2002 Subaru Forester S Green Awd Runs And Drives Great No Reserve Nr on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Subaru uses a mime and a toy car to explain why it loves the boxer engine

I will freely admit to struggling with why Subaru continues to stubbornly employ a boxer engine design while so few other automakers do the same. After all, with twice the number of cylinder heads and cams as a traditional inline four-cylinder engine, a boxer four is more complex, more expensive to manufacture and more cumbersome to service with few tangible benefits. Until recently, the company's engines struggled to meet the fuel economy numbers of its competitors while offering no real boon in horsepower or torque. Subaru seems to recognize I'm not the only one scratching my head.
In order to help us non-believers understand what's what, the company has employed a pair of mimes, a toy car and a few clay engines to demonstrate the folly of every other automaker on the planet. Subaru says the boxer offers up a lower center of gravity than either an inline four-cylinder engine or a V6, which I will gladly concede. The company also says the design offers up smoother operation.
I'll offer just two counterpoints here. First, an engine with a low center of gravity is excellent, but when vehicles like the Forester, XV Crosstrek and Outback boast more ground clearance than most mainstream SUVs, that argument flies out the window. Second, anyone who's spent any amount of time behind the wheel of a vehicle equipped with an inline four and then proceeded to move into one propelled by a boxer can tell you the latter has all of the idling manners of a small tractor. Check out the video below to see for yourself.

This or That: 2005 Dodge Ram SRT-10 vs. 2005 Subaru WRX STI [w/poll]

Some cars, due to ultimate desirability, particular rareness, or spectacular performance/prestige eventually become collectible. It's darn near impossible to know which ones will make it into the rarefied stratosphere of collectibility – why is a late 1960s AMC AMX so affordable these days, whereas prices for late '70s Pontiac Trans Ams are soaring? – but there are some useful indicators to keep tabs on. We're not exactly experts on investing, but we do know cars. As such, we've decided to take our non-expertise on one hand, combine it in the other with our knowledge of all things automotive, wad it up, throw it out and ask for your forgiveness. Or something like that. I've challenged Senior Editor Seyth Miersma to choose a car he thinks will become a future collector's item that's not more than 10 years old, and for no more than $25,000. I've done the same, and we vigorously argued for and against each other's picks. I feel good about my choice, but I don't have the best track record in these contests (I've lost three times, won twice, but they've all been pretty close), so, while I'm not going to beg (please vote for me!), I do hope you find my argument convincing. But first, let's hear from Seyth: Miersma: Ten-years old or newer makes this challenging. At that age most vehicles feel like a plain old used car to me, few hit the "classic" button. But the Subaru WRX STI has always been a special car, and the 2005 cutoff year proves to be very attractive for the parameters of our contest. It's rare; with fewer than 5,000 STI models sold that model year. It's probably the best looking WRX STI ever sold in America; narrowly avoiding the dreadful "horse collar" front fascia. And it's got one of the more die-hard car-geek followings out there. For $25,000, you can also still find examples that have reasonable miles, are in good condition, and haven't all been molested by grown-up Initial D wannabes. With the street racers hacking up collectable examples every day, I like my odds for steep appreciation by way of conservation. I couldn't agree more. It really is difficult to predict what cars will catch the eye of collectors, and the WRX STI seems like a pretty good choice. But I think mine is even better, and I can't let him know that I'd love to park just such an STI in my very own garage. And so goes my argument: Korzeniewski: I like your choice as a driver, Seyth. I'm less convinced of its status as a sure-fire collectible.

Subaru Outback Luggage Test | How much cargo space?

I'm reporting to you from my home in Portland, Ore., which is pretty much ground zero for Subaru Outback ownership. They're absolutely everywhere, challenged only by its little Crosstrek brother for new-car ubiquity. A big reason for that is owners (of which I know many) actually take them on outdoorsy weekend adventures. Ground clearance, all-wheel drive, copious space for gear and actually useful roof racks make an actual difference — it's not just for show, as is often the case with crossover ownership.   Well, the ground clearance (8.7 inches) and all-wheel drive (standard) are a given, but just how much space are we talking about in the Outback? The specs say there's 32.5 cubic feet behind the raised back seat, which is comparable to most compact crossovers. The rare ones that run bigger include the Honda CR-V (39.2 cu-ft) and Subaru's own Forester (35.4 without the panoramic sunroof), but remember that much of their volume is up high in the greenhouse since they are taller vehicles. By contrast, the Outback is deeper, which can not only be seen with the back seat raised, but when lowered, it's a few inches longer. If this test involved a trip to Ikea, I'm pretty confident the Outback would do better than those compact SUVs as a result. But, this is about luggage, not boxes of Bjorgorfen parts, so let's pack up the Outback for a hypothetical Pacific Northwest outdoorsy weekend adventure. So here is what you're working with. Note that rubber trunk tray and cargo cover are actually standard on all but the base Outback trim level.  As for that cargo cover ... Upper left: Here it is in place. Duh. Upper right: Like many other vehicles, especially wagons, there's a channel that runs up the D pillar that lets you quickly raise the cover without fully retracting it.  Bottom left: Here's a better look at that channel. Bottom right: Because the back seat reclines, you could end up with a gap between seatback and cover. This little filler piece is attached to a tension rod that easily adjusts by hand.  OK, onto the bags. As usual, I'll start by keeping the cargo cover in place. And as always, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D).