Forester or outback or CX-5?
- Thread starter m1xed0s
- Start date
Test drive them and judge for yourself!
But keep this in mind:
I know a lot of Subaru owner's (popular ski cars) and most of them are happy with their cars. But none of them can even approach the EPA MPG figures, even driving very conservatively. They drive to the same ski area, in the same conditions, that I do and the CX-5 is easily returning MPG figures above the HWY EPA estimates (even in mixed city/Hwy driving).
Not only does the CX-5 have higher EPA numbers but, in the real world, the difference is more than the numbers suggest.
My experience is with the 2.0L engine and AWD I'm not sure if the same holds true with the 2.5L engine.
costermonger
Member
- :
- CX-5
I can't really comment on the Outback, but I did do a bit of a drive-off between the CX-5 (2013) and the Forester (2014).
1. CX-5. Not really all that close, I don't think.
2. I didn't notice a big difference. I think the Mazda is a little more firm than the Subie, but I like that. I suggest you drive them both though.
3. Driveability: I greatly preferred the CX-5's transmission. The Forester won in the power dept (170 v 155) but the 2014 CX-5 bests it. The turbo Forester would be loads of fun, but out of my price range. As for cargo volume, the Forester wins, but I think most of the difference is in the rear door - the Forester's rear window is much more vertical than the CX-5 - giving it more interior volume. Neither car 'felt' bigger than the other, but viewed from a distance the Forester seems a lot bigger. I find the CX-5 often appears smaller than it is, because it's less truck-like than most CUVs. The Forester is a good looking vehicle compared to other recent Subarus, but the Mazda wins the aesthetics contest (as Mazda usually does against Subaru, IMO).
I went with the CX-5 primarily because of price (the Forester and CX-5 seem to be about the same price in the US, while Subaru seems to think it's worth a lot more in Canada) and the above points. It'd be a tougher decision if they cost the same (with the same general options) but I really did find the driving experience in the Mazda to be superior.
1. CX-5. Not really all that close, I don't think.
2. I didn't notice a big difference. I think the Mazda is a little more firm than the Subie, but I like that. I suggest you drive them both though.
3. Driveability: I greatly preferred the CX-5's transmission. The Forester won in the power dept (170 v 155) but the 2014 CX-5 bests it. The turbo Forester would be loads of fun, but out of my price range. As for cargo volume, the Forester wins, but I think most of the difference is in the rear door - the Forester's rear window is much more vertical than the CX-5 - giving it more interior volume. Neither car 'felt' bigger than the other, but viewed from a distance the Forester seems a lot bigger. I find the CX-5 often appears smaller than it is, because it's less truck-like than most CUVs. The Forester is a good looking vehicle compared to other recent Subarus, but the Mazda wins the aesthetics contest (as Mazda usually does against Subaru, IMO).
I went with the CX-5 primarily because of price (the Forester and CX-5 seem to be about the same price in the US, while Subaru seems to think it's worth a lot more in Canada) and the above points. It'd be a tougher decision if they cost the same (with the same general options) but I really did find the driving experience in the Mazda to be superior.
Last edited:
I test drove the Outback before making my purchase. It has huge cargo area but feels heavy and less-responsive (2.5L 2013 w/ CVT). It is a large vehicle.
I sat but did not drive a new Forester. It is bigger than the outgoing model in length / width and weight.
Both of these with 2.5L FB / CVT are not really fast, slowest in the segment. In fact, the new Forester 2.5L is about as fast as the 2L equipped CX-5 to 60.
I have been following Impreza owner forum for a while, where I learned that the new FB engine (now shared with all Subaru models) cannot, on average, get the promised EPA fuel economy. In fact, the much smaller / lighter Impreza avg MPG on fuelly is 27.5 MPG (compare with 13' CX-5 at 28), which is just 0.5 MPG above the city MPG value (36/27). As such, I have no confidence in the Forester getting actual good MPG, as it has to be less than 27.5.
I also know some owners are complaining about oil consumption with this new FB engine. Subaru will not fix it unless it is worse than 1 quart in 1200 miles, claiming it is 'normal'. You may have heard about Subaru's reputation for reliability. Well, that was with the now gone EJ engine, which they perfected for 2 decades, along with their now gone 4AT transmission. Judging from posts on Impreza forum, there was a long list of defects on the first year of its new gen. Most were only annoying, but some were serious.
On the plus side, I believe the Forester will have better AWD system and better approach angle and the back seat should be more spacious, as well as the cargo volume.
I sat but did not drive a new Forester. It is bigger than the outgoing model in length / width and weight.
Both of these with 2.5L FB / CVT are not really fast, slowest in the segment. In fact, the new Forester 2.5L is about as fast as the 2L equipped CX-5 to 60.
I have been following Impreza owner forum for a while, where I learned that the new FB engine (now shared with all Subaru models) cannot, on average, get the promised EPA fuel economy. In fact, the much smaller / lighter Impreza avg MPG on fuelly is 27.5 MPG (compare with 13' CX-5 at 28), which is just 0.5 MPG above the city MPG value (36/27). As such, I have no confidence in the Forester getting actual good MPG, as it has to be less than 27.5.
I also know some owners are complaining about oil consumption with this new FB engine. Subaru will not fix it unless it is worse than 1 quart in 1200 miles, claiming it is 'normal'. You may have heard about Subaru's reputation for reliability. Well, that was with the now gone EJ engine, which they perfected for 2 decades, along with their now gone 4AT transmission. Judging from posts on Impreza forum, there was a long list of defects on the first year of its new gen. Most were only annoying, but some were serious.
On the plus side, I believe the Forester will have better AWD system and better approach angle and the back seat should be more spacious, as well as the cargo volume.
Last edited:
NinjaNoises
Member
- :
- CX-5 Sport MT
I think you've come to the right place to ask this question. Most of the people here--myself included--will be able to give you objective, unbiased opinion.
BUY THE FORESTER.
lol. Just kidding.
BUY THE FORESTER.
lol. Just kidding.
1
123373
I am not a huge fan of CVT cars. C&D Junes issue has a comparison of the Forester against the Rav4 and CX5. The Forester came in last. They particularly did not the its transmission (CVT!) or engine performance. High oil cusumption alone would make me run away. If Subaru is telling customers that getting 1200 miles per quart of oil is normal, then they are full of you know what. The CX5 won by the way!
You left out a biggie. How far is the dealer from you, and how comfortable (really) do you feel with their operation, that is, not just the sales people in the showroom? How about their network; is a dealer near the places you like to travel to?
Depending on how long you expect to keep the car, sooner or later you'll have to deal with service, perhaps on warranty, perhaps on important issues (like the transmission). My wife's Acura TL , like the 2 we bought before, is from a dealer 30 miles away rather than the idiots at an Acura dealer only 3 miles away. We would drive the 30 miles for servicing rather than let the local yokels touch this car. And a similar occurrence with the 370Z I just traded in for a 2014 CX-5; the nearby dealership's operation is plain no good.
Read the online comments about each dealer (with a grain of salt) and then use that to help guide your decision. Good luck!
Actually this does ring a bell. We only have 1 dealership for Subie in town... but 2 for mazda...That helps a little bit...
I was going to get a 2014 Forrester XT but after pricing with tech package and everything I wanted was going to be 37000. It was 7000.00 more than a loaded CX-5.
Subaru recommends Premium gas on the XT and real life mileage was poor.
The Subaru was roomier and loved the huge sunroof but decided to get a 2014 CX-5 GT FWD. Don't need 4WD in NC.
I drive a 2011 Outback Limited. We recently got a 2014 GT CX-5 FWD for my wife. I like both cars for different reasons.
1. Fuel Economy
We both use the RoadTrip app on our phones to calculate mpg. With just over 41K miles on my Outback, it is getting right at 26mpg (best tankful was 30.3mpg, worst was 23mpg - both on same trip. Wicked tailwind one way, wicked headwind the other). I have a 50 mile, each way, commute. Most of that is 70mph. The CX5 has around 2000 miles and is so far getting 29mpg. Some of that difference is AWD vs FWD, some of it is that her commute is mostly 65mph or less. There have been a few weeks where she drove my car to her office. We saw slight gains in mpg for those trips.
On a related note, I drove a 2010 Outback with a 6sp manual transmission for about a year before losing it to a wreck. I got just over 27mpg. The EPA estimates for the Outback actually show that the CVT should get better mileage than the manual, but my results were different.
2. Ride comfort
The driver seats in both cars are really good. My previous car was a 1998 CRV. It was fine when I had a short commute, but once I started the 100 miles per day slog, the seat made my back hurt. Now I enjoy driving longer periods in the Outback. We haven't taken the CX5 on a long trip yet, but I think I will like its seats just as much.
I find the Outback to be more quiet on the road than the CX5, but the CX5 isn't annoyingly loud.
3. Drivability or interior/cargo space.
The CX5 has a clear advantage to me when it comes to 'drivability'. It is much tighter, has quicker acceleration, and is just more fun to drive than the Outback. Interior/cargo space? Outback. We have an infant seat. We lose a good bit of front legroom when the seat is installed in the CX5, but don't lose that space in the Outback.
Tech goodies? CX5 for sure, although it looks like the newer Outbacks have more stuff than was available when I got mine.
Like someone mentioned above, try them both out and see which you prefer. I don't think you can go wrong.
If you want to checkout the Subaru forum side of things, try http://www.subaruoutback.org/ It's an active board like mazdas247.com and has lots of friendly folks. Both were a big help when I was trying to decide which way to go.
1. Fuel Economy
We both use the RoadTrip app on our phones to calculate mpg. With just over 41K miles on my Outback, it is getting right at 26mpg (best tankful was 30.3mpg, worst was 23mpg - both on same trip. Wicked tailwind one way, wicked headwind the other). I have a 50 mile, each way, commute. Most of that is 70mph. The CX5 has around 2000 miles and is so far getting 29mpg. Some of that difference is AWD vs FWD, some of it is that her commute is mostly 65mph or less. There have been a few weeks where she drove my car to her office. We saw slight gains in mpg for those trips.
On a related note, I drove a 2010 Outback with a 6sp manual transmission for about a year before losing it to a wreck. I got just over 27mpg. The EPA estimates for the Outback actually show that the CVT should get better mileage than the manual, but my results were different.
2. Ride comfort
The driver seats in both cars are really good. My previous car was a 1998 CRV. It was fine when I had a short commute, but once I started the 100 miles per day slog, the seat made my back hurt. Now I enjoy driving longer periods in the Outback. We haven't taken the CX5 on a long trip yet, but I think I will like its seats just as much.
I find the Outback to be more quiet on the road than the CX5, but the CX5 isn't annoyingly loud.
3. Drivability or interior/cargo space.
The CX5 has a clear advantage to me when it comes to 'drivability'. It is much tighter, has quicker acceleration, and is just more fun to drive than the Outback. Interior/cargo space? Outback. We have an infant seat. We lose a good bit of front legroom when the seat is installed in the CX5, but don't lose that space in the Outback.
Tech goodies? CX5 for sure, although it looks like the newer Outbacks have more stuff than was available when I got mine.
Like someone mentioned above, try them both out and see which you prefer. I don't think you can go wrong.
If you want to checkout the Subaru forum side of things, try http://www.subaruoutback.org/ It's an active board like mazdas247.com and has lots of friendly folks. Both were a big help when I was trying to decide which way to go.
I've heard that the Forester has more cargo volume, but when I do comparisons on cargo volume behind the second seat, that's not the case:
Forester: 33.5
CX-5: 34.1
Ford Escape: 34.3
Subaru Outback: 34.3
Santa Fe Sport: 35.4
Honda CR-V: 37.2
Mazda CX-9: 48.3
Mazdaspeed 3: 16.5
So none of the "small" SUVs seems to deviate far from each other. You can see the difference between a Midsize SUV like our CX-9 and a small hatchback like our Mazdaspeed 3.
To put this in another way: for our camping trips (i.e. large tent, 4 sleeping bags, 3 air mattresses, large cooler, 4 chairs, grill, etc), the CX-9 gets packed pretty tight in those 48.3 cubic feet, with some room left on top for the driver to kinda see out the back. The Mazdaspeed 3 can only handle our smaller tent, 3 sleeping bags, air mattress and a couple of chairs in its 16.5 cubic feet, so no room for a cooler, etc. So it appears the CX-5 falls somewhere in between, i.e. you'd really need to pack well to fit everything the CX-9 can, and even then I don't think you'd fit it all.
So that's the pain of choosing a car based on cargo volume and "planned" activities: when you truly need cargo space, it's nice to have it. But in reality, you probably only need it just a few times a year.
I've been able to easily surpass the EPA estimates in the 2.5L Forester, 2.0L XT Forester, and 2/2.5L CX-5 during extended test drives. If you're able to keep your foot out of the pedal, all of them will spank the EPA estimates.
If it's between the 2.5L Forester and 2.0L CX-5 - The Forester wins hands down. The 2L was gutless at my elevation (~4000 ft above sea level).
Advantages of the 2.5L Forester:
More usable ground clearance - the lip on the CX-5 protrudes quite a bit.
Better AWD system - Best in the segment
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better outward visibility. A rear-view camera is included but unnecessary, unlike it's competitors.
More rear legroom
2.5L engine is not direct-injected and has been in use for a few years
Larger moonroof (that's standard on the premium and above trims)
Better safety features (such as driver's knee airbag)
Power liftgate in limited and above trims.
More passenger volume space
Tighter turning radius
Roof rails standard on premium and above trims
Better premium sound system (Harmon Kardon system standard with Touring models)
Advantages of the 2.5L CX-5:
6-Speed A/T is more fun than the CVT - that said, the CVT in the new Forester is no joke. It's eager to start but smooth overall, it's mated to a well-powered engine, and it has no problem with highway acceleration (unlike the 2L AWD CX-5).
Driver's seat - very sporty
Forester Cloth < CX-5 Premium Cloth < Forester Sport Cloth (XT Premium)
40/20/40 seats
A few tech features are a bit cheaper to get (HID headlights and smart city braking vs the Forester's equivalent systems which require the Touring trim and a $2400 eyesight package)
The 5.8" LCD has knobs.
Available sport mode
Those are just off the top of my head... My ideal vehicle would have Mazda's 2.5L engine, 6-speed A/T, and driver's seat inside of the '14 Forester... Best of both worlds.
Also, another win for the Forester here http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051613.html
If it's between the 2.5L Forester and 2.0L CX-5 - The Forester wins hands down. The 2L was gutless at my elevation (~4000 ft above sea level).
Advantages of the 2.5L Forester:
More usable ground clearance - the lip on the CX-5 protrudes quite a bit.
Better AWD system - Best in the segment
MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better outward visibility. A rear-view camera is included but unnecessary, unlike it's competitors.
More rear legroom
2.5L engine is not direct-injected and has been in use for a few years
Larger moonroof (that's standard on the premium and above trims)
Better safety features (such as driver's knee airbag)
Power liftgate in limited and above trims.
More passenger volume space
Tighter turning radius
Roof rails standard on premium and above trims
Better premium sound system (Harmon Kardon system standard with Touring models)
Advantages of the 2.5L CX-5:
6-Speed A/T is more fun than the CVT - that said, the CVT in the new Forester is no joke. It's eager to start but smooth overall, it's mated to a well-powered engine, and it has no problem with highway acceleration (unlike the 2L AWD CX-5).
Driver's seat - very sporty
Forester Cloth < CX-5 Premium Cloth < Forester Sport Cloth (XT Premium)
40/20/40 seats
A few tech features are a bit cheaper to get (HID headlights and smart city braking vs the Forester's equivalent systems which require the Touring trim and a $2400 eyesight package)
The 5.8" LCD has knobs.
Available sport mode
Those are just off the top of my head... My ideal vehicle would have Mazda's 2.5L engine, 6-speed A/T, and driver's seat inside of the '14 Forester... Best of both worlds.
Also, another win for the Forester here http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051613.html
Last edited:
This is interesting, I think you are the only one I've heard of with this experience. In all of the reviews I've read so far, the '14 Forester isn't even getting close to its EPA estimates, even for the 2.5i engine with the CVT.
I've read a few car mags who don't seem to be thrilled by the CVT on the 2.5i, in terms of performance and in some cases in terms of noise, especially during acceleration. The CVT in the XT is much nicer, but the XT comes at a substantial premium. And once you get on the boost, there's no way you'll get close to the EPA mpg, that little turbo will suck in fuel. A turbo boost gauge will plainly show you how hard it is to stay out of boost, you have to drive like your grandma's grandma.
Other than that, the Forester does look like a decent offset to the CX-5.
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Auto journalists are kind of like sheep when it comes to their rants about the CVT. When I was car shopping last year I approached the Imprezza with trepidation because of what I had read in the mags. I found Subaru's CVT to be much better than expected and something I could live with had I chosen that model. I'm sure the same would hold true for the new Forester driveline, be it boosted or not. It's just another way of chasing the same MPG bogey that Mazda designed the SkyActiv auto for. You can argue the merits of one approach over the other, but there's no denying Subaru has done a credible job (as apparently has Honda on the new Accord) with the CVT.
The Nissan Murano is one of the best CVTs I have driven, smooth and quiet. I have been in others (albeit years ago) that were really not up to par. But you're correct, in general as long as the transmission is quiet on the highway during normal driving, that's all that matters. I don't really care if the transmission is loud during acceleration, personally.
Talking about the Murano, I don't understand why it is a midsize SUV and not a "small" SUV, like the CX-5. Cargo space behind the back seats is no bigger than the CX-5...? But I am starting to stray off-topic...
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Historically (and we're talking short-range history here!) CVTs have mated better with larger displacement engines, but manufacturers seem to be finding ways to get around that.
Car reviewers see the word "CVT" and jump on the hate bandwagon more often than not. If you purchase the XT, you can stay out of boost and still maintain a reasonable speed in town when the need for acceleration is not great Balanced drivers should see the EPA estimates without too much fuss. Extra-cautious drivers should surpass the hwy MPG in town. Personally, I don't like turbos. I appreciate their performance and efficiency, but I'll take a nice V6 (like Honda's new one) over one any day.
They must haved HAMMERED it non-stop, as I got nearly 33 MPG on a 30 mile round trip with mostly light city driving, some mountain driving, and a brief interstate stint (average speed in the 30's). On a similar trip I netted just over 30 MPG in the 2.5L CX-5, too. I didn't drive it like I stole it, though.
The best implementations of a CVT right now, in the mainstream market, are Honda's new Accord (4 cylinder models) and the Forester XT. The XT delivers power incredibly smoothly and offers higher revs and simulated gears with its two sport modes (Sport and Sport #). The 2.5L Forester CVT is infinitely better than the 2.0L Crosstrek's was, as it is not mated to an underpowered engine and you don't have to wring it to make it work. I still prefer a traditional 6-speed A/T, but it's hard for anyone but a diehard manual-fan to find much fault in the new implementation. Going from 21/27 MPG to 24/32 MPG while gaining about 50lbs is hard to complain about, too. A CVT that isn't paired with an underpowered engine is an A-OK transmission.
Last edited:
You must have been using the notoriously inaccurate Subaru trip computer (15-20% optimistic). The manual refill and calculate method is not any more accurate either on a 30 mile test.
