Topic: What car/suv/truc should I get please?

[Noto]

I would be looking for the newest Honda CR-V or Toyota Rav4 your budget will allow you to buy.  You'll likely find one in the 5-6 year old range.  Vehicle such as that will easily be able to last 10 years or more, as long as you keep up with regular maintenance.

Since we're getting "back to the question at hand," oh yeah, definitely a Rav4 or CR-V
...cuz either of those have what the OP asked for:

3- need a high ground clearance for fishing hunting trips , 8 inch or more

The Rav4 is at 6.1", CR-V's 6.7".

Fun fact, the 2018 CR-V has 8.2" of ground clearance, but he's not getting into any AWD trim of 2018 CR-V for $23,000 or less.

...or are you going to tell him that the roads he travels on, which you've never experienced, can be traversed by something with the ground clearance of a Mazda 3?

[sailor723]

Reliability?  Engine issues? 

Here we go again

Subaru engines are not "unreliable".  Stop spreading sh!t you have no knowledge of, FFS.

True, they very reliably need head gaskets.

Quoted for truth 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I would be looking for the newest Honda CR-V or Toyota Rav4 your budget will allow you to buy.  You'll likely find one in the 5-6 year old range.  Vehicle such as that will easily be able to last 10 years or more, as long as you keep up with regular maintenance.

Since we're getting "back to the question at hand," oh yeah, definitely a Rav4 or CR-V
...cuz either of those have what the OP asked for:

3- need a high ground clearance for fishing hunting trips , 8 inch or more

The Rav4 is at 6.1", CR-V's 6.7".

Fun fact, the 2018 CR-V has 8.2" of ground clearance, but he's not getting into any AWD trim of 2018 CR-V for $23,000 or less.

...or are you going to tell him that the roads he travels on, which you've never experienced, can be traversed by something with the ground clearance of a Mazda 3?

Oh give me a break.  While the Forester's ground clearance may be 8.7", you bet your ass there are bits hanging down that are lower than that.  That single number isn't enough to determine a vehicle's capability.  What's more, you think the OP has gone and measured his trail and determined that 8" of ground clearance is the minimum required?  I doubt it.

Is the Forester marginally better off-road than a CR-V or a Rav-4?  Sure, it may be.  I don't think the difference is that big, and honestly, a good driver would be able to take a CR-V places a bad driver couldn't take a Forester.  And Vice Versa.

For the type of roads you would comfortably drive a Forester (or any Subaru for that matter), a CR-V or a Rav-4 should be able to go, too.

It's not like he's buying a JEEP or a pickup truck to do some really gnarly stuff.  Because the Forester certainly isn't my first choice if off-road ability is a main priority.  And when it comes to reliability, fuel economy, interior quality, etc, the CRV and Rav4 have the Forester beat in spades.


Also, aren't you just in a mood to all over everybody today!!!!

[rrocket]

Subaru engines are not "unreliable".  Stop spreading sh!t you have no knowledge of, FFS.

Disagree with that statement.

And I've shopped/bought more cars than you ever will.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Subaru engines are not "unreliable".  Stop spreading sh!t you have no knowledge of, FFS.

Disagree with that statement.

And I've shopped/bought more cars than you ever will.

Considering he's never 'bought' a car, this is definitely true.

[Noto]

Oh give me a break.  While the Forester's ground clearance may be 8.7", you bet your ass there are bits hanging down that are lower than that.  That single number isn't enough to determine a vehicle's capability.  What's more, you think the OP has gone and measured his trail and determined that 8" of ground clearance is the minimum required?  I doubt it.

Is the Forester marginally better off-road than a CR-V or a Rav-4?  Sure, it may be.  I don't think the difference is that big, and honestly, a good driver would be able to take a CR-V places a bad driver couldn't take a Forester.  And Vice Versa.

For the type of roads you would comfortably drive a Forester (or any Subaru for that matter), a CR-V or a Rav-4 should be able to go, too.

It's not like he's buying a JEEP or a pickup truck to do some really gnarly stuff.  Because the Forester certainly isn't my first choice if off-road ability is a main priority.  And when it comes to reliability, fuel economy, interior quality, etc, the CRV and Rav4 have the Forester beat in spades.

Also, aren't you just in a mood to all over everybody today!!!!

^^ called it

...or are you going to tell him that the roads he travels on, which you've never experienced, can be traversed by something with the ground clearance of a Mazda 3?

[Great_Big_Abyss]

Oh give me a break.  While the Forester's ground clearance may be 8.7", you bet your ass there are bits hanging down that are lower than that.  That single number isn't enough to determine a vehicle's capability.  What's more, you think the OP has gone and measured his trail and determined that 8" of ground clearance is the minimum required?  I doubt it.

Is the Forester marginally better off-road than a CR-V or a Rav-4?  Sure, it may be.  I don't think the difference is that big, and honestly, a good driver would be able to take a CR-V places a bad driver couldn't take a Forester.  And Vice Versa.

For the type of roads you would comfortably drive a Forester (or any Subaru for that matter), a CR-V or a Rav-4 should be able to go, too.

It's not like he's buying a JEEP or a pickup truck to do some really gnarly stuff.  Because the Forester certainly isn't my first choice if off-road ability is a main priority.  And when it comes to reliability, fuel economy, interior quality, etc, the CRV and Rav4 have the Forester beat in spades.

Also, aren't you just in a mood to all over everybody today!!!!

^^ called it

...or are you going to tell him that the roads he travels on, which you've never experienced, can be traversed by something with the ground clearance of a Mazda 3?

Clearly you didn't understand what I was trying to say.  Or maybe you are trying to be willfully ignorant today.  Let me break it down for you:

A CR-V, Rav-4, Forester, Rogue, et al. are all in the same class of Light off-roaders.  They all have similar levels off off-road worthiness.  One does not shine above the rest in the same way as a JEEP Wrangler or even a pickup truck with a proper Low-Range.  If a Forester can drive down a certain road, then a CR-V can drive down a certain road.  Got it? 

[Noto]

If a Forester can drive down a certain road, then a CR-V can drive down a certain road.  Got it?

Got what you're saying.

Disagree entirely.

If only there was a competition, call it a festival, whereby vehicles are driven through the mud and a winner is announced...and if only the Forester was invited to play and others, say, the CRV or Rav4 weren't...hmmm.

CX-5 also has >8" of ground clearance, come to think of it, and is rated to tow 2,000 lbs.

[Scaerio]

Subaru engines are not "unreliable".  Stop spreading sh!t you have no knowledge of, FFS.

Disagree with that statement.

And I've shopped/bought more cars than you ever will.

VINDICATED!!!    Thanks Ron. 

PS - Dearest No-San,  I didn't say Subie engines were bad, I was soliciting input based on the kinds of discussions we have often had  on this forum regarding Subaru engine reliability, especially on the older cars...

[Scaerio]

Subaru engines are not "unreliable".  Stop spreading sh!t you have no knowledge of, FFS.

Disagree with that statement.

And I've shopped/bought more cars than you ever will.

Considering he's never 'bought' a car, this is definitely true.

OUCH!!!

[Noto]

PS - Dearest No-San,  I didn't say Subie engines were bad, I was soliciting input based on the kinds of discussions we have often had  on this forum regarding Subaru engine reliability, especially on the older cars...

I find that the internet is awash with concerns over "Subarus are unreliable", etc when in reality, there are issues with high mileage units or oil consumption.  While the problem is "widespread" in that it appears to affect a non-insignificant number of units, realistically not every Subaru purchased will have such problems.  A used buy with service records should show if there are any documented issues of oil consumption, and certain engines were more prone to the HG failure than others.  You can make an educated purchase; but by no means is it a 100% given that any Subaru purchased will suffer from any such malade.

...yet, the only comment that comes out is that Subarus are unreliable.  I disagree.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

PS - Dearest No-San,  I didn't say Subie engines were bad, I was soliciting input based on the kinds of discussions we have often had  on this forum regarding Subaru engine reliability, especially on the older cars...

I find that the internet is awash with concerns over "Subarus are unreliable", etc when in reality, there are issues with high mileage units or oil consumption.  While the problem is "widespread" in that it appears to affect a non-insignificant number of units, realistically not every Subaru purchased will have such problems.  A used buy with service records should show if there are any documented issues of oil consumption, and certain engines were more prone to the HG failure than others.  You can make an educated purchase; but by no means is it a 100% given that any Subaru purchased will suffer from any such malade.

...yet, the only comment that comes out is that Subarus are unreliable.  I disagree.

But that is how reputations of unreliability are created.  I'll use the Ram as an example.  In the 90's and 2000's, Rams had this bad habit of spitting out transmission parts.  Did it happen to every Ram?  No.  It probably only happened to a small percentage of Rams.  But the fact that it happened to SOME Rams meant that Dodge developed a reputation of building unreliable trucks.  Nowadays, they have long since solved their transmission problems in the Ram (while at the same time adding some woes with the 9-Speed).  However, that doesn't stop people like Fobroader from shitting all over Ram because of the perceived reputation derived from their previous transmission woes. 

But that's how reputations work.  A reputation takes a long time to develop, and an equally long time to recover.  So, if Subaru made some bad engines in the last ten years, that reputation is going to linger with them a while longer, until it is absolutely proven that it doesn't happen anymore. 

And as a Subaru slappie, you need to accept this and move on.  Stop trying to convince people that Subaru doesn't deserve the reputation they have.  They may not build unreliable engines anymore, but that doesn't mean that their current reputation isn't unwarranted based on past behavior.

[Fobroader]

PS - Dearest No-San,  I didn't say Subie engines were bad, I was soliciting input based on the kinds of discussions we have often had  on this forum regarding Subaru engine reliability, especially on the older cars...

I find that the internet is awash with concerns over "Subarus are unreliable", etc when in reality, there are issues with high mileage units or oil consumption.  While the problem is "widespread" in that it appears to affect a non-insignificant number of units, realistically not every Subaru purchased will have such problems.  A used buy with service records should show if there are any documented issues of oil consumption, and certain engines were more prone to the HG failure than others.  You can make an educated purchase; but by no means is it a 100% given that any Subaru purchased will suffer from any such malade.

...yet, the only comment that comes out is that Subarus are unreliable.  I disagree.

But that is how reputations of unreliability are created.  I'll use the Ram as an example.  In the 90's and 2000's, Rams had this bad habit of spitting out transmission parts.  Did it happen to every Ram?  No.  It probably only happened to a small percentage of Rams.  But the fact that it happened to SOME Rams meant that Dodge developed a reputation of building unreliable trucks.  Nowadays, they have long since solved their transmission problems in the Ram (while at the same time adding some woes with the 9-Speed).  However, that doesn't stop people like Fobroader from shitting all over Ram because of the perceived reputation derived from their previous transmission woes. 

But that's how reputations work.  A reputation takes a long time to develop, and an equally long time to recover.  So, if Subaru made some bad engines in the last ten years, that reputation is going to linger with them a while longer, until it is absolutely proven that it doesn't happen anymore. 

And as a Subaru slappie, you need to accept this and move on.  Stop trying to convince people that Subaru doesn't deserve the reputation they have.  They may not build unreliable engines anymore, but that doesn't mean that their current reputation isn't unwarranted based on past behavior.

My concern with Ram goes much deeper than the trannies.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Fobroader]

Also Nosan, Subaru has known issues with oil consumption, ring lands and head gaskets, why would you try to deny this??

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Noto]

To me, there's a difference between Subaru's oil consumption or HG failure, and either Audi's 4.2L V8's timing chain catastrophic failure or

the Ram [snip] spitting out transmission parts. 

Many cars are known to have 'some' sort of problem.  In the case of my Mazda, for example, a POS tensioner pulley appears to be a well-known part to fail.  I fixed it for $24 and 4 mins of my own time while still wearing a suit.  I'm not saying Subaru's issues are "nothing", but I don't believe they reach the point of "unreliable".

[Fobroader]

To me, there's a difference between Subaru's oil consumption or HG failure, and either Audi's 4.2L V8's timing chain catastrophic failure or

the Ram [snip] spitting out transmission parts. 

Many cars are known to have 'some' sort of problem.  In the case of my Mazda, for example, a POS tensioner pulley appears to be a well-known part to fail.  I fixed it for $24 and 4 mins of my own time while still wearing a suit.  I'm not saying Subaru's issues are "nothing", but I don't believe they reach the point of "unreliable".

A $24 dollar part you can change in 10 minutes is a bit different than a gigantic engineering flaw that involves cracking the engine block in half

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[sailor723]

To me, there's a difference between Subaru's oil consumption or HG failure, and either Audi's 4.2L V8's timing chain catastrophic failure or

the Ram [snip] spitting out transmission parts. 

Many cars are known to have 'some' sort of problem.  In the case of my Mazda, for example, a POS tensioner pulley appears to be a well-known part to fail.  I fixed it for $24 and 4 mins of my own time while still wearing a suit.  I'm not saying Subaru's issues are "nothing", but I don't believe they reach the point of "unreliable".

A $24 dollar part you can change in 10 minutes is a bit different than a gigantic engineering flaw that involves cracking the engine block in half

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

^This.....a case of apples and oranges

No-san, no matter how skilled or tenacious your arguments that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

No-San, you've deluded yourself. 

I drive a Chrysler van.  I know full well what Chrysler's reputation for reliability is (sh!t!).  However, nothing bad has happened to my van.  It has (so far) been the pinnacle of reliability and practicality.  I don't, however, let the excellent (so far) reliability of my van cloud my judgement of Chrysler's overarching unreliability.

This means that I am a Chrysler owner, not a Chrysler fanboi.

[tenpenny]

PS - Dearest No-San,  I didn't say Subie engines were bad, I was soliciting input based on the kinds of discussions we have often had  on this forum regarding Subaru engine reliability, especially on the older cars...

I find that the internet is awash with concerns over "Subarus are unreliable", etc when in reality, there are issues with high mileage units or oil consumption.  While the problem is "widespread" in that it appears to affect a non-insignificant number of units, realistically not every Subaru purchased will have such problems.  A used buy with service records should show if there are any documented issues of oil consumption, and certain engines were more prone to the HG failure than others.  You can make an educated purchase; but by no means is it a 100% given that any Subaru purchased will suffer from any such malade.

...yet, the only comment that comes out is that Subarus are unreliable.  I disagree.

I confirmed that in my experience, they are very reliable.  But I tend to park on a hill, so there's that.

[Fobroader]

No-San, you've deluded yourself. 

I drive a Chrysler van.  I know full well what Chrysler's reputation for reliability is (sh!t!).  However, nothing bad has happened to my van.  It has (so far) been the pinnacle of reliability and practicality.  I don't, however, let the excellent (so far) reliability of my van cloud my judgement of Chrysler's overarching unreliability.

This means that I am a Chrysler owner, not a Chrysler fanboi.

I love my Montero, has it been flawless, hell to the no, do I still love it, yes. I would never recommend a Mitsubishi outside of a Montero or Evo to anyone.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk