2012 CRV vs. 2012 Forester

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: 45ACP
btw: The CR-V isnt much loved.


I know a few people here in Miami who own 2009-2012 CR-V's..Even though I am not crazy about them they love them to death..They have zero issues with them..They would not even think of getting a Forester.

 

[Nick R]

Of the two, I'd go for the forester. Just a nicer overall vehicle Imo.


Though, and this shouldn't be unexpected, I'm going to ask if you've looked at the Equinox? Since you don't get much/any snow in TX, you could get the 2.4L with FWD, and expect halfway decent fuel economy (many with the four are averaging mid 20s, mid to high 20s into the low 30s on the highway.

It's not as nimble as the CR-V, but it has a much smoother, and much quieter ride, while still having competent handling. The backseat room is cavernous compared to both the Subie and the Honda. Also, the forester iirc comes with a CVT. The Honda's have much more road and wind noise. The Equinox is best for hauling people around comfortably, the Honda is for nimble handling, and the Subaru is for people who want a nice, peppy wagon, with AWD.

 

[OVERKILL]

Has she looked at an X3? New Explorer?

 

[Trav]

Quote:
I feel sorry for the owner

Yeah me too, its my brother.
Anything you can see and touch has the feeling of quality but dig deeper into it and you find out quick where they cut cost.
The automatic doors for example work great until they fail, when you open that panel it looks like parts from a Mattel toy.
This is his first and last Honda, and after seeing it down and dirty i wont even consider one no matter how good it looks.

The Subaru is opposite, not as refined inside but one tough build little car under the skin. It has quality where it counts, much of it hidden.

 

[cchase]

I'll go against the tide here and recommend the CR-V. In my opinion, it's simpler, has a much nicer interior, and I think they last longer.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Has she looked at an X3? New Explorer?


She should really consider the 2012 Explorer! The more I see of them [a lot of them down here] the more I like them..I spoke to a few people who own them and they really like them.

 

[FirstNissan]

I like the Equinox, but am unsure of long term reliability. Her last car was a chevy, it had quality issues galore, so she has sworn off chevy's for life! Funny, since her father worked for GM for quite some time.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: FirstNissan
I like the Equinox, but am unsure of long term reliability. Her last car was a chevy, it had quality issues galore, so she has sworn off chevy's for life! Funny, since her father worked for GM for quite some time.




Newer ones are much better, the only problem I've heard of so far was the 2011 had a weird and ubituitous issue with the cam phasers for the VVT, that the 2012, and 2010s don't suffer from. The exact same issue Toyota had, I wonder if maybe they were from the same supplier?

Anyway, the Equinoxes are really nice, we have one obviously. If you want the more reliable option, you could look at the 3.0L, which is just a smaller version of the 3.6L HFV6. Comparing a Chevy from even as recent as 4, 5 years ago to the current lineup is akin to comparing a Vega to the Cruze.

 

[jigen]

Even if their quality changed , the OP's wife had a bad past experience. It's hard to go back to a brand (especially something as expensive as a car) when your last experience was an unreliable one.

Back on topic, I would personally chose the Subie because I think I would enjoy the driving experience a little more. Both cars are so good though it really just comes down to personal preference. I'm sure she will favor one over the other.

 

[ClarkB]

Remember, with AWD if you have a unrepairable problem with a tire and the new tire is more than 1/4" different in size, then all four tires need to be replaced. I've heard some places will size the new tire down, effectively shortening the life of the tire. So there is a very real price to be paid with AWD.

The AWD safety factor is something that I don't buy for 99.9% of the driving situations. I have encountered conditions in snow and ice two or three times in my life where I wish I had AWD or 4WD. I can't see needing it in TX that much or if you travel sanely.

Clark

 

[dja4260]

The oil filter location on the Forester! Brilliantly simple.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: dja4260
The oil filter location on the Forester! Brilliantly simple.


Plus a spin-on filter for the transmission, as well as an easy to drain/fill transmission & rear differential.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Having had two Subaru's over the last few years, I'd choose the Forester without question.

Both our Subaru's were/are extremely solid cars, and the AWD got my wife home safely when everything 2WD was stuck or stayed put.

Our house sits on a hill with a long, steep rural driveway. I've watched my wife climb that hill in her Subaru many times during winter storms, with drifts that were pushed aside with her front bumper.

If we were city dwellers where streets are always plowed I might not consider Subaru's AWD. But in a rural area where we get real snow and real drifts, I wouldn't allow my wife to be without it.

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Remember, with AWD if you have a unrepairable problem with a tire and the new tire is more than 1/4" different in size, then all four tires need to be replaced. I've heard some places will size the new tire down, effectively shortening the life of the tire. So there is a very real price to be paid with AWD.


In our 10+ years of Subaru ownership we never had that issue, but even if we did I'd still purchase one regardless. The advantages of AWD over 2WD cars for our situation is well worth it.

In fact, it's been at least 15 or more years since I've had anything more than a valve stem leak in a tire.

 

[JOD]

If you don't need AWD, the CR-V makes more sense to me. You aren't looking at an Odyssey, so I don't really understand the relevance of it's problems to the CR-V, which is well-demonstrated to be one of the most solid and reliable cars ever made. I've completely pulled the interior apart on one and the quality of construction was excellent. The reliability record of the car speaks for itself, despite lots if uninformed rambling on here.

The new FB engine looks promising, but it's still improven at this point. That said, I like the Outback better than both of them.

 

[NateDN10]

While I love our Subaru, I think I'd choose the CR-V, given that the OP is in Texas, where, I assume, snow isn't much of a problem. AWD is absolutely awesome in the snow, but you pay a couple of MPG for it. If you don't need it, why pay for it?

 

[BigBuck]

I would go with the CR-V. I work at Honda. They are one of the more reliable Honda vehicles. Pretty bulletproof. The new ones look nice and have very good visibility compared to the outgoing model. Can't go wrong with the versatility, mpg, and low maintenance of the CR-V.

Most importantly, it will silence the wife! Don't want any "I knew we should have....." moments, which WILL happen if you get something she doesn't pick.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: BigBuck
I would go with the CR-V. I work at Honda. They are one of the more reliable Honda vehicles. Pretty bulletproof. The new ones look nice and have very good visibility compared to the outgoing model. Can't go wrong with the versatility, mpg, and low maintenance of the CR-V.

Most importantly, it will silence the wife! Don't want any "I knew we should have....." moments, which WILL happen if you get something she doesn't pick.


Are you kidding? It will STILL happen.

The CR-V isn't bad, but too much road noise for me. I think honda uses about as much sound deadening material as my Focus did- that is to say, none.

 

[oilmaven]

I thought I'd read that Honda was going to install a new 2.5 liter engine in the CRV? More power, better mpg. A more powerful engine and their 6 speed auto transmission would make the vehicle faster AND get better mileage...can't have too much of each. The current set up is geared pretty much for mpg and is somewhat lacking in oomph at higher speeds as it's limited to 5 gears. Still, I haven't driven one so I can't judge how it performs (which reminds me...when is Toyota introducing a new RAV4? The current model has been around since 2006).

 

[charbaby]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Of the two, I'd go for the forester. Just a nicer overall vehicle Imo.


Though, and this shouldn't be unexpected, I'm going to ask if you've looked at the Equinox? Since you don't get much/any snow in TX, you could get the 2.4L with FWD, and expect halfway decent fuel economy (many with the four are averaging mid 20s, mid to high 20s into the low 30s on the highway.

It's not as nimble as the CR-V, but it has a much smoother, and much quieter ride, while still having competent handling. The backseat room is cavernous compared to both the Subie and the Honda. Also, the forester iirc comes with a CVT. The Honda's have much more road and wind noise. The Equinox is best for hauling people around comfortably, the Honda is for nimble handling, and the Subaru is for people who want a nice, peppy wagon, with AWD.


I was going to ask the same thing. As I am a Honda/Toyota owner for the past 25ish yrs and would have never considered a Chevy in those past years, I really like this new Equinox!

I think the Nox is the most grown up feeling of all the SUV's mentioned hear and I have driven all of'em. The Nox may be a bit out of the price range of the OP but, it's worth a look anyway. GM isn't really discounting the Nox's because they're selling them at a rapid pace. But man, it this thing quiet! Puts my wifes Lexus RX to shame in the quietness catigory. Not that the Lex is loud, it's just not this quiet. This Equinox is quiet and the doors close as well if not better than anything I've tested lately. It's really a hushed ride with very good/tight handling and firm, responsive steering.

I agree that the reliability is still an unknown in the Chevy but, the surveys and road test/comparison test results are in the favor of the Equinox thus far in this new gen of Nox's.

My very good friend has an '11 4 cyl FWD Nox and I like driving it very much. He has always had some nice/above average cars but, this is the best vehicle he has ever owned and certainly worth a look. Time will always tell in any vehicle. Is it a good 15 year vehicle as with all of my Asian vehicles have been in terms of quality/reliability? IDK!

I have sworn off Hondas in recent years(and I have loved my Hondas) but, they're just not that quiet for the money! ATMOF, it gets annoying after awhile. The drivetrains are smooth and the body structures are solid but, where's the insulation Man?

 

[JHZR2]

The CRV is a bit nicer inside than the forester. If the CRV is overpriced to you, then that is a different story.

Personally I'd have a look at the outback wagon, MT base model over either. IMO the CRV took a step backwards in many ways vs the 2011 model, and u less the forester was just redone, it is a bit old.

Look at the outback, IMO. Also have a look at the equinox, which IMO has stepped out as class leader since Honda did things to the CRV that I don't like.