Topic: First Drive: 2016 Subaru Crosstrek

[quadzilla]

I really don't understand the "underpowered" statements or concerns.

It's certainly faster than the Matrix I used to have. 

And I don't look fat beside the 300 pound guy.

 

[EV-Light]

In order for Subaru to further distinguish the Crosstrek as a mere "jacked up Impreza" they need to offer either the 2.5 or low boost turbo engine option.

Not confirmed but the Impreza offering the same engine would weight less than this "sporty" raised variant and make it quicker and more nimble.

Crosstrek buyers like any buyers who pay more want more, not less and not just new makeup and package rearranging. Engine option would fit nicely.

the next gen Impreza is coming out next year, hopefully they will add a more powerful engine to it.

[Solstice2006]

In order for Subaru to further distinguish the Crosstrek as a mere "jacked up Impreza" they need to offer either the 2.5 or low boost turbo engine option.

Not confirmed but the Impreza offering the same engine would weight less than this "sporty" raised variant and make it quicker and more nimble.

Crosstrek buyers like any buyers who pay more want more, not less and not just new makeup and package rearranging. Engine option would fit nicely.

the next gen Impreza is coming out next year, hopefully they will add a more powerful engine to it.

maybe a hint of style while they are it....

[Weels]

I had a 2013 and it didn't use any oil between changes. I believe that to be the case with Weels' Crosstrek also. Blotter has recently bought one and so far hasn't had issues that I'm aware of.

Yep.  Not a drop at 33,000 km's.

[Brig]

When I bought my MY 2000 Miss Jetta in 2004, my tech advisor gave me the heads up about the 2.0's oil consumption.  I did regular checks, and topped up as needed between changes.  It was a small price to pay for the enjoyment of a car that was otherwise flawless until I gave her up eight years later at 220,000 km.

[Solstice2006]

When I bought my MY 2000 Miss Jetta in 2004, my tech advisor gave me the heads up about the 2.0's oil consumption.  I did regular checks, and topped up as needed between changes.  It was a small price to pay for the enjoyment of a car that was otherwise flawless until I gave her up eight years later at 220,000 km.

I thought the oil consumption was more pronounced in the turbo models, not the 2 point slow...

[Brig]

I thought the oil consumption was more pronounced in the turbo models, not the 2 point slow...

Maybe, but mine burned oil as well.  Big time.  I had to top up every 2000 kms or so.

[2JDM]

I'll take the Crosstrek with the WRX powertrain. 

[Trainman]

I had a 2013 and it didn't use any oil between changes. I believe that to be the case with Weels' Crosstrek also. Blotter has recently bought one and so far hasn't had issues that I'm aware of.

Yep.  Not a drop at 33,000 km's.

Different engine, but no oil use at 195,000 kms.  The 2.5l FB25 used from 2011 has oil consumption issues (Subaru US settled a class action law suite on this), while the EJ25 used from '98-'10 has head gasket issues.

My understanding on this oil consumption issue for all makes is that is an unexpected result of trying to have low friction motors to improve fuel consumption re CAFE standards.

As for the Crosstrek, if it had more power I would really consider it.  I very much liked the rental I had a couple of years ago but the lack of power for some of the hills out west is a deal breaker.  Just throw the Foresters 2.0L turbo in it and been done!

[dkaz]

Most of the manual 6 speeds have the same gear spread as the 5 speeds they replaced. All a person ends up doing is shifting more.

Yeah, the only reason I prefer six-speeds now is because owning two cars, one five-speed and one six-speed, was annoying.

That's a very practical reason Oliver. 

Thank goodness for reverse lockout...

[cruzzer]

Don't really miss the 6th gear in our 2015 XV Crosstrek. As others have said, it's 'just more shifting'. Unless 6th is a real OD/low rev option it's not that big of a difference. The little Sube is close to unstoppable with the Blizzak WS80's and it's high ground clearance. Lots of them around.

[johngenx]

I didn't find the CVT equipped 2.0L Impreza much slower than the old 2.5L AT model - the trans sucked up much of the additional power.

[rrocket]

I didn't find the CVT equipped 2.0L Impreza much slower than the old 2.5L AT model - the trans sucked up much of the additional power.

What additional power?     Is has just enough power to get out of it's own way.

[johngenx]

I didn't find the CVT equipped 2.0L Impreza much slower than the old 2.5L AT model - the trans sucked up much of the additional power.

What additional power?     Is has just enough power to get out of it's own way.

lol - the 2.5L had about 170h (on paper anyway) and the 2.0 has 148.  The "extra" 22hp feels mostly absent to me.

[Blueprint]

The 2016 Subaru Crosstrek starts at $24,995 for the base Touring model. It comes with five-speed manual transmission, heated front seats, back up camera and a 6.2-inch touchscreen infotainment system with USB and Bluetooth streaming. Move up to the Sport Package ($26,995) and we get a sunroof, leather-wrapped steering wheel, rear spoiler and HID headlights.

The $29,395 Limited adds leather, dual-zone climate control, aluminum pedals, powered foldable heated door mirrors with integrated turn signals and a 7-inch touchscreen with navigation.

I know why they do this but you shouldn't be forced to the top trim just to get dual-zone. I'd be more than happy with the Sport Package w/dual-zone.

Golf has dual zone in the middle trim (Comfortline).

[CountOfGamble]

Golf has dual zone in the middle trim (Comfortline).
[/quote]

Standard on Comfortline for 2016. On yours it was part of the Convenience Package?

[carcass]

Hi Forum
Wondering how this Crosstrek stacks up against the forthcoming Mini Clubman All4?

Seems to be somewhat in the same category.
THX

[2JDM]

I didn't find the CVT equipped 2.0L Impreza much slower than the old 2.5L AT model - the trans sucked up much of the additional power.

What additional power?     Is has just enough power to get out of it's own way.

lol - the 2.5L had about 170h (on paper anyway) and the 2.0 has 148.  The "extra" 22hp feels mostly absent to me.

I found that the ancient 4 speed automatic in older Subarus really killed acceleration.

[rrocket]

I didn't find the CVT equipped 2.0L Impreza much slower than the old 2.5L AT model - the trans sucked up much of the additional power.

What additional power?     Is has just enough power to get out of it's own way.

lol - the 2.5L had about 170h (on paper anyway) and the 2.0 has 148.  The "extra" 22hp feels mostly absent to me.

My Forester is slower than my Echo I owned.  That's how slow a Forester is!   

[EV-Light]

^^ turbo it :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk