I've test-driven a few cars with paddle shifters. It's neat for a little bit, but I think it would be extraneous on any car that isn't driven really hard, like a track day or autocross.
My A4 has a DSG dual-clutch automatic, but no paddle shifters. (They were an option on a higher trim level.) I don't miss them at all because after the first week or so of driving the car, it learned my driving habits very well and it knows I like to use wide-open-throttle when entering the highway.
It definitely babies the shifts, but that's fine by me, and it will actually hold a gear for five seconds or so after you stop accelerating, to make sure you're not going to surge forward again. It's pretty handy, given that other automatics I've driven will shift up into a tall gear almost immediately after you get out of the throttle.
Anyway. I'm sure you won't miss a clutch pedal in your next Subaru. :shades:
I'm finding that to be the case (no third pedal) with Deb's new Forester. It's not fast, but very nice and relaxing to drive—and oh so easy to get in and out of. Told you I'm getting old.
Looking forward to seeing the full specs and feature content on this all-new Forester, especially the turbo model.
I think the Equinox is rated that high but only with FWD.
The CX5 is rated as high as 35mpg but only with a manual and FWD. AWD rates 25/31, so I believe Forester would lead the class, and with more than a 2.0l as well. :shades:
I agree. We've never had a problem with the 4EAT. It's a very rugged and reliable transmission. Yeah, it was old and lacking a couple of gears—but there was nothing wrong with it.
Having said that, I'm happy they've retired it. Hopefully the new CVTs will prove to be just as strong and trouble-free.
I'm wondering how the handling is. That EyeSight system would be awfully beneficial for my evil 100 mile daily commute. Question is will it be fun enough to make me not miss my Mazda3 or wish I got a WRX...
Doesn't have to be "as fun as" just has to be "fun enough."
I'd love to see Subaru develop a DCT, but I understand they're small and have limited resources. Developing a CVT and giving it pseudo-gears was a good choice as it covers a lot of bases.
So long as it can talk to my Android I don't care a lot about the head unit. I do care that Subaru knows how to make steering racks and suspensions, and Toyota doesn't. :shades:
Subaru's not quite as good at it as Mazda, but they're good at it.
Note there is no XT manual, even though the spec sheet PDF indicates there is one. Also, towing has been reduced to 1500 lbs from 2400 lbs. Not good. I can only hope it's due to revised government tow ratings, and not changes to downgrade the car's towing capability.
I'm still drooling over 250 lb-ft at 2000 RPM. Hope this thing isn't too expensive though, seems like it's going to have a LOT of stuff.
Then again, i can live without the power liftgate and a panoramic sunroof. Then again (again), I want EyeSight and need Sirius/XM, and Subie's generally pretty annoying with the packaging and pre-reqs. :sick:
Nearly 4" more leg room in back, which was already roomy. Dwarfs my '98 model now.
Seats are 1.4" higher. Tunnel is lower, too, for leg room in the rear seat middle position.
Oil level indicator. Is there still a dip stick?
Only the XT gets dual exhaust, so the non turbos had some cost cutting there.
18" for the XT means expensive tires. Our 17"s are already expensive.
Not much detail on X-Mode.
Some folks complained about the old head restraints, those are revised and the anti-whiplash protection is now part of the seat, sounds like.
Incline start assist and steering wheel controls are standard now even on the base model, nice. The wheel tilts and telescopes also on all models, before it was on the higher end ones only.
How many screens do they have? Base model, then the Premium has a backup cam, then the Limited has an upgraded LCD and that's not even getting to the Navi option? Overkill? They really only need 2, and make the backup cam standard.
Limited gets the power gate, that would probably be my choice, that or the Premium with AWP. XT Touring is loaded to the gills, that'll venture well in to the 30s I bet in price. Definitely moved upscale.
On most cars that have the indicator, no, there isn't a dip stick. Manufacturers correctly realize that an overwhelming number of car owners do not check the dip stick. I doubt they will check the electronic oil level, either, before it gets low enough to trip an alert.
But this also ties oil level into the ECU, so they can see when someone drives 10,000 miles on low oil and then later has engine trouble.
It says the XT required 91 AKI minimum? I thought premium was not a requirement?
The ranges for the CVT ratios are amazing. It can go shorter than the 6th speed manual's 1st gear, but also taller than 6th.
With a 3.7:1 final drive and a ratio of 0.570 to 1 on the CVT, the 2.5l will rev extremely low at high speeds.
The turbo's final drive is shorter, 4.11:1, probably to avoid lag. It's also probably why the mileage numbers for the 2l turbo are lower.
Brakes are smaller for non turbos, surprise. Mine are 11.7" and 11.3", now it's 11.6" and 10.8". Turbos are both bigger at 12.4" and 10.9" with the rears vented.
Tires are taller, 60 instead of 55 series. May not fit a full sized spare in the spare tire well now.
Angle of approach is down by 2 degrees, not very significant but still.
Base model gained 50-60 lbs over the 2009s, but the XT is a lot heavier, 36xx while it was 34xx back in 2009. Lots of extra content I'm sure.
24/32 crushes my 20/26 though. Even the new XT's 23/28 easily beats mine.
Fuel tank is one gallon smaller, 15.9 gallons now, back to where it was for 1998-2008. It was 16.9 gallons last year. That offsets some of the gained range.
The 250hp comes with an asterix - 93 octane. 91 octane minimum so that contradicts what we heard earlier about using regular fuel. Bummer.
Not liking the weight gain (XT), premium fuel requirement (XT), and reduced towing.
Vented rotors all around is nice. I actually don't need the cargo capacity, but it comes with all the other stuff, and this is SO much more desirable than an Impreza.
The 250hp comes with an asterix - 93 octane. 91 octane minimum so that contradicts what we heard earlier about using regular fuel. Bummer.
It may be a matter of only doing 240 HP with regular or something. Supposedly premium was not a requirement, but I bet it's needed for best performance. I'll take 240 HP...heck, I'll take 230 HP if it means I can put regular in.
Yeah, sounds like the paddles will be for the XT. The stepped transmission also.
Bob likes EyeSight too, funny thing is a lot of Sienna owners complained about their radar-based cruise control so I haven't been craving it. Most of them turn it off.
EyeSight it different in that is uses cameras, though. Let's wait and see.
That's probably a result of owning a Miata and not a WRX.
With a horizontally opposed engine, it's very likely to consume some oil if you do a lot of aggressive cornering. Even with a dry sump, it's going to happen because the cylinder heads are laying sideways.
I had to add a lot of oil to my Impreza which I autocrossed the whole time I owned it. My compression was great and tailpipe clean.
2.5L engine, 180+ HP, 180+ lb-ft of torque, and 30 MPG highway in AWD guise. I hope Mazda and Subaru don't go to war or something, smaller automakers are dropping like flies and we need these two to stick around.
A few months back I drove a new Outback with Eyesight and was impressed with that feature.
A few small details:
• You have a choice of three distances between your car and the car in front with the adaptive cruise control.
• The cruise control indicator on the instrument panel gives an actual speed readout as to what it's set at. There is also an indicator as to what distance you have it set at. I like that.
• The lane departure warning can be a bit annoying, as any time you cross a lane it warns you, even if it's an intentional move on your part. So if you pull off the road and into a shopping center, or change lanes on the expressway, it will go off.
Optional for 2.5i and 2.0XT Touring Driver Assist Technology package with EyeSight system, Keyless Access and Start and HID headlights.
The Limited and Touring models seem to have moved up-market, especially the Touring models. The XTs also have greatly benefited feature-wise from this new makeover.
Saw that too. The extra power and DI would be welcome, in fact that should be the next thing on Subaru's wish list for the base Forester.
Surprisingly the Forester gets better fuel economy at 24/32 (vs. 24/30 both with AWD), despite being bigger.
I test drove a CX5 with my sister and the engine fixes the biggest issue that car had (lack of power), but not the 2nd biggest - a tight rear seat. We folded the rear seat and it hits the front seatback. You have to slide the front seat forward to fold the rear seat.
The last Forester was already bigger so the new Forester must be a *lot* bigger.
Also we should remember that's Mazda's premium engine, you have to get an upscale model and then pay extra for the 2.5l engine to replace the 2.0l.
Comments
I'll try it on my Outback.
Charlie
My A4 has a DSG dual-clutch automatic, but no paddle shifters. (They were an option on a higher trim level.) I don't miss them at all because after the first week or so of driving the car, it learned my driving habits very well and it knows I like to use wide-open-throttle when entering the highway.
It definitely babies the shifts, but that's fine by me, and it will actually hold a gear for five seconds or so after you stop accelerating, to make sure you're not going to surge forward again. It's pretty handy, given that other automatics I've driven will shift up into a tall gear almost immediately after you get out of the throttle.
Anyway. I'm sure you won't miss a clutch pedal in your next Subaru. :shades:
Looking forward to seeing the full specs and feature content on this all-new Forester, especially the turbo model.
Bob
I think the Equinox is rated that high but only with FWD.
The CX5 is rated as high as 35mpg but only with a manual and FWD. AWD rates 25/31, so I believe Forester would lead the class, and with more than a 2.0l as well. :shades:
Bob
Though a turbo with +3mpg is just fine, and I might lean that way.
Having said that, I'm happy they've retired it. Hopefully the new CVTs will prove to be just as strong and trouble-free.
Bob
Having said that, I was surprised by how much I liked the CVT in the Impreza sedan I test drove, better than either conventional automatic.
Bob sent me these links also:
http://jalopnik.com/5960236/2014-subaru-forester-around-the-block
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1211_2014_subaru_forester_prototype_qui- ck_drive/?ti=v2
Funny how Jalopnik hates the style and the CVT, yet the Autoblog reviews says the exact opposite. MT seems more balanced.
You supply the engine and labor, I'll supply the Impreza ('12 Sport Limited).
I'll let you know what it's like.
I wonder if we'll get more than one state of tune for that 2l turbo? Maybe a low-pressure turbo for automatics, and then big power for the manual WRX?
That LPT would be a great engine for the XV.
It'd be great if they actually offered it, but they might be worried about cannibalizing WRX sales.
Then again, Foresters are supposed to handle really good. Maybe I can live with it...
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/11/2014-subaru-forester-up-close.html
Doesn't have to be "as fun as" just has to be "fun enough."
The image is the old AM and weatherbrand radio, that's it. Dual cone speakers (even the premium sound package had dual-cones in the rear doors).
Even the new head units looks a decade old.
Subaru's not quite as good at it as Mazda, but they're good at it.
Suspensions have different goals, Toyota merely isolates. OK for a minivan, for instance.
My Mazda's a tad too stiff for the awful potholes we have around here. Hit one today, ouch!
I should tell him I'll get one as soon as Mom replaces her Santa Fe with a CX-5 :shades:
http://media.subaru.com/pressrelease/391/117/subaru-introduces-all-new-2014-fore- ster-crossover-suv
http://subarumedia.iconicweb.com/mediasite/specs/2014_Forester_AAG_FINAL_1.pdf
http://subarumedia.iconicweb.com/mediasite/specs/2014-Forester-Specs-11-13rev_1.- - - pdf
Note there is no XT manual, even though the spec sheet PDF indicates there is one. Also, towing has been reduced to 1500 lbs from 2400 lbs. Not good. I can only hope it's due to revised government tow ratings, and not changes to downgrade the car's towing capability.
Bob
Then again, i can live without the power liftgate and a panoramic sunroof. Then again (again), I want EyeSight and need Sirius/XM, and Subie's generally pretty annoying with the packaging and pre-reqs. :sick:
250hp, at first I thought it was 240hp.
24/32 could be a class best for AWD.
Higher hip points should address complaints about low passenger seats, and lower sills keep it easy to get in.
Driver's knee air bag and brake override are new, I think.
Rear brake rotors on XT are vented now.
74.7 cubic feet capacity beats the Tribeca! Yikes!
I want one!
Nearly 4" more leg room in back, which was already roomy. Dwarfs my '98 model now.
Seats are 1.4" higher. Tunnel is lower, too, for leg room in the rear seat middle position.
Oil level indicator. Is there still a dip stick?
Only the XT gets dual exhaust, so the non turbos had some cost cutting there.
18" for the XT means expensive tires. Our 17"s are already expensive.
Not much detail on X-Mode.
Some folks complained about the old head restraints, those are revised and the anti-whiplash protection is now part of the seat, sounds like.
Incline start assist and steering wheel controls are standard now even on the base model, nice. The wheel tilts and telescopes also on all models, before it was on the higher end ones only.
How many screens do they have? Base model, then the Premium has a backup cam, then the Limited has an upgraded LCD and that's not even getting to the Navi option? Overkill? They really only need 2, and make the backup cam standard.
Limited gets the power gate, that would probably be my choice, that or the Premium with AWP. XT Touring is loaded to the gills, that'll venture well in to the 30s I bet in price. Definitely moved upscale.
On most cars that have the indicator, no, there isn't a dip stick. Manufacturers correctly realize that an overwhelming number of car owners do not check the dip stick. I doubt they will check the electronic oil level, either, before it gets low enough to trip an alert.
But this also ties oil level into the ECU, so they can see when someone drives 10,000 miles on low oil and then later has engine trouble.
It says the XT required 91 AKI minimum? I thought premium was not a requirement?
The ranges for the CVT ratios are amazing. It can go shorter than the 6th speed manual's 1st gear, but also taller than 6th.
With a 3.7:1 final drive and a ratio of 0.570 to 1 on the CVT, the 2.5l will rev extremely low at high speeds.
The turbo's final drive is shorter, 4.11:1, probably to avoid lag. It's also probably why the mileage numbers for the 2l turbo are lower.
Brakes are smaller for non turbos, surprise. Mine are 11.7" and 11.3", now it's 11.6" and 10.8". Turbos are both bigger at 12.4" and 10.9" with the rears vented.
Tires are taller, 60 instead of 55 series. May not fit a full sized spare in the spare tire well now.
Angle of approach is down by 2 degrees, not very significant but still.
Base model gained 50-60 lbs over the 2009s, but the XT is a lot heavier, 36xx while it was 34xx back in 2009. Lots of extra content I'm sure.
24/32 crushes my 20/26 though. Even the new XT's 23/28 easily beats mine.
Fuel tank is one gallon smaller, 15.9 gallons now, back to where it was for 1998-2008. It was 16.9 gallons last year. That offsets some of the gained range.
The 250hp comes with an asterix - 93 octane. 91 octane minimum so that contradicts what we heard earlier about using regular fuel. Bummer.
Not liking the weight gain (XT), premium fuel requirement (XT), and reduced towing.
Like the size, content, and better efficiency.
I want one too.
It may be a matter of only doing 240 HP with regular or something. Supposedly premium was not a requirement, but I bet it's needed for best performance. I'll take 240 HP...heck, I'll take 230 HP if it means I can put regular in.
If you see a light, top off ASAP. Hopefully it doesn't burn oil in the first place. I've never had to add oil between changes on our 3 Subies.
Kinda makes the base model more appealing, being so much lighter.
I mostly want EyeSight. If I can get it on the base I might just do so. But I bet it's turbo only for now.
Bob likes EyeSight too, funny thing is a lot of Sienna owners complained about their radar-based cruise control so I haven't been craving it. Most of them turn it off.
EyeSight it different in that is uses cameras, though. Let's wait and see.
With a horizontally opposed engine, it's very likely to consume some oil if you do a lot of aggressive cornering. Even with a dry sump, it's going to happen because the cylinder heads are laying sideways.
I had to add a lot of oil to my Impreza which I autocrossed the whole time I owned it. My compression was great and tailpipe clean.
2.5L engine, 180+ HP, 180+ lb-ft of torque, and 30 MPG highway in AWD guise. I hope Mazda and Subaru don't go to war or something, smaller automakers are dropping like flies and we need these two to stick around.
A few small details:
• You have a choice of three distances between your car and the car in front with the adaptive cruise control.
• The cruise control indicator on the instrument panel gives an actual speed readout as to what it's set at. There is also an indicator as to what distance you have it set at. I like that.
• The lane departure warning can be a bit annoying, as any time you cross a lane it warns you, even if it's an intentional move on your part. So if you pull off the road and into a shopping center, or change lanes on the expressway, it will go off.
Bob
Bob
Hmm, let's see, 7 year loan plus $4k for my trade in once I pay it off....damn.
Optional for 2.5i and 2.0XT Touring
Driver Assist Technology package with
EyeSight system, Keyless Access and Start
and HID headlights.
The Limited and Touring models seem to have moved up-market, especially the Touring models. The XTs also have greatly benefited feature-wise from this new makeover.
Bob
Surprisingly the Forester gets better fuel economy at 24/32 (vs. 24/30 both with AWD), despite being bigger.
I test drove a CX5 with my sister and the engine fixes the biggest issue that car had (lack of power), but not the 2nd biggest - a tight rear seat. We folded the rear seat and it hits the front seatback. You have to slide the front seat forward to fold the rear seat.
The last Forester was already bigger so the new Forester must be a *lot* bigger.
Also we should remember that's Mazda's premium engine, you have to get an upscale model and then pay extra for the 2.5l engine to replace the 2.0l.
Then again loaded Outbacks are selling like crazy. 4 cylinder models in the 30s.
Well, $34,995. :shades:
Bob