Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Subaru Forester XT

[Noto]

From the Subaru Eyesight system, I would only care about having the blind-spot monitoring and backup camera.
Lane departure is when you are tired and really at that point you SHOULD NOT be driving.    <---- +1

I'm pretty sure EyeSight can't do Blind-Spot monitoring; the cameras are on the windscreen looking ahead.  Backup camera is standard (except on absolute base model) and can be had separate from EyeSight.  Again, I'm not sure there's any real compelling reason to get EyeSight...I'm sure it's a great system, but I'm just not there yet; not for $2200.

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

The turbo CVT is more fuel efficient than the non-turbo manual.  1s is a 'big deal'.  There's more to being 'fast' than simple 0-60 times.  The turbo is very useful for 80-120 passing, though I can't find any numbers to support that.

[Fobroader]

This is another one of those vehicles Ive always liked. The Forrester would be at the top of my list if shopping for a small CUV, the turbo is great, but that CVT.....man.....I dont know if I could do it.

[Mongo McMongo]

The turbo CVT is more fuel efficient than the non-turbo manual.

Barely. The turbo CVT requires premium fuel, so in the end you'll be spending considerably more on gas than the non-turbo. So even with premium fuel the turbo CVT is only one second faster to 100 km/h than a non-turbo manual with (I assume) regular fuel. That's kind of unbelievable isn't it? I wonder if you put premium fuel in the non-turbo manual that it would be as fast as the turbo CVT? Can someone get on that? 

There's more to being 'fast' than simple 0-60 times.

Not in a Forester. It's a CUV with over 8" of ground clearance. The regular Impreza probably handles better around corners than the Forester XT. The non-turbo manual is 1.5 seconds faster to 100 km than the non-turbo CVT. That means a turbo manual would smoke the CVT killing XT. God forbid the next generation WRX has a CVT. Dual clutch: yes. CVT: god help us all.

For highway passing, I would take a manual over a CVT any day. One of the problems with a CVT is that they hesitate, and no doubt that will get worse with an aging CVT.

[jyarkony]

From the Subaru Eyesight system, I would only care about having the blind-spot monitoring and backup camera.
Lane departure is when you are tired and really at that point you SHOULD NOT be driving.    <---- +1

I'm pretty sure EyeSight can't do Blind-Spot monitoring; the cameras are on the windscreen looking ahead.  Backup camera is standard (except on absolute base model) and can be had separate from EyeSight.  Again, I'm not sure there's any real compelling reason to get EyeSight...I'm sure it's a great system, but I'm just not there yet; not for $2200.

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

The turbo CVT is more fuel efficient than the non-turbo manual.  1s is a 'big deal'.  There's more to being 'fast' than simple 0-60 times.  The turbo is very useful for 80-120 passing, though I can't find any numbers to support that.

i like eyesight for its adaptive cruise and self-braking feature, LDW not so much.

and while not compared to the manual 2.5i, here is the Forester XT vs its AJAC under $35K SUV competitors, not even sure if that is in Sport# mode, but it's pretty good where speed is concerned, and I'm pretty sure the 2.5i would be significantly slower in that 80-120. and Mongo, this CVT has shifter paddles with six or eight simulated gears (S and S#, respectively) - I'm pretty sure you could get a lower ratio quicker in this CVT than in any manual - it's quick...  but i'm with you on the efficiency - i highly doubt that the XT would get better mileage than a 2.5i in the real world, no matter what the ratings say.

and Fobroader - the CVT is pretty awesome - go test drive one as if you don't know what kind of transmission it has (and don't hate CVTs), and then tell us what you think.

[dirtyjeffer]

i find the non-turbo Touring Forester to be the sweet spot myself (performance addicts aside)...$30k for a well equipped and capable vehicle...just don't go to the US website to see what they sell them down there for.

sadly, i'm not sure if it is on purpose, but the US has a "Touring" model, but it is a fully loaded model (above "Limited") and is also $29,995...so if Canadians visit their website and see Forester Touring for $29,995 they may think "Hey, same price, sweet"...sadly, the Premium model is more similar, and is only $23,495...it is missing a few features, but even if you step up to the "Limited" model, that is still only $27,995 and includes leather and plenty of other goodies not included in the "Touring" model that we get.

[dirtyjeffer]

Just shy of $40k is a lot of money. An XT Premium (not the same as the model tested here on Autos.ca) was tested on a US site last week that was just $28k. Delivery and dealer prep in Canada is exactly double what it is in the US ($825 vs. $1650) doesn't help either. Subaru Canada could really afford to sharpen their collective pencils. Still a nice effort and a great choice for Canadians who live in snowy regions. I guess that explains the higher pricing, they've got a good product that is selling well. Why 'give it away'?

an interesting comparo would be the $40k XT Premium and a base GLK 250 diesel ($45kish)...i realize the Subie will be speedier, but i wonder which would be the better "all rounder" for "regular" consumers.

[Northernridge]

Just shy of $40k is a lot of money. An XT Premium (not the same as the model tested here on Autos.ca) was tested on a US site last week that was just $28k. Delivery and dealer prep in Canada is exactly double what it is in the US ($825 vs. $1650) doesn't help either. Subaru Canada could really afford to sharpen their collective pencils. Still a nice effort and a great choice for Canadians who live in snowy regions. I guess that explains the higher pricing, they've got a good product that is selling well. Why 'give it away'?

an interesting comparo would be the $40k XT Premium and a base GLK 250 diesel ($45kish)...i realize the Subie will be speedier, but i wonder which would be the better "all rounder" for "regular" consumers.

That is a good question. I've been shuttled in a base GLK and it was very nice.

[Snowman]

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

In 0-60 that is an eternity

[Black Hatch]

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

In 0-60 that is an eternity

Only at the stoplight? Racing CUVS now?

I wonder what a 0-60 manual CX-5 with the 2.5L will do?
Could it match the CVT Forester XT?

[blotter]

Navigation:

I believe the Forester has the same Nav as the Crosstrek?
it is sourced from Garmin.  Now the unit (Nav / Stereo) has an SD card slot.  What I'd like to know is if you can update the Garmin Nav via the SD Card.  This would make it pretty attractive. 

[Snowman]

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

In 0-60 that is an eternity

Only at the stoplight? Racing CUVS now?

I wonder what a 0-60 manual CX-5 with the 2.5L will do?
Could it match the CVT Forester XT?

  Any car, a 3 second car will make a 4 second car look real bad.

[mixmanmash]

The non-turbo 6 speed manual is only one second slower in acceleration to 100 km/h.

In 0-60 that is an eternity

Only at the stoplight? Racing CUVS now?

I wonder what a 0-60 manual CX-5 with the 2.5L will do?
Could it match the CVT Forester XT?

I don't think you can get a CX-5 2.5L in manual in our marketplace, and certainly not with AWD. In other markets, you can even get the diesel CX-5 with AWD and manual.

[Wildsau]

I'm no CVT fan myself, but in reviewing the Forester XT, I found myself impressed by what I would call the most responsive CVT I've ever driven.

Yes, there's lag, but probably less than most would expect, and frankly, it's more responsive than most of the automatics out there. Even the programmed "gears", which seemed ridiculous at first, are more convincing and snappy than some automatics.

I guarantee that this CVT is equally as responsive for highway passing as the manual transmission in capable hands is. And that's saying a lot.

I could defend it all day long, but I'd say, if you're in the market, you absolutely must drive one before discounting it just because of the CVT.

[Noto]

The turbo CVT is more fuel efficient than the non-turbo manual.

Barely. The turbo CVT requires premium fuel
...
I wonder if you put premium fuel in the non-turbo manual that it would be as fast as the turbo CVT? Can someone get on that? 

1) Get your facts straight - the 2014 Forester XT does not REQUIRE premium; it recommends it.  I.E. it will work, and will not harm the engine, if you use regular grade fuel.  Just no e85 sh!t.

2) Do you understand what premium fuel is/does?  The higher the octane, the more compressible it becomes.  So all that premium fuel does is retards the combustion of fuel at higher pressures.  Since the FB25 dopes not have a high compression ratio, putting in premium fuel will do no better for fuel economy nor performance in this particular engine.  The FA20 turbo has higher compression while in boost, which would benefit from the premium fuel.  If you are not consistently flooring it though, you'd almost never have pre-mature combustion.  Even if you did, on those occasions, the ECM would change valve timing to delay fuel release and combat the engine knock resulting from premature combustion.

Let me give it to you in simpler terms:  The XT offers great performance with lower operating costs, assuming you drive it reasonably.  Any turbocharged engine will suck fuel quicker when you have the engine in boost; however, if driven properly, the turbocharger is not often engaged, and the engine will act more like a 2.0L when it comes to fuel consumption (and lack of benefit for higher-octane fuel).

I think it's time we change the name of "premium" fuel - idiots are confused as to what it is. Let's call it what it is:

87 Octane - Normal.  Use this.
89 Octane - almost never worth the cost, but oil companies would like you not to know that.
91 Octane - Only beneficial for turbocharged or high-performance engines with associated high-compression ratios. *Note on 91 pump - if you car doesn't recommend it, don't use it.
94 Octane - unless you're taking your car to the track, don't bother, even if turbocharged/high compression.

**Further note:  Mazda's ridiculously awesome compression ratios may benefit from higher compression fuel, but does not require it, nor recommend it...so save your $.

The EJ25's (2011 Forester XT, which I have) compression ratio is something like 8.4:1.  That's what it is while NOT in boost.  The boost adds a maximum of another 11.5psi-ish of pressure to the cylinders while under wide open throttle.  If you want to add more boost, you have to lower the compression ratio and use lower grade fuel so the fuel will combust more readily.

I think the stock boost of the FA20 (2014 Forester XT) is 4psi but has a higher compression ratio of 9.6:1.

[johngenx]

I agree that using premium in a car that doesn't require it is usually a waste of money.  However, you can't judge those needs on the compression ratio alone.  Even some very high compression engines run just fine on 87.  It's a combination of compression ratio, ignition timing, valve timing and fuel delivery.  There is some misconception that the higher the octane, the "better" the fuel is.  This is wrong.  It's just more resistant to combustion.  A lower octane fuel will ignite faster, which in some engines produces a burn prior to when the engineers desire it in terms of the valve timing and piston position.  So, some engines use a higher octane fuel so that it will ignite at a different point.  Generally speaking, engines tuned for higher performance can take advantage of higher octane as we can advance the timing and/or allow the piston to compress the mixture more.  However, for 99.999% of folks, just read the manual and go with what it says.  Some pretty smart engineers came up with the requirements.

[Noto]

I agree that using premium in a car that doesn't require it is usually a waste of money.  However, you can't judge those needs on the compression ratio alone.  Even some very high compression engines run just fine on 87.  It's a combination of compression ratio, ignition timing, valve timing and fuel delivery.  There is some misconception that the higher the octane, the "better" the fuel is.  This is wrong.  It's just more resistant to combustion.  A lower octane fuel will ignite faster, which in some engines produces a burn prior to when the engineers desire it in terms of the valve timing and piston position.  So, some engines use a higher octane fuel so that it will ignite at a different point.  Generally speaking, engines tuned for higher performance can take advantage of higher octane as we can advance the timing and/or allow the piston to compress the mixture more.  However, for 99.999% of folks, just read the manual and go with what it says.  Some pretty smart engineers came up with the requirements.

exxxxxxactly ^^^ thank you for putting it in better words than my own.  Applauded.

[Black Hatch]

So you would use fuel that is NOT recommended?
As opposed to not required.

Isn't that supposed to be only in extreme circumstance?

[dirtyjeffer]

all i know is my car runs better on V-Power than the regular unleaded at Superstore...i also tend to get slightly better fuel economy with V-power (about .5L improvement)...with casual relaxed driving, while the car is in a higher gear, i can hear some "pinging" in the engine when you give it a little throttle, but not enough for a kickdown (load the engine)...the engine will adjust itself and the pinging will go away, but i would prefer to put in a fuel that doesn't require my engine to make said adjustments...if the engine is adjusting itself, the fuel isn't working properly...perhaps Superstore gas is low grade, i don't know...but V-power does work better...it also doesn't contain any ethanol, which i try to avoid.

[Noto]

it also doesn't contain any ethanol, which i try to avoid.

That's the only thing I'll agree on...it's not that using premium will harm your engine built for regular - not even remotely - but it's a waste of money.  Even at 0.5L/100km better, you're spending $0.13-0.18 more per L...it's a waste of money and doesn't do anything better for your car.

[johngenx]

Pretty much every newer car was built to easily run E10 for hundreds of thousands of kms.