Trading cars with my dad... Forester v Legacy wagon

My dad, who loooooved his 2007 Legacy when he bought it (and still does, really), is ready to trade it in... for a truck. AGAIN. There goes MY vision of him safely transporting my child. Ever.

Anyway, he offered tonight to give it to me if I wanted to trade him the Forester(2006).

The Forester, despite SAB for the rear seats, actually scored higher safety wise than the legacy wagon (sedan was stellar, wagon was only marginal, Forester is very good).

I HATE my Forester. I really, really hate it. I don't like his car that much, but I definitely like it better than mine. I THOUGHT it was safer, as well, but now not so convinced. WWYD? Seats install better in his, from my limited experience. There is WAY more passenger room in the back seat, and the cargo area is bigger. It's more fun to drive, and I can probably get a RF seat to fit better. Mine has more bells and whistles, and I'd be taking a hit financially (basically an even trace even though mine is worth a few grand more). And it would mean that I would be paying off a loan that is in his name versus in mine (which may be a good financial move, less burden on my credit which currently carries my house, all our credit cards, and both our cars). I'd have low profile tires (ick), and only one disc CD v six. And it's black on black... HOT in FL. Not that my dark dark blue is that much better.

WWYD??

The wagon has pretty bad results according to informedforlife.org. - I don't know that I would give that up. What's the reality of you getting another car in say a year or so?

It sounds to me like you'll be trading something you don't like for something you eventually won't like. I'd likely keep the Forester and trade it in myself for something I did like. If I wasn't financially able to do that right now, I'd do it as soon as I was able.

what do you have against low profile tires? and i thought the legacy scored really well for side impact.

okay, i figured it out. don't get me started on IFL.org again. i think that site serves to make people more misinformed than informed. granted, this is my opinion. i know some here love it. but i see this happening all the time.

the legacy wagon scores "poorly" on IFL because they're not counting the IIHS frontal or side impact ratings, or the NHTSA rollover risk. this is because IIHS and NHTSA only did those tests on the sedan, not the wagon. however, the sedan and wagon are based on the same chassis. the frontal impact scores would be identical, and the side impact would likely be very similar, if not identical as well. (it stands to reason, since both the sedan and wagon did equally well in NHTSA tests, there would not be significant difference between the two cars in the IIHS tests).

this is yet another example of how IFL is misleading the public and swaying them against perfectly safe cars because of the quirky way they decide to calculate their scores. this actually annoys me quite a bit.

splash, i can assure you the wagon and sedan versions of the legacy are equally safe (top 5% for 2007 :thumbsup, despite IFL saying otherwise. in fact, the legacy does significantly better than the forester... partially due to a lower center of gravity and therefore a lower rollover risk (maybe due to those icky low profile tires as well ).

EDIT:

this is what i'm talking about: notice the missing test scores in the wagon column. the fact that they are missing drags the IFL risk score up because they default to "average" in IFL's algorithm for their risk scores. if you go back in and do a "customization" and put in the same results as the sedan (which is reasonable, they're the same car), the risk score will go back down to match the sedan's.

lordy, lordy, tell you dad if you don't want his death trap, i'll take it

SPB, thanks for figuring that out. I didn't understand where they were seeing the poor ratings when both safercar.gov and iihs.org had them rated well.

Splash, my opinion is that you should hang onto your forester until you can move away from subarus altoghter, especially if you may ever have another child. There's no point switching to another car you aren't going to love if it's not a big financial improvement. Plus, they just aren't carseat friendly.

crunchierthanthou said:

SPB, thanks for figuring that out. I didn't understand where they were seeing the poor ratings when both safercar.gov and iihs.org had them rated well.

Splash, my opinion is that you should hang onto your forester until you can move away from subarus altoghter, especially if you may ever have another child. There's no point switching to another car you aren't going to love if it's not a big financial improvement. Plus, they just aren't carseat friendly.

Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

even with the ratings being better than I thought, I would hold out for getting something you really like. Plus your car cost more so it will be worth more as a trade (I'm assuming).

Okay, we have a 2002 Forester and my mom has a 2005 Outback wagon (is that what you mean by Legacy? are they still the same, or are they different now?). Anyway I would trade cars with her in a heartbeat. Some have to do with model year, which may not be an issue for you since your Forester is newer. Here is why:

-ROOM! It has just the right amount of space... adults can sit comfortably in the back, RFing seats don't make it impossible to seat a from passenger, etc. And there is more cargo room, we're packed to the gills when we go on trips in our Forester

-LATCH - seats install like butter with LATCH

-Side air bags. 'nuff said.


I really, really love my Subaru, and will always drive one, so I covet the Outback wagon. Given that, if you live in Florida, I could see that there would be cars that would be better (I adore AWD in the winter).

oh this is an interesting thread only because my dream car (at the moment) is a forester. i want one, like really, really.

but are they really terrible for carseat installations? basically, i may have another child in the near future but i only have one in a car seat, atm, and he's front facing now so i can't imagine i'd have too many issues with too many carseats even in my small car. but that's the thing...some of the carseats i'm interested in would seem bigger than my car. anyhow, when he was RF in an infant seat, there were no issues, however when he was RF in his roundabout (a MA wouldn't even fit RF in my backseat) it was dangerous to drive around with a passenger in the front because the seat had to be about as close to the dash as it could possibly get. i kept wanting to believe that subarus (especially the forester) wouldn't pose that same problem, if we do end up having another child. gah!

I just got a RA because I was so sick of wrangling with the BV in that small backseat - the RA fits great in any position (center or outboard), but I'll be back to the RFing BV when DD outgrows the RA RFing. I just need a couple inches more to be comfortable with a big Britax RFing.

My Forester is a few years old, so maybe the new ones have added those magical two inches of rear passenger space.

There is NO room in the back seat, HORRIBLE for a RF seat. I even installed a seat before I bought it, and still bought it... what was I thinking? Oh yeah, I was listening to my dad go on and on about how much HE loved it and how he would take it if it didn't work out for me.... yet when he was buying his and I BEGGED him to take mine off my hands, he didn't. Twerp.
This is his BV installed RF. The front passenger seat was moved up as much as possible. Very uncomfortable for the front passenger but at least far enough from the airbag to be safe. Kinda. There is no way I could have had this seat RF for an infant, and even though I have a perfectly wonderful BV not being used, I know I am likely going to have to buy another convertible for the next baby.


I don't like low profile tires mainly because of the cost of replacing them. And they look dumb, IMO.

I DO like his car better. I liked the outback a lot, but skipped over it because the Forester scored better. So I've got something super safe that I hate owning. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people love them...

I think I'll trade with him for a week (which means cleaning mine out really well... :rollseyes and see what I think. I looked them both up on KBB, and if I got all the options right (probably not), there is only about a grand difference on trade in value, owing likely to the fact that his is a year newer, which will likely dissolve that difference in a year or two. But, I don't want to buy a new car anytime soon, so having one with SAB in the rear when Charlie becomes booster age might prove to be a tipping point. Now that SPB has assured me it's safe . I need to check my dad's interest rate as well... if it's lower than mine, I might come out ahead even though my car is technically worth more. The payoff on them is about the same, but I put a sizeable down payment on it and over pay the balance... I think my dad put nothing down and just pays what is due... so maybe he's got a lower payment. Hey, I can't fight that!

I say if you like your dad's car better, then switch. :shrug-shoulders: A quicker Pay-off date is a plus.

Check the insurance rate too before though, so you know if it will be the same, more, or less to cover it. :thumbsup:

If it helps, I loathe low-pro tires too, especially on non-car vehicles, such as trucks, suvs, crossovers -- so far haven't seen any minivans yet
If you wanted a taller vehicle to go through high water and over speedbumps, why lower the thing? I laugh when I'm behind a large vehicle with a lowered suspension & low-pro tires going over any bump or dip in the road. Which there are plenty of around here. It has to crawl to get anywhere. Owners have made the vehicle almost useless for anything except long flat roads.

as an aside, i think you all have the wrong impression of low-profile tires. there is a time and a place for low-profile tires, and it isn't on trucks and SUVs. but on most regular cars, they are the norm. my car came stock with them as do most new cars, especially ones with even a slightly sport flair. you will find them on every new BMW, audi, acura, etc. and on many "regular" hondas and toyotas and fords and GMs.

i think people in this thread are mostly referring to those who lower their vehicles and go for the *really* low profile (like, 30-series) high-performance tires, which i admit is pretty ridiculous.

a 50-series tires is considered a low-profile tire. i'm willing to bet that many of you have low-profile tires and don't even know it .

and seeing a balloon of a high-profile tire on a car today, well, that would look pretty ridiculous, not to mention it makes a car less stable in emergency maneuvers.

We own a 2003 Forester and a 2001 Legacy wagon. I love the Forester as a vehicle and hate it as a carseat conveyor. The Legacy is far more carseat-friendly (although I'm sure the 2001 is different from the 2007).

chickabiddy said:

(although I'm sure the 2001 is different from the 2007).

Click to expand...

yep, the complete re-design came out in 05 or 06, i think.

thanks for the picture! i guess i would have to RF our marathon if we ever go test drive a forester....or maybe i'll consider the legacy.

i doubt the 07s or 08s are a lot roomier than the 06, but maybe?

if you can fit a RF MA in there and still have the front passenger seat somewhat far away from the airbag, it might still work for me. even the RA in my car RF caused most adults to have their knees actually touching the glove box. SO not safe, and even if i had the option to disable my passenger side airbag, it would still make me nervous.

i don't know...the whole reason i'm pushing for a new car is for the purpose of safely transporting children in carseats so maybe i need to look at some others. lol!

I love the Forester as a vehicle and hate it as a carseat conveyor.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. My BV looked like the picture Splash posted above. I am 5'6", and as a passenger, my knees were exactly 1/2 inch from the glove box. Whenever an adult larger than 5'6" rode as a passenger, or, God forbid, TWO adults as passengers, it was awful. So I bought a Roundabout and I love it, but it is a temporary solution since my DD will outgrow it RFing within the next 6-9 months.


Seriously, for anyone on the fence between the Forester and the Outback wagon, go for the Outback!

Thanks for saving the Legacy wagon's besmirched safety reputation, Southpaw!

southpawboston said:

yep, the complete re-design came out in 05 or 06, i think.

Click to expand...

The Legacy was redesigned in 2005, but Subaru made a modification for 2006 that improved side impact ratings.

I drove a Forester for seven years and have been driving a Legacy wagon for 1.75 years. They have a really different feel to them. The Legacy feels much sportier, and handles more like a car, though I do think the Forester handles really well. The Legacy is also more comfortable for my 6'2" husband. It does, however, have much less ground clearance, though for someone in Florida, that may matter less!

I did not have the installation problems you did in either car, though my older Forester lacked the center hump. LATCH installation outboard is a breeze in the Legacy. When I had a RF MA in behind the driver's seat, DH could still drive the car. Certainly, neither car is terribly spacious, but then, they're not supposed to be very big cars! (That's one of the reasons why I like them, though when we have everyone in the car, it's quite "cozy".)

The interiors of the cars have very similar dimensions. Believe it or not, the Legacy has no more backseat space than the Forester. (I looked up all the specs on both cars when I was buying my Legacy.) It's longer than the Forester, but most of that length comes from the front end. It has a slightly larger cargo floor space, but the overall usable space is not all that different because the boxy shape of the Forester improves the space back there. My dogs have more room lying down in the Legacy, but less room sitting up, if that makes sense. (The darned ceiling tether anchors don't help!)

I've loved both cars. I bought the Legacy over another Forester mostly because of the side impact airbags for rear passengers. But I'm glad I did, because I do really like the sporty feel of the Legacy, and the ground clearance isn't a huge issue for me.

The OEM all-season tires on the Legacy GT (Bridgestone/Potenza RE92s) are terrible in bad weather, especially once they start to lose some tread. If your dad has those on his car, and they've got more than 20K miles on them, you might want to figure on replacing them. (I have Yokohama Avids on mine now, and love them. They were just over $100 each, and have a great treadwear rating.)


Edited to add: Here are the rear seat specs for the 07 Legacy Si and the 07 Forester XT. (I don't know which models you have.)

Legacy:
Rear Shoulder Room: 53.7 in. Rear Hip Room: 52.6 in.
Rear Leg Room: 33.9 in.

Forester:
Rear Shoulder Room: 53.6 in. Rear Hip Room: 51.6 in.
Rear Leg Room: 33.7 in.

I agree that the Legacy feels a little bigger, but the legroom is practically identical. Maybe it's the shape of the front seats that makes RF installation harder in the Forester?

indigoblossom said:

thanks for the picture! i guess i would have to RF our marathon if we ever go test drive a forester....or maybe i'll consider the legacy.

Click to expand...

Subaru has discontinued the Legacy wagon in the United States. Why, I have no idea. But if you're Canadian, you can still get one!

mimieliza said:

Okay, we have a 2002 Forester and my mom has a 2005 Outback wagon (is that what you mean by Legacy? are they still the same, or are they different now?).

Click to expand...

Subaru apparently enjoys producing very confusing model names.

A while back, Subaru made Impreza wagons and Legacy wagons. Each of those had a sportier version (with cladding, etc.) called the Outback. So there were Impreza Outbacks wagons and Legacy Outbacks wagons. (There was also an Outback sedan, based on the Legacy sedan, but they are really uncommon). They eventually dropped the Impreza Outback wagon, meaning that the only Outback wagons left were Legacy versions. That is still the case, but now they are not called Legacy Outbacks anymore, even by Subaru. "Legacy" now refers to the non-Outback sedan and wagon.

In the 2005 redesign (I think), they dropped all the cladding from the Outback wagon. Now Outback and Legacy wagons look almost identical, except that the Outback is several inches taller. (My older daughter enjoys trying to tell the difference in passing cars.) The Outback outsells the Legacy wagon by large margins, so most of the ones you see on the road are Outbacks. And now that the Legacy wagon is gone :crying:, there will be even fewer of them.