>>> Freelander in terms of off-road capability,
>>
>> Not as good. It's not really an offroader.
>
>Just to put this in perspective, how good off-road is the Freelander
>compared to a SWB SIII Landy? (On a scale of 1-10, the SIII being 10?)
>(I had one of those a year or so ago so can relate the performance to it!)
>

Got to be somewhere around 1 - 3, but some people would say 0!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

"Paul Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:44:27 +0100, "Gordon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Paul Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:18:39 +0100, "Gordon"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
>>>> Freelander in terms of off-road capability,
>>>
>>> Not as good. It's not really an offroader.
>>
>> Just to put this in perspective, how good off-road is the Freelander
>> compared to a SWB SIII Landy? (On a scale of 1-10, the SIII being
>> 10?) (I had one of those a year or so ago so can relate the
>> performance to it!)
>>
>
> Got to be somewhere around 1 - 3, but some people would say 0!

Thanks for all the info - the Forrester is looking more and more
favourable - one of the other minus points for the Freelander is the small
luggage space. I have two medium-to-large Border Collies......

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:49 +0100, "Gordon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for all the info - the Forrester is looking more and more
>favourable - one of the other minus points for the Freelander is the small
>luggage space. I have two medium-to-large Border Collies......
>

Make sure the glass is covered as no excess and no loss of ncb with
your insurers, I guess most are but 700 quid for a screen according to
the chap that was replacing ours (L series turbo but the forester was
his next job) some years back now.

My mate has one and it's juicy but not as bad as the V6 freelander.

AJH

"Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone with any thoughts on this? How does it compare to (say) a
Freelander
> in terms of off-road capability, build quality, and reliability?
>
you might want to look at the Legacy Outback wagon as well, better ground
clearance than the standard legacy and plenty of space for the dogs - we
have the older Legacy and a GSP plus two Springers fitted in nicely,
slightly better fuel economy if you dont get the Bi-turbo nutter machine
<cough cough>
Derek

1. Neither vehicle is a true "off roader".
2. Forester has 7.5" ground clearance, doubt the Solihull sadness wagon has
much more.
3. The Freelander looks much much nicer
4. Landrover build quality is the automotive equal to Amstrad HIFI from the
70's (i.e. total crap)
5.Freelander 1.8L engines often crap out with major head gasket problems at
fairly modest mileages.


My 1998 Forester Auto 2L non-turbo has 70K miles, not even changed at light
bulb at my own expense, just a new back box on the exhaust.
It gets driven very hard , often gets driven far too fast on forestry tracks
and estate tracks. I love it and has been much more fun and more reliable
than the Discovery and the Jeep Cherokee I have had in the past.

In short no contest unless you are a badge snob, if you need really serious
off road mud plugging/rock crawling ability do not buy either.

--
Marcus

I like people, they are bio-degradable !.

Marcus wrote:
> 1. Neither vehicle is a true "off roader".
> 2. Forester has 7.5" ground clearance, doubt the Solihull sadness wagon has
> much more.
> 3. The Freelander looks much much nicer
> 4. Landrover build quality is the automotive equal to Amstrad HIFI from the
> 70's (i.e. total crap)
> 5.Freelander 1.8L engines often crap out with major head gasket problems at
> fairly modest mileages.
>
>
> My 1998 Forester Auto 2L non-turbo has 70K miles, not even changed at light
> bulb at my own expense, just a new back box on the exhaust.
> It gets driven very hard , often gets driven far too fast on forestry tracks

That's really the sort of "off-roading" that I now will be doing, apart
from snow and ice on roads in the winter.



> and estate tracks. I love it and has been much more fun and more reliable
> than the Discovery and the Jeep Cherokee I have had in the past.

I am rapidly thinking that this is the vehicle for me!

Thanks

>
> In short no contest unless you are a badge snob, if you need really serious
> off road mud plugging/rock crawling ability do not buy either.
>


--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom