The first addition to the Forester was supposed to be a mat or tray for the cargo area. The perfect light grey carpet would surely lose some of it’s appeal with chain lube smeared all over it. After an extensive search, I found no rubber cargo mats for a ’99 Forester anywhere in Australia. Mats from the US are available, but shipping is as ridiculous as you might expect. What to do?

I found some bulk rubber mat at the local hardware store, but the two square meters would have cost $60-100 AU. I made a cardboard template for the tray, and I liked it so much I covered it with black duct tape. So, with left over cardboard plus $9 AU of black duct tape and I now have a mat.

It has creases so that the floor compartments can be accessed, and even cut-outs for the handles and anchor points. So far the mat is working well. We will have to wait and see how long it lasts.

The Rocky Mounts were removed from the Impreza before we left, and they finally arrived late last week. They fit pretty well on the Forester factory Subaru rack, but longer hardware was needed to clear the larger crossbars. Maybe when I finish rebuilding the bikes I’ll have something to put on it.

Ok, I’m back. Now coming to you from the southern hemisphere, here are more projects and random thoughts. A while ago I mentioned that we were going to need a car with the steering wheel on the other side. Well, we now have one.

This is a 1999 Subaru Forester Limited. The first generation Forester, which this is, has always been my favorite. It is not the mini-SUV that the later generations became, but it is larger inside than the Impreza wagon on which it is based.

As an Australian model, this Forester has a 2.0L with 92kW of power and 184Nm of torque (123hp and 135ft/lbs) and a four speed automatic tranny. While the choice of transmission isn’t my favorite, it does have something the manual lacks: the ‘Power’ button. It is much more impressive if I don’t describe what it actually does, so we will just leave it at that.

Aside from the button, the Australian and Saudi Arabian model Foresters received auto-leveling suspension that sits a full 10mm higher than the Foresters found in the rest of the world. This 10mm, or slightly less that 3/4 of an inch, will surely transform an otherwise pedestrian car into a rock-crawling monster.

Anyway, this particular Forester has only 73,000 km (45,000 miles), and is nearly spotless inside and out. Not bad for a 10 year old car. The only non-stock equipment are the alloy wheels, which found there way off of a turbo Forester GT and on to our lowly non-turbo. The 16″ alloys not only look good, but they also have the added benefit of (probably) increasing rotating mass and emphasizing the distinct lack of power produced by the 2.0L motor. Not that this is bad, I’m quite fond of slow, boxy cars. The Forester fits in nicely with several of my past cars like the ’87 Vanagon, ‘83.5 Subaru-powered Vanagon and the ’61 bus. While the Forester is slow, I’m pretty sure it could take all but the ‘83.5 Vanagon with it’s comparatively massive 2.2L Subaru motor.

Did you notice that blue and silver basket on the seat? That would be a gift basket from the dealer, Eblens Subaru in Glenelg, SA. This is the first time I’ve received wine with a used car. So far we have been very happy with the car and the wine.

We recently sold our 2003 Accord. While this wasn’t the best time to be selling a car, we didn’t need this one anymore, and soon one with the steering wheel on the other side will be a lot more useful. Anyway, the depreciation on the Accord seemed a little high to me, so I compared it to some of the other cars we were considering at the time.

It was July 2006, gas was around $3.00 a gallon and we were looking for a new car. The Honda Civic and Fit were on the list, but due to high fuel costs and their recent release, both were quite popular and hard to find. Aside from these two, we were also looking at 4-cylinder Accords. The 4-cylinder Accord with an automatic was surprisingly shockingly lethargic, so we drove a V6. And, that is how we went from considering a 109 hp Fit to buying a 240 hp Accord V6.

Now it is three years later. How would we have done with the Fit or a Civic? Well, I took the rough sale price of the Accord and compared it to the other cars we considered. The current value of the other cars was determined using the Kelly Blue Book value with the mileage from the Accord and an average of the ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ conditions. Here are the results:

Honda Depreciation, 2006-2009 (USD)

It appears as though the Fit would have been the best purchase as it had the smallest initial purchase price and the least amount of depreciation. The Civic followed the Fit, and then our Accord and finally the then-new Accord. One caveat is that our Accord was purchased as a ‘Certified Used’ car and was on the high end of what it should have cost in 2006. Was paying for a certified car a good idea? Maybe. While the Accord had exactly zero problems during the three years we owned it, I would have expected the same from a lowly un-certified Accord.

What is my conclusion? I’m not sure. It is clear that the then-new Accord would have been the most expensive to own, and the 2003 we bought was a better buy. The comparison between the Accord and the Civic and Fit is a bit murky. Objectively, the Fit would certainly have been the cheapest to own. While I’ve read good things about the Fit Sport with a manual transmission, something about an automatic and 109 hp does not sound appealing. Having suffered an automatic transmission these last three years, I am glad we had the V6 instead of the four-cylinder options. I suppose ones tolerance of automatic transmissions would determine if that extra $3-6k of depreciation was worth it.

As luck would have it, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently compared the Accord and Fit. While thier creiteria are a little different, they are of the opinion that the Accord is the right choice.