2015 Forester VS 2015 CX-5?

[buliwyf]

I and wife have narrowed down our options into the final 2:


2015 Subaru Forester 2.5i Convenience Package
2015 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD (2.5L)

We're kinda biased towards the Forester, but have some hesitations:
Pros:
1. Roomier interior
2. Big windows with GREAT visibility
3. Lower insurance rate! (about $25/month lower than CX-5)
4. Unquestionable AWD

Cons:
1. CVT - We want to keep the car for 10 years. Will it last?
2. Subaru 2.5L engine issue rumors over the internet
3. No moonroof


Now for the CX-5:
Pros:
1. 84-months, 0.9%, 0 down.
2. 6-speed automatic is niceeee.
3. Moonroof standard

Cons:
1. We already own a 2014 Mazda3. The CX-5, form the inside, FEELS EXACTLY THE SAME. It does look nice, but it is redundant for a Mazda3 owner.
2. We want to keep the car for 10 years - rust issues on Mazda


What do you think?

 

[deuce_WI]

When shopping 2014s last year, we had it narrowed down to CX5 or Forester

CVTs drive like s***. Most people don't 'drive' anymore and must not really care, otherwise Subaru would be looking like Mitsubishi or Suzuki by now.

Forester cabin roominess and visibility is great, and the huge moonroof option is nice. Overall the interior feels 10+ years old though. Fit and finish on the 2014 was below average. (not sure if they've updated much for 2015)

 

[socalcx-5]

When shopping 2014s last year, we had it narrowed down to CX5 or Forester

CVTs drive like s***. Most people don't 'drive' anymore and must not really care, otherwise Subaru would be looking like Mitsubishi or Suzuki by now.

Forester cabin roominess and visibility is great, and the huge moonroof option is nice. Overall the interior feels 10+ years old though. Fit and finish on the 2014 was below average. (not sure if they've updated much for 2015)

I was in the exact same position last year and had the exact same thoughts re: the Forester/CVT. Went with the CX-5 and have been very happy with it.

 

[CC58]

I test drove the Forester with CVT and it felt like a rubber band linked the engine to the rear wheels. The new Forester four cylinder engine is experiencing high oil loss. Subaru has lost its following since 2010 when they changed the bodies on the Forester and Outback. They are no longer nibble and fun to drive. The new Outback has suffered steering vibration they finally fixed by damping that has lead to heavy steering feel.

If I were to buy a Subaru, it would be a 2009 Outback V6. Fun, reliable, and can tow. Unfortunately, their resale value is sky high because the 2010 and newer are none of those things.

 

[paris1]

There's no reason to think the Subaru CVT won't hold up. They've been using them for several years now with no apparent problems. And they keep improving them. IMO, CVTs get a bad rap in general. Some, notably Subaru and Honda, are better than others. When I was shopping cars 2 years ago, I seriously considered the Imprezza with the CVT (2013 Forester had an antiquated 4 speed auto, which was a definite deal-breaker). I approached it skeptically because of all the negative hype about CVTs, but was pleasantly surprised. Takes a little getting used to for some, but it gets the job done and is second to none for delivering stellar fuel economy.

 

[paris1]

If I were to buy a Subaru, it would be a 2009 Outback V6. Fun, reliable, and can tow. Unfortunately, their resale value is sky high because the 2010 and newer are none of those things.

Which would be a real trick, since Subaru has never made a V6!

 

[joe427]

Which would be a real trick, since Subaru has never made a V6!

The Outback 3.6R Limited comes with a six-cylinder engine with 256 hp and 247 lb-ft of torque.But a Boxer engine and true,not a V6.
I almost bought one.

 

[erhayes]

Flat 6= 180 degree V

 

[lazerboy2000]

I'm also in the market for a new car and had narrowed it down to these exact same two cars.

I prefer the CX-5 over the Forester because it looks better, drives better, better tech, and fewer mechanical issues. The Forester hasn't changed design in years so it's starting to look old whereas the CX-5 is much sleeker.

 

[V8toilet]

If you plan to have or have kids than get the Subaru. If you value fun to drive more than get the CX5. Both are very reliable.

 

[RG_Flyer]

Flat 6= 180 degree V

Which is no longer a V, rather an opposed or "boxer".

 

[CC58]

Which would be a real trick, since Subaru has never made a V6!

Picky, picky. Should have said six cylinder.

 

[paris1]

Flat 6= 180 degree V

C'mon Ed, you're old enuf to know better than that!

 

[CX-SV]

Cmon, lol, yeah Subie 6 is no V-config by any stretch.

No thanks on the CVT, mainly for driveablility reasons versus a modern 6/7/8/9 speed auto tranny. Mazda made the right choice, just like the premium brands do. CVTs are fine for hybrids.

Even Honda (also) still needs to prove its latest CVT's for long term durability. The 2001-2005 CVTs used in hybrid and CNG Civics were crap to drive (unless you like droning, I actually owned one for a while) and very significant number failed prematurely. They were not known for durability.

 

[ALafya]

Cmon, lol, yeah Subie 6 is no V-config by any stretch.

No thanks on the CVT, mainly for driveablility reasons versus a modern 6/7/8/9 speed auto tranny. Mazda made the right choice, just like the premium brands do. CVTs are fine for hybrids.

Even Honda (also) still needs to prove its latest CVT's for long term durability. The 2001-2005 CVTs used in hybrid and CNG Civics were crap to drive (unless you like droning, I actually owned one for a while) and very significant number failed prematurely. They were not known for durability.

Mazda's 6 speed AT is also new, since 2012, so it too could suffer long term reliability issues (hopefully not). There is currently no indication of either failing. Honda Accords have been equipped with this CVT since 2013.
To be fair, even Motor Trend praises the CVT found in the CR-V. I have mixed feeling about it, some CVT-equipped vehicles I drove were not pleasant to drive, including an Outback I test drove but the Impreza with CVT I test drove felt pretty decent.

I waited for a while for the current Forester to arrive, but was turned off by the excessive oil-consumption that is plaguing some owners.
Once the 2.5L CX-5 became available, it was an easy choice. In terms of fun to drive factor, the CX-5 is definitely better.

 

[CX-SV]

To be fair, even Motor Trend praises the CVT found in the CR-V. I have mixed feeling about it, some CVT-equipped vehicles I drove were not pleasant to drive, including an Outback I test drove but the Impreza with CVT I test drove felt pretty decent.

.

When it comes to Motor Trend, I won't waste my time commenting, I'll leave it as "no comment".

Yes, a CVT can have decent feel, I drove a nearly new Lexus CT and it felt decent. But the best of the modern 6/7/8/9 speed automatics feel better. The CVT has potential for slightly better fuel efficiency with some tradeoffs already mentioned.

 

[ALafya]

When it comes to Motor Trend, I won't waste my time commenting, I'll leave it as "no comment".

Yes, a CVT can have decent feel, I drove a nearly new Lexus CT and it felt decent. But the best of the modern 6/7/8/9 speed automatics feel better. The CVT has potential for slightly better fuel efficiency with some tradeoffs already mentioned.

When professionals which in the past criticized CVT equipped vehicles praise it, I think it does matter and this is why I mentioned it.

Everyone is welcome to have their own opinion. I think it has a lot to do with what people are used to, not what is actually better. For one, I can't stand loud engines, but some people got used to these monster V8s and think that it's cool, even if their doing 15 MPH on the grocery store's parking lot.
I don't think a blanket claim could be made about planetary ATs being better than CVTs in general. I drove CVTs which were bad, but I also used bad traditional automatics.
It is my understanding the new Honda CVT will not typically drone and the rubber band effect is not experienced there. I sure did not feel the latter in the Impreza. This is an effect that could be eliminated by proper programming of the control unit, something which was lacking in early implementations.

 

[tibimakai]

Check out the Nissan Pathfinder CVT problems. I almost purchased one of those.

 

[CX-SV]

When professionals which in the past criticized CVT equipped vehicles praise it, I think it does matter and this is why I mentioned it.

I don't think a blanket claim could be made about planetary ATs being better than CVTs in general. I drove CVTs which were bad, but I also used bad traditional automatics.
.

Agreed, which is why I did not comment on Motor Trend journalists, hardly highly regarded professionals.

Yes, blanket statements about planetary ATs don't apply, above I was specific about the better modern 6/7/8/9 speed ATs, versus CVTs driven.

 

[tvisforme]

I and wife have narrowed down our options into the final 2:


2015 Subaru Forester 2.5i Convenience Package
2015 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD (2.5L)

We're kinda biased towards the Forester, but have some hesitations:
Pros:
1. Roomier interior
2. Big windows with GREAT visibility
3. Lower insurance rate! (about $25/month lower than CX-5)
4. Unquestionable AWD

Cons:
1. CVT - We want to keep the car for 10 years. Will it last?
2. Subaru 2.5L engine issue rumors over the internet
3. No moonroof


Now for the CX-5:
Pros:
1. 84-months, 0.9%, 0 down.
2. 6-speed automatic is niceeee.
3. Moonroof standard

Cons:
1. We already own a 2014 Mazda3. The CX-5, form the inside, FEELS EXACTLY THE SAME. It does look nice, but it is redundant for a Mazda3 owner.
2. We want to keep the car for 10 years - rust issues on Mazda


What do you think?

Mazda, no question. Subaru's are nice but the CX-5 is a lot of fun to drive, with plenty of room to boot. We have an FWD GS and no regrets.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk