I only have about 1700 miles on my 2014 Forester Premium manual 6 speed, so my opinion may still change, but here are the accessories I have and I see no need for others at this point: Back bumper cover, splash guards, all-weather floor mats, and locking wheel nuts. These were already on the car; the salesman was not responsive when I told him we really didn't need the floor mats (which I could have purchased a nice set for half the Subaru cost) and the locking nuts (we live in rural Colorado--really not needed.) The bumper cover and the splash guards are a MUST. With the heavily-tinted rear windows, I've not seen a big need for an auto-dimming rear view mirror. Just IMHO. Overall, I love my new Forester. The 6 speed transmission is getting an easy 35 mpg on the highway (not the interstate, the highway) and about 26 around town. The pattern is a little hard to get used to, as it's fairly tight, but I'm getting better. Make sure you're OK with the driver's seat--the lumbar support is pronounced, even at completely deflated. I love the turning radius and the great cornering in our Colorado mountain passes. The all-weather package (i.e. heated seats, etc.) comes standard with the manual transmission version, so don't let them charge you extra. I don't miss the sun roof--I've always thought snow and sun roofs don't mix. 'Hope this helps.
I don't think the light gray interior is very practical in a Forester. I found some inexpensive black covers on the internet (that allow for the side airbags) that I placed over my cloth seats, but if you've put out for leather seats that would not be something you would want to do.
Nice that your MPG's far better than Subaru claims!
Subaru says their 2.5 CVT has better MPG (27 mpg combined) than their 6 speed manual (24 mpg combined). Of course, depending on driver, trip type and fuel quality, MPG will differ.
I've no personal experience for 2.5 MPG's as I drive the XT, which given the mix of short and long trips I have, gets 24 - 25 MPG mixed (Subaru claims 23 MPG mixed). Reason for turbo, IMHO, is quicker vehicle response when passing or otherwise (I've driven 2.5i and found it a little slow in coping with our Portland OR traffic), and quieter CVT operation (turbo CVT has new belt design).
wow! You high mpg folks have my attention. I need to take another look at the Forester, I dismissed it because it outgrew my idea of what the Forester should be (gen 1&2 sized).
CR got 26mpg in theirs, which is best in class. It matched the old Escape hybrid.
IIRC our 2009 model got 22mpg in their tests, so a significant improvement for the CVT.
Back then the manual got 24mpg, so it's anyone's guess as to whether or not it would beat the new CVT. The new engine is also more efficient so it should beat 24mpg, at least.
Thank you colocate. I didn't realize that the all weather pkg comes standard on manual. The dealer is asking for $21,561+Doc. fee+plate transfer fee+Sales tax.
I am thinking about adding body side moldings, bumper corner molding kit, rear bumper cover, splash guards, auto-dimming mirror with compass and homelink and rear cargo tray.
I agree that the Forester has "outgrown...what the Forester should be..." In my opinion it's a BIG vehicle. (I drove a little '77 Honda Accord for 30 years.) But IMHO it's nimble for its size and gets great gas mileage. Caveat: I DRIVE CONSERVATIVELY, with MPG in mind, pushing it only when I need to. (Saving the planet for your grandkids.) The real-time mpg display is addicting.
That begs the question - is there room for a mini-Forester now?
Crosstrek isn't quite the same, even though passenger space is really good, cargo space doesn't match the early Foresters. It needs to be boxy and practical.
YES! (Whatever happened to the GL? To the Justy?) Just as there is room for a SMALL pickup truck! We have a little 1994 Toyota pickup--nowadays the smallest pickup truck you can buy is huge. Americans always want bigger and more loaded vehicles...I guess as long as there are folks out there (like me...what can I say?) who are willing to buy a big ol' Forester, the manufacturers won't be interested in going back to small. It will take a crisis, I'm afraid, on the macro-level.
Seems XV Crosstrek is the baby brother of the Forester. Their interior and usability are remarkably similar, though Forester is more refined wrt interior noise and ride. Perhaps if sliding rear seat were added to Crosstrek, that would give it more flexibility wrt interior space.
Just curious what others here think of the '14 Forester ride .vs. '09 Forester. The '09 - 13 Foresters used same suspension for all versions. While the '14's are all revised, the '14 XT gets firmer damping, slightly stiffer springs, bigger antisway bars and reinforced suspension mounts.
My experience is the '09 XT was OK on smooth or mildly rough roads, but its back end would go into a frenzy on really rough roads or speed bumps (minimal shock damping), rattling and buzzing. The '14 XT is firmer (you feel small undulations in road surface), but handles potholes and speed bumps well (much tighter damping and control) - really big bumps bring on a few creaks/squeaks from the dash and interior.
I prefer the styling of our 09, personally. I do think the extra room and especially the improved gas mileage would be a big plus.
But...one thing keeps me from shopping for a trade - cabin tech. They have got to make improvements. The backup cam is tiny, even if you get Navi. Why not use the huge screen right in front of us?
We have few miles on our 09, also, maybe 35k or so? So no rush, to be honest. I just hope by the time we hit 60k, Subaru has addressed that and that would compel us to go in and trade up.
The ride in our 2010 Forester XT was much better than our 2014 XT. The extra sportiness added was not necessary at all. However, the interior noise level on the 2014 is amazingly less: I can't believe I'm driving a Subaru.
The contrast between noise and ride is extreme. Up market pretensions with gadgets and lavish accessories won't be successful unless the ride is improved....and that means softened. The performance-at-a-price advantage of the XT Premium over the RDX made the difference, but it would have been nice to have the ride of the 2010.
Don't forget the XT runs the WRX engine and that is an aggressive one. I can not see this car with a softer suspension at all. I'm also missing the growl of the boxer turbo engine. The 14 Forester XT sounds like an ordinary sedan of any brand. I expected the same noise as the WRX from it. Have no idea about the 2010 because I had a WRX and that had a much harder ride than the 14 Forester.
Perhaps Subaru should consider the 2014 XT a success since both WRX and previous turbo forester owners bought one.
I expect the next WRX version of the 2.0l turbo to have considerably more power than the Forester XT and for it to require (not just recommend) high octane fuel. Perhaps in excess of 300Hp.
Does anyone know whether the block is semi-closed deck like the 2.5l turbo? And what about forged crank, pistons, etc?
Subaru will have to address the automatic transmission on the XT models. CVT is just not right for the turbo Forester. That engine needs a more definite shifting than a CVT can do and that is my ONLY dissapointment with the car moving over from WRX. To me it is like puting second hand worn tires on a new WRX, just makes no point at all.
Fans of earlier Foresters are not likely to appreciate the considerably stiffer suspension on the 2014s. I like it however. The ride I find overly stiff is the Crosstrek.
One of the problems with the new Forester is the platinum upholstery which I think is hideous. It needs a darker, tawnier shade and hue. Subarus and all cars for that matter need to get away from that colorless putty gray and into more golden if desaturated earth tones.
The Jasmine Green Forester is a nice color only to be ruined by the platinum gray which is foisted upon the buyer. It really needs a khaki or brown interior IMO.
I don’t know how neutral, colorless grays ever became a default color for car interiors especially with gray paint finishes. You don’t find too many people using gray upholstery in homes. Brown hues are natural yet people seem to fear using them in cars. Doesn’t make sense.
Silver with sand, tan and brown works! Warm up those grays!
And it’s about time HD radio came standard on all base models, or as a stand-alone item without having to get a package.
The color problem in the new XT Foresters was solved with black only. At least it is better than the quick-to-soil platinum.
With Subaru's very small production volumes, multiple color choices are not practical at the present price point. I seem to recall extra cost paint colors on my Audis. I prefer Subaru pricing.
Unfortunately, my new black XT interior dirties up faster than the old '09 gray interior. Seems most dirt out here in Portland area is grayish, as is concrete dust. Black also gets hotter in the sun.
Given how similar Subaru interiors are, restricting XT interiors to one color choice only shouldn't be necessarry. Besides, who ever decreed that black is the only "sporty" color (Euro brands have used reds and tans in sporty cars for years)? The only place I've seen an abundance of black vehicles and interiors is Southern California (mostly a desert...guess they like sauntas on wheels).
I still have the new, never installed grey floor mats from my 2010 XT. I may use them for winter mats if they can be made to fit. I'll see which color looks the worst with snow and mud
The 2014 grey fabric is much lighter than the grey leather was on the 2010.
To me, the 2014 Forester (4th Gen) looks like it's morphing into a mini van.
They moved the A pillar forward 8 inches to create more cabin room, which shortened the hood accordingly.
I liked the look of the 3rd Generation better, with its long hoodline, but the 4th Gen is clearly the more functional design, and it is better in almost all other respects as well.
We have the 2014 Forester and just love it...from comfort to the great visibility it is just perfect. The ride is good and frankly we think it is a great looking car. So far nothing not to like...a good value.
I'm just replying to a robot-message from Edmunds but I thought all the new Foresters were CVT and that turned me away--I don't trust chains and stuff holding up to 250K miles like a manual transmission so I x'd-off Subaru from my current new-car options. If the old MPG was 25 for an automatic went to 32 with CVT, cool but I don't think I trust the 'chain technology'.
I'll probably spend some more time in the coming week but jeez, if they offered a 5/6-speed manual that got 30+ mpg I'd probably have a solution to my new car search. Love the Mazda CX-5 but the Subaru has ?10 cubic feet more cargo handling.
For all of you like me...OMG there are so many choices in the same $range! ...aaaaah!
I purchased a 2014 Forester premium with a 6-speed transmission six weeks ago, mostly because I like manual transmissions and partly because I was thinking along the same lines: I don't trust CVT transmissions over the long haul (literally) and I intend to keep this new vehicle for the next 20 years if I possibly can. I am getting GREAT gas mileage (up to 38 mpg, typically around 36 mpg on backroads and two-lane highways) and I love its handling. Wonderful interior room. Easy in-and-out for my 90 year old mom. An extra two inches of ground clearance for rural Colorado roads. I NEVER thought I'd buy an SUV (those ugly, giant gas guzzlers) but so far so good with this Forester.
I agree that the current generation is better in most respects, including handling (a definite plus in my book), which is why it is so frustrating to me that they felt so compelled to give it a heavy dose of the ugly treatment.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
The '14's shocks also work more effectively. Try driving an earlier '09 series forester over a speed bump and you will probably get rear end hop and pogo. The '14 goes over same bump without any of that distraction.
The '14 XT's has stiffer springs and damping than base model, but IMHO while the newer XT feels more road aware than before, it has not proven unpleasantly stiff on trips.
Thanks for the reply. 36-38 ...OMG, Is that for real? Are the Subaru sites 29 mpg Highway numbers that out of line with reality? If they could advertise 35 HW they'd own the small SUV market. (For that know what a clutch is).
Uh, no! You have 1 "outlier" here who claims excessive gas mileage - which I find rather dubious, not knowing his driving habits, where he drives, etc. Let's wait for more manual drivers to chime in with great gas mileage. HINT: do not hold your breath.
I drive 600 miles every weekend between NJ and MA. Typically I got 28-30 mpg. I had experience getting 35 mpg for 50 miles driving at one time. I was driving toward east. The chances are the wind helped with mpg is it blows the direction that you are driving. The low 28 mpg that I got is due to hilly roads that will consume more energy. If it rains, the mpg will also drop based on my experience. I believe 32 mpg is right on the money as advertised if the highway road you drive is rather flat and under no wind and rain conditions.
A lot depends on your driving habits. I have about 950 miles on my 2014 Forester ( CVT) and live in a "not so flat" region, but my average over those miles is showing 36.6 mpg. I haven't driven it hard by any measure, but on a 500 mile trip recently( fully loaded) I averaged 37.2 mpg until I entered a city where it went down to 36.6. So, the 2014 Forester is capable of some remarkable gasoline mileages for its size and 4 wheel drive. Very, very pleased with it.
I test drove a 2014 and liked it very much but would like to make an informed decision and thus, want to rid myself of the new car smell euphoria bias.
Anyone with a 2014 have any regrets about their decision and if so, can you share specifics?
I had heard that in some cases, the current 2.5L engine produces a ticking sound that cannot be addressed.
Any issues with quality of build, problems / quality issues (large or small).
Thanks for any feedback, I know everyone is busy and appreciate your time.
No regrets here. I haven not heard about the ticking sound you mentioned. I frequent a subaruforester owners forum and no one has mentioned any ticking sound. Where did you hear that? I do recall the sales person mentioning to use genuine subaru 0w-20 synthetic motor oil and genuine subaru filter, and I do plan to do that. I believe that oil is made by Idemitsu. and the subaru oil filter has a bypass setting that is hard to find in after market filters. Quality issues? None that I have seen so far.
1. The steering wheel is off alignment: The left side of the steering wheel is about 1-2 in further away as compared to the right side. The middle of the display panel, the middle of steering wheel and the middle of the seat does not lined-up.
2. The engine is not as smooth as it should be during idling.
3. The tire size is 225/60/17 as compared against both Toyota Rav-4 and Honda CRV's 225/65/17. Less tire on side wall for absorbing impact.
Thanks to both of you for the comments. I heard about the engine ticking noise on the Outback board - several people had commented and their cars had the latest 2.5L engine. Good info on the oil filter - was not aware of that.
I noticed the steering wheel alignment as well - I wonder if that was intentional as it is hard to believe something like that would pass QC standards as it is not a one off issue.
60 series tires probably allow for better performance (to the extent you can use such a word with an SUV) and better tire clearance in the wheel well. As a side note, IIHS data for the RAV 4 and CRV is poor. The small overlap test they initiated recently has really cast a poor light on some manufacturers products.
Can both of you tell me how long you have had your cars and how many miles you have on them? Enjoy your vehicles and thanks again for the feedback.
Ah, the tires grew a little! Stock size on Gen3 is 225/55/R17. I'm sure that improves ride a little.
A horizontally opposed engine will never be as smooth as other engine types at idle simply due to the fact that these engines are naturally balanced rather than having counterweights on the crankshaft for balancing. It's one of the world's ironies: horizontally opposed engines are smoother when it matters, but less stable configurations are smoother when you tend to notice it. :P
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I have one of the first cars landed in North America. It is the Turbo version. I'm happy with the build and assembly of the car. Being the turbo it has different engine, transmission and suspension than the 2.5. Runs great, holds the road well and pass over speed bumps easy without you biting your tongue. The only sound that I hear is of clicking (kind of like when you hit a brake drum with a piece of metal) is sometimes but not all the time is when I engage or disengage the automatic transmission. That is I think due to the CVT transmission and the position of the steel belt that is running it. I love the car but hate the CVT for the turbo. It should work perfectly in the other models but not the XT. If Subaru comes out with a different transmission for the XT in the future I will change it just because of that. Just a note: if you are economy minded DON'T buy the turbo. That car has to be driven like the WRX
I bought my 2014 2.5L premium in April, now about 13,000 miles. I do not believe the off aligned steering wheel is intentional. Never had any other car I drove (about 10 cars) has this problem.
Funny nowadays when you go to higher trim models you always get low profile tires. Low profile tires give the following problems:
1. Stiffer ride 2. Rim can easily damaged by hitting potholes and it is so costly to replace. 3. Larger contact area to the ground that reduce traction on both snow and ice.
The only good time for low profile tires is on dry days when you want to enjoy fast turning on winding roads. Perhaps it look a bit more sleek.
When you choose small SUV, you look for practicality not focusing on the look.
I have had mine for about 1 month. The engine in mine is extremely smooth even at idle. In fact, I can hardly tell it is running. It has about 1000 miles on it now. Just had the front side windows and moon roof tinted at the dealer( 35%). My Forester is one of the quietest cars I have ever owned and rides better, is quieter, and seems more solid than the CRV we tested before choosing the Forester, not on price, but on what we liked best. It is as quiet as our 2010 V70 Volvo, but not as "plush". I have not noticed anything at all about the steering wheel alignment mentioned . As for the ticking noise, you never know what people put into their engines for oil or the oil filter used.
....may not be a mechanical "ticking" sound. It might be engine knocking or pinging. The sense I have of those posts are that the people posting may be in the Rocky Mountain region at Mile High Altitude and where Regular Gas is 85 Octane.
I recently had an Outback Rental Car in Denver and thought I noticed some engine knock in parking lots at low speed i.e. low rpm. Hard to say for sure as it disappeared as soon as the RPM's increased....and it had to be a fairly quiet area....but I thought of those posts when I wondered if I was hearing engine knock.
I agree with >gmwalters< 100%. It is the smoothest car I have ever had. At idle it is like a limousine, absolute no vibration or it is so minimal that I think I will try to do the test of putting a quarter on its edge on the dash to see if it would stay. Apparently it has fluid engine supports and not rubber blocks. As for the noise try a tank full of mid grade and/or high test fuel. If you still have a knock take tghe car back to the dealer and complain. If you don't and still want to use regular gas have the timing adjusted by the dealer for the lower octane fuel. You will loose performance an the account of cost /gallon.
Well as for smoothness. I have started up my car yesterday and it has been raining for about 12 hours. Imediatly I placed a Canadian $2.00 coin on the dash on its edge (I tested the coin on the table first that it can stand on its edge) The engine was running about 2000 RPM than went down to about 1200 I started to push it up to about 2200 and let the pedal go. The coin was still standing. I have taken pictures of it but have no idea how can I post them
At around 4400 miles my '14 XT's getting 25.7 mpg for combination city/highway. Considering the older '09 XT usually got 24 mpg for same driving, and had 25 less HP, the '14's a definite improvement.
The I-S-S# calibration selections definitely alter CVT characteristics, with I the most relaxed and S# the most aggressive wrt tip-in and shift response. The CVT's far nicer than the old 4 speed auto, and the paddle shifters really help manage engine braking as well as responsiveness.
Yeah, I know enthusiasts want a manual with the turbo, but apparently only 5 - 6% of all Forester sales are turbos, and manuals were only about 25% of those, not enough sales to justify the manual.
I've been driving my new 2014 Forester 2.5i Premium CVT for a week now.
No off-road experience yet.
It looks like my average MPG will be around 28-30 with about 80% freeway driving, 20% city/local. This is with a feather-light foot on the gas.
By contrast, I got that same MPG in my 2007 Impreza 2.5i 5M while flogging it like a rented mule.
The Forester is much quieter and smoother than the Impreza. The Impreza had a larger, more supportive and comfortable seat bottom; the Forester has a more comfortable and supportive seat back.
Favorite features to date: back-up camera, auto-dimming mirrors, heated seats, electronic information display, Blue Tooth phone sync.
Least favorite features to date: seat bottom
Observations on the CVT: In 40 years of driving, this is the first automobile I've owned with an automatic transmission. I think it is very well sorted out and so far haven't been missing the manual transmission, especially since the manual shifter in the Forester is so spongy.
Just finished a 250 mile drive on I-81 in Virginia into the blue ridge region, this is not flat folks, and a fully loaded trunk. Filled up and zeroed the trip and avg mileage indicator before I left. Ended up at 37.5 mpg with cruise control close to speed limit. I continue to be amazed at this vehicle.
Comments
Subaru says their 2.5 CVT has better MPG (27 mpg combined) than their 6 speed manual (24 mpg combined).
Of course, depending on driver, trip type and fuel quality, MPG will differ.
I've no personal experience for 2.5 MPG's as I drive the XT, which given the mix of short and long trips I have, gets 24 - 25 MPG mixed (Subaru claims 23 MPG mixed). Reason for turbo, IMHO, is quicker vehicle response when passing or otherwise (I've driven 2.5i and found it a little slow in coping with our Portland OR traffic), and quieter CVT operation (turbo CVT has new belt design).
John
IIRC our 2009 model got 22mpg in their tests, so a significant improvement for the CVT.
Back then the manual got 24mpg, so it's anyone's guess as to whether or not it would beat the new CVT. The new engine is also more efficient so it should beat 24mpg, at least.
I am thinking about adding body side moldings, bumper corner molding kit, rear bumper cover, splash guards, auto-dimming mirror with compass and homelink and rear cargo tray.
Crosstrek isn't quite the same, even though passenger space is really good, cargo space doesn't match the early Foresters. It needs to be boxy and practical.
Perhaps if sliding rear seat were added to Crosstrek, that would give it more flexibility wrt interior space.
While the '14's are all revised, the '14 XT gets firmer damping, slightly stiffer springs, bigger antisway bars and reinforced suspension mounts.
My experience is the '09 XT was OK on smooth or mildly rough roads, but its back end would go into a frenzy on really rough roads or speed bumps (minimal shock damping), rattling and buzzing. The '14 XT is firmer (you feel small undulations in road surface), but handles potholes and speed bumps well (much tighter damping and control) - really big bumps bring on a few creaks/squeaks from the dash and interior.
But...one thing keeps me from shopping for a trade - cabin tech. They have got to make improvements. The backup cam is tiny, even if you get Navi. Why not use the huge screen right in front of us?
We have few miles on our 09, also, maybe 35k or so? So no rush, to be honest. I just hope by the time we hit 60k, Subaru has addressed that and that would compel us to go in and trade up.
The contrast between noise and ride is extreme. Up market pretensions with gadgets and lavish accessories won't be successful unless the ride is improved....and that means softened. The performance-at-a-price advantage of the XT Premium over the RDX made the difference, but it would have been nice to have the ride of the 2010.
I expected the same noise as the WRX from it. Have no idea about the 2010 because I had a WRX and that had a much harder ride than the 14 Forester.
I expect the next WRX version of the 2.0l turbo to have considerably more power than the Forester XT and for it to require (not just recommend) high octane fuel. Perhaps in excess of 300Hp.
Does anyone know whether the block is semi-closed deck like the 2.5l turbo? And what about forged crank, pistons, etc?
One of the problems with the new Forester is the platinum upholstery which I think is hideous. It needs a darker, tawnier shade and hue. Subarus and all cars for that matter need to get away from that colorless putty gray and into more golden if desaturated earth tones.
The Jasmine Green Forester is a nice color only to be ruined by the platinum gray which is foisted upon the buyer. It really needs a khaki or brown interior IMO.
I don’t know how neutral, colorless grays ever became a default color for car interiors especially with gray paint finishes. You don’t find too many people using gray upholstery in homes. Brown hues are natural yet people seem to fear using them in cars. Doesn’t make sense.
Silver with sand, tan and brown works! Warm up those grays!
And it’s about time HD radio came standard on all base models, or as a stand-alone item without having to get a package.
With Subaru's very small production volumes, multiple color choices are not practical at the present price point. I seem to recall extra cost paint colors on my Audis. I prefer Subaru pricing.
Given how similar Subaru interiors are, restricting XT interiors to one color choice only shouldn't be necessarry. Besides, who ever decreed that black is the only "sporty" color (Euro brands have used reds and tans in sporty cars for years)? The only place I've seen an abundance of black vehicles and interiors is Southern California (mostly a desert...guess they like sauntas on wheels).
The 2014 grey fabric is much lighter than the grey leather was on the 2010.
They moved the A pillar forward 8 inches to create more cabin room, which shortened the hood accordingly.
I liked the look of the 3rd Generation better, with its long hoodline, but the 4th Gen is clearly the more functional design, and it is better in almost all other respects as well.
I'll probably spend some more time in the coming week but jeez, if they offered a 5/6-speed manual that got 30+ mpg I'd probably have a solution to my new car search. Love the Mazda CX-5 but the Subaru has ?10 cubic feet more cargo handling.
For all of you like me...OMG there are so many choices in the same $range! ...aaaaah!
P.S. Moonroof is not available with manual transmission.
The '14 XT's has stiffer springs and damping than base model, but IMHO while the newer XT feels more road aware than before, it has not proven unpleasantly stiff on trips.
clutch is).
I test drove a 2014 and liked it very much but would like to make an informed decision and thus, want to rid myself of the new car smell euphoria bias.
Anyone with a 2014 have any regrets about their decision and if so, can you share specifics?
I had heard that in some cases, the current 2.5L engine produces a ticking sound that cannot be addressed.
Any issues with quality of build, problems / quality issues (large or small).
Thanks for any feedback, I know everyone is busy and appreciate your time.
1. The steering wheel is off alignment: The left side of the steering wheel is about 1-2 in further away as compared to the right side. The middle of the display panel, the middle of steering wheel and the middle of the seat does not lined-up.
2. The engine is not as smooth as it should be during idling.
3. The tire size is 225/60/17 as compared against both Toyota Rav-4 and Honda CRV's 225/65/17. Less tire on side wall for absorbing impact.
I noticed the steering wheel alignment as well - I wonder if that was intentional as it is hard to believe something like that would pass QC standards as it is not a one off issue.
60 series tires probably allow for better performance (to the extent you can use such a word with an SUV) and better tire clearance in the wheel well. As a side note, IIHS data for the RAV 4 and CRV is poor. The small overlap test they initiated recently has really cast a poor light on some manufacturers products.
Can both of you tell me how long you have had your cars and how many miles you have on them? Enjoy your vehicles and thanks again for the feedback.
A horizontally opposed engine will never be as smooth as other engine types at idle simply due to the fact that these engines are naturally balanced rather than having counterweights on the crankshaft for balancing. It's one of the world's ironies: horizontally opposed engines are smoother when it matters, but less stable configurations are smoother when you tend to notice it. :P
I'm happy with the build and assembly of the car. Being the turbo it has different engine, transmission and suspension than the 2.5. Runs great, holds the road well and pass over speed bumps easy without you biting your tongue.
The only sound that I hear is of clicking (kind of like when you hit a brake drum with a piece of metal) is sometimes but not all the time is when I engage or disengage the automatic transmission. That is I think due to the CVT transmission and the position of the steel belt that is running it.
I love the car but hate the CVT for the turbo. It should work perfectly in the other models but not the XT. If Subaru comes out with a different transmission for the XT in the future I will change it just because of that. Just a note: if you are economy minded DON'T buy the turbo. That car has to be driven like the WRX
I do not believe the off aligned steering wheel is intentional. Never had any other car I drove (about 10 cars) has this problem.
Funny nowadays when you go to higher trim models you always get low profile tires. Low profile tires give the following problems:
1. Stiffer ride
2. Rim can easily damaged by hitting potholes and it is so costly to replace.
3. Larger contact area to the ground that reduce traction on both snow and ice.
The only good time for low profile tires is on dry days when you want to enjoy fast turning on winding roads. Perhaps it look a bit more sleek.
When you choose small SUV, you look for practicality not focusing on the look.
I recently had an Outback Rental Car in Denver and thought I noticed some engine knock in parking lots at low speed i.e. low rpm. Hard to say for sure as it disappeared as soon as the RPM's increased....and it had to be a fairly quiet area....but I thought of those posts when I wondered if I was hearing engine knock.
The I-S-S# calibration selections definitely alter CVT characteristics, with I the most relaxed and S# the most aggressive wrt tip-in and shift response. The CVT's far nicer than the old 4 speed auto, and the paddle shifters really help manage engine braking as well as responsiveness.
Yeah, I know enthusiasts want a manual with the turbo, but apparently only 5 - 6% of all Forester sales are turbos, and manuals were only about 25% of those, not enough sales to justify the manual.
http://youtu.be/qySWaTGkHSo?t=1m11s
No off-road experience yet.
It looks like my average MPG will be around 28-30 with about 80% freeway driving, 20% city/local. This is with a feather-light foot on the gas.
By contrast, I got that same MPG in my 2007 Impreza 2.5i 5M while flogging it like a rented mule.
The Forester is much quieter and smoother than the Impreza. The Impreza had a larger, more supportive and comfortable seat bottom; the Forester has a more comfortable and supportive seat back.
Favorite features to date: back-up camera, auto-dimming mirrors, heated seats, electronic information display, Blue Tooth phone sync.
Least favorite features to date: seat bottom
Observations on the CVT: In 40 years of driving, this is the first automobile I've owned with an automatic transmission. I think it is very well sorted out and so far haven't been missing the manual transmission, especially since the manual shifter in the Forester is so spongy.