Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2014 Subaru Forester

13567

Comments

  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 16,789
    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!
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member 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 Member Posts: 16,789
    If they were to bring that to the US market, they'd have to uglify it. :P
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • danielsodanielso Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 19,788
    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 Member Posts: 72,587
    Slow and steady improvement.

    The Tiguan is slow!
  • fandangofandango Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 72,587
    Must be almost no engine noise at that speed.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member 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 Member 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
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Now I'm jealous...
  • itnoviceitnovice Member Posts: 1
    edited April 2013
    Hello everyone,

    I am new to the forum. I look to buy a '14 Subaru Forester 2.5i CVT Limited SUV. The best invoice price I've gotten is $27,050. If you have a better deal please kindly lemme know.

    Thanks.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    edited May 2013
    Didn't know this thread was going so some catchup:

    Compared to '09 XT I traded in for '14 XT, '14's nicely refined and improved in almost every way. Much better rear suspension; banished are pogo, boings, rattles over bumps. Quieter on nearly all roads. No more 4-speed hard shifts and hesitation: new CVT's much smoother. S# mode's kinda gimmicky but S mode makes vehicle more responsive. Better poised during turns; XT has firmer suspension that still soaks up bumps and potholes well. X-Mode definitely improves traction on marginal surfaces. Got 29 mpg for mixed mode trip driving, and nice to know I can use regular fuel (though with 10% power loss.) Doors and entire vehicle feel more solid. Seats kinda hard with little bolstering, but plenty of interior room. Most controls very easy to use save for Nav system's tiny icons (awful voice recognition doesn't help). Trade in was almost $16K for 5+ year old '09 XT and 20K more completed sale: new one doesn't have eyesight nor other new electronic systems (wanted to give Subaru time to work out bugs).

    In general, happy. :) However, once winter comes, the Bridgestone Duelers will get replaced as they have terrible ice traction. :sick:

    FYI, all those journalists yelling for a manual trans on XT forget that Subaru once sold XT with a manual, and hardly anyone bought them. Given that XT's are roughly 5% of Forester sales, that made a manual hard to justify.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    I have been experimenting with my 2014 XT and there is something that was a big positive plus for the automatic. (have not driven automatic since the 70s) and that is that you can always use the paddle shifter at any mode but if you are in auto it will resume D for auto. For example the gimicky S and S# modes and even the I mode if you approach a turn or you are on the slick ice or whatever, you can downshift and the engine break works like a charm it will give you the option to upshift but give it a bit of gas and it is back in Drive. As long your foot is off the gas it will engine break. In the I mode it is more soft in S you will hear the engine and in S# it will throw you in the belt. I'm not using the full manual mode at this point but lots of downshift and occasional upshift in automatic mode.
    You will really have to watch the S# especially when going uphill. If you gun it it will snap your head into the headrest and I was glad I adjusted close enough to my head.
    I suggest try to work the downshift first untill you get used to moving fingers and not leavers on the console. At this point I always shift into S or S# mode at tricky left hand turns or at entry into a highway. After it is done I switch back to the I mode for crusing.
    And yes the voice recognition is trash, but I'm glad I didn't opt for thr GPS because I have one so I have a good and easy radio to deal with.

    Laszlo9
  • buyer157buyer157 Member Posts: 40
    Hi all - Just took a test drive of a 2014 Forester Premium. Was incredibly impressed by the solid, yet agile road feel, interior volume and visibility. I've also driven the CX5, supposedly the class leader in small/mid-sized SUV driving dynamics, and felt the Forester was better.

    Would have probably bought it then and there if the salesman didn't start to try to upsell me every single conceivable option.

    My question- what should I expect to pay OTD for a Premium Forester CVT? I think the standard feature set will suit me just fine. I'd love to hear how buyers on this thread did...please specify any options above the standard Premium trim package you included. I'd be so appreciative of this groups feedback.....and will provide an update for all future readers.
  • jd_24jd_24 Member Posts: 92
    edited May 2013
    The IIHS tested a bunch of small SUVs with a newer small offset crash. Forester is the top pick.
    ABC News
    IIHS News
  • aktennisaktennis Member Posts: 8
    I paid $28,500 for premium. This includes
    1. $400 documentation fee
    2. 7% sale tax
    3. new plate DMV fee
    4. All weather package
    5. Fog light
    6. Dimming rear mirror
    7. cargo tray
    8. Cargo net

    I believe I could save at least $500 if I negotiated a bit more.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Came to share the same thing. Here's another link:

    The Forester, which Subaru redesigned for the 2014 model year, earned Top Safety Pick+ accolades

    Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130516/OEM11/130519922#ixzz2TUWwqqxh

    Note that the Forester has always been on that list. It never once dropped off.

    Eat your heart out, Volvo.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    Yes I believe it.
    My wife just totalled our 2014 XT with about 1800 Miles on it (3 Weeks old )
    The whole front end was sheared off and she just had a bruised wrist from the kickback of the steering wheel. The car did perfectly what it was supposed to do.
    I just ordered the very same but it will take 7 weeks to get it. You know what. I will bloody wait for it. It saved my wife. I wish I could post an image of the car on this page.

    Laszlo
  • proeproe Member Posts: 157
    Sorry to hear that, but glad that your wife was ok. Might tell us what happened?
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    She was on a one way side street coming up to a stop sign. Stopped but on her left the building and parked cars were blocking the view to her left.
    TThe road she had stopped by had no stop and it was bidirectional. After the stop she was creeping out to see what is coming east and west bound (she was heading north) so you look left right and repiate it several times but she was paying attention to an uncoming car from east to clear the intersection when another car clipped her coming from west. Hit the car at the front part of the left wheel/tire which kicked the steering wheel out of her hend and sheared off the whole front end moving the the frames at the breakaway points to a good 5-8 inches. The frames have a sheare area at the front of the towers. She was hit with such a force that the car slid 60 feet and stopped facing east by the sidewalk.
    That is it.
    I wish the page would have the facility to post some photos of it.

    Laszlo9
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    edited May 2013
    I wish the page would have the facility to post some photos of it.

    If you upload the photo to a host site, you can attach the image using ...

    [img src="web link"] NOTE: replace [] with <>
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    edited May 2013
    Sorry to hear about the accident but good the '14XT did its job protecting your wife. :)
    I got the '14 mainly because it's stronger and better at protecting occupants from crashes. The increasing numbers of distracted drivers is my greatest concern. :surprise: Second main reason was the turbo can, at last, use regular gasoline without croaking.

    Ironic that nearly all the Euro luxury brands, save Volvo, do poorly in that small overlap test. :sick:
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    http://foresterlive.com/

    showcases the travels of '14 XT traversing different world locales: German racetracks, Australian and African mountains, deserts, and whatever it encounters. :shades:
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    edited May 2013
    I would not use regular gas in the XT (turbo) models. The level of detonation is very different between the regular and high test. Yes they claim that you can, but who will pay for the valve job.
    If you really want to use regular have the timing set for that. I would never put regular in mine. It will need more regular fuel to do the same job as high test and your saving is really minimal.
    Just another stupid example of gas saving method. Got a rental a Hundai Elantra with about 70 Miles on the odometer. So it is brand new. Driving it around and just could not get why the suspension is so bad on this new car. Took out my tire gauge and guess what. one tire is 49 pounds two of them 48 and one 44.
    They are supposed to be 32 all around. Reason? Better fuel economy. How stupid they can be.
    Take my word You have an XT don't screw it up with regular gas.
  • logtraillogtrail Member Posts: 74
    I have a 2006 L L Bean and have been waiting for Suburu to get a better transmission and a non turbo engine with a bit more hp. So I'm batting .500. The latest Car and Driver compares the 2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring, the Subaru Forester and the 2013Toyota RAV4. Mazda finishes 1st, Toyota 2nd and Forester 3rd. Major complaints: "The CVT tricks your ears into believing the Forester has good throttle response, but the accelerator pedal is about as nuanced as a light switch." .. "it also suffers the vice of over assisted steering." The Forester is the slowest of the three, but does have the largest cargo capacity. Finally, "None of these vehicles has a particularly good navigation and infotainment system, but the Subaru's is clearly the worst of the bunch," says C and D
    And a question that I have. One of the posters here said that he would not put regular fuel in an XT since it would damage the valves. Did the Subaru engineers miss this?? !! I suspect not.
    And what's a warrantee for?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    '14 Subaru XT manual clearly states that regular grade (87 octane) is OK to use, but that it will give less power, possibly less MPG, and greater chance of knocking or pinging. The last can damage an engine :sick: , so if you are a pedal-to-floor driver, probably best to run 93 Octane if you can get it. I'm playing it safe and using Oregon Premium (92) for now.

    Looks like C&D 's the opposite of Consumers Reports this time around. :confuse:
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Looks like C&D 's the opposite of Consumers Reports this time around.

    But Consumer Reports' most negative comment is more concerning to me: "jittery, lost the cushy ride". A friend who took a test drive confirmed the judgment. The 18 inch wheels and lower profile tires on the XT probably will exaggerate this.

    My 2010 XT has for me the perfect balance of ride and handling. A well controlled 4-wheel drift is possible and potholes are not catastrophes.

    I'm waiting for an XT to be available from the dealer who doesn't send a nanny along for a test drive.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    If you still have another car that runs on regular fuel take carefull measurements of mile/gallon, range and cost, run it to empty than fill it up with high test twice. Take the same measurements on the second tank full and see the difference.
    Don't change your driving pattern.
    You will find the difference so minimal that will not worth the possibility of engine issues later on.
    But I would not experiment with the XT. Do it the reverse. The super gas will not hurt the other car but you will get data that will help you.
    If you are to save fuel cost get a Prius or a diesel Jetta or alike.
    Any turbo that is used will use gas. If you are pottering around like I did for the firs 1000Miles it will not use gas, but when you gunn it and the turbo kickes in yes it will but all turbos do.

    Laszlo9
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    Try the XT and you should be the judge. Driving a WRX for a long time I found no issues with the XT's drive and cornering at any speed. Yes it is a box and has some sway but it has higher center of gravity than the nimble WRX.
    Since my XT was totalled after having it for 3 weeks I have driven a Shevy SUV. I returned it after a day and and a half. Got a ford Focus that I drove for 10 blocks and returned it to the rental company that it is to dangerous to drive a thing like that. Got a Hunday Elantra 60 Miles on it. Had it for a week and the ride was like a baby carrige and could not handle 3 people with some luggage at minimal elevation. Finally got a 2013 Imprezza loaner from the dealer (I have to wait for another 7 weeks for an XT) and that one at least has a decent ride but the auto tranny is a lazy one. The XT and this Iprezza both have CVT transmission but they are night and day.

    Laszlo9
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    I had an '09 XT for 5 years before trading to the '14 XT.
    Granted, the older XT's ride was a bit less "jittery", but its rear end pogoed over speed bumps (crash, bounce-bounce-bounce). On one rough road the '09 rear literally danced among the bumps, with many rattles and metallic sounds.

    '14 XT is "road aware"; you'll feel undulations in the road and if road's really wavy, ride can be somewhat jittery. However, when hitting bumps and potholes, the '14 XT does good job soaking up bumps without jarring occupants. As for speed bumps, the '14 XT simply absorbs as much of the bump as it can before going on its merry way without bounding, and very little rattling.
  • pauladkinspauladkins Member Posts: 15
    I am having a really hard time finding a Forester 2.0XT Premium. This seems to the rarest one they are making or should I say not making. Anyone looking for this model?
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    I'm in Canada and your Premium is the Touring here.
    My wife had an accident with our brand new XT (Touring) Premium and the car was totalled, it will take 7-8 weeks to get one. The dealer managed to find one green color on the lot of the factory in Japan. It is rare because it does not have all the bells and whistles except the guts of the new fortester.
    The two ships apperently 10 days late to load the cars.

    Laszlo9
  • pauladkinspauladkins Member Posts: 15
    Hey Lazlo9 how is your wife?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Consumers Union said in a forum post that a Forester XT test isn't in cards for now. Interesting, as the XT was their top rated CUV until '14, when the base Forester took its place.

    Meanwhile, Car and Driver's opinion of the regular Forester CVT gets worse with every review (they pine for the manual trans XT they'll never get __unless__ Subaru decides to bring an STI variant here).
    Then again, does ___any___ car enthusiast have anything good to say about a CVT? :confuse:
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Consumers Union said in a forum post that a Forester XT test isn't in cards for now. Interesting, as the XT was their top rated CUV until '14, when the base Forester took its place.

    I wonder if they possibly were well aware of the head gasket failure issue on the normally aspirated engines and wanted to recommend the ones that did not blow gaskets!

    The previous generation gasket issue makes me ask whether the FA block in the XT is sand cast or die cast.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Subaru changed the Forester's base engine last year, I think. I do not know if the cylinder walls were strengthened or not.

    Given that the new turbo engine does not require premium fuel, while the older one does, I suspect the new FA engine not only has reinforced cylinder walls, but parallel path block cooling. The older turbo engine was series cooled which caused one cylinder to run hotter than the rest. :sick:
    Would appreciate verification from the experts!

    The Outback 6 engine went through a similar cycle (series cooling and premium required, to parallel cooling and premium recommended).
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Sand cast or die cast was a reference to the semi-closed deck or open deck block design...not that the cooling issue is not important. The semi-closed deck design possible with sand casting prevents scrubbing action on the gasket with temperature change.

    Sand cast plus parallel cooling would be having both belt and suspenders. :shades:
  • pacair144pacair144 Member Posts: 3
    Really nice to come across this forum this morning. Was looking to see if the 1500lb tow limitation for the `14 Forester was for real.) Read you all's comments was great. I'm looking for a new vehicle and am kinda down to a Forester or CX-5...so many options in this space these days! Looks like 'buying' has changed alot in the last 10+ years where so much information is out there dealers are now going on +/- invoice and expecting their ~$800
    'destination' fee is what they're guaranteed. Last car was $15K new...looking like this one is going to be $27K (ech!)
  • aktennisaktennis Member Posts: 8
    Go with Subaru forester without question! It is far superior than CX-5 due to 1. The fact that is full time AWD (much better road grip over part time AWD) 2. 8.7 in ground clearance that will handle deeper snow and water! 3. Best safety rating!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles