2014 Subaru Forester

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
537
Location
midland tx
I'm looking to purchase one in the next few days and am wondering if they're any good. I'm reading of oil consumption problems in older models,any truth to it? How much oil does a boxer type engine typically consume ?
 
I had a 2012 rental Forester when my truck was in the body shop.

It drove OK, the mileage was so-so, decent low end grunt, the seating was nice and high with plenty of headroom. There was a lot of room in the back too. The AWD worked pisah but the interior seemed more on the cheapie plastic side.

The huge moon roof won my wife over though. To be honest, it seemed slightly crude and unrefined-> almost Jeep-like, which was why we seemed to like it.
 
If you are going with the auto trans I seem to remember it being CVT.

That was the main reason I scratched it off my list of potential cars to replace a Mazda 3 with.

We ended up going the easy route and just picking a FWD CR-V.

It is very difficult to pick an SUV. Take your time.
 
My niece has a 2010 model...automatic. I've driven it twice...I agree that the seating seems good and it drove fine. I was expecting more and was surprised how noisy it is (at least compared to my vehicles). She and her husband are "cars are an applicance" people and it shows...interior is a garbage dump and the seats and carpets are pretty badly stained from their 2 (little) kids. It has been dead reliable though and they like it. They're thinking of trading it for something with more room and said they'd probably look at a Honda or Toyota next time (limited options with Subaru if you want something bigger). I personally prefer how the CRV drives and handles but that's compared to the older models...the 2014 seems like it'll be a more competitive vehicle with the improvements. As far as the CVT goes, I have one in my Suzuki (Jatco-sourced) and I've grown to really like it...to each his own.
 
I've never driven a Forester, but we're pretty happy with our '07 Outback. I've never heard of oil burning problems with Subarus, and ours certainly doesn't. (The thing you hear about mostly is head gasket issues with the earlier 2.5L engines, but those have been resolved.)
 
A shame they have gone to CVT boxes I prefer the older box as fitted to my 2004 Legacy, ok it was the four speed but apart from the slight delay when pulling away, not uncommon and more likely to do with my choice of a NA 2.0 petrol engine than the gearbox.

But it gave no problems whatsoever despite being driven hard over a significant period of time.

I also prefer the looks of the Legacy prior to the new one coming out last year.

New Forester looks good though.

Not as roomy as some but I think they are very dependable vehicles and have excellent wet weather grip.
 
I have a 12 Forester and mid land TX might not need a all wheel drive but up here in the NE it comes in handy. The oil use does not seem to be that popular. Go to the Forester forum and you can see all of this up front. Consumer Reports says the Subaru as one of the most reliable.
 
Last edited:
I have an '05 Forester with 137k miles. I've been using Mobil 1 EP at 1 with 12k drain intervals. I usually add between 1/2 to 1 quart of oil over this period.

My father has an 09 Outback (same engine) and never has to add oil although he only goes 5k miles or less between changes.

I've read a lot about head gasket issues on the older models, but never experienced them.

Everybody I know who owns a Subaru is very happy with it. I have a friend with an older Outback (00 or 01 model) that has 270k miles on it and it is still running good although it looks a little beat up.
 
There were some "teething" problems with the new FB 2.5L engine with the new wet timing system. You never know when you are going to get a subaru LEMON engine with machining issues. Our '09 had a tsb on improperly machined heads and that car started eating oil horrendously at 50K so we traded on a 2011. The New FB engine had various problem from tensioner issue to impropely machine heads.
Our '11 forester example has been a good one - very roomy with awesome ave fuel mileage over 30 mpg. AFAIK there are only two viable awd WAGONS, the RAV 4 and the Forester - the Honda is a non competeive toy. Please drive both and pick the one you like and the one you get a deal on. I see many cuv with 3 grand off the sticker now. I would look for a 2012 or 13 leftovertures and skip the new smaller unit.
BTW, Forester have been more reliable in general than Toyota in our stable.

Just noticed, Jeepers, what for do you need AWD in TEXAS ??? !!!
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
There were some "teething" problems with the new FB 2.5L engine with the new wet timing system. You never know when you are going to get a subaru LEMON engine with machining issues. Our '09 had a tsb on improperly machined heads and that car started eating oil horrendously at 50K so we traded on a 2011. The New FB engine had various problem from tensioner issue to impropely machine heads.


Jeez, that is pretty bad.
 
Thanks guys, I have driven many cars in that segment and had choosen this one.I started to read a Subaru forum and the consumption issue and knew I would get a more informed view here.
Ottotheclown, We don't get much snow here but it has been known to rain mud !
 
If they still make them such that the engine self destructs if the timing belt breaks, then I would avoid a Forester, or all Subaru's if they are all like that.
 
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
If they still make them such that the engine self destructs if the timing belt breaks, then I would avoid a Forester, or all Subaru's if they are all like that.

AFAIK, most OHC engines nowadays use an interference design. Just means you have to get your t-belt changed when it should.
 
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
If they still make them such that the engine self destructs if the timing belt breaks, then I would avoid a Forester, or all Subaru's if they are all like that.


I must admit I have never bought a car in the basis that if I fail to maintain it properly my lack of care won't have dire consequences.

As already said most if no all cambelt engines will be of an interference design.

The last engine that I can remember being non interference was the 2.0 Vauxhall Carlton engine from around the late eighties early nineties.
 
Most new engines are interference, regardless of whether they use a belt or a chain. The amount of required maintenance may be smaller with a chain but is a correctly maintained chain less likely to fail than a correctly maintained belt? I would guess not, but I don't know.
 
The new engine is a chain(wet) but belts(dry) are better overall on DOHC for many reasons.

_ My Honda had a recall for the valvetrain falling apart and lunching the engine ( L15a7 ) and that Japanese-built car is the most relaible car made today.
So there is no hiding - just DUMB luck on getting a "good" car these days.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
do yourself a huge favor and get the manual stick. the CVT is terrible.


The 2.0XT is probably a blast with the CVT though. My mother's 2010 Altima V6 has the CVT and it is amazing. All of the CVT complaints are with the underpowered 4-cyls.
 
I think Nissan makes the best CVT, smallest, quietest, most efficient, and most reliable.

Subaru makes the best AWD system. But has the oddball Boxer engine, that has it's minuses (can't think of the pluses other than lower center of gravity).

I consider Subaru to be a less common brand, so I would look more mainstream if you want cheap parts and ready service.

After studying auto mechanics it really allows you to appreciate the price differences and availability of parts.

Those two factors alone make car shopping much easier.

I had a buddy get a set of Ceramic brake pads for the front of his old Toyota Corolla for 27$. We did a pad swap with all the trimmings (anti-squeek, anti-seize where needed, torque wrench, and lubed the sliders) in less than 45mins, taking our sweet time and pulling out all the bolts and putting anti-seize on them and using a torque wrench.

Imagine. A 27$ brake job when you know where you can get away with needless costs.

Some brands you need very deep pockets for basic parts and service.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top