# CRV vs. Outback Vs. Crosstrek



## Sanchez (May 15, 2006)

Been looking at these three vehicles as a new 2013 purchase for the wife. They all get similar MPGs, similar clearance, and AWD. She currently has an 03 Accord EX v6 w/leather, loaded. etc. Nice roomy car, but we want something w/AWD and her Accord is upward of 115,000 miles.

I have narrowed it down to these and would like input/opionions from those that drive them, have ridden in them etc.

Please don't turn this into a bash thread of Honda vs. Subaru or vice versa. The wife and I have limited down to one of these three and no others will be considered, just because.

What say MTBR:thumbsup:


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

I have a 2010 Honda Crosstour EX-L (w/18" wheels). The 4wd has been awesome. The CR-V has Real Time AWD with Intelligent Control System as opposed to "real time 4WD" in the CT. Dunno how they differ in the real world though (sounds like marketingspeak) : /


----------



## bsdc (May 1, 2006)

I'd lean towards the CRV so I'd have the option to fork mount the bikes inside.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

Not to be nitpicky but those are 3 different size classes of car- if you've ruled out the Forester for MPG reasons, the new 2014 will be out in early spring and get kickass fuel economy. But I say that cuz the CR-V is the comparable vehicle to the Forester. Size wise it's XV is smallest, as it's just a compact car, then CR-V, then Outback is biggest.

The most glaring difference aside from size is the Honda AWD is garbage in terms of it's operation compared to the Subaru systems. I sell Subarus and own an 06 CR-V so I speak from experience. The Honda system will deactivate above a certain speed (in my CR-V it's something like 38 mph) and it doesn't shift nearly as much power around as the Subaru does. The Subarus, even though there are like 4 different AWD systems depending on transmission and engine, will always have power going to all four wheels.

All of your choices are good though, in terms of reliability, resale value, safety, so I'd say just pick whichever one she is most comfy in. Depending on where you live in the country, don't expect more than a few hundred bucks off MSRP on the Crosstrek, but the Outback can be had for under invoice fairly easily.


----------



## Sanchez (May 15, 2006)

XJaredX said:


> Not to be nitpicky but those are 3 different size classes of car- if you've ruled out the Forester for MPG reasons, the new 2014 will be out in early spring and get kickass fuel economy. But I say that cuz the CR-V is the comparable vehicle to the Forester. Size wise it's XV is smallest, as it's just a compact car, then CR-V, then Outback is biggest.
> 
> The most glaring difference aside from size is the Honda AWD is garbage in terms of it's operation compared to the Subaru systems. I sell Subarus and own an 06 CR-V so I speak from experience. The Honda system will deactivate above a certain speed (in my CR-V it's something like 38 mph) and it doesn't shift nearly as much power around as the Subaru does. The Subarus, even though there are like 4 different AWD systems depending on transmission and engine, will always have power going to all four wheels.
> 
> All of your choices are good though, in terms of reliability, resale value, safety, so I'd say just pick whichever one she is most comfy in. Depending on where you live in the country, don't expect more than a few hundred bucks off MSRP on the Crosstrek, but the Outback can be had for under invoice fairly easily.


Thats good info. I know the xv is smaller, but feel the crv and outback are similar in size. We live in Asheville, NC so no major snows, mostly grvel roads for that car. The reason fir adding the xv is for mpg. Your comments on the Honda AWD seem to concern me and need some research on my part. But it seems all three are decent. I have a 4wd drive vehicle w/ low range if we get a good snow which is every other year.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

CR-V and Outback similar in size? I don't think so. One's a compact, one's a midsize.

The CR-V's AWD system isn't all that great, but if you already have a proper 4WD vehicle, is a very good choice.

The Outback I personally would not recommend considering that it is a larger vehicle.

The XV is a smaller compact vehicle, and is a bit smaller than the CR-V, but it is most likely to be the most fuel-efficient of the three.

As Jared recommended, I too would recommend the brand-new, 4th generation 2014 Subaru Forester as it is comparable to the CR-V and is likely to be better than the older Forester in every single way.


In my opinion, it's between the new Forester and the CR-V.

If you need the ground clearance for light off-roading, the Forester is your choice.

If you simply need AWD just to get around light gravel roads and light snow as you said, and have no need for the unnecessary ground clearance of the Subarus, the CR-V is likely your best choice.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

The CRV's AWD will definitely be more than adequate for you. Like I said, I own one, it gets the job done, but if I lived somewhere that snowed a lot more, it would be Subaru, hands down. 

I would say that you should have her drive all three- based on what you've said, I think the most major difference will be ride quality. If she is accustomed to the ride quality of the Accord, she may prefer the Outback. 

Again though, all good choices.


----------



## GSJ1973 (May 8, 2011)

Sanchez said:


> and her Accord is upward of 115,000 miles.
> :


I would say the Accord isn't even broken in yet! My old accord had over 300K before I traded it in, and I still would drive it across the country if I had to.

That said, a co-worker just got a Crosstrek and he's claiming over 37-38 mpg's on his highway commute. Not sure what CRV is, but I can't see outback being more than 28-29 being as big/heavy as they are. But I'm sure I'm wrong. Those Crosstrek's sure look like tough little cars.


----------



## Sanchez (May 15, 2006)

AWDfreak said:


> CR-V and Outback similar in size? I don't think so. One's a compact, one's a midsize.
> 
> The CR-V's AWD system isn't all that great, but if you already have a proper 4WD vehicle, is a very good choice.
> 
> ...


Compare Vehicles - Official Honda Web Site

Seem fairly similar in roominess to me.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

They are close, but not. Similar to the Forester vs Outback. People always think the Forester is bigger, but it's the smaller. CR-V and Forester are built on compact platforms, the Outback on midsize platform. Main difference is you may have a smidgen more elbow room in the Outback, and a tad more legroom, and the cargo space will be longer, albeit not as tall.

But like I said, the largest difference between the platforms is handling- the Outback being a midsize platform will have more sound deadening, a smoother suspension than the CRV and Forester. Plus the longer wheelbase will smooth out the ride a lot, especially on the highway.

With that said- I prefer the driving dynamics of the CRV and Forester over the Outback.


----------



## Tech420 (May 19, 2011)

GSJ1973 said:


> I would say the Accord isn't even broken in yet! My old accord had over 300K before I traded it in, and I still would drive it across the country if I had to.
> 
> That said, a co-worker just got a Crosstrek and he's claiming over 37-38 mpg's on his highway commute. Not sure what CRV is, but I can't see outback being more than 28-29 being as big/heavy as they are. But I'm sure I'm wrong. Those Crosstrek's sure look like tough little cars.


+1 on that Honda not being worn in. You just can't kill them.

I recently switched to the new XV Crosstrek and am VERY pleased. 37-38 highway with the CVT sounds plausible as I was able to achieve near 31 with snowboards on the roof(kills 2-3 mpg's) with my 5 speed(about 3 mpg less than the CVT). It is a highly capable car that laughs at crappy road conditions. Size wise I have had 5 people in the car with 2 people 6ft tall in the back and everyone had plenty of room.

Any questions on the car feel free to ask. A month of ownership 2 days from now and I have loved every second of it. Good luck with your decision all 3 are great vehicles.

.....and some eye candy


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

XJaredX said:


> They are close, but not. Similar to the Forester vs Outback. People always think the Forester is bigger, but it's the smaller. CR-V and Forester are built on compact platforms, the Outback on midsize platform. Main difference is you may have a smidgen more elbow room in the Outback, and a tad more legroom, and the cargo space will be longer, albeit not as tall.
> 
> But like I said, the largest difference between the platforms is handling- the Outback being a midsize platform will have more sound deadening, a smoother suspension than the CRV and Forester. Plus the longer wheelbase will smooth out the ride a lot, especially on the highway.
> 
> With that said- I prefer the driving dynamics of the CRV and Forester over the Outback.


Couldn't have said it any better. I completely agree with you, Jared. :thumbsup:

And Tech, I see you're posting pr0n again


----------



## Tech420 (May 19, 2011)

AWDfreak said:


> Couldn't have said it any better. I completely agree with you, Jared. :thumbsup:
> 
> And Tech, I see you're posting pr0n again


I need more pictures. I'm going to try and take some good snow photos next time we get a dump. Go off the beaten path somewhere where this vehicle belongs :thumbsup:


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

Tech420 said:


> I need more pictures. I'm going to try and take some good snow photos next time we get a dump. Go off the beaten path somewhere where this vehicle belongs :thumbsup:


Spoken like a true Subaru enthusiast


----------



## Tech420 (May 19, 2011)

AWDfreak said:


> Spoken like a true Subaru enthusiast


The XV is actually my first. I've always had a thing for them, but they never seemed to fit my lifestyle. Now living in New England it seems to be the perfect fit for me and all the outdoor activities I enjoy doing. I would like to grab a BRZ sometime in the next few years(hopefully with an STI package) for a weekend toy. I really hope they bring the STI over to the BRZ. What a fun car that would be to drive.


----------



## FeltDH (Oct 27, 2010)

I believe I saw that Outside rated the Crosstrek with extremely good offroad handling/ snappy enough for most on the road, looks like a sweet little car to me, I've always found older outbacks to be kinda slow and heavy feeling, kinda like a loaded diaper, that said, Subaru has really changed things up in the last few years so this may no longer be true... anyway just my 2 cents, I'm a toyota fan myself


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

The crosstrek will have the most fun handling ride of them all, and has fantastic ground clearance 
(8.7in). It and the outback have the best awd system too (close to the best on the entire market actually). The outback is great and very convenient, but god is it boring to drive. The driver feel is just...so dampened. I would get the crosstrek, it has the best looks, handling and is the most well rounded. You can't really go wrong with any of them though.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I like smaller vehicles, so the Crosstrek is perfect for my needs. it's a pretty fun car to drive. the dealer kept pressing me to throw the car around on the test drive and I was very impressed with the suspension and handling.

my wife and I ended up ordering one, so I'm pretty excited for the arrival. unfortunately, it isn't likely to arrive before the end of winter so I won't be testing it out in the snow this year.

I have a couple friends who drive the previous iteration of the crv and it's a nice car, but it's in a totally different league. it's more "refined" than the Crosstrek, which is also where the Outback has done, for that matter.


----------



## Marc25 (Feb 15, 2004)

I'm a big fan of Subaru, i had '96 impreza from 2002 to 2011 and loved it until the last day. 

When i saw the Crosstek XV for the first time i wich it was available when i did bought a new car. However a friend of mine told Subaru made some change to their motor recently to achieve better gas mileage and some of their product now feel a bit under powered. Maybe Tech420 can comment on that.

The Outback is a very nice car, but i'm not sure about the CVT transmission. I guess it's something you have to get used to. Or you can go with the 6 speed manual.

Forester, i friend of mine have one and if you ask me, it's a bit disappointing. The interior is a dull and feel a bit cheap. Elbow room is very limited and the trunk is very small. Especially if you compare to a CR-V or a Outback.


----------



## Tech420 (May 19, 2011)

Marc25 said:


> I'm a big fan of Subaru, i had '96 impreza from 2002 to 2011 and loved it until the last day.
> 
> When i saw the Crosstek XV for the first time i wich it was available when i did bought a new car. However a friend of mine told Subaru made some change to their motor recently to achieve better gas mileage and some of their product now feel a bit under powered. Maybe Tech420 can comment on that.
> 
> ...


The new 2.0 in the Impreza/XV did actually lose a bit of power, but most people agree it doesn't feel any different power wise compared to past models. My past 2 vehicles have been a 350Z and Acura MDX. One fast sports car and one sluggish SUV. Power wise I am not disappointed or surprised. It has plenty of pep(more than my Acura) and I have no issues with highway passing/hills. The car is extremely fun to drive, especially in the snow. The people that write reviews step out of a 400hp sports car and into a 150hp economy car......can't compare those two power wise, but they do.


----------



## BShow (Jun 15, 2006)

I think the CRV and XV are going to be very similar. The outback is obviously the larger car of the three, however most of that extra size will be cargo volume. That will be the major difference out of your list. Personally, I would take the XV out of the equation. You can get an Impreza for cheaper, gain a bit of fuel efficiency. For reference, I get 30mpg or more on the highway in my '12 impreza. The new motor doesn't feel that underpowered unless you've got a lot of cargo or a few passengers - then it does feel sluggish. But none of these are performance cars, so - meh. 

The fact that you're looking at the CRV and the Outback, makes me think that you're looking for something with a little more room. The forester, CRV and Outback are pretty comparable with regard to passenger space. The XV will be comparatively small. Of the bunch, only the outback will have significantly more cargo space. 

They're all pretty close, so if I were in your position, I would drive all three. Unless you have an aversion to the forester, I'd take that out as well because there's no arguing that it falls right in your mix. See which car you like best and get them to crunch numbers on all of them. From there you can make a pretty informed decision on what car to buy.


----------



## BShow (Jun 15, 2006)

Tech420 said:


> The XV is actually my first. I've always had a thing for them, but they never seemed to fit my lifestyle. Now living in New England it seems to be the perfect fit for me and all the outdoor activities I enjoy doing. I would like to grab a BRZ sometime in the next few years(hopefully with an STI package) for a weekend toy. I really hope they bring the STI over to the BRZ. What a fun car that would be to drive.


I hate that the BRZ is RWD - but I do like the looks of it. Subaru won't do any significant changes to the BRZ's performance because it would encroach on the wrx and wrx/sti. I'm betting that any Sti package (if they would even do such a thing) would be purely cosmetic.

If you're in new england and are looking for a toy, you owe it to yourself to test drive an STi when you're in the market. You'll have yourself a toy that you can use - year round - rather than a toy that's only good 2-3 seasons.

My WRX was a beast in the snow, even with Y rated all seasons. I've driven a number of 4wd trucks and my WRX was better in the snow than all but my Xterra with A/T's


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

BShow said:


> I hate that the BRZ is RWD - but I do like the looks of it. Subaru won't do any significant changes to the BRZ's performance because it would encroach on the wrx and wrx/sti. I'm betting that any Sti package (if they would even do such a thing) would be purely cosmetic.
> 
> If you're in new england and are looking for a toy, you owe it to yourself to test drive an STi when you're in the market. You'll have yourself a toy that you can use - year round - rather than a toy that's only good 2-3 seasons.
> 
> My WRX was a beast in the snow, even with Y rated all seasons. I've driven a number of 4wd trucks and my WRX was better in the snow than all but my Xterra with A/T's


Would WRX/STI have similar cargo/passenger room to the XV? Is XV essentially an Impreza with more ground clearance?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tech420 (May 19, 2011)

BShow said:


> I think the CRV and XV are going to be very similar. The outback is obviously the larger car of the three, however most of that extra size will be cargo volume. That will be the major difference out of your list. Personally, I would take the XV out of the equation. You can get an Impreza for cheaper, gain a bit of fuel efficiency. For reference, I get 30mpg or more on the highway in my '12 impreza. The new motor doesn't feel that underpowered unless you've got a lot of cargo or a few passengers - then it does feel sluggish. But none of these are performance cars, so - meh.


You're actually getting worse gas mileage than my XV with snowboards on the roof and a 5 speed(CVT gets an additional 3mpg). The Impreza should get better gas mileage though.



DLd said:


> Would WRX/STI have similar cargo/passenger room to the XV? Is XV essentially an Impreza with more ground clearance?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


It's essentially a lifted Impreza hatch. The suspension is entirely different offering more ground clearance and the ability for some light off-roading. I keep hearing (haven't found any factual info to confirm) that the frame is stiffer to allow for towing. There are other small things like the bumpers and body cladding.


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

DLd said:


> Would WRX/STI have similar cargo/passenger room to the XV? Is XV essentially an Impreza with more ground clearance?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


The STI/WRX is different inside than the crosstrek because they are based on the previous generation impreza that has a little bit less room inside. The crosstrek is based on the 2012+ Impreza hatch. The main difference is in the suspension of the car. Subaru says the frame has been stiffened for towing...after some research I'm pretty sure this isn't true because hitches are offered in other markets. The real reason is that the subaru hitch replaces the rear bumper strengthening bar, which requires a new slew of crash testing (in the USA), which costs money. Since subaru doesn't think that people who buy the impreza will want to put a hitch on it in the USA, they didn't bother. That doesn't mean it can't take it though. The reality is, if you want performance, go for the WRX, if you want fun to drive, a bit of performance, and economy, go for the impreza, if you want decent offroad abilities with a stable and decently performing car (fantastic actually by crossover standards), get the crosstrek.


----------



## XJaredX (Apr 17, 2006)

Subaru went to a 2.0L from a 2.5L on the '12 Imprezas and Crosstrek, but the cars actually accelerate quicker than the older cars, partially due to the CVT and partially because this generation lost weight compared to last.

A lot of people are just looking at the horsepower numbers and whining, but that is not the whole story.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

Dirt Bringer said:


> The STI/WRX is different inside than the crosstrek because they are based on the previous generation impreza that has a little bit less room inside. The crosstrek is based on the 2012+ Impreza hatch. The main difference is in the suspension of the car. Subaru says the frame has been stiffened for towing...after some research I'm pretty sure this isn't true because hitches are offered in other markets. The real reason is that the subaru hitch replaces the rear bumper strengthening bar, which requires a new slew of crash testing (in the USA), which costs money. Since subaru doesn't think that people who buy the impreza will want to put a hitch on it in the USA, they didn't bother. That doesn't mean it can't take it though. The reality is, if you want performance, go for the WRX, if you want fun to drive, a bit of performance, and economy, go for the impreza, if you want decent offroad abilities with a stable and decently performing car (fantastic actually by crossover standards), get the crosstrek.


Thanks. I'm sort of interested in seeing what the new WRX/STI's end up looking like, and how capable they remain as a performance car for active outdoorsy people especially re:cargo volume and mpg (I know they'll have more than sufficient performance, so that's not the aspect I'm concerned about.)


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

DLd said:


> Thanks. I'm sort of interested in seeing what the new WRX/STI's end up looking like, and how capable they remain as a performance car for active outdoorsy people especially re:cargo volume and mpg (I know they'll have more than sufficient performance, so that's not the aspect I'm concerned about.)


From what I hear the new generation won't be out till some time next year. Also, with regards to the crosstrek and impreza, try the cvt first if you are going to buy. I like the manual, it works quite well, but find the cvt to be disconnected and boring. If you appreciate a car that connects with the driver, the manual is the way to go (that can be said for most cars but cvt's in particular).


----------



## BShow (Jun 15, 2006)

DLd said:


> Thanks. I'm sort of interested in seeing what the new WRX/STI's end up looking like, and how capable they remain as a performance car for active outdoorsy people especially re:cargo volume and mpg (I know they'll have more than sufficient performance, so that's not the aspect I'm concerned about.)


Well, the WRX/STi is an Impreza, after all. So as far as cargo volume and interior space goes, they'll be the same as the current impreza and crosstrek. As for MPG, you don't buy a WRX or an STi to get good gas mileage. Also, you'll need to put better, fuel in the tank. When I had my 04 WRX, the best mpg I saw was around 25mpg highway. If I really romped on it, it was in the low teens. and that was premium fuel, at a premium price! If you're looking to save money on gas, don't buy a performance car.


----------



## stremf (Dec 7, 2012)

As a life long Honda fan who still owns a Civic, I'd say stick to Subaru for AWD. Our Outback ('13, 2.5L CVT) has been great and has returned 33mpg on highway trips. We cross-shopped the CRV and Rav4. The Outback had the most room and had better mpg. Ground clearance was the best out of the three as well. We have 2 kids, so space was a big factor. If it were just the wife and I, we would have gone with an Impreza or XV. We also had some snow storms recently and she was a champ. Again, I'm a Honda guy and the CRV was very nice. But the Subaru just has a better product in this segment.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

BShow said:


> Well, the WRX/STi is an Impreza, after all. So as far as cargo volume and interior space goes, they'll be the same as the current impreza and crosstrek. As for MPG, you don't buy a WRX or an STi to get good gas mileage. Also, you'll need to put better, fuel in the tank. When I had my 04 WRX, the best mpg I saw was around 25mpg highway. If I really romped on it, it was in the low teens. and that was premium fuel, at a premium price! If you're looking to save money on gas, don't buy a performance car.


So you're unaware that the new WRX/STi will get their own platform this year (2014), i.e. not be on the Impreza platform?

Regarding mpg, the nice thing about turbos is they can use a more efficient engine with the turbo, probably the one in the BRZ, and you really only take the fuel efficiency hit when you're stomping on the gas. So if they switch to the more efficient engine design, we'll be able to get better fuel efficiency during normal driving AND still have the performance for more spirited driving. Nothing wrong with that. Heck even the 300HP V6's in the new Camaros and Mustangs can get 30mpg highway, and that's with those big, heavy platforms and no turbo. You're right, the premium fuel required to keep detonation (knocking) at bay in a boosted engine is a hit on the pocketbook, I don't mind that. I just don't want it to be bigger than it needs to be. I expect this new generation will have some progress on the fuel efficiency front while still hitting the same power targets (expecting they'll stick to the gentleman's agreement regarding a 300hp limit). I'm just curious how much progress they'll make on the fuel efficiency front.


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

Dirt Bringer said:


> From what I hear the new generation won't be out till some time next year. Also, with regards to the crosstrek and impreza, try the cvt first if you are going to buy. I like the manual, it works quite well, but find the cvt to be disconnected and boring. If you appreciate a car that connects with the driver, the manual is the way to go (that can be said for most cars but cvt's in particular).


Yeah, I wasn't even considering the CVT. I strongly prefer manuals. I like being engaged in my driving, and being able to push-start a car if the battery goes kaput is a big plus in my book (It's like strength training for cycling


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

Anymore info? I need a new rig and we are looking at the CRV and Crosstrek.


----------



## simple78 (Jul 4, 2010)

Club Crosstrek | Subaru XV Crosstrek Forums - Index

for alot of info I found this site helpful, which I did end up buying the Crosstrek over the new Rav 4


----------



## BlackMamba2012 (Nov 24, 2011)

Main reason i drive Subaru is they been making AWD for long time watch these and see the difference.Mine has saved me in the rain alot of times. 





Subaru AWD Uphill Comparison Test - YouTube

2011 Subaru Traction/Stability Control and Symmetrical AWD vs. Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and Ford - YouTube


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

*Does this help?*

I love this car. I've taken it everywhere and it hauls everything I've needed. Not pictured but I have a little trailer that hauls 6 more bikes and my high school teams gear.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

Permanent AWD will always beat out part-time AWD. Part Time AWD is just a way to get around installing a center differential on a car with a Transversely mounted engine, since the power has to change directions more times in the driveline. I don't buy that clutch based AWD is there to save gas, because the driveline is still being turned by the wheels whether or not the AWD clutch is engaged. On bigger rail framed SUVs, they add front hubs that can be disengaged (automatically, or with the little switch at the hub) so that's where they save the drag. 

Subies have engines mounted front to back, as in the crankshaft spins on the same axis as the centerline of the car, not sideways. Audi does the same thing on their cars from the A4 and up. The difference is, when driving over bad surfaces on a part-time AWD car, when a wheel breaks loose, THEN the computer says... 'hey, we got a wheel broken loose here, must divert power to the rear'. Well, too late, you already lost traction and momentum. Permanent AWD systems are always driving all 4 wheels, so the chances of a wheel breaking loose are lower to begin with. 

So it all comes down to how important the AWD is to you. How bad are the conditions you expect to drive through?


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

I live in Montana and conditions can be bad.

Im looking at a WRX too. I wish they made a Crosstrek XT!


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

If AWD is essential, then nobody can beat Subaru there. None of the other Japanese cars will be close to how smart and practical subbie's AWD is. However last outback is pretty horrible in looks department. 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Gromov said:


> None of the other Japanese cars will be close to how smart and practical subbie's AWD is. However last outback is pretty horrible in looks department.


Mitsubishi Evo's AWD is at least as good as STIs.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

Jayem said:


> Mitsubishi Evo's AWD is at least as good as STIs.


I wouldn't agree nor disagree since I have never experienced any of these cars  I was referring to AWD (not 4x4) SUVs , apologies for not making that clear.

IMHO, when it comes to compact SUVs it's either Subaru or Germans


----------



## kingsqueak (Jul 21, 2013)

Forester XT. Pull the front wheel, stick the bike in the back and the 'T' will get you there faster


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

Yeah 2014 Forester looks pretty cool 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

WRX is $27k
Forester XT is $31k


----------



## shredjekyll (Jun 3, 2012)

Jayem said:


> Mitsubishi Evo's AWD is at least as good as STIs.


In actual tests done which feature multiple AWD systems from various manufacturers, Subaru continually leads the field. One video I remember watching featured a bunch of different AWD vehicles all attempting to go up a ridiculously steep muddy hill.. subaru won by a long shot. Then there was a test with a set of ups and downs that they all had to drive through and at one point the cars would only have 1 wheel with traction, subaru won that by a long shot as well.


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

Not a muddy hill but you get the idea.
Subaru AWD Uphill Comparison Test - YouTube

Rollers
Subaru All Wheel Drive Traction Testing - YouTube


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Put our xv's awd to a mild test today. Loose gravel road steep climb. Right to the top no wheel slip. More than I could say about myself climbing some of the trails on my bike.


----------



## shredjekyll (Jun 3, 2012)

NateHawk said:


> Put our xv's awd to a mild test today. Loose gravel road steep climb. Right to the top no wheel slip. More than I could say about myself climbing some of the trails on my bike.


They really do need to come out with an XV XT with way more HP/Torque. The current XV is a great car but so boring to drive, very lackluster performance. Forester XT or Volvo 850R/V70R are much more enjoyable, for example.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I enjoy driving my xv just fine.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I didn't buy my XV for the performance aspect, or lack of it. I've had a WRX that was modified for the track and I took second place in a season long series at Miller Motorsports Park in Utah. I know what performance is, and I didn't care. I bought my XV after I sold a 2005 Ford F350. Big change. I wanted ground clearance, AWD, gas mileage, 5 passengers, towability and the ability to carry bikes. In that order. Because of that criteria, I went with the automatic because it gets better mpg. Yes, I know my car sucks in the acceleration category and when going up steep highways, it taxes the engine. However, I've carried 9 bikes, 6 of them in a trailer. I've done portions of the White Rim trail (could have done the whole thing). I am averaging about 29mpg lifetime, so far (the car has never NOT had a Thule rack on the roof) and I have almost 9,000 miles on the car. I love it. Plus, it's orange, my favortie color. I have never owned a car I love more and I get questions and looks everywhere I go. I don't miss the 0-60 speed because that isn't what this car is for.


----------



## shredjekyll (Jun 3, 2012)

Thats great you enjoy driving it natehawk, and thats good you knew what you were getting when you bought it silentfoe. I simply am not willing to buy any vehicle which is not exactly what I am looking for in all aspects. 

I guess the difference is that for me "just fine" doesn't cut it. I have a feeling I'll be sticking with my v40 turbo for quite awhile anyway


----------



## 13koenig (Sep 12, 2013)

I am extremely new to this forum but have been on the "biggest" Subaru forum for years now. I will start off by saying I am biased, but I am a huge car enthusiast. I currently own a 2011 WRX and I can safely say that I will never own another vehicle besides a Subaru. I am absolutely in love with my car...so much in fact no one gets to drive it besides me. Hehe. 

I personally would choose the XV or order a 2014 Forester. I find the XV the best looking but the 14 Forester looks pretty sharp as well. The Outback is a little too big for my taste but it's not huge like a few people are making them out to be. Subaru's awd systems are some of the best in the world. But more importantly, they're probably the best awd system you can get for the money. I've driven the cr-v, pilot, an older forester, cayenne, imprezas, and too many other things that don't relate. Two things I find important are reliability and resale value. The Honda will be reliable. There's no doubt about that. But Any Subaru you choose will be as well. Not only that but when you decide to ever sell your vehicle your Subaru will hold its resale value much better than most cars.

Honestly I would just test drive all of them, but not just on paved surfaces. No matter what you read here the choice is up to you and your wife. If you need any information on Subarus check out nasioc.com. If you have any other questions or need help you can pm me and I can give more thought out information when I'm actually on the computer rather than my phone.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

shredjekyll said:


> Thats great you enjoy driving it natehawk, and thats good you knew what you were getting when you bought it silentfoe. I simply am not willing to buy any vehicle which is not exactly what I am looking for in all aspects.
> 
> I guess the difference is that for me "just fine" doesn't cut it. I have a feeling I'll be sticking with my v40 turbo for quite awhile anyway


Then how does this thread relate to you? Three vehicles are in the discussion topic line, and none of them offer turbo performance. They're built for a different purpose.


----------



## ironbrewer (Oct 17, 2012)

I know its not in the title, but I just picked up a 2014 Mazda CX-5. I really like it. Its priced right, fun to drive, and available in AWD. My first 2 tanks I got 33.4 then 34.6 MPG. I really like the looks of it. I guess Ipod integration sucks, but I'm not an apple guy.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

Just chiming in. We really have been enjoying our '13 Outback 4cyl for the past year. Solid performance and packs all kiddo and bike gear. Adding on the Yakima Mega Warrior roof rack and we've got no space issues. If you're looking for AWD, there really isn't a better bang/buck than the Subaru. So the choice is easy. Need space? Outback. Need better mpg and don't need cargo space? XV. 

If you don't need AWD, then I would say the CRV. I liked the on road manners more and Honda knows FWD.


----------



## spazzy (Aug 15, 2004)

kntr said:


> I live in Montana and conditions can be bad.
> 
> Im looking at a WRX too. I wish they made a Crosstrek XT!


I would be knocking down the doors to a dealership if a Crosstrek XT came out


----------



## kingsqueak (Jul 21, 2013)

A. Cross trek STi with a stick or a Forester same would be great. I have a Forester XT now but would like a bit more...and can't fit in a WRX well.


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

Just buy a WRX or STI and put a Subtle 1.5" lift on it and slightly bigger tires. This would be much better than a Crosstrek XT


----------



## Dirt Bringer (May 10, 2006)

If you want a car with a 4wd system that really performs and distinguishes itself, you have basically two options. Audi, and Subaru. All the rest are effectively passive awd.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

Dirt Bringer said:


> If you want a car with a 4wd system that really performs and distinguishes itself, you have basically two options. Audi, and Subaru. All the rest are effectively passive awd.


Second that, although I would exclude the A3 or TT, which are passive AWD as you put it. They are still great cars, but the AWD isn't as good as the full time A4 and up quattro.

Man, this thread has me seriously considering jumping off the Audi/VW boat. Seems the XV has it all for my needs. Good AWD (not sure I really need it, but I really love how my A4 quattro handles, even in the dry pave when you don't really need it) and the gas mileage vs. performance, and cargo space (keep in mind, I'm coming from an A4 Wagon and Sedan... they look big inside, but they really aren't), and available manual transmission. I hate automatics.

My only reservations with the XV might be handling, and how plastic-y the interior might be. I don't know. I have to check one out in the real meatspace world.

I know (by some opinions here) it's underpowered. But, how is the handling? If I slam it into a turn at speed, does it stick?

And yeah, a smaller engine boosted with a turbo would be nice for economy and performance, but it would add to the sticker price.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

I raced a WRX on the track for a year before I sold it. I know how it feels when a car is built to hug corners. The XV does well for a car its size. It impresses me everytime I get off an interstate at a higher than normal speed.


----------



## phsycle (Apr 14, 2011)

pimpbot said:


> My only reservations with the XV might be handling, and how plastic-y the interior might be. I don't know. I have to check one out in the real meatspace world.
> 
> I know (by some opinions here) it's underpowered. But, how is the handling? If I slam it into a turn at speed, does it stick?
> 
> And yeah, a smaller engine boosted with a turbo would be nice for economy and performance, but it would add to the sticker price.


pimp - I wasn't super impressed by XV's handling, but that is to be expected with a car that has 8" of ground clearance. You may be better off with a regular Impreza with some suspension mods or WRX (although MPG is not great). Having driven plenty of euro (Audi, BMW), you won't get the same handling performance. If that's what you're after, you may want to stick to Audi.


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

pimpbot said:


> My only reservations with the XV might be handling, and how plastic-y the interior might be. I don't know. I have to check one out in the real meatspace world.


I was concerned about this too since the interior seems to be a common reviewer complaint, but it seemed fine to me. Definitely not Audi level, but well put together and intuitive. Of course I'm coming from a Honda Civic, so I'm easily impressed.

My thinking now is that I'd rather have a car that has great mileage, AWD, and reasonable handling for regular driving that I can get dirty and not worry about. Then, someday, get something (probably used) that's more fun to drive for the weekends. There are some great used performance cars out there for not much $$.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

PerfectZero said:


> I was concerned about this too since the interior seems to be a common reviewer complaint, but it seemed fine to me. Definitely not Audi level, but well put together and intuitive. Of course I'm coming from a Honda Civic, so I'm easily impressed.
> 
> My thinking now is that I'd rather have a car that has great mileage, AWD, and reasonable handling for regular driving that I can get dirty and not worry about. Then, someday, get something (probably used) that's more fun to drive for the weekends. There are some great used performance cars out there for not much $$.


Yeah, I've basically been paying cash for sub $10k used Audis and VWs around the 50-80k mile mark for the last couple of decades. I drive them until they hit 150k-300k miles, depending on the shape they are in. No way I could afford one of these things new, and I don't want to take on a car payment. Thank goodness for the killer depreciation rate of German cars. :thumbsup: .... although, the more recent Audis seem to be holding their value a lot more. Next summer, the '99 A4 wagon is going to get upgraded, as it has 184k miles on it already, and is a bit worn out looking around the edges. The motor and tranny are still good. I'm still working out what I'm going to replace it with. It seems Audi doesn't import any A4 Avants (wagons) with manual transmissions anymore, not since 2009. 2006-2009 manual Avants are super rare as it is. Going used rate is around $12k-15k. I hate to go back to one wheel drive (FWD) cars, so that pretty much leaves Subaru. Too bad they never imported the manual Q5, or I might consider that.


----------

