Topic: Test Drive: 2017 Subaru Crosstrek Kazan Edition

[lebowski]

I really don't get why they didn't pop one of the turbo engines in there. XV WRX would have been very cool.

The former Lady O still has the Crosstrek and it's been faultless.

Good to hear, and agree, would be such a no-brainer. Though I guess doing so would've potentially cannibalized Forester XT sales.

[Serniter]

Yeah, the reality is that a $25K car is what most people SHOULD be buying.  My little city has among the highest income level of any city in Canada, so I get why I see traffic jams of expensive car/SUVs, but in Edmonton proper, I can't believe how many $40-60K car/trucks I see. 96 month car loans and upside down financing and on and on - it's ridiculous.

A lot of folks seem to buy cars to compete with their peers rather than based on a need.

Back to the Crosstrek, I saw a white one recently with an STI sticker on it. Would have been nice

[JacobBlack]

The on-paper fuel ratings don’t hurt too badly – 10.3 city, 7.8 highway – but my real-world readings came in a fair bit higher than that over the course of a week.

Any reason for not reporting what the real world fuel usage was?

Steph says that was just an oversight. It's 12.0 L/100 km. I've added it in the story.

[PlanB]

A lot of folks seem to buy cars to compete with their peers rather than based on a need.

I've never heard of this happening ever.....not with cars, trucks, motorcycles,  houses, bikes, jobs.....

[Trainman]

I really don't get why they didn't pop one of the turbo engines in there. XV WRX would have been very cool.

The former Lady O still has the Crosstrek and it's been faultless.

Good to hear, and agree, would be such a no-brainer. Though I guess doing so would've potentially cannibalized Forester XT sales.

And as they sell less than (apparently) 1,000 XT's a year, there is probably no business case for both.  A less powerful version of the 2.0T may be a good seller without hurting XT sales too much though.  200 HP would be about right I think.

The on-paper fuel ratings don’t hurt too badly – 10.3 city, 7.8 highway – but my real-world readings came in a fair bit higher than that over the course of a week.

Any reason for not reporting what the real world fuel usage was?

Steph says that was just an oversight. It's 12.0 L/100 km. I've added it in the story.

   My XT did that this week, all city driving, in snowmageddon2016.   Didn't know you could get a Crosstrek to use that much fuel.  Must be the special Kazan features, they do say the more stickers the more power, so more fuel used 

[tooscoops]

yeah, the 12 does seem a bit high... that was computer read-out? mine is at 12.5 currently... my brick on wheels with nearly double the hp. (just saying.. i hate comparing peoples fuel consumption)

i think these are a great value. while "dated" in nearly every aspect and not nearly as refined as much in the segment, i think a stylish awd hatch for under 30, with a host of cool features is a great buy.

will the new one be better? heck yes.

[lebowski]

And as they sell less than (apparently) 1,000 XT's a year, there is probably no business case for both.  A less powerful version of the 2.0T may be a good seller without hurting XT sales too much though.  200 HP would be about right I think.

Yeah, that could make a lot of sense. Or even throw in a smaller-displacement DI turbo in there - i.e. don't they make a 1.6 or 1.5t for other markets? That seems like a perfect solution....though again if i'm being honest, i wouldn't be interested in anything less than a 2.0t, but still, for the more general market, would seem to be perfect.

[Trainman]

And as they sell less than (apparently) 1,000 XT's a year, there is probably no business case for both.  A less powerful version of the 2.0T may be a good seller without hurting XT sales too much though.  200 HP would be about right I think.

Yeah, that could make a lot of sense. Or even throw in a smaller-displacement DI turbo in there - i.e. don't they make a 1.6 or 1.5t for other markets? That seems like a perfect solution....though again if i'm being honest, i wouldn't be interested in anything less than a 2.0t, but still, for the more general market, would seem to be perfect.

I was thinking of the 2.0 to try and retain some of its torque grunt.  The XT and WRX both have around 256, so maybe a 200 hp 2.0 could have say 220?  Not sure if you could get that from a 1.5/1.6 with reliability; also not sure what it would cost to certify the other engines for NA emissions.

[EV Dan]

I really don't get why they didn't pop one of the turbo engines in there. XV WRX would have been very cool.

The former Lady O still has the Crosstrek and it's been faultless.

Good to hear, and agree, would be such a no-brainer. Though I guess doing so would've potentially cannibalized Forester XT sales.

And as they sell less than (apparently) 1,000 XT's a year, there is probably no business case for both.  A less powerful version of the 2.0T may be a good seller without hurting XT sales too much though.  200 HP would be about right I think.

The on-paper fuel ratings don’t hurt too badly – 10.3 city, 7.8 highway – but my real-world readings came in a fair bit higher than that over the course of a week.

Any reason for not reporting what the real world fuel usage was?

Steph says that was just an oversight. It's 12.0 L/100 km. I've added it in the story.

   My XT did that this week, all city driving, in snowmageddon2016.   Didn't know you could get a Crosstrek to use that much fuel.  Must be the special Kazan features, they do say the more stickers the more power, so more fuel used 

A 500lb bear sleeping in the back? 

[grumpycat]

I don't understand this car.  It's a Subaru Impreza with less space but more cladding.  Kind like a sheep in Lions clothing.

You can get more power in a WRX or STi although no more hatch makes me hide under the bed and growl myself to sleep.

[johngenx]

I don't understand this car.  It's a Subaru Impreza with less space but more cladding.

 

They're pretty much identical

http://cars.axlegeeks.com/compare/48936-49075/2016-Subaru-Impreza-4-door-Hatchback-vs-2016-Subaru-Crosstrek

[grumpycat]

Yes, only a whisker less, I'll concede, but I still don't understand the appeal or need for something to "look" like a larger vehicle than it really is.

[johngenx]

I don't like the cladding, but I would appreciate the extra ground clearance.

[Weels]

Yes, only a whisker less, I'll concede, but I still don't understand the appeal or need for something to "look" like a larger vehicle than it really is.

OK.  Who wants to take this one?




You can go right ahead and buy an Impreza then.

[Weels]

  My XT did that this week, all city driving, in snowmageddon2016.   Didn't know you could get a Crosstrek to use that much fuel.  Must be the special Kazan features, they do say the more stickers the more power, so more fuel used 

In Winter ours sits between 10 & 11 rolling on Blizzak's
12 isn't all that unbelievable if driven on short-ish trips in T.O.

Days like today with 15'ish cm of fresh snow on the ground is where the 'Trek shines.  It just cuts through it like nothing is there, even while still running on all seasons (snows are going on tomorrow...) The awesomeness of its AWD almost makes me forgive the crapiness of the rest of the vehicle... almost...

[Cord]

The on-paper fuel ratings don’t hurt too badly – 10.3 city, 7.8 highway – but my real-world readings came in a fair bit higher than that over the course of a week.

Any reason for not reporting what the real world fuel usage was?

Steph says that was just an oversight. It's 12.0 L/100 km. I've added it in the story.

Thanks for the update.

[ltruong]

And as they sell less than (apparently) 1,000 XT's a year, there is probably no business case for both.  A less powerful version of the 2.0T may be a good seller without hurting XT sales too much though.  200 HP would be about right I think.

Yeah, that could make a lot of sense. Or even throw in a smaller-displacement DI turbo in there - i.e. don't they make a 1.6 or 1.5t for other markets? That seems like a perfect solution....though again if i'm being honest, i wouldn't be interested in anything less than a 2.0t, but still, for the more general market, would seem to be perfect.

I was thinking of the 2.0 to try and retain some of its torque grunt.  The XT and WRX both have around 256, so maybe a 200 hp 2.0 could have say 220?  Not sure if you could get that from a 1.5/1.6 with reliability; also not sure what it would cost to certify the other engines for NA emissions.

I think these cars are  supposed to be geared towards fuel economy and affordability . A version with more power would be nice but only if it uses regular gas.  Premium at the pump around here was like 20% more last time I checked

[Triple Bob]

Yes, only a whisker less, I'll concede, but I still don't understand the appeal or need for something to "look" like a larger vehicle than it really is.

It's the ground clearance, AWD, and the ridiculously low price that make it so good.

[pi314]

Is it really that low a price? After taxes etc it comes to like 32k.

[ArticSteve]

This vehicle is horribly underpowered for an AWD so ppl are required to put their foot into.  Hence you get very substandard mpg.

3% for 60 mth finance rate. 

Dealer network that doesn't discount.
Vehicle that can only execute a safe highway speed pass providing it's the only vehicle on the road.   


What's not to like?