vs Forester?

I have a 2015 Forester 2.5i Limited in my stable, along with a CX-9. We traded a CX-5 for the CX-9.

The Forester has far more cargo and passenger space. Also superior visibility. Ther are no more plastics in the Forester than in the CX-5, except maybe the new 2017. My 2013 CX-5 had plenty of plastic to go around.

The CX-5 will be quicker, but not better on gas. My Forester was always better than our CX-5.

It comes down to what you value. Asking which is better in a Mazda forum will get you a jaded result. I'm sure if you went to a Subi forum, you will hear the opposite of what you are hearing here.

Buy what you like better. Both are good cars. Do what makes you happy.
 
For city driving, the AWD system in the Forester is not that much superior to the AWD system from Mazda. The CX-5 can run in FWD mode to save gas if it doesn't need the traction with the rear tires. You cannot do that with the full time AWD system with the Subarus. I will concede, maybe the Subaru has an advantage with AWD in an off-road scenario, but the CX-5 is not an off-road vehicle in the first place, it is really meant for city driving.

The Forester does not have full-time AWD. It's FWD and shifts roughly the same amount of power to the rear wheels when needed just as the CX5 does. X-mode will force the AWD system to engage, but that's not how it normally works and I've not seen anything demonstrating that x-mode works better than it's normal AWD logic. This is an example of what I was referring to in a previous comment about Subaru having a reputation that is an artifact of history. They have used a wide variety of AWD systems but people don't generally know that and assume that their superior system from back in the day still defines them today. I would not be surprised if a Forester was a bit better off-road in some conditions, it has something like .2 inches more ground clearance and somewhat better approach and departure angles, but I don't think it is accurate to say it has a significant AWD advantage in any way. I've seen various videos of the CX5 handling basic off-road conditions, I am extremely skeptical the Forester could handle anything the CX5 couldn't because they both have very good AWD systems that work similarly.

All that said, I could be totally wrong here and would love if you could prove it to me.
 
My Subaru experience was a 2012 impreza.It burned oil from day1.First they blamed it on the 0-20oil.After being told they wouldn't do anything they finally did a consumption test they Re ringed it.Still burned oil but not above their limits.Car was noisy and not that comfortable.We test drove a top of the line outback and left very un impressed.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
My Subaru experience was a 2012 impreza.It burned oil from day1.First they blamed it on the 0-20oil.After being told they wouldn't do anything they finally did a consumption test they Re ringed it.Still burned oil but not above their limits.Car was noisy and not that comfortable.We test drove a top of the line outback and left very un impressed.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Oh forgot about that- our XT burned oil bout a qt or 2 per change..
 
The Forester does not have full-time AWD. It's FWD and shifts roughly the same amount of power to the rear wheels when needed just as the CX5 does. X-mode will force the AWD system to engage, but that's not how it normally works and I've not seen anything demonstrating that x-mode works better than it's normal AWD logic. This is an example of what I was referring to in a previous comment about Subaru having a reputation that is an artifact of history. They have used a wide variety of AWD systems but people don't generally know that and assume that their superior system from back in the day still defines them today. I would not be surprised if a Forester was a bit better off-road in some conditions, it has something like .2 inches more ground clearance and somewhat better approach and departure angles, but I don't think it is accurate to say it has a significant AWD advantage in any way. I've seen various videos of the CX5 handling basic off-road conditions, I am extremely skeptical the Forester could handle anything the CX5 couldn't because they both have very good AWD systems that work similarly.

All that said, I could be totally wrong here and would love if you could prove it to me.

You're a little bit wrong.
Yes, the subaru system is now electronically controlled just like the CX-5, but unlike the CX-5, the subaru system is symmetrical.

The CX-5 AWD is driven off of just the right side of the transmission.
This means you can have just the front left wheel spinning and without fancy electronics the car would not move.

Thanks to the subaru boxer engine, being positioned longitudinally, every wheel has equal access to the torque.

In normal driving, electronics make up for most of the mechanical deficiencies of the CX-5 system, but if you were to build a rally car you would have much better performance with the Subaru AWD.
 
I just left my 2012 Subaru Forester Premium X. I can say it was a good car, but far from great. The few times I took it off-road or into some very bad weather, it performed magnificently. The only thing is that I only had a few opportunities to do it. In hind sight, the car did exactly what I needed it to do. The thing that I was never fulfilled by was it wasn't fun to drive. It completely lacked the ability to mod it out, as well. If you didn't have the XT version or Turbo, you really had no options to dial it up.
Pros:
Headroom for days! Both in the front and back, I was able to sit my friends well over 6' in the car.
Very "roomy" feel in the vehicle
Visibility is awesome
AWD was never a let down and performed better than my trucks did
Short turning radius
Solid gas mileage of others in its class (23/28)

Cons:
Barebones feel to it's tech and dash area
seats are far from comfortable and really show poor wear over time
Acceleration is pretty poor, but doable in a city setting.
cabin noise is pretty loud due to lack of door padding and sound proofing

If you were looking for a great utility vehicle and going to run it hard off road or in snowy conditions, I'd say this car is GREAT. If it's more of a daily commuter and comfort is a big deal to you, I'd look elsewhere. At the time I bought the Forester I paired it up against the Honda CR-V, Toyota Rav 4, Ford Escape, Mitsubishi Outlander. The Forester had the best overall rating of safety, mpg, AWD, and ground clearance. The purchase made sense for a good while, but driving it over time just didn't fit my personal style. Switching to the CX5 has been a huge improvement for how I feel about daily driving.

Hope this is helpful.
 
The CX-5 will be quicker, but not better on gas. My Forester was always better than our CX-5.
Forester combined is 24. My CX-5 easily does 28. If I just drove recklessly braking and pushing every time an inch of space opened up - I would still equal a foresters mpg. Mind you the forester seems quick of the line too but linearity is horrible. There is no true throttle response.
If I kept it in sport forever then yes Forester would be more efficient.

Too much price if you really dont need AWD atleast 3-4 months a year. Maybe good in Alaska or high altitude in northern areas. But as a city vehicle its meh.
 
I've owned a 2000 Outback (with LSD), 2012 Outback, 2012 Imp, 2016.5 CX-5.

The 2000 OB's LSD made a YUUUGE difference in really deep snow. Just as anyone would expect.
The CX-5 is better (much better) at sending more power to the rear wheels (allowing drifting) than the newer Subies. Handles like a sports car. I love that.
I don't know how x-mode might change that, but I don't think it has LSD.
 
The AWD in the Forester is also part-time, I believe it uses a system very similar to what's in the CX5. I'm not aware of any evidence that it is significantly better than the AWD in the CX5. I do know the AWD Honda uses has been reported to overheat and disable itself faster than comparable vehicles when it's pushed heavily, not sure if other brands perform as poorly but I've never seen anything about this happening in a Forester, CX5, RAV4, etc. I don't think it's accurate to say "the Subaru system is significantly better". They do have AWD systems which perform better, but not all of them do and if comparing a Forester to a CX5 the only significant difference I am aware of is that the Forester has "X-Mode" which allows you to force the AWD into an enabled state. Actual performance is nearly identical, except that the CX5 is slightly superior in certain conditions (e.g. accelerating from a stop up hill with the wheels turned, as demonstrated in the video of the snow academy thing on youtube is something the CX5 is great at but the Forester AWD is unable to handle).

Re: Tires, I'm pretty sure the video I saw had all vehicles running identical winter tires. Cheating like that is super obvious.



The AWD in the forester is full-time, same as Audi Quattro.

https://www.subaru.com.au/car-advice/awd-vs-4wd

The AWD in the Forester can send more torque to certain wheels when needed, but it is a full-time AWD system where all 4 wheels receive power.

The Mazda system can overheat in extreme conditions where the Subaru won't. - https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...start-in-AWD&p=6428094&viewfull=1#post6428094

I can't comment on the tire situation for the winter test, but I do know that one of the "ramp" tests they did didn't have the same tires.
 
I set my awd full time (dsc fuse removed) often and I never have overheating issues. Even after canyon runs with the club (ofc with the system on normal op, since I want max grip) with constant low gear, high rpm and sharp corners. I also have larger wheels (8.5")/wider tyres (255mm), a poly trans mount and a 93 tune (I can trip dsc just by doing a high rpm 1-2 shift). whatever power my engine is making goes right to the wheels, very little is lost to mounts and suspension. I do awd burnouts in the rain.. Not once has my rear diff fluid, in at least 3 changes ever come out burnt looking. The overheating someone mentioned literally have only seen on a 2016 CX-9 video. I have yet to see someone say they had their diff overheat in cx-5. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm convinced that the full time awd is the 50/50 split seeing as under that condition I can do fishtails and in a little bit of wet, awd drifts.
 
Last edited:
The AWD in the forester is full-time, same as Audi Quattro.

The AWD in the Forester can send more torque to certain wheels when needed, but it is a full-time AWD system where all 4 wheels receive power.

Subie is as full-time as Mazda. The clutch pack on the CX-5 sends a minimum of something like 5% to the rear. Mazda can (and certainly does, with stability control) use the brakes to apportion torque amongst all 4 wheels.

My A4 had a Torsen diff. It still had seriously crappy low-traction handling.

Why do we want AWD?

Me:
1. Better WFO cornering
2. Towing boat up wet, slimy ramp.
3. Plowing through too-high snow, because I like to drive in it.

For (1) we want non-locking/open diffs.
For (2) we want locking driveshaft diff (ie CX-5 clutchpack) AND LSD. IIRC, the forester doesn't have this.
For (3) we want the floorpan as high as we can get it, without impacting the 99.99% of the time we are on dry pavement. IE, we want GYSOT airshox. :D (Locked driveshaft and axles coupled with high speed rough roads/snow density is an E-ticket ride into the ditch).

Mazda's engineers think the way I do. I had no idea, until I bought one, and started reading/viewing about Mazda's designs. I hope they don't ruin this, trying to sell to the mainstream.
 
Forrester has a far superior AWD system... but for most applications you probably won't notice a difference (i.e. only under extreme conditions). Dealbreaker for me in Subarus in general is the terrible interior and inflated price (here in WA)
 
Last edited:
For city driving, the AWD system in the Forester is not that much superior to the AWD system from Mazda. The CX-5 can run in FWD mode to save gas if it doesn't need the traction with the rear tires. You cannot do that with the full time AWD system with the Subarus. I will concede, maybe the Subaru has an advantage with AWD in an off-road scenario, but the CX-5 is not an off-road vehicle in the first place, it is really meant for city driving.

IT doesn't really save much mileage if my Jeep is any example. The RWD and AWD Grand Jeep Cherokees got nearly identical mileage, and that's with 2 drive-shafts...
 
Last edited:
The CX-5 is built on the Mazda3 chassis and has the same wheel base. The Forester is built on the Impreza (2012-2016) platform. Even shares the same exact interior.

Your statement is incorrect. They are both "crossover" vehicles build off of compact car chassis.

While this is correct, the Forester took ground clearance into account regarding approach and departure angles, and a tested 500mm wading depth (my CX5 destroyed the diff without water reaching the door sill due to flooding).
http://business.inquirer.net/97667/12-reasons-why-i-love-subarus-all-new-fourth-generation-forester

500mm=19.6"
Honda Pilot is 19"
Grand Jeep Cherokee is 22", IIRC

So yeah, it's based on a car chassis, but it's an actual SUV unlike the CX5, which is only an SUV according to your insurance company.
 
Forget the Forester and look at the Outback. In equivalent trims with similar options, the Outback is only $1-2k higher in price. It has a much nicer interior. It has a wider back seat with more leg room. And a little more cargo room. It's also a lot quieter and smoother and handles a little better too. Ground clearance is the same as the Forester. And you can option it with the flat 6, which is a much nicer engine than the 2.0 turbo option in the Forester. The Forester is a little easier to park I guess, being ~8" shorter. Other than that, I don't see any advantage.
 
Forget the Forester and look at the Outback. In equivalent trims with similar options, the Outback is only $1-2k higher in price. It has a much nicer interior. It has a wider back seat with more leg room. And a little more cargo room. It's also a lot quieter and smoother and handles a little better too. Ground clearance is the same as the Forester. And you can option it with the flat 6, which is a much nicer engine than the 2.0 turbo option in the Forester. The Forester is a little easier to park I guess, being ~8" shorter. Other than that, I don't see any advantage.
 
Forrester has a far superior AWD system...

Proof? And please don't bother linking to those inane youtube videos. Especially the one where the Subie shakes and shudders like a spastic dog, while the CX-5 is the ONLY one to spin all four tires at the exact same time, showing AWD working perfectly. THAT poster keeps deleting my comments. I wonder why?
 
Outback is good if you want to buy it and go to Subie forums to make a thread of "I am just getting 18 mpg on highway" - when Subie sales rose in 16 the Outback's declined.
It has practicality going for it but outside looks and yawwwn!
 
And as a driver in Colorado, Subaru Outback drivers have to be the worst most god awful drivers on the road here.

10 under the speed limit in camping out in the passing lane. Other boneheaded moves. Some car causing traffic to back up. Look ahead and it's almost always an Outback.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Proof? And please don't bother linking to those inane youtube videos. Especially the one where the Subie shakes and shudders like a spastic dog, while the CX-5 is the ONLY one to spin all four tires at the exact same time, showing AWD working perfectly. THAT poster keeps deleting my comments. I wonder why?

I'm pretty torn on this one. Honestly, I think Jeep makes the best AWD system for under $100K if you're talking about ice/snow/offroading. If you're talking about performance driving, I'd say Porsche.

Neither Mazda nor Subaru's AWD system is really that "wow". Subaru's just came first, and until the BRZ, they didn't offer anything other than AWD (unless one of you digs up some esoteric 30 year old specimen just to argue...), and so they became known for it, along with their Boxer engines, which are also pretty "meh", especially compared to Mitsubishi's 4-banger. Look what it takes to reliably push an EVO8-10 to 450AWP, and look what a WRX STi takes to get there, both in cash, and in work/parts.

The Mazda's AWD system is like a little pencil-neck bouncer that knows one or two tricks. It can do some impressive stuff for as simple and "weak" as it is. The Jeep's is like a big guy who boxes...and also does jujitsu. It can push 100% of the torque or any variation therof to any one tire in 1/100th or less of a second, as I recall.
 
Last edited:
Back