Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
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.