Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2014 Subaru Forester

1246711

Comments

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    All I can say about the exterior is.... YUCK!!!! I wasn't impressed when looking at the photos online, but I could have lived the rest of my life with the misguided illusion I formed from looking at them as compared to seeing the real thing (and having that blissful ignorance torn away). I'm so glad I have a 2010, and definitely NOT replacing it with a 2014-18(?) model. I'm not sure I would even consider a diesel variant wrapped in this skin (and that's saying a lot). I don't know why Subaru thinks ugly is a requirement for so much of their current lineup. It's like they feel compelled to cycle back and forth between ugly and attractive with each generation.

    This car was a base model in steel silver, and I see that they went back to the painted steel wheels of last decade versus the basic steely with hubcab they used on the 2009-13. I don't mind those; I use a set (nearly - from an '07 Forester) just like them for my winter wheels. I like the even more increased interior passenger space. The dash layout is a blocky step backward from last gen, but otherwise the inside looked neat, spacious, and functional, which are all good qualities for an interior.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The previous generation looked a little better IMHO, but people are lining up to buy these because of the big back seat and the MPG.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    I'm not in the "yuck" camp, but more in the "blah". This new one has lost its character (small, nimble, AWD) and gone mainstream. It's hard to tell it from the other dozen small SUV's on the road.

    So, the XV continues to look like the next replacement for my '03 Forester.

    John
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    I think I could be in the "blah" camp if I didn't have a 2010. Going from an '03 to a '14 is blah, but then the '03 wasn't a looker itself (but definitely in the smaller/nimbler category!). The Gen3 is just so sleek and sculpted, it makes the '14 look like a blocky, chunky mess. FWIW, the gen3 also has massive passenger space gains over the '03, but more body roll than any other version (including g4). Not bad, mind you, but noticeably more.

    I guess I was just shocked at how repulsive it looked in person to me, as the photos don't give me that impression. The fail is in the details on this one. In contrast, I think the Impreza looks awful in photos (particularly the back end), but don't mind it at all in person. The XV is a visual improvement over the Impreza, as it looks far better balanced given the "fat booty" body style of the Impreza.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,475
    edited April 2013
    I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like the looks of Gen 3 Forester. The back is nice, but I don't care for the front, especially the side view; has a big honker (nose).

    I also like the looks of the Impreza Sport over the XV. The front fascia of the XV with the integrated fog lights is nicer than the Impreza with "tacked on" fog lights, but I don't care for the rear fascia or the "aftermarket" wheel arch moldings. And the Sport wheels are way better looking than the XV wheels. But, I would like another 1.5" more ground clearance on my Impreza Sport.

    P.S. My Impreza Sport doesn't have a fat a.., it's full figured. ;)
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    edited April 2013
    it's full figured.

    Hah! Touche.

    With a little more ground clearance, the Impreza would look better balanced even without the extra cladding treatment of the XV.

    For the Forester, I think my biggest issues with gen4 are the buggy, protruding lights (front and rear) on it, as well as the flat, uninspired sheet metal on the sides. There's just no life to it. Heck, despite the overall unappealing proportions of the gen1 (98-02, IIRC?), even that car had more life to its shape than the new one.

    FWIW, my wife doesn't really like the "nose" on our car when viewed directly from the side either. She says it reminds her of a big shoe. :P

    Everything being equal, if I had to pick a (non-performance oriented) Subaru product to buy tomorrow, it would be a manual trans Impreza/XV.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited April 2013
    doesn't like the looks of Gen 3 Forester

    OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

    Kidding. :shades:

    I think the Gen 4 can be a big shocking, but my guess is it will age well. They didn't want to play it too safe.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    edited April 2013
    I'm trying to imagine my 3100 lb '03 Forester with the '14 drivetrain. OMG, that kind of power AND 35 mpg? I'm all over it.

    But, with the '03's noisy frameless front windows, I'm ready for a new car.

    John
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Posts: 36
    edited April 2013
    Well some likes it chunky some skinny. If all would care for blonds what would happen to the brunettes.
    I had a 98 Outback sport 5 speed. Loved the shape the space, road clearence but missed a good turbo on it. Then I got a 2007 WRX, again it got it all but the space. Power, comfort for two people, speed and vicious acceleration. Loved it. From 2008 the WRX looked like any other car on the road with silly light all around. No character at all.
    I would never looked at the Forester because it looked like a low slung Jeep with a different grille. A box made of lego. It was missing the Subarus bad boy look.
    I picked this time the 2014 Turbo Forester because it is different from the others by its look. It has a good suspension to match the power and the 2.0 L Turbo engine from the WRX. Yes it is autiomatic but you can over ride with the paddles at ANY mode. two sport mode and the X-drive that actually works. It can take off like a rocket with no effort. Downshift without a glitch with the paddles in normal auto but when you gun it just start pushing seamlesly all the way up. Of course in manual you will "change" the gears. Today I drove it first time in a snow and ice storm and barely used the brakes because I was able to downshift to about 5-7 Ml/Hr speed. The all wheel drive with the dynamics control is almost scary how sure footed it is. It definitely beats most cars on the road. On the negative side I hate the dozens of lights and the multitude of silly displays inside. It is like a bloody X-mas tree . But today all cars are like that.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They're heavier but competitors weigh even more.
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    edited April 2013
    so pudginess is ok, as long as everyone else is more pudgy. I get it. But I'm still not satisfied with the mission creep of the Forester over the years. We are looking at $4 a gallon for a long time to come, and Subaru should be doing a bit better. We own the '12 Impreza hatch, and that is an impressive car when compared to the '03 Forester. That's a major improvement in the base car, and I'd like to see more of the same from the others.

    John
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's a sign of the times. Roofs have to be strong enough to withstand the weight of Deleware on the roof, 75 air bags mandatory, emissions must be clean as a whistle, crumple zones big enough to not injure a jaywalker, etc.

    Also, our 09 is a lot bigger than our 98 was, so this 14 model would be enormous next to the original.

    Honestly, I think the XV has taken the slot left vacant as the Forester moved up. For sure it has more passenger room, though perhaps not quite as much cargo space, as my 98 Forester.

    That begs the question - is there room for something sub-Impreza?
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Posts: 1,640
    I think you are right, the Gen1-2 Forester would be directly competing with the current Impreza hatch or XV. That wouldn't make sense.

    On the other hand, the current Forester is also taking the place of the early Tribeca. Perhaps the next offering on the Forester will be a 7 seater.

    Sub-Impreza? I don't think Subaru could stay in the $16-17k price range, which is what they would need to compete against the Versas/Focusses etc.

    John
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, and they'd probably have to make it a cheap car and build it in Mexico or something.

    I certainly don't want to see them rebadge a Yaris, either. Must be Subaru DNA.

    Length is 175.2" for the XV, sure enough, I recall the 98 was EXACTLY the same length!

    Wow, I doubt that's a coincidence. I wonder if that's a size limit for taxes in some part of Japan.

    Funny!
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Posts: 36
    I live in Canada and the fuel is and always has been more expensive than down south.
    Yes we want a car with power, good pick up, lots of space and use a gallon for 500 Miles. If it looks butch and pretty at the same time that will help.
    Well it does not exist especially the price range we are howering around.
    We have to take the trade off and in my book I will trade looks for safety and performance. And the fact that I can drive the bloody thing in the worst weather when all will hide.
    If you are concern about fuel cost than look at the Toyota prius or the Smart car. There you get fuel economy but nothing else. It is a trade off.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    edited April 2013
    Yes, it sure is a trade off. I like most of the changes to the '14, just not the aesthetic (if you can even call them that) ones.

    Looking at it, it is negligibly larger (if at all) than the last gen. It would take a LOT of growing to turn that model in to a 7-seater!
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The Exiga isn't much bigger, and it seats 7.

    For the US market, though, even the Exiga would have to grow a tad.

    image

    If the embedded image doesn't show, here's the URL:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i7AxWJTXSJI/S5drv9MEjvI/AAAAAAAAATA/pppuf87qyLA/s400/S- ubaru+Exiga2.jpg
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    If they were to bring that to the US market, they'd have to uglify it. :P
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • danielsodanielso Posts: 1
    It's been about two weeks now and i already have 1000+ miles on it -- my commute is about 120 miles a day :(

    Anyways.

    I test drove 3: the 2.5i base manual, 2.5i premium CVT and the 2.0 XT touring. I was actually afraid to test drive the XT because I was afraid I would fall in love with it. But though I really really loved the test drive (the dealer just gave me the keys and let me drive it alone haha) I just couldn't imagine myself driving that fast. And since the turbo kicks in late, my driving habits prevented me from really feeling the full brunt of the speed.

    The 2.5i manual was a TON of fun. I really love stick cars and I accordingly, I loved everything about the manual forester. I'm used to soft clutches like those of mazdas so those subaru clutch felt right at home. The gears shifted smoothly and the car was so responsive. Downshifting and all that fun stuff. I honestly found myself enjoying the manual more than the XT, but im sure that's a sentiment that most will not agree with.

    But ultimately, I bought the CVT. I'm about to get married and I wanted to get a car my future wife could drive. And stuff. So... yeah. It's a good car. The CVT does whine a bit, annoyingly, and the mileage really isn't all that great if you drive normally at 70mph on the freeway, since it kinda struggles to get there. But I love the car. It's big, sturdy, the subaru blue is so pretty.

    Wish I had gotten the manual though haha. I still don't get how the CVT gets better gas mileage than the manual -- I call shenanigans by the EPA.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    In your situation I taught my wife to drive stick! :shades:

    Even though she drives an automatic now at least she knows how.
  • aktennisaktennis Posts: 8
    Driving my new forester premium 2.5i has been a great experience. I drove a few times between NJ and Boston, about 260 miles each way. The roads are hilly and winding. I can drive at 75 mph on pretty sharp turns and feel pretty stable. It also has decent power to climb hills to my surprise. The car is pretty quite except there is noticeable wind noise especially after you pull the sunroof sliding door back. Due to the hilly and winding roads I drove, I got average 26.5-27 mpg each time. I think it is quite good for SUV of this size. The power seat is excellent but the cruise control buttons are not so good. The noise from CVT during acceleration is not bad at all. Anyway, Forester in my view is definitely a better SUV than Toyota RAV 4 due to its capability.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Posts: 36
    The way it gets better milage is that the computer will calculate every detail requiered on top it is hooked up to the tranny and the all wheel drive as well. In the manual you still have the same viscous system all drive and you control throttle response and not the computer. There is where you burn fuel. The auto espcially if you don't have manual setting (paddle shifter) is just pussyfooting. There is the whine that you hear I guess comes from.
    I just sold an 07 WRX and it was an instatenious bomb taking off. Litterally no turbo lag. Now I got the Forester XT the one without the GPS (I'm in Canada and the naming is different here). This one has a different CVT which is from the Legacy and a couple of guys were thinking that it is from the Legcy or Forester's Australian diesel version to be able to handle the torque. If I put my car in Sport or Sport Sharp it moves. Not like the WRX of course there is quite weight difference. I'm missing the roar of the boxer at shifts. But in Sport Sharp in full auto or manual you got your head snap back to the head rest. To me the XT worth the difference.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,699
    edited April 2013
    Interesting comparison of performance specs over the years. Not surprising that the new models are superior, not only in terms of acceleration, but also better gas mileage.

    http://wot.motortrend.com/by-the-numbers-1997-2014-subaru-forester-355891.html

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Slow and steady improvement.

    The Tiguan is slow!
  • fandangofandango Posts: 18
    I stopped by the dealer last night on the way home and took a 2014 Premium manual transmission model for a test drive.

    The dealer let me go alone, and I took a rural route that covered about 12 miles, about half twisty and hilly with patchy roads and about half freeway.

    By way of background, I normally drive a 2007 Impreza 2.5i manual, and my daughter has a 2010 base model Forester with a manual transmission, which I've driven, so I know the brand.

    The new Forester handles terrifically on the rough, curvy roads. For what it is, an SUV, I was very impressed at the controlled ride. The suspension was firm enough not to roll excessively in the corners, but it still absorbed the bumps, rough pavement and potholes very well.

    The gear ratios are very well spaced. Working the gears through the hills and curves was a pleasure, and there weren't any obvious gaps. On the freeway at 70 mph in 5th gear, the tachometer is at about 3,000 rpms. In 6th gear at 70 mph, the tach is about 2,500. That means the 6th gear will be very usable. (I have a Nissan Frontier in which the 6th gear is so high it hardly ever gets used.)

    Note that this is likely where the CVT transmission racks up the better mileage. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that when cruising on flat or downhill stretches it can drop the rpms down closer to 2,000.

    Wind noise was surprisingly quiet. For an inexpensive small SUV, the cabin was relatively quiet, quieter than my Impreza and also quieter than my daughter's 2010 Forester.

    The seats were very comfortable for the short time I was driving.

    My only complaint is with the radio. I turned it on to a station that should have come in very clear in that area, and it sounded like there was bad reception. I know the radio in my Impreza is pretty lousy, and it looks like Subaru is carrying on that tradition. :(
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sounds good.

    The stereos have been weak since....forever?

    I say it is time for a full tech reboot, maybe even use a version of Entune.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Posts: 36
    I got a 2014 XT with the CVT At 70Ml/Hr the tach is around 1900-2000.
    I had 3 Subaru's but no problem with the radio. Even this one with the little stubby one works well. My WRX had the antenna in the rear window glass and was still OK. I would look into the antenna. There might be a way to add a signal booster to it. Yes they are very quiet and what is uncanny that there is no vibration from the engine at all. At idle is like you are sitting in a limo.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Must be almost no engine noise at that speed.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Posts: 36
    At 1900 barely any. Actually I'm missing the roar of the WRX even though the XT has the new WRX engine and turbo. If I put it in Sport Sharp mode than I get the sound.
  • smokey100smokey100 Posts: 26
    laszlo9,

    Have you been recording your mpg? I'm interested in knowing how the turbo does. It looks like, according to reports on Fuelly, that the 2.5 is getting about 27 mpg so far.

    Smokey100
Sign In or Register to comment.