When I bought the Forester, I looked at the same three options I did this time, RAV4, CRV, and Forester. At that time, (1998), the Forester was the easy winner...no contest. This time around, the RAV4 was the easy winner. You guys that are knocking Toyota have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not going to bore you with all the stories of my Freinds' and relative's experience with Toyotas, except my buddy who had ran a 4wd pickup for 300,000 miles, and sold it for $1,800.
Also, for you Toyota "experts" out there, the RAV4 has a timing chain, as should all interference engines, IMNSHO.
I'm not knocking the Forester. I got eight years and nearly a quarter million miles of service out of it. Bottom line is, I drive about 30,000 miles a year, and my livelihood depends on a reliable car. The Forester was simply too expensive to keep running at this point. How many of you have actually attempted to drive 30,000 miles in a year with a vehicle that has 200,000 + miles on it.
While I'm venting.....How about the reliability factor of the early Foresters? Head gaskets, wheel bearings? I feel Subaru should have paid at least a portion of the repair costs on these items. My daughter has a 1997 RAV4, purchased new, with 185,000 miles on it. Only normal maintenance and wear items, no failures. By 185,000, I had replaced two wheel bearings and a set of head gaskets on my Forester.
I'm not saying not to buy a Subaru, only that there are other viable options out there, and not to explore them because of brand loyalty is stupid. If I hadn't started looking around for options in 1998, I'd be driving a (shudder!)Ford.