2014 Subaru Forester Full Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited September 2014 in Subaru

image2014 Subaru Forester Full Test

Edmunds' full road test of the 2014 Subaru Forester XT includes on-road driving impressions, instrumented test data, photos, specs and more.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • tube_amps_ruletube_amps_rule Member Posts: 1
    She really boogies! 14.6 @ 96.1 is no joke! The 2011 STI trapped at 97.4 for comparison.

    http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/impreza/2011/road-test.html

    Well done Subaru. You'll have my $28k for a white XT premium later this year!
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Interesting MPG: My '14 XT Touring's logged 28 - 29 MPG on most mixed trips, superior to the '09 XT. However, short trips, stop-go traffic and/or enthusiastic turbo acceleration will produce MPG closer to yours.

    Also, don't automatics with torque converters deny the direct engine-wheel drive train connection enthusiasts crave?

    Tech note: '14 XT's turbo's beneath its engine, possibly a reason why a metal skid plate's standard. Also, that engine won't fit the BRZ - yet.
  • darthbimmerdarthbimmer Member Posts: 606
    The Subaru rep's quip about "the enlightened customer" is eye roll worthy. Maybe the Japanese don't get the type of American who WOULD buy this car: A driver who has to contend with heavy snow and/or occasional offroad trips but values the additional on-road performance afforded by a car body (not a truck) powered by a turbo engine. That's actually pretty similar to me, except that my occasional offroad adventure is more than I think a Forester could handle, so I've got an Xterra Pro/4X. BTW, what offroad trail did you evaluate the Forester on? It didn't look too challenging to me.
  • wizard__wizard__ Member Posts: 10
    Question.
    At this price, and size, wouldn't an Acura RDX be a competitor.

    Think I'd rather spend that much dough on the RDX.
  • csubowtiecsubowtie Member Posts: 143
    This isn't that weird of a vehicle. Subaru owners are very loyal to the brand, myself included. But with the birth of my first kid, and the rediculous size of rear facing car seats mandated untill retirement age, our WRX can now only fit three people. I need something bigger but that doesn't mean I want less sport. With the death of the Legacy GT, and the enormity of the Outback, that leaves the Forrester. What gets me is why couple the enthusiast engine to the least enthusiastic transimission? BTW, I miss the first gen WRC Rally Blue Forester XT Sport.
  • agentorangeagentorange Member Posts: 893
    I'm going to dismiss your gas mileage number due to the IL habit of gunning a quick car at EVERY opportunity. However, I take bigger issue with IL getting on Subaru's case for thinking outside the box and producing this vehicle. It's like when I go looking at vehicles and some smart-[non-permissible content removed] tries to tell me "You can't cross-shop those vehicles". When it's my money I'll cross-shop WTF I want. Likewise, if Subaru can sell the XT, it's not IL's (or anybody else's) business to gripe it does not fit the formula.
  • fortstringfortstring Member Posts: 111
    BATTLESTAR GALACTICA FK YEAH
  • fortstringfortstring Member Posts: 111
    BATTLESTAR GALACTICA FRAK YEAH*
  • maxx18maxx18 Member Posts: 7
    Given that it accelerates and brakes faster than the BR-Z, I believe the Forester with a decent set of tires may actually beat the BR-Z around a road course. That is just plain sad.
  • major_zero_major_zero_ Member Posts: 8
    We just got the '14 Limited non-turbo. It's our first Subaru and I really like it. We live in Oregon and it's the perfect car for my wife; I don't have to worry when we get our version of "snow" that is just deep enough to be slippery. If I wasn't 6'4", 400 lbs, I'd love to have the XT version.

    In case there's any tall-n-portly brothers out there wondering; I fit in the passenger seat pretty well but I can't stretch my legs all the way out. The back seat is super roomy with plenty of knee room. With the sunroof, there's still plenty of headroom both front and rear except the side of my head bumps the side of the roof panel in the front occasionally. Haven't been in the driver seat, so I don't know what that's like (she's only had it less than a week).
  • rubysonatayf20rubysonatayf20 Member Posts: 1
    I really dig this new Forester, and totally almost bought one. I'm sure that with some light mods it would really haul. Still I was surprised that a recent video review I just watched showed the 2014 XT running to 60 after multiple runs in a best of 7.53 seconds, rather than the 6.3 from this test. Of course the guy in the video possibly doesn't know how to drive to get the best out of the Subie. Anyways here's the link to the review video, and the 0-60 time runs are at around the 8:30 mark. http://blip.tv/tflcarcom/2014-subaru-forester-and-xt-turbo-0-60-mph-first-drive-review-6520744
  • joy88joy88 Member Posts: 1
    Approaches the $40,000 milestone makes us think seriously about a bigger SUV with more cargo capacity?
    Why people need bigger SUV? Bigger SUVs have much lower MPG!, not everyone like bigger!
    Looking for my next SUV, forester 2014 is the best one for me, right size! roomy, big moonroof, EYESIGHT!!!!!!, safest compact SUV in this segment (only one of 13 compact crossovers and S.U.V.’s to earn the highest rating in a new, more severe front crash test by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety), excellent visibility, AWD SUV MPG better then some FWD SUVs, comfort seating in side, low gravity boxer engine, CVT/SI/S# (hate manual, 99% driver don't like manual), 250 Horsepower at 25 MPG combined!! btw, 2.0 xt is quieter and smoother than i2.5.
    What else you expecting? can you find another SUV like this?
    Those reviewers are not normal person like most of drivers in the world.
  • thejavagodthejavagod Member Posts: 2
    I like the vehicle but am disappointed with two aspects: the Navigation system and infotainment system is pretty antiquated and the second miscue is the lack of decent towing... at least 2500 lbs would've been good for occasional light towing use. While 1500 lbs may be fine for the RAV4 and RDX which are just glorified cars I think the Forester appeals to a slightly different segment that would value a better tow rating.
  • innovandinnovand Member Posts: 0
    My partner had an Outback with the 170-hp engine. The thing could barely go up the hill. It was hell to drive that thing
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    I suspect you folks were driving the XT hard, hence the disappointing MPG. My '14 XT easily gets 30 mpg for a mixed trip. Work its turbo hard, though, and the MPG can plummet.

    Also, the XT works fine without the expensive Eyesight, HID and Keyless Start options, at much lower cost. Does that "similarly configured" RAV4 offer Eyesight?
  • mjoymjoy Member Posts: 2
    I really do not get it. Everywhere I researched, including your site, showed mileage at 24 City. Some sites even claimed 26. Since I do 90% city driving, this was important. I really wanted the electric or 40 mpg competitors, but they did not fit my short stature. So, I was pleased to see some decent numbers for this car that fit me just nicely.
    So, I purchased a 2014 Subaru Forester (Limited CVT). After one month of ownership, I am appalled to be seeing only 19 city. I am a pretty steady driver. I'll be taking it this week to the dealership to see if I'm missing some sort of eco mode driving. However, NOW reading your note about test driving for 900 miles and only getting 91 makes me wonder what your gas mileage calculator site is doing. It showed 24 city for 2.5i Limited (automatic).
    However, I do love driving this car. Just miffed about the mileage.
    Suggestions anyone?
  • mjoymjoy Member Posts: 2
    Correction on my recent post. Your article reported getting 21 in town after 900 miles of test driving.
  • myth1_myth1_ Member Posts: 3
    I read a lot of reviews of this vehicle that it's approaching the $40,000 mark and that you have to start considering bigger SUV's at that price. I would argue that the Forester doesn't need to be close to $40,000. And regarding larger SUV's, I have a large SUV now and personally, I wouldn't mind moving to a vehicle less lumbering and easy to drive fast. The 2.0XT Touring seems like a good deal to me. 6.3 sec. 0-60, 25 mixed mpg's, leather seating, sunroof, 18 inch rims, power rear gate, Harman Kardon stereo and NAV. Comfortable, easy to see out of and fast! If you pass on the Eyesight system, looking at $32,995 MSRP. Want to be a little more frugal? Go for the 2.0XT Premium for $27,995. Looks just as good as the touring, I heard the standard stereo the Premium comes with, and it's decent, definitely old school but easy to use. (Amazingly knobs on stereos for volume control and finding a station are easy to use. Who would have thought?) The seats in the Premium are cloth but sporty, and look durable. Something fun and fast that can go off road, and carry boxes and groceries too. Whether you look at the Touring or the Premium, what else in the same class can you get for that price to beat it?
  • advice1advice1 Member Posts: 2
    It is interesting to me that the review makes the case that this model is overpriced for the segment and that Subaru might have a had time selling it, and yet their is no review of the models that are more inline with the segment in terms of mpg and utility and price point.

    Edmunds needs to do reviews of those models that are most sought after in real purchases and do them BEFORE those readers would be less interested in. We are interested in the 2.5i models (Premium, Limited, Touring), but they are not reviewed even though they are bigger sellers. Come on Edmunds…. how about reviewing the other models that more buyers are interested in?
  • advice1advice1 Member Posts: 2
    Another observation: the 2014 Subaru Forester Safety web page is not current. NHTSA rated it 5* except for one passenger front 4* and the 4* Rollover that all SUVs I've seen get. The IIHS rated it Good in every category except I believe an Acceptable in the Structural crash results. Why doesn't Edmunds keep this kind of critical decision making data current? Anyway, the Forest and others Subarus rate high in safety. We don't have one because I still have some hesitation points, but it is on our shortlist.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    My MPG experience with the '14 XT is you can get 30 mpg, especially on the highway. However, drive like a hoon, or do many short trips with a cold engine and MPG'll plummet to what's reported here, or worse.
    Also, XT's don't respond well to stomp-the-gas acceleration, but do respond well if the accelerator is "rolled".
    Still, the '14 XT's proved superior to the earlier '09 XT in every way. Am looking forward to its handling the upcoming snow!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles