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

2014 Subaru Forester

24567

Comments

  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    I know what you mean, John. They did that to me with the Outback. I had three of those, then switched to a Forester in 2010 because I just couldn't stomach what they did to the Outback model.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the passenger space in the newer cars (and don't miss the lack of it at all in the previous Forester or Outback, especially the rear seat room), but they gave up so much when they changed them - much of which didn't have to be given up at all (such as handling characteristics).
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • smokey100smokey100 Member Posts: 26
    The Forester has the same navigation/radio system as the BRZ. Edmunds describes it in their long-term road test of the BRZ. They think it's as bad as I do. Edmunds BRZ Long-Term Road Test
  • once_for_allonce_for_all Member Posts: 1,640
    OT, but I'd take the bigger Outback in a Baja package. That would be my dream vehicle.

    John
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    I agree. I'm happy that I picked the one without the navigation system. The car runs very well and I have a normal radio. My existing Garmin does a good jub to get me where I want to go. If there would be serious equipment or power difference than you might need to think. This way you can avoid headaches and for 3-4 hundred bucks you can get a super Sat-Nav unit.
    I already pulled some wires and had the GPS fixed that anyone looks at it thinks it is built in.
    If you want I can take a shot at it.

    Laszlo
  • smokey100smokey100 Member Posts: 26
    laslo9,

    Sure, take a shot. I'd like to see how it turned out.

    BTW, what kind of mileage are you getting?

    Smokey100
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    edited March 2013
    Hey Smokey

    As for milage I'm not sure yet. I got about 300 miles on the machine. That is peacefull city driving and a couple of highway spurts up to about 75Ml/Hr. It is the break in period. One thing I know is that what i do and the way i drive the car is far from my normal driving so it doesn't even count. With my WRX on a 340 Mile run I could have $11.00 difference driving at 75 Ml/Hr or 90 Ml/hr. I will be going to a run next Sunday wich is about 250 miles there and back, after that i can give you a more accurate figure.
    After a 1000 Miles will have an oil change then will be a bit of pushing.
    You can download the images from the server I have posted on. Here is the link;
    https://www.rapidshare.com/files/1832616218/2014 Forester.zip

    I was pulling the power from the center console storage box to the GPS, and the second wire is the AUX audio In from the GPS to the radio.
    Hope it is clear enough.

    Laszlo
  • albert72albert72 Member Posts: 200
    Laszlo,

    Was wondering if you are noticing any jerky motions when you are decelerating? I had heard this is one of the properties of the Subaru CVT transmission.

    I know you are still in the engine break in but do you have any impressions as to low end torque?

    Thanks
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    Hi Smokey

    CVT has been around since the 1950s. Invented by a guy nam Doorne. I think he was from Holland. See the search page:http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=7&gs_id=io&xhr=t&q=DAF+- cvt&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=DAF+cvt&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.- 2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.aWM&fp=a79852190abe30d9&biw=1680&bih=966
    Why I put it here bacause it is easier to relate to the mechanics if you know how they work.
    Answer to your question is no, I feel no jerkiness at all. The only time there is some when you manually down shift. Unless you are accostumed to drive standard you will downshift to fast and might even accelarate since you don't work 3 pedals. To my knowledge the american produced CVT's had some serioues issues (Ford GM etc) and multiple recalls. My point is that CVT is not new especially in Europe and Japan.
    As far as I know the Forester Turbo for 2014 got the Legacy's tranny and reason was because of its capacity annd size could handle the torque of the turbo and it is using steel chains as drive belts.
    About the low end torque? I have tried some hills and had no problem. I haven't even switched it into sport mode yet.

    Laszlo
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    CVTs go back a little further in time than the 1950s. You can actually thank Leonardo Da Vinci for the idea!

    http://www.odec.ca/projects/2007/viva7s2/cvts2.htm

    Bob
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    As far as I know the Forester Turbo for 2014 got the Legacy's tranny and reason was because of its capacity annd size could handle the torque of the turbo

    I am under the impression that the Xt's CVT is the same as the one in the turbo diesel with CVT sold in Australia. The diesel's low rpm torque is about like that in the 2.0T. The Legacy CVT and engine are the same as the NON turbo Forester.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    Well you always learn. I did know about the application of CVT in the 1920s but not about Leonardo da Vinci's plans.
    I have tried the car today on a 15% inclined asphalt road. It would pick up without any effort from 0 to 60 Ml/Hr. Also I got since I'm in Canada on a 200KM run 11.8 Liter/100Km of avarage fuel consumption. That was on backroads and some highway and not over 75Ml/Hr.

    Laszlo
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    I am under the impression that the Xt's CVT is the same as the one in the turbo diesel with CVT sold in Australia.

    Which is most likely the same as the Legacy DIT.
  • vamarcvamarc Member Posts: 4
    That sounds like a great deal! Where in Va did you find that deal? I am in Richmond, and looking for a Forrester.
    Thanks!
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    Here is an article that I came accross of. The difference between the Turbo and Non Turbo models of the Foresters CVT. http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/11625/
  • vamarcvamarc Member Posts: 4
    I live in VA as well, and been looking for a 2014 Forrester. That is a great deal! Where in Va might I find the same deal?
    Thanks
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Looks like the turbo gets taller gearing. I think the final drive is also taller.

    Can someone tell us what rpm you get @ 60mph cruising?

    It may actually vary, but I mean steady cruising.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    edited April 2013
    Can someone tell us what rpm you get 60mph cruising?

    Cruising at 60mph in an XT? Is this an April Fool's joke? :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited April 2013
    OK, 100mph. :D

    So long as non-turbo owners report revs at the same speed.
  • stacey001stacey001 Member Posts: 2
    Brown subaru in charlottesville.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    1900 RPM. It barely moves the needle. Yeah I'm still breaking in the unit. I got only about 350 miles on it. I like to take it easy up to 1000 Ml. After will play. I had a WRX before and I wanted as much power but something that can handle deeper snow.

    Laszlo
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    1900rpm at 60mph on an XT, right? Nice...humming along using very little gas I'm sure.

    Any non-turbo owners who can check?
  • peterfletcherpeterfletcher Member Posts: 1
    Is anyone else out there somewhat concerned about thieves smashing the small "wind-wing" style glass near the side mirrors? Seems like an easy way for criminals to get into the car just like they did back in the 70's... it would then be very easy to unlock the front door once broken.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If a thief wants in, they'll get in.

    I'm sure this is more secure than the old frameless doors.
  • stacey001stacey001 Member Posts: 2
    Indeed. however, like someone else said. if they want it, theyll get in regardless of that window. I would personally prefer that small window seeing as it would be easier to see more of the road with less blind spots.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    Agreed regarding the theft sentiments. As for the utility of the glass, I'm not convinced. There's nothing to see through there, and I doubt, from a safety perspective, anyone would miss it.
    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
    Less curb rash when parallel parking, is my guess.
  • pauladkinspauladkins Member Posts: 15
    I have emailed a few dealerships about a 2.0XT Premium & I am being told they are not making very many of these. Has anyone else heard of this? I have only found 4 within 100 miles of me in CA.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Fitzmall has more than 100 Foresters and only 3 of them are XT Premiums.

    So not unheard of but far from common.
  • pauladkinspauladkins Member Posts: 15
    The dealership I emailed with is not willing to discount the car much either. I am probable going to look for a different car.
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    The dealership I emailed with is not willing to discount the car much either. I am probable going to look for a different car.

    An Acura RDX awd? The new XT Touring is the same price as a minimally equipped RDX now! Warranty and service might both be better. Fuel economy for the six is probably not as good. The lack of all weather package availability on the XT Premium at $30k kills it in the northern states. At $35k for the Touring, alternative choices may be better. My 2010 Forester XT Limited looks more like a keeper every day; it was less than $29k.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No AWP on an XT Premium? Should have it at that price.

    I wonder if they get it in Canada?
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    No AWP on an XT Premium? Should have it at that price.

    I wonder if they get it in Canada?

    Even if they do it's usually higher priced there.

    I think it is time for an Impreza 2.0T automatic to be added to the mix.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Bring back the Impreza GT.
  • saedavesaedave Member Posts: 694
    Bring back the Impreza GT

    And tune it like the 2010-2013 Forester XT for off-the-line performance; it doesn't need to be even close to the WRX's horsepower. 87 octane, of course.
  • laszlo9laszlo9 Member Posts: 36
    We have two XT models here in Canada and both have the AWP. Personally I think an automatic WRX or STI would be a total waste. Those cars are drivers cars. You need / have to become one with the machine and that you can not do with an automatic. An automatic thinks asses and then executes. The standard is instantenious It doesn't think, just does. No questions asked. I just sold mine after 6 years and got the XT. Believe me it is worth to learn how to drive well standard and get one of those monsters.
    You ask then why did I change? I'm 72 years old and my wife had a hip replacement. Also I'm am a fast driver and the Forester might slow me down a bit. Sort of.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    An automatic thinks asses and then executes. The standard is instantenious It doesn't think, just does.

    A CVT, which Subaru would use, is instantaneous.
  • pauladkinspauladkins Member Posts: 15
    I don't understand this company. Advertise the hell out of this car, but don't have the inventory. The odds of finding the turbo model with your color combo will be impossible. Getting one built from the factory is 4 months. I am looking for another car now.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I doubt it would take 4 months.

    They say 6-8 weeks, but I ordered one to get the color and options we wanted and we had it in just 5 weeks.
  • aktennisaktennis Member Posts: 8
    I started shopping for the sleek looking 2013 Toyota RAV4 and I end up with not that great looking 2014 Subaru Forester. Here are my reasons:

    1. Best track record of safety rating of previous forester.

    2. Best all wheel drive in the class.

    3. Premium model has power seat while Rav4's XLE model does not have. Also, the power seat is better than RAV4's power seat (Limited) since it give you more angle to adjust: The front end of the seat goes down further so that it will not reduce the blood flow like RAV4.

    4. Highest ground clearance: 8.7 in vs 6.3 in.

    However, a few things I think Subaru needs to improve on this model:

    1. The quality of cruise control is not acceptable. The position of the button is not good and it is not smooth to toggle. Among my other cars, Toyota's cruise control is the best and Honda accord's is reasonably good.

    2. The style is so so, wondering why Subaru can not learn from the style of best looking luxury cars on the market? I think Subaru needs to revolutionize their designs. The front grill needs to look better. In my view, outback is the only handsome car in Subaru's line.

    3. It does not have a tray to put my garbage in.

    In all, the pros outweighs the cons by far. That is why I purchased 2014 Forester.

    Also, glad that Forester did not use low profile tires which cause problems of damaging the expensive aluminum tires resulting from hitting the potholes on the road.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Congrats!

    I agree that huge 19-20" rims on crossovers don't make much sense.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    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.
    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 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 16,786
    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.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    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 Member Posts: 16,786
    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.
    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
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 72,587
    They're heavier but competitors weigh even more.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles