Subaru and turbo engine longevity is a joke. I loved our Subaru turbo wagon but seriously average to below average reliability at best.
Subaru Crosstrek
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by madRiver
Subaru and turbo engine longevity is a joke. I loved our Subaru turbo wagon but seriously average to below average reliability at best.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I have been on the Subaru Forester for 12 years. Even though they are fan boys its a large forum and a very percentage of those there have turbos. Head gasket failures on the old EJ engine were epidemic. As were other failures.
Subaru has more experience with turbos than any maker. The EJ Turbo was rock solid. Sure after 125K miles or so the turbo fails. And remember no car maker manufactures their jown Turbo. There are only a couple manufactures. The EJ turbo and FA Turbo engine have made Wards many times in the last 20 years.
Why are you saying something that is blatantly false? Oh wait you hate Subarus.
Subaru and turbo engine longevity is a joke. I loved our Subaru turbo wagon but seriously average to below average reliability at best.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I have been on the Subaru Forester for 12 years. Even though they are fan boys its a large forum and a very percentage of those there have turbos. Head gasket failures on the old EJ engine were epidemic. As were other failures.
Subaru has more experience with turbos than any maker. The EJ Turbo was rock solid. Sure after 125K miles or so the turbo fails. And remember no car maker manufactures their jown Turbo. There are only a couple manufactures. The EJ turbo and FA Turbo engine have made Wards many times in the last 20 years.
Why are you saying something that is blatantly false? Oh wait you hate Subarus.
The problem with turbo Subarus isn't the Subaru portion but the owner portion.
They are way too easy to add serious power while lacking the supporting modifications. Which means stuff goes pop
They are way too easy to add serious power while lacking the supporting modifications. Which means stuff goes pop
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by macarose
Subaru long-term reliability...
http://www.dashboard-light.com/reports/Subaru.html
Now lower than Land Rover.
Over 25,800 Subarus inspected by mechanics in that study.
See, that's interesting, because consumer reports has them as one of the most reliable brands, and the Crosstrek as their most reliable models.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/c289XTZ.png "[Linked Image]")
I don't know who these dashboard light folks are, but I think CR has a lot more reach and data.
CR is biased. They had Audi near the top for a while and VW near the bottom, even though the two brands share many power trains and other components.
Most of the Subaru fanboys/fangirls I know trade them in after a 3 year lease for a new one.
Originally Posted by macarose
Subaru long-term reliability...
http://www.dashboard-light.com/reports/Subaru.html
Now lower than Land Rover.
Over 25,800 Subarus inspected by mechanics in that study.
See, that's interesting, because consumer reports has them as one of the most reliable brands, and the Crosstrek as their most reliable models.
I don't know who these dashboard light folks are, but I think CR has a lot more reach and data.
CR is biased. They had Audi near the top for a while and VW near the bottom, even though the two brands share many power trains and other components.
Most of the Subaru fanboys/fangirls I know trade them in after a 3 year lease for a new one.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Well, then there's no real comparison. An XT is a whole level up from the 2.5i. There is no turbo Crosstrek... !
A touring 2.5 NA was $2500 more MSR than the Premium XT. I am truly comparing apples to apples. I want the same level of trim I have on my Premium.. Also I bought the XT not bc of the Turbo but bc the FA engine is superior to the 2.5FB engine which has been plagued with problems (comparatively) The Crosstrek FB20X engine is better than the Forester FB 25B engine.
1. I don't understand how you're comparing a 2.5i to an XT and considering it apple-to-apples. The turbo adds a very specific markup, regardless of whether it's a Premium or a Touring. It's not 100% math, but mostly just math between the two, irrespective of trim.
2. The recent FB engines are just fine. I cannot imagine anyone buying an FA20DIT (emphasis on DIT) over a 2.5i for the sake of longevity. That's a very weak argument.
3. What evidence do you have that the 2.0 is better than the 2.5?
I understand what you are saying but option for option the Crosstrek is 8,000 cheaper than a comparable Forester..what is so hard to understand here?
The FB20X engine is stronger than the bored out 2.5 FB same crank, same block. Its a better engine period.
I (again) am not saying that the Forester is not worth more option for option. I am saying option for option the Crosstrek is cheaper.
Again to me the Turbo power is un-necessary its the better engine that I was after. Both the FA20 and FB20X give me what I want a better stronger engine (do I really need it?-NO-So now I have said it!!)
For a daily driver, there's nothing wrong with the FB25 for the average driver. I also understand that this is your thread and that your comparison is based on what YOU like. I just want to make it clear to every other person in the world who WOULD consider "upgrading" to an FB25-powered Forester, that the price difference, trim-to-trim, is NOT $8k. Want a turbo - pay for a turbo; can't get a turbo in a similarly-priced Impreza/Crosstrek.
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Well, then there's no real comparison. An XT is a whole level up from the 2.5i. There is no turbo Crosstrek... !
A touring 2.5 NA was $2500 more MSR than the Premium XT. I am truly comparing apples to apples. I want the same level of trim I have on my Premium.. Also I bought the XT not bc of the Turbo but bc the FA engine is superior to the 2.5FB engine which has been plagued with problems (comparatively) The Crosstrek FB20X engine is better than the Forester FB 25B engine.
1. I don't understand how you're comparing a 2.5i to an XT and considering it apple-to-apples. The turbo adds a very specific markup, regardless of whether it's a Premium or a Touring. It's not 100% math, but mostly just math between the two, irrespective of trim.
2. The recent FB engines are just fine. I cannot imagine anyone buying an FA20DIT (emphasis on DIT) over a 2.5i for the sake of longevity. That's a very weak argument.
3. What evidence do you have that the 2.0 is better than the 2.5?
I understand what you are saying but option for option the Crosstrek is 8,000 cheaper than a comparable Forester..what is so hard to understand here?
The FB20X engine is stronger than the bored out 2.5 FB same crank, same block. Its a better engine period.
I (again) am not saying that the Forester is not worth more option for option. I am saying option for option the Crosstrek is cheaper.
Again to me the Turbo power is un-necessary its the better engine that I was after. Both the FA20 and FB20X give me what I want a better stronger engine (do I really need it?-NO-So now I have said it!!)
For a daily driver, there's nothing wrong with the FB25 for the average driver. I also understand that this is your thread and that your comparison is based on what YOU like. I just want to make it clear to every other person in the world who WOULD consider "upgrading" to an FB25-powered Forester, that the price difference, trim-to-trim, is NOT $8k. Want a turbo - pay for a turbo; can't get a turbo in a similarly-priced Impreza/Crosstrek.
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
Originally Posted by Miller88
The problem with turbo Subarus isn't the Subaru portion but the owner portion.
They are way too easy to add serious power while lacking the supporting modifications. Which means stuff goes pop
Yea that is a good point. And you are right they are always adding boost and getting mods to add boost. But truthfully I rarely rarely hear engine damage.
There was a recall with the EJ turbo engine a few years agoi due to wiping of main or rod bearings. Can't remember which. It was not widespread.
The problem with turbo Subarus isn't the Subaru portion but the owner portion.
They are way too easy to add serious power while lacking the supporting modifications. Which means stuff goes pop
Yea that is a good point. And you are right they are always adding boost and getting mods to add boost. But truthfully I rarely rarely hear engine damage.
There was a recall with the EJ turbo engine a few years agoi due to wiping of main or rod bearings. Can't remember which. It was not widespread.
Originally Posted by gathermewool
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
I do apologize I went and looked at them today. Considering everything and subtracting for the engine as you said its about $62oo cheaper.
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
I do apologize I went and looked at them today. Considering everything and subtracting for the engine as you said its about $62oo cheaper.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by gathermewool
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
I do apologize I went and looked at them today. Considering everything and subtracting for the engine as you said its about $62oo cheaper.
No way a Crosstrek would be 6.2K cheaper than a Premium Package NA Forester.
We paid around 26K for our '17 Forester and there is no way that a similarly equipped Crosstrek would have gone for less than 20K.
The two liter in the Impreza models also has nothing in common with the really good two liter used in some of the turbo cars.
The turbo two liter was always a very well built engine that the junior Impreza models don't get.
Originally Posted by gathermewool
And of course the Crosstrek is cheaper; it's a lower-market, smaller vehicle than the Forester. Upgrading to a Crosstrek gets you a lift kit, some added rigidity, body cladding, better approach and departure angles (IIRC, and if soft off-roading is your plan), and slightly less trunk space compared to the Impreza hatch. Upgrading to the Forester gets you a larger, faster and more-practical vehicle than the previous two. You get what you pay for. I personally don't have concerns with the FB25 over the FB20, though Subaru does have a history of issues with their larger engines (90's EJ25 vs 22, for instance, where the 2.2L was considered bullet-proof)
I do apologize I went and looked at them today. Considering everything and subtracting for the engine as you said its about $62oo cheaper.
No way a Crosstrek would be 6.2K cheaper than a Premium Package NA Forester.
We paid around 26K for our '17 Forester and there is no way that a similarly equipped Crosstrek would have gone for less than 20K.
The two liter in the Impreza models also has nothing in common with the really good two liter used in some of the turbo cars.
The turbo two liter was always a very well built engine that the junior Impreza models don't get.
You should read this: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...n-rogue-subaru-forester-and-toyota-rav4/
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
Wow, biased much?
Do you have subaru stock? Own a dealership? Trying to sell one with defective head gaskets???
Hahhahahah
Do you have subaru stock? Own a dealership? Trying to sell one with defective head gaskets???
Hahhahahah
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...n-rogue-subaru-forester-and-toyota-rav4/
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
The problem is that Honda's new turbo engines have been having some serious teething issues, which has knocked them WAY down when it comes to reliability.
Car magazines won't notice those sorts of things in a simple test drive of new cars, but an owner who will be keeping the thing for a long time will.
You should read this: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...n-rogue-subaru-forester-and-toyota-rav4/
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
The problem is that Honda's new turbo engines have been having some serious teething issues, which has knocked them WAY down when it comes to reliability.
Car magazines won't notice those sorts of things in a simple test drive of new cars, but an owner who will be keeping the thing for a long time will.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
If you actually read my post, I was not fanboying Subaru, I was bashing the CRV. My condolences if you own one.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
If you actually read my post, I was not fanboying Subaru, I was bashing the CRV. My condolences if you own one.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
Originally Posted by gofast182
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
And I'll just add to this that we used to have a '10 CR-V (with the old AWD system before they switched to the proactive one in 2015) and it got us through snow 4WD vehicles were stuck in.
I'll also add that I've driven the Crosstrek (including in snow) and I recently recommended the it to a neighbor looking for a new car. She's not a car person and it's the perfect vehicle for someone like that. It is comfortable, reliable (even though the one I drove had a coolant light on), has a decent AWD system, and is efficient. The downside is it's a bit wallowy in the handling department, the interior is decidedly low rent, and it is very underpowered (literally the slowest car I've ever driven, despite a nice punch off the line). So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
And I'll just add to this that we used to have a '10 CR-V (with the old AWD system before they switched to the proactive one in 2015) and it got us through snow 4WD vehicles were stuck in.
I'll also add that I've driven the Crosstrek (including in snow) and I recently recommended the it to a neighbor looking for a new car. She's not a car person and it's the perfect vehicle for someone like that. It is comfortable, reliable (even though the one I drove had a coolant light on), has a decent AWD system, and is efficient. The downside is it's a bit wallowy in the handling department, the interior is decidedly low rent, and it is very underpowered (literally the slowest car I've ever driven, despite a nice punch off the line). So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
Originally Posted by gofast182
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
Honda has long been accused of buying lots of ad space in the various buff books to ensure that its gets good ink. I'll note that all three of the Accords in my sig have been on Car & Driver's ten best list and this has been so since I was a lad. The cars really have been that good in our experience, but American Honda also buys plenty of pages in all of the buff books, so who knows?
Mazda is the underdog among Japanese brands, so they get a lot of positive mention since we all like to support the underdog and a true underdog like Mitsubishi is just too small of a presence in the market with too few models to even try to help.
WRT Subaru, you'll see two Foresters in my sig, one of which we've had since August 2008. We live in a place that sees both real winter and sometimes very nasty conditions, with deep snow and deeper drifts.
I can tell you based upon our experience that I can't imagine anything being easier or more confidence inspiring to drive in these conditions than a Subaru.
Motor Trend magazine lives in LA, so their collective experience of winter is probably pretty limited.
When we bought the '09, it was because I had long wanted a Subie and we were looking for a car my wife would feel comfortable driving in all conditions. When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
Honda has long been accused of buying lots of ad space in the various buff books to ensure that its gets good ink. I'll note that all three of the Accords in my sig have been on Car & Driver's ten best list and this has been so since I was a lad. The cars really have been that good in our experience, but American Honda also buys plenty of pages in all of the buff books, so who knows?
Mazda is the underdog among Japanese brands, so they get a lot of positive mention since we all like to support the underdog and a true underdog like Mitsubishi is just too small of a presence in the market with too few models to even try to help.
WRT Subaru, you'll see two Foresters in my sig, one of which we've had since August 2008. We live in a place that sees both real winter and sometimes very nasty conditions, with deep snow and deeper drifts.
I can tell you based upon our experience that I can't imagine anything being easier or more confidence inspiring to drive in these conditions than a Subaru.
Motor Trend magazine lives in LA, so their collective experience of winter is probably pretty limited.
When we bought the '09, it was because I had long wanted a Subie and we were looking for a car my wife would feel comfortable driving in all conditions. When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
Originally Posted by gofast182
So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
I am always amazed that all these nameless internet folks can be such "true drivers"..compared I suppose to little old me who has been driving for 57 years
Originally Posted by fdcg27
When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
If you are like me I am sure that you were amazed how well your '17 did compared to the '09' Its a step change!
So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
I am always amazed that all these nameless internet folks can be such "true drivers"..compared I suppose to little old me who has been driving for 57 years
Originally Posted by fdcg27
When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
If you are like me I am sure that you were amazed how well your '17 did compared to the '09' Its a step change!
Last edited:
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by gofast182
Originally Posted by gofast182
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
And I'll just add to this that we used to have a '10 CR-V (with the old AWD system before they switched to the proactive one in 2015) and it got us through snow 4WD vehicles were stuck in.
I'll also add that I've driven the Crosstrek (including in snow) and I recently recommended the it to a neighbor looking for a new car. She's not a car person and it's the perfect vehicle for someone like that. It is comfortable, reliable (even though the one I drove had a coolant light on), has a decent AWD system, and is efficient. The downside is it's a bit wallowy in the handling department, the interior is decidedly low rent, and it is very underpowered (literally the slowest car I've ever driven, despite a nice punch off the line). So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
Was the coolant light blue? That's normal for a cold engine
Originally Posted by gofast182
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by bobdoo
You should read this
1st: Honda
2nd: CX-5
What's your point? The fact that Motor Trend would not recognize a quality vehicle when they see one. The fact that Subaru handles better and is actually an AWD vehicle compared to the CRV?
My son is on his second Crv (2018). Anyone who has ever driven that Bimbo Box can attest to the fact that it is the most boring friggin vehicle on the planet. CX-5 on the other hand is a great vehicle. I wonder how much Honda paid the testers. I have no dog in the fight other than picking the CRV above anything is a sham. Yes they are deadly reliable..that's it.
This is rich. Subaru is the king of paying for staged tests to demonstrate "Symmetrical AWD". What tells me you're biased and full of crud is that the CR-V, which has scored remarkably well in so many tests by so many organizations, even in direct comparison to the CX-5, is "boring" and a "sham" yet the Mazda is "great". Anyone with a brain isn't going to take a post like that seriously. And BTW the CR-V's AWD system proactively sends power to the rear on acceleration regardless of front wheel slip.
And I'll just add to this that we used to have a '10 CR-V (with the old AWD system before they switched to the proactive one in 2015) and it got us through snow 4WD vehicles were stuck in.
I'll also add that I've driven the Crosstrek (including in snow) and I recently recommended the it to a neighbor looking for a new car. She's not a car person and it's the perfect vehicle for someone like that. It is comfortable, reliable (even though the one I drove had a coolant light on), has a decent AWD system, and is efficient. The downside is it's a bit wallowy in the handling department, the interior is decidedly low rent, and it is very underpowered (literally the slowest car I've ever driven, despite a nice punch off the line). So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
Was the coolant light blue? That's normal for a cold engine
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by gofast182
So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
I am always amazed that all these nameless internet folks can be such "true drivers"..compared I suppose to little old me who has been driving for 57 years
Originally Posted by fdcg27
When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
If you are like me I am sure that you were amazed how well your '17 did compared to the '09' Its a step change!
Maybe. My ‘97 Legacy was a beast in the snow. It literally saved my [censored] after making a poor decision on very bad road. My ‘06 WRX was even better. My ‘08 STI was great, but was only on-par with the aforementioned Subies, even though it had Blizzaks and they had all-seasons, because of the power difference.
Our ‘14 FXT and ‘15 Legacy aren't perceptibly different than any of the aforementioned. In fact, I'd say the FXT is slightly worse, even with X-Mode and new Blizzaks, though that's not a bad thing at all. It's still a beast!
Originally Posted by gofast182
So yes it's a good candidate for many people but not a true driver or car person.
I am always amazed that all these nameless internet folks can be such "true drivers"..compared I suppose to little old me who has been driving for 57 years
Originally Posted by fdcg27
When we bought the '17 it was because the '09 had proven so capable in bad winter conditions and my wife likes the high seating position.
I'd buy a Forester over a Mazda or a CRV in a heartbeat, as we have, twice.
If you are like me I am sure that you were amazed how well your '17 did compared to the '09' Its a step change!
Maybe. My ‘97 Legacy was a beast in the snow. It literally saved my [censored] after making a poor decision on very bad road. My ‘06 WRX was even better. My ‘08 STI was great, but was only on-par with the aforementioned Subies, even though it had Blizzaks and they had all-seasons, because of the power difference.
Our ‘14 FXT and ‘15 Legacy aren't perceptibly different than any of the aforementioned. In fact, I'd say the FXT is slightly worse, even with X-Mode and new Blizzaks, though that's not a bad thing at all. It's still a beast!
- Status
Similar threads
