[khrisxp]

I'm shopping for a good SUV to get to the trailheads at the moment. Having never owned an SUV and no long term driving experience I have a question - Can a typical soft crossover car e.g. Forester, XC60 or CX5 be expected to handle forest roads without abnormally high damage on suspension parts etc? I do drive a normal sedan right now but its becoming rattly and was diagnosed with some suspension damage recently so thats why I ask. I don't mind having to replace some suspension parts like control arms, ball joints etc about 1~2 times in 100K miles which I'd consider within normal wear and tear. I know every car is different but at least I should not be drowning in repair bills "typically" assuming I drive at sane speeds down the rough roads right? Hope question is not too vague. Thanks! FYI ... I go hiking about once a week so typically about 52 rough road trips per year on average which is probably quite a bit more than most people. I don't do any real off-roading ... just the typical forest roads with usual pot-holes and washboarding etc and winter snow/ice on paved roads.

[Ski]

recent thread on this subject you might want to skim through

[khrisxp]

Oh thanks! I didn't notice that section.

[christensent]

Since this is a slightly different question, a direct answer to it: Yes, a typical SUV will handle forest roads without damage. Actually, almost any car will handle forest roads without damage. Cars are designed to hit bumps, it's not going to suddenly break. You'd have to hit a pothole real fast to actually break a car. Worst that'll generally happen is blowing out a tire, which can happen on any vehicle and you can also put good tires on any vehicle. No doubt it'll wearing out bushings and shocks faster (that's just a fact of life), but it should be reasonable in almost all modern vehicles. I'm sure there are exceptions to this where some cars are really built remarkably poorly and should not be used on forest roads, but it's uncommon and not the norm in car design. Regardless of what the vehicle is, you obviously really want to avoid hitting potholes with speed.

[khrisxp]

Awesome! Good to hear. Thanks!

[thunderhead]

Yes, a Forester will handle almost any dirt/snowy/icy road. It is tough, reliable, and has better ground clearance than most vehicles. Anything that stops a Subaru forester is not going to let anything else short of a dedicated/lifted offroad vehicle pass either. And most of those offroaders come with major reliability downgrades. Of course, most forest roads are good enough that you don't need even Forester abilities, especially in summer. (Sedans like to get stuck in snowy parking lots).

[MesiJezi]

My wife and I have a RAV 4 from 2000. We've taken it just about everywhere and haven't been able to get it stuck yet. It's a beast in the snow and ice. I'm sure it's pretty similar to a forester... might have slightly better ground clearance. Also, it's been incredibly trouble free and we've almost got 200,000 miles on it now.

[Foist]

Incorrect (at least in recent models). The RAV4 does not have better ground clearance than the Forester. It barely has better ground clearance than a typical sedan. When I was buying my 2014 model (I'm assuming it hasn't changed much), the Forester, CX-5 and Nissan Rogue were the only crossover SUVs (non-luxury) with significantly higher ground clearance than a typical sedan. They all had about 8 inches whereas the RAV4 and the CRV had about 5 inches. So I eliminated the RAV4 and CRV immediately (which was unfortunate because I otherwise liked the RAV4). I eliminated the Nissan because it had horrible reliability ratings at the time. So it came down to the Subaru and Mazda. I ended up getting the CX-5 and I'm very happy with my choice. I've been able to really continually test the two because my parents live in town and bought a Forester the same year, and I've driven it a bunch of times. For some reason everyone in the NW loves Subarus but I absolutely hate them. Just miserable to drive. Mediocre handling, jittery ride, a jumpy accelerator without actually having better acceleration, a weird 3-second delay after switching from reverse to drive, and an atrocious sound system and electronics, and uncomfortable seats. The CX5 meanwhile is a joy to drive (assuming you get at least the Touring trim with the 2.5 liter engine). The CX5 also allows the rear middle seat to flip down by itself, which allows for storage of long skis or other long stuff in the back even with 2 kids in the back seat; it's the only car in the class with this feature, last I checked. It has handled some of the roughest roads out there without incident, including the notorious road to Twin Lakes / Winchester Mtn.

[Randito]

More and more recent vehicles contain features to improve aerodynamics and mileage that may not work so well on rough dirt/gravel roads. The biggest challenge is creek crossings where the culvert has failed and the road bed has been eroded by water. Cars with airdams and various other undercarriage features will have lower clearance and scraping is possible. The simplest thing to do is to drive more slowly -- crawling along if needed. The nice thing about having a SUV is the greater clearance -- this allows you to hit potholes and such less risk of "bottoming out" -- one thing this facilitates is driving on dirt roads fast enough to "smooth out" washboards and potholes -- driving at those speeds on a low clearance vehicle tends to result in bottom scraping. Note that almost all USFS dirt roads have an (unposted) speed limit of 25 MPH. Some of the better roads might have posted limit of 35 -- but if there is no sign, it's best to assume the limit is 25mph. Not that there are really any rangers out there enforcing any speed limits. The main thing is not over driving your visibility and stopping distance -- on a winding road safe speeds might be considerably less than 25mph -- coming around a curve you never know with there will be another car, a deer or a fallen tree across the road. You always want to have your stopping distance be less than what you can see. I drove my 1998 Honda CRV for many dirt road miles without damage to the suspension -- hitting a lot of chuckholes and such -- never any suspension problems -- then my then 19yo son hit a curb and bent the rim of the driver's side front wheel -- that also damaged the link arm and the strut. According to him "I wasn't going that fast" -- the mechanic said: "had to have been at least 35mph"

[Cyclopath]

I'll second what Randy said about slowing down. I've done nasty roads in a sedan, and some bad ones in a Honda del Sol. I pulled over to let everyone by in the Honda. Any TH I've ever gone to was a breeze in my Forester, and I can put a size 58 bike in the back without taking the wheels off. Or XC skis.

[wakerobin]

We just did some pretty gnarly dirt roads in eastern Montana in our 2010 Forester, no problems (okay maybe some paint problems from really narrow tracks.) 2600-ish total miles on the trip. We have taken it all over, even accidentally ended up on the jeep road down near Government Meadows, where I'm pretty sure we were three wheelin'. Ours was bought used, formerly a rental car in Hawaii so it has no bells or whistles, no after market parts, etc. I can get 26-28 mpg on the highway. And I trust it. I think that is the big thing about Subarus and Subaru owners, is the amount of trust we have in our cars. You can beat the sh$t out of them and they still go, go, go.

[Mikey]

I presently have a 2002 Toyota Tacoma TRD 4x4 V6 which has good clearance, handles nicely, and is the best smaller vehicle for USFS and logging roads I have ever owned. I have about 275,000 miles on my Toyota Tacoma. If I ever have to replace it, I would for sure look at getting another first generation Toyota Tacoma (2000-2004 model). I have owned a 1966 3/4 ton GMC 4x4 pickup and now have a 1999 Chev 2500 (3/4 ton) pickup but that relatively small Toyota Tacoma is my "go to" vehicle. I see that the 2000-2004 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 prices on Craigs list are in the $12,000-15,000 range.

[InFlight]

Honestly I've seen just about every type of car, truck, minivan, and SUV at remote trailheads except Luxury SUVs (those are just for shopping malls). I normally take our Jeep Grand Cherokee to trailheads. Like trucks, the much larger size tires, 31.5" inch diameter, (75 series on 18 inch Rim) perform better (less reaction) on rutted and pot holed gravel "roads". The Forster has larger than average tires, 25.6" diameter (60 series on 16 inch rim). So it's not a bad choice either. With patience and slower speeds, you could really get almost any regular car up to a trail head. Excessive ground clearance & four wheel drive isn't really needed; your not crawling over rocks or trees.

[nickmtn]

I will second the Mazda CX5. Haven't run into anything it can't handle yet, but I haven't done a lot of winter forest road driving. No issues so far after 3 years and it is a joy to drive. I got the 2.5 L AWD - good mileage for a crossover, I usually get between 29 - 32.

[Schenk]

I have 2 Ford 4 x 4 vehicles I am happy with but for trail heads all you need is a '78 Toyota Corolla Wagon with good tires. The 2TC motor can darn near be rebuilt in a parking lot if something goes wrong.