2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek Full Test

Edmunds.com

2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek Full Test

Edmunds' full test of the 2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek, with on-road driving impressions, photos, instrumented test data, specs and more.

Read the full story here

tdh5

You think the RAV4 is manly?????

redgeminipa

I've been seeing these little guys popping up everywhere lately. The orange really stands out. I think I kinda like them, but I'd want a little more power.

Hey Subaru... is a turbo in the works?

bankerdanny

I really like the look of this vehicle. I've seen several on the road. BUT, if I were looking for a new car it wouldn't be on my shopping list. My 2007 Forester, which had a more powerful engine, was painfully, dangerously, slow. I can only imagine how bad the even weaker Crosstrek would be. I don't understand what it is that Subaru has against reasonable horsepower. I don't need the 300hp STi motor, 180-200 would be plenty.

jpnpower

You'd think that a turbo would fit this car well, without the "go fast WRX" parts. In high elevation places turbos work, and can easily manage about 200 hp from the FB Impreza motor. But this car has a different demographic which I will rant about in another comment 'cause Edmunds hates paragraphs.

jpnpower

I'm surprised by the sales of this pathetically underpowered, small car that has virtually nothing over the standard Impreza. It baffles me how some Americans really feel about size, and image. for one, many stupid American think that "Subarus ain't kool", but my main point is that the normal Impreza hatch sells decently, but a jacked up version with kool looking wheels, and paint sells like hot cakes. I mean this is just crazy. What the heck? why can't everybody be friendly to hatches like at InsideLIne.

vrooomf1

put in the flat 4 2.0l turbo (250hp), awd with MT, I'm in!

ed124c

Subaru doesn't need to put a costly turbo in the XV. All they need do is to use the BR-Z 200hp engine. And they should have done it from the start. I agree with bankerdanny: Subaru needs to get more hp (and more torque) out of their engines, even if it means larger NA engines or turbos. Sure, that wouldn't allow their cars to have the EPA numbers that FWD cars get. On the other hand, Subaru is doing quite well, so... What do we know?

fotoflame

I agree with ed124c. It doesn't need the 2.0 turbo to make me interested in getting this car, but it needs just a tad more power. Even the 2.5L would be good. The BRZ engine would be great! But I feel Subaru made this move to tout being the most fuel efficient SUV in its class. I hope they offer a optional, more powerful engine for the Crosstrek soon.

ttbuyer

I like the styling and thought about getting one, but when I test drove it I found the angle of the A-pillar to impede my sight line considerably.

I am moderately tall at 6' 2"

darthbimmer

The only engine makes less than 150hp and takes 9.6 seconds for 0-60? Ridiculous. Give us a step-up option, even if it's just in the 190-200hp range.

usa1fan_

LOL. Edmunds, you mention the Escape in passing, but in every reference to a purchase, make statements as to why the buyer might pick the CrossTrek over a CR-V or RAV4, with no mention of the Escape, as if those are the logical contenders for sales.

It sure seems to me that you're ignoring the fact that, in the real world at least, most are currently buying the Ford, regardless of authors' preferences or biases. Maybe you want to include class-selling leaders in comments about which vehicle someone might buy, at least once in awhile?

mastover

We bought one of these this weekend for our son. It's a nice car but the engine is WAY under powered. It's also very loud when trying to go up any kind of hill. The transmission screams as if you are killing it when pushed. They also tried to add in a nice touch by putting a plastic piece on the back side of the rear seats so that when they are folded down you have a plastic floor. Unfortunately it's got a funky fold on the bottom that velcros to the carpet. It has to be tucked back in every time you put the seat back up. As it's velcro, I figure it will never last. Also, since this car has to work so hard it MUST use synthetic oil...expect to pay nearly $90 for an oil change and Subaru still recommends here in Colorado that you do it every 3750 miles. One last note, if you elect to not get GPS, your screen size for the radio/on board camera shrinks by over an inch. That being said, the car looks great and in town drives very nice. Just don't expect to pass anything on the highway or pull away quick from a light. Getting good gas mileage has one large drawback...driving fun is gone. Good car for an 18 year old though...hard to race anyone but a bicycle...although the bike may win. Did I mention it's REALLY slow?

doctoro1

I heard in some off road tests this baby performed as good and better than the Land Rover

daybyday

I like a lot of features--but the didn't get the leather seats. should have. You only look at the seats and tehy discolor. Never had a seat stain as eaisly as these do.

I like the hanling but tire wear is a real problem. I have 67,000 on an dam getting my 5th set of tires. NO it is not my driving--there is somehting wrong with the vehicle.

capriracer

daybyday said:

I like a lot of features--but the didn't get the leather seats. should have. You only look at the seats and tehy discolor. Never had a seat stain as eaisly as these do.

I like the hanlding but tire wear is a real problem. I have 67,000 on an dam getting my 5th set of tires. NO it is not my driving--there is something wrong with the vehicle.

Could you explain a bit more? In some respects, this doesn't make sense: 12K per set doesn't sound right.

Are the tires wearing evenly? Is it only the fronts or the rears?